Keir Starmer’s arrival at COP29, with a promise to drastically cut the UK’s carbon emissions by 81%, will be a small ray of sunshine in an otherwise gloomy start to the climate talks.

The election of Donald Trump, who has vowed to drag the world’s largest economy out of the negotiations, was a colossal setback for a round of talks dedicated to raising ambition – and cash – for the transition away from fossil fuels.

If that wasn’t bad enough, Starmer was one of the few heads of the G20 to actually show up at the talks.

President Biden is absent – so too are the leaders of China, Brazil, Germany and France.

Starmer wants to portray the commitment to cutting emissions as a sign of his confidence the UK can be a leading economy without fossil fuels.

The prime minister’s pledge reinforces the message these talks are urgently trying to send – that net zero is an opportunity for growth, not economic suicide.

But back home it’s a political risk.

Getting to the 81% cut in emissions within 10 years will take a colossal and, in the short term, costly effort. One he was forced to insist would not involve his government telling people how to live their lives.

However, it will certainly involve changes to how people live.

Labour’s plans for zero-carbon electricity, already ambitious, won’t get us there alone.

Making homes more energy efficient and heating them without gas will be essential.

So too will fiddly things like protecting peat bogs, our uplands and reforming agriculture.

While it might be portrayed as political excess, in truth, the government had no choice.

The 81% target is the one the Committee on Climate Change advised the government is the only way it can meet its obligations under the UK Climate Change Act introduced by the Conservatives with cross-party support.

That piece of legislation is, in turn, the one designed to ensure the UK meets the terms of the Paris Agreement that the UN climate process is committed to.

So, while they’ll celebrate the prime minister’s announcement at this summit for the signal it sends to other less ambitious countries – it’s not seen as radical, but necessary.

And praise for the prime minister will be limited here in Baku.

COP29 is mainly about money – and agreeing on a new financial mechanism to allow poorer countries that have yet to burn their “share” of fossil fuels to not follow the path that made countries like ours rich.

Starmer has arrived at this summit with a bold domestic commitment, but no promise of additional money for that process.

The UK is not alone – many other rich countries aren’t willing to ask their taxpayers to fork out more cash to tackle climate change.

The rest of these talks will be taken up with how that reality tallies with the spiralling cost of climate impacts in both rich and poor countries alike.

A legal challenge over the decision to give consent to the UK’s largest untapped oil field has begun in Edinburgh.

Greenpeace and Uplift have jointly raised a judicial review at the Court of Session, arguing consent for the Rosebank oil field northwest of Shetland ought to be paused and reassessed.

The two environmental groups are also arguing against the exploration of the Jackdaw oil field off Aberdeen in the same legal case.

The former Conservative-led UK government approved Shell’s proposals to develop the Jackdaw field in 2022 and cleared Equinor and Ithaca Energy’s plans to drill in the Rosebank field last September.

The campaign groups are arguing that the government, along with the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), failed to consider the full impact of emissions caused by burning oil and gas from the fields.

They are also arguing their reasons for approving the schemes were not transparent and that the development will disrupt a marine protected area.

Activists calling for the projects to be halted held a protest outside the court on Tuesday morning.

Ruth Crawford KC, representing Greenpeace UK, told the court a “substantive error of law” had been made when consent was granted for the two schemes based on limited information on their environmental impact and that the charity was seeking “remedy”.

“It was not simply a matter of discretion on whether or not to take emissions into account, it is a matter of the law the impact of emissions had to be taken into account,” she said.

Ms Crawford argued for both developments to be paused and for the oil companies involved in the projects to be made to submit revised environmental impact assessments.

She said these assessments should include consideration of so-called Scope 3 emissions which would be produced by burning all the oil and gas to be extracted from the fields.

Shell said Jackdaw is a “vital project for UK energy security” and will provide enough fuel to heat 1.4 million UK homes.

Equinor has similarly said Rosebank is “vital for the UK” in terms of local investment, jobs and energy security.

The case, before Lord Ericht, continues.

Tweaking the routes of a small number of planes could reduce the warming effect of contrails by half and cost less than €4 per ticket, according to a study.

Contrails (or condensation trails) are the lines left in the sky when warm, moist exhaust fumes from an aircraft mix with the cold air to produce ice crystal clouds.

They can dissipate quickly if the air is dry.

However, in humid air they can spread out and linger, trapping heat from the Earth’s surface similar to regular cirrus clouds.

The study, by campaign group Transport Energy, says their warming effect is at least as important as the one caused by carbon dioxide emissions from burning aviation fuel.

However, it says just 3% of flights generate 80% of contrail warming, and tweaking flight paths for some of the journey could cut the effect by more than half by 2040.

Flights at higher latitudes are more likely to form warming contrails, according to the study, so those over North America, Europe and the North Atlantic are prime candidates to be altered.

Evening and night flights are also said to have the largest warming contribution.

The authors believe the “climate benefits from contrail avoidance would still be 15 to 40 times larger than the CO2 penalty” and would improve as technology advances.

They estimate that on a Paris to New York flight, it would cost under €4 (£3.30) per ticket to avoid contrails forming, or €1.20 (£1) for a Barcelona to Berlin route.

The price would pay for extra fuel, as well as technology such as humidity sensors.

Other research has sounded a similar warning over contrails.

A 2021 study – looking at the period between 2000 and 2018 – also reported they were more consequential for warming than aviation’s C02 emissions.

Contrails and their warming effect will be discussed on Wednesday at an event, co-hosted by a University of Cambridge institute, at the COP29 climate summit.

Battle lines have been drawn between the almost 200 countries meeting in Azerbaijan as they seek to agree a new pot of money to help developing countries cope with climate change.

Over the last two days, leaders have swanned to the capital Baku for the COP29 climate summit to give glitzy speeches on how much they are doing and how everyone else needs to do more.

Meanwhile, their negotiators dug in for a battle over the new fund of so-called “climate finance”.

This is cash that rich, polluting countries pay to developing nations to help them both ditch fossil fuels – the main cause of climate change – and cope with the impacts of burning them such as heavier rains, deeper drought and harsher heat.

Developed countries including those in the EU and US are leading a push to get more countries to pay into the fund including China, Qatar and South Korea, which were once classed as developing, but whose wealth and emissions have now grown.

But that is not going down well with the likes of China, which already provides this money in other forms, and where emissions and wealth per person remain much lower.

And some poor nations fear the plan to add more donors is a ploy to dilute responsibility, and won’t amount to more money in the piggy bank.

How big that piggy bank should be is shaping up to be one of the hardest things to agree on.

Most accept the amount of money developing countries need to pay for their solar and wind farms, flood defences and hardy crops is about $1trn a year.

But back in Europe, the US and Australia, governments are dealing with tight public finances, shrinking aid budgets and some backlash to climate action.

That makes it hard to see how they can cobble together $1trn – at the moment it’s about $125bn.

Former Maldives president Mohamed Nasheed said $1trn is “a big number”, but added they are “not suggesting that it should just come from European taxpayers”.

There are many “means and ways of raising these funds” including from the private sector and international banks,” he added.

“So it’s I think given the gravity of the matter, this is not a big amount.”

Emmanuel Urey-Yarkpawolo, head of Liberia’s Environmental Protection Agency, said rich countries need to step up because “their development came through the burning of fossil fuels”.

Only about a quarter of Liberians have electricity. To get it, he asked “do we go to coal? Do we go to fossil fuels? Do we go to renewable energy? The answer is clearly yes, let’s move to renewable energy.”

But it will cost about $1bn, he said, as clean power often costs more upfront than fossil fuel power projects. “So public money to help Liberia adapt, to move quickly to renewable energy like that, it becomes very important.”

Liberia is part of a group of 45 “least developed” countries that negotiate together. They say the new fund should set aside $220bn for them, while small island developing countries argue for their own dedicated pot of $39bn.

The money comes from lots of different sources, including countries’ overseas aid budgets, and money that development banks can drum up.

The discussions, which still have two weeks to go, got a boost yesterday when a group of lenders, including the World Bank, said they thought they could get $120bn flowing by 2030, a roughly 60% increase on the amount in 2023.

Patrick Verkooijen, CEO of the Global Center on Adaptation, welcomed the announcement as “a shot in the arm for the climate finance discussion”.

“But there is so much more work ahead,” he added.

A fairly new part of the debate is whether more public money can be generated by taxing polluting industries such as fossil fuel production, flying and shipping.

The Guardian has quit the social media platform X.

The news organisation announced its decision on Wednesday to stop posting from official editorial accounts on the platform, formerly known as Twitter.

“We think that the benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives and that resources could be better used promoting our journalism elsewhere,” the outlet said in a statement.

It comes as X owner Elon Musk has been confirmed as the co-lead of a new department of government efficiency in the incoming Donald Trump administration.

The Guardian said that it had been considering the decision for a while, citing “the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism.”

The media organisation, which has more than 80 accounts on X with approximately 27 million followers, has now updated its main accounts to say they have been “archived”.

Sky News reported earlier this year on far-right misinformation on X in the aftermath of the Southport stabbings.

The Guardian said the recent US election underlined the issue, claiming it further proved that Mr Musk was using the site to shape political discourse.

Reporters for the site will still be able to use the platform, with one of The Guardian’s most prominent journalists, political editor Pippa Crerar, saying she was “staying put – for now”.

In response, Mr Musk said: “They are a laboriously vile propaganda machine”.

Musk rocket-boosted Trump – but will it all end with a bang?

Elon Musk, X and Donald Trump

The Tesla and SpaceX businessman officially took over Twitter in April 2022 and grew into an increasingly prominent position within the Trump campaign during the election.

As well as turning out on the election trail to support Mr Trump, he donated tens of millions of dollars and held $1m (£784,000) giveaways in key battleground states.

Sky News science and technology editor Tom Clarke said that during the election, Mr Musk “bombarded” his millions of followers with pro-Trump content.

In a polling day podcast, Mr Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr, said: “I don’t think this race would even be close if it wasn’t for what Elon Musk was doing with X and showing people what is going on.”

Mr Musk’s new role appears to be an advisory one as the statement released by Mr Trump said he and Vivek Ramaswamy would “provide advice and guidance from outside of government and partner with the White House … to drive large scale structural reform”.

Sky News’ US partner NBC News previously reported that Mr Musk wanted to cut $2trn (£1.57trn) from the federal budget – which is more than the allocated budget of $1.7trn (£1.33trn).

While he has provided sparse details about what he would like to cut, he has publicly attacked relatively small recipients of federal money, such as the Education Department and NPR, the US outlet added.

Consumer rights group Which? is suing Apple for £3bn over the way it deploys the iCloud.

If the lawsuit succeeds, around 40 million Apple customers in the UK could be entitled to a payout.

The lawsuit claims Apple, which controls iOS operating systems, has breached UK competition law by giving its iCloud storage preferential treatment, effectively “trapping” customers with Apple devices into using it.

It also claims the company overcharged those customers by stifling competition.

The rights group alleges Apple encouraged users to sign up to iCloud for storage of photos, videos and other data while simultaneously making it difficult to use alternative providers.

Which? says Apple doesn’t allow customers to store or back-up all of their phone’s data with a third-party provider, arguing this violates competition law.

The consumer rights group says once iOS users have signed up to iCloud, they then have to pay for the service once their photos, notes, messages and other data go over the free 5GB limit.

“By bringing this claim, Which? is showing big corporations like Apple that they cannot rip off UK consumers without facing repercussions,” said Which?’s chief executive Anabel Hoult.

“Taking this legal action means we can help consumers to get the redress that they are owed, deter similar behaviour in the future and create a better, more competitive market.”

Apple ‘rejects’ claims and will defend itself

Apple “rejects” the idea its customers are tied to using iCloud and told Sky News it would “vigorously” defend itself.

“Apple believes in providing our customers with choices,” a spokesperson said.

“Our users are not required to use iCloud, and many rely on a wide range of third-party alternatives for data storage. In addition, we work hard to make data transfer as easy as possible – whether it’s to iCloud or another service.

“We reject any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anti-competitive and will vigorously defend against any legal claim otherwise.”

It also said nearly half of its customers don’t use iCloud and its pricing is inline with other cloud storage providers.

How much could UK Apple customers receive if lawsuit succeeds?

The lawsuit will represent all UK Apple customers that have used iCloud services since 1 October 2015 – any that don’t want to be included will need to opt out.

However, if consumers live abroad but are otherwise eligible – for example because they lived in UK and used the iCloud but then moved away – they can also opt in.

The consumer rights group estimates that individual consumers could be owed an average of £70, depending on how long they have been paying for the services during that period.

Apple is facing a similar lawsuit in the US, where the US Department of Justice is accusing the company of locking down its iPhone ecosystem to build a monopoly.

Apple said the lawsuit is “wrong on the facts and the law” and that it will vigorously defend against it.

Big tech’s battles

This is the latest in a line of challenges big tech companies like Apple, Google and Samsung have faced around anti-competitive practices.

Most notably, a landmark case in the US earlier this year saw a judge rule that Google holds an illegal monopoly over the internet search market.

The company is now facing a second antitrust lawsuit, and may be forced to break up parts of its business.

Read more: Google faces threat of being broken up

And in December last year, a judge declared Google’s Android app store a monopoly in a case brought by a private gaming company.

“Now that five companies control the whole of the internet economy, there’s a real need for people to fight back and to really put pressure on the government,” William Fitzgerald, from tech campaigning organisation The Worker Agency, told Sky News.

“That’s why we have governments; to hold corporations accountable, to actually enforce laws.”

Argentinian negotiators have been summoned home from global climate talks in Azerbaijan by the President Javier Milei’s government.

The team were ordered to pack up and leave on Wednesday, just three days into the two-week COP29 summit in Azerbaijan.

No reason was given, but the Argentinian president – a right-wing populist who has previously dubbed the climate crisis a “socialist lie” – had communicated with US president-elect Donald Trump the day before, according to his spokesperson.

Mr Trump had told Mr Milei “you are my favourite president”, spokesperson Manuel Adorni wrote on X.

It means Argentina, South America’s second-largest economy, loses its chance to influence the talks in Baku, which will draw up a new fund to help poor and middle-income nations cope with climate change.

The departure adds to concerns about the safety of the Paris Agreement, following the re-election of Mr Trump, who is expected to again withdraw the US from the treaty, and global climate efforts in general.

However, there has been no sense of other countries considering leaving, according to one negotiator.

“I have not heard anyone else make those noises in this process, and I don’t think it will be a chain reaction,” the negotiator said.

Other officials close to the process also said they had not caught wind of any other country wavering.

Delegates at COP29 have generally been reassured by the fact that the last time Mr Trump pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement, no other countries followed suit, despite fears of a domino effect.

On Sunday, one of Azerbaijan’s top officials told Sky News the US team remained “constructive”, while the US climate envoy has said the fight is “bigger than one election”.

But everyone meeting in Baku stadium for the talks is bracing for the US to disappear from future COP summits.

The COP29 presidency team found itself embroiled in another diplomatic spat yesterday when French climate minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher cancelled her trip.

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev had accused France of “crimes” in its overseas territories in the Caribbean.

Tensions between the two are long-standing due to Paris’ support for rival Armenia.

“Regardless of any bilateral disagreements, the COP should be a place where all parties feel at liberty to come and
negotiate on climate action,” European Union climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said in response, in a post on X.

“The COP Presidency has a particular responsibility to enable and enhance that,” he said.

But it’s not been all doom and gloom in Baku. Diplomats’ moods were boosted by the UK’s new climate action plan, and development banks also managed to pull some strings to release more money for the new climate fund.

World leaders who came for the start of the United Nations climate change conference COP29 in Azerbaijan are now heading home.

And as the whine of private jet engines fades in the skies above the capital Baku, their teams of negotiators get down to the real work: trying, once again, to keep the global climate talks from falling apart.

Most of them are already tired. They were up until 4am the day before the talks began just trying to get all 197 countries represented here to agree on the agenda for the two weeks of negotiations ahead.

They were sombre too, with Donald Trump‘s fossil-fuelled election speech still ringing in their ears.

The challenges ahead

Negotiators have endured four years of a previous Trump administration trying, and ultimately failing, to pull out of the Paris Agreement.

But this time they know his team will have learned from its previous efforts, and damage may be harder to limit.

They also know that populist movements around the world, sharing Mr Trump’s climate scepticism, threaten to weaken the stomachs of heads of state that had, previously, been hungry to decarbonise their economies.

The president of Azerbaijan, the host of this year’s COP, didn’t help much either by using his opening speech to describe his country’s oil wealth as a “gift from God”.

Ilham Aliyev isn’t held in particularly high regard by many of his guests.

The son of supposedly democratic former president Heydar Aliyev, he is unafraid of imprisoning his political opponents, and has amassed extraordinary family wealth off the back of that divine gift.

But President Aliyev did speak truth to the hypocrisy that has long attended climate talks. He called out the US media’s description of his country as a petrostate, when America produces 20 times more oil and gas than his country does.

He also blasted EU criticism at the summit of his country’s lack of ambition in cutting its oil and gas production at COP29 – after previously begging Azerbaijan to increase it to keep the bloc from freezing following the war in Ukraine.

Starmer’s ambitious plan

Trying to chivvy it all along are the throngs of indigenous and youth groups, NGOs and eco adjutants of this climate-saving roadshow.

Even at this well-organised summit, it’s tough for them too. The food is eye-wateringly expensive and there’s a dire lack of places for anyone to sit down and eat it – let alone reflect on humanity’s imminent peril.

But the mood lifted when Sir Keir Starmer touched down with an ambitious plan to cut UK carbon emissions by a colossal 81% by 2035.

It’s the only commitment so far from a rich country that meets the new level of ambition required to meet the Paris Agreement’s rapidly retreating targets.

Listen to Politics At Jack And Sam’s on your podcast app

While the UK can’t be accused of hypocrisy, like most other countries with ambitious carbon-cutting plans, it’s yet to introduce credible policies on how to meet them.

And most importantly for these talks, the prime minister didn’t show up with an offer of more money to help fund a global transition away from fossil fuels. An unpopular omission, given that this round of talks is dedicated to securing a new finance plan.

Analysis:
Changes to our lives are certain if PM meets bold climate target

Taliban appeal for help

Not as unpopular though as the Taliban, which chose to send a delegation of three to COP29.

A newfound net-zero fundamentalism? Reportedly not – they’ve come to appeal to the international community to help Afghanistan, crippled by extreme weather events in recent years.

The Taliban have only been allowed to attend as observers as they’re not recognised by the UN.

And while there’s much sympathy here for the people of Afghanistan, with the rule of law and gender equality being very much at the heart COP – observe is all the Taliban delegation will probably get to do.

Negotiating climate finance plan

Meanwhile, in the delegation offices and vast plenary halls, the seemingly insurmountable task of negotiating a new climate finance mechanism begins in earnest.

Without it, the Paris Agreement is in grave peril.

The convention requires some kind of credible package to be agreed by the end of these talks. It’s unimaginable it will be the $1.3trn that is accepted as necessary.

But if there’s not a path to that number, based on hundreds of billions of commitments from a mixture of public and private sources, COP29 will end in failure.