The US supreme court has turned down an appeal from oil and gas companies attempting to block lawsuits that could find them responsible for billions of dollars of damages due to climate change, the Associated Press reports. According to the newswire, the decision allows the city of Honolulu’s lawsuit against oil and gas companies to proceed. It adds that the oil and gas companies “argued emissions are a national issue that should instead be fought over in federal court, where they’ve successfully had suits tossed out”. The Guardian calls the decision a “procedural victory for the wave of climate accountability lawsuits filed against oil and gas companies in recent years”. The newspaper notes that the original suit was filed in March 2020 by the city and county of Honolulu and the Honolulu board of water supply “for violations of state law, including for creating a public nuisance and failing to warn the public of the risks posed by their products”. Reuters adds: “The lawsuit said that heatwaves linked to climate change have stressed the city’s electrical grid, and that a wastewater treatment plant would need to be retrofitted against sea level rise at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, among other harms.” ABC News and NBC News also cover the story.

There is continuing global media coverage of the wildfires burning in Los Angeles. The Guardian reports that the US National Weather Service issued a rare “particularly dangerous situation” warning for Monday night into Tuesday morning. According to the paper the “fierce gusts” of wind that are spreading the fire, called the Santa Anas, could reach sustained speeds of 40mph. Bloomberg, the Hill and Politico also report on the risks brought by increased winds. Separately, the Guardian says: “The good news is there’s no sign on the horizon of a windstorm close to last week’s Santa Anas, which brought record-setting 100mph wind gusts to Los Angeles. The bad news is that it looks like Los Angeles’s record-dry start to its rainy season will keep getting worse.” BBC News reports that at least 24 people have died and 23 more are missing. Separately, BBC News reports that more than 23,000 acres of land have burned, and that the Palisades and Eaton fires have each destroyed about 5,000 structures. Bloomberg reports that losses could top $30bn for the insurance industry. Other outlets including Le Monde have covered the impacts of the fire.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Republican president-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk are using social media to attack Democrats California governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass. It continues: “Questions about the state’s preparedness and response to the massive fires have rendered party leaders vulnerable to escalating attacks from the right, in a possible prelude to the politicisation of disaster response under president-elect Donald Trump.” Separately, Reuters says: “Top Republicans in the US Congress are considering imposing conditions on disaster aid to Los Angeles communities devastated by wildfires, after president-elect Donald Trump claimed that state and local officials had mishandled the situation.” This could include tying California aid to efforts to raise the limit on more than $36tn in US debt, according to the newswire. According to the Hill, Republican senator Tommy Tuberville said that California does not “deserve” funding unless they “make some changes”. The Washington Post says that “lawmakers typically approve federal aid after natural disasters without requiring states to change policies first”. However, it adds that “during last year’s campaign, Trump threatened to withhold federal aid from California unless the state changed how it approached water management”. The paper adds that President Biden approved a major disaster declaration for California on Wednesday, and has pledged to cover 100% of the response cost for 180 days. MailOnline reports that “California governor Gavin Newsom has been slammed for directing well-wishers to make wildfire donations through a Democratic fundraising site”. Elsewhere, Politico reports that Newsom has “expanded a special Trump-resistance legislative session to include billions of dollars in wildfire spending”. According to the outlet, the move “offers Democrats another opportunity to highlight the president-elect’s threats to withhold federal relief from California”. It continues: “The governor and legislative leaders are proposing at least $2.5bn to fight wildfires. Newsom wants to fast-track $1bn in state emergency aid and set aside $1.5bn extra for wildfire preparedness programs.”

Finally, the Washington Post reports that multiple lawsuits have been filed against Southern California Edison, claiming that the utility’s equipment sparked the Eaton fire. Reuters, the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg also cover the lawsuits. The Los Angeles Times reports that a hiking trail is being investigated as a potential starting point for the Palisades fire.

The average temperature of China’s coastal waters “reached a record high” of 21.5C in 2024, reflecting the “global trend of rising ocean temperatures”, the state-run newspaper China Daily reports. This marks the second consecutive year in which China’s coastal water temperatures have increased, it adds. Separately, China has released its first “national database of emission factors”, Science and Technology Daily reports, adding that the database is a “critical component of China’s carbon emissions statistics and accounting system”. China’s crude oil imports declined by 1.9% in 2024 in the face of “tepid economic growth and peaking fuel demand”, Reuters reports. International Energy Net quotes the head of the Chinese Renewable Energy Society’s wind energy committee saying that China connected 88 gigawatts (GW) of wind power capacity to the grid in 2024.

Elsewhere, state news agency Xinhua reports that new energy vehicles (NEVs, including electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids) saw “production and sales exceeding 10m units…and accounted for over 40% of total [car] sales”. Reuters also covers the announcement, saying China’s vehicle exports are expected to “grow 5.8% to 6.2m units this year”. The Associated Press covers the story under the headline “China’s electric car sales grew in 2024 as sales of gasoline cars plunged”. The Communist party-affiliated newspaper People’s Daily publishes an article in its print edition, saying that China’s solar industry is “actively expanding into international markets, contributing to global energy transitions and green development”.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson stated China and the UK “reached consensus on industry, agriculture and energy cooperation” in the recent meeting between Chinese vice-premier He Lifeng and UK chancellor Rachel Reeves, Xinhua reports. An editorial in the state-supporting Global Times argues China and the UK share “increasingly overlapping interests” in addressing challenges such as climate change, adding that China welcomes UK participation in its green finance landscape, while the UK said it will “make decisions in our national interest” in relation to tariffs on Chinese NEVs. BusinessGreen reports that Reeves’ visit resulted in “a series of new agreements” to “enhance co-operation on climate change and clean energy”, adding that China will issue an “inaugural overseas sovereign green bond” in London in 2025.

Finally, Caixin publishes a speech by former Chinese central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan arguing that the Paris Agreement faces “mounting threats”, with funding for climate change initiatives “remain[ing] critically insufficient”. North China Electric Power University Prof Wang Peng writes in a China Daily commentary that China’s energy law is an “institutional guarantee to further drive the energy transition”.

UK prime minister Keir Starmer has launched an AI Opportunities Action Plan, which sets out 50 recommendations on artificial intelligence, the Financial Times reports. According to the newspaper, Starmer hopes the plan will “cut costs and turbocharge UK economic growth”. However, the paper says that experts have cautioned about “major obstacles”, including related energy demand. It says: “In a report in November, the UK’s National Energy System Operator, the body responsible for operating and planning Britain’s electricity system, predicted demand for electricity from data centres in Britain will grow fourfold by 2030. Yet the UK’s electricity system is under strain, with long waits to connect to the electricity grid and high electricity prices…The government said today that it would create special ‘AI growth zones’ where projects will have ‘better access to the energy grid’. The first will be in Culham, Oxfordshire.” Separately, the newspaper says the government has accepted a series of recommendations on AI including setting up “an AI energy council, to advise on requirements around energy resources for AI, including nuclear energy”. The Daily Telegraph, citing “experts”, says that “Starmer’s AI dreams will require ‘an extra nuclear power station’”. It continues: “Multiple SMR companies have said they are in discussions over powering data centres in Britain. However, the first SMRs in Britain are not due to be operational until the next decade, meaning they are unlikely to power the data centre explosion in the short term…The unexpected boom in AI has meant data centre operators missing environmental targets and being forced to fall back on fossil fuels.” The Sun coverage of the AI plans says that shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho “warned Labour could leave the UK vulnerable to blackouts”. The newspaper does not elaborate.

The Financial Times reports that “the final price tag for building the planned Sizewell C nuclear power station in Suffolk is likely to reach close to £40bn”. This is double the £20bn estimate given by developed EDF to the UK government in 2020, the newspaper says. It continues: “The higher estimate is likely to raise questions over the government’s strategy for a nuclear power revival, at a time of stretched government finances and cost of living concerns. EDF says that once up and running, Sizewell C should be able to supply low carbon electricity to the equivalent of about 6mn homes for 60 years. The Treasury is due to decide whether to go ahead with the project in this year’s multiyear spending review, according to officials.”

In other UK news, BusinessGreen reports that “the UK is expected to ink a new partnership with Saudi Arabia this week in an effort to bolster the supply of critical minerals used to produce everything from smartphones and laptops to electric cars and solar panels”. Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that two Just Stop Oil protestors have spray-painted “1.5 is dead” on Charles Darwin’s grave using chalk paint. According to the newspaper, one protestor said: “We’ve done it on Darwin’s grave specifically because he would be turning in that grave because of the sixth mass extinction taking place now”, and the other added: “I believe he would approve because he was a good scientist and he would be following the science, and he would be as upset as us with the government for ignoring the science.” The Daily Telegraph, CNN, Reuters and BBC News also cover the story. Elsewhere, the Press Association reports that “Scottish ministers have been told that a presumption against new oil and gas developments in the North Sea ‘must go’.” It cites the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce (AGCC).

The Guardian has published an editorial about prime minister Keir Starmer’s AI action plan. It says that expanding the UK’s publicly owned computing power is a “necessary step toward securing technological independence”. But it adds: “However, the enormous energy demands of AI data centres pose a serious challenge that cannot be ignored. In fairness, ministers know this, which is why they have announced a new AI energy council. But the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, and his environmentally minded colleagues, will have to fight hard for the energy impact of the policy to be taken as seriously as it should be by a prime minister and a chancellor whose overriding priorities are growth and increased productivity.” It concludes that governments “must cut through industry noise and prioritise responsible AI governance”. An editorial in the Sun says that Starmer’s AI plan has “major flaws”, including the “voracious” energy demands of AI data centres. It says: “We, though, pay more for our industrial electricity than anywhere in the world. That is a fatal competitive disadvantage, sure to tempt even those tech firms keen on British AI expertise to set up elsewhere. Now factor in the vast extra demand if we all switch to battery vehicles, as the government wants. Plus a delusional energy secretary who thinks this ­gargantuan increase can mostly be ­generated by sunshine and wind.” A Daily Mail editorial says that shadow energy minister Andrew Bowie “said the government’s ‘ideological’ drive to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 would leave Britain ‘teetering on the brink of blackouts’”.

Separately, in the Daily Telegraph, first Church commissioner Alan Smith writes under the headline: “Fossil fuel investors are at risk of becoming the real anti-capitalists.” Smith says that getting money flowing towards the climate transition is “financially sound and morally right”. He concludes: “Climate change is very, very real and if we don’t adapt our portfolios to a changing world, then we are going to see a catastrophic impact on our investments.”

Interim Earth Lab director at the University of Colorado Boulder, Virginia Iglesias, writes in the Conversation about the Los Angeles wildfires. She says: “Wildfires rely on three key elements to spread: conducive weather, dry fuel and an ignition source. Each of these factors has undergone pronounced changes in recent decades. While climate change sets the stage for larger and more intense fires, humans are actively fanning the flames.” Iglesias notes that human-started fires typically ignite under “more extreme conditions”, with hotter temperatures, lower humidity and stronger winds, than lightning-started fires, which often coincide with storms. She concludes: “As the factors that can drive wildfires converge, the potential for increasingly severe wildfires looms ever larger. Severe fires also release large amounts of carbon from trees, vegetation and soils into the atmosphere, increasing greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbating climate change, contributing to more extreme fire seasons.”

Meanwhile, climate scientist Andrew Dessler writes in his blog, the Climate Brink, that “climate change is turbocharging the wildfire just like it turbocharges heat waves and hurricanes”. He notes that other factors also play a rule, and says that “climate misinformers often exploit these multiple contributing factors to downplay climate change’s role”. He continues: “The real scientific question is not whether climate change influenced the fire – of course it did. Rather, the real question is quantifying the impact: how much did climate change increase this specific event’s intensity or likelihood? We don’t know the answer yet, but I’m sure scientists are already working on it. When reporters frame the issue as one of uncertain causation, they’re misrepresenting the science and giving climate misinformers room to cast doubt where none really exists.” In the Hill, Reverend Samuel Rodriguez writes that “California’s fires are a scorching indictment of misguided governance”. He says: “As the ashes settle, California’s government will undoubtedly continue pointing fingers at climate change, but the real culprit is much closer to home. Instead of Trump-proofing, California’s leaders should have been fireproofing.”

Separately, the Washington Post has published an editorial under the headline “Industrial decline threatens US security. Here’s a plan to fix that.” It says: “Gripes about trade and fears stemming from lost US manufacturing jobs have gotten mixed up with concerns about the threat that China’s rise could pose to national security. This reasoning could well lead US policymakers to overlook the domains in which cooperation with China is essential – including climate change mitigation – and to ignore the substantial costs involved in disconnecting the United States from the Chinese economy.”

The maximum sea level along the US mid-Atlantic coast rose by 82% from 1980-99 to 2000-20, from 6.8cm to 12.4 cm, “potentially exacerbating coastal flooding”, new research finds. The sea level along the US mid-Atlantic coast varies from month to month, reaching a minimum in January and a maximum in September during the 1960-2020 period. However, this seasonal cycle has “changed significantly”, according to the research. In the last two decades, the annual minimum has shifted from January to February, it finds.