There is widespread media coverage of two new academic studies about the risk of breaching the 1.5C warming threshold. The Financial Times reports that the studies “examined what the exceptionally hot year in 2024 – when the global average temperature surpassed 1.5C for the first time annually – meant for limiting the long term global temperature”. The newspaper quotes climate scientist Tim Lenton, who “said the two papers tallied with his ‘expectation that we are now committed to exceeding 1.5C and that mean warming of 1.5C will be centred around 2030’”. The Independent says that according to one of the studies, June 2024 marked the 12th consecutive month with global mean surface temperatures at least 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. The outlet continues: “The study shows that having 12 consecutive months above 1.5C means there’s a 76% chance that we’ve already hit that long-term warming threshold under current climate policies. If this trend continues for 18 consecutive months, the research says, the breach of the Paris Agreement threshold will be virtually certain. January 2025 was the 19th month to cross that mark.” The Press Association reports that in the other study, scientists “looked at real-world observations of already-reached warming levels and climate models, and showed that the first single years exceeding each threshold have consistently fallen with the first 20 year period which averaged the same level of warming”. The newswire continues: “They said it was very unlikely for the temperature of a single year to largely exceed the long term average, and 2024’s record heat signals that ‘most probably’ Earth has already entered a 20-year period at 1.5C warming, they said.” CNN, Agence France-Presse, the Indian Express and Bloomberg also cover the research. Andrew King and Liam Cassidy – associate professor and PhD student at the University of Melbourne – outline the findings of the studies in the Conversation.

“Only a dozen” countries met yesterday’s deadline to submit their updated “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, the Associated Press reports. The newswire says that the nearly 200 signatories to the Paris deal were all due to have submitted their emissions-cutting plans for 2035 by the deadline. It adds: “Most were not expected to make the deadline. The UN says that’s OK as long as they are working on them.” According to the outlet, the countries who submitted their plans on time account for 16% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, but “almost all of that is from the United States, where President Trump has already discarded the plan submitted by President Biden’s administration”. It continues: “Aside from the US, the only major emitters to submit 2035 targets are Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates. The Marshall Islands, Singapore, Ecuador, Saint Lucia, Andorra, New Zealand, Switzerland and Uruguay have filed their plans, but they all produce less than 0.2% of the world’s carbon dioxide.” Agence France-Presse says that China, India and the European Union are “the biggest names on a lengthy absentee list”. The Washington Post’s coverage cites Carbon Brief analysis showing that, it says, “countries representing 83% of global emissions had missed the deadline.”

Bloomberg calls the UK a “rare bright spot”, noting that “its pledge to cut carbon emissions 81% by 2035 relative to 1990 levels is the only national plan [checked] so far that’s anywhere close to consistent with the Paris target, according to analysis of major emitters by Climate Action Tracker”. Separately, Bloomberg reports that India’s government does not plan to submit its updated targets for “several more months” because “the document is still in the works”, according to people “familiar with the situation”. It adds: “In its updated NDC, India will focus on measures to adapt to more extreme weather and building resilience, the people said.” Reuters quotes one Indian official saying: “India has yet to finish its studies on emission trajectories and roadmap.”

A recent study from the Tsinghua University finds that China has “fallen short” on its energy efficiency and emission goals set in its 14th five-year plan (2021-2025), the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports. The researchers say that “despite efficient water usage and progress on green energy”, the “rise in coal consumption from 2020 to 2023 had resulted in a lack of improvement” in energy intensity, adds the outlet. (The finding is similar to Carbon Brief’s analysis.) Separately, Science and Technology Daily reports that China’s solar power industry made “significant progress” last year with a continued increase in capacity, according to a “blue book” written by top research institutes and academics.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that the additional tariffs China announced on US coal and oil products last week have entered into force, “hitting about $14bn worth of goods and dashing hopes that a trade war between the world’s two largest economies could be avoided”. Just hours after China’s retaliatory tariffs took effect, a group of Chinese oil and gas executives travelled to central Asia to “explore new trade opportunities” in energy, according to SCMP, citing a report by state broadcaster CCTV. The New York Times says that China is “at the heart” of the Trump administration’s promise to impose 25% tariffs on US steel and aluminium imports.

Elsewhere, state-run newspaper China Daily reports that China’s “innovative and technology-intensive green products”, including electric vehicles (EVs) and “dual-fuel” ships, will be “crucial in driving the country’s foreign trade growth in 2025”. SCMP reports that Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi is expected to visit the UK on Wednesday. The Financial Times reports that Chinese EV maker BYD “has unveiled an advanced self-driving system that it plans to install on its entire model line-up”. Bloomberg reports that BYD shares “briefly rose to their highest intraday price on record”. 

In comment, SCMP publishes a piece by Bernice Lee, climate researcher at thinktank Chatham House, under the headline: “Why China’s best bet is growing and sharing the green tech pie.”  She argues that this is not “just about fairness” but a “strategic necessity for long-term stability”. Finally, Lu Jiaqi, a senior academic researcher with the Global China Initiative, writes in an article for the China-Global South Project about China’s role in Africa’s “energy future”.

Scientists are trying to publish a “first-of-its-kind assessment of nature”, which was weeks away from completion when president Donald Trump “killed” it, the New York Times reports. According to the newspaper, more than 150 scientists and experts had spent thousands of hours working on the 12-chapter report, whose first complete draft was due on 11 February. However, it says that Trump signed an executive order ending the effort, and the decision was announced to report authors on 30 January. “ It continues: “Now key experts who worked on the report, called the National Nature Assessment, are figuring out how to finish and publish it outside the government, according to interviews with nine of the leading authors…By the end of January, the federal web page for the National Nature Assessment had been taken down.” 

In other US news, the Hill reports that a federal judge has ordered Donald Trump to “comply with his order to unfreeze federal grants”. According to the outlet, the judge specifically said that funds must be restored to Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. The Associated Press, Politico and Al Jazeera also cover the news. The New York Times reports that about 80% of manufacturing investment driven by the Inflation Reduction Act is in Republican states, which have “most to lose” from Trump’s funding freeze. Inside Climate News reports that “a letter signed by mayors and local leaders across 39 states is calling on Congress to protect all clean energy tax credits made available to state and local governments, which had been responsible for creating thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investments before president Donald Trump froze the funds”. Elsewhere, the Associated Press reports that “Puerto Rico legislators on Monday held a contentious public hearing on a governor-backed bill that would eliminate renewable energy goals and extend operations of the island’s lone coal-fired plant, long accused of polluting low-income communities”. 

A record number of used electric vehicles were sold in the UK last year, the Guardian reports. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, secondhand EVs “were more in demand than ever”, with numbers up 57.4% from the year before, the Guardian says. It continues: “Carmakers also sold a record number of new electric cars in the UK last year. Almost a fifth of the 1.95m vehicles sold were electric, up from 16.5% in 2023.” BusinessGreen reports that secondhand EVs “ secured a 2.5% share of the total used car market”. It adds: “Significantly, sales of hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) also rose, reaching 306,000 and 92,000 sales, respectively.” The Press Association reports that “last year, petrol and diesel used cars took a market share of 92.1%, down from 94.3% in 2023”. The Daily Telegraph covers the story under the headline: “Secondhand electric car sales ‘face drastic road tax hit.” Meanwhile, BusinessGreen reports that industry group “electric Vehicles UK (EVUK) has today urged both auto makers and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to ‘hit the brakes’ on jargon associated with hybrid cars, in a bid to end consumer confusion around the switch to low-carbon vehicles”. A survey of more than 11,000 UK drivers finds that one in five people find the terminology around electric cars “baffling”, according to the outlet. And the Guardian reports that “electric vehicle drivers will spend an extra £85m on UK tax when using public car chargers this year because of a disparity in VAT rates that the industry has said is holding back the transition away from fossil fuels”. 

In other UK news, the Guardian reports that insurers paid a record £585m for weather-related damages in Britain last year. The newspaper notes that last year saw “record-breaking rain and storms hit the country”. Elsewhere, the Press Association reports: “Thousands of jobs in the North Sea are being put at risk because the government is driven by ‘zealotry’, the Conservatives have said…Energy minister Michael Shanks said the government is having to ‘clear up a mess’ created by the Tories.” The Daily Telegraph also covers the story. BBC News reports that the ongoing construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is expected to create thousands of new jobs. The Times has published an analysis of “how Donald Trump is going to shape the UK’s agenda”, which says that “his opposition to global climate change policies nevertheless poses challenges to the UK’s own transition plans”. The Daily Telegraph has a story about the impact of reduced air pollution from shipping on global temperatures.

There is ongoing coverage of the news that the UK government has agreed a revised new four-year contract with the Drax biomass power station. The Guardian says: “The large power plant in North Yorkshire would play a ‘much more limited role’ in future, operating less than half as often as it currently does, the government said…It estimates that this will save consumers £170m a year.” BusinessGreen reports that the new agreement with Drax “increases the share of feedstock it has to source from sustainable certified sources from 70% to 100%”. The Times adds: “The package could be worth about £525m a year, or about £2bn over four years, based on the latest energy price forecasts, according to analysts at Cornwall Insight, a consultancy. The actual amount will depend on future prices.” BBC News says: “Though there are plans to eventually capture the carbon emitted from Drax, its emissions from burning the pellets are currently unabated. Critics of the power station have called it one of the UK’s leading emitters of the climate warming gas CO2, but Drax disputes that description. It argues that burning wood is carbon neutral because when trees are cut down for fuel, new trees can be planted that effectively re-absorb the carbon dioxide released. The new agreement will run from 2027 to 2031 and will see the power station only used as a back-up to cheaper renewable sources of power. The government says that will mean that when there’s lots of wind and solar, Drax won’t run at all. It says the company currently receives nearly a billion pounds a year in subsidies and predicts that figure will more than halve to £470m under the new deal.” The Financial Times quotes a government statement in reporting: “The power station currently runs about two-thirds of the time, but will only ‘be supported to operate’ at a maximum load factor of 27%, running ‘less than half as often as it currently does’.” It says of the four-year deal: “The extension will allow the plant to remain open while it installs a system to capture its carbon dioxide emissions and store them. That upgrade is expected to take until 2030.” The Press Association, Reuters, Sky News, the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Agence France-Presse and Bloomberg also cover the story.

The Guardian’s Fiona Harvey has published an analysis about Drax, following the news that the UK government has agreed a new four-year contract with the power station. Harvey says that “burning wood is a terrible way of producing electricity”, and writes that the decision to extend subsidies to the plant “appeared a blow to green campaigners”. However, she says that some experts “took a softer view” of the decision. She notes that the power plant “provides a hefty slice of the UK’s electricity”, and continues: “Although experts have shown that the UK could meet its target of decarbonising electricity by 2030 without Drax, that ‘could’ rests on many ifs: that new offshore and onshore wind, and the grids upgrades they require, are built fast; that electricity storage options are installed in time; that demand management, for instance through smart metering, is rolled out imminently.” Harvey quotes Greenpeace’s Doug Parr saying: “It would be a brave decision to cut off Drax in 2027…[the new contract is] not perfect, but it could have been a lot worse.” An editorial in the Daily Mail says: “In Ed Miliband’s wonderful world of net-zero, burning Canadian biomass is deemed to be carbon-neutral. But, all things considered, is it really so much more environmentally friendly than burning North Sea gas?” In further comment on the Drax deal, author and journalist Stephen Pollard uses a commentary in the Daily Mail to attempt to link the decision to energy secretary Ed Miliband, saying this was the week that his “eco dogma collided with reality and lost”.

Elsewhere, a Sun editorial says: “The risk from China supplying turbines for the Greenvolt North Sea windfarm [off the east coast of Scotland] is too great. It’s not just that they could be used as spying devices, far-fetched as that might sound. It’s that China could turn them off and leave us in the dark.” Finally, the Daily Express gives its lead comment slot to David Lawrence, the co-director of thinktank UK Day One, who writes in favour of expanding Heathrow airport. Pointing to “sustainable aviation fuels” and aircraft efficiency, he writes: “Environmentalists will rightly ask how Heathrow expansion can be made compatible with the UK’s climate commitments. Air travel is a significant source of emissions and will eat into the UK’s net-zero carbon budget. However there are some reasons for cautious optimism.”

A “brief communication” in Nature Climate Change examines what 2024 being the first year to exceed 1.5C above pre-industrial levels means for the Paris Agreement temperature goals, which are measured as 20-year averages. The research finds that “without very stringent climate mitigation, the first year above 1.5C occurs within the first 20-year period with an average warming of 1.5C”. A second brief communication in Nature Climate Change explores what the record run of temperatures above 1.5C from July 2023 to June 2024 could mean for the Paris Agreement. This paper says: “In climate model simulations, the long-term Paris Agreement target is usually crossed well before such a string of unusually warm temperatures occurs.”

People in more disadvantaged neighborhoods are more exposed to floods, according to a study carried out across nearly 45,000 neighbourhoods in eight Latin American countries from 2000-18. One in four residents of neighborhoods in the lowest quintile of educational attainment were exposed to flooding, compared with one in 20 residents of neighborhoods in the highest quintile of educational attainment, the research finds. The authors say the results “show large social disparities in neighborhood flooding within Latin American cities”.