Decisions to greenlight development in the Rosebank oilfield and Jackdaw gas fields have been ruled unlawful, because developers “had not taken into account the carbon emissions created by burning any oil and gas produced”, the Guardian reports. The newspaper says an Edinburgh court “sided with campaigners and climate experts” and calls the ruling “a major win for climate action that scientists say is urgently needed”. It notes that the initial decision to approve Rosebank development was made in 2023 by the previous government. Reuters says that “in response to the ruling, the government said it is consulting on new environmental guidance on how emissions must be accounted for and said the companies can re-apply for consent under the new rules”. BBC News says the case was brought to court by environmental campaigners, Uplift and Greenpeace. It continues: “Last June, in a dispute about oil wells near London’s Gatwick Airport, the UK Supreme Court ruled that environmental impact assessments must also include downstream emissions. Now Lord Ericht has ruled that the decision in that case – Finch v Surrey County Council – should apply retrospectively to Rosebank and Jackdaw. As a result, energy secretary Ed Miliband and the regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (formerly known as the Oil and Gas Authority), must reconsider whether or not to grant consent, taking into account those downstream emissions.” After the ruling was delivered, Shell CEO Wael Sawan told the Financial Times that “he would ‘absolutely’ go to the UK’s highest court if necessary to secure the Jackdaw project, on which Shell has already spent £800m”. The newspaper adds that Equinor, Ithaca and Shell will be allowed to continue work developing the fields, but not to extract oil and gas while the North Sea Transition Authority considers their renewed applications for consents. The Daily Telegraph calls the decision “a major blow for Shell, whose Jackdaw gas field was poised to produce 6-7% of the UK’s gas needs, and Equinor, whose Rosebank project would generate nearly £7bn of investment and hundreds of millions of pounds in taxes”. The newspaper notes that Ed Miliband would need to give final approval for the permit. BusinessGreen reports that, according to campaigners, burning all the oil from Rosebank would  emit as much carbon dioxide as running 56 coal-fired power stations for a year, while the gas contained in the Jackdaw field would produce more CO2 than the entire annual emissions of Ghana. The Times discusses the impacts of the decision for Scottish jobs and energy prices. The Daily Mail says that Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch “described the court’s ruling as ‘an act of self harm’ and warned that the hijacking of the law by the green lobby was ‘killing growth’.” It notes that during that court case, Shell said that the decision could threaten energy security. The Sun adds that Ed Miliband faced calls last night to approve the two oil and gas fields. The Times, the Press Association, ITV News and Bloomberg also cover the news.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that chancellor Rachel Reeves told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that flights could be taking off from Heathrow’s recently-approved third runway “within a decade”. The newspaper says that Reeves hopes to get planning permission and “spades in the ground” by “the end of the parliament”. The Press Association adds: “Asked by broadcaster LBC whether energy secretary Ed Miliband – who is widely believed to be the cabinet minister most sceptical of Heathrow expansion – was fully behind the plans, Ms Reeves said: ‘Yes, we are all united as a cabinet backing these plans.’” The Times says that Reeves “dismissed opposition from Sir Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, over the environmental impact and said sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs) were a ‘game changer’”. However, the Financial Times reports that, according to government projections, fossil fuels “will account for more than three-quarters of fuel used by airlines beyond 2040”, with SAFs playing only a small role. The Daily Telegraph covers the story under the headline: “Reeves denies rift with Miliband over Heathrow expansion.” It notes that Miliband did not attend the speech where the decision was announced. Separately, the newspaper reports that Miliband “argued against building a third runway at Heathrow during a cabinet meeting on Tuesday”. The Daily Telegraph reports that passengers are facing “a levy of up to £15 per flight to fund a third runway at Heathrow, amid a brewing row over who should pay for Rachel Reeves’s flagship economic project”. The Times has published an in-depth article on the third runway.

The UK government has formally submitted its “nationally determined contribution” (NDC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), pledging to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 81% compared to 1990 levels by 2035, BusinessGreen reports. The outlet says: “The new plan also officially signs the UK up to targets agreed at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai in 2023 to triple renewable energy capacity and double annual rates of energy efficiency improvements by 2030, and transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, which Labour plans to achieve through its manifesto commitment to end the issuance of new licences for oil and gas drilling.” The article notes that, at the time of writing, “the UK is one of just a handful of countries to have submitted its NDC ahead of the February deadline”. Reuters says that UK prime minister Keir Starmer pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 81% by 2035 at COP29 last year, but did not set out “new policies or detailed sector-by-sector plans”. Bloomberg says the announcement comes “just as the country’s status as a global climate leader comes under increased scrutiny”.

In other UK news, the Press Association covers the results of a survey which finds that “electric vehicles (EVs) are becoming ‘normalised’ as nearly half of consumers know an owner”. The newswire says that, according to the poll, 55% of the 4,000 people surveyed “feel positive” about EVs. It adds: “Researchers concluded that familiarity with EVs ‘extends across drivers of all income levels’ and there is ‘not a culture war over EVs’.” BusinessGreen also covers that study, noting that “40% of respondents reported practical concerns with EVs, including concerns about cost and convenience”. It adds: “The findings are published as the government continues to consult with the automotive industry over plans to phase out new petrol and diesel cars by 2030.” 

Finally, the Guardian reports that hundreds of Just Stop Oil activists blocked the road outside London’s high court, where the appeals of 16 jailed climate activists are being heard. BBC News and the Independent also cover the story. 

Chinese imports of electric vehicles (EVs, including battery EVs and hybrids) posted their “first annual drop since entering the [EU] market”, registering “3.5% fewer EVs” in Europe in 2024 as “trade barriers added to the challenge of building up sales in a stagnant market”, Bloomberg reports. The newswire adds that Chinese EV makers maintained a “below…average” EU market share last month, as levies began to “have an impact in the marketplace earlier in the year”. 

In other EV news, a group representing 25 foreign carmakers have urged the Brazilian government to “investigate China’s alleged dumping practices and slap tariffs on…BYD and Great Wall Motors”, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports. Industry media outlet, China Energy News notes that “after withdrawing from the Paris Agreement”, the US now “plans to revoke the [Biden-era] auto-emissions reduction programme”. State-run newspaper China Daily reports that China’s goods trade-in programme has been “highly popular”, with “more than 6.8m vehicles, including gasoline-powered and electric cars” traded in and “purchases of smart and eco-friendly products…particularly [EVs] and energy-efficient appliances” surging.

Elsewhere, Dialogue Earth says only a quarter of the $35bn Chinese investment in Indonesia targeted the energy sector, of which the vast majority “focused on fossil fuels”. Farwa Aamer, director at the Asia Society Policy Institute, and Susanne Schmeier, associate professor at IHE Delft, write in an opinion piece for Nikkei Asia that India’s “primary concern” about China building a new dam on the Yarlung Tsangpo river is “that China could exploit shared water resources to address its domestic challenges through its dams”, adding that “both India and China, as well as other regional actors, must ensure that shared waters do not become a securitised element”. Y Nithiyanandam, head of the geospatial programme at the Takshashila Institution, writes in the New Indian Express that the Yarlung Tsangpo basin has a “vulnerability to climate change and disasters” and calls for “transparency in project planning” for China’s “mega-dam” to address these concerns. Bloomberg reports that Tanzania has signed a $2bn deal with Chinese firms to build a railway linking the port at Dar es Salaam to a nickel mine in Burundi. The EU has published a roadmap “to reverse industrial decline in the bloc and step up efforts to compete with the US and China”, Reuters reports, which sets out “legislation and initiatives” to boost competitiveness in sectors such as steel and automobiles.

Environment secretary Steve Reed is launching a consultation into how England’s land can be best used for farming, restoring nature or building infrastructure, the Guardian reports. The newspaper says the “finished blueprint” will map the areas with the best quality farmland and most potential for nature recovery, and says ministers “will be discouraged from planning developments on the areas marked as best for farming and nature”. The newspaper continues: “Climate breakdown risks will also be included in the framework, with the data highlighting areas which are likely to have increased flooding or erosion. This will help plan for where to build housing and also how to protect farmland and nature from these risks.” BusinessGreen says the “much-anticipated” land-use framework will “draw on the most sophisticated land-use data ever”, as well as workshops with farmers, landowners, businesses and nature groups across the country. The outlet continues: “The government has faced criticism from political opponents in recent months over a series of land-use decisions, with opponents arguing renewables, nature restoration and housebuilding projects could undermine food security. But the consultation reasserts the government’s argument that the highest quality agricultural land is already protected for food production and there are instances where land use change is required to kickstart the economy by building new housing and rolling out renewable energy projects.” The outlet adds that Reed will launch the consultation in a speech at the Royal Geographic Society in Kensington. The Times reports that Reed has said Labour will “not dictate” land use, or ban solar power on any type of agricultural land. It continues: “The plan comes after the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, approved two solar farms last week, both of which are partially on agricultural land.” The Daily Telegraph covers the news on its frontpage under the headline: “Tenth of farmland to be axed for net-zero”. It says: “The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimates that 9% of farmland would need to be removed from food production by 2050 to meet green targets…A further 5% is expected to be mostly taken out of production owing to a decreased level of food output, and another 4% will share space with trees.” The Daily Mail also leads its coverage with the “threat” to a tenth of farmland.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that EDF energy has warned of further possible delays to the “much-delayed” Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, due to “a row over its impact on local fish”. The newspaper says that EDF has “pressured the government to loosen environmental rules while at loggerheads with local communities over its complex plans to protect local fish populations which are at risk of being sucked up into the nuclear power plant’s cooling systems”. The Daily Telegraph says that EDF is “struggling to agree [on] protection measures” for the fish. The newspaper notes that the nuclear plant is already running years behind schedule. It continues: “Campaigners have argued salmon stocks will be decimated by the scheme, while Hinkley Point C officials have claimed there would be a ‘very small impact on fish populations’.”

The US treasury department has announced that it is “withdrawing from a global body of central banks and regulators devoted to exploring ways to police climate risk in the financial system”, Reuters reports. The brief news article quotes a statement from the US treasury department, which simply states that it has “notified the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) that it is withdrawing its membership”.

In other US news, the Daily Telegraph reports that Elon Musk has said that “Donald Trump will be unable to stop the rise of electric cars because the success of the technology is ‘inevitable’”. The Guardian reports on how “US states are leading the climate fight – despite Trump’s rollbacks”. These include the New York state governor signing “several major climate bills into law” and California holding a “special session” to begin preparing to defend its policies from Trump’s administration. The Associated Press reports that “Governor Josh Shapiro said Thursday that he wants to fast-track the construction of big power plants in Pennsylvania and offer hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks for projects that provide electricity to the grid and use hydrogen”. The Associated Press reports that Doug Burgum – Trump’s pick to lead the interior department – has close ties to the oil and gas industry. The New York Times reports that Trump may end “community solar projects”. The newspaper’s Climate Forward newsletter unpacks how Trump’s “executive orders and announcements” in his first two weeks as president have “put billions of dollars in US climate commitments into question”. And Bloomberg asks what Trump’s “anti-climate moves” mean for the global energy transition. 

Despite Russia halting gas deliveries via the Baltic Sea and parts of Nord Stream 1 and 2 being destroyed, gas still flows to Germany through repurposed Nord Stream 2 sections, reports Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). It continues that Gascade, the German gas network operator, acquired unused pipes and laid a 50km connection from Rügen to Lubmin, linking it to a liquefied “natural” gas (LNG) terminal operated by private company Deutsche ReGas. However, the terminal, the only one in eastern Germany, remains “underutilised” due to cheaper pipeline gas from Norway, notes the outlet. ReGas claims to be operating “more efficiently” than state-run competitors but is squeezed by state-subsidised North Sea terminals owned by Deutsche Energy Terminal (DET), which receives more than €4bn in subsidies. With underground gas caverns well filled and LNG terminal overcapacity, attracting cargoes to new infrastructure is becoming “tougher”, Reuters reports. ReGas CEO Ingo Wagner “complains” about “unequal competition with DET”, notes the article. 

Meanwhile, the Kyiv Independent reports on a Belgian, German and Ukrainian NGO study, first covered by the Financial Times, revealing that Germany’s Russian LNG imports via EU countries are rising despite restrictions. In 2024, Germany’s state-owned Sefe purchased 58 Russian LNG cargoes from Dunkirk – six times more than in 2023, notes the outlet. It details that formerly owned by Gazprom, Sefe was nationalised in 2022 and holds a contract with Russia’s Yamal LNG, operated by Novatek, the country’s top LNG producer and second-largest gas supplier.

There is widespread reaction to the court ruling that the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields should not have been approved because they did not consider downstream emissions. The Times has published an editorial with the subheading: “A champion of net-zero, the energy secretary has kept a low profile since the election. But a court ruling on oil and gas drilling will force him into the open.” The editorial calls energy secretary Ed Miliband “elusive”, but says he “will soon be forced into a very public declaration on the future of the proposed Rosebank oilfield and Jackdaw gasfield in the waters off northern Scotland”. It adds: “To give the fields the green light he must somehow show that they tally with the government’s net- zero obligations. In other words he must, for the sake of his job, become a champion, in this case at least, of fossil fuels.”

Tessa Khan – executive director at Uplift – writes in the Scotsman that “storm Éowyn shows why we need to stop burning oil and gas”. She says: “Advocates for more oil and gas are keen to pit this serious climate harm against the supposed benefits of new drilling – but do they stack up? In Rosebank’s case, most of its oil will be exported and sold on the open market. It won’t lower our bills or increase our energy security. What it will do is enrich the ludicrously profitable company that owns Rosebank, the Norwegian oil giant Equinor…As for jobs, unions have angrily noted that Rosebank isn’t creating construction or design jobs here despite local expertise, with contracts ‘siphoned off overseas’.” Separately, Mark Wilson – health, safety, environment and operations director of Offshore Energies UK – writes in the Scotsman that the UK is expected to use 15bn barrels of oil and gas between now and 2050, but will produce less than 4bn. He says: “Unlocking an additional 4bn barrels, while still not meeting domestic demand, would add over £200bn to the economy, support jobs, and drive investment into the UK’s energy supply chain…UK-produced oil and gas has a lower carbon footprint than many imports and must remain part of the mix during the transition.” 

The Daily Telegraph has published an editorial under the headline: “Net-zero is a cost, not an opportunity.” It says the economic case for developing the oil and gas fields is “almost unanswerable” and “it is hard to think of a better illustration of the costs imposed on this country by the rigid ideological approach to net-zero”. It continues: “It is widely understood and agreed that the UK will still use gas and oil to meet its energy needs after reaching net-zero in 2050; the question is not whether the gas and oil is produced, but where it is produced, and who collects the profits.” A Daily Mail editorial asks: “Is our economy now run by eco-zealots?” Climate-sceptic commentator Daniel Hannan, who received a peerage from then-prime minister Boris Johnson, writes in the Daily Mail that the decision is “making a mockery” of economic growth. The Daily Telegraph’s associate editor, Ben Marlow, writes that “Miliband’s reckless net-zero crusade could force BP into the arms of Shell”. Finally, an editorial in the Sun urges the UK government to “green-light the oil and gas sites again and bank the boost to our economy”. The alternative, it says, is to “capitulate, pray for other growth and hope Miliband’s hot air will power Britain”. 

Siân Berry – the Green MP for Brighton Pavilion and former councillor for the London borough of Camden – writes in the Standard that the approval of a third runway at Heathrow is proof that “Labour are now making worse climate decisions than the Tories”. She calls the plans “reckless and irresponsible, flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s clear, scientific advice”. She continues: “I have felt genuinely sorry for Energy Security and Net-Zero Secretary, Ed Miliband, who was visibly squirming when questioned about airports by my Green MP colleague Ellie Chowns in a commons committee this week. The reality is that the extra carbon emissions from just the expansion plans of Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports will wipe out all the savings from his flagship Clean Power Plan for the electricity grid.” Jack Marley, the energy and environment editor of the Conversation’s UK edition, has published an article that “debunk[s]” so-called “sustainable” aviation fuel and “other myths about green airport expansion”. A Wall Street Journal editorial says that Labour’s decision to build a third runway at Heathrow shows that “economic growth trumps carbon piety”. 

In other UK comment, Rosie Duffield – who sits as an independent MP for Canterbury after quitting the Labour party last September – writes in the Daily Mail about the “scandal” of the Drax power station receiving subsidies for burning wood pellets. She says: “At prime minister’s questions (PMQs), I asked Sir Keir Starmer about a secret report into Drax and its practices by the accountants KPMG, a report which is so secret that even his own energy secretary, Ed Miliband, has not seen it. But MPs and peers believe that it contains a damning conclusion: that Drax cannot prove that all the trees it has been burning since 2012 were ‘sustainable’ – that is, easily replaceable – and that many were instead virgin woodland of huge environmental importance…It is a major breakthrough that, in his answer to my question, the prime minister promised parliament that he will read the report to establish the truth.” Sharon Graham – general secretary of Unite – writes in the Times that “path to net-zero need not be littered with discarded jobs and decimated communities” and says that Unite had produced plans showing how a workers’ transition is possible for North Sea energy workers. Finally, the Daily Telegraph’s world economy editor, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, writes that “right-wing wokeism can’t stop green tech winning the global energy war”. He argues: “The mass exodus of America’s biggest banks from the UN climate alliance will make no measurable difference to the global energy landscape or to the level of carbon emissions, and nor will Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.”

A new study finds that Indigenous Brazilians are exposed to extreme heat nearly 50% more than the white population. Using census data and a global dataset on heat exposure, researchers explore the racial and economic disparities in which populations are exposed to temperatures above 28C. They find that “low-income and black, brown and Indigenous populations are predominantly the most exposed” to high heat, “despite varying climatic and environmental conditions across regions”. They add that policies are needed to address racial and economic disparities in the health risks posed by climate change.