In a widely expected move, the UK government has agreed a new deal for the Drax power station in North Yorkshire to provide electricity over 2027-31, Reuters reports. The deal will “halve subsidies” to the power station, which was previously converted from coal to burn wood pellets, the newswire explains: “The government [this morning] that under the new agreement Drax would play a much more limited role in the system, providing low-carbon dispatchable power only when it is ‘really needed.” The deal means Drax will “need to switch to using 100% woody biomass from sustainable sources, up from the previous level of 70%”, it adds. BBC News and Bloomberg also have early reporting on the announcement. (See analysis and explanation by Carbon Brief’s Dr Simon Evans, which he has just posted on BlueSky, Twitter and LinkedIn.)

Over the weekend, BBC News reported that it has found evidence that Drax power station “has failed more than once to report it burned wood from primary forests”. The power station – which receives “billions of pounds in government subsidies” – is “required to report where it sources its wood and whether it is from natural, previously untouched forests”, the outlet explains: “The company paid a £25m penalty last year for misreporting this data following an investigation by the energy regulator Ofgem and now the BBC has discovered a further year of misreporting that has not been looked at by the regulator.” In response, Drax “did not deny misreporting its sustainability data but said it is ‘focused on implementing the lessons learned’”, the article says. The Times reports that shares in Drax rose last week “on expectations that ministers were about to offer it more subsidies” to keep the power station running beyond 2027. The outlet says that the “green light for some form of subsidy extension” could come today. The climate-sceptic Daily Telegraph pins the development specifically on the energy secretary with the headline: “Ed Miliband to hand taxpayer billions to wood-burning power stations.” The climate-sceptic Daily Mail says the move is a “fresh humiliation” for “net-zero zealot” Miliband.

In nuclear power news, the Times reports that a proposal several years ago for the Wylfa nuclear power station in Anglesey was “blocked after officials raised concerns over the impact it would have on the Welsh language”. The Daily Telegraph reports that the Sizewell C nuclear project in Suffolk risks becoming “another British white elephant”. The Financial Times has a “big read” on whether the nuclear industry can find “a better way to build”. BBC News reports that the owner of the Bacton gas terminal in Norfolk said it welcomed Keir Starmer’s pledge to build more nuclear power stations amid “speculation” that the firm which owns the site is interested in constructing a nuclear plant there. 

In other UK news, the Guardian reports that Labour’s state-owned energy company Great British Energy faces a “challenging” task to find a chief executive. The newspaper also reports that tech companies are “putting pressure on the UK government to encourage an AI datacentre boom in remote areas of Great Britain by offering some of the cheapest electricity prices in Europe”. The i newspaper reports that the country could become a “dumping ground” for Chinese solar panels due to new tariffs set by US president Trump. The Daily Telegraph reports that “planning red tape and ‘increasingly bizarre council objections’ are choking Britain’s rollout of electric car charging infrastructure”. And the Times has a review of the Dacia Spring EV – now “Britain’s cheapest car” – by motoring journalist James May. He writes: “So far the EV has been widely derided for being too expensive, big and heavy, and responsible for smashing up our roads and demolishing multistorey car parks. It is a smug, elitist statement, and the 2035 ban on new petrol and diesel cars is therefore a pipe dream. But now the cheapest new car on sale in Britain is electric, and there are more of the same on the way from the Chinese. Now we will see if the people really want them.“

The “vast majority” of governments are likely to miss a looming deadline to file their revised climate pledges under the Paris Agreement, reports the Guardian. Under the accord, every five years countries must submit detailed plans – called nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – with clear and improved targets on cutting emissions, “or curbing them in the case of poorer countries”, the newspaper explains. The deadline is technically 10 February – nine months before the COP30 summit in Brazil this November – but “with only a handful of countries so far having submitted plans, it looks likely that most will miss it”, the newspaper says. It continues: “Despite the urgency of the crisis, the UN is relatively relaxed at the prospect of the missed date. Officials are urging countries instead to take time to work harder on their targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions and divest from fossil fuels.” The article quotes Simon Stiell, the UN’s top climate official, as saying: “Because these national plans are among the most important policy documents governments will produce this century, their quality should be the paramount consideration…Taking a bit more time to ensure these plans are first-rate makes sense.” Stiell has urged countries to file their submissions before September, when experts will prepare an official “synthesis report” showing whether the aggregated plans are sufficient to meet the 1.5C limit, the article adds. Carbon Brief’s new analysis shows that “around 95% of countries have missed a UN deadline to submit new climate pledges for 2035”.

Elsewhere, in an interview with Le Monde, COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago says the summit in Brazil will “need to define how to move forward without the US government” after Trump initiated a second US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. He says that his priority for COP30 “is to show that solutions exist”, adding: “Technological, economic and financial answers are available or need to be improved. We want to show concrete results that will affect people and economies. This can’t just be a COP of speeches and law negotiations, but also of action. We need to inject a little optimism into the process.” On the potential withdrawal of Argentina from the Paris Agreement, Corrêa do Lago notes that the “free trade agreement between [the South American Mercosur bloc] and the European Union has included the need to adhere to the Paris Agreement”. He adds: “There is no incompatibility between the fight against global warming, economic growth and the fight against poverty, especially as global warming can compromise the latter.”

In related news, Bloomberg reports that China has “expressed its support” for South Africa’s presidency of the G20, hours after US secretary of state Marco Rubio said he’ll boycott a meeting of foreign ministers from the bloc this month. The newswire explains: “In a post on [Twitter], Rubio said he won’t visit South Africa in protest at its attempt to use the G20 to tackle issues such as climate change and diversity, equity and inclusion. He also said he was boycotting the event because South Africa was expropriating private property – which hasn’t happened.”

The Trump administration has ordered US states to suspend a $5bn electric vehicle (EV) charging station programme, the Guardian reports. It continues: “In a memo issued on Thursday to state transportation directors, the transportation department’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ordered states not to spend any funds allocated to them under the Biden administration as part of the national electric vehicle infrastructure (NEVI) programme.” The programme “provides funding to states to strategically deploy EV chargers” and can cover “up to 80% of eligible project costs”, the article notes. It is mostly used to add chargers along the interstate highway system, says Bloomberg. However, former deputy FHWA administrator Andrew Rogers tells Politico that the memo “appears to ignore both the law and multiple restraining orders that have been issued by federal courts”. He notes that the suspension would be “in direct violation” of a 1974 law that restricts presidents from withholding congressionally approved funding. The Associated Press says that the “Tesla supercharger network – led by CEO Elon Musk, now a prominent member of Trump’s inner circle – itself has received millions of dollars through the programme”. Reuters reports that a group representing automakers and EV charging companies – such as General Motors, Stellantis and Toyota – said it has urged the Trump administration “to quickly resume the critical work of the programme and minimise uncertainty for states and their businesses”. Scientific American also has the story, while Axios says that tax credits that can cut as much as $7,500 off the price of qualifying EVs is likely to be the next policy “up on the chopping block”. The Guardian takes a look at “Elon Musk’s journey from climate champion to backing EV-bashing Trump”, while Times columnist Emma Duncan writes that Elon Musk’s “government bonfire is a warning beacon” for the UK. Jennifer Pahlka – US deputy chief technology officer under President Barack Obama – has a New York Times guest essay on how the “Democrats can counter Elon Musk”.

In other US news, Reuters reports that – according to Trump – Japan will soon begin importing a record amount of new shipments of US liquefied “natural” gas (LNG). The Financial Times reports that the chief executive of French energy firm TotalEnergies has said he is “ready” to help sell more US LNG to Europe, but urged the EU to seek a long-term LNG deal to guarantee energy security. Reuters says Taiwan is looking to buy Alaskan natural gas “as it seeks to head off US tariffs”. The Daily Telegraph says that “BP has been targeted by activist investor Elliott as the oil giant struggles to work out its approach to net-zero and better-performing US rivals prepare for an industry boom under Donald Trump”. The Associated Press reports that CO2 capture and storage projects “could see less federal support and enthusiasm” under Trump, but experts “doubt demand for the technology will go away as long as utilities face state-level climate change goals”. The Washington Post looks at “who’s losing out” from Trump’s executive order to freeze funding under Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. Axios reports that the US commerce department has sent officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “a broad set of keywords to search grants in ways that would cover most climate change-related projects”. It notes that “It isn’t clear what the administration intends to do with information gathered from the keyword searches or whether any funding may stop flowing to grants underway”. The Financial Times says that car manufacturer BMW “has pledged to continue investing in combustion engine and hybrid technology as it warned of a ‘rollercoaster ride’ in the US transition to electric vehicles following the return of Donald Trump as president”.

China has announced that it will accelerate “market-oriented reform” of feed-in tariffs for “new energy”, primarily meaning solar and wind energy, power news outlet BJX News reports. It adds that, according to the notice issued by the economic planning department the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the National Energy Administration (NEA), feed-in tariffs will eventually be “fully formed by the market”, with China also improving price mechanisms for both “spot markets” and “medium- and long-term markets”. Economic news outlet Jiemian says the policy “makes clear for the first time at the central level that new energy, without distinction, can participate in power market transactions”, adding that this means “the era of fixed tariffs for new energy power generation is over” and that renewable power will “no longer enjoy the advantages of [beneficial] tariff policies and will need to compete with thermal power, hydropower and other types of electricity”. It also says that the policy also “calls a halt” to requirements for new solar and wind projects to also build energy storage capacity, which “will have a huge impact on the energy storage industry”. In its coverage, Reuters says China will effectively “scale back subsidies for renewable energy projects”, which may “add pressure on China’s solar industry” given the sector’s overcapacity. Power news outlet Dianlian New Media runs an article saying China’s uptake of low-carbon energy has brought “significant changes” and blurred the “boundaries” between different elements of the power system, making it “necessary to further deepen the reform of transmission and distribution tariffs, improve price formation, optimise price structures, and adjust collection objects”. Energy news outlet International Energy Net reports that China will also “encourage new energy power generation enterprises to sign multi-year power purchase agreements with power users, manage market risks ahead of time, and form stable supply and demand relationships”. In an interview with state news agency Xinhua, NDRC and NEA officials argue that the previous subsidised tariffs “did not fully reflect market supply and demand”, adding that market reform would “promote the industry’s high-quality development”. BJX News reports that the NDRC and NEA also issued interim regulations on the “development and construction management of pumped storage power stations”. 

Local authorities in China have taken “swift actions” as large parts of the country “remain under the grip of a cold wave”, Xinhua reports. The Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily quotes an official at the China Meteorological Administration saying “climate change has led to an increase in extreme weather and climate events, which exacerbates the meteorological risk of influenza”, adding that “China is now actively addressing the health risks associated with climate change”. Separately, Xinhua reports that power supply for the 2025 Asian Winter Games held in the northern city of Harbin will be “green” and “smart”. Reference News, a news outlet associated with the People’s Daily, covers Carbon Brief reporting of the games, stating that “the city is organising the event on the principle of going green”.

An editorial by the state-run newspaper China Daily argues the US administration’s “shortsighted protectionism will inflict widespread harm” and strain ties with the EU, which contrasts with the China and the EU having “consistently” demonstrated that cooperation through mechanisms such as the China-EU Partnership on Climate Change “yields dividends”. A separate China Daily editorial says: “Beijing urges the Trump administration to engage in dialogue…Cooperation and collaboration are essential to address the complex challenges facing the global economy”. A BJX News commentary by Li Sheng, president of the China Renewable Energy Engineering Institute, saying that the direction of China’s upcoming 15th five-year plan should be “guided by the overall goal of constructing the new energy system”. 

There is continuing coverage of the UK government’s decision to back a third runway at Heathrow airport, with much of it focusing on energy security and net-zero secretary Ed Miliband, a long-time opponent of expansion. Miliband has “refused to say” whether he is personally in favour of the additional runway, reports BBC News. Pushed on whether he has changed his mind, Miliband said: “I am part of the government and I abide by collective responsibility,” the article says. Miliband told Times Radio that the government”s position is that “that we’re inviting an application from Heathrow for a third runway and we’re going to be assessing it”, the Times reports. He added: “They will have to meet strict environmental standards, be within our carbon budgets and from a climate point of view.” The newspaper interprets this as Miliband “back[ing]” the runway “after years of opposition”. The Daily Telegraph says that Miliband has been “told to get on board with Heathrow expansion” by chancellor Rachel Reeves. The Independent says that Miliband has made a “U-turn” and “now back[s]” the runway. The Daily Mail also reports that Miliband “finally backs” the proposal – “through gritted teeth” – while its sister outlet MailOnline says he is “again” refusing to back the runway.

Meanwhile, UK prime minister Keir Starmer is being “urged to resist pressure to permit Rosebank North Sea oilfield”, reports the Observer. A paper published today by the Grantham Institute on Climate Change – which is chaired by economist Nicholas Stern – will argue that giving the go-ahead for the oilfield “will signal to all other fossil fuel ­producers, including the US and Russia, that it supports a ‘business as usual’ approach the oil and gas industry”. It will add: “To demonstrate international leadership on climate change the UK government needs to take ­responsibility not just for its ­territorial emissions but also for how its actions might affect actions by others.” Much of the coverage on the Rosebank decision again revolves around Ed Miliband (see links above as part of the Heathrow reporting). Bloomberg says Rosebank “poses a green dilemma” for the energy secretary, as he described the development when in opposition as “a colossal waste of taxpayer money and climate vandalism”. 

There is also continued coverage of the government’s proposal late last week to set minimum energy efficiency standards for properties let by private landlords. The Press Association says: “The proposed regulations, currently under consultation, would require that all rental homes achieve an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating of C or above by the end of the decade. The current minimum requirement is an EPC E rating. The government estimates the changes could save tenants an average of £240 annually on energy bills.” Ed Miliband told the BBC Breakfast morning TV programme on Friday that there are boiler upgrade and local grant schemes for support, the Independent reports, but added: “I think landlords are going to have to foot at least some significant part of this bill.” The costs for landlords will be capped at £15,000, the outlet notes. The Daily Mail reports on fears that rents will rise as landlords face “huge bills”. The Daily Telegraph says the move will “trigger [a] surge in evictions”, while a second article says it could “raise rents by £4,000”. The Daily Mail also offers its readers an explainer on “how to dodge the £15,000 landlord bill bombshell”. The Big Issue also covers the story, while the i newspaper looks at whether the proposal will work.

In other Miliband news, the Press Association reports that the energy secretary has said that he will “consider” fast-tracking a carbon capture and storage project in Scotland – adding the move could help secure a future for workers at the Grangemouth oil refinery. (The Daily Telegraph says that Keir Starmer has been “very quiet” on saving oil refinery jobs.) And the Daily Telegraph reports on how “Ed Miliband’s battery blitz [is] threatening to blight Britain’s countryside”. 

The European Commission “may consider scaling back” its carbon border levy to just 20% of the companies covered by the scheme, because they account for nearly all of the emissions involved, Reuters reports. It continues: “The move, part of attempts to lighten the regulatory burden on businesses in the 27-member bloc, could exempt tens of thousands of companies from the world-first carbon border fee. From 2026, the policy known as CBAM [Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism] will impose costs at the EU border on the CO2 emissions embedded in imported steel, aluminium, cement and other goods.” EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said the Commission’s analysis had found that 97% of the emissions covered by the carbon border tariff are produced by just 20% of the companies under the scheme, the newswire reports. Hoekstra told a European Parliament committee meeting: “So would it then not be smart to leave that roughly 80% off the hook, in terms of the administrative work burden? In my view, it would…Our current thinking, where you actually apply a huge burden on companies who would then fill out a lot of paperwork, have a lot of things to do, without any merit – that cannot be the solution.”

Writing in the Guardian, UK energy secretary Ed Miliband defends the Labour party’s net-zero plans in the face of “siren voices in the Conservative party and Reform UK [that] say we should give up on action”. He writes: “In a world where climate policy is being questioned, this government’s message to those in the Tory and Reform parties who say that we should go backwards on climate is simple: you are wrong, and this government is going to speed up, not slow down, the clean energy transition.” The net-zero economy is the “economic growth opportunity of the 21st century”, Miliband argues, which is why the UK is “supporting publicly owned Great British Energy and backing investment in carbon capture jobs in the north-west and Teesside”, among other measures. Nonetheless, “it is undeniable that the climate debate is more contested than it has been for years”, he warns: “But the truth is that we face a choice as a country: transform our societies with good economic growth in the interests of current and future generations, or give in to those who defend the economic and social injustices of the status quo as we hurtle towards climate disaster, with the Los Angeles wildfires and record January temperatures just the latest evidence.”

Meanwhile, Miliband continues to be attacked by sections of the media. An editorial in Saturday’s Daily Mail describes him as a “bad loser” for “conced[ing] he will not block the proposed expansion of Heathrow airport” with “typical ill grace”. It also criticises the move to require landlords to meet energy efficiency standards for rental homes, saying: “Mr Miliband, the Minister for Make Believe, needs to be told in stark terms that his crippling environmental levies will not put a roof over anyone’s head.” An editorial in Saturday’s Daily Telegraph attacks the same policy, as well as others, warning that although Labour “appear[s] to be coming to their senses in some fields, Mr Miliband is permitted to run amok in others”. Also in the Daily Telegraph, climate-sceptic columnist Matthew Lynn says that the “fanatical green commissar” is “in full-scale retreat – and that is good for Britain”. However, he warns, “no one should rule out the chances that Miliband could become PM in an internal party coup, leading a government that was more fanatically committed to net-zero than any other in the developed world”. A third Daily Telegraph article, by the newspaper’s leader writer and business columnist Sam Ashworth-Hayes, describes Miliband as a “Cabinet no-brainer” for his objection to the Rosebank oil and gas field. In the Independent, chief political commentator John Rentoul says that Miliband’s “back[ing]” of Heathrow’s third runway and failure to deliver – in 2025 – a campaign promise to cut electricity bills by up to £300 by 2030 “prov[es] he should not be in this job”. [In a “BBC Verify” article by BBC News, a spokesperson from the UK Climate Change Committee explains that “the main reason why electricity prices are currently high is because the cost of gas – which is what sets the electricity price – is also high”.] A Sunday Times column by chief political commentator Tim Shipman and political editor Caroline Wheeler quotes an unnamed ministerial aide suggesting that Miliband would “eventually throw himself under a bus” rather than continue to support projects he previously opposed. In contrast, former BBC news energy and environment analyst Roger Harrabin suggests in BusinessGreen that resignation will have “barely crossed” Miliband’s mind as “it would have sparked far too much glee from the right-wing MPs, columnists and editors who have persecuted him relentlessly, and he would almost certainly have been replaced by a less knowledgeable and less passionate advocate of the low-carbon economy”.

In other UK comment, Green party MP and co-leader Carla Denyer writes in the Independent that “climate action and net-zero have become fertile battlegrounds in the culture wars waged by the right”. She says “climate disasters have become an opportunistic battleground for the likes of” Reform UK and argues that “It’s time for the government to ward off both threats”. Observer columnist Will Hutton makes a similar point, noting that Reform “regards the climate crisis as a scam”, while Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch “talks of ‘eco-nutters’”. Yet, he says, in the debate pitching economic growth against net-zero, it “is as if events in China are on another planet”. He adds: “Here, the leadership – obviously fanatical ‘eco-nutters’ – defines the drivers of its economic growth as the ‘new three’ – solar cells, lithium ion batteries and electric vehicles.” And, writing in the New Statesman, former Green party leader and MP Caroline Lucas and former Extinction Rebellion spokesperson Rupert Read argue that “it’s time for climate populism”.

Education is one of the strongest predictors of “climate-change awareness” in the US after partisan leaning, a new study finds. The authors find that local warming strengthens the relationship between education and “climate concern”. They suggest that this could be because education “equips individuals with the ability to understand and contextualize observed climate changes”. The paper concludes that “perceptible warming in the last decade” has increased the effect of education on climate concern.