Is America's relationship with Saudi Arabia broken beyond repair?

Barack Obama in Rome before flying to Riyadh: US relations with Saudi Arabia soured when revolution broke out in Syria. Photograph: Unimedia / Barcroft Media

Barack Obama arrives in Riyadh seeking rapprochement with an aggrieved Arab ally whose interests are increasingly at odds with its key western backer.

The president's flying visit – no more than an evening in the Saudi king's palace – is his first since the ousting of Hosni Mubarak, which drove an initial wedge between both capitals.

Ever since, relations have tangibly soured, with US outreach to Iran and ambivalence on Syria particularly irking Saudi leaders, who believe their arch-foe, Tehran, has been empowered at their expense.

So bothered has Riyadh become by what it sees as naive appeasement of Iran that it now seems ready to project itself regionally without US cover.

"The US has underwritten the regional security order for the past 70 years and it sees now as a good time to disengage," one senior figure told the Guardian recently. "We will have to do it all ourselves."

Saudi anger is rooted in the US response to the Arab awakenings that rumbled through North Africa and the Middle East in the three years since Mubarak, a staunch regional ally, stood down.

His demise, along with that of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, posed a stark threat to the kingdom's strict authoritarian rule, as did the vigorous but short-lived uprising in Bahrain. Riyadh believed Obama should have done much more to bolster Mubarak in particular, along with Bahrain's Sunni rulers.

But trouble in the bilateral relationship really began when revolution made its way to Syria, a country central to the tussle for regional influence between the Sunni and Shia Islamic power bases. Riyadh enthusiastically threw its support behind the Sunni majority opposition in Syria, while Tehran was just as bullish in its support for the Assad regime, where an Alawite elite has been aligned to Iran's Shia rulers for the past 40 years.

The three devastating years of war since have seen both heavyweights pour money and weapons into Syria. All the while, Saudi leaders have looked expectantly towards Washington, wanting the US to spearhead a military campaign to oust Assad and help install a new regime that looks their way.

For two weeks last September, when Obama sent warships to the eastern Mediterranean and threatened to strike Damascus after a mass chemical weapons attack, those hopes seemed about to be realised.

However, the plan was warehoused, shelving any chance of a reset between Riyadh and the Obama White House. Riyadh has spent the six months since fuming at what it sees as a weak-kneed administration that no longer shares its convictions. Negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme reaffirmed a Saudi view that its strategic western partner was no longer dependable.

The anger on Syria has not let up. On Tuesday, at an Arab summit in Kuwait, Saudi crown prince Salman Bin Abdul Aziz said the world had betrayed the Syrian opposition and that more needed to be done to change the balance of power on the ground in Syria.

"We are doing more and we will continue to do more," the Saudi official said. "We are going this alone as difficult as it is for us."

Riyadh is slowly getting used to projecting its influence regionally, rather than through powerful proxies. It plans to receive Obama politely and to press home its insistence that the region's other intractable conflict, the Israeli/Palestinian crisis, needs substantive Israeli concessions, and renewed US pressure.

Ongoing bilateral military ties – Saudi remains one of the largest buyers of US weapons – are also on the table. The visit though will remain perfunctory, reflecting the troubled relationship.

Riyadh has given up its earlier hope that the US can bring an end to the war in Syria. But, while openly threatening to turn elsewhere for allies, it is not yet ready to sever strategic ties.

Obama's main message to his hosts will be that he is not neglecting them. He also aims to back recent Saudi stances against extremists that hold sway in parts of northern Syria and in Iraq's Anbar province. He is also expected to insist that no other country in the region can replace the US as a security guarantor. That may well prove a tough sell.

Big six energy suppliers could be broken up after Ofgem triggers full investigation

Protesters at a meeting of shareholders in Centrica, which owns British Gas. Photograph: Sean Smith for the Guardian

Britain has been warned that it faces an energy investment freeze and a heightened risk of blackouts after the industry watchdog called for the deepest ever investigation into the big six power suppliers.

Sam Laidlaw, chief executive of British Gas parent group Centrica, said the building of new power plants would be set back by the climate of uncertainty, increasing the threat of power shortages.

Centrica was backed by investors as one City firm argued that the UK now "tops the political risk table". A second City firm, Liberum Capital, argued: "It is likely in our view that the hiatus in power generation investment we have seen in recent years will continue and probably deepen."

But the warnings were dismissed by energy regulator Ofgem which said it wanted to "clear the air" after confirming evidence of soaring corporate profits and plunging consumer confidence.

The inquiry to be undertaken by the newly created Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) could lead to the break-up of the big six power companies such as British Gas and RWE npower by separating their supply arms, which sell power to households, and the generation units that own power stations.

The review could take up to two years to complete but Ofgem warned of much higher fines amounting to "tens of millions of pounds" against power companies if they break rules in the meantime.

The inquiry follows a mounting outcry from consumers groups and politicians about rising bills and soaring fuel poverty which now afflicts 4.5 million Britons. Ofgem said dual fuel prices, where a customer takes gas and electricity from the same supplier, had risen by 24% between 2009 and 2013. Nolan said an initial look at the market over recent months by Ofgem, the Office of Fair Trading and the CMA had not been driven by political pressure but by increasing evidence of market dysfunction.

Dermot Nolan, the newly installed chief executive of Ofgem, insisted the probe would "enhance confidence in the investment climate".

He added: "Ofgem believes a referral offers the opportunity to once and for all clear the air and decide if there are any further barriers which are preventing competition from bearing down as hard as possible on prices," he said.

"I want to make sure that consumers are put at the heart of this market, so we will continue to take action to help consumers. This includes from today putting the industry on notice that any new serious breach of the rules which comes to light will be likely to attract a higher penalty from Ofgem."

Ofgem said it found that 43% of customers did not trust energy companies to be clear and honest about prices, and that suppliers' retail profits - from selling energy to households and businesses - had risen to £1.1bn in 2012 from £233m in 2009. Suppliers consistently set higher prices for existing consumers compared with those who have switched.

The suppliers – Centrica, SSE, RWE npower, E.ON, Scottish Power and EDF Energy – control 95% of the market for retail supply.

The regulator said its own review had found that consumer trust had fallen and there was no clear evidence that companies had tried to cut their costs while retail bills had more than quadrupled in three years.

Some suppliers such as E.ON and Scottish Power welcomed the probe but Centrica's Laidlaw said a long inquiry could damage investment when Britain's energy security was in question because of a lack of new power stations being built.

When questioned on the BBC Radio 4's Today programme about whether it would mean power outages, he said: "There is an increasing risk. A lot can be done in terms of demand management, but actually building a new gas power station does take four years. So that's the kind of time pressure we are up against, by adding another two years that makes it six years."

The Labour Party dismissed this argument as "special pleading" by British Gas while Davey said: "He [Laidlaw] is absolutely, totally wrong and I can prove it. We have 14 contracts for power generation [in the pipeline] over the next 15 years ... What we are seeing in Britain is a big investment in energy. It is true that companies like Centrica are not investing as much as we might like them to but we are seeing independent energy generation firms like Siemens coming in in their place."

But a research note released by Liberum Capital said the CMA probe would freeze additional expenditure by the large power companies and "dampen investment from those corporates not directly involved in the inquiry."

And fellow City firm Exane Paribas said last week that Britain had moved over the last year from having one of the lowest political risks to the highest "and now ranks above Spain for the first time."

British Gas and other members of the big six have repeatedly warned that the lights could go out – most vociferously when Ed Miliband told the party annual conference last autumn that an incoming Labour government would force companies to freeze prices, break up the big six and dismantle the regulator.

This stance was undermined on Wednesday when SSE, Britain's second-biggest provider, said it would not increase prices for its five million customers until 2016 and has already split off its wholesale arm, which includes energy production and storage, from the retail business, which sells to homes and businesses.

Ofgem said there were "continuing uncertainties" about whether having retail and wholesale businesses under one roof was in customers' best interests.

Richard Lloyd, executive director of the consumer group Which?, which had led the way in pushing for a full inquiry, said: "This investigation must work quickly to expose what is really happening in the energy market and confirm where competition is lacking. It is make-or-break time for the energy suppliers, who should not wait to be forced into action but instead start now to put customers first, keep costs as low as possible and trade transparently."

Ofgem's request to the CMA is subject to a two-month consultation period to let the industry and interested groups have their say. The City had long-anticipated an inquiry and shares in Centrica rose marginally yesterday, although SSE saw its shares decline 2%. Centrica also released its annual report yesterday, revealing that Laidlaw had handed the £851,000 bonus in his £2.2m pay packet to charity.

Campaigners fight to save London skyline from 230 more skyscrapers

In the 17th century, poet James Wright wrote of St Paul's: 'Without, within, below, above, the eye is filled with unrestrained delight.' London's skyline is now dominated by the Gherkin and Cheesegrater. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

Some of Britain's most influential figures in the arts, politics and academia have launched a campaign to save London's skyline from being dominated by more than 200 additional skyscrapers.

In a statement in the Observer today, signatories from sculptor Sir Antony Gormley to philosopher Alain de Botton, author Alan Bennett, Stirling prize-winning architect Alison Brooks, and London mayoral hopefuls Dame Tessa Jowell and MP David Lammy warn: "The skyline of London is out of control."

More than 200 towers of at least 20 storeys are under construction or being planned, of which three-quarters will provide luxury residential flats, according to New London Architecture (NLA), a discussion and education forum.

The campaigners, who also include sculptor Sir Anish Kapoor,Restoration presenter Griff Rhys Jones, Charles Saumarez Smith, chief executive of the Royal Academy, and Lord Baker, the former Tory home secretary, pledge to fight what they describe as a fundamental and damaging transformation of London.

The campaign, which wants a skyline commission to examine London's future profile, has also obtained the support of the Observer's architecture critic, Rowan Moore. "It is shocking that such a profound change is being made to a great city with so little public awareness or debate," he said. "There is also a startling lack of oversight and vision from the city's leaders. These towers do not answer the city's housing needs, but respond to a bubble of international investment in London residential property. A short-term financial phenomenon will change the city's skyline forever."

A spokesman for the London mayor, Boris Johnson, said he would consider the idea of a commission and discuss it with interested parties this week, though he called for the campaigners to engage with the "distinguished names" on his own design advisory group.

The skyline campaign comes after the rejection by the high court two weeks ago of an appeal against a £600m development on the South Bank that Unesco says could threaten Westminster's world heritage status.

In their statement, more than 70 signatories, including societies and associations, write: "Over 200 tall buildings, from 20 storeys to much greater heights, are currently consented or proposed. Many of them are hugely prominent and grossly insensitive to their immediate context and appearance on the skyline.

"This fundamental transformation is taking place with a shocking lack of public awareness, consultation or debate.

"Planning and political systems are proving inadequate to protect the valued qualities of London, or provide a coherent and positive vision for the future skyline. The official policy is that tall buildings should be 'well designed and in the right place', yet implementation of policy is fragmented and weak.

"Too many of these towers are of mediocre architectural quality and badly sited. Many show little consideration for scale and setting, make minimal contribution to public realm or street-level experience and are designed without concern for their cumulative effect and impact. Their generic designs, typical of fast-growing cities around the world, threaten London's unique character and identity."

The majesty of St Paul's prompted the 17th-century poet James Wright to note: "Without, within, below, above, the eye is filled with unrestrained delight." Today, London's skyline is dominated by such sights as the Cheese-grater in Leadenhall, the Walkie-talkie in Fenchurch Street, the Gherkin in Aldgate and the Razor at Elephant and Castle. Towering above them all is the 1,000ft Shard next to London Bridge station.

Campaigners say they fear the consequences for London's appearance of a further 236 buildings of 20 storeys or more. According to the NLA, 77% of the skyscrapers will be in the centre or the east of London and result in the most radical reshaping of the skyline in more than 300 years. Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Greenwich, Newham and Southwark between them will have 140 of the 236 towers. More than 30 will have between 40 and 49 floors and 22 with 50 or more.

On Thursday, Growing Up!, an exhibition at the NLA's offices, will highlight the extent of the skyscraper development about to hit the capital.

Many projects are funded by foreign investors seeking a safe berth – and healthy returns – for their money amid political instability in the Middle East, Russia and elsewhere. During the 12 months to January,London property values rose 13.2%.

The mayor's spokesman said that "virtually every one" of the towers had the support of local politicians and English Heritage, adding: "The mayor needs to balance an array of challenges and competing interests across a rapidly growing city. He recognises the concerns around the architecture of London's skyline, but tall buildings beautifully designed in the right location and in harmony with their surroundings help to meet the challenge of a rapidly growing city."

The NLA says that of the buildings being planned, 189 (80%) are intended to be residential, but do not meet London's housing needs because of their price and dimensions. A further 18 are planned as office developments, eight as hotels and 13 are due for mixed use, while one tower is to be an educational institute.

Cabinet minister: we're in danger of losing Scottish independence poll

Alistair Carmichael: ‘We need to work harder at motivating our people.’ Photograph: Murdo MacLeod

The cabinet minister in charge of Scotland has issued a stark warning that the country could sleepwalk into a split from the UK because unmotivated unionists are failing to wake up to the threat posed by Alex Salmond's nationalists.

Amid clear signs of tension and division in the no campaign, the Scottish secretary, Alistair Carmichael, said he believed the nationalists had greater "hunger" for victory and could create an unstoppable momentum.

Carmichael, a Liberal Democrat, said he believed the yes campaign, which he said was possibly the best financed in British political history, could well move ahead in the polls during the runup to the 18 September referendum.

In an interview with the Observer, he expressed deep concern that some supporters of the union were assuming victory and failing to shout loudly enough in favour of remaining part of the UK. "The danger is that by the time they realise it could happen, it could be too late," he said. "Everybody needs to know that this is a serious contest, and one which it is not impossible that the nationalists could win."

Carmichael said the no campaign should learn from the nationalists' direct, sometimes aggressive, approach: "We're never going to match them for the spend, but in terms of the hunger I think we have to match them for just how badly we want this. That is always going to be a challenge, because for nationalists this is the issue that defines them, whereas for a Labour supporter, a Liberal or a Conservative, this can be an issue you care about but is not one that defines you. So that is where we need to work harder at motivating our people in a way that their people come ready motivated."

The SNP and the yes campaign were in fighting mood as the chancellor, George Osborne, and the chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, tried to quash suggestions that the UK would, after all, agree to form a currency union with an independent Scotland. The two Treasury ministers said: "Walking out of the UK means walking out of the UK pound. A currency union will not work because it would not be in Scotland's interests and not in the UK's interests."

Their denials were issued after a minister involved in the no campaignprivately told the Guardian that despite public statements to the contrary, a currency union would have to be formed to ensure financial and economic stability in the event of independence.

The recent official line of the no campaign has been that a currency union would be impossible as it would not be in the interests of either Scotland or what remained of the UK. The unnamed minister's comments were seized on by deputy first minister Nicola Sturgeon.

"This was supposed to be the no campaign's trump card, but it has backfired badly. The gap between yes and no has halved since November, and most Scots simply do not believe the bluff and bluster we've had from George Osborne, Ed Balls and Danny Alexander," she said. "Now that the card has been withdrawn, it gives an even bigger boost to the yes campaign and can only add to the sense of crisis engulfing the no campaign."

While Carmichael did not criticise the Better Together campaign, led by former Labour chancellor Alistair Darling, he made clear he wanted it to be more proactive, with a greater range of voices, and to turn up the volume. "You have in Alistair Darling a first-rate campaign head, but I would want to hear and would expect to hear a wider range of Labour voices coming into the debate as it gets closer to polling day. The interventions of Gordon Brown have all been good and positive and helpful, and I'd like to see more of that."

While recent polls have shown Better Together still ahead, one recent survey, by Panelbase, put support for independence at 40%, its highest level since campaigning began in earnest and just five points behind the pro-union side. The undecideds were on 15%.

Better Together agrees with the Scottish secretary that the polls could narrow further, but says it remains confident of victory. A spokesman said it would be focusing on the one million people out of an electorate of four million whose votes are "still up for grabs".

Carmichael said he was "hopeful" of victory but could not rule out a nationalist win: "It is not impossible. I am not expecting to lose, but it is eminently possible that they will be able to buy momentum with the advertising and campaign resource they have. If they do, it could all get very difficult." Asked if the no campaign was good enough at modern campaigning, he said: "I think we are, but we haven't yet got the volume of it. The basic messages are the right ones. They are delivered in a fairly professional way. We just need to do more of it."

Asked whether the no campaign had been too negative, he said that might have been the impression on occasions, because the nationalists framed everything as negative: "The arguments we have are positive, but we have allowed ourselves to be defined by the other side as negative."The fascinating thing is that the nationalists come out with some of the most incredibly negative material. You had Alec Salmond coming here talking about London being the dark star. He was talking about Scotland's oil being stolen by the thieves at Westminster."

Kerry to meet Russia's Lavrov for Ukraine talks in Paris on Sunday

Secretary of state John Kerr will fly to Paris to meet with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

Halfway home from Saudi Arabia, US secretary of state John Kerry has abruptly changed course. He will now stay in Europe for talks on Ukraine.

The news followed reports from Russia that Kerry had spoken to the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, by phone, a day after President Vladimir Putin called President Barack Obama. The Russian foreign ministry said Washington had initiated the call between Kerry and Lavrov, adding that they discussed Ukraine and plans for further contact.

Flying from Riyadh to Ireland for a refuelling stop, Kerry decided to turn around after speaking to Lavrov from the plane. State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki confirmed on Saturday that Kerry had arrived in Paris and that the meeting would be held on Sunday.

Kerry had been due to return to Europe on Tuesday for a Nato foreign ministers meeting. The secretary of state was in Riyadh, as well as Rome and the Hague, with Obama this week, but was traveling on his own, including a side trip to Jordan to work on salvaging foundering Middle East peace talks while Obama visited Brussels.

Psaki said Kerry would remain in close touch with Martin Indyk, the US ambassador to Israel, and the negotiating team in Jerusalem and Ramallah, West Bank, in case he needed to return to the region from Paris before the Nato meeting.

Obama left for Washington Saturday with much left unresolved, but officials said he made progress during his trip to Saudi King Abdullah's desert oasis, as well as with European leaders. The president's advisers were particularly bullish about his meeting in the Netherlands with G7 allies, which agreed to indefinitely suspend Russia from the larger G8.

"There's been a lot of movement in the last several days that suggest that Europe has been stirred to action by the events in Ukraine, and I think the president felt a degree of unity in that G7 meeting, in the EU session at Nato, and then with the individual leaders that he met with," said Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser.

On Friday, the White House provided a readout of the call between Obama and Putin which read: “President Putin called President Obama today to discuss the US proposal for a diplomatic resolution to the crisis in Ukraine, which Secretary Kerry had again presented to Foreign Minister Lavrov at the meeting at the Hague earlier this week … the presidents agreed that Kerry and Lavrov would meet to discuss next steps.

“President Obama noted that the Ukrainian government continues to take a restrained and de-escalatory approach to the crisis and is moving ahead with constitutional reform and democratic elections, and urged Russia to support this process and avoid further provocations, including the buildup of forces on its border with Ukraine.

“President Obama underscored to President Putin that the United States continues to support a diplomatic path in close consultation with the government of Ukraine and in support of the Ukrainian people with the aim of de-escalation of the crisis. President Obama made clear that this remains possible only if Russia pulls back its troops and does not take any steps to further violate Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.”

Russian military armoured personnel carriers on the road from Sevastopol in Crimea. Photograph: Baz Ratner/Reuters

On Saturday, Russia said it had "no intention" of invading eastern Ukraine, responding to western warnings over a military buildup on the border following Moscow's annexation of the Crimean peninsula. Lavrov, speaking on Russian television, reinforced a message from Putin that Russia would settle – at least for now – for control over Crimea despitemassing thousands of troops near Ukraine's eastern border. "We have absolutely no intention of – or interest in – crossing Ukraine's borders," Lavrov said.

He added, however, that Russia was ready to protect the rights of Russian speakers, referring to what Moscow sees as threats to the lives of compatriots in eastern Ukraine since Moscow-backed Viktor Yanukovich was deposed as president in February.

Western powers imposed sanctions on Russia, including visa bans for some of Putin's inner circle, after Moscow annexed Crimea this month following a referendum, deemed illegal by western nations, on union of the Russian-majority region with the Russia. The west has threatened tougher sanctions targeting Russia's stuttering economy if Moscow sends more troops to Ukraine.

Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in an interview with Germany's Focus magazine, said the alliance was "extremely worried", adding: "I fear that it is not yet enough for him [Putin]. I am worried that we are not dealing with rational thinking as much as with emotions, the yearning to rebuild Russia's old sphere of influence in its immediate neighbourhood."

President Vladimir Putin, at an airbase outside Moscow. Photograph: Sergey Ponomarev/AP

Putin's call to Obama, however, may be a sign that the Russian leader is ready to reduce tension in the worst east-west standoff since the Cold War. The Kremlin said Putin had suggested “examining possible steps the global community can take to help stabilise the situation”.

Ousted president Yanukovich called on Friday for each of the country's regions to hold a referendum on their status within Ukraine, instead of the presidential election planned for 25 May.

That election is shaping up as a context between former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko and the billionaire Petro "the Chocolate King" Poroshenko, after boxer-turned-politician Vitaly Klitschko withdrew on Saturday. Klitschko said he would support Poroshenko.

Lavrov called for "deep constitutional reform" in Ukraine, a sprawling country of 46 million people. "Frankly, we don't see any other way for the steady development of the Ukrainian state apart from as a federation," Lavrov said. Each region, he said, would have jurisdiction over its economy, finances, culture, language, education and "external economic and cultural connections with neighbouring countries or regions".

There was also a bid for regional devolution within Crimea. Its Tatar community, an indigenous minority who were persecuted under Soviet rule and largely boycotted last month's referendum on joining Russia, want autonomy on the Black Sea peninsula, the Tatar leader said on Saturday.

Britain must take lead in global warming battle, says Ed Davey

Ed Davey claims the 'flat earthers' in the coalition have been defeated. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA

Britain must lead the international battle against global warming, says energy and climate change secretary Ed Davey, who added that not to do so would be "deeply irresponsible".

His comments, made on the eve of a landmark UN report on the impacts of global warming, are in pointed contrast to chancellor George Osborne's statement in September that he did not want the UK to be "the only people out there in front of the rest of the world".

"Climate change is hugely threatening to our way of life, in the UK, Europe and the world," said Liberal Democrat minister Davey, in an interview with the Observer. "Not to lead is deeply irresponsible. If you don't lead, you will not bring others with you."

The report, from the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), will be published on Monday and is expected to state that global warming has already left its mark "on all continents and across the oceans", harming food supplies and driving extreme weather like floods and heatwaves. The report, the work of more than 2,000 scientific experts, will warn that even a small amount of further warming could lead to "abrupt and irreversible changes".

The green agenda has been the battleground for the some of the coalition's bitterest rows. The most recent saw eco levies – reportedly dubbed "green crap" by David Cameron – cut from energy bills, leaving 400,000 homes without the insulation that would cut carbon emissions and bills. Britain also recently defeated a European attempt to setrenewable energy targets for 2030 for each nation.

But Davey insisted that climate-change sceptics – "flat earthers" – in the government had been defeated. "Those of us who care about climate change and believe it is something we need to lead on have won the argument internally," he said. "People don't realise that we got a deal across the coalition that puts Britain right at the head, the most ambitious country." He said Britain's agreed position was to slash emissions by 50% by 2030 as part of a global deal: "That is way out there."

Davey added that global warming was not a distant threat to far-flung low-lying Pacific islands, but was here, now: "Climate change is impacting our way of life in the UK."

He criticised the 40% cut to funding for climate change adaptation made by environment secretary Owen Paterson, whose department also cut annual flood defence spending. "The experience of flooding brought home to the whole government and the whole country that preparing for climate change should be a national priority," he said.

The IPCC report was "an incredibly robust piece of science", Davey said, adding that people should be "more worried" by climate change than ever. "The impacts on our people could be huge. We could see problems of real devastation from flooding and other severe weather events hitting food and water availability – really significant things," he said.

However, Davey claimed that there was also reason to feel "more hopeful" than ever about the UN's global negotiations towards a 2015 treaty to reduce the impacts of climate change, a treaty he said would rank alongside the greatest in history. "At the UN the science has won out," he said. "People can see the rational debate there."

It was also highly significant that the world's two biggest emitters – China and the US – were moving fast to cut emissions, particularly from coal. "Over in Beijing the change in a short period of time is massive. China has woken up to the fact that it is in its enlightened self-interest to start taking this seriously," he said.

"On one level it is about the political control of the Communist party: the unrest in towns and cities is mostly related to environmental disputes. If your [only] child is ill because the water in the rivers and the streams is filthy and the air they breathe in cities is disgusting, you don't like your government." Climate change also made China vulnerable to food and water shortages, while rising sea level threatened its coastal cities, he said.

Lawyers in latest bid to stop UK deporting Mauritian student

Demonstrators gather in central London on Saturday to protest against the deportation of Yashika Bageerathi. Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA

Lawyers will make a further attempt to stop the deportation of a 19-year-old Mauritian student who is scheduled to be flown out at 5pm on Sunday from Heathrow airport without her mother and siblings.

A legal team acting on behalf of her school, the Oasis Academy Hadley in Enfield, north London, will lodge a high court injunction later on Sunday to block the Home Office from sending Yashika Bageerathi back to Mauritius. One appeal has already failed, a spokesman for the school said.

More than 40 of her fellow students gathered in London on Saturday to protest against the decision, carrying banners and singing slogans in support of her right to stay.

The school's principal, Lynne Dawes, said she hoped the protest would force the home secretary, Theresa May, to intervene.

"We're hoping the home secretary will look favourably on this and stop her removal," she said. "I have a spoken to Yashika twice today and she is really worried. She said to me, 'What am I going to do, Miss?'"

Yashika has been in Yarl's Wood immigration removal centre since 19 March. She came to the UK with her mother, sister and brother to escape a relative who was physically abusive and claimed asylum last summer. On Tuesday, Yashika, her mother and younger brother and sister were told they faced the threat of deportation after receiving a letter from the Home Office.

Yashika's mother, was "struggling" and tearful, said Dawes.

David Hanson, the shadow immigration minister, said he would ask the Home Office to review the decision.

The MP said on Twitter: "I am contacting the home office minister to intervene personally in #yashika case to ask for urgent further review."

May has said that the teenager's case had gone through the "proper process" and she would not be stepping in. Speaking over the phone from Yarl's Wood, Yashika told Sky News she did not know what to do, and that she just wanted to finish her A-levels.

"I just want to be with my mum right now and celebrate Mother's Day as we do every year because I know she is very special to me," she said.

A petition by the students calling on May and James Brokenshire, the immigration minister, to stop the deportation has gathered more than164,000 signatures on website change.org.

Campaigners said: "Yashika Bageerathi arrived in the UK along with her mother and brother in 2012 to escape abuse and danger. In that time, Yashika has proved herself a model student and valuable member of the community. However, now that she is legally deemed and adult, she is to be torn apart from her family and deported to Mauritius without even having the chance to compete her education … The students feel that to deport Yashika at any stage would cost the UK a valuable member of society. To do so just weeks before she is about to complete her education, in their opinion, would be an uncompassionate and illogical act of absurdity."

A Home Office spokesperson said: "We consider every claim for asylum on its individual merits and in this case the applicant was not considered to be in need of protection. This case has gone through the proper legal process and our decision has been supported by the courts."