China has banned exports to the US of items “related to the minerals gallium, germanium and antimony that have potential military applications”, following the US’ “latest crackdown on China’s chip sector”, Reuters reports. The newswire adds that the new “curbs” on the minerals, all of which are used in low-carbon technologies, “strengthen enforcement of existing limits” on the minerals. Bloomberg quotes Joe Mazur, senior analyst at consultancy Trivium China, saying the ban is a “clear signal that China is preparing to strike back more forcefully against US economic pressure than it has in the past”. China tightened restrictions on exporting the minerals to the US to “safeguard its national security and interests”, the state-run newspaper China Daily reports. State news agency Xinhua quotes a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) saying that the US has “overgeneralised the concept of national security, politicised and weaponised economic, trade and technological issues, abused export control measures, and imposed unwarranted restrictions” on China. Chinese news outlet Phoenix News notes that MOFCOM’s response used “extremely strong” language that meant traders should be “cautious”. The Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the Associated Press, the New York Times, Securities Times, Science and Technology Daily, China.com.cn, Cailian She and Lianhe Zaobao also cover the story. 

Meanwhile, “green hydrogen” projects will not be eligible for EU subsidies if Chinese electrolysers “account for more than 25%” of their output, Nikkei Asia reports. Energy news outlet International Energy Net reports that hydrogen energy has been “clearly listed as an encouraged industry” in ten provinces and cities in China in a recent policy document. China needs to “boost investment in a new generation of clean energy technology”, such as “storage, hydrogen and sustainable aviation fuel”, SCMP says, adding that “huge funding” for low-carbon technologies has “left supply chains saturated, squeezing company profits and raising international trade tensions”.

Elsewhere, a comment article published in Nature co-authored by former China climate envoy Xie Zhenhua, vice-chair of the National Expert Panel on Climate Change of China Wang Yi, representatives of the California-China Climate Institute and others argues that subnational climate cooperation “can play a crucial part in supporting dialogue and collaboration” between the US and China in several key areas. An anonymous commentary in the state-supporting newspaper Global Times writes that “Western media” have “deliberately turn[ed] a blind eye” to China’s efforts to address climate change. The Times reports that year-on-year Tesla sales slumped in China, as purchases of Chinese EV brand BYD surge. The Guardian reports that China’s share of the global electric vehicle market reached 76% in October, according to the country’s automotive trade body.

A frontpage story in the Guardian says that UK ministers are considering renationalising British Steel “amid a standoff between the government and the company’s Chinese owners”, who want large government investment to help move towards less emissions-intensive steel production. It continues: “Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, is locked in talks with British Steel and its owner, Jingye, to agree how much each party should put into a rescue plan for its main Scunthorpe site. But with the discussions showing little sign of progress, sources say Reynolds is open to taking it over entirely, in a move that would reverse Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation of the British steel industry in 1988.” The Times reports that renationalisation is one of a range of options being considered by the government, with finding a new owner or putting the company into administration possible alternatives. A “Whitehall insider” tells the Daily Telegraph: “It is one of several options being looked at. We would have been negligent not to look at it. But it is the least attractive option. We would be talking substantial sums of money to buy not very much.”

Elsewhere, there is much coverage of the news that four of the UK’s oldest nuclear plants will be kept open longer than planned. The Financial Times reports that French state-owned energy giant EDF said two stations currently due to close in March 2026 – Hartlepool and Heysham 1 – will now remain online until March 2027, while Heysham 2 and Torness, that were scheduled to close in March 2028, will stay open until March 2030. It continues: “The plants, three in northern England and one in southern Scotland, were built in the 1980s and were originally meant to close in 2023, but their working lives have already been extended once. The latest extension will help make up for the delay to the Hinkley Point C power plant that EDF is building in Somerset. It is currently due to start generating in 2029 at the earliest, four years later than its original date.” The four nuclear power stations are capable of producing 4.6GW of electricity, enough to power millions of homes, the Times says. BBC News reports that the closure of Torness, Scotland’s last nuclear plant, was previously scheduled for 2028 after the discovery of cracks in the graphite bricks, which make up the reactor cores of the UK’s advanced gas-cooled power stations. However, it reports that EDF says “it has spent several years studying the progress of cracking and engineers feel they have a better understanding of the issues”, meaning the site can safely operate until 2030. A frontpage story in the Daily Telegraph baselessly claims the plants are being kept open “amid fears of net-zero blackouts”. Elsewhere, BBC News reports that workers have now fitted the first reactor at Hinkley Point C. 

In other UK news, the Press Association reports that UK prime minister Keir Starmer will meet the Emir of Qatar today to agree a £1bn investment in climate technology. The Times reports that a Reform MP is leading a conspiracy theory-driven boycott of the dairy company Arla, over its decision to feed cows an additive that causes them to belch out less methane.

Reuters reports that Biden administration officials will not finalise guidelines on new clean fuel production tax credits aimed at the airline and biofuel industries before leaving office, according to three separate sources. It says: “The tax credit, the engine behind president Joe Biden’s ambitious plan to generate 3bn gallons in production of sustainable aviation fuels by 2030, was due to become effective 1 January, but a lack of detailed guidance from the US Treasury would render the programme dormant.” Separately, Reuters reports that climate envoy John Podesta announced that Biden’s administration has reached a milestone of awarding over $100bn in grants through the Inflation Reduction Act, adding: “The administration hopes the spending milestone will help to continue the deployment of clean energy even after president-elect Donald Trump.” The LA Times Boiling Point newsletter says “Biden is running out of time to lock in climate action”, noting that the US energy department recently awarded a $6.6bn conditional loan to electric vehicle maker Rivian, “to help the southern California company finish building an EV factory in Georgia”.

Malaysia and southern Thailand are facing continuing severe floods driven by extreme monsoon rains, the Associated Press reports, with more than 30 people killed and tens of thousands displaced. The Independent reports that Malaysian prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim, said some parts of the east coast received more than six months’ worth of rainfall in just five days, destroying infrastructure, homes and farmland. Al Jazeera adds: “While the two southeast Asian countries experience annual monsoon rains, scientists say climate change is causing more intense weather patterns that can make destructive floods more likely.”

Guardian environment editor Fiona Harvey reflects on failures at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, saying: “Baku was the second worst climate COP (it stands for conference of the parties, under the UN framework convention on climate change) of the 18 that I have covered. In rancour and division, it was rivalled only by Copenhagen in 2009, which notoriously ended in chaos and discord, though also a partial deal. What failed at Baku – where poor countries received a promise of $1.3tn a year in climate finance by 2035, but only $300bn to come directly from the rich world – is that governments refused to put aside their apparent short-term interests in favour of the real long-term interests they all know are firmly on the side of climate action.” Along with developed nations failing to deliver on finance, “there were other actors, too, for whom short-term apparent self-interest ruled”, she says, continuing: “Saudi Arabia, whose entire wealth is built on oil and gas, has long played an obstructive role at COPs. This year, the negotiating team did not bother to hide it…India also played an intriguing role. With the conference running more than 30 hours overtime, the Azerbaijan presidency thought it had achieved consensus, with poor countries judging a meagre deal better than putting off negotiations to next year with a Trump White House. Then India made a last-minute intervention. Delhi has a long history of trying to prevent climate deals or forcing concessions: in 2011, blocking the roadmap to what became the Paris Agreement; in 2021, forcing the weakening of a resolution to ‘phase out’ coal to a ‘phase down’…In the end, agreement was reached and India, with a handful of allies, claimed to have been ignored. This is not unusual in UN talks – deals are reached by consensus, not unanimity, and if the presidency is satisfied that holdouts have been heard, they can bring down the gavel. Whatever India’s intentions, the outcome was in its favour: without having to scupper a deal that poorer countries desperately needed, India could still vent its anger and claim to be standing up for the developing world.”

Lakshmi Mittal, chairman of ArcelorMittal, a steel manufacturing giant, says Europe must make changes to maintain its steel industry, writing in an article for the Financial Times: “The sober truth is that the European steel industry has never been so challenged, caught as it is between the pincers of decarbonisation costs and the fallout from severe overcapacity, especially in China, which has resulted in increased imports. Steel production in Europe has fallen by nearly a third since the financial crisis, with jobs down by a quarter…If there is genuine commitment to maintain a domestic industry, the combined policy landscape must be tackled together to form a supportive environment that enables European steelmaking to decarbonise and thrive. The lack of this led to our announcement last week explaining why we are not able to take final investment decisions on projects to replace blast furnaces with lower-carbon technology at this point in time. The first challenge is to urgently address imports. Intervention is required so that European steel is better protected, as in the US and Brazil where the industry is considered strategic. Emergency trade measures would be a strong first signal to address this. Second, ensure that the CBAM [carbon border adjustment mechanism] truly achieves its purpose…In particular, CBAM must not allow steel imports from countries that circumvent climate protection by selling into Europe from a few ‘clean’ installations while selling their higher emissions steel into domestic and non-EU markets.”

Writing for Climate Home News, Sikeade Egbuwalo, the biodiversity lead at Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Environment, accuses countries of focusing more on tropical deforestation than the loss of boreal forests in the global north, saying: “International attention has focused almost entirely on tropical deforestation, allowing the wealthiest countries of the global north to avoid accountability for impacts in their own forests. This deeply rooted double standard now jeopardises the implementation of the ambition to halt and reverse forest loss and degradation by 2030, which was enshrined in a declaration at COP26 in 2021 and at COP28 last year.”

The first “ice-free” day in the Arctic Ocean – defined as less than 1m km2 of sea ice cover – could take place as soon as 2027, according to a new study which uses multiple climate models to project when the milestone will be reached. The researchers find a “large range” for when the first projected ice-free day could occur in the northernmost ocean, from as soon as three years to not before 2100. However, analysis of nine different simulations where the event would take place this decade projects an early ice-free day would occur during a rapid ice loss event and be associated with a warm winter and spring.

In a new perspective paper, a group of scientists has called for the use of “clearer and more specific” language to describe the phenomena commonly labelled “tipping points” in climate change discourse. The authors argue the tipping point framing “oversimplifies” complex natural and human systems and is “ineffective for triggering action” on climate change, in part because it “promotes confusion between temperature-based policy targets and the physical properties of the climate system”. The paper also calls for further evaluation of whether, how and why different framings can support scientific understanding and climate action.