There is continuing UK media coverage of the government’s decision to change rules for the sale of electric vehicles in response to Donald Trump’s tariffs. The Guardian reports that, under the new rules, new hybrids and plugin cars, as well as petrol, diesel and hybrid vans, will be allowed to be sold until 2035. It adds that the transport secretary Heidi Alexander spoke on BBC Breakfast, saying: “The changes we are making have been very carefully calibrated so as not to have a big impact upon the carbon emissions savings that are baked into this policy. In fact, the impact on carbon emissions as a result of these changes is negligible.” The newspaper also quotes Green party MP Siân Berry: “The government is wrong to apply the brakes on the sale of EV cars…This suggests Labour is weakening its climate commitments and its health-related policy goals because all these moves will have a detrimental impact on air quality. Slowing down the move away from fossil-fuelled transport makes no economic sense either, since green sectors of the economy are growing three times faster than the overall UK economy.” The Times reports that carmakers have “welcomed” Starmer’s decision, but said that “greater action will almost certainly be needed to safeguard our competitiveness” due to the 25% tariffs that the industry faces on exports to the US. The Daily Telegraph adds that, according to industry chiefs, the plans to soften EV targets “will fail to boost growth”. The New York Times, Bloomberg and the Press Association also cover the rule changes. The Daily Telegraph reports that Starmer “doubled down on his wider support for the zero-carbon agenda, saying that he wanted the UK to ‘win the race’ for renewable energy and green technologies of the future”. 

Meanwhile, the Press Association reports that EV sales are higher in the UK than any other European country. However, it adds that, according to pro-EV groups, “the lack of purchase incentives, perception of public-charging infrastructure and the taxation system are putting some people off from making the switch to electric motoring”. The Daily Telegraph reports that the UK’s “largest on-street electric vehicle charging project” has been announced. According to the newspaper, the project would see more than 6,000 kerbside chargers installed for Brighton and Hove city council. And the Financial Times reports that “used Teslas in the US and Britain are falling in price faster than other electric vehicles”.

In other UK news, the Daily Telegraph, which campaigns against net-zero policies, covers analysis by PwC which warns that “more than half of the UK’s plans to replace carbon with green energy rely on technologies that are too expensive to be commercially viable compared to their fossil fuel equivalents”. The Times reports that gas boilers are now the biggest source of air pollution in London. BusinessGreen reports that “the UK’s commercial real-estate sector is currently on course to miss crucial minimum energy efficiency targets by as much as a decade”. BusinessGreen also reports that the UK government has shortlisted 27 proposed “green hydrogen” projects for potential funding. The Guardian notes that “Europe’s first research station for the study of Atlantic temperate rainforest is set to be built beside an ancient wood in Cornwall”. BusinessGreen reports that “plans to build the UK’s ‘largest ever’ hydroelectric pumped storage facility in Scottish Highlands have been given the green light by the Scottish government”. Elsewhere, the Daily Telegraph reports on the “impact of net-zero plans on British fishing”. 

China has not imported US liquefied natural gas (LNG) for 60 days in the “longest gap” in imports since the last US-China trade war, as “worsening” bilateral relations have led the Chinese buyers to “divert shipments”, Bloomberg reports. The outlet adds that a “mild winter and robust inventories” have reduced Chinese LNG demand. E&E News says the “US-China LNG fight could scramble the energy transition”. Reuters reports that “teapot” oil refiners, which account for 25% of China’s processing capacity, are facing “near-term pressure” due to “supply risks from US sanctions and tariffs” and “tepid domestic fuel demand” amid the rapid adoption of electric vehicles (EVs). China Energy Net says China’s coal market faces “major uncertainties”, including whether tariffs imposed on US coal can “raise the cost of imported coal” overall. Reuters carries a commentary by columnist Ron Bousso arguing that US-China “petrochemical feedstock trade” could “become one of the biggest casualties” of the trade war. China Environment News quotes environment minister Huang Runqiu saying during a meeting of BRICS environment ministers that the “unilateral trade measures of individual countries”, including the carbon border adjustment mechanism and tariffs, are “detrimental” to global efforts on climate change. Huang adds that BRICS countries should “promote the low-carbon transition”.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times quotes Cory Combs, associate director at consultancy Trivium China, saying that “American foreign reliance” on the heavy rare-earth elements placed under export controls by China is “relatively limited”. Combs adds that Beijing still has “room to more strictly enforce export controls” on products such as “light rare-earth elements”. Bloomberg reports that the export controls are not a “blanket ban, but they mean that any overseas shipments [from China] will be subject to greater scrutiny over who is buying, and why”. Bloomberg also quotes the China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association saying that, “as long as companies do not engage in activities that harm China’s national sovereignty, security and development interests, the export control measures won’t affect their normal operation and trade”. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post publishes a comment piece by freelance writer Chenjie Song arguing that China is pivoting to Africa to find “stable, politically independent suppliers” of copper as the metal becomes a “geopolitical flashpoint in the race for clean-energy dominance”.

Elsewhere, China Energy Net reports that China’s first “green” methanol carbon footprint standard has been issued. The Communist party-affiliated newspaper People’s Daily says China recently issued a notice on developing “green mines”. A comment piece in Caixin by Qiu Chengcheng, China analyst at the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), argues that climate change may “exacerbate regional air pollution” as rising temperatures increase the “likelihood of sandstorms”. 

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the transport sector needs to “step up its game to contribute to Germany’s energy and economic transition”, reports Der Spiegel, adding that 95% of the sector’s emissions come from road traffic. In the IEA’s view, the German federal government must provide “more incentives” to encourage consumers to switch to “climate-friendly alternatives”, including the expansion of public transportation, increasing the number of electric vehicles and using biofuels. Die Tageszeitung notes that Germany has made “impressive progress” in its energy transition, which could become the “engine” of the country’s economic growth. But it adds that, according to the IEA, the next stage of Germany’s energy transition should focus on lowering electricity prices by installing smart meters, expanding the electricity grid and storage capacity. Euractiv reports that the “IEA calls on Germany to clarify the role of gas in its future energy strategy”. 

Meanwhile, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) reports that Austria has issued a two-year entry ban against German climate activist Anja Windl, who is considered a “significant threat to public order and safety”, according to a 40-page statement from the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA). The campaigner, who has announced plans to file an appeal with the Federal Administrative Court, is quoted saying: “I will not be intimidated…In times of rising fascism and a burning planet, peaceful protest is necessary.”

Finally, Handelsblatt reports that falling gas prices due to Donald Trump’s tariffs “could benefit parts of German industry”, such as the fertiliser and chemical sectors. However, experts also add that Germany will be affected by the negative consequences of the tariffs, notes the outlet.

New data from the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) shows that last month was Europe’s warmest March since records began, Reuters reports. The newswire adds that, globally, last month was the planet’s second-warmest March on record – reaching 1.6C higher than pre-industrial temperatures and exceeded only by March in 2024. MailOnline adds: “Globally, March was 1.59C hotter than the average for 1850 to 1900, the period referred to as ‘pre-industrial’. This makes last month the twentieth out of the last 21 months to exceed the 1.5C warming target laid out in the Paris Climate Agreement. [This is an inaccurate portrayal of the Paris Agreement’s goal, which is based on a much longer term averaging out of global temperatures.] These near-record levels of warming make the average temperature for the 12 months up to March 0.71C hotter than the 1991-2020 average and 1.59C above the pre-industrial level.” Sky News adds that, in Europe, the average air temperature was 2.41C above the 1991-2020 average for March. The Financial Times reports that Arctic sea ice has hit a “record March low”, adding: “Military and commercial vessels, particularly from Russia, are stepping up activity in the region.”

In other European news, Reuters reports that “the European Commission is considering counting international carbon credits towards its next climate target, a move that could weaken the CO2-cutting efforts it demands from domestic industries”, according to “sources familiar with the matter”. Separately, Reuters reports that Donald Trump has said that “selling energy to the European Union would be a key focus as his administration seeks to eliminate a trade deficit with the bloc”. 

In ongoing coverage of the fall in oil prices in response to Trump’s tariffs, the Times reports that global oil prices have hit a four-year low. The price of Brent crude oil dropped below $63 per barrel on Monday morning, marking a 17% drop since Trump announced tariffs on 2 April, according to the newspaper. It adds: “The sell-off in oil in recent days has been compounded by Thursday’s surprise decision by the Opec+ alliance of big oil-producing nations to boost their output by more than had been expected, despite the tariffs.” Fortune reports that the “US crude oil benchmark temporarily plunged below the stress-inducing $60 per barrel threshold on Monday”. Bloomberg carries a warning from analysis at Goldman Sachs that, under an “extreme” scenario, oil could drop below $40.

Meanwhile, “clean-technology executives” have warned that Donald Trump’s new tariffs are set to “pummel the renewable energy industry”, the Financial Times reports. The newspaper says: “The duties of 10% to 49% on electrical components, battery storage and other equipment from China, south-east Asia and Europe pose a one-two punch for an industry already reeling from Trump’s embrace of the fossil fuel industry and limited appetite for clean energy.”

Mohamed Adow, the founder and director of Power Shift Africa, argues in Al Jazeera that African leaders “must not fall for the pro-coal lobbying of the Trump administration”. Adow says that, “not only would a coal-based development pathway for Africa heap more misery onto its citizens who are already living on the front lines of the climate crisis, but it would also be economically suicidal”. He continues: “There is also no need for Africa to shackle itself to the outdated fossil fuel infrastructure of coal when the continent is blessed with a spectacular potential for developing clean renewable energy…No other continent has more untapped wind and solar power than Africa, and this remains the key to its long-term prosperity.”

Elsewhere, Andreas Sieber, the associate director of policy and campaigns at 350.org, writes in Climate Home News that “Trump’s tariff tantrum won’t stop the global energy transition”. Sieber adds: “Climate and the energy transition remain textbook examples of why Trump’s zero-sum instincts are wholly unfit for purpose. Global cooperation on climate is not optional. Even countries locked in geopolitical tension must find ways to collaborate on decarbonization – unless, of course, the plan is to compete all the way to climate collapse.” Bloomberg columnist Mark Gongloff says that Trump’s tariffs are “part of a whole-of-government approach to reversing as much climate process as he can in as little time as possible”. Journalist Chris Wright says in the Independent that US energy security may be an “unintended casualty” of Trump’s import taxes.

Finally, a Nature Climate Change editorial focuses on the “inhospitable political conditions” facing climate scientists. It discusses the staff cuts at NOAA and NASA, adding: “These cuts have also impacted data collection and monitoring that inform climate-sensitive sectors ranging from disaster preparedness to fisheries. Future cuts are also planned, including those threatening the Mauna Loa observatory and CO2 record.” It calls for “all levels of society” to “harness the connection inherent in nature to adapt to and mitigate climate change”. And Dr Zeke Hausfather, Carbon Brief’s climate science contributor, writes on his Climate Brink SubStack that, with Trump’s tariffs, the SSP3 emissions scenario used by climate scientists now “gives a glimpse of what backtracking on climate progress might look like”.

Prof Sir David King, head of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group and a former UK government science and climate advisor, writes in the Guardian: “One of the greatest challenges of climate science today is that many of the necessary levers to regain control are uncomfortable, even controversial…Yet, as we contend with an escalating crisis, we must at least explore these possibilities. We do not have the luxury of rejecting solutions outright before we have thoroughly investigated their risks, trade-offs and feasibility.” King says that scientists “must never advocate for deploying unproven interventions”, but adds that “privately, many scientists acknowledge the need to advance research into these solutions”. He praises advocacy groups including the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering and calls for “open and inclusive dialogue about what responsible research should look like”.

Separately, the Times, which, under its latest editor, has adopted an increasingly hostile position on net-zero policies via its comment pages, has published an editorial in response to Labour’s EV rule changes. It praises Kemi ­Badenoch for saying that “hitting net-zero by 2050 was nigh impossible without ruinous costs”. [See Carbon Brief’s factcheck on why Badenoch was wrong to make this claim.] The editorial adds: “If the government is serious about reducing the cost of energy, it should focus intently on nuclear power. It should cease importing solar panels from China and invest in building up domestic supply chains for green energy ­technologies. It should intervene to approve the Rosebank oil field. And above all, it should admit that the target for decarbonising the power grid was a mistake.” Other UK newspapers have also platformed views hostile to net-zero policies. Journalist Alan Cochrane writes in the Daily Telegraph that the “tariff war shows why we need to get our own oil and gas from the North Sea”. Journalist Steve Fowler writes in the Independent that the government has “gone soft by trying to please all of the car makers all of the time”. He says: “You can’t knock a government that seems so keen to support British industry at such a crucial time, and the tweaks to the ZEV mandate are both sensible and welcome. But when it comes to banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030, allowing full hybrids is the wrong move.” Sean O’Grady, the associate editor of the Independent, says that “Keir Starmer is right to relax the petrol car ban”. Tim Stanley, columnist and leader writer for the Daily Telegraph, says the Labour government’s response to Trump’s tariffs “lay bare its own lack of conviction in net-zero”. Climate-sceptic author Matt Ridley writes over a full page in the Daily Mail that, “by slapping tariffs on Britain, Trump has gifted Starmer with the perfect excuse to ditch net-zero fiasco”. The Daily Mail also publishes an editorial under the headline: “Time to rethink all our green targets.” Climate-sceptic commentator Ross Clark writes in the Sun that Starmer’s “net-zero u-turn” is not due to Trump’s tariffs, but instead because the rules were “killing the car industry”. An editorial in the Sun, which routinely attacks net-zero policies, asks whether Starmer grasps the “life-changing enormity of an America which is protectionist, anti-free trade, unwilling to help defend Europe”. It says: “If he did he would surely start again from scratch…He would just indefinitely scrap the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel cars, wave Ed Miliband off to the back benches and bin his delusional green programme, perhaps for better times. He would lift the ban on new North Sea drilling – and approve fracking.” Finally, the climate-sceptic Conservative MP Esther McVey argues in the Daily Express that Starmer should “bin” net-zero. In contrast, the Daily Express also carries a comment piece by ECIU’s Colin Walker arguing that the “reality is that Trump’s tariffs have very little to do with the ‘zero emission vehicle’ mandate”.

The “surface urban heat island effect”, where the concrete surfaces of cities amplify the effect of extreme heat, is intensifying more rapidly in low-income countries than in richer nations, new research finds. The study analyses 5m urban grids from 2003-18 and finds that, in low-income countries, there is a “more pronounced” increase in the effect. The authors add: “Specifically, 27% of urban grids in low-income countries witnessed the most substantial net increase during the daytime, while 19% of urban grids in lower-middle-income countries led the surge at nighttime.”