US consumers will see higher prices at the pump as a result of tariffs enacted by new president Donald Trump, Reuters reports. It says the US imports 4m barrels of oil per day (bpd) from Canada, as well as 450,000bpd from Mexico, with the impact of Trump’s tariffs “counter to his promises to tackle inflation”. The New York Times says the tariffs “could hurt oil companies and increase [petrol] prices”. Bloomberg notes that Canadian oil is set to face tariffs of 10%, lower than the 25% rate applied to other imports. A Bloomberg newsletter notes the tariffs could be particularly disruptive to refineries that rely on Canadian imports. Another Reuters article says there will be limited impact on global oil and gas prices, according to Goldman Sachs. 

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports: “Trump’s halt on climate spending freezes jobs and stalls projects.” It adds: “The pause affects billions of dollars and is delaying home repairs, factory construction and other projects, many in states that voted Republican.” Politico says the US offshore wind industry is “in tatters amid Trump uncertainty”. The Associated Press says Shell has “walked away” from an offshore wind project in New Jersey, calling the move a “win for Trump”.

Employees at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) “have been ordered to delete landing pages discussing climate change across agency websites and document climate change references for further review”, Politico reports, citing an internal email. The outlet explains: “The directive from USDA’s office of communications, whose authenticity was validated by three people, could affect information across dozens of programs including climate-smart agriculture initiatives, USDA climate hubs and Forest Service information regarding wildfires, the frequency and severity of which scientists have linked to hotter, drier conditions fueled by climate change. And it is reminiscent of moves made during the first Trump administration to remove references to climate change from federal government websites.” The Guardian, the Independent and the Hill also have the story. Inside Climate News reports: “The new head of the US Department of Transportation issued sweeping memos [last] week, directing the department to ‘identify and eliminate’ nearly all initiatives relating to climate change, racial equity, gender identity, DEI or environmental justice implemented during the Biden administration.” A comment for Bloomberg by columnist Mark Gongloff says: “The removal of web tools that scientists and policymakers use to study global warming is a blow to the country’s physical and economic well-being.”

Indonesia’s climate envoy Hashim Djojohadikusum has “said he considers the Paris Agreement no longer relevant for Indonesia following the US withdrawal from the deal”, Antara News reports. The Indonesian news agency reports him saying on Friday: “If the US does not want to comply with the international agreement, why should a country like Indonesia comply with it?” It says the nation “remains committed to developing new and renewable energy”, citing energy minister Bahlil Lahadalia, but says he “highlighted the high costs required”. The Financial Times also covers Djojohadikusum’s comments, noting: “Indonesian president Prabowo Subianto has vowed to phase out coal by 2040, but analysts have said that is an aggressive target for a country that has failed to meet any of its climate goals. Indonesia would need a dramatic policy overhaul and massive investments in renewable energy, but the country has struggled to secure adequate funds.” The newspaper quotes the climate envoy saying he believes the “just energy transition partnership” between Indonesia and developing countries including the US would “certainly be scrapped” now that Donald Trump is in office. In related developments, the leader of one of the junior coalition partners in New Zealand’s government, David Seymour, has said his country should consider withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, Bloomberg reports.

Separately, Reuters reports Djojohadikusumo saying that Indonesia plans to build about 4 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity. An Associated Press is titled: “Southeast Asia looks to nuclear power to supercharge its energy transition.” It says Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia, among others, are considering the technology.

China has “hit out at new 10% tariffs imposed by the US on Chinese exports”, stating it will “take necessary countermeasures to defend its rights and interests”, the Financial Times reports. The newspaper adds that, according to recent analysis, the tariffs instituted on Saturday “would most affect home appliances, home furnishings, lithium batteries and [electric vehicles (EVs) made] in China”. It says that “many expect[] Trump to add more tariffs once his officials completed a review of trade policy in April”. Bloomberg also covers the news, stating “Xi has a range of tools to respond beyond reciprocal tariffs”, such as “export controls on critical minerals”. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) quotes Wang Yiwei, director of Renmin University’s Institute of International Affairs, saying China would have already “drawn up contingency plans that factored in industries such as rare earths, where the US is highly reliant on China”. An editorial in the state-run newspaper China Daily says: “China has repeatedly stated that there is no winner in a trade war or tariff war, but it has been left with no choice…It will only be a matter of time before Beijing unveils its countermeasures.” The Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily describes the tariffs as “widely opposed in the international community and within the US”. Elon Musk is “spearheading an effort to block new tariffs on graphite imports from China”, which would increase “costs for Tesla and other [EV makers]”, Bloomberg reports. Reuters quotes American Automotive Policy Council president Matt Blunt saying “American automakers…should not have their competitiveness undermined by tariffs”. The outlet quotes Atlantic Council senior director Josh Lipsky saying: “China is breathing easy. They went from a 60% threat to a 10% they can manage through currency.”

Meanwhile, Shanghai-based news outlet the Paper says that using “capacity replacement policies as a lever” in China’s steel sector is “key” to achieving China’s “dual-carbon” goals. Financial news outlet Securities Times reports that the industry “widely” believes that solid-state batteries may “enter large-scale mass production within the next few years”. Economic news outlet Jiemian reports that a global “power supercycle” is coming, marked by a “surge in global investments in grid infrastructure”, which presents opportunities for Chinese power equipment companies to expand internationally.

Elsewhere, Project Syndicate publishes a comment article by Ma Jun, president of the Beijing-based Institute of Finance and Sustainability, saying that, “at a time of rising protectionism”, the world needs to establish a “special green free-trade arrangement, involving sharp reductions in tariffs and non-tariff barriers on goods and services that deliver environmental and climate benefits”. Finally, the Daily Telegraph carries a news feature headlined: “China’s ‘artificial sun’ fuels Western fears it has lost race to energy holy grail.”

India’s national economic survey tabled in parliament before its budget says that the “failure of developed countries to commit adequate amounts of climate finance” at COP29 in Baku “might force India to temper the ambition of its climate targets for 2035”, the Indian Express reports. According to the newspaper, the survey described the $300bn climate-finance target as “out of sync with the needs of the critical decade when action is required to keep the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement within reach”. It adds that “resources [to] meet development targets” and “international climate partnerships” might be “compromised” by the funding shortfall and “lead to a reworking of climate targets”, which will increasingly rely on domestic resources. The government also “flagged China’s dominance in clean-energy gear as a potential risk to its low-carbon transition”, Bloomberg reports. Per the survey, India “will need to prioritise investment” in its electricity grid and sourcing critical minerals if the country has to make the “transformative shift” towards achieving its net-zero by 2070 goals, Mint reports. The survey also calls for climate adaptation on an “urgent footing as this has a direct impact on lives, livelihoods and the economy”, reports the Hindu BusinessLine. Adaptation efforts along India’s 7,600km coastline – “in the face of threats like high-tide flooding, storms and a rise in sea levels” – should become “pivotal to the country’s resilience strategy”, Bloomberg reports. IndiaSpend, meanwhile, explains how India’s budgets “have advanced the country’s climate agenda” over time.

In her speech introducing India’s union budget on Saturday, finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman “announced the formation of India’s Nuclear Energy Mission”, as well as plans to amend “key atomic acts” to “realise [a] 100GW atomic energy goal by 2047”, the Hindustan Times reports. The article says that Sitharaman proposed to “fully exempt customs duties on 25 critical minerals” to “provide a major fillip…to strategic and important sectors”, such as nuclear and renewable energy and defence. The budget also aims “to further domesticate the manufacturing value chain for India’s energy transition” by “slashing duties” on solar cells, modules and inputs for EV batteries, Business Standard reports. “We don’t want to give anybody any signal that we would like to be protectionist,” said India’s finance secretary, explaining import tariff cuts in the budget to Reuters.

While the budget emphasises green transition spending, it “failed to address the critical issue of climate adaptation”, despite the emphasis placed on it in the national economic survey, experts tell Down to Earth. They point out the “mixed signals” sent by the budget, with India’s environment and climate ministry’s allocations rising only 2.5% from last year, while its coal ministry receives a 160% “jump” in its financial outlay. “Without real investment in climate adaptation, farmers will be left defenceless against increasingly erratic and extreme weather,” the climate adaptation expert Harjeet Singh tells the outlet, adding that the “livelihoods of millions are at serious risk”. Finally, the Hindu asks scientists “what India at 1.5C would look like” and as well as how the country can “prepare for changes that were expected by 2100 but are now imminent”. 

Heavy flooding in the northeast of Australia has killed one person and led to calls for thousands more to evacuate Reuters reports, after up to 300mm of rain fell in the area within 24 hours. The Australian Associated Press says the state of Queensland has been “hit by torrential rain for days”. BBC News says the area has seen 1.3m of rain since Saturday and adds: “Meteorologists say these could be the worst floods in the region in more than 60 years.” The broadcaster continues: “Sitting in the tropics, north Queensland is prone to destructive cyclones, storms and flooding. But climate scientists say that warmer oceans and a hotter planet create the conditions for more intense and frequent extreme rainfall events.” ABC News also has the story.

UK environment secretary Steve Reed has “sought to reassure farmers after government forecasts showed that 9% of agricultural land [in England] needs to be axed by 2050 to meet green targets”, the Press Association reports. It explains: “Under the proposals, the highest quality agricultural land will remain protected for food production, but ministers will also look at where land can be used for other needs such as solar farms, reservoirs, roads, new woodlands and new towns. In order to meet national environmental and climate targets, the government predicts that 1.6m hectares of England’s land may need to change its use by 2050.” The newswire adds: “However, the environment secretary sought to reassure landowners and farmers that the government ‘won’t tell anyone what to do with their land, but help them take better decisions’.” The Financial Times, BBC News, the Times and the Guardian all cover the proposals.

Scotland’s deputy first minister has warned that her country’s offshore wind industry is at risk if developers fail to secure more contracts in an upcoming auction, the Financial Times reports. It notes that only one Scottish offshore wind project won a contract last year. The Scotsman says energy firms are lobbying against “locational pricing” reforms to the electricity market, arguing that it would put renewable investment at risk. BBC News reports on the “battle lines drawn over UK’s green energy plans” in a Panorama episode on opposition to new pylons. The climate-sceptic Daily Telegraph reports on falling industrial electricity demand, which it links to “critics of Britain’s net-zero policy”. Another Daily Telegraph article says: “Miliband’s green-energy ambitions are only helping to stoke Beijing’s chimneys.” A third Daily Telegraph article reports on the collapse of the Norwegian government, which it claims leaves the UK “more vulnerable to blackouts as a political row in Norway over power exports escalates”. It says: “[Energy secretary Ed] Miliband’s net-zero future will leave the UK dangerously reliant on energy imports, Tories warn.” [Under the 2030 targets adopted by the government, the UK would become a net exporter of electricity.] The Times also reports on Norway’s government, saying: “Eurosceptics have collapsed the ruling coalition in the name of keeping bills low and defying Brussels, but there’s more to the row than meets the eye.”

In other UK news, the Daily Mail says the country could rejoin the EU emissions trading system as part of a “reset” in relations with the bloc. The Observer reports on plans, launched for consultation under the previous Conservative government last year, to include waste incinerators within the UK’s emissions trading system. The newspaper says that, as a result of the change, which could cost councils £1bn, they “may be forced to send more rubbish to landfill or export it overseas”. The Guardian reports that the “UK is not prepared for climate crisis impacts”, according to “fire chiefs”. The Guardian also reports predictions that English rivers will be too hot for the brown trout “within decades”. The i newspaper says the UK’s biggest solar project “could be shaped by sheep farmers”. The Daily Telegraph says a single wind turbine has caught fire in Cambridgeshire, England. Another Daily Telegraph article reports on a £950m fund for rapid electric vehicle chargers announced by then chancellor Rishi Sunak in 2020, saying “not a penny…has been deployed”. Finally, the Daily Telegraph reports on what it calls the “disturbing flaws” in home energy efficiency ratings, while the i newspaper reports on: “How heat pumps could become cheaper than gas boilers, according to scientists.”

The UK is to give £100m in seed funding for businesses in areas such as poverty and climate change, the Financial Times reports, calling it “a pivot to the way the UK government approaches international development”. It says: “In a speech at the London Stock Exchange, [development minister Annelise] Dodds will say that the money will unlock an extra £400m-£600m of private-sector investment towards delivering the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs).” The newspaper quotes Julia Hoggett, chief executive of the London Stock Exchange, saying: “London’s capital markets have long played a leading role in driving flows of capital to where they need to go, and we welcome the focus on fuelling growth and supporting the just transition to net-zero.”

There will be a “huge” campaign against a third runway at London’s Heathrow airport, the Times reports. The Observer says a study cited by chancellor Rachel Reeves in support of the new runway “was commissioned by the airport itself”. A feature in the Observer says the expansion plans “leave Labour’s green agenda grounded”. Sky News says energy secretary Ed Miliband “will find Heathrow third runway support ‘uncomfortable’, but he won’t cause ‘disruption’, Harriet Harman says”. The Sun says that Miliband, who has opposed expansion at Heathrow airport, has also supported the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield airport in his constituency. The Times reports: “Claims by Rachel Reeves that sustainable aviation fuels are a ‘game-changer’ for the environmental impact of a third runway at Heathrow have been questioned by the boss of one of the world’s biggest producers of the product.”

Meanwhile, the Sun reports that prime minister Keir Starmer “has been told by senior Labour politicians to ‘drill baby drill’ and give the green light to two North Sea Oil fields blocked by the courts”. The Guardian reports: “MPs and ministers say they would oppose Starmer if he tries to approve Rosebank development.” The Times says: “Labour MPs are urging Keir Starmer to make a ‘demonstration of intent’ towards nuclear power as a key part of the government’s dash for growth.” Separately, the climate-sceptic Sun lists “20 barmy eco rules and groups that have held Britain’s growth back for years”. Top of its list is the 2008 Climate Change Act. Other entries include Miliband, the courts and red squirrels. 

Mark Carney, one of the candidates vying to replace Liberal leader and prime minister Justin Trudeau, has pledged to “abandon his party’s consumer carbon tax and replace the policy with an incentive program that rewards Canadians for making green choices”, CBC News reports. The outlet continues: “While the plan would see a Carney government immediately remove the carbon tax from households, as well as small- and medium-sized businesses, it would keep the output-based pricing system levied on large industrial emitters, which is scheduled to increase over the next decade.” It adds that he would also introduce a carbon border adjustment mechanism in Canada. CTV News says Carney has previously supported the consumer carbon tax: “Asked about his shifting stance, Carney said the policy has ‘become very divisive for Canadians’, in part due to misinformation around it.” Bloomberg reports: “Chrystia Freeland, the former finance minister who is Carney’s main rival in the leadership race, has also said the carbon tax needs to be replaced due to its deep unpopularity.”

Separately, Reuters reports that the Royal Bank of Canada is leaving a global banking sector coalition on climate change, the Net-Zero Banking Alliance set up by Carney in 2021. Bloomberg, the Globe and Mail and the Financial Post also have the story.

The Sunday Times interviews Emma Pinchbeck, the new chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, the UK’s formal climate advisory body. It says she “wants to dispel the myth that saving the planet will mean austere lifestyle changes and says the countryside is forever changing”. It quotes Pinchbeck saying: “A really strong message from the committee to government is to invest in talking to people about this stuff, alongside doing it.” The Guardian also reports comments from Pinchbeck: “Ensuring that the costs of decarbonisation are shared fairly across society must be a top priority for ministers or they risk losing public support for net-zero, the UK’s chief climate adviser has warned.” It adds: “Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves should be making a ‘strong, confident’ case for decarbonisation as an engine of economic growth, according to…Pinchbeck.” It quotes her saying: “Decarbonisation is better for growth than not decarbonising…That’s largely to do with the efficiency of using clean energy through the economy, rather than relying on fossil fuel imports. It’s just a very much more efficient energy system…You can’t have economic growth without delivering on net-zero.”

Meanwhile, Beverley Cornaby, director of the UK Corporate Leaders Group, writes in BusinessGreen: “Whatever the White House does, it won’t change the market fundamentals driving the net-zero transition.” The Daily Telegraph, meanwhile, continues its relentless campaigning against climate action, publishing columns attacking net-zero by Roger Bootle, Matthew Lynn (twice) and Andy Mayer, the latter without declaring his affiliation to the Institute of Economic Affairs, a free-market thinktank with a history of attacking climate action. The Daily Telegraph also publishes an article by Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, under the headline: “US energy dominance will force the end of the global net-zero fiasco.” An editorial in the climate-sceptic comment pages of the Wall Street Journal says a European Commission policy document – which includes plans for a “clean industrial deal” to drive decarbonisation – has “all but admit[ted] the continent needs a net-zero carbon emissions rethink”.

In the Times, the Institute for Fiscal Studies director Paul Johnson and former member of the Climate Change Committee writes in favour of airport expansion: “I am with Rachel Reeves in believing we should expand airport capacity and build a new runway at Heathrow. I also believe in getting to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That feels uncomfortably cakeist.” He points to “sustainable aviation fuel” and emissions removals as the way to square this circle, but also advocates for higher taxes on flights. He goes on to argue in favour of further oil and gas extraction from the North Sea, on the basis that it may “substitute for other sources of fossil fuels”. In the Observer, chief political commentator Andrew Rawnsley writes: “For the incandescent environmentalists, Heathrow is a litmus test of whether or not the government is authentically committed to addressing the climate crisis.” In the Independent, former travel editor Helen Coffey writes about what she calls the “inconvenient truth about ‘green airports’ and ‘sustainable aviation’”.

Separately, in the Guardian, Labour MP Clive Lewis criticises the chancellor’s support for Heathrow expansion: “[T]he Heathrow expansion and the realignment it signals do not insulate the UK from the political forces that enabled Trump, it accelerates them. Remember our pledge to rebuild trust in politics? Climate u-turns like this do the exact opposite. Indeed, they fuel the very climate scepticism the right peddles. After all, if we genuinely think the climate crisis is an existential threat, why undermine combatting it?” The Sunday Times carries the views of Sam Bowman, Ben Southwood and Samuel Hughes, who restate the position they set out in an influential essay that inaccurately criticised renewables. They write: “A third runway will, naturally, somewhat increase carbon dioxide emissions – an unacceptable outcome for net-zero focused Milibandites, even if there is an exceptionally strong economic justification for tolerating these emissions.” In the Times “thunderer” column, Conservative MP Kit Malthouse says airport capacity needs to expand, “but another runway [at Heathrow] is a short-sighted solution”. Instead, he reheats the push he led as deputy London mayor in 2007 for a new airport on the Thames Estuary. Climate-sceptic columnist Andrew Pierce in the Daily Mail calls energy secretary Ed Miliband an “eco-fanatic”, in an article about Heathrow expansion.

Researchers have created a new dataset of past, present and projected future coral bleaching from 1985 to 2100. The dataset includes sea surface temperatures, heat stress anomalies and information on severe coral bleaching conditions from the past, and future projections – up to 2100 – under three Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. The data and a map can be viewed on an online portal, the researchers note, adding that future projections will help conservation managers and policymakers to “quantify 21st century coral loss across the world’s coral reef regions”.

A new study identifies “significant associations” between exposure to floods and increased rates of violence from partners. To examine these links, researchers use survey data from more than 340,000 women with partners in 31 low- and middle-income countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Women living in countries exposed to floods over the past year had a 10% higher risk of experiencing violence from their partner, the study says, with stronger associations in households experiencing “greater inequality”. The findings “emphasis[e] the role of gender inequality under climate change”, the researchers write.