Record-high temperatures helped drive a “surge” in global energy demand growth in 2024, the Financial Times reports, covering a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA). According to the newspaper, the IEA finds that greenhouse gas emissions from energy use rose 0.8% in 2024, half of which was due to increased demand for cooling. The newspaper continues: “Intense heatwaves in China and India drove up the use of coal to generate the electricity needed to power air conditioners, helping push global energy demand up 2.2% compared with a rate of 1.3% over the previous decade and a 1.8% rise the previous year. The rollout of electric cars and the expansion of data centres needed for artificial intelligence were also to blame for rising power demands, it said, with server capacity increasing by a fifth – mostly in the US and China…Global electricity consumption rose by nearly 1,100 terawatt hours, more than twice the average annual increase over the past decade.” BusinessGreen reports that “most of the increase in demand was covered by new renewable power capacity, which rose by around 700GW [gigawatts] globally, setting a new annual record for the 22nd consecutive year”. It continues: “But the rapid increase in clean energy generation was not sufficient to fully offset increased demand for energy…As a result, hopes [that] energy-related emissions would peak appear to have been dashed, with global emissions rising by just shy of 1% last year.” The Wall Street Journal reports that “emerging and developing economies” accounted for more than 80% of overall energy demand growth. The New York Times calls the link between temperature and emissions a “troubling feedback loop”. Climate Home News also covers the story.

Chinese electric vehicle (EV) company BYD has reported global revenues of more than $100bn for the first time, “outstripping Elon Musk’s Tesla”, the Times reports. The newspaper says that BYD has “overtaken US rival Tesla in the global battle for supremacy in the EV market”. In a frontpage story, the Financial Times says: “Unlike its US rival Tesla, which only sells fully electric vehicles and reported revenue of $98bn last year, BYD has benefited from resurgent demand in China for hybrid vehicles.” Reuters reports that BYD’s profit “leapt 73% in the fourth quarter of 2024 to a record 15bn yuan ($2.1bn)”. The company is “reaping the rewards of lower prices and higher sales than rivals”, the newswire adds. The Daily Telegraph says this is the first time that a Chinese company has “overtaken Tesla’s revenues on an annual basis”. Bloomberg reports that 2025 is “off to a strong start” for BYD. The Guardian reports that Tesla’s Europe sales dropped nearly 45% year-on-year in February. Reuters reports that EV sales grew in Europe overall “despite Tesla’s decline”. It says that battery EVs accounted for 15.2% of sales in the EU during January and February 2025, up from 11.5% during the same period in 2024.

The US supreme court has declined to hear the “Juliana” climate lawsuit by 21 “youth activists”, Reuters reports. According to the newswire, the “young people” asked the court to “revive a novel lawsuit claiming the US government’s energy policies violate their rights to be protected from climate change”. CNN says the case was first filed by 21 children and teenagers in 2015. It adds: “The group has repeatedly lost in federal courts and the question for the justices was a procedural issue dealing with whether the group had established standing to sue. The 9th US circuit court of appeals ruled that the group does not and it had ordered a federal district court to dismiss the case.” The Associated Press says the plaintiffs now range from 17 to 29 years old. The New York Times says the case has “provided a blueprint for numerous other climate-related lawsuits that have had greater success”. It continues: “Juliana vs US argued that the government had violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs with policies that encouraged the use of fossil fuels. But it was dismissed by the US court of appeals for the ninth circuit, where the judges ruled that courts were not the right venue to address climate change.” Bloomberg also covers the story.

Donald Trump has issued an executive order that could impose tariffs of 25% on all goods imported into the US from any country that imports Venezuelan oil, the New York Times reports. The newspaper says: “On or after 2 April, a tariff of 25% may be imposed on all goods imported into the United States from any country that imports Venezuelan oil, either directly or indirectly through third parties, the order said.” It continues: “This unconventional use of tariffs could further disrupt the global oil trade as buyers of Venezuelan oil seek alternatives. The US and China have been the top buyers of Venezuelan oil in recent months, according to Rystad Energy, a research and consulting firm. India and Spain also buy a small amount of crude from the South American country.” CNN says: “Trump claimed, without evidence, Venezuela has ‘purposefully and deceitfully’ sent criminals, including violent individuals and members of gangs like Tren de Aragua, to the US.” Reuters reports that oil prices rose 1% on Monday in response to the announcement. The Financial Times reports on its frontpage that Venezuela exported 660,000 barrels a day of crude oil globally last year. BBC News and the Press Association also cover the story.

In other US news, Inside Climate News reports that despite staff and budget cuts, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “continues to publish critical climate information”. The outlet reports on NOAA’s spring outlook, which includes “dire drought warnings”. CNN reports on Trump’s efforts to cut funding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), noting that there was a “major disaster” every four days in 2024. It continues: “It’s not just FEMA’s perception that threats are increasing – there were 90 declarations of ‘major disasters’ in 2024. It was one of the worst years for disaster declarations in the last three decades (1995-2024), according to a new analysis from the International Institute for Environment and Development, or IIED, shared exclusively with CNN.” Separately, CNN covers NASA staff reactions to recent layoffs in the agency. And Axios says: “Fears have grown among National Weather Service advocates that the Trump administration is seeking to privatise or significantly downsize it – moves they say would undo a careful division of labour among government, academia and the private sector. Finally, Inside Climate News reports that the Environmental Protection Agency has cancelled $116m in grants that were designed to “make US industry cleaner and more competitive by improving measurement of emissions from building materials”. 

North Sea industry group Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) has said the country could produce half its demand for oil and gas locally under the “right business conditions”, the Financial Times reports. The newspaper continues: “OEUK said the country is on track to produce 4bn barrels of oil and gas equivalent of the 13bn-15bn forecast for use by the independent Climate Change Committee [CCC], in line with the UK’s 2050 net-zero emissions pathway. But the North Sea could produce another 2bn-3bn barrels if companies were encouraged to invest, adding £150bn of economic value over the £200bn expected under current plans.” According to the i newspaper, OEUK argues that domestic energy supplies would support jobs, consumers and the economy. Bloomberg notes that the Labour government has committed to end new oil and gas exploration licenses. It adds that the government “has started consultations on the future of the North Sea”, which includes “a new fiscal regime for oil and gas companies to replace a controversial windfall levy after 2030”. The Sun reports that 40% of the UK’s energy is imported. [The CCC’s pathway to net-zero by 2050 sees oil imports falling tenfold and gas imports by two-thirds.] The Press Association and the Times also cover the story.

In other UK news, the Times is part of ongoing coverage according to which, the newspaper says, energy secretary Ed Miliband is set to “overturn measures that would have barred companies found to have used forced labour from playing any part in the UK’s race to net-zero”. The newspaper says an amendment added to the Great British Energy bill aims to stop money being spent by the state-owned firm on solar panels and other materials where there is “credible evidence of modern slavery” in supply chains. It continues: “The House of Lords voted in favour of the amendment by 175 votes to 125 votes in February. However, on Tuesday the government will whip MPs to vote down the amendment.” The newspaper reports that many of the solar panels used in Britain come from China. It adds that the Xinjiang region, where more than 2.6 million people are in labour camps, produces 35-40% of the world’s polysilicon – an important raw material for solar panels. Separately, the Sun reports that more than six Labour MPs have announced that they will support the vote today. It says the UK’s “independent anti-slavery commissioner, trade union Unison and human rights groups also back the amendments”. It adds: “Last night the Department for Net Zero locked into negotiations with potential rebel MPs on a compromise.” The Daily Mail covers the story on its frontpage under the headline “Labour to block bid to ban solar panels made by slaves”. A Daily Mail editorial says: “Labour’s charlatans are more interested in maligning the achievements of the British empire, it seems, than actually confronting very real suffering taking place in the here-and-now.”

Elsewhere, the Guardian reports that “nature charities”, including the RSPB and National Trust, have urged ministers to “stop scapegoating nature for planning failures”. BusinessGreen covers analysis from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, which finds that the rise in Ofgem’s price cap from April “will take the average energy bill for a home with an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of band F to around £2,340”. According to the newspaper, the analysis finds that families living in band F homes could soon pay £700 more on their average annual energy bills than those in band C homes – the threshold the government wants to see all homes reach by 2035. The Daily Telegraph reports that landlords who rent to students “face the highest energy upgrade bills under Ed Miliband’s net-zero plans”. The Press Association reports that the government has pledged to cut shipping emissions 30% by 2030 in its new maritime decarbonisation strategy. [It does not say what the baseline for the reductions will be.] The newswire continues: “As part of the plan, the shipping sector will be brought under the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, meaning operators of the worst-polluting will pay more for their greenhouse gas emissions. Maritime minister Mike Kane will launch the strategy in Portsmouth on Tuesday.” The Daily Telegraph carries a warning that “rogue traders” may be fitting heat pumps in new homes. The MailOnline says: “Green energy bosses are at odds over the future of Britain’s electricity grid as Labour mulls the introduction of zonal pricing.” And the Daily Telegraph reports that “the Department for Transport paid out tens of thousands of pounds to fraudsters who pretended to have installed chargers outside their homes”.

China’s Ministry of Finance says its 2025 fiscal policy will “steadily advance ‘dual-carbon’ goals, strengthen support for the research and development and promotion of green and low-carbon advanced technologies, promote green and low-carbon transformation in key industries, vigorously support the development of renewable energy, and continue to promote new energy vehicles”, industry news outlet BJX News reports. The Communist Party-affiliated newspaper People’s Daily says the National Energy Administration has released a new policy on “distributed” (smaller-scale) solar in the rural areas. Xinhua publishes an article suggesting desertification prevention and control “should be integrated with new energy initiatives”.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg says that China’s low-carbon transition is now “at a critical juncture”, facing challenges including “oversupply in the solar sector, declining power prices, and continued reliance on fossil fuels”. The outlet adds that despite investing over $800bn in the renewable energy sector last year – equivalent to 4.5% of its GDP – the country still needs to address the problem of “balancing its ambitious climate goals with delivering energy security”. Power industry news outlet Dianlian Xinmei reports on oversupply in Chinese renewable industries. Separately, Reuters publishes an article under the title: “Cobalt prices surge on China’s stockpiling plan and export ban extension threat.” Another Reuters report says that China’s Sinopec, the world’s largest oil refiner by capacity, has reported a 16.8% decline in net profit last year, partly due to the “accelerated development” of the EV industry. Apple will set up a $99m investment fund in China, aiming to “add around 550,000 megawatt-hours of wind and solar energy generation capacity to China’s power grid each year”, business news outlet Yicai reports.

Elsewhere, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) covers a report by the Sydney-based thinktank Climate Energy Finance, which says the Trump administration’s “‘retrograde policy changes’ towards China’s solar industry risk harming America’s own clean energy sector”. SCMP publishes another article under the headline: “Nigeria courts Chinese investment as interest booms in oil, gas and bigger opportunities.” Separately, Laos has signed a $1.45bn clean energy deal with a Chinese power plant equipment manufacturer to further its “push into clean power generation and transmission”, Reuters reports. 

In an article for Climate Home News, Kenya’s special envoy for climate change, Ali Mohamed, argues in support of a proposed carbon levy on the shipping industry. He says that Kenya “urgently supports” the levy, adding that it will “deliver climate finance where it’s most needed while decarbonising a critical global sector”. Mohamed continues: “The levy promises not just revenue, but a framework for equitable progress, if designed with precision…Investments in zero-emission vessels, renewable fuels, and resilient port infrastructure can ensure developing nations thrive in a low-carbon economy. A well-crafted levy would hasten this shift while funneling revenue to communities hardest hit by climate change. Kenya’s coastal populations, reeling from eroded shorelines and depleted fisheries, exemplify the stakes.” He adds that more than 60 countries back the proposal.

Elsewhere, Financial Times US financial commentator Robert Armstrong and financial reporter AIden Reiter comment on Trump’s latest tariff announcement. They say: “If the tone of the administration’s rhetoric is any indication, for oil and for markets generally, low prices are not the administration’s real priority. US industrial primacy is.” In Le Monde, columnist Stéphane Lauer writes that Trump “will make the US fall behind in the strategic battle of decarbonisation”. Elsewhere, Reuters global energy transition columnist Gavin Maguire comments on yesterday’s IEA report: “Demand for cooling systems is set to jump sharply from June, which will place fresh pressure on power firms to boost production from whatever sources are available. And if gas prices remain elevated and coal prices remain relatively cheap by then, a fresh surge in emissions can be expected as power firms opt to deploy the most cost effective means to boost output while they seek to protect profit margins.”

Stephen Bush, an associate editor and columnist at the Financial Times, writes that “the opposition under [Kemi] Badenoch desperately wants a national project more suited to Conservative pieties than net-zero”. Bush says the Conservative party’s commitment to net-zero “made it an outlier among parties of the centre-right for a long time”, noting the contributions of Margaret Thatcher, John Major and David Cameron. However, he adds: “The British Conservatives are no longer an exception as far as climate is concerned. First Rishi Sunak, and now Kemi Badenoch, have watered down the party’s climate commitments under the guise of ‘realism’.” Bush says one reason for the change is that “the green transition is now seen as a way to smuggle leftwing ideas in by the back door”. Another reason is to “neutralise the Reform UK threat”, he adds. However, Bush also says the “Conservative retreat from net-zero” is about “retreating from seriousness”, adding: “Instead of the two choices facing the UK – spending money to reach net-zero or spending rather more money to try to survive in a chaotic world where net-zero is abandoned – [Badenoch] proposes the UK do neither.” Elsewhere, Esin Serin from the London School of Economics’ Grantham Institute writes in BusinessGreen that “cutting clean investment in the [chancellor’s upcoming] spring statement would be bad economics and poor politics”. Serin outlines the findings of a joint report by LSE and Cambridge, which argues that “ambitious investment” is needed to “kickstart sustainable growth”. Separately, Mark Caskey from energy services company Mitie writes in BusinessGreen that the “government must be willing to lend more support to the private sector to help decarbonise UK real estate”. In the Daily Telegraph, columnist and leader writer  Tim Stanley asks if net-zero will be the “death knell” for Ed Miliband’s career. He writes: “Rachel Reeves, having killed the private sector with her first budget, is now all about cuts and growth – and net-zero is perceived to be a costly jobs killer.”

A combination of carbon-cycle feedbacks and top-end climate sensitivity could “drastically enhance future warming”, even under intermediate emissions, a new study suggests. Using a “fast” Earth system model, the researchers ran simulations for the next millennium incorporating the “very likely” range (2-5C) of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. With an ECS of 5C, “peak warming in all considered scenarios more than doubles compared to an ECS of 3C”, the study finds. It explains that “approximately 50% of this additional warming is attributed to positive climate-carbon cycle feedbacks”. The authors also note that limiting warming to 2C is “only feasible for low emission scenarios and if ECS is lower than 3.5C”.