South Korea’s top court has delivered a “landmark” ruling, stating that the country’s climate change law “did not protect basic human rights and lacks targets to shield future generations”, Reuters reports. The newswire continues: “About 200 plaintiffs including young climate activists and even some infants filed petitions to the constitutional court since 2020, arguing that their government was violating its citizens’ human rights by not doing enough on climate change.” The court has ordered the South Korean government to set emissions reduction targets for 2030 and beyond by 28 February 2026, the Guardian reports. It adds: “The unanimous verdict concludes four years of legal battles and sets a significant precedent for future climate-related legal actions in the region.” The New York Times says: “South Korea’s Carbon Neutral Act, first enacted in 2010, required the country to set a goal of cutting carbon emissions by at least 35% by 2030 compared with 2018 levels. Under the law, the government has set a goal of a 40 % reduction. The plaintiffs argued that this was not enough to manage the impact of climate change. In its decision on Thursday, the constitutional court did not find fault with the 2030 goal. But it declared that because the law failed to specify carbon-emission reduction targets for the years between 2031 and 2050 – when the country said it would achieve carbon neutrality – the constitutional rights of future generations had been violated.” Channel News Asia, the Hill and the Hindu also cover the story. 

Elsewhere, the Financial Times reports that South Korea “is accelerating its push to export nuclear reactors to Europe as it seeks to become a leading player in a global market dominated by China and Russia”. And Reuters reports that the country – which is the world’s number one exporter of aviation fuel – “aims to ensure all departing international flights use a mix of about 1% of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) from 2027”.

Climate change made the maximum winds experienced during Typhoon Shanshan, which hit southern Japan this week, around 7.5% more intense, according to a new study covered in Bloomberg. The outlet continues: “Shanshan, which made landfall on Thursday morning on the southern island of Kyushu, was called a ‘rare typhoon’ by the Japanese weather agency. But the study’s authors warned that such events may not be so unusual in future, likely occurring nearly six times in a decade, as opposed to less than five in a pre-industrial world.” The Guardian reports that Shanshan is Japan’s strongest typhoon this year, with wind speeds of up to 242km per hour. The paper adds that the typhoon made landfall on the island of Kyushu at around 8am on Thursday. It continues: “The power company said 254,610 houses were already without electricity. The meteorological agency predicted 1,100mm (43in) of precipitation in southern Kyushu in the 48 hours to Friday morning, around half the annual average for the area, which comprises Kagoshima and Miyazaki prefectures. Authorities issued a rare special typhoon warning for most parts of Kagoshima, a prefecture in southern Kyushu. Residents in at-risk areas have been urged to remain on high alert, with transport operators and airlines cancelling trains and flights.” BBC News reports that millions of people were ordered to evacuate their homes, and at least three people have been killed. Reuters notes that many of the country’s automakers have halted production at some factories. CNN, ABC News and Le Monde have also published pieces about the typhoon. Meanwhile, Bloomberg has published a piece under the subheading “Japan’s championing of gas minted it a $14bn profit last year, while entrenching dependence on a fossil fuel as experts urge a faster shift to renewables.”

Oil and gas company Shell is planning to cut its “oil and gas exploration and development workforce” by 20%, according to company sources, Reuters reports. The newswire continues: “Shell’s oil and gas production division, known as upstream, which includes the exploration and well development units, accounted for over one-third of the company’s $28.25bn in adjusted earnings in 2023.” The Financial Times reports that the roles cut will include the company’s “geologists, geophysicists, and oil and gas well designers”. It adds that the “cost-cutting drive by chief executive Wael Sawan” has cut jobs across Shell since 2023, including in its renewable energy businesses. Bloomberg and the Daily Telegraph also cover the news.

Meanwhile, in continuing coverage of a story that broke yesterday, the Guardian reports that “the future of two of the UK’s most controversial oil and gas projects has been thrown into doubt, after the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, withdrew government support for the companies in two legal cases brought by campaigners”. The Times covers the story under the headline “Labour to let Rosebank oilfield plan die in court”. The Daily Telegraph reports on its frontpage that shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho described the decision as a “final blow” for the North Sea.

Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping will “speak by telephone in the coming weeks” and may “meet once more before Biden leaves office”, the Financial Times reports. It adds that the announcement was made following US national security adviser Jake Sullivan’s meeting with Chinese foreign policy head Wang Yi in Beijing, during which they discussed “the importance of taking concrete steps to tackle the climate crisis”. Chinese state-run newspaper China Daily says both sides “agreed to continue cooperation…in addressing climate change”. Semafor publishes an interview with an advisor to US vice-president Kamala Harris, who says that “a strategy where China deliberately uses non-market mechanisms to become the dominant producer is not a sustainable strategy to address climate change in the medium term. The idea that China produces everything and everybody else just relies on them is not a viable economic or political strategy.” Meanwhile, Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance criticised a proposed China-invested electric vehicle battery plant in the US as an example of Democrats “helping China [to] destroy and replace our auto industry from the inside out”, E&E News says. The Financial Times says Chinese officials are “failing to secure meetings with Donald Trump’s campaign officials”. 

Elsewhere, Reuters reports that China “would not impose provisional tariffs on brandy imported from the European Union” in a move regarded as a “negotiation tactic” to persuade bloc members against EU tariffs on Chinese EVs. Reuters also covers analysis showing that “Chinese lenders approved loans worth $4.61bn to Africa last year, marking the first annual increase since 2016”, adding that “nearly a tenth” went to three solar and hydropower energy projects. State news agency Xinhua quotes the International Atomic Energy Agency saying it wants to “deepen collaboration with [China] on the peaceful use of nuclear energy”.

Meanwhile, extreme heat has prompted local governments in Chengdu province “to [restrict] companies’ electricity use”, affecting factories, shops, cinemas and other facilities, financial news outlet Nikkei Asia reports. Xinhua says “scorching heat” has also prompted education authorities in Chongqing municipality to “postpone the start of the fall semester” for schools. An opinion piece in China Daily says the social media buzz around flooding in the Taklamakan Desert is “not enough to create awareness about climate change”, adding that “the jokes are funny but the claim that climate change is going to benefit the arid region isn’t”. The flood was caused by a combination of “glacier and snow meltwater due to prolonged high temperatures and recent frequent rainfall”, state-supporting newspaper Global Times reports.

In other news, China’s state-owned oil majors including PetroChina and Sinopec are “tightening up on capital investment and “making plans to hand out record dividends”, Nikkei Asia reports, due to “mounting central government pressure to focus more on stock market performance and shareholder returns”. Finally, Reuters says US-based carbon registry Verra has “rejected as many as 37 low-emission rice cultivation projects located in China” after they were found to have “overstated their size and their emissions reduction potential”.

The governments of “a handful of wealthy polluting countries” have handed out almost $30bn in subsidies for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fossil hydrogen over the past 40 years, with “hundreds of billions potentially up for grabs through new incentives”, according to a new report by Oil Change International (OCI) covered in the Guardian. However, the newspaper says, the technologies are “unproven” and they “risk further delaying the transition away from fossil fuels”. It continues: “To date, the European Union (EU) plus just four countries – the US, Norway, Canada and the Netherlands – account for 95% of the public handouts on CCS and hydrogen. The US has spent the most taxpayer money, some $12bn in direct subsidies, according to OCI, with fossil fuel giants like Exxon hoping to secure billions more in future years.” The paper quotes Harjeet Singh – global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative – who calls the subsidies a “colossal waste of money”. However, it adds that “proponents argue that more investment is needed in developing carbon capture and storage and hydrogen technologies, so they can help achieve global climate goals agreed under the Paris accords”. Separately, the Guardian reports on how Exxon “chases” these subsidies in the US.

In other US news, BBC News reports that US vice-president Kamala Harris has “defended changing her mind on key issues in her first interview since entering the presidential race” in a pre-recorded interview with running mate Tim Walz. According to the outlet, Harris “referred to her effort to address climate change and support of the Green New Deal, a Democratic proposal to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, as something that remains a steadfast value when pressured about her shifting policy positions”. It continues: “Ms Harris did not explain her reversal on banning fracking – a technique for recovering gas and oil from shale rock used by an industry that is particularly strong in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.”

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that the Biden administration has finalised a plan to expand solar energy on federal lands in 11 western states. The newswire says: “The White House wants to accelerate approval of projects ranging from power transmission to wind and solar farms as it seeks to decarbonise the power sector to fight climate change, and is eager to tout its ‘Investing in America’ agenda ahead of the November presidential election.” The Hill reports that under the plan, the Bureau of Land Management has identified 31m acres of public land with the potential for solar energy development. And Reuters reports that “Donald Trump would rescind many of President Joe Biden’s clean energy rules while also speeding approvals of power plants to meet the nation’s rising electricity demands, the Republican’s presidential campaign said on Thursday”. 

There is continuing coverage of the news that UK power station operator Drax has agreed to pay £25m following an investigation into the sustainability of the biomass it uses. The Guardian says: “An investigation by Ofgem, which was launched last year, concluded that there was ‘an absence of adequate data governance and controls in place’ when it came to profiling the sources of wood used by Drax from Canada between April 2021 and the end of March 2022…Ofgem said there was no evidence to suggest that the breach was deliberate, and said instead that it was ‘technical in nature’. It also found no evidence that the biomass sourced for the power plant was unsustainable or that Drax had wrongly laid claim to millions in renewable energy subsidies.” Drax received more than £500m in subsidies in the last financial year, the newspaper notes. The Financial Times says that “findings of the investigation will provide more ammunition for campaigners, who have rubbished Drax’s claims that burning imported wood from Canada and the US is both carbon neutral and sustainable”. BBC News, Sky News, the Times and Reuters also cover the story, while the Times trails the story on its frontpage.

Elsewhere, there is continuing media coverage that a 5p cut in fuel duty implemented in 2022 is expected to be scrapped in the government’s upcoming budget. BBC News notes that, on Wednesday, UK prime minister Sir Keir Starmer “refused to rule out a rise in fuel duty”. It adds: “Fuel duty has been frozen for more than a decade under the Conservative government. In 2022, the then chancellor Rishi Sunak cut it by 5p per litre. That was extended until March next year.” The Independent’s chief business commentator James Moore argues that “in the era of electric cars, it makes sense to scrap the hated levies applied to petrol and diesel, and introduce simpler per-mile pricing for all road users”. Elsewhere, the i newspaper reports that Starmer “hinted he was looking at extending the household support fund to help vulnerable pensioners affected by his decision to means-test winter fuel payments”. This comes as BBC News reports that “Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has called for a Commons vote on the decision to withdraw the winter fuel payment from millions of pensioners, describing it as the government’s ‘first big mistake’”. And the Daily Telegraph reports on a new proposal that energy industry representatives have presented to the energy consumer minister. It says: “The scheme allows millions of low income households to claim £150 off their electricity and heating bills over winter. Under the proposals the payment could be more than doubled, funded either by raising the existing £20 levy added to all power bills or through taxation – or a mixture of the two.”

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that the UK “is considering making further commitments on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, likely to be announced at the UN climate summit this year”. The newspaper says that energy secretary Ed Miliband “hopes to announce a new target months early, and has the support of Keir Starmer, the prime minister, in trying to propel the UK into a leadership position on the international stage at climate negotiations”. [However, the newspaper does not quote a source for the story.] Finally, the Associated Press covers new analysis, which finds that 140,000 jobs in the UK’s chemical industry “are at stake over the long term if it remains dependent on fossil fuels, and policymakers fail to plan for its decarbonisation”. BusinessGreen also covers the study.

The Times has published an editorial arguing that “by refusing to defend oil exploration Labour will harm growth and energy security”. (This comes after Ed Miliband withdrew government support from the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields, as they face judicial review.) The editorial says: “By refusing to challenge them in court, the government is giving environmental lobbyists their best shot at success. Should legal obstacles ultimately prove fatal to these drilling sites, Labour can maintain that, at least technically, it has stuck to its manifesto pledge of only blocking new, rather than existing, oil and gas licences. At the same time, thwarting exploration allows Sir Keir Starmer to appease the radical elements in his party, chiefly represented in the cabinet by the net-zero secretary, Ed Miliband, whose pursuit of environmental goals is far in excess of what economic prudence justifies.” It concludes: “Like Labour’s pledge to reinstate the 2030 ban on petrol and diesel cars, sensibly delayed by the last government, its hostility towards the oil industry shows it is too fond of imposing top-down bans and not mindful enough of their economic costs.” A Daily Mail editorial describes the move as an “abuse of power”, saying that “the UK will need fossil fuel to keep the lights on for decades to come”. The newspaper focuses its ire on Ed Miliband, saying the decision “proves how far removed he has become from reality”.

Meanwhile, commenting on the Ogem’s investigation into Drax, Alistair Osborne – chief business commentator at the Times – writes that “Ofgem can’t see the wood for the trees”. He says: “Drax remains in line for a subsidy extension when the present regime expires in 2027 – en route to combining the biomass plant that last year produced 4% of UK electricity with new carbon capture tech…Even so, there’s still something a bit off about all this. How can Ofgem know that Drax meets all sustainability criteria when it admits it was ‘unable to provide’ reliable data on ‘forestry type and sawlogs for Canadian consignments’?…The least Drax must be is transparent over where its fruits of the forest are coming from.” 

Elsewhere, the Sun has published an editorial on the 5p cut in fuel duty potentially being scrapped in the next budget. Under the headline “pump chumps”, it focuses on the “profiteering petrol retailers” that have not been passing on the cut to customers. The newspaper says “the answer to the profiteers is for the Competition and Markets Authority to hammer each and every one”. The Evening Standard has published an editorial on fossil fuel sponsorship of the arts, under the headline “waste of energy”. The editorial says: “The battle against climate change will be won with new technologies, old-fashioned energy efficiency and behavioural change. It is less clear how removing a BP banner from a museum will contribute to this, only shackle London’s world-leading cultural institutions.” 

In other UK comment, Maria Mendiluce, CEO of the We Mean Business Coalition, celebrates “a decade of progress on corporate climate advocacy” in a Reuters comment piece. Natalie Jones, a policy advisor on the energy programme at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, writes in Climate Home News that “while international public finance for coal, oil and gas has fallen by two-thirds, little of that money has gone to boost green energy in poorer countries”. And in the Conversation, scientists have penned articles about their research under the headlines “Making homes ready for net-zero depends heavily on people’s understanding and habits”, “How ‘climate mainstreaming’ can address climate change and further development goals”, “What if Big Oil championed – and profited from – the green transition? Here’s how it could work” and “Wondering how to get from Brisbane to Melbourne without wrecking the climate? Our transport choices make a huge difference”.

A new study finds that up to one-quarter of land currently used for forestry will become “more suitable for agriculture” by the end of the century, potentially leading to land conflicts. Researchers use maps of current timber production and projections of agricultural suitability under two future climate scenarios to understand how this overlap might change. They find that forestry land accounts for 21-27% of newly suitable agricultural land. They conclude: “To minimise crop expansion into forestry land and prevent shifting timber harvests into old-growth tropical and boreal forests to meet timber demand, emissions must be reduced, agricultural efficiency improved and sustainable intensification invested in.”