March 2024 was the “tenth straight month to be hottest on record”, the Associated Press reports. According to the newswire, data from the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) shows that land temperatures in March 2024 averaged 14.14C globally – 1.68C warmer than the average temperature in the late 1800s and 0.1C hotter than the previous March record, which was set in 2016. It continues: “The globe has now experienced 12 months with average monthly temperatures 1.58C above the Paris threshold, according to Copernicus data…Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, the world set a goal to keep warming at or below 1.5C since pre-industrial times. Copernicus’ temperature data is monthly and uses a slightly different measurement system than the Paris threshold, which is averaged over two or three decades.” The Financial Times notes that sea surface temperatures have been the warmest on record for 12 months in a row, with March 2024 recording an average of 21.07C, according to the C3S figures. The newspaper quotes Samantha Burgess, deputy director of C3S: “Myself and other climate scientists are asking whether this year is a blip, a phase change, whether the climate system is broken and behaving in a different way to what we expect.” The newspaper adds: “Burgess said that the jumps in daily temperatures were even higher than those anticipated by climate models…’The observational records are warmer than what the records told us the warming should be,’ she said.” Burgess is quoted by Reuters saying that “it’s the long-term trend with exceptional records that has us very concerned”. BBC News says that El Niño is responsible for some of the heat. The broadcaster quotes Gavin Schmidt, the director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, saying that “by the end of the summer, if we’re still looking at record breaking temperatures in the North Atlantic or elsewhere, then we really have kind of moved into uncharted territory”. The Guardian says: “Another month, another global heat record that has left climate scientists scratching their heads and hoping this is an El Niño-related hangover rather than a symptom of worse-than-expected planetary health.”  The i newspaper, the Independent, MailOnline, Al Jazeera and Le Monde also cover the story.

The chief executive of Shell, Wael Sawan, “has reiterated that he is open to switching the oil major’s primary listing away from London if the valuation gap compared with international rivals does not narrow”, the Times reports. The newspaper continues: “[Sawan] has been attempting to boost the company’s valuation by simplifying the business and reducing operating costs since being appointed to the top job at the start of last year, an improvement plan he described as a ‘sprint’.” Reuters says that “​​by mid-2025, if the valuation gap remains, then Sawan made clear nothing is taboo, including switching the listing to New York”. The Daily Telegraph adds: “His comments will spark fears that Shell, which is Britain’s most valuable listed company and worth around £180bn, could become the latest blue chip business to flee the London market.” The news stories are based on an opinion piece by Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas, who writes that the London Stock Exchange is facing a “very real threat” of losing “giants” like Shell. He says: “The problem here isn’t Brexit. It’s European investor apathy – if not outright hostility – toward fossil fuels. Once, natural resources giants like Shell saw London, chock full of mining and energy businesses, as their natural home; today, not so much. Instead, the US, now the world’s biggest oil producer, beckons. And if Shell does leave, it probably wouldn’t be a one-off.”

India’s Supreme Court has expanded the “right to life” to include “protection against adverse effects of climate change”, the Independent reports. The newspaper continues: “The ruling recognises that climate change threatens ‘constitutional guarantees of equality and health’, impacting factors such as air pollution, disease, and food security…The judgement was passed on 21 March and the detailed verdict was made public on Saturday.” An editorial in the Indian Express calls the decision a “call to action”, saying that the significance of the ruling “cannot be overstated”. 

Elsewhere, Reuters reports that later today, the European Court of Human Rights will pass down three rulings related to “whether insufficient government action on climate change can amount to a human rights violation”. The newswire says that a victory in any of the three cases “could force further national policy changes to keep countries in line with the globally agreed target of limiting warming to 1.5C”. The Associated Press adds: “Although activists have had successes with lawsuits in domestic proceedings, this will be the first time an international court has ruled on climate change.”

“The world’s biggest economies have continued to finance the expansion of fossil fuels in poor countries to the tune of billions of dollars, despite their commitments on the climate,” the Guardian reports, covering new analysis by Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth US. The analysis finds that over 2020-22, G20 countries and “the multilateral development banks they fund” put £112bn into overseas fossil fuel development, the newspaper says. It adds that Canada, Japan and South Korea were the biggest funders. The paper continues: “[G7 countries] pledged in 2022 to halt overseas funding of fossil fuels. But while funding for coal has rapidly diminished, finance for oil and gas projects has continued at a strong pace…The World Bank provided about $1.2bn a year to fossil fuels over the three-year period, of which about two-thirds went to gas projects…Over the same three-year period, the G20 economies put about $104bn into clean energy developments overseas, according to the report.”

Elsewhere, the New York Times notes that at COP26 in 2021, hundreds of banks, insurers and asset managers pledged to put $130tn into reducing carbon emissions and financing the energy transition through the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. The newspaper reports on new analysis which shows that since 2018, the banks reduced lending to sectors they had targeted in their climate goals by 20%. However, it adds: “That seems like progress, but the researchers argued it was not sufficient because the decline was the same for banks that had not made the same commitment.” Finally, Reuters covers a new report which finds that “the carbon emissions reduction targets of a group of the biggest listed companies are too weak collectively”. The newswire continues: “A study of 51 companies by the non-profit NewClimate Institute and Carbon Market Watch found they had committed to reducing their emissions by 30% by 2030, on average, against the 43% needed to limit global warming to 1.5C by 2050.”

State news agency Xinhua reports that China’s minister of commerce Wang Wentao held a roundtable with Chinese electric vehicle (EV) enterprises in France, at which he said that Chinese EV manufacturers are successful due to their “sustained technological innovation; complete production and supply chain system; and comprehensive market competition and rapid development”, and do not rely on subsidies to gain an advantage. The agency says he added at the roundtable with Geely, SAIC, BYD, CATL and other companies that accusations by the US and Europe of “overcapacity” in the industry are “groundless”. Financial outlet Yicai quotes an official from China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) saying that “some countries…not only do not comply with the WTO’s [World Trade Organization’s] rules of international trade, but also will seriously disrupt the global automotive industry chain supply chain”. Quartz reports that US treasury secretary Janet Yellen told CNBC yesterday that the US “wouldn’t rule out anything at this point…We need to keep everything on the table” with regards to potential tariffs on China’s clean energy exports. She added that the US “want[s] to work with the Chinese to see if we can find a solution”. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post covers Yellen’s meeting with Chinese premier Li Qiang, who urged the US to “look at the capacity issue objectively…from the point of view of the market economy and from a global perspective, and on the basis of economic laws”. China Energy News covers a study from the Harbin Institute of Technology that calls for enhancing “transfer of methane abatement technologies and technical assistance to developing and least developed countries”. Meanwhile, the state-supporting newspaper Global Times reports that German chancellor Olaf Scholz is scheduled to travel to China in mid-April, accompanied by his ministers for environment, agriculture and transport, as well as a business delegation. It adds that Scholz aims to strike a balance in Germany’s China policy and “ensur[e] it is not swayed by the hard-line rhetoric of politicians advocating ‘de-risking’”. 

Separately, Xinhua carries a commentary by Zhang Jianhua, director of the National Energy Administration (NEA), who writes that “how to effectively guarantee national energy security and strongly safeguard the country’s economic and social development has always been the primary issue of China’s energy development”. China Energy News reports that the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China’s top economic planner, issued measures for investment in energy conservation and carbon reduction within the central budget, which will mainly support “demonstration and application projects of advanced carbon peaking and carbon neutral technologies…energy-saving and carbon reduction projects in key industries and…recycling economy-assisted carbon reduction projects”. China Energy Net reports that China’s iron and steel industry will begin reporting its carbon emission data “in the second half of 2024”. Industry newspaper IN-EN.com reports that the NEA has issued a series of target measures to help three counties “accelerate the[ir] development of clean energy…[and] strengthen the[ir] energy supply infrastructure”. 

On Monday, Reform UK’s leader Richard Tice suggested at a press conference that “scrapping the UK’s pledge to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would free up cash for the NHS”, the Guardian reports. The paper quotes Tice saying: “We have a choice in this country, it seems to me. A pretty clear choice. Do we want zero waiting lists in two years, and to keep them there? That is the Reform choice. Or do we want net-zero CO2 emissions in 25 years? That is the Labour choice.” The paper continues: “Tice claimed that fulfilling the promise to meet net-zero, which all mainstream parties in the UK have committed to, would cost about £30bn a year. He said cutting NHS waiting lists to zero in two years would require about £17bn a year of additional spending on healthcare…However, his calculations are opaque… A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said: ‘We do not recognise this [£30bn] figure.’” The newspaper adds: “Green campaigners accused Tice of trying to create divisions without having a clear idea of what seeking net-zero emissions would involve and what the dangers of failing to address the climate crisis would be for the UK.”

In other UK news, the Guardian covers new analysis which finds that “England could produce 13 times more renewable energy than it does now, while using less than 3% of its land”. The paper continues: “Currently, about 17 [terawatt] hours [TWh] of electricity comes from homegrown renewables on land. But there is potential for 130[T]Wh to come from solar panels, and 96[T]Wh from onshore wind. These figures are reached by only taking into account the most suitable sites, excluding national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, higher grade agricultural land and heritage sites.” Elsewhere, the i newspaper reports that a group of environmental organisations and energy companies has written a letter to ministers, warning that “onshore wind farms are not being built across England due to ‘unworkable’ planning rules that can favour fossil fuel projects”. According to the outlet, the letter says that “wind turbines are being ‘unfairly singled out’ in planning rules that do not place the same levels of restrictions on other energy projects, such as coal mines or nuclear power stations”. Separately, the Financial Times covers comments from Simon Bowen, chair of Great British Nuclear, who says that the UK should build at least two more large nuclear power stations after the two currently in development by French state-owned power company EDF. However, according to the paper, Bowen says that “technologies other than French design” should be considered. Finally, the Press Association covers new analysis which finds that “the government has only achieved three out of 10 commitments it made to boost the UK’s energy security two years ago”.

“Leaders need to persuade others of the need for environmental measures rather than capitulate in the face of political headwinds,” says an editorial in the Guardian discussing the EU’s “troubled” green deal package of environmental policies. The newspaper points to a recent survey which shows that most people in Germany, France and Poland “would support ambitious policies to tackle the climate emergency” and also finds “unexpectedly widespread support for pan-European action linking green goals to other priorities such as economic security”. However, it says that in the face of farmers protests, European governments have been “busily sounding a disorderly, panicked retreat on environmental targets”. The editorial says that the EU scrapped proposals to halve the use of pesticides in agriculture by 2030 and “quietly dropped” a reference to reducing non-CO2 emissions in agriculture by 30% by 2040. Meanwhile, the EU’s nature restoration law is “on life support”, it says. It concludes: “Five years ago, [European Commission president Ursula] von der Leyen described plans to achieve net-zero by 2050 as ‘Europe’s “man on the moon” moment”, adding that the green deal ‘is our new growth strategy – it is a strategy for growth that gives more back than it takes away’. Given the right levels of investment, and guarantees of support to those on the frontline of transition, the majority of Europeans remain willing to sign up to the journey. But in the face of political headwinds, leaders need to stop conceding ground and start making the case.”

Elsewhere, Helen Thompson, professor of political economy at the University of Cambridge, writes in the Financial Times that “energy dependency turns out not to have been as effective a weapon as Putin thought”. She notes that no sanctions were put on Russian gas exports until 2023, adding: “Emboldened, Vladimir Putin ordered Gazprom, the state-run monopoly, to reduce supply from June 2022, forcing the EU into an emergency plan to cut gas consumption by 15% by March last year.” However, she says that one year on, the EU ended its winter season with a record volume of stored gas. “Europe’s resilience has been a geopolitical disaster since, unlike with oil, Gazprom cannot replace European customers with Asian ones,” Thompson says. She concludes: “Europe is still exposed to Russian ambition. The Biden administration has paused licences for new LNG export projects…But the conflicts around American LNG reflect the fact that the ability of US energy companies to export is always subject to contested domestic politics. While expanding oil and gas markets is an unequivocal reason of state for Putin, it is not in Washington. In the ensuing uncertainty, the EU has found only respite from, not a remedy for, the geopolitical vulnerabilities formed by its foreign gas dependency.” Separately, the Financial Times Lex column notes that across the US, warm weather and “surging production from gas wells” have filled up gas storage well above the long-term average. It continues: “Historically, very high storage levels have offered a contrarian buy signal. Sharp increases in US gas supply were followed by rebounds in prices in 2012, 2016 and 2020. This could be another one of those times.” The piece says that gas prices have recently rebounded slightly from record lows, adding that “shares in US-listed gas-focused exploration and production companies have performed surprisingly well year to date”. It concludes: “The equity market may be sending a signal that the worst has passed for natural gas.”

Elsewhere, ahead of yesterday’s solar eclipse, Reuters columnist Robert Cyran wrote about how it would affect solar power output in Texas. He notes that since the last solar eclipse in 2017, solar capacity in the US has more than tripled. Cyran says that the eclipse is “unlikely to cause any problems, according to [Texas grid operator] ERCOT. Yet solar eclipses are the ultimate predictable event. A bigger test comes when something unforeseen happens. Still, the future is looking bright for solar. A substantial chunk now, and a much larger amount in the future, will be able to be stored in batteries, making power accessible for hours after the sun stops shining…Batteries still aren’t economical for longer periods – days of cloudy weather, say. And for now, fossil fuel generation provides a buffer. But new forms of long-duration storage, from batteries using different chemistries to geothermal, may offer future options. Texas is a hotbed for exploratory deployment of these technologies. Even clean, renewable energy can be bigger in Texas.” 

Bloomberg columnist David Fickling writes that US treasury secretary Janet Yellen is visiting China “in an attempt to persuade the government and companies that their investments in clean technology are excessive and damaging”. Fickling calls the plan “a protectionist disaster that will impede the path to net-zero”, stating: “One of the most distinguished living economists is rejecting what’s been one of the most fundamental principles of economics for more than 200 years: comparative advantage. If a country can manufacture goods at lower costs than you can, you shouldn’t raise tariff barriers. Instead, you should import the goods, and send back something in return where your industry is more efficient.” FIckling concludes: “China has no shortage of issues around the energy transition and state subsidies. In attacking its clean-technology exports, however, the world is cracking down on one part of the economy where the private sector is dominant, and where the prospects for reducing global emissions are good. In acting as the standard-bearer for this policy, Yellen is rejecting fundamental principles of economics to justify a policy of restricting public access to affordable and clean technology. It’s a protectionist disaster in the making – for both the US, and the planet.” 

Elsewhere, Xin Wang – an associate professor of China Studies at Baylor University in the US – argues in the South China Morning Post that “China is not to blame for the snail’s pace of US EV progress”. He argues that “Washington’s concerns about the impact of China’s excess production on American firms are clearly more political than economic” and says that high market prices in the US are hindering widespread EV adoption. Elsewhere, fossil fuel industry veteran David Blackmon writes in the Daily Telegraph that “the American EV industry has hit the wall”. Separately, Kana Inagaki – the Tokyo bureau chief at the Financial Times – writes that “Japanese carmakers are under pressure from [the] coming wave of high-tech, low-cost electric vehicles from China”. Separately, the chief reporter for the Daily Express, Giles Sheldrick, writes that Britain’s only hand made electric car company , RWB Electric Cars, is planning to build a plant in Virginia, in the US. Finally, omnipresent climate sceptic columnist Ross Clark writes in the Daily Telegraph that electric vehicles are “the government’s new weapon in its war on the old”.

Meteorites holding potential clues to life’s origins or the prospect of alien existence are fast disappearing from Antarctica because of climate change, a study finds. The research uses data-driven analysis to estimate how climate change could affect meteorite discovery in Antarctica, which is home to more than 60% of meteorite finds. “We show climate warming causes many extraterrestrial rocks to be lost from the surface by melting into the ice sheet,” the authors say. The analysis shows that, irrespective of future emissions, around one-quarter of Antarctica’s meteorites will be lost because of climate change by 2050, potentially rising to three-quarters by 2100 under a high emissions scenario.