Negotiators have concluded an extended session of the UN biodiversity conference, COP16, with commitments on how nations would contribute $200bn a year to protect the world’s biodiversity by 2030, according to the Associated Press. The three-day meeting in Rome, Italy focused on issues that were left unresolved in earlier discussions held in Cali, Colombia at the end of 2024, the article explains. A particular focus was “securing funds to meet ambitious targets set in Montreal in 2022”, it adds. The agreement urges developed nations to “enhance their efforts” to mobilise $20bn annually for developing countries by the end of this year, Bloomberg reports. There is also a call for “a study on the relationship between debt sustainability and nature protection” and better coordination between ministers of environment and finance, the news outlet adds. However, it notes that a push for “the creation of a new global nature fund”, advocated for by some developed countries, was unsuccessful, with a decision pushed back to 2028. Agence France-Presse said the success of the talks in Rome broke as “deadlock” after what was seen as “a test for international cooperation in the face of geopolitical tensions”. It explains that the outcome is regarded as crucial to support the landmark deal, reached by nations in 2022, to slow the destruction of nature this decade and protect at least 30% of the world’s land and seas. The New York Times says that the US, which is one of only two parties that has not ratified the UN biodiversity treaty underlying the negotiations – but nevertheless usually attends – was “conspicuously absent”. Carbon Brief has been on the ground in Rome covering the extended negotiations, with associate editor Daisy Dunne covering the final plenary on Bluesky last night. (Carbon Brief will be publishing a summary of the talks later today. Also see Carbon Brief’s in-depth coverage of the original round of COP16 talks in Cali.)

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin has “privately urged” the White House to reverse a vital 2009 declaration that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, the Washington Post reports. The declaration underpins most significant federal climate action in the US, as it “cleared the way” for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, the newspaper explains. It points to actions taken under the Biden and Obama administrations to set limits on emissions from power plants and cars, which relied on the finding. Citing “three people briefed on the matter”, the newspaper says that repealing the endangerment finding would see the Trump administration “taking one of its most consequential steps yet to derail federal climate efforts”. It adds that officials considered abandoning the declaration during the first Trump administration, but decided against it. Politico also covers the story, citing anonymous sources who say it is unclear exactly how the EPA will seek to unwind the landmark finding, but said doing so would “give agencies freer rein to dismantle climate rules”. The article stresses that, in theory, there would be barriers to the administration taking this action. It says the EPA is expected to “follow a regular rulemaking process”, and adds that “it will be litigated – perhaps all the way to the supreme court”. In related news, the White House has “walked back” president Donald Trump’s claim that the EPA plans to cut 65% of its workforce, saying that instead the agency plans to cut its spending by 65%, Reuters reports. 

In another significant move for US climate action, the Senate has voted to overturn a recent Biden-era EPA rule that required all oil companies to pay a fine for emitting methane, according to the Washington Post. The newspaper explains that congressional Republicans are “working in lockstep with the Trump administration to dismantle many of president Joe Biden’s climate rules and policies”. It notes that the development does not affect an earlier obligation from Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act for larger oil and gas facilities to pay a fee on methane emissions, as this would require additional legislation to undo. A Reuters story asks if US states and cities can “pick up the slack” as “Trump slashes climate action”. 

Facing the threat of tariffs if they do not buy more US goods, officials and executives in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan are reconsidering a “hugely expensive” plan to ship US gas to Asia, the New York Times reports. The project, called Alaska LNG, involves constructing a $44bn, 800-mile pipeline from gas fields north of the Arctic Circle to southern Alaska, it explains. The Associated Press says a spike in demand for electricity from artificial intelligence companies is increasing demand for gas in the US.

US federal job cuts hit the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its National Weather Service yesterday, according to the Los Angeles Times. The article explains that NOAA, which includes the National Hurricane Center and the Tsunami Warning Center – is only the latest federal agency targeted for cuts by billionaire Elon Musk’s “so-called” Department of Government Efficiency, under the Trump administration. The newspaper says the layoffs “shocked environmental advocates and scientists across the globe, particularly those focused on the climate, environment and meteorology”. Around 800 NOAA employees have been “tapped for termination”, according to CNN. The article says the initial round of layoffs had so far primarily targeted probationary employees, who had been there for a year or less. It adds that one source said some exemptions were given to critical positions – likely life-threatening forecasting roles for disasters, including hurricanes. Axios describes NOAA as “one of the world’s top climate science and weather forecasting agencies”. The article explains that this comes “amid thousands of layoffs at other climate-related agencies”, including the EPA and the departments for energy, agriculture and the interior. The Washington Post says the firings “come days before a potential severe weather outbreak early next week in the south-eastern US – and just months ahead of the next Atlantic hurricane season”.

Separately, Politico reports that Democrat-run states are turning against plans to allow Tesla to set up sales locations in their jurisdictions, due to its chief executive Elon Musk’s role in the Trump administration. Another Politico story points to a “Trump-sized hole” in California’s electric-vehicle charger strategy. The state had only spent 8% of the $384m it was promised under the Biden administration’s National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure programme, before the new administration froze the funds, leaving rural areas particularly underserved.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times has a “big read” that asks why the US is “still building houses in climate danger zones”. It notes that, as of 2024, 39% of US single-family homes were in “high-risk zip codes”. The article says the trend “highlights the twin challenges of adapting to a world with a more turbulent climate, while also addressing America’s severe housing shortage”.

Finance ministers from G20 countries gathering in Cape Town, South Africa failed to reach consensus on a range of issues, including climate finance, according to Bloomberg. The group of wealthy economies was unable to issue a communique and “instead released a summary of the proceedings”, the news outlet says. US president Donald Trump has “attacked renewable energy and climate programmes” since taking office and his ministers skipped both this meeting and the previous G20 meeting held last week, the article explains. South African finance minister Enoch Godongwana pointed to climate finance as a key issue, noting that countries had a “different view on how we manage [it]”, the Financial Times reports. The newspaper points out that the US has both left the Paris Agreement and withdrawn existing international climate finance since Trump took office. South Africa had “hoped to make the G20 a platform for putting pressure on rich countries to do more to tackle climate change” and “reform a financial system that favours investment banks at the expense of poor sovereign debtors”, according to Reuters. The newswire notes that finance ministers from other key countries, including China, India and Japan, were also absent. It also points to the UK as another major economy that has rolled back its aid spending in recent days.

In the Brazilian capital of Brasilia, a meeting of BRICS representatives has concluded with convergence on the possibility of “taking proposals for a joint statement on climate change” at an upcoming leaders summit, according to Brazilian newspaper Brasil de Fato. The outlet notes that Brazil holds the rotating presidency of the group of large, emerging economies, as well as the presidency of the COP30 climate summit. In related news, COP30 president-designate Andre Aranha Correa do Lago has told an online event that China has a very important role to play in tackling climate change and others may look to it for additional leadership, Reuters reports.

The deadline for a decision on whether or not to build a new runway at Gatwick airport has been pushed back until the end of October by the UK government, Sky News reports. The government has signalled that it would approve the runway if environmental conditions are met, with the “main stumbling blocks” relating to Gatwick’s provisions for noise prevention and public transport, the article notes. LBC News highlights comments by transport secretary Heidi Alexander, who said she was “minded to approve” the second runway, but required additional time to “seek views from all parties on the provisions, prior to a final decision”. The Financial Times says that the Planning Inspectorate’s report on the new runway concluded that Gatwick’s expansion would “cause harm in various areas”, pointing out that its greenhouse gas emissions “would have a material effect on achieving carbon targets”. However, the inspectorate did not recommend changes to lower the overall emissions from the scheme, the newspaper says. It notes that while climate groups have argued that the increase in passenger numbers is incompatible with the UK’s net-zero target, the government is relying on “cleaner and greener flying” through so-called “sustainable” aviation fuels. [Recent Carbon Brief analysis found that a forest twice the size of Greater London would need to be planted in the UK to cancel out the extra emissions from the expansion of Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports.] The Daily Telegraph describes environmental commitments, such as climate goals, as “a further hurdle” for airport expansion plans.

The Times has an interview with Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive of government advisors the Climate Change Committee (CCC), in which she says that politicians who oppose net-zero policies will make their constituents poorer by driving up energy bills. The Times also has an article comparing the cost savings of low-carbon measures, such as solar panels and heat pumps. Bloomberg has an article examining “why reaching net-zero is getting cheaper in the UK”. And a new report from recruitment consultancy Airswift shows that the renewables sector “is reporting rising salaries and fast-improving career development opportunities”, BusinessGreen reports.

In more UK news, the Times reports that biomass power company Drax “banked more than £800m of green subsidies” from UK energy billpayers last year, propelling it to “record profits of almost £1.1bn”. Separately, analysis by Aurora Energy Research shared with the Financial Times reveals that almost one-10th of Britain’s planned wind power output, and almost 30% of Northern Ireland’s, was “stopped from being produced last year”, due to a lack of capacity to transport or store the electricity.

China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) has “outlined the main goals of energy work” this year in the published “guiding opinions”, which call for the “new energy generation capacity to surpass 200 gigawatts (GW)” and the share of “non-fossil sources” in total power generation be increased to 60%, says industry media outlet China Energy News. China News Network shares an official “interpretation” of the opinion, listing eight “major tasks” including “maintaining the good development trend of non-fossil energy” and “deepen[ing] the construction of a unified national power market”. Energy news portal BJX News also covers the story.

Meanwhile, China’s annual political meeting “two sessions” will kick off on 5 March. In “two session” related news, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) publishes an explainer, which says: “This year’s focus is expected to be on the domestic challenges of restoring confidence and tackling economic pressures, while dealing with the uncertainties of external headwinds in the form of US president Donald Trump’s shifting policies.” The Wall Street Journal notes that policymakers will also “prioritise ‘boosting consumption’ as the top policy task” after the government “expanded policies” to encourage the trade-in or replacement of consumer goods. Of the 926 proposals the Ministry of Ecology and Environment (MEE) will table at the “two sessions”, the “issue of carbon peak and neutrality” piqued the interest of delegates the most, according to China City Network, a subsidiary of the Communist Party backed People’s Daily. China Power, a newspaper under the NEA, highlights the role of energy in supporting the “dual carbon” goal, and the so-called “dual emphasis” – the implementation of key strategies and capacity building of priority areas – and the “two new” (equipment update and consumer goods trade-in) policies, which are “central” to the “two sessions” discussions. 

In other China news, a document called the “implementation plan for high-quality development of green finance in the banking and insurance industries” was announced by the central bank yesterday, providing a plan for “green finance” for the next five years, reports China Environment. The solar installations in China last year “surged 28% year-on-year to hit 277GW” and global solar capacity may hit 5,400GW by 2030, according to a “development roadmap” released by the Chinese Photovoltaic Industry Association, reports state news agency Xinhua. Wang Bohua, the association’s chairman, “expects 215-255GW additions” this year, Bloomberg reports. Industry players have cited “falling profits”, “high costs of recycling equipment” and “troublesome dismantling process” as reasons for why the solar decommissioning and recycling industry is “stuck”, Shanghai-based the Paper says. The government has “cancelled 526 wind and solar projects” with the “capacity of 44 GW” across the country since last year, according to the International Energy Network. The SCMP publishes an article under the headline: “China strives to end vicious price wars plaguing several industries.” 

Elsewhere, Politico argues that China could “blackmail Germany” and “remotely shut down” its wind farms, citing a report. Some Chinese “green jet fuel plants” are postponing starting up due to “a lack of government policy guidance”, Reuters reports. China’s coal-based blast furnace capacity “must fall by at least 200m tonnes per annum” by this year from 2020 levels – about 15% of its steelmaking capacity – to meet its “green energy goal”, SCMP reports, citing a report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. And the 25% steel duty imposed by Donald Trump will “disrupt” a “multi-billion-dollar supply chain that moves steel from China”, says Reuters.

The European Commission has moved to “pare back its flagship sustainability reporting rules”, and this could risk “making it harder for investors to decide where to put their money to help the bloc reach its climate goals”, according to Reuters. On Wednesday, in the face of US rejection of climate action and perceived burdens on European industries, the commission laid out plans to “trim the reporting burden on firms”, the article explains. The proposed measures include curbing the number of companies that have to report information and also scaling back a “landmark” supply chain due diligence law, it says. 

In a separate European Commission plan for making energy in the EU more affordable, Politico says there has been criticism of a proposal to support gas infrastructure overseas to benefit European imports. It explains: “The plan will help finance grid upgrades, ease state aid for green projects, and slash electricity taxes. But, controversially, it also promises to explore giving favorable loans to help fund liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects abroad and help ease volatile prices.”

Veteran environmental journalist Roger Harrabin draws together two of the UK’s biggest climate news stories from this week, arguing that signalling from UK politicians about the expansion of airports provides the impetus for oil giants to expand their production. He points to the UK government’s “latest pronouncements on air travel”, including their desire to expand Gatwick airport, paired with BP’s announcement that it is abandoning its previous commitments to scale back oil production and expand its clean energy business. “I foolishly thought BP were heralding a new era acknowledging that the economy is a subset of the environment,” Harrabin writes, referencing the oil company’s previous climate pledges. However, he says he “reckoned without the enduring power and wealth of the oil majors” and the lack of sufficient climate action from governments. “Ultimately, the way to make change is to starve the oil giants of demand, as the world shifts towards electric vehicles in the name of climate and energy security,” Harrabin says.

Others are more favourable towards the idea of Gatwick expansion, with a Times editorial stating that it is “long overdue”. It says that local residents and campaigners may challenge the plans on environment grounds, perhaps citing the UK’s net-zero obligations. However, the editorial concludes that “Gatwick will be a test of the government’s mettle when it comes to growth”. A Daily Mail editorial also favours the expansion of Gatwick. “This plan must not be killed off by a green lobby whose concerns, while understandable, always seem to trump our economy,” it says. The editorial also takes a swipe at energy secretary Ed Miliband, accusing him of “environmental fanaticism”. The Times business commentator Alistair Osborne sees Gatwick as a relatively simple proposal compared to the expansion of Heathrow, and says “if Gatwick can’t get government approval for an ‘investable’ project, Heathrow may as well give up now”.

Finally, the Financial Times has an editorial about BP rolling back its climate plans. “While widely forecast, this U-turn is regrettable…It adds to the broader sense that companies can continue to put off urgent action to tackle climate change,” the newspaper states. While the article says there is a “near-term market logic”, it questions how sensible it is in the long term. It concludes: “If all the big international oil and gas producers, and national oil companies such as Saudi Aramco, concentrate mainly on fossil fuels and demand declines, only some will survive. Higher-cost producers, such as BP, may not be among them.”

Just a “slight” reduction in fishing in the Celtic Sea would be enough to offset the negative impacts of climate change on its ecosystems, according to a new study. Researchers model the Celtic Sea ecosystem under two future warming scenarios and a range of fishing intensities, then assess the ecosystem health using 45 different indicators. They find that while fishing and climate change have additive effects on ecosystems, the impacts of climate change were minor compared to the impacts of high levels of fishing. Since fishing removes predator species at a higher rate, they say, it is more likely to instigate a “regime shift” and impact the ecosystem’s ability to recover.