When Richard Forrest walks along the Lyme Regis beach on the Jurassic coast in Dorset, he carries in his small backpack a pointed pick, a geological hammer and an old kitchen knife. But he very rarely uses them until he is back home with a rock or two to work on. “The most important thing to take with you is your eyes,” he says. “And learn what it is you’re looking for.”

Forrest is a fossil finder and has spent more than 50 years on Britain’s beaches hunting for evidence of the country’s prehistoric past. The Jurassic coast, stretching 95 miles (150km) across Devon and Dorset, is world famous for its treasure trove of ammonites and other fossils that lie, in many places, conspicuous beneath visitors’ feet. Others are hidden within the cliffs, only exposed after heavy rains bring on one of the regular landslips. “The best feeling is when you find something you think is potentially interesting and then you get it home and discover that wow, this is really interesting,” he says. “That feeling is amazing.”

On the day that we take a walk along the beach, the sun is dipping in and out from behind a blanket of pale grey clouds and there is a fresh breeze in the air. A dozen people in raincoats wander across the rocks slowly, crouching down intermittently to examine what’s at their feet.

The coast attracts thousands of visitors a year who descend on the most popular fossil beaches of Lyme Regis and Charmouth, often with picks and hammers. Some of them come to find what they may view as prehistoric treasure, others to walk in the footsteps of Dorset’s famous daughter, Mary Anning, who became known around the world for the discoveries she made here in the early 19th century.

But few have the level of expertise of the truly dedicated fossil finder. Walking with Forrest is like having the lights turned on in a shop full of jewels – suddenly seeing treasures surrounding you.

Recalling the first time he came to Charmouth as a teenager with his then-girlfriend’s brother, Forrest says: “I remember he said ‘hit that rock and there’s an ammonite inside it’. So I hit it and a beautiful ammonite appeared and he said ‘that’s the first time it has seen the light of day in 180m years’. That felt like fireworks going off. It was really extraordinary to me.”

Even the most experienced fossil hunter is not always successful, as the tiny fragment of rib framed in Forrest’s downstairs toilet attests. The words around it read: ‘Total finds from four days of collecting at Lyme Regis and Charmouth. Sometimes it’s only the beer that makes it worthwhile.”

“It’s always frustrating to come back again and again empty handed,” he says. “But you learn to deal with that because what matters, at the end of the day, is the number of hours you spend out there looking.”

For Forrest, fossil finding is much more than a pastime. It helped him recover from a deep personal tragedy, which left him repressing feelings that came back to haunt him later in life.

He found a love of fossils thanks to a palaentologist at his local museum, Arthur Cruickshank, who took him under his wing and encouraged him to piece together a plesiosaur, bone fragment by fragment. Forrest later went on to become one of the country’s leading experts on the marine reptiles, subsequently writing academic papers on his findings and giving talks.

Once hours of scouring the beach are done, we head over to Charmouth to see Forrest’s friend of 20 years, Chris Moore. A fellow fossil hunter, Moore is a longtime friend of David Attenborough who has made two documentaries with him, Attenborough and the Giant Sea Monster, which aired earlier this year, and Attenborough and the Sea Dragon. The latter is about an icthyosaurus Moore and his son Alex discovered, and whose painstakingly reconstructed bones are now displayed in the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre.

Conflicts and environmental disasters are stretching humanitarian resources, and a new UK government will have to decide what role it will play on the world stage in dealing with global problems, especially after budget cuts and closure of the Department for International Development by the Conservatives, and with priorities so focused on Ukraine. We’ve talked to the main parties and looked at their manifestos to see what their plans are.

Sudan

The war and resultant humanitarian crisis that has ravaged Sudan since April 2023 has become the world’s largest emergency, with famine already taking hold. The advance of the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary group on the city of El Fasher in Darfur has once again raised alarm about a potential genocide. But most of the parties make no mention of Sudan at all in their manifestos, while pledging to stand by Ukraine and referencing Israel and Palestine.

Conservatives The current government has been concerned about the situation in Darfur and Sudan as a whole, tabling a resolution at the UN security council in June to call for an end to the RSF’s siege of El Fasher. The party’s manifesto mentions Sudan as among several conflicts where it will “redouble our efforts” for a diplomatic breakthrough.

“It’s an enormous worry and it’s occupying a great deal of time. Ukraine and Gaza mean the focus on the world is elsewhere and we need to correct that,” said Andrew Mitchell, the deputy foreign secretary.

Labour The shadow Africa minister, Lyn Brown, has been pushing for more pressure on the warring parties to improve humanitarian access and to agree a ceasefire. A Labour spokesperson said: “The UK has a leadership role on Sudan in the United Nations security council. Labour will support stronger and more coordinated international efforts for an immediate ceasefire, protection of civilians, accountability for violations of international law, and the restoration of peaceful civilian governance.”

Liberal Democrats Layla Moran, the party’s spokesperson for foreign affairs, said the Liberal Democrats would increase humanitarian assistance to Sudan and have a greater role in pursuing a “long-term peace where civilians form a democratic government and war crimes are prosecuted”.

Green party “The situation in Sudan is appalling. We would work within the UN and leverage the UK’s privileged role as a member of the UN security council to push for peace, and uphold human rights and international law,” a Green party spokesperson said.

The Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and Reform UK did not mention Sudan in their manifestos and did not offer comment to the Guardian global development team on plans to lobby on the conflict and humanitarian crisis.

What the experts say Sudanese activists in the country and abroad have been crying out for more support for their cause. With more than 7 million people internally displaced, Sudan is in the world’s largest internal displacement crisis. There has been a lack of momentum towards a ceasefire, despite several rounds of talks, and the fall of Darfur to the RSF has left the country more fractured. There needs to be a bigger push towards a ceasefire and for humanitarian access but also to ensure farmers can produce food. Sudan is entering a rainy season that is projected to be heavier and possibly last longer than usual, raising concerns about damage to agriculture and the spread of disease.

In the UK, Sudanese diaspora activists have talked about a lack of support for some of those evacuated by the UK in the early stages of the war, especially the dependents of British citizens who have not been given any clear legal status and, unlike Ukrainians, have no pathway for staying in the country.

Development spending

Conservatives In November 2020, Rishi Sunak, then chancellor of the exchequer, announced he was breaking a manifesto promise by cutting the overseas aid budget by a third and ending the Conservative party commitment to the UN’s recommended spend of 0.7% of gross national income on aid.

Mitchell fought against the government’s decision. “I would like it brought back as soon as possible,” he said. “But the position is that it will return when the two fiscal tests [not borrowing to finance day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling] are satisfied.”

The party is promising to introduce a “strict national interest test” for all future international development spending.

Labour The manifesto commits to return to 0.7% “as soon as fiscal circumstances allow”. Labour has not clarified exactly what the criteria and timelines are for this, or whether these might differ from the Conservatives’ commitments.

Liberal Democrats The cut to development spending was “misguided”, according to Moran, and “has tied our hands when it comes to responding to civilian conflict, famine and other humanitarian crises around the world”.

The party would restore the UK’s international development spending to 0.7% of national income and re-establish an independent Department for International Development.

Green party The Greens would restore international aid to 0.7% of global national income, raising this to 1% by 2033. The party would also increase the climate finance budget to 1.5% of global national income by 2033, with an additional contribution to a newly established loss and damage fund.

Scottish National party The SNP has promised to immediately restore the UK international aid budget to 0.7%. Chris Law, a member of the international development committee, said that should be the minimum requirement for all parties. “If we are going to be serious about our place in the world, we need to return to 0.7% as soon as possible … I’ve said before that I would like to raise it to 1% for an independent Scotland.”

The party also promises to increase investment into loss and damage caused by the climate crisis.

Plaid Cymru The party supports “the UN target for countries to spend 0.7% on international aid and calls on the next UK government to reinstate that commitment as a matter of urgency”.

Reform UK In its manifesto, Reform UK has called for cuts of 50% to international development spending and states a “major review is needed into the effectiveness of overseas aid”. It also calls for a review of the “global quangos” to which the UK pays more than £7bn a year. Bond, the UK network for organisations working in international development, said this “presumably refers to multilateral development spending through bodies such as the Global Fund”, which invests more than $5bn (£3.9bn) a year to fight HIV, TB and malaria.

What the experts say When it was announced in 2020, charities, aid experts and MPs decried the slash in funding, labelling it “unprincipled, unjustified and harmful”. The cut left a £4.6bn black hole in the budget compared to 2019, leading to many programme closures in 2021, including in key areas such as health and humanitarian work. Last year, the government admitted that thousands of lives would be lost as a result of ongoing cuts. In January, an international development committee report found the cut had a devastating impact on women and girls, damaging the UK’s reputation as a credible and serious partner in advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights globally.

Biggest international development challenges

Conservatives If the Conservatives form the next government, their manifesto states that their international development white paper would continue to inform their overall international development priorities. Mitchell said: “[The white paper] is about getting the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) back on track, the fight against climate change and turning climate funding from billions into trillions.”

Mitchell said he was most worried about Africa and added that more money is needed for adaptation to the impact of the climate crisis, especially in poorer countries on the continent.

Labour The party blames the Conservatives for undoing Britain’s “world-leading” reputation in the international development sector but plans to immediately order a review of how the UK can rebuild its capacity and leadership in development to work towards a poverty-free world.

“With multiple crises around the world demanding our immediate attention, and years of Tory chaos to overturn, we have no time to waste,” said Lisa Nandy, the shadow cabinet minister for international development, in a letter after the manifesto’s release.

Liberal Democrats “As we tackle the enormous development challenges facing the world, from insecurity and conflict to the growing impact of the climate crisis, it is vital that the UK’s place on the world stage as a development superpower is restored,” said Moran.

The party’s manifesto includes pledges on increasing humanitarian assistance to Sudan, on official and immediate recognition of a Palestinian state, and a foreign policy agenda “with gender equality at its heart”.

Green party Climate is the number one foreign development challenge, according to a party spokesperson. “We need to support and work with low and middle-income countries to face the challenge of our heating planet,” they said.

The party outlines the importance of upholding international law regarding the conflict in Gaza and the West Bank. “The UK’s diplomatic isolation over Gaza does not give us a strong voice to tackle climate,” said the spokesperson.

The Greens are focused on Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar and Ukraine and say all conflicts should be dealt with in the same way, without discrimination.

Scottish National party According to Law, the climate crisis and conflict are the two biggest challenges any government is facing in terms of international development and humanitarian aid.

He singled out the situation in Gaza as of particular concern. “Gaza is clearly on the horizon in terms of needing immediate support,” he said. As aid continued to be blocked from entering Gaza, it appeared to many people that starvation was being inflicted on people by Israel, he said. “It’s really serious. Getting more humanitarian aid into Gaza would be a top priority.”

Plaid Cymru The party did not respond to the Guardian but its manifesto calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and supports statehood for Palestine. It “supports peaceful and negotiated outcomes to all conflict”.

Reform UK The party’s manifesto makes no mention of international development challenges and no spokesperson responded to the Guardian’s request for comment.

What the experts say The next government faces several conflicts that are splitting humanitarian and diplomatic resources. Those in Gaza and Ukraine continue to demand attention but fighting and displacement continues in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Haiti. Record numbers are internally displaced and the problem is not only new conflicts but the lack of solutions to old ones that mean people are not able to return to their normal lives. While aid agencies clamour for more money to fund their responses to all of these crises, they will simply drag on without actual solutions.

Everyone loves bees and butterflies, but now moths are coming into the spotlight (as long as they don’t fly around it).

The moth expert Charles Waters has seen a surprisingly rapid increase in interest in moths from the younger generation as, he believes, people become more aware of their beauty and diversity, as well as their importance as pollinators.

“Moths are more significant pollinators because there’s so many of them. In the UK, there are 59 butterfly species, but there are 2,500 moth species,” he said.

At the Moonshadow moth garden at the Hampton Court Palace garden festival, which began this week, he showed off a variety of caterpillar- and moth-friendly plants.

British native wildflowers which moths love include wild strawberry, scabious and knapweed. The Moodshadow garden also boasted a large and colourful buddleia bush that is enjoyed by butterflies and moths alike, and has “messy” areas with long grass, and wood and twigs for the moths to rest on.

“I’m secretary of the Sussex Moth Group,” Walker said, “and the number of members is growing quickly, and that’s because people are much more aware and much more interested, which can only be a good thing.” The increase includes young people, too. “The age range used to be old fuddy-duddies – I would say like me but I’m only 65. There are some 85-year-olds who have been catching moths for 50 years but we are now getting an influx of younger people.”

Moths have often been ignored in favour of other pollinators, according to Walker, as they are largely nocturnal. They have also been unfairly maligned because of some particularly disliked species, such as clothes moths and box tree moths.

In fact only five species, out of the 2500, will eat fabric. “Then you’ve got the box tree moths and the oak processionary caterpillars, which can cause allergic reactions, so it’s understandable people don’t like those,” he added, “but that is a tiny fraction of the huge number of species of moths we have.”

To demonstrate the diversity and number of moths, he set up a nonlethal moth trap in the grounds of Hampton Court Palace the night before the show which caught 400, including elephant hawk-moths and buff-tip moths. They were all released in a beautiful cloud.

He traps moths all over Sussex and has noticed their decline, which is largely due to habitat loss. Caterpillars feed on native wildflowers and grasses, which have been stripped from the landscape by intensive farming and infrastructure building. “They are faring at least as badly if not worse than other pollinators,” said Waters.

Studies have found the overall number of moths in the UK has decreased by 33% since 1968. Some species have faced steep declines. The garden tiger is down 90% since 1968, the blood-vein has declined by 59%, and the white ermine numbers have plummeted by 71%. Conservation efforts are starting to show glimmers of hope for some species.

Trees are very important for moths, Waters added: “Oak trees are the best trees for the moths because they are well established in the UK and have been for hundreds of thousands of years. You ideally want a mix of trees, shrubs, wildflowers. They’ll all have their moth species, which have a caterpillar which prefers to feed on it.

“We’ve got to try to reverse this decline, and making your garden a bit more moth friendly can really help as the decline is mostly driven by habitat loss.”

Saving the moths also means protecting Britain’s birds, which feed on the caterpillars and eggs.

“As well as being important pollinators they provide food for birds,” said Waters. “So without the insects you’ll lose the birds and the ecosystem breaks down. So I think that’s the awareness that we’ve got to try to bring forward.”

A controversial competition that allows children to hunt feral cats in rural New Zealand for cash prizes has produced its biggest haul yet, with roughly 340 animals killed – about 100 more than last year’s event.

The annual North Canterbury fundraising event, which wrapped up this weekend, is open to children and adult participants and targets deer, pigs, ducks, possums and rabbits.

In 2023, it introduced feral cats to its suite of other hunting categories, prompting furious backlash from animal rights activists.

Event organiser Matt Bailey said the feline category was created to help manage feral cats, which threaten native wildlife and carry diseases that put farmers’ livestock at risk. A NZ$500 cash prize is awarded to the hunter with the largest number of cats killed, while the largest cat caught is awarded $1,000.

Feral and domestic cats are a serious threat to New Zealand’s biodiversity and native wildlife. The predators hunt endangered native birds and eggs, lizards, bats and insects. But the issue of their control ignites furious debate in New Zealand, which has one of the world’s highest rates for cat ownership per capita, with close to half of households owning one. Conservation groups regularly call for feral cats to be added to one of the world’s most ambitious pest-eradication regimes, which aims to eliminate all possums, rats, stoats and ferrets by 2050.

Just over 1,500 people took part in the North Canterbury event this year, with roughly 440 of those under 14 years old.

Animal rights activists have condemned the competition, arguing it is cruel to animals, desensitises children to violence and puts domestic cats at risk.

Animal Save Movement protesters attended the event, where they said they were quickly approached by young people dressed in animal costumes with the words ‘Animal Slay Movement’ printed on them.

The group criticised the event’s attempt to justify violence towards animals by claiming it was conservation.

“There is nothing conservative about encouraging children to kill animals and people attempting to throw dead possums at us,” said Sarah Jackson, who attended the protest.

Bailey said he is “not too worried about people who don’t understand, and not too worried about their feelings.”

Children in the rural region grow up in an environment where animals are hunted, skinned, processed and eaten, Bailey said. “It’s usual rural life.”

There are safeguards in place to ensure domestic cats are not targeted and cats are humanely killed, he said. Feral cats must be trapped first to ensure they can be identified as feral, and must then be killed using a minimum of a .22 rifle. Hunting is restricted to areas outside any residential areas, with traps set a minimum of 10km away. Bailey said it is easy to differentiate between feral and domestic cats.

“When [ferals] are caged, it’s pretty obvious – they are like the devil on methamphetamine, they will try to attack you.”

This year, the general competition raised roughly $60,000 for a local school and community pool, meanwhile venison from the deer hunt has been processed and frozen to donate to food banks.

The hunters and animal rights groups share one area of common ground: calling for more emphasis on responsible cat ownership.

The Animal Justice Party said alternative methods to managing cat populations should be investigated, including trap-to-neuter programmes.

“If we genuinely care about bird conservation and wildlife protection, we need individuals to take responsibility for their cats by neutering to prevent unplanned breeding and the subsequent dumping of unwanted litters,” it said.

Bailey believes a law change is needed to ensure cats are microchipped and desexed.

“They are an apex predator – the time’s come that if we want to be predator-free, we need to stem the flow of people breeding and dumping in the countryside.”

Donald Trump’s lawyers on Monday asked the New York judge who presided over his hush-money trial to set aside his conviction and delay his sentencing, scheduled for later this month.

The letter to Judge Juan M Merchan cited the US supreme court’s ruling earlier Monday and asked the judge to delay the former president’s sentencing while he weighs the high court’s decision and how it could influence the New York case, according to the letter obtained by the Associated Press.

The lawyers argue that the supreme court’s decision confirmed a position the defense raised earlier in the case that prosecutors should have been precluded from introducing some evidence they said constituted official presidential acts, according to the letter.

In prior court filings, Trump contended he is immune from prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. His lawyers did not raise that as a defense in the hush-money case, but they argued that some evidence – including Trump’s social media posts about former lawyer Michael Cohen – comes from his time as president and should have been excluded from the trial because of immunity protections.

The supreme court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, extending the delay in the Washington criminal case against Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss.

Trump was convicted in New York of 34 counts of falsifying business records, arising from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a hush-money payment just before the 2016 presidential election.

Merchan instituted a policy in the run-up to the trial requiring both sides to send him a one-page letter summarizing their arguments before making longer court filings. He said he did that to better manage the docket, so he was not inundated with voluminous paperwork.

A brutal and long-lasting heatwave is threatening to wreak havoc across California this week, as sweltering conditions, power shutoffs and a severe uptick in wildfire risks coincide with 4th of July celebrations.

The dangerous weather event is expected to stretch for days with little reprieve. Starting Wednesday, parts of the state will be subject to “extreme” levels of heat risk – reaching the highest level on the National Weather Service’s index – that will last until Sunday or longer. In some areas, life-threatening triple-digit temperatures could linger for longer than a week.

“This is going to be a severe, prolonged, potentially record-breaking heatwave that may have large impacts for much of California,” said climate scientist Dr Daniel Swain during a broadcast discussion of the heat event on Monday. The long duration will only add to the potential impacts and intensity, especially because little relief can be expected even after the sun sets. “It just isn’t going to cool off – even at night,” he said.

While central and northern California are expected to bear the brunt of this event, areas in the southern part of the state are also going to cook. Heavily populated centers and rural agricultural enclaves alike could see record-setting highs during the day as well as record overnight temperatures. In the Central Valley, the state’s agricultural hub, temperatures are expected to hover near 110F through the week without dropping below 70F.

Forecasters have warned the dangerous weather conditions will pose health risks to the majority of the population, especially those unable to access cooling. “These are places where, yes, it is hot in summer – but it’s not often hot like this, and certainly not for this duration,” Swain said.

The extreme weather will also set the stage for new wildfire ignitions that can quickly turn into infernos. An abundantly wet winter left landscapes across California coated in grasses that quickly dried as the weather warmed. The yellowing hillsides and valleys are thick with fuel for fast-burning brush fires. Even deserts, typically-barren this time of year, are now primed to burn. “Unfortunately, I am not using the term ‘if wildfires develop’ because I think it’s inevitable during this event,” Swain said.

Fire risks always rise on the 4th of July, when hot dry weather aligns with explosive celebrations. Across the country, more than 18,500 fires ignite on average due to Independence Day celebrations, whether from errant fireworks or badly tended campfires. But as the temperatures rise, so do the dangers. Both fire activity and fire behavior this week will likely be extreme and new ignitions may become difficult to contain.

“It’s going to be a challenge both day and night – so the message is prevention,” said the Cal Fire deputy director Nick Schuler. The agency is at peak staffing levels to prepare for what’s expected to be an extremely busy week, extending into an extremely busy summer. Already, California has seen more than 131,400 acres burn, with months left before the risks peak.

“The important takeaway is that 95% of wildfires in California are human-caused, and the majority of them are preventable,” Schuler said, noting that careless barbequing, a spark from a trailer chain hitting the road or even some well-intended brush clearing can rapidly turn disastrous during the hottest days.

But the heat won’t only amplify the fire risks and intensity this week – it will also work to dry out more vegetation that could help fuel future fires.

A fiery start to July only adds to what’s been an incredibly hot spring. May wrapped up the 12th consecutive month of record warmth across the world. The trend continued in June in many places, including parts of California, and the summer is on track to be a scorcher. 2023 was declared the hottest year on record, and 2024 may quickly claim the title.

“Heat sucks the moisture out of vegetation and soil,” said Dr Alexander Gershunov, a research meteorologist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, noting that, while this may be the worst heatwave to hit California this year, it will be far from the last.

While individual weather events can be difficult to connect to global heating more broadly, “heatwaves are the most directly impacted” by the climate crisis, Gershunov explained. Fueled by human-caused warming, heatwaves are increasing in both intensity and frequency, but they are also lasting longer and covering wider areas than before. This has only added to their potential to affect human health and put strain on systems.

“Heatwaves are certainly the weather extremes that are impacted by the steroids of climate change,” he said, explaining that the effect is similar to an athlete taking performance-enhancing drugs.

Summer weather has been extreme before, but it’s going to get hotter.

“The trend is toward more frequent, more extreme, longer-lasting heatwaves all over the world,” he said. “California is certainly no exception.”

More on extreme heat and wildfires in the US:

Apology accepted. In fairness, Cristiano Ronaldo simply does not shirk responsibility and by taking and scoring the first penalty in a shootout victory over Slovenia, the Portugal captain made amends for failing to score his spot kick in extra time, which was saved magnificently by Jan Oblak.

Ronaldo blubbered uncontrollably after the first but second time around he took another deep intake of breath, relaxing his super-sized muscles, pausing the gazillion thoughts running over in his mind and coolly dispatched his spot kick into the opposite corner to his earlier effort, before clasping his hands together to make a praying gesture and holding up his palms to say sorry to the curve of Portugal supporters going ballistic behind the goal.

In the end it was the Portugal goalkeeper Diogo Costa who was the undoubted hero, making three extraordinary saves, the last of which thwarted Benjamin Verbic down to his right, before Bernardo Silva sealed a 3-0 win on penalties. Even Ronaldo seemed a touch remorseful as Slovenia, whose steely resistance was broken in the cruellest of manners, came up short from 12 yards. They had exhibited a defensive masterclass against slicker opposition who registered more than twice as many passes and double the touches.

Ultimately the only ones that counted came in the shootout, Ronaldo spared. The more likely penalties became, the twitchier Portugal grew but they will now play France in Hamburg on Friday.

Ronaldo had extended his lean streak during normal and extra time – it is now eight appearances at a major tournament without a goal – but he was unperturbed when it came to putting the ball down in the shootout. Jan Oblak made an emphatic save to deny Ronaldo earning the lead on 105 minutes after Diogo Jota was upended. At times it felt like Ronaldo’s personal mission to get on the scoresheet; three free-kicks came and went, one which forced Oblak into a save, but Slovenia, who spent much of the game with all 10 outfield players behind the ball, were stubborn, fiercely disciplined and awkward opposition. The Slovenia manager Matjaz Kek was sent off for dissent in a fraught period of extra time but can take huge pride in reaching the knockout stage of a tournament for the first time.

Portugal knew exactly what to expect. Slovenia beat them 2-0 in a friendly in Ljubljana in March and Bruno Fernandes admitted that defeat left his side wanting to set the record straight. Fernandes had done his homework, highlighting how Slovenia topped the table for clearances at the tournament, and Roberto Martínez stressed the need to stay patient against a low block. Slovenia depart Germany with an average of 36% possession, the lowest at the tournament, and given Portugal’s is almost double that figure this contest always had the makings of a mismatch. The biggest giveaway of the difficulty of the task, though, no matter their aesthetic differences, was that Slovenia arrived here unbeaten in nine matches having not tasted defeat since a qualifying loss last November.

Beforehand Fernandes also referenced Oblak, describing the Atlético Madrid goalkeeper as one of the best in the world, and for Portugal the overwhelming anxiety at half-time was the reality that they had failed to work him. Oblak easily held Ronaldo’s weak header, which lost its oomph when it pinballed off the defender Vanja Drkusic, after the half-hour and there were a string of agonising nearly moments. Ronaldo was at the centre of most of them, taking each swing-and-a-miss as a personal insult. The 39-year-old looked towards the heavens in disgust – though the roof here was again closed – after soaring between two defenders but failing to make contact on Vitinha’s scooped cross, as if a deep injustice had occurred.

It summed up Portugal’s frustrations. Ronaldo boomed a wide free-kick straight out of play and earlier sent another free-kick zooming over Oblak’s goal after the restored Rafael Leão was upended by Drkusic. Slovenia assembled the draught excluder. The overhead spider-cam surged into the perfect position anticipating lift-off, supporters pulled out their phones. But Ronaldo’s free-kick, all power, flew over the frame of the goal.

As a haze from the flares lit by the Slovenia fans behind Oblak’s goal filled the pitch midway through the second half, Martínez recognised the need to change the rhythm of an increasingly painful contest and replaced Vitinha with Jota. Regardless, the second half took on an identical mould to the first. Aside from the odd João Cancelo burst, it was one-dimensional; it all felt a bit Ronaldo or bust. Oblak repelled a leathered Ronaldo free-kick but, in truth, it was straight at him. Up the other end Benjamin Sesko gave Pepe a scare, beating him for pace after seizing on a Portugal mix-up on halfway, but the RB Leipzig striker’s shot was a daisy-cutter that pootled wide.

For a split-second it seemed Ronaldo would snatch victory in the 89th minute, but he was left slapping his thighs after flunking a shot at Oblak. It was nothing compared to the emotions he felt lifting his head after striking his first penalty, only to realise the ball had been pushed on to a post and clear. Ronaldo wept during the extra-time interval, his teammates taking it turns to console him. Diogo Dalot grabbed Ronaldo by the neck and shouted some words in his ear. There was nothing worth saying at the end of the shootout.

Labour will promise to take the lead on global efforts to tackle the climate crisis, filling a “vacuum of leadership” on the world stage and proving Rishi Sunak’s U-turn on net zero has been a “historic mistake”, Ed Miliband has said.

The shadow energy security and net zero secretary said the UK needed to change course and was “off track”.

Labour drew widespread criticism earlier this year from economists, industrial leaders and environmental campaigners when it cut its green investment plans by half, rolling back on a pledge to spend £28bn equipping the economy to reach its climate target.

It has also been locked in combat with the Tories over the costs and benefits of a green transition and has given way in certain key areas. Miliband has pledged to stick with the Tories’ decision to scrap a ban on gas boiler sales from 2035.

But Miliband says his party would put climate front and centre of its plans in government, promising to reverse the ban on onshore wind in the immediate days after parliament returns after the election.

He said it was also a chance to fundamentally change course on climate and to make that case on the world stage.

“We have taken the manifesto position we have because we think it is the right thing now,” he said in an interview with the Guardian. “But it is also right that we fill the vacuum of leadership on this issue.

“We now have a government that is explicitly going along with the climate delayers. We have to change course as a country and as a world. And this election is an opportunity for us to change course.”

Miliband is to become one of the most influential figures in the expected next Labour government and one of very few with direct cabinet experience. He said that climate was the front line in the battle against the populist right across the world.

“If we win, we will seize the moment,” he said. “There is not a minute to waste in the drive for 2030 clean power and in the drive for climate action. The world is off track, Britain is off track and we intend to change that direction.”

There is a growing awareness within Labour of the scale of the party’s task internationally in the coming years, with the potential loss of progressive allies on climate issues in governments such as France, Canada and the US.

The former party leader said a Labour government would take on that mantle of climate leadership, should it win the election. “You only get to lead internationally if you set the right example at home,” he said.

“If we win the election, it will send a message round the world that the approach we are taking on clean energy, our argument on bills, independence, jobs and future generations, you can win an election on that argument.”

Labour has avoided getting into direct conflict with the Green party, which is outflanking Labour on most climate pledges and targeting seats against Labour in Bristol Central and in Brighton Pavillion.

But Miliband said his experience from the 2015 election taught him not to believe the polls – and that in seats with wafer-thin majorities a vote for small parties would risk allowing the Conservatives back in. “Do not vote Green and wake up with a Tory government,” he said.

And he also said he would not defend the actions of climate protesters like Just Stop Oil, accusing them of being part of breaking the consensus on climate and being “deeply counterproductive”.

Though there was a right to peaceful protest, he said, “I think all the evidence is that it turns people off the cause.”

Miliband said there had been huge damage done by the Conservatives to the climate consensus in Britain since the UK hosted Cop26 in Glasgow in 2021. Net zero has been a major battleground on the right and Sunak announced a dilution of green policies last autumn including moving back the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.

Miliband said voters could chose to give their endorsement to tackling climate action on Thursday. “This is a moment to show that the Conservative party and Rishi Sunak made a historic mistake by trying to break the climate consensus in this country,” he said.

“This is the most important climate election in history – we are halfway through the decisive decade. The next government will serve for most of the rest of this decade. This is the biggest choice in our history on this,” he said.

In February, Labour cut its green investment plans by half and pledged only £15bn a year for its green prosperity plan – only a third of which would be new money.

The U-turn dismayed many business leaders and green campaigners, who said that without green investment on a larger scale the UK faced steep decline as a result of crumbling infrastructure and that energy targets would be difficult to hit.

Jürgen Maier, the former UK head of Siemens, the German industrial giant and major investor, said massive investment was needed to rebuild the UK economy and make it fit for the future.

Before the cut was announced he warned: “These are the growth areas of the future. The £28bn is not a cost, it’s an investment. If you make this investment, business will return to the UK.”

At the time Areeba Hamid, the co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, said the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, had “caved like a house of cards in the wind”.

Emma Pinchbeck, the chief executive of Energy UK, the trade association for the energy industry, said the issue was less the actual sum spent than “the signal it sends”.

Speaking after the cut, she said: “The party has been engaging constructively with business over recent months, but retaining the confidence of the market is dependent on not making U-turns that damage the UK’s investability.”

But Miliband insisted it remained the “most ambitious plan for climate and energy in our national history” and said the party was committed to clean power by 2030, no new oil and gas licences, a warm homes plan and a national wealth fund to rebuild industrial heartlands.

“We are seeking a mandate in this election for that agenda, it’s a mandate for economic change and it’s a mandate to tackle climate change,” he said.

“We will make the modern, progressive, big tent case for climate action which does the right thing now. Rishi Sunak may have departed the pitch but I don’t think the British public have.”

Research by More in Common has suggest Labour’s plan for Great British Energy is one of the main public cut-through policies – along with the Tories’ plans for national service.

While there have been concerns the project would be merely an investment vehicle akin to George Osborne’s Green Investment Bank, Miliband said it would be a generator of clean energy.

“It speaks to the sense we should own and invest in our own infrastructure,” he said. “And it speaks to a sense of a loss of control that we saw in the two years of our cost of living crisis that we have no control over fossil fuel markets governed by dictators like Putin.”

Miliband said that the Tory narrative on the cost of net zero could be disproved by the action Labour would take to cut bills.

“The truth is that we can beat the political right, the anti-climate right on this,” he said.

“Take the onshore wind ban: the Resolution Foundation has shown that the ban hits the poorest six times harder than the rich. Their opposition to clean energy is driving up poverty and energy bills.”

In a stark dissent from the conservative-majority US supreme court’s opinion granting Donald Trump some immunity from criminal prosecution, the liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision was a “mockery” that makes a president a “king above the law”.

The court ruled Monday that Trump cannot be prosecuted for “official acts” he took while president, setting up tests for which of the federal criminal charges over his attempt to subvert the 2020 election are considered official and sending the case back to a lower court to decide.

“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

Sotomayor, writing in a scathing tone, said the court would effectively allow presidents to commit clear crimes without punishment, an expansion of presidential powers that puts democracy at risk. She and fellow liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson lay out hypothetical ways the court’s ruling could create crises in the US.

“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor wrote.

“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

“Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

Until now, presidents have operated under the assumption that their actions were not immune from criminal prosecution if they used their office, and the trappings of their office, to commit crimes, she writes. But going forward, presidents won’t be so concerned.

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” she concluded.

Jackson wrote a separate dissent, though noted that she “agree[s] with every word of her powerful dissent,” and wanted to lay out the “theoretical nuts and bolts of what, exactly, the majority has done today to alter the paradigm of accountability for Presidents of the United States”.

The ruling changes the balance of power among the three branches of government and gets rid of the ability to deter presidents from abusing their power, “to the detriment of us all”, Jackson wrote. The “practical consequences” of the majority decision “are a five-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-governance and the normal operations of our Government”.

In a footnote in her dissent, Jackson games out the “oddity” of deciding whether a president is immune from prosecution based on the character of a president’s powers.

“While the President may have the authority to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say, poisoning him to death,” Jackson wrote. “Put another way, the issue here is not whether the President has exclusive removal power, but whether a generally applicable criminal law prohibiting murder can restrict how the President exercises that authority.”

While the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, claims it hems in presidential immunity in some ways, Sotomayor takes that idea to task. The majority opinion is an “embrace of the most far-reaching view of Presidential immunity on offer”. No one has claimed that purely private acts would be immune from prosecution, she writes, making their exclusion an “unremarkable proposition”.

The court effectively expanded what is considered an official act in a way that will capture events beyond a presidential’s core duties and ensnare unofficial acts, she claims. And a prohibition on bringing up these official acts during a prosecution of unofficial acts “deprives these prosecutions of any teeth”.

She lays out an example: “For instance, the majority struggles with classifying whether a President’s speech is in his capacity as President (official act) or as a candidate (unofficial act). Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least.”

The majority wrote that immunity is necessary because it allows the nation’s top elected official to execute his duties “fearlessly and fairly” and take “bold and unhesitating action” without the threat of looming prosecution. But, Sotomayor hits back, it’s more dangerous for a president to feel empowered to break the law.

“I am deeply troubled by the idea, inherent in the majority’s opinion, that our Nation loses something valuable when the President is forced to operate within the confines of federal criminal law.”

The testy dissent was replete with digs at the conservative-dominated court, which, aided by justices Trump appointed when he was in office, now counts just three liberal justices and has moved the country further to the right in recent years as a result.

Sotomayor directs readers to “feel free to skip over those pages of the majority’s opinion” about one area in the conservatives’ arguments. She said the majority “invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law”. The conservatives relied on “little more than its own misguided wisdom”, she wrote. She added that “it seems history matters to this Court only when it is convenient.”

“In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them,” she wrote.

“You must go to the rats,” the Great Owl tells Mrs Frisby in the Rats of Nimh.

Mrs Frisby, a mouse, needs help: her son is sick and she has to move out of her house at the edge of a field, because the field will soon be ploughed.

“The rats on Mr Fitzgibbon’s farm have – things – ways – you know nothing about. They are not like the rest of us,” the Great Owl says (hoots). “They are not, I think, even like most other rats.”

But most rats are, of course, like no other. Most rats, like most people, try to distinguish themselves. “Rats are genetically very similar to humans, even more closely related to us than cats or dogs are,” the National Fancy Rat Society says, driving home the similarity of the fancied to us, the fanciers, “They’re curious, intelligent, trainable, omnivorous, social, and eat their food sitting on their haunches, grasping it with their tiny front feet.”

The NFRS owes its existence to a woman named Mary Douglas who, in 1901, convinced the National Mouse Club to admit her rat to an exhibition. It won best in show. (“The judge was one Walter Maxey, a man who is widely known as the father of the mouse fancy, as Mary was later known as the mother of the rat fancy,” the NFRS history page says. Among the society’s current leaders is a woman with the surname Feline.) Rat fanciers used to tie ribbons around the necks of their pets. Charming!

In Australia, rats learned, in two years, how to kill cane toads, eat their hearts and carve out their organs with “surgical precision”, a scientist told Guardian Australia’s Naaman Zhou, a reporter committed to uncovering the (beautiful) truth about rats (and Ratatouille). Cane toads have poisonous gallbladders: the rats removed these. Using their miniature hands and pointy claws, they peeled off the poisonous skin and ate the thigh muscle. (The secret at the heart of The Secret of Nimh, the eerie, reverent movie version of the book: “We can no longer live as rats: we know too much.”)

The film Ratatouille is about a rat. It is also, naturally, about becoming an artist. “You must be imaginative, strong-hearted. You must try things that may not work,” says Auguste Gusteau, a human chef; and Remy, the main character/rat listens.

The New York Times said the film was “a nearly flawless piece of popular art, as well as one of the most persuasive portraits of an artist ever committed to film”.

If you want to make a portrait of an artist, then, too, “You must go to the rats”, natural emissaries, natural vessels for a story of the pursuit of perfection. Except, I would argue, in the case of poetry. Poets are confounded by rats and must resort to prose to survive. Here is Matthew Sweeney:

I walked along Rue du Faubourg du Temple on the way to Belleville and I stopped at a shop selling rat poison. To my astonishment and my amusement they had a window full of stuffed rats, including four small rats standing round a table, playing cards. I liked that very much.

When I was eight, I had two pet rats. I can’t remember their names. I remember their pink wax flower ears, the way one would crawl up the sleeve of my pyjamas while I watched The Simpsons. Its cold, bony, sentient tail falling out: “And the way when you put them on your shoulder their awful tail curls around the back of your neck”, a friend tells me when we reveal to each other that both of us owned pet rats (I’d deny it to almost anyone else). Pet rats and our names written on a grain of rice inside a tiny glass vial on black cord, bought from a market.

And how when you approach their cage, or they are curious, they lift their twitching noses into the air, then lift their front paws up from the ground, and finally rise up and sit, the size and shape of a pear, on their back legs.

• Helen Sullivan is a Guardian journalist. She is writing a memoir for Scribner Australia

• Do you have an animal, insect or other subject you’d like to see profiled by this columnist? Email [email protected]