US scientists have said that the Arctic has ended the winter with the lowest sea ice coverage on record, according to the Press Association. The Arctic tends to reach its maximum sea ice level in February or March each year and then starts a melt season through to September, the article explains. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre has reported that the peak measurement taken on Saturday was about 30,000 square miles smaller than the lowest previous peak in 2017, which the Associated Press describes as a “difference about the size of California”. With the Arctic warming four times faster than the rest of the world, this latest development is “a symptom of climate change that will have repercussions globally”, the article explains. The article quotes Jennifer Francis, who warned that “disappearing sea ice is a particularly worrisome story because it’s truly an early warning system alerting us about a variety of hard-to-see changes”. In its reporting, the New York Times notes that, under the Trump administration, US scientific agencies monitoring weather and climate data – similar to the National Snow and Ice Data Centre – have been under threat.

Meanwhile, the Guardian’s “Weatherwatch” column reports that warmer waters last year drove a “higher-than-expected rise in [global] sea level”, with thermal expansion of the oceans making up a bigger share of sea level rise than melting polar ice.v

The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has offered fossil fuel companies an “extraordinary opportunity” to avoid their requirements to curb air pollution, the Guardian reports. It has set up a new email address, where companies operating coal and oil power plants can request a presidential exemption from their obligations to cut dangerous toxins under the Clean Air Act, the article explains. The newspaper says that, during his presidential campaign, Donald Trump pledged to repeal environmental laws and allow “unfettered fossil fuel expansion”, but notes that “rewriting these rules will take time”. This is why his government has “turned to an obscure and rarely used corner of the Clean Air Act to suspend pollution rules”, it continues. This allows businesses to be exempt if the technologies to curb emission are not available and the project is in the national security interest, the article explains. The policy allows for companies to apply for exemptions on restrictions to chemicals, such as mercury and arsenic, the New York Times says. These could last for up to two years, the maximum allowed under the Clean Air Act, the article adds. The Hill notes that this comes after Trump said that he plans to bolster US coal power.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are accusing Trump’s EPA of trying to illegally cancel hundreds of grants and “sometimes citing faulty authority to do so”, according to E&E News. The news outlet explains that Democrats on the Senate’s environment and public works committee have obtained a list of 400 grants that the EPA is aiming to cancel. The grants, many of which were funded through president Joe Biden’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), include support for communities affected by wildfires and efforts to tackle air pollution, the Los Angeles Times reports. The EPA has described the grants as “unnecessary programmes”, costing more than $1.7bn, but a letter from the senators argues that their termination is a violation of contractual obligations and court orders, the newspaper explains. Bloomberg has an article about how the Trump administration aims to revoke the EPA’s “endangerment finding”, which underpins many federal climate laws. Meanwhile, an article in the New York Times focuses on a law professor who helped create legislation to force fossil-fuel companies to pay for climate damage and is now facing a “campaign to discredit [her]”.

Separately, oil executives are warning that Trump’s tariffs and his “drill, baby, drill” message are disrupting energy markets, which “is already affecting investment”, according to an anonymous survey conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, CNBC reports. Bloomberg says the survey is “full of anonymous energy executives complaining about how the new Trump administration is creating massive uncertainty for their business”. Reuters say US oil producers are also “grappling with geological limits to production growth”, as the Permian basin – the nation’s top oilfield – nears peak output.

Finally, the Washington Post reports that Elon Musk’s Tesla “will be insulated from the brunt of Trump’s latest trade directive, as the bulk of its parts are made in the US and Canada”. And a new draft proposal sent to Ukraine by the US on Sunday is pushing for “a sweeping new deal to control Ukraine’s critical minerals and energy assets”, while offering no security guarantees in return, the Financial Times reports.

The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions dropped by 4% in 2024 as the country’s last coal power plant closed and industrial emissions fell, according to provisional figures reported by Reuters. Emissions were estimated at 371m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2024, down from 385MtCO2e in 2023, the article notes. This aligns with recent Carbon Brief analysis, which correctly calculated that emissions had dropped to 371MtCO2e last year. Electricity supply drove the largest share of the reduction, according to Sky News, while last year was a record for renewable energy generation. The news outlet says renewables provided 50.8% of the UK’s electricity in 2024 – marking the first year renewables have exceeded 50%. Grimsby Live reports that British Steel has launched a consultation that could threaten 2,700 jobs at Scunthorpe steelworks by early June. The company’s Chinese owner, Jingye, has been in talks with the government for months on plans to build low-carbon electric arc furnaces at the site, “but was not able to reach an agreement”, according to the Guardian. 

The prospect of closing the steel plant is the “culmination of decades of decline in Britain’s steel industry”, Reuters says. It quotes a statement from British Steel, which blamed “highly challenging market conditions, the imposition of tariffs and higher environmental costs relating to the production of high-carbon steel”. The Times quotes Allan Bell, British Steel’s chief commercial officer, who recently told the House of Commons that the steel sector has also been harmed by the Trump administration’s tariffs on global steel imports. The Guardian reports that Nigel Farage, the leader of the hard-right, populist Reform UK, has told journalists that net-zero policies, rather than the threat of Trump tariffs, are to blame for the planned closure of Scunthorpe’s steel plant. The Daily Mail quotes Farage saying that “net-zero at the next election will be the next Brexit”.

In other news, the i newspaper has a “big read” about the “inside job” to undermine Ed Miliband. The energy secretary has faced briefings against him from inside the Labour government and what concerns his allies is that “this is not just run-of-the-mill Westminster backbiting, but part of an orchestrated campaign”, the article says. It also cites concerns from a “Miliband ally” that the government is “looking to target net-zero [as] part of a bigger agenda of neutering possible attacks from the populist-right”.

Climate activist group Just Stop Oil has announced that it will no longer carry out disruptive protests, stating that its demand for the government to end new licenses for unexplored oil and gas fields has been met, according to Bloomberg. The group now says the UK should work with other nations to establish a legally binding treaty to end the extraction of fossil fuels by 2030, the news outlet adds. It notes that Labour prime minister Keir Starmer has “declined to cancel oil and gas licenses already granted by the Conservative government, another of the group’s demands”. The Guardian reports that a Just Stop Oil source said their campaigning would culminate with a final protest in Parliament Square, London, on 26 April. Beyond that, their action would continue “in the courts and in the prisons”, but not on the streets, the source tells the newspaper. The article explains that “laws have been passed in recent years that have made it increasingly difficult and risky to carry out disruptive protest”. Reuters notes that many Just Stop Oil activists have been given long jail terms. The group stated that many of its supporters already “take action with other groups” and that this was expected to continue, the Financial Times adds. Right-leaning newspapers, including the Sun and the Daily Mail, frame the decision by Just Stop Oil as coming after the government – and specifically energy secretary Ed Miliband – “caved” to the group’s demands. The Independent has a list of “the most controversial Just Stop Oil protests”.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton has “fired a salvo on energy prices”, with a pledge to force more export gas into the domestic market in a bid to drive down electricity bills, according to the Australian Financial Review. In his reply to this week’s budget, Dutton said he would bring in lower prices with his “national gas plan”, it adds. The plan would see 50-100 petajoules of gas intended for export redirected to domestic markets, Bloomberg reports. It quotes Dutton, who said “this is about ensuring Australian gas is for Australians”. The article adds that Australia is one of the world’s biggest gas exporters and a major provider for major Asian markets. “Some experts have said before that a solution to electricity price rises is not to have more fossil fuels – like gas – but less, while speeding up the penetration of renewables and storage,” the Guardian says. Another Australian Financial Review article points out that successive Australian leaders have pledged to cut electricity prices. It adds that the nation is reliant upon an “ageing and increasingly unreliable fleet of coal-fired power stations”, which needs replacing. “Whether governments choose to do that with renewables, nuclear or something else entirely, it’s going to cost a lot of money,” it adds.

Dutton’s pledge came ahead of the announcement by Labor prime minister Anthony Albanese of a 3 May election, in which Dutton’s coalition is expected “to pick up seats in the House of Representatives”, the Associated Press reports. The article notes that both of the main parties have pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, but the opposition says it will achieve this goal by building nuclear power, instead of prioritising renewables. “The opposition also advocates adding new gas-fired power generation to maintain electricity supply until nuclear power arrives,” it adds.

Finally, the Canberra Times says the National party, one half of Dutton’s coalition, is “back[ing]” half of Australia’s planned offshore wind zones. However, the newspaper says the party “has firmly backed…nuclear as the long-term energy solution”.

China’s top climate envoy Liu Zhenmin has said that the world’s transition to clean energy will continue, even as the US’s second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement puts unprecedented stress on the fight against global warming, reports Bloomberg. Liu’s remark came during the Boao Forum for Asia – an influential conference attended by Asian leaders, according to the outlet. It adds that “developed countries have promised to pony up $300bn a year for the effort, and Liu said it was incumbent on those that remain to meet that goal even without Washington”. State-supporting newspaper Global Times reports that climate change and green transition have become “hot topics” at the Boao Forum for Asia. An article by China Securities Journal also covers the forum and says its secretary general Zhang Jun emphasised on green development and energy transition. 

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that China and France will “hold three high-level dialogues” in 2025. The news agency adds that both sides “commended their countries’ joint efforts towards addressing climate challenges” and agreed to “deepen cooperation” in fields including nuclear energy, “intelligent connected vehicles” and green hydrogen. A spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry, Guo Jiakun, said yesterday that the Trump administration’s fresh 25% auto tariffs move “violates WTO regulations” and “undermines the rule-based multilateral trading system”, Xinhua reports. Chinese president Xi Jinping is expected to meet heads of German automakers BMW and Mercedes on Friday this week in Beijing, Reuters reports.

Elsewhere, the National Energy Administration (NEA) says that the “accelerated construction” of a “new energy system” and a new “electricity system” has raised “higher requirements for the safe and stable supply of electricity”, industry news outlet BJX News reports. Ma Jun, president of the Institute of Green Development and Chairman of the Hong Kong Green Finance Association, says in an interview with the National Business Daily (NBD) that south-east Asia is becoming a favourable destination for Chinese green enterprises expanding overseas. State-run newspaper China Daily says that China is “advancing an intelligent environmental monitoring system that integrates space, air, ground and sea”. State broadcaster CCTV reports that there are currently more than 1.4m EV-related enterprises in China. And the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reports China will begin the construction of the “world’s first fusion-fission hybrid power plant”, which is expected to generate 0.1 gigawatt of electricity and connect to the grid by the end of the decade.

Deutschlandfunk reports that opposition parties and environmental groups have criticised the interim results of Germany’s coalition negotiations between CDU/CSU and SPD on climate and energy. The Greens “accuse” the likely coalition partners of “cementing Germany’s dependence on fossil fuels for decades”. Environmental organisations Greenpeace, Deutsche Umwelthilfe, WWF and BUND demand that the Building Energy Act (GEG), which aims to increase renewable heating, be maintained, notes the outlet. Frankfurter Rundschau highlights that GEG remains a major “sticking point”, with CDU/CSU wanting to abolish it, while SPD insists all citizens should have “socially equitable and climate-neutral heating” by 2045. Der Spiegel outlines the next German government’s plans, including cutting electricity prices by at least five pence per kilowatt-hour, leaving “little financial room” for a climate dividend. However, climate targets remain, notes the outlet, with CDU/CSU and SPD supporting emissions trading, which will gradually make oil and gas heating “obsolete”. The coalition also plans to prioritise cars, showing little ambition for public transport or railway reforms, the article adds.  

Meanwhile, Deutsche Welle reports on debates about reopening Nord Stream pipelines. It cites CDU federal parliament member Thomas Bareiss, who suggested that, once peace is restored in Ukraine, relations with Russia “may normalise” and gas could “flow again”, with the pipelines possibly being under the US control. Another Deutsche Welle article reports outgoing chancellor Olaf Scholz’s statement at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue, where he expressed “deep regret” over the US exit from the Paris Agreement. And Germany’s outgoing environment minister Steffi Lemke has warned that the EU must resist pressure to weaken climate targets for cars following Trump’s new tariffs on imported vehicles, Bloomberg reports. 

Finally, WirtschaftsWoche reports that the German chemical giant BASF has sold its 49% stake in the offshore wind farms Nordlicht 1 and 2, construction of which is planned to begin in 2026 and have a total capacity of 1.6GW. The company cited “lower-than-expected” green electricity demand by 2028, the outlet notes.

Patrick Maguire, chief political commentator at the Times, writes that the UK chancellor Rachel Reeves’s “unbending refusal to borrow” means that more cuts to benefits are likely on the way, with “net-zero also a target”. He writes: “Cuts to welfare and international aid prove nothing is as sacred to this Labour government as the small print.” The article concludes: “Already there are faint but audible whispers from its centre that Ed Miliband’s net-zero agenda could be next, even though green energy infrastructure is woven into all ministers are doing on planning.”

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail has an editorial (not yet online) titled “steel must be saved”, in which it lays the blame for the likely closure of the Scunthorpe steelworks primarily on the UK’s “pursuit of unrealistic net-zero targets”. [The company has attributed the closure to “highly challenging market conditions” and “the imposition of tariffs”, as well as additional environmental costs.] The editorial says: “How strange this new era of deindustrialisation. National security is undermined but at least the green elite can boast about a reduced carbon footprint.”

Finally, Times columnist Jawad Iqbal has an article taking aim at Just Stop OIl, following the news that the protest group plans to end their disruptive actions. He says the group’s claim that they achieved a victory, with the government consulting on ending new licences for oil and gas drilling, is “somewhat far-fetched”. He concludes: “They can claim ultimate victory as much as they like. They will be remembered, if at all, for their self-promotion and self-sabotaging stunts.”

A new study finds that the “biological carbon pump” – the system of transporting carbon from the surface ocean to the deep ocean – is worth $928bn per year. Using an Earth system model, researchers estimate the amount of carbon sequestered in the deep ocean by the biological pump, then use market prices to value this storage. They find that 59% of global carbon sequestration occurs in areas beyond national jurisdiction (the so-called “high seas”). Further, they identify the eastern Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean, as well as the western coasts of Africa and the Americas as “hotspots of carbon sequestration”, saying that these regions should be prioritised as targets for conservation.

“Delaying action” on deforestation and forest degradation by five years “doubles” the costs of mitigating climate change, according to new research. Using an energy-economy model and a land-use model, researchers investigate the cost of different mitigation measures under a middle-of-the-road emissions pathway. They find that meeting climate objectives would be possible, even with forest disturbances, but only with “accelerated decarbonisation”. They conclude: “Our results suggest that immediate, ambitious mitigation action is the most effective way to prepare for so-far underexplored consequences” of forest disturbances.