US president-elect Donald Trump has criticised the UK government’s energy policy with a call to “open up” North Sea oil and gas production and “get rid of windmills”, in widely reported comments on his social media platform Truth Social. Reuters says the “climate-sceptic Trump has long opposed windfarms”. The newswire continues: “The government aims to quadruple offshore wind generation capacity by 2030…In October, the British government said it would increase a windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas producers to 38% from 35% and extend the levy by one year.” The outlet quotes a government spokesperson saying: “We need to replace our dependency on unstable fossil fuel markets with clean, homegrown power controlled in Britain – which is the best way to protect billpayers and boost our energy independence.” The Financial Times describes Trump’s comments as the “latest salvo against Keir Starmer’s government from the incoming US administration”. The newspaper reports: “It was unclear what prompted the post, which included a link to an article from November in which APA Corporation, which owns US oil producer Apache, said it would wind up its North Sea operations by 2029 warning high taxes and environmental regulations made them ‘uneconomic’. Apache itself halted drilling in the North Sea in June 2023, before Starmer’s government took office in July last year.” The Guardian reports the story with the headline: “Trump accused of attacking UK energy policies on behalf of fossil fuel industry.” A Reuters feature notes how “oil and gas production in the North Sea has declined sharply since its peak in the late 1990s”, adding: “Production has since declined as reservoirs depleted.” CNBC, Sky News, Press Association, the Times, Sun, Hill, Daily Telegraph and Bloomberg are among the many other outlets covering Trump’s comments. BBC News reports that Trump has been invited to visit the wind industry in Hull, in the north-east of England. The Daily Telegraph additionally carries analysis on: “How Donald Trump gave Ed Miliband a North Sea energy shock.” It says: “Labour’s green ambitions risk driving a wedge between No 10 and Washington.” Another Daily Telegraph article reports the claims of Conservative MP Nick Timothy, under the headline: “Miliband’s ‘net-zero zealotry leaves Britain vulnerable to Russia and China’.”

Several newspapers carry editorials responding to Trump’s comments. Saturday’s Daily Telegraph takes the opportunity to say: “Britain is persisting with a self-immiserising approach to net-zero which is set to see us forego the benefits of the North Sea”. It adds: “Energy is only one of many policy areas where the ship of state appears to be adrift.” An editorial in Saturday’s Daily Mail says: “[I]sn’t he saying what many in this country think – that rather than buying our oil and gas from foreign despots, we should exploit the reserves in our own waters until renewables are able to take over?” The climate-sceptic Sun also carries an editorial in response, which it uses to attack the energy and net-zero secretary with the headline: “Ed Miliband’s uncontrolled fanaticism is now an economic and political liability.” The newspaper, apparently forgetting that the windfall tax on North Sea oil and gas was introduced by former Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak, says: “Trump is dead right of course about the insanity of Ed Miliband’s self-harming dash to abandon North Sea oil and gas – and the savage windfall tax rises destroying investment there.” The editorial also says Miliband has a “deranged net-zero obsession” that is “lead[ing] us towards ruin”. For Monday’s Scottish edition of the Times, columnist Iain Macwhirter says Trump is “not entirely wrong”, although he also admits that “North Sea oil is running out”. He criticises the UK government’s “mis-selling” that he says is “undermining public confidence in net-zero” and concludes: “People are tired of greenwash and ever-increasing energy bills. If you want my prediction for the new year, it’s that 2025 will be the year the bottom falls out of the green energy market, and Miliband finds himself out in the cold.”

A record number of new electric cars were sold in the UK last year, the Guardian reports. It says industry figures show EVs reaching a record 19.6% of overall sales, up from 16.5% a year earlier. The newspaper explains: “[Under the UK’s zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate] carmakers were told to aim for 22% of UK sales to be electric in 2024, rising to 28% in 2025. However, they are able to avoid penalties for missing the main target if they sell more battery cars in later years, or if they cut overall emissions. New AutoMotive, a campaign group, has estimated that the real target [for 2024] may have been as low as 18%.” It quotes Mike Hawes, chief executive of industry lobby group the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), describing the 19.6% share of sales that were electric as a “shortfall”: “He said manufacturers were being forced into steep discounts to increase sales of electric cars, a situation that was ‘unsustainable’.” The article adds: “However, environmental campaigners and charge point operators urged the government not to relax the rules.” The Financial Times says the UK is “vying with Germany to be Europe’s largest market for electric vehicles during 2024”. It reports: “While the SMMT calculated that carmakers would need to spend £1.8bn to buy credits to avoid fines for the past year, the Department for Transport said it was ‘confident’ that flexibility in the current scheme meant that none of them would face financial penalties for the year 2024.” It continues: “The ZEV mandate – which was drawn up by the previous Conservative government when sales were expected to rise sharply – has come under significant criticism from the industry, which has warned that pushing too fast will cost jobs. Labour ministers are now considering watering down the rules to make it easier for carmakers to meet the targets, and last month launched a consultation on the scheme.” The Times headline says carmakers “miss[ed]” the ZEV mandate target for 2024, but adds: “It is understood no carmaker is likely to pay any penalties for 2024 as shortfalls can be rolled over or offset against future sales.” Bloomberg says EV sales in the UK “surge[d]” at the end of 2024, with nearly a third of sales being electric in December. The Daily Telegraph carries the news on its frontpage with the headline: “Net-zero fines to kill off cheap car deals.” It reports: “Manufacturers may cut back sales of petrol cars or raise prices in order to pay for discounts on electric models as they scramble to hit stretching government targets, the SMMT warned.” The Daily Mail leads its coverage with the news that, according to the SMMT, only 10% of new car sales to private buyers were electric. The Independent notes: “There is some confusion over the numbers of cars reaching private individuals, though, as many cars supplied through personal leasing, motobility or government-supported salary sacrifice schemes are registered as fleet sales.” BusinessGreen also has the story. Separately, a feature for the Sunday Times explains: “There are more [charging] stations than you might think, but strict laws on the size of motorway signs mean they go unnoticed – and fuel anxiety about going electric.” A double-page spread in the Daily Mail reports on the “dirty little secret behind the West’s net-zero dash for electric cars”.

In related news, Bloomberg reports that EV sales surged in the US in the final part of 2024 due to the threat of tax credits ending under incoming president Donald Trump. In related comment, climate-sceptic columnist Matthew Lynn writes in the Daily Telegraph under the headline: “Tesla is now fighting for its future.”

The Biden administration has finalised rules that “offer billions of dollars in tax credits to companies that make hydrogen”, the New York Times reports. It says the credits were approved by Congress in 2022, but needed detailed rules from the Treasury “to clarify what, exactly, companies had to do to claim that credit”. It adds: “The final guidelines that were released Friday followed months of intense lobbying from lawmakers, industry representatives and environmental groups and roughly 30,000 public comments. They include changes that make it somewhat easier for hydrogen producers to claim the tax credits, which could total tens of billions of dollars over the next decade.” The Financial Times says the Biden administration “relaxed the criteria for green hydrogen producers to claim tax credits on Friday as it raced to help the struggling sector and secure its clean energy legacy ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration”. It explains: “The Treasury department has delayed stricter requirements for the sector by two years to 2030: from that year, green hydrogen developers will need to prove that their production is powered by renewables hour by hour instead of annually, in order to qualify for credits.” The Associated Press says the rules “drew cautious praise from environmental groups”. Bloomberg, the Hill and E&E News all cover the story.

US president Joe Biden is “set to order a ban on new offshore oil and gas development across some 625m acres [2.5m square kilometres] of US coastal territory, ruling out the sale of drilling rights in Atlantic and Pacific waters as well as the eastern Gulf of Mexico”, Bloomberg reports. It adds: “Biden is keeping the door open for new oil and natural gas leasing in the central and western portions of the Gulf of Mexico that provide about 14% of US output, said people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named because the decision is not yet public.” The outlet continues: “Unlike other steps Biden has taken to constrain fossil fuel development and the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change, this one could have long-lived durability, complicating Trump’s intentions to bolster domestic oil and gas production. That’s because Biden’s planned proclamation is rooted in a 72-year-old provision of federal law that gives presidents broad discretion to withdraw US waters from oil leasing without explicitly authorising revocations.” CNN also has the story, reporting: “President Joe Biden is expected to permanently ban future offshore oil and gas development in parts of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans in a way that could be especially difficult for the incoming Trump administration to undo.” The Washington Post also has the story.

Separately, the Associated Press reports: “The US Chamber of Commerce and a top oil and gas industry trade group are suing Vermont over its new law requiring that fossil fuel companies pay a share of the damage caused over several decades by climate change.”

China’s Ministry of Commerce has proposed export restrictions on technologies for batteries and the processing of lithium and gallium, Reuters reports. It says: “If implemented, they would be the latest in a series of export restrictions and bans targeting critical minerals and the technology used to process them, areas in which Beijing is globally dominant.” The newswire adds that the proposals would help China to “retain its 70% grip on the global processing of lithium into the material needed to make electric vehicle (EV) batteries”. Bloomberg reports that China is planning “tougher scrutiny on exports of technology to make battery materials”, as Beijing seeks to protect “innovations that China has developed during its rise to dominate global battery and electric-vehicle production” amid “rising global trade tensions”. The Hong Kong-based news outlet South China Morning Post (SCMP) and industry news outlet BJX News cover the same story.

Meanwhile, the state-owned newspaper Global Times says official data shows China’s “offshore oilfield production accounted for 60% the country’s total new crude oil output…offshore wind turbine installations connected to the state grid represented more than 50% of the global total”. China’s Ministry of Natural Resources has issued a notice on “strengthening the management of sea use for offshore wind power projects”, International Energy Net reports. 

Elsewhere, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China’s top economic planner, said at a press conference on Friday that the Chinese government will “further increase subsidies” for upgrading products, including “new energy” city buses and batteries, state news agency Xinhua reports. Zhao Chenxin, deputy head of the NDRC, highlighted China’s “green transition acceleration” in 2024 at the conference, says a separate Xinhua report. BJX News also covers the press conference. Shanghai-based news outlet the Paper lists a number of local policies for energy transitions throughout 2024.

Finally, India’s foreign ministry “conveyed its concerns to Beijing” on Friday about China’s plan to build a hydropower dam in Tibet on the Yarlung Zangbo river which flows into India”, Reuters reports. A podcast by Bloomberg discusses how China, which has built 37 nuclear reactors over the past decade, manages to build so much nuclear power and what lessons the US can learn from it. 

The UK government is to “ditch plans to ban new gas boilers from 2035”, the i newspaper reports, in what it bills as an “exclusive”. It continues: “A de-facto ban on gas boilers being installed in new homes will be confirmed later this year, taking effect before the end of the decade. But the previously planned rule that would stop people replacing their existing boilers with new ones from 2035 will be scrapped, the i newspaper understands.” (Labour’s stated intention of getting rid of the 2035 ban was first reported in June 2024.) The Sun follows up the i newspaper’s story with its own coverage.

Separately, the Times covers analysis from Drax Electric Insights saying that wind power “ha[s] become the biggest single source of Britain’s electricity for the first time ever” last year. Bloomberg also has the story. [Last week, the Times covered Carbon Brief analysis showing that, on the contrary, gas remained slightly ahead of wind in 2024. The figures cited by the latest stories do not account for certain sources of gas-fired electricity, such as industrial combined heat and power plants.] Meanwhile, a frontpage story for the Times runs with two different headlines. In print, it says: “Enemies could use windfarms for attack.” Online, it says: “How wind turbines could be used to spot incoming missiles.” The article says: “The Ministry of Defence is considering measures to combat concerns that offshore wind turbines obscure military radar signals.”

In other UK news, the Daily Telegraph reports: “The National Grid has effectively abandoned a flagship futuristic pylon project because they were too noisy and expensive.” The Daily Mail also has the story. Finally, the Daily Express re-reports a story it first published last March, claiming that repurposing the UK’s network of gas pipelines to carry hydrogen could “boost Britain’s net-zero ambitions”, according to an executive of a gas pipeline company.

The UK’s “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF) mandate came into force at the start of 2025, BusinessGreen reports, explaining that the rules “requir[e] all airlines to work towards a target that should see 10% of all jet fuel coming from sustainable low carbon sources by 2030”. It adds: “Said to be one of the first mandates of its kind, it is hoped the new standards announced by the then Conservative government in April will support thousands of skilled jobs, deliver economic growth, and help make the UK a clean energy superpower.” The outlet quotes the heads of lobby groups Airlines UK and AirportsUK supporting the SAF mandate. It adds: “Some critics have also questioned whether SAF will drive up costs for airlines, resulting in higher ticket prices. But advocates of SAFs maintain the industry can secure large quantities of sustainable feedstocks, drive down costs over time, and deliver substantial emissions reductions.”

Meanwhile, the Sunday Telegraph reports in a frontpage splash that: “Net-zero ‘flight tax’ will raise cost of holidays.” It says the SAF mandate ”risks adding hundreds of pounds to the cost of family holidays” and “is forecast to add more than 20% to the cost of flying”. [The figures come from the April 2024 impact assessment of the policy, which estimated single ticket prices in 2040 could rise by between £9-38 (6-22%). The newspaper focuses on the top end and multiplies the impact by eight, assuming a return ticket for a family of four.] The Daily Mail also carries this angle. The Times reports: “The government has admitted it may have to backtrack on a net-zero ‘flight tax’ if it adds hundreds of pounds to holidaymakers’ journeys.” The newspaper reports the same figure of £302.40 that it says could be added to the cost of a family holiday and, like the Sunday Telegraph, carries quotes from the Conservative Lord Craig Mackinlay of the climate-sceptic Net Zero Scrutiny Group. However, the Times also notes that this figure is a “worst-case scenario” and cites the low-end estimate from the impact assessment. It quotes a government spokesperson saying: “Those carping from the sidelines should remember it was a Conservative government that introduced this policy. Encouraging use of greener aviation fuels is a real opportunity to establish Britain as a world leader in a pioneering industry that could create thousands of well-paid jobs, whilst protecting the pound in holidaymakers’ pockets and allowing them to travel where they want in a more sustainable way.”

Germany imported at least 68.6 tonnes of uranium from Russia in 2024 – an increase of nearly 70% compared to 2023 – according to Der Spiegel, citing information from the Lower Saxony ministry for the environment, energy and climate protection. The uranium comes from two subsidiaries of the Russian nuclear conglomerate Rosatom and was delivered to the Advanced Nuclear Fuels (ANF) factory in Lingen, Lower Saxony, for use in nuclear power plants, reports the outlet. ANF, a subsidiary of Framatome under the French nuclear group EDF, is pursuing a joint venture with Rosatom to produce fuel elements for Russian-type WWER reactors at the Lingen site, a move deemed “particularly controversial”, notes the newspaper. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) quotes Lower Saxony’s minister of the environment criticising the strong dependence on Russian uranium: “Business dealings with the ‘warmonger’ Putin should be avoided, especially in the sensitive nuclear sector”. Meyer also urged the European Union to impose sanctions on Russian uranium imports, adds FAZ. 

Meanwhile, Bild reports that Germany imports nuclear power “like never before,” citing new figures from the Federal Network Agency showing that Germany imported 17,300 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of nuclear power in 2024, compared to 4,500GWh in 2022 when its three last nuclear power plants were still running. FAZ carries a quote from David Stadelmann, an economist at the University of Bayreuth: “The nuclear phase-out caused wealth loss, yet nuclear power is imported from France…It’s like closing car factories and importing cars from France.”

In other German news, Deutsche Welle reports that renewable energy made up 59% of the nation’s total electricity generation in 2024, up from 56% in 2023, with wind contributing 31.9% and solar 14.7%. Meanwhile, lignite coal contributed 16.4%, gas 13.2% and “hard” coal (anthracite) 6.3%

Finally, the Guardian carries a news feature under the headline: “‘They’ve heard so much wrong information’: Selling heat pumps across Germany’s political divide.”

US banks have been “rushing in recent weeks to leave one of the world’s top banking sector climate coalitions, drawing scorn from campaigners who worry the industry is losing resolve to take action on fossil fuels”, Reuters reports. The newswire says banks including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Wells Fargo have left the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, leaving only JP Morgan among the top six US lenders among its members. In related coverage, the Daily Telegraph says that “Trump’s anti-ESG movement could spell the end for ‘green finance’.” Finally, a comment for Reuters by James Alexander, chief executive of the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association, says that “2025 will be a pivotal year for climate finance in the UK”.

In a comment for the Financial Times, Sergey Vakulenko, senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, says that there is a “wave of scepticism among both oil industry analysts and insiders over the viability” of plans to massively increase oil production in the US under the incoming Trump administration. He writes: “The irony is that the Biden administration, for all its green measures and talk, has not been too hard on the oil industry, so there is little additional pressure that the Trump administration could remove.” The article adds: “Nor will the hoped-for 3m barrels per day of additional US production be enough to replace the 7m currently exported by Russia. As a result, it would still be very disruptive to try to embargo Russian oil from the world markets altogether.” He concludes: “Since the beginning of the war, the west has managed to put a dent in Russia’s oil revenues, but it is now struggling to reduce them further. So far, Trump and his associates have not produced a plausible breakthrough strategy for the short to medium term. It is accordingly wise to design plans and strategies regarding Russia around the assumption that its oil revenues remain quite resilient and cannot be drastically reduced.”

Separately, the Bloomberg Green Daily newsletter lists “what to watch in climate this year”, including: growth in global solar additions falling to 11%, from 35% in 2024; the impact of China’s shift to electric vehicles on oil demand growth; and a “revival” for nuclear power. A feature in the Times similarly looks at the year ahead and says oil prices could fall on “weaker fuel demand from China amid the shift to electric vehicles”.

An editorial in Saturday’s Guardian looks at the “profound” challenge of industrial closures in the UK in 2024, including at Grangemouth in Scotland, Port Talbot in Wales and Vauxhall in Luton. It says: “Factory closures highlight the turbulent shift to a green economy, exposing political challenges and the urgent need for an equitable move to net-zero.” The editorial adds: “The politics of this look sadly familiar: every closure, every big job loss will aid those on the right who claim net-zero is a zealots’ agenda…It is the job of Labour and others who take the just transition seriously to increase both the money and urgency behind it. Otherwise, local unemployment will produce local devastation and widespread resentment that can be mobilised by the most reactionary forces.”

An editorial in the Sunday Telegraph – ostensibly responding to the newspaper’s coverage of the UK’s “sustainable aviation fuel” mandate (see news) – runs with the headline: “The price of net-zero is now too high to bear.” It claims that the government is “adopting an approach that wilfully destroys value in the name of environmental progress” and making an “ideological pursuit of net-zero”. Also in the print edition of the Sunday Telegraph, the Conservative peer Jon Moynihan – who has reportedly donated to the climate-sceptic lobby group the Global Warming Policy Foundation – criticises “futile net-zero spending”.

Separately, a comment for the Independent by former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger is titled: “Locking up a 77-year-old climate protester is proof of a broken justice system.” 

A new study warns that “public engagement with climate topics on Reddit is waning”. The paper analyses 11.5bn posts on Reddit, published over 2005-21, to assess how discussions about “global warming” and “climate change” have evolved. They find that the total number of climate-related Reddit posts has increased, but the proportion of posts related to climate has decreased. The study finds that the phrase “climate change” surpassed “global warming” in 2013 and is associated with “more negative sentiment and higher subjectivity”.