Following initial reports, many outlets, including Politico, report that the Scottish government has confirmed it is scrapping its plans to cut emissions in Scotland by 75% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. The move comes after what the article describes as a “damning report” from the government’s independent climate advisors, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), which warned that Scotland’s 2030 target was “no longer credible”. The Scottish government will also abandon its annual emission goals – which have been missed in eight out of the last 12 years – and replace them with “carbon budgets”, the news website continues. Carbon budgets allow a set amount of emissions to be released over a fixed five-year period, and are already used to measure overall UK progress towards its targets, the piece notes. Scottish net-zero secretary Mairi McAllan stressed that the country’s 2045 net-zero target remained in place, according to the Press Association. She said the decision came amid a “challenging context of cuts and UK backtracking” on climate action, the article adds. According to BBC News, McAllan also pointed to UK budgetary restrictions, which she said were forcing the Scottish government to “try to deliver societal and economic transformation with one hand tied behind our back”. The news service notes that the Scottish government also mentioned “a raft of measures” to cut emissions that were “wrapped around” the announcement. The Scotsman reports that the changes to Scotland’s climate goals require what McAllan called a “minor legislative amendment” to the UK Climate Change Act, in order to “pave the way for continued action” on emissions cuts. The package of “expedited” measures being brought forward to cut emissions is based on CCC recommendations, and includes more measures to cut emissions from transport and agriculture, the newspaper says. Among the measures are a plan to reduce “car kilometres” driven by 20%, another plan to expand electric-car charging infrastructure, a devolved airport departure tax and a nationally integrated ticketing system for public transport, it continues. Another Scotsman article goes into more detail about the package of climate measures, focusing particularly on the Scottish government’s potential plan to give local authorities the ability to introduce road user charging or congestion charges.

Some publications focused on the response to the Scottish government ditching its plan. Press Association cites Friends of the Earth Scotland’s head of campaigns Imogen Dow, who describes the move as “the worst environmental decision in the history of the Scottish parliament”. Prof Piers Forster, the CCC’s interim chair, described the Scottish government’s actions as “deeply disappointing” and urged McAllan to set out a new target as soon as possible, according to the Guardian. The newspaper says the move was particularly challenging for Scottish National Party (SNP) ministers given their previous leader, Nicola Sturgeon, “had made the climate crisis one of her government’s top priorities”. As for the Scottish Green party, which have a power-sharing agreement with the SNP, the Scotsman says they will be “reflecting” on their influence in government following the “embarrassing U-turn”.

Reuters reports that US trade representative Katherine Tai called for “tak[ing] ‘decisive’ action to protect electric vehicles (EVs) from subsidised Chinese competition” during a US Senate finance committee hearing. The newswire continues: “She said that China’s ‘anti-competitive practices’, including ‘enormous amounts of state support’, had fostered overproduction of solar panels a decade ago that devastated US producers. Tai said the US was now facing a similar situation with EVs and the automotive sector, and leaving Chinese competition unchecked would cause the US to lose the ability to produce those products.”

Meanwhile, another Reuters report says that, according to three officials, Mexico is refusing to offer incentives such as “low-cost public land or tax cuts for investment in EV production” for Chinese companies, due to pressure from the US. The Atlantic publishes a feature on US-China EV tensions, arguing that “decarbonising the US while retaining a thriving auto industry requires a delicate balance between tariffs and subsidies, between protection and competition, between beating the Chinese and learning from them”. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports that, amid a “brutal” price war in China, other Chinese EV manufacturers “are following in the footsteps of BYD…by localising their production in Europe”. 

Reuters also reports that the US government will reverse a trade exemption on bifacial panels that, until now, “has allowed imports of a dominant solar panel technology from China…to avoid tariffs”. State news agency Xinhua publishes an “explainer” that calls the concept of “Chinese overcapacity” a “fallacy” that defies economic basics, arguing that China’s new energy sector is “struggling to meet global demand”. The state-supporting newspaper Global Times argues that the term “China overcapacity” is a form of “cognitive warfare” launched by the west “against the Chinese economy”. SCMP quotes Lin Yuanchun, a prominent economist and government adviser, calling for “new ways of thinking to assess overcapacity in new and strategic industries”.

Separately, the Chinese Wind Energy Association (CWEA) called the European Commission’s investigation of Chinese wind turbines a serious act of trade protectionism that will “impact global efforts to address climate change”, energy news outlet BJX News reports. Another BJX News article says the EU’s wind turbine investigations “run counter” to global efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions, adding that creating a win-win situation can only be achieved through cooperation between China and Europe.

The state-run newspaper China Daily publishes an commentary saying that “the expansion of Sino-German cooperation could be based on Germany’s mature climate club model…[and] China remains committed to advancing Sino-German cooperation, emphasising its significance in areas such as decarbonisation, green finance and sustainable financing”. Finally, another China Daily commentary argues that the recent acts of protectionism towards Chinese NEVs from the US and Europe go against the “principles of free trade and market economy”.

Passenger-car sales in Europe fell 2.8% in March amid weaker demand in general, and “particularly for electric vehicles”, according to figures from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (EAMA) cited by Bloomberg. The news website says the decline is partly due to the early Easter holiday, but it also points to “higher interest rates, weaker economic growth and the phasing out of generous subsidies to stoke demand for electric vehicles”. Reuters reports that sales of battery-electric cars dropped by 11.3% from the previous year, while hybrid-electric vehicle registrations were up by 12.6%, largely due to sales in France and Italy. The newswire says, when considering electric cars, many consumers are “deterred by cost and continuing doubts about infrastructure”, with many areas slow to roll out public charging stations. According to the Times, “the collapse in demand means that Britain is Europe’s market leader in electric car sales”. Sales in the UK rose by nearly 4% to 48,000 in March, and in the first three months of the year they were up by 10%, it says.

The Daily Express jumps on the EAMA figures as evidence that “Brussels attempts to encourage European drivers to buy electric cars has hit the buffers in a major embarrassment for EU policymakers”. The Daily Telegraph has “four charts that reveal the scale of Europe’s electric car crash”. Climate-sceptic columnist Ross Clark has an opinion article for the Daily Telegraph with the headline “Europe is revolting against the tyranny of electric cars”. Clark says that Europe has joined the UK in going “distinctly cool on electric cars”. [This statement is difficult to square with the Times reporting that the UK is, in fact, leading in recent electric-car sales.]

In more electric-car news, the Daily Mail reports that deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden has revealed that a top-level review is underway by UK intelligence services into whether “hostile” states, such as China, could use electric vehicles as intelligence-gathering devices. An editorial in the Daily Mail also focuses on this story, warning about fears that “the technology and software built into Chinese models could hoover up vital information about high-profile people and infrastructure”.

During an unexpected visit to Kyiv, German vice chancellor Robert Habeck stated that German companies “are ready to promptly assist” in the reconstruction of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, which was destroyed by Russian attacks, reports Ukrainian media outlet Ukrainska Pravda. According to the outlet, Habeck stated that Ukrainian officials showed him the implications of Russian strikes on energy infrastructure, and he also emphasised the importance of building reserve capacity throughout the summer. Deutsche Welle details that, according to Ukrainian prime minister Denys Shmyhal, 80% of the Ukrainian thermal power plants’ capacities had been destroyed by Russian strikes over the past few weeks. DW adds that Habeck’s delegation comprised representatives from the German energy sector, tasked with assessing the specific support required for Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. He further emphasised that “German companies are already supplying turbines and equipment in large quantities and almost in an automated mode”. Politico also has the story, while Der Spiegel reports that due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the following energy crisis, Germany has seen approximately €160bn of wealth losses, according to the German economy ministry. 

Finally, Clean Energy Wire reports that after a significant delay, German coalition lawmakers have finally reached an agreement on a reform of the nation’s climate action law. The outlet explains that the reform would reduce ministries’ responsibility to meet sector-specific targets, focusing instead on achieving the overall climate goal across all sectors. The updates are being criticised by both the energy industry and NGOs and await approval through a parliamentary vote.

India is asking to be exempted from the UK’s planned carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) due to its status as a developing country, according to an anonymous UK government official speaking to the Guardian. The newspaper reports in its “exclusive” story that the Indian negotiators have been using the limited time left before the UK general election as a “bargaining chip” to push for an exemption from the carbon tax. “Any decision to exempt India from a carbon tax would be controversial,” the article explains. It notes that the mechanism is meant to cut overall emissions and “support UK steel producers by levelling the playing field with countries that have a lower or no carbon levy”.

The Biden administration in the US has finalised a new rule that puts conservation on public lands on a “more equal footing with oil drilling, grazing and other extractive industries”, according to the Associated Press. This will allow government lands, which make up 10% of all land in the US, to be leased for restoration “in the same way that oil companies lease land for drilling”, the article notes. The Washington Post says officials have put a greater emphasis under president Joe Biden on “protecting public lands from the twin threats of climate change and development”. The newspaper says that companies will be able to buy “mitigation leases” that allow lease holders to “offset the impact of their activities” on public lands. It notes that “renewable energy developers won’t be immune from the rule” and could buy mitigation leases if their wind or solar farms impact wildlife of watersheds.

A Scotsman editorial recalls UK prime minister Rishi Sunak’s rollback of various net-zero targets last autumn, noting how, at the time, Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf described the actions as “simply unforgivable”. Now, it notes, Yousaf’s Scottish National Party (SNP) government has made a similar move by abandoning its 2030 target for cutting emissions, while still emphasising that Scotland will reach net-zero emissions by 2045 – five years ahead of the UK as a whole. It says: “In the SNP’s world of make-believe politics, Scotland is still better than England. And of course, the SNP is not to blame; the fault lies, obviously, with Westminster,” adding: “When the government set its ambitious 2030 target in 2019, it was always going to be a struggle. But ministers then singularly failed to struggle – to make a serious, sustained effort – to achieve it.” The editorial emphasises what it sees as the government’s incompetence while stressing the “vitally important” task of tackling climate change. It also dismisses the “wishful thinking” of the Green party politicians that are in a power-sharing agreement with the SNP. The editorial concludes: “Green ministers who drop diktats from on high while defiantly sticking their heads in the clouds and SNP politicians of limited ability, ambition or interest, who merely cosplay as environmentalists, simply will not cut it.”

Elsewhere, an editorial for the Daily Telegraph also focuses on the Scottish government’s decision, using it to criticise the UK Labour party. It says: “This ought to give others pause for thought, and none more so than Sir Keir Starmer. Labour’s goal of a decarbonised electricity grid by 2030 is now a clear outlier.” [In its warning that the Scottish government’s climate plans were off-track, the Climate Change Committee pointed to failings in transport, buildings and agriculture, but noted that emissions from electricity were falling. The same is true for the UK as a whole, with electricity emissions falling below agriculture for the first time last year.] In his sketch for the Times, Alex Massie also takes aim at what he sees as the Scottish government’s hypocrisy in criticising the UK government’s climate-policy rollback while also scrapping its own target. He also highlights Yousaf’s commitment to retaining the 2045 net-zero target, stating: “This Augustinian defence – lord, grant me net-zero but not yet – was nimble in its way but, ultimately, less than wholly convincing.”

In other comment, the Daily Telegraph’s world economy editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard explains why less energy will be required overall following a transition away from fossil fuels, as so much energy from burning fossil fuels is wasted. He writes: “Cutting-edge research suggests that we will require just 40% to 45% of today’s total energy supply to replace the old system, and to lift the global South, and to satisfy the voracious demand of data centres, all at the same time.”

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal argues that US fossil-fuel production is growing “despite president Biden’s best efforts” and that this may in fact benefit the president in the election later this year. It cites work by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, which it says shows that fossil-fuel producing states such as North Dakota and Texas “led the way” in US economic growth last year. The newspaper also states that oil-and-gas drilling is bringing in more benefits than the president’s flagship Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) climate policies. It adds: “Mr Biden will never admit it, but privately financed fossil-fuel production is doing far more to boost the US economy than his hundreds of billions of dollars in spending on electric vehicles and green energy.”

A separate Wall Street Journal article, penned by Paul Dabbar, who served as US undersecretary of energy for science during the presidency of Donald Trump, says European oil companies such as Shell and BP should consider moving their headquarters and shifting their main stock listings to the US. “While many US investors are still interested in energy, many Europeans shun the core business of oil and gas companies,” he writes. Among his reasons to move to the US, Dabbar highlights pressure on these companies from European governments, courts and activist investors to take action on climate change.

Finally, a comment article in the New York Times by Jacob Dreyer, a specialist in Chinese political economy and science, focuses on China’s quest for dominance in low-carbon technology, and what it means for the US. He writes: “Together, China and the US could decarbonise the world. But if Americans don’t get serious about it, the Chinese will do it without them.”

Emergency “fire bans” in Brazil – such as those implemented in 2019 – have been “largely ineffective” and must be combined with longer-term strategies to reduce the risks of fire, new research says. Scientists compare the number of observed “fire counts” in the Brazilian Amazon over 2019-21 to the number of expected fires based on climatic conditions. They find that while the 2019 ban did significantly reduce the number of fires, the same intervention was “much less effective” in 2020 and 2021. The authors argue that solving the “fire crisis” will require “target[ing] the underlying causes of fire”, engaging with local communities and building long-term management strategies and education campaigns.

A new study finds that as a result of human drivers including climate change, lakes face a bevy of health problems – such as changes in their circulation and nutrients, acidification and even drying up completely. A team of researchers conduct a literature review of the impacts of human activities on more than 1.4m lakes around the world, then propose some treatment and mitigation activities. They find that climate change, combined with “severe water exploitation” have led to the rapid drying of many lakes, which is “analogous to dehydration and potential death for humans”. They add that “a combination of treatments…is needed to cure lakes from health problems”.