There is extensive media coverage in the UK of efforts by the government to keep British Steel operating, as the Chinese-owned plant in Scunthorpe races to secure a supply of raw materials. Sky News says: “The Department for Business and Trade said officials are working to secure supplies of materials, including coking coal, to keep British Steel operational, as well as to ensure all staff at the Scunthorpe site will be paid. It added that setting up new supply chains was ‘crucial’ as a fall in blast furnace temperature could risk ‘irreparable damage to the site, with the steel setting and scarring the machinery’…Emergency legislation was passed on Saturday bringing the steelworks into effective government control, and officials were on site as soon as the new legislation came into force. However, the business secretary [Jonathan Reynolds] has warned that does not mean the plant is guaranteed to survive.” BBC News says: “Dozens of businesses including steel producers Tata and Rainham Steel have offered help and to supply their raw materials, the government has said…The Scunthorpe plant employs 2,700 people and is the last site in the UK that can produce virgin steel. Without the plant, the UK would be the only member of the G7 group of leading economies without the ability to make virgin steel – which the government believes is a risk to the country’s economic security.” (See Comment below for more reaction.)

In other UK news, the Guardian reports that “Octopus and its customers [have] ask[ed] the Treasury to back zonal electricity pricing”. The newspaper adds: “Octopus Energy has rallied thousands of its small business customers to back an overhaul of Great Britain’s electricity market. The largest energy supplier in Britain and more than 3,700 of its customers wrote to the Treasury last week calling for an immediate introduction of postcode electricity pricing. Ministers are preparing to make a decision on the highly divisive debate over whether to divide England, Wales and Scotland’s electricity market into different zones…Octopus Energy and its founder, Greg Jackson, have taken a leading role in supporting the reforms which would replace a single national electricity market price with multiple zones, each with its own price depending on how much electricity is available. This would mean that areas with ample electricity generation relative to local demand, such as Scotland, would have lower market prices than more populous urban areas where demand outstrips the amount of local generation.” Writing in the Times, Chris O’Shea, boss of rival firm Centrica, argues that “zonal pricing will only generate more problems for [the] energy industry”. The Times also carries an interview with Jonathan Brearley, the chief executive of energy regulator Ofgem. The article says: “He believes zonal pricing could better handle a world of more wind farms being built in areas of low power demand and could see industrial users move to such areas, avoiding ‘the risk of ever increasing constraint costs’ to pay wind farms to switch off. However, he acknowledges that ‘if you’re not careful, you will drive up the cost of capital’.” Another article in the Times says: “Solar panel push still won’t cover as much land as golf courses…A study shows that Ed Miliband’s 2030 green energy targets are set to require up to 0.4% of the UK, compared with 0.06% today.”

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that “North Sea oil and gas companies have agreed a series of mergers that will allow them to offset billions of pounds of tax liabilities against future profits”. The Sunday Times says that the “owners of British Gas and [technology company] Johnson Matthey have teamed up with JCB scion Jo Bamford to launch a £6.5bn project to dramatically increase Britain’s hydrogen production”. The Times notes that “Labour’s watering down of sales targets for zero-emission vehicles means the government will struggle to hit its own decarbonisation targets, a leading electric car boss [Matt Galvin, UK head of Polestar, one of the leading rivals to Tesla] has warned”. Finally, the Scotsman says wildfires are “still burning” on the Isle of Arran as an “extreme” warning continues.

There is widespread coverage of the emissions deal struck on Friday at the International Maritime Organization talks in London. BBC News says: “Countries have agreed a global deal to tackle shipping emissions, after nearly ten years of negotiations. The agreement covers the vast majority of the world’s commercial shipping and means that starting in 2028, ship owners will have to use increasingly cleaner fuels or face fines. The deal was nearly derailed after Saudi Arabia forced a last minute vote and the US pulled out of talks in London – but it eventually passed on Friday. Small island states and environmental groups were angry that a blanket tax was not agreed to and called the deal ‘unfit for purpose’.” The Times says shipping has “become the first global ­industry to agree financial penalties for greenhouse gas emissions”. The Financial Times notes that “diplomats have passed a UN plan to charge ships at least $100 for every tonne of CO2 they emit above a decarbonisation target”, but adds that the agreement “risks provoking retaliation from the US, which withdrew from negotiations on the policy this week and threatened ‘reciprocal measures’ against any fees imposed on its ships”. The newspaper adds it is “unclear what form those measures could take”. Reuters, Climate Home News, Time and the Guardian are among the other outlets covering the news. Carbon Brief has a detailed summary of the outcome.

There is extensive coverage in the US of a “draft White House budget document” which shows, according to Reuters, that the “administration of President Donald Trump aims to eliminate the arm of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that oversees research on climate change and refocus the US fisheries service to support energy development”. The newswire adds: “The moves are part of a plan to downsize NOAA dramatically, slashing agency funding by around $1.67bn, or 27%, according to the proposal. The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, known also as NOAA Research, would be closed under the proposal, along with $480m in funding for regional climate data and information, agency research laboratories and cooperative institutes, among other programmes. NOAA, a division of the Department of Commerce, is a scientific agency that oversees weather and climate forecasts, monitors ocean and atmospheric conditions and manages the nation’s commercial fisheries.” Politico says the “Trump administration wants to effectively break up NOAA and end its climate work by abolishing its primary research office and forcing the agency to help boost US fossil fuel production”. CNN claims that “Trump’s budget plan eviscerates weather and climate research and it could be enacted immediately”. Inside Climate News says “political storm clouds darkened NOAA again this week as the weather and climate agency fired more than 1,000 workers for the second time within five weeks”. The Guardian says that “critics say NASA faces ‘extinction-level event’ with budget plan”, adding: “The administration is planning to slash budgets at both NOAA and NASA, according to internal budget documents, taking aim specifically at programmes used to study impacts from the climate crisis.”

Meanwhile, there is continuing coverage of the fallout from Trump’s tariffs. Politico reports: “The European Union will revive its offer to buy more American gas, betting that…Trump is more open to negotiating after pausing his economy-shaking tariffs. The bloc plans to reopen talks about boosting US liquefied natural gas purchases and will offer specific proposals to address Trump’s anger about transatlantic trade, three European officials briefed on the talks told Politico, granted anonymity to speak about the closed-door discussions.” The Daily Telegraph says: “Trump’s ‘drill, baby, drill’ boom is already imploding.

Washington’s plan to dump its excess energy capacity on Europe is backfiring…US oil producers are likely to shut down at least 25 drilling rigs, according to the investment bank Citigroup, which warned that this number will surge if [oil] prices fall again.” In an analysis article, the Guardian’s Jillian Ambrose asks: “Will global climate action be a casualty of Trump’s tariffs?” She writes: “Clean-energy investors are likely to pull back from the US, but other countries may seize the opportunity to speed transition.”

Rare-earth element exports from China are “all but on hold”, as suppliers of the critical materials are “rushing to submit documents to apply for export permits”, Bloomberg reports. It adds this is due to the government’s export curbs on seven rare-earth elements in response to US tariffs, affecting “global supply chains for [the] materials” used for wind turbines and electric vehicles (EVs). The New York Times also covers the story, quoting the head of a US chemicals company saying “his company had been told it would take 45 days before export licenses could be issued and exports of rare-earth metals and magnets would resume”. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports that China’s commerce ministry says it will “strengthen the country’s export control system and improve enforcement”. Reuters says Vietnam is “prepared to crack down” on Chinese goods routed through it to the US in order to avoid punitive US tariffs. The newswire adds that Chinese president Xi Jinping is expected to visit the country soon. Chinese clean-energy producers may “emerge stronger as a result of increased isolation from the US market”, according to Semafor, as a smaller export market could cause Chinese companies to “do some long-overdue housecleaning”. Foreign Policy carries a comment piece by two academics at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies under the headline: “Tariffs can’t stop China’s clean energy from winning the future.”

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that the EU and China have agreed to “look into setting minimum prices” of Chinese-made EVs as an alternative to tariffs on imports. SCMP reports that EU leaders are planning to meet President Xi in Beijing in late July. State news agency Xinhua quotes Xi telling Spanish prime minister Pedro Sanchez that China is willing to “tap the potential of cooperation” with Spain, including in “new energy [and] high-tech manufacturing”.

Separately, China’s production of “new-energy” vehicles surged 50% year-on-year to 3.2m units in the first quarter of 2025, Xinhua reports, with NEVs accounting for 41% of total sales. The state-run China Reform Daily says that, due to “mismatched supply and demand”, the price of China’s “green electricity certificates” will continue to fall, as the “environmental value of green electricity is severely undervalued”. International Energy Net reports that China has issued a notice emphasising its focus on “inter-provincial and cross-regional transmission channel projects” and “supporting transmission projects” for renewable energy “bases” in desert regions in 2025. Jiemian reports that a procurement order for 51 gigawatts of solar modules was terminated due to the “negative impact” on demand caused by the “document 136” price reforms for renewable power.

Adelaide will be host city for the UN’s COP31 global climate conference in 2026 “if Australia’s government wins reelection and succeeds in a joint bid with Pacific nations to stage the summit”, reports Bloomberg. The outlet continues: “‘It’s an economic boost for wherever it’s held,’ prime minister Anthony Albanese said Monday on a campaign stop in the city of about 1.5 million people in South Australia-state. ‘I can’t think of anywhere better than Adelaide to host that event.’ Australia holds a national election on 3 May. Australia and Pacific nations face competition from Turkey to organise the talks.” Inside South Australia adds: “South Australia put its hand up to host COP31 last year, highlighting at the time the state’s ‘strong commitment to climate action and renewable energy innovation’.”

The New York Times carries a feature about how “National Grid, which owns the high-voltage electricity grid in England and Wales, is rebuilding it in a government-backed drive to attract investment and tackle climate change”. It continues: “The government is betting that installing swathes of wind turbines – both on land and in the seas off Britain’s coasts – as well as thousands of miles of high-voltage cables will attract investment, nurture clean tech jobs and reduce the country’s vulnerability to price swings in energy like those that occurred after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine that led to reduced supplies of natural gas…Much is at stake for Britain and the wider clean energy industry. If the government’s ambitions prove unrealistic, that could be a blow to the industry, which is already under fire from the Trump administration in the US. It certainly won’t be easy to rewire Britain.” Writing for BusinessGreen, Elena Pravettoni, head of analysis at the Energy Transitions Commission, argues that, “across the demand flexibility landscape, low-cost, highly automatable solutions should be prioritised”.

In other comment, Jillian Ambrose has an analysis in the Observer headlined: “BP dropped its green pledges and turned back to oil. Now the price of crude has collapsed.” Also writing in the Observer [which is being sold by the Guardian to Tortoise on 22 April], Robin McKie reflects on what he has learned as the newspaper’s science editor: “I have been at pains to record [the ­dangers posed by our changing climate] in the Observer – often to orchestrated choruses of hostile responses from climate-change deniers – and to make it clear that our addiction to fossil fuels is going to have dangerous consequences for our planet. It remains the most striking ­scientific story that I have covered as the paper’s science editor over the past 42 years.”

Finally, the Times interviews climate scientist (and Carbon Brief contributing editor) Dr Fredi Otto ahead of the publication of her new book “Climate Injustice”. She says: “Even if only the UK would implement net-zero, and no one else in the world, the UK would still massively benefit. All the measures that you need, like insulating homes, like having fewer cars, having better public transport, have huge health benefits that just increase the quality of life.”

The UK’s right-leaning newspapers carry a wave of comment articles attempting, inaccurately, to blame British Steel’s woes almost entirely on the UK government’s net-zero policies. An editorial in the Times says: “Britain’s energy costs have been on an uncompetitive trend for decades (rising 154% since 2004). But the recent dash to renewables, and precipitous abandonment of remaining coal and North Sea oil reserves, have left Britain peculiarly vulnerable: by some measures one of the most energy-starved nations in the developed world. Energy-intensive steelworks, as well as chemicals, ceramics and fertiliser plants, are running aground. Car production has dropped to levels not seen since the 1950s. But it is not just manufacturing heartlands that are imperilled. To be at the vanguard of any coming AI boom will require cheap, plentiful electricity for the data centres that are the backbone of the technology.” Editorials in the climate-sceptic Sun and Sun on Sunday rail against “net-zero madness” and how “Keir Starmer must end madness of Ed Miliband’s green crusade which brought British Steel to the brink”. An editorial in the climate-sceptic Mail on Sunday is headlined: “Don’t let net-zero scupper a chance to rekindle a vital asset.” An editorial in today’s Daily Mail (not yet online) says: “If Starmer is serious about reviving British industry, he will ditch his woeful environment secretary [Miliband] and set a realistic carbon reduction timetable.” An editorial in the climate-sceptic Daily Telegraph says: “Starmer needs to demonstrate the pragmatic ruthlessness he seeks to cultivate and remove the main blockage to a sensible future. Miliband, the energy secretary, must go.” [None of these editorials acknowledge that steel prices are being driven down by Chinese imports, or that steel manufacturers are largely exempted from “carbon costs”, or that the UK’s high wholesale power prices are due to the UK’s reliance on expensive gas.]

The same newspapers carry a range of climate-sceptic columnists and politicians trying to make similar claims as their editorials ranging from Stephen Pollard, Suella Braverman and Tim Stanley, James Snell and Robert Tombs in the Telegraph titles, through to Dominic Lawson in the Sunday Times, Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday and John Rentoul in the Independent. The Times’s Jim Armitage also inaccurately portrays British Steel’s woes as being due to “killing off cheap, coal-fired electricity generation”.

A new study finds that “snow droughts” – a lack of snow accumulation during winter – are becoming more frequent globally. Under the moderate warming “SSP2-4.5 scenario”, snow droughts could become three times more frequent over 1981-2100, the study finds. It adds that, due to global warming, snow droughts will transition from mainly “dry”, which are caused by low precipitation, to mainly “warm”, which are caused by high temperatures. According to the study, warm snow droughts will account for 65% of all snow droughts by 2050.