The absence of US federal scientists “cast a shadow” over an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the Chinese city of Hangzhou, the Financial Times reports. The IPCC – “the world’s leading climate science body” – was meeting last week “to outline and budget for the seventh iteration of its landmark report”, the newspaper explains. As well as blocking US officials from travelling to the event, the US is “also expected to withdraw funding from the organisation”, the newspaper explains. The US has contributed more to the IPCC since its inception than any other country, it adds. The article quotes Prof Joeri Rogelj from Imperial College London, who said that while the IPCC would not “stand or fall with one single country”, it is “clear that if a large group of very skilled scientists cannot participate any more, this is not going to help”. He added that US scientists could still be able to work with the IPCC if they were nominated by another country or observer organisation.

Meanwhile, there is continuing coverage of the widespread job cuts at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its National Weather Service at the end of last week. BBC News says that around 880 workers were terminated on Thursday. Reuters reports that scientists have warned that the cuts will put US lives at risk and stifle crucial climate research. The newswire says that the job losses are part of a “broadening assault on the federal bureaucracy engineered by President Donald Trump and his aide, billionaire Elon Musk”. The article quotes Jane Lubchenco, the former NOAA administrator under Barack Obama, who said the mass layoffs would not save the government money since NOAA was already a “lean” agency. She added: “The mass firings today at NOAA are a national disaster and a colossal waste of money…Destroying NOAA’s ability to provide life-saving information, keep our ocean healthy and strengthen the economy makes no sense – no sense at all.” Inside Climate News says the “mass firing” of NOAA workers “may be illegal and threatens public safety”. CNN reports that the “terminations seemed to have been done in a way to minimise a paper trail, leaving it difficult for employee organisations and even direct supervisors to know who was fired and when”. The Hill and Time also report on the story.

At the same time, there is reporting on how a backlash against Elon Musk is affecting his EV firm Tesla. MailOnline reports that “dozens of climate change protesters occupied the Tesla showroom in Westfield shopping centre [in London] on Saturday”. The Los Angeles Times reports on protests outside US Tesla stores. The Guardian reports on how Tesla owners are “offload[ing cars after Musk’s fascist-style salutes”. Politico says that “Tesla’s plummeting sales risk its lucrative emissions credit earnings”. And Rana Foroohar, global business columnist and associate editor at the Financial Times, writes that Tesla’s share price “has plummeted from a post-election high of nearly $480 to less than $282 last week”.

In other US news, Axios says that, according to experts, Trump’s “reported determination to overturn the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding on climate change would be extremely difficult – but not impossible”. Inside Climate News also reports on how the finding could be removed. The Financial Times reports that “Trump’s directives deal fatal blow to America’s offshore wind energy industry”. Time reports on how Trump is “trying to undo the Inflation Reduction Act”, while the New York Times reports that trade tariffs are raising costs for the oil industry at a time that Trump wanted to lower them. 

In an “exclusive”, Reuters reports that UK energy secretary Ed Miliband will visit China in March to restart talks on energy cooperation and meet Chinese investors, “as the Labour government seeks closer China ties amid worsening US- and EU-China relations”. On his visit to Beijing on 17-19 March, Miliband will meet with his Chinese counterpart Wang Hongzhi, “to revive the UK-China Energy Dialogue”, the newswire says. On the agenda will be “clean and sustainable energy, as well as energy security”, the article says, but “allowing Chinese firms to provide critical infrastructure, such as nuclear power plants” will “still be off the table”. Miliband will be the third Labour minister to visit China since the party took office, following foreign secretary David Lammy and chancellor Rachel Reeves, the outlet notes, with UK prime minister Keir Starmer “also expected to visit China later this year”. The Daily Telegraph also picks up the story, noting that Miliband’s visit will come “despite growing concerns over Beijing’s involvement” in a floating wind-farm project off the coast of Scotland, which “could be used for spying”.

Meanwhile, the Mail on Sunday reports, on page two of its print edition, that Miliband “could face [the] axe” from the cabinet in a spring reshuffle as Keir Starmer “sidelines the net-zero environmental agenda as part of the government’s ‘dash for growth’”. Citing unnamed “senior Whitehall sources”, but quoting only one of them, the newspaper says that “Miliband’s voice has been increasingly marginalised around the cabinet table as chancellor Rachel Reeves struggles to inject growth into a sluggish economy”. The article quotes a source as saying: “Ed has felt the earth move under his feet since the election…It’s obvious he is not happy, and might jump if he is not pushed.” Today’s Daily Express picks up the Mail’s story (without credit), while Saturday’s Daily Mail goes searching for any local support for fracking in Lincolnshire in an article under the headline: “Frack you, Miliband!” 

Elsewhere, Reuters reports that the UK government’s competition to select companies to develop small modular nuclear reactors is on track to reach a decision in the spring. Although the Daily Telegraph reports that “insiders fear” that Rachel Reeves “is eyeing cuts to Britain’s £20bn mini-nuclear reactor programme amid a scramble to slash government expenditure”. It says: “It was previously suggested that up to three winners would be chosen…But sources said there was concern this has quietly been scaled back to a ‘maximum’ of two – raising the possibility that only one winner will be chosen. Fewer reactors would be built overall as a result.” MailOnline reports that the CEO of Rolls-Royce has warned that the UK risks losing its leadership on SMRs unless the government speeds up its decision-making. The Financial Times has a “big read” on whether “giving old reactors new life the future of nuclear energy”.

In other UK news, BBC News reports that the National Grid has received backing to build a new subsea cable between the UK and Belgium at its preferred location in the Isle of Grain in Kent, instead of in Suffolk. The Times reports that “Europe’s biggest battery storage project goes live in Scotland”. The Times also says that Labour has been ­”accused of prioritising the drive to achieve net-zero over family businesses”. The Sunday Times reports that the “Planning Inspectorate has been plunged into a row over conflicts of interest after thwarting Gatwick airport’s attempts to win rapid approval to build a second runway”. In a frontpage story, the Yorkshire Post says that a “pioneering Yorkshire carbon capture company backed by Drax, BP and the government has made almost all of its staff redundant as a new owner is sought for the business”. The Observer reports on the “backlash” from, respectively, its backbenchers and development groups for cutting foreign aid in favour of defence spending. The Guardian reports that Anneliese Dodds, the international development minister, has quit her post over Keir Starmer’s decision. And DeSmog says that Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch “claims she was always a net-zero sceptic, but in government she hailed net-zero plans as ‘crucial’ for a ‘cleaner greener future’”. 

Finally, there is the usual slew of anti-net-zero stories in the Daily Telegraph, including: analysis trailed on today’s frontpage by an investment bank showing that “net-zero has made Britain poorer”; Keir Starmer saying “Britons can keep eating kebabs“; Lloyds bank scrapping limits on flights by its staff; net-zero is “coming for the property market next”; and farms face being “blocked by net-zero campaigners”.

The China Meteorological Administration (CMA) has published its “China Climate Bulletin” covering 2024, reports Science and Technology Daily. The bulletin says that China’s climate conditions were “unfavourable” overall, with the climate continuing to be “warm” and extreme rainfalls, as well as flood disasters, becoming “prominent”. The national average temperature was 10.9C last year, 1.01C higher than the historical average, making it the hottest year since 1951 when such records began, the outlet adds. Beijing News also covers the story, saying that heavy rainfall events became more frequent last year, with a total of 42 regional heavy rainfall events occurring, higher than the historical average of 38 events per year. Nine typhoons made landfall, nearly two more than “normal”, the newspaper continues. The WeChat account of the China Weather Carbon Neutrality Research Centre carries the full text of the bulletin. Guangming Daily and state news agency Xinhua also cover the story. At the same time, CNN reports that eastern China has been hit by “snow blizzards and record heat” over the weekend.

Meanwhile, economic outlet Cailian Press publishes an article saying that the “hot topics” for the upcoming “two sessions” national political meeting in Beijing are “expanding domestic demand in an all-round way, developing new productive forces…and building a modern industrial system…Specific to the industrial layout, artificial intelligence, low-altitude economy, biomedicine and new energy have become the most consensus industrial directions.” 

Elsewhere, Bloomberg publishes an article under the headline: “China’s slippage on energy targets puts climate goals at risk.” It says that “there are myriad reasons for China’s slippage, from a push on exports to help the economy recover from the pandemic, to an emphasis on high-end manufacturing”. It adds that a “historic decline” in carbon intensity – carbon dioxide produced per unit of GDP growth – is required in 2025 to meet the 14th “five-year plan” targets. Reuters also reports that, despite China having reduced its carbon intensity by 3.4% in 2024, it was “below its goal of 3.9%” and that “the country remains well short of its 2025 target”. Agence France-Presse also covers the story. Bloomberg also has stories on a fall in China’s imports of liquified natural gas, how China could “restart import controls on coal as oversupply mounts” and how China could be “ready to use nuclear fusion for power by 2050”. Politico reports that it has seen analysis – commissioned by the German defence ministry – suggesting “Beijing could remotely shut down wind farms unless Germany bans its suppliers”.

In other news, the Guardian reports that Beijing promises “countermeasures”, saying it will “retaliate” if Chinese companies were affected by the additional 10% tariffs imposed on Chinese imports by the US. The US tariffs on imports of Chinese steel have now reached 70%, according to Mysteel, a Shanghai-based industry data service provider. Bloomberg carries an article under the headline: “Chinese EV makers’ European sales stuck in post-tariff plateau.” Nikkei Asia says “advocacy groups warn of challenges policing China-dominated supply chains”.

Finally, the Global Times, a state-supporting newspaper, has published an editorial saying that China is “pleased” to see Donald Trump saying that he wants China to invest in the US, after the memorandum that he had wanted to restrict Chinese investment on US soil. It adds that Trump has sent “positive signals of moving in the same direction as China”.

There is continuing coverage of the conclusion of the resumed COP16 biodiversity summit in Rome, where new commitments provided a “light of hope” amid rising geopolitical tensions and cuts to climate and science programmes by the US, reports the Financial Times. The quote comes from outgoing Colombian environment minister and COP16 president Susana Muhamad, who said: “We have sent a light of hope that still the common good, the environment, the protection of life and the capacity to come together for something bigger than each national interest is possible.” While the US did not send an official delegation to Rome, “its political climate nonetheless loomed over the negotiations”, which concluded on Friday, says the FT. Muhamed told the newspaper that the shift in policy under Donald Trump had transformed the “narrative around extracting resources, fossil fuels, even imperialism creates more tensions in discussions” between the global north and south. Muhamed praised the new COP16 deal that provides the “legs, arms and muscles” to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework agreed in 2022, reports Politico. The outlet adds: “In the second Trump era, it was about making a point: Yes, the world can still work together to fight environmental collapse.” Reuters says that the final deal was “led by negotiators from the so-called BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa”. The New York Times notes that the White House “did not answer questions on its plans for biodiversity funding or why it did not send delegates to the talks”. The South China Morning Post, Euractiv and Climate Home News all cover the deal. Carbon Brief has a comprehensive summary article and is also running a free webinar today at 3pm UK time on the key outcomes of the talks.

On Friday, Italy’s cabinet approved a new legal framework aimed at reintroducing nuclear power generation, reports Bloomberg, as the government “looks to overturn a decades-long ban”. It explains: “The new framework sets out planning for fusion and power production from sustainable sources, according to a government document. It includes a call for the government to decide what technology can be used and where plants can be located. The measure allows the government to adopt a series of legislative decrees and set up a framework aimed at allowing the drafting of a national strategic plan for 2027.” The energy ministry “will have at its disposal €20m per year from 2027 to 2029 to invest in the plan”, the newswire adds. Reuters quotes Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, who said in a video message: “The government has approved another important measure to ensure clean, safe, low-cost energy that can guarantee energy security and strategic independence.” The newswire adds: “Italy is aiming to use advanced modular reactors to produce sustainable nuclear energy and decarbonise its most polluting industries. The government says advances in technology and safety make the 1987 referendum ban on nuclear power obsolete.” EurActiv also has the story.

“Encouraged by the efforts” of US president Donald Trump to end the war in Ukraine, some German industries in the east of the country are planning for Russian gas to return to Europe, despite the European Union’s commitment to phase out Russian energy by 2027, reports Bloomberg. The managing director of the Leuna chemical park in eastern Germany described the resumption of Russian “cheap” gas supplies as the “logical consequence”. However, Bloomberg also notes that, for many German politicians and businesses, the idea of buying Russian pipeline gas remains “anathema”. But the Financial Times reports that former Nord Stream 2 CEO Matthias Warnig is seeking to restart the damaged gas pipeline that supplied Russian gas to Europe, with backing from US investors. The FT further notes that some senior officials in the Trump administration are aware of the initiative and view it as part of a broader US effort to restore relations with Moscow. According to the FT, senior EU officials are also said to be aware of the discussions and have expressed “concern” as such a plan could theoretically grant the US “unprecedented influence over Europe’s energy supply”. However, Warnig has denied involvement in talks with US politicians or business representatives. Tagesspiegel also covers the story. Meanwhile, the German tabloid Bild reports that US special envoy Richard Grenell has allegedly travelled to Switzerland several times unofficially to discuss the Nord Stream deal. According to his post on X, Grenell has denied this. 

Elsewhere, Süddeutsche Zeitung reports that German energy technology provider Siemens Energy has signed an agreement with the UK industrial group Rolls-Royce to become the sole supplier of the non-nuclear components for Rolls-Royce’s planned small modular reactors. Finally, Forbes has a comment piece by Mattias Goldmann headlined: “Germany’s energy and climate policy under CDU: what to predict.”

In a long feature, New York Times reporters David Gelles, Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer unpack how US president Donald Trump and his allies have “gutted federal climate efforts” in just a “few short weeks”. The speed and scale of efforts to “uproot climate policy is unprecedented”, they write, quoting one environmental lawyer as saying: “This is not the kind of stately tennis match of the usual switch-over in administrations…This is full on Fight Club.” The Trump administration’s moves have “unfolded simultaneously across the sprawling government”, the reporters write, detailing moves including pulling the US from the Paris Agreement, freezing funds for clean energy, stopping approvals for wind farms on public land and firing “thousands of federal workers”. They add: “In several cases, the administration’s actions have flouted the law, with agencies defying court orders, freezing funds in legally binding contracts and reinterpreting regulations to suit their aims.” These moves “may have a lasting effect on the country’s ability to confront climate change”, the authors write, adding that “much of the damage to the country’s environmental regulatory apparatus may be long-lasting”. And yet, they conclude, “more sweeping actions may still be in store”.

In related comment, veteran environmentalist Bill McKibben writes on his Substack about the job cuts at NOAA, warning that “Elon Musk is vandalising America’s greatest treasures”. A column in Le Monde by journalist Stéphane Foucart says that “Trump and Musk are plunging American science into indescribable chaos”. And a Washington Post editorial criticises Trump’s “gambit to take control of Ukraine’s deposits of lithium, graphite, cobalt, rare metals and so forth”. It says: “[H]olding a gun to the heads of mineral-producing countries – for example, by threatening tariffs against Canada and telling Ukraine to choose between giving over its minerals or losing US support in its fight against Russia – seems unwise if the US wants to avoid becoming an international pariah and pushing erstwhile allies into the arms of its adversaries.”

An editorial in today’s Guardian says that the UK Labour government “must recognise the state’s crucial role in the green transition”. As “bold pledges to fund climate projects now appear under threat”, the newspaper argues that “greening Britain requires short-term expenditure for long-term gains”. Linking to a tweet by Carbon Brief’s Dr Simon Evans on how reaching net-zero would cut consumer energy bills, the editorial says: “Reaching net-zero requires upfront investment, but will lower consumer bills and reduce reliance on imported fuels, shielding the population against price shocks. Early, targeted spending is a cost-saving measure – delays lead to higher long-term spending due to climate-related disasters, economic disruption and energy price instability. While private investment will eventually play a dominant role, the climate committee makes it clear that public spending remains necessary in areas where market forces alone can’t drive change fast enough.” Relatedly, an editorial in the Scotsman says: “Ultimately, lots of talk and promises about lower bills are not going to cut it. People struggling with the cost of living want to see signs of progress – and soon.”

In other UK comment, Observer columnist Catherine Bennett writes that “affluent high-emitters…seemingly haven’t had the memo” about changing their lifestyle. The Independent’s “eco chamber” column says that recommendations from the UK’s climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee, are “so easy you probably won’t notice them either”. In the Times, contributor Ann Treneman writes that “it is pleasing that the government is going to trial what appears to be a relatively easy solution” of painting wind-turbine blades black to reduce bird deaths. On the cuts to UK foreign aid, Emily Darlington – the Labour MP for Milton Keynes Central – writes in the Observer that “with climate change already a reality, overseas partnerships are needed to help people adapt to extreme weather events”. And, in his Sunday Times column, broadcaster and motoring journalist Jeremy Clarkson says he has “finally met an environmentalist I like” when he visits a floating farm in the Netherlands.

And, in the Daily Telegraph’s usual array of comment articles attacking net-zero, Lord Mackinlay, a former MP who lost his lower arms and legs to sepsis, has likened net-zero to the spread of the condition. In the article and accompanying news story, Mackinlay announces that he is taking up the role of director of the UK climate-sceptic lobby group known as the Global Warming Policy Foundation. In other articles, columnists write that “British carmakers’ switch to electric has descended into chaos”; “Decades of pandering to progressives have left both BP and Unilever at a loss”; and that net-zero as one of many “luxury beliefs we can no longer afford”. Finally, the Financial Times “has lunch” with prominent climate-sceptic Bjorn Lomborg, who has previously “argue[d] against emissions cuts” and is now turning “his attention to overseas aid”.

Implementing a global minimum tax rate of 15% would drive down global carbon emissions, according to a new study. The authors note that many countries cut their corporate tax rates to attract investment and a global minimum tax policy was approved by OECD countries in 2021. The authors develop a “theoretical multi-country multi-industry general equilibrium model” to assess the impact of taxes on climate emissions. They find that corporate tax competition increases global carbon emissions and shifts more emissions onto developing countries.