After surveying disaster zones in California and North Carolina on Friday, US president Donald Trump said he was considering “getting rid of” the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema), reports the Associated Press. Trump toured “fire-ravaged” Los Angeles and then North Carolina, which is still recovering months after Hurricane Helene, the newswire says. In comments during the latter trip, Trump said Washington could provide money directly to the states instead of having federal financial assistance flow through Fema, the article explains. It quotes Trump saying: “I’d like to see the states take care of disasters…Let the state take care of the tornadoes and the hurricanes and all of the other things that happen.” At a press briefing, Trump added that he would sign an executive order “to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling Fema – or maybe getting rid of Fema”, reports Al Jazeera. But, when questioned by reporters, Trump was “hazy about the timeline for his proposed changes”, the outlet notes. On Sunday, Trump issued an executive order to create a task force, dubbed the Federal Emergency Management Agency Review Council, to review Fema and recommend changes, says Axios. The group will be composed of the secretaries of homeland security and defense, along with private-sector subject matter experts, it adds. Reuters also has the story. The Washington Post and Reuters both carry explainers on what Fema does, while ABC News notes that “Trump’s authority does not give him the power to terminate the agency unilaterally, according to federal laws. Doing so would require congressional action.” Bloomberg says that LA “has never needed” Fema more, and Reuters reports that Cam Hamilton, Fema’s acting head, has written to staff “reassuring them that the agency’s continued existence was vital”. The Guardian and Sky News also have the story, while CNN looks at how Fema could be reformed.

Before his visit to LA, Trump had warned that federal support would first require that “water be released and come down into LA and throughout the state” and that voter ID requirements be introduced in California, reports the Hill. The Independent also has the story. Yet, despite the “raging threats that sent California officials into a tailspin”, Trump ended his visit to LA “with a hug” for California governor Gavin Newsom “and a promise to help the Golden State rebuild”, reports Politico. BBC News also covers Trump’s trip. Reuters has an interactive on the “fast fires” that are “growing faster” in the western US. Trump has previously blamed the fires on California’s management of forests and water, but CNN has an article on “the reality”. Yesterday, Trump issued an executive order directing the federal government to override the state of California’s water management practices if they are found to be ineffective, reports the Guardian.

In further coverage of the LA fires, a “slow-moving rainstorm system” settled over southern California yesterday, bringing a reprieve from a lengthy dry spell, says the New York Times, “but also the risk of mudslides in areas scarred by this month’s wildfires”. The Guardian asks whether LA should “be in such a rush to rebuild after the devastating wildfires”. Deutsche Welle says the fires cast light on a “climate change insurance crisis”. And BBC News reports that even before the fires, Californians fled for “climate havens”.

The Trump administration has halted spending, loans and other actions at the US energy department as part of a “comprehensive review” to ensure they align with the president’s priorities, Bloomberg reports. The memo – from the agency’s acting secretary and seen by the outlet – “essentially freezes the department, which has a roughly $50bn budget that includes awarding funds to help commercialise new energy technologies”, the article explains. It adds that the memo “is notable because it is broader than an executive order signed by Trump on his first day in office. That directive ordered a halt and review to spending from Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, and a bipartisan transportation bill that also contained billions in spending for a range of energy department initiatives.”

In further moves under the new administration, the state department on Friday ordered a “sweeping freeze” on new funding for almost all US foreign assistance, reports the Associated Press, with the only exceptions made for emergency food programmes and military aid to Israel and Egypt. The US provides more foreign aid globally than any other country, budgeting about $60bn in 2023, or about 1% of the US budget, the article explains. Suspending funding “could have life or death consequences” for children and families around the world, Abby Maxman, head of Oxfam America, tells the newswire. There is widespread coverage – including in the Financial Times, BBC News, Daily Telegraph, Sky News, CNN, Al Jazeera and Reuters – although no details specifically on projects and programmes relating to climate and energy,

The Guardian says that “key planks” of the US government are “grind[ing] to [a] halt under hail of Trump orders”. The Washington Post says that Trump has “slowed down parts of the US government in a quest to assert broad control”. It notes: “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the departments of energy, defense and health and human services abruptly stopped most external communication. The justice department’s environment and natural resources division ordered attorneys not to file any new complaints.” The directives have “stunned many federal workers”, the newspaper says, noting that several “in interviews said that they are growing increasingly nervous about what the next four years may bring”. In another policy reversal, the Associated Press reports that Trump has “eliminated federal policy dating back to the Clinton-era, which had established a government priority of addressing environmental health problems for low-income and minority groups”. Le Monde takes a look at how Trump is putting the “brakes on Biden’s green transition”.

On Friday, the Trump administration asked the supreme court to put several cases on hold so it can reconsider positions the previous administration took on policies including three environmental issues pending before the court, reports USA Today. Those cases concern “fuel producers who objected to letting California set stringent emissions limits, the EPA’s rejection of states’ ozone pollution reduction plans as insufficient, and the agency’s denials of oil refineries’ requests for exemptions from a federal renewable fuel programme”, the outlet explains. The moves “provide the first indications of how the Trump administration plans to approach litigation before the nation’s highest court”, says the Washington Post. The newspaper focuses predominantly on the second case – the EPA’s decision in 2022 to grant California permission to set stronger climate rules for cars than those of the federal government. It notes: “In December, the supreme court agreed to review a lower court’s decision that fossil fuel industry groups lacked standing to challenge the waiver. The high court did not agree to consider the legality of the waiver in the first place.” The court filing argues that the agency “should reassess the basis for and soundness of the 2022 reinstatement decision”, the article says, which could “obviate the need for the case continuing”. Reuters and the Hill also have the story. 

In other US news, the New York Times reports that Trump is “stocking” the EPA with “officials who have served as lawyers and lobbyists for the oil and chemical industries, many of whom worked in his first administration to weaken climate and pollution protections”. Bloomberg says Trump is “seiz[ing]wartime powers in [the] battle for more fossil fuels”. The Daily Telegraph says that Trump risks a “backlash” from his voters “over plan to sell US gas to the world”. The Guardian describes how Trump’s policies on climate and the environment are “driven by fixations”. After Trump said the US has “more coal than anybody”, the New York Times looks at where in the country it is burned. Reuters reports that the US Energy Information Agency announced on Friday that it expects growth in US power generation over the next two years to be mostly driven by new solar plants. Finally, the Guardian looks at how the world has responded to the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement; the Financial Times reports that the incoming head of the UN COP30 climate summit has warned that the US withdrawal will have a “huge impact” on efforts to curb global warming; and India Today looks at how the US exit could “hit COP30 funding negotiations”. 

UK chancellor Rachel Reeves has “hinted” that the government would support a third runway at Heathrow airport, saying “sustainable aviation and economic growth go hand in hand”, reports BBC News. It says that in an interview on the TV programme Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, Reeves said she would not comment on “speculation”, but “said a third runway at Heathrow ‘will mean that instead of circling London, flights can land’ and that sustainable fuel was changing the carbon emissions from flying”. Asked if there was also likely to be an announcement on Heathrow this week, Reeves “did not answer directly but said the government had already signed off the expansion of London City Airport and Stansted”, the article notes. Contrary to widespread reporting last week that suggested Reeves saw economic growth and climate goals as at odds, the broadcaster also quotes her saying: “I believe that clean energy, that reducing our carbon emissions are good for economic growth.” Bloomberg says the interview is Reeves’s “strongest hint yet” that she is prepared to support the runway. The Times also covers the interview, leading with the chancellor’s claim that a third runway could improve air quality in London by stopping planes circling over the capital. The Observer reports on warnings to Labour that it is risking a “powder keg” confrontation “with environmentalists, green groups and a swathe of its own supporters” over support for airport expansion. The Sunday Times has in-depth coverage of how Reeves will make a major speech on Wednesday at a “secret location in Oxfordshire” outlining how the government will go for growth. In related coverage, the Guardian has an analysis article on the debate over airport growth, while the Sun says that Reeves previously opposed airport expansion in her Leeds constituency.

UK energy minister Ed Miliband has approved a pair of “major” solar farms, reports Bloomberg, as the government “seeks to drive investment and cut CO2 emissions from the power system”. According to documents published by the government on Friday, the West Burton solar project and the Heckington Fen solar park were both greenlighted, the outlet says. The plants could provide enough electricity for more than 200,000 homes, it adds. ReNews says the two sites will have a combined capacity of 900 megawatts. The Daily Telegraph covers the decision, while also reporting on criticism of Miliband for “throwing away” a “potential gold mine” after ministers confirmed plans to bury the UK’s stockpile of plutonium. The Independent says that Miliband “only consulted fossil fuel companies, including oil giants BP, Eni and Equinor, between the general election and the government’s announcement to pump almost £22bn into controversial carbon capture and storage programmes”, citing a freedom of information request filed by the newspaper. The Daily Telegraph reports the comments of Octopus CEO Greg Jackson that the £22bn would be “better off” spent on renewables. The Times reported late last week that King Charles recently told “another Labour politician that he loved the energy secretary’s work”. The Daily Mail picks up the same story. 

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that the government has “seen off a bill that would have made the UK’s climate and environment targets legally binding, after promising Labour backbenchers that they would have input into environmental legislation”. BBC News also has the story. The Guardian reports on a new study showing that “battery cars on Britain’s roads are lasting as long as petrol and diesel cars”. And a second Guardian article looks at how charging costs for EVs could be made cheaper. The Sunday Express reports on comments from “fire chiefs” that the public should be told about the fire risks posed by electric vehicles. [EVs are less likely to cause fires than petrol and diesel cars.] The Daily Telegraph reports that “EDF has signalled that Britain’s fleet of ageing nuclear power plants can keep running into the next decade”. The Mail on Sunday reports on polling by former Conservative deputy chairman Lord Ashcroft suggesting the British public “thought achieving [decarbonisation goals] would mean higher costs for themselves”. A second Mail on Sunday article cites “Labour insiders” to claim that prime minister Keir Starmer “made a HUGE mistake in giving Miliband ‘free rein’ to pursue his demented net-zero crusade”. The Daily Telegraph reports that the new head of the UK’s competition watchdog has said that businesses should adopt more green policies to avert a “sixth mass extinction”. The Sunday Telegraph says that a “global shift [is] forcing Britain to change course on net-zero”. The Sunday Times has a feature on “how to keep the lights on when the wind doesn’t blow”.

In other UK news, the Financial Times reports that the UK “boosted its electricity exports to France on Friday as high winds that ripped across the country gave it excess supplies of power”. The Daily Telegraph says that “constraint payments” to windfarm operators to switch off turbines during high winds could rise to £3bn per year. (The article quotes John Constable without mentioning he is energy editor of the campaign arm of the climate-sceptic lobby group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.) Storm Eowyn brought “once in a generation” hurricane-force winds to the British Isles last week, says the Independent. The Daily Telegraph reports on the scientific debate of how climate change is affecting wind patterns, but frames it as “scientists cast doubt on claim Storm Eowyn [was] caused by climate change”. The Times reports on how early warnings from the UK Met Office “prepared us for Storm Eowyn”, while the Independent covers the claims of broadcaster and motoring journalist Jeremy Clarkson in his column for the Sun that the BBC’s weather coverage is “anti-Tory”.

Scotland plans to become a major supplier of “green” hydrogen to Germany, potentially meeting about a third of its demand by 2030, says Scottish energy minister Gillian Martin, reports Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ). It quotes her saying: “We will generate more electricity than we can consume and use the surplus to produce green hydrogen for Germany.” A study by the Net Zero Technology Centre in Aberdeen estimates a pipeline connecting the countries could cost €3.1bn, explains the article. It says Martin added that hydrogen would initially be transported by ship, with hopes for a pipeline from Scotland through northern England, with the endpoint being Emden in Lower Saxony.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that German chancellor Olaf Scholz “has welcomed” US president Donald Trump’s plans for more oil and gas exports, saying it was “good for Europe and Germany,” in an interview with German newspaper Handelsblatt. It says Scholz noted that “the move would help in the transition phase towards climate neutrality”. He also “praised” Trump for wanting to build new terminals for liquefied natural gas (LNG), notes the outlet, adding that Scholz also said he “regretted” Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. In relation to this topic, Bild reports that many German companies anticipate “a significant competitive disadvantage” for domestic industries due to falling energy prices in the US, a new survey by the Cologne Institute for Economic Research (IW) says. The institute’s economist is quoted as saying: “The resulting deregulation allows US companies to obtain permits for oil and gas extraction more easily, even in nature reserves.”

Finally, CNN reports that, according to the Associated Press, “tens of thousands” of Germans protested in Berlin and other cities on Saturday against the far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD). It quotes climate activist Luisa Neubauer telling the crowd: “Those who fuel racism and attack climate protection are not just campaigning, they are endangering lives.”

China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) says that the country’s capacity of “new energy storage” surpassed 70 gigawatts (GW) in 2024, a year-on-year increase of over 130%, state news agency Xinhua reports. It adds that NEA officials confirmed it would “systematically draft the roadmap for the 15th ‘five-year plan’ with intensified efforts to promote technological innovation in new energy storage”. State-supporting newspaper the Global Times reports that the NEA declared last week that the goal for 2025 is to “aim for stable crude oil production above 200m tonnes”. 

Meanwhile, the China Electricity Council predicts that the electricity consumption in 2025 will grow by about 6%, with the share of coal in the total installed capacity “declining further”, energy news outlet China energy news reports. China News says that a total of 446m green electricity certificates (GECs) were traded in 2024, up 3.6 times year-on-year.

Elsewhere, China Energy Net reports that according to China’s General Administration of Customs, China’s wind turbine exports increased by nearly 72% in 2024, and lithium battery exports reached a new record of 3.9bn units. Xinhua cites Mao Ning, spokesperson from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, saying that US-China trade is “mutually beneficial” and that China “does not intentionally pursue a trade surplus”. 

China Meteorological News Press reveals China’s “top 10 weather and climate events” in 2024, which includes extreme weather, such as torrential rain and extreme heatwaves. The outlet says that “in the context of climate warming, China was characterised by a noticeable warm and humid climate, and frequent and intense extreme weather events, creating many record-shattering events”. China’s meteorological authority has “renewed a yellow alert for a cold wave on Saturday, as most parts of the country will see temperatures plunge” over the next three days, Xinhua reports.

In other news, Bloomberg reports on analysis for Carbon Brief showing that China’s CO2 emissions levelled off in 2024 due to record clean energy additions, but still posted slight growth due to the rapid expansion of energy demand. Another Bloomberg article says that China’s “surging power demand creates a climate conundrum”. The New York Times reports on China’s “large and mysterious” hydropower project in Tibet. The Financial Times and South China Morning Post report on India’s concerns over the plans. Finally, Reuters reports that BMW has joined Chinese EV manufacturers in filing a challenge at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) against EU tariffs on China-made electric vehicles.

In the Financial Times, Shevaun Haviland – director general of the British Chambers of Commerce business network – writes in favour of the UK government’s push for big infrastructure projects. She writes: “In aviation, Gatwick’s Northern Runway Project demonstrates how private investment can drive public benefit, with £2.2bn of private capital creating 14,000 new jobs and contributing £1bn annually to the local economy. The recent announcement by the chancellor of support for this project – alongside expansion at Luton and a third runway at Heathrow – are big promises and show a government unafraid to take difficult decisions to deliver growth.” But, it “isn’t just transport projects” affected by planning obstacles right now, she continues: “Every day wasted is another solar farm pushed back and another high-voltage undersea cable becoming that much more expensive. Energy infrastructure is crucial to our economic future. The Sizewell C nuclear reactor represents more than just power generation. It embodies economic regeneration and a vote of confidence in the UK, 25,000 construction jobs and opportunities across the supply chain.” She concludes: “Economic growth and meeting net-zero targets are not a zero-sum game. Strategic investment in energy infrastructure has the unique potential to benefit the entire country, while helping to meet our climate goals. In the long term, we will benefit from cheaper, more secure supplies – but only if we build capacity now.”

In contrast, economist Liam Halligan writes in the Daily Telegraph that a Heathrow expansion “won’t help Britain fly”. He argues that “Heathrow isn’t the answer”, adding: “It is madness to further develop an already enormous airport smack in the middle of a suburban landscape that is home to millions, involving the mind-bending costs of diverting the M25 and demolishing countless homes.” An editorial in the Sunday Telegraph says that [despite Reeves herself contradicting this line of argument, see above] it is “difficult to read” the push for Heathrow by chancellor Rachel Reeves “as anything other than a direct challenge to [energy secretary Ed] Miliband and his allies in the party”. A Daily Telegraph editorial says that the Conservatives “can seize on Labour’s failures”, noting with similar inaccuracy that Reeves is “beginning to sound doubts about net-zero”.

In other UK comment, right-leaning newspapers give space to a series of articles from climate-sceptic columnists, including Andrew Neil in the Mail on Sunday, Bjorn Lomborg in the Sunday Telegraph and Matt Ridley in the Daily Mail.   

In a guest essay for the New York Times, Robinson Meyer – founding executive editor of Heatmap News – writes that president Donald Trump’s “fusillade of executive orders about energy and climate policy…do not make sense on their own terms”. However, “it’s not supposed to”, he continues: “[I]t is not actually intended to shore up the country’s energy supply. It is also not meant to engineer a boom in new oil and gas supply, something that Trump’s donors don’t seem to want. The guiding logic of the policies, instead, is to make the market for fossil fuels as big as possible. Trump wants to lock in oil and gas demand for the long term. That is why he has weakened energy efficiency rules for household appliances. That is why he has thrown out the government’s fuel economy rules for cars and trucks.” The US “has not managed its energy markets as strategically” as China, says Meyer. China is “investing in a future where most energy will come from manufactured products such as solar panels” and has used “regulations and incentives” to develop a “world-class” EV industry and a solar and wind equipment manufacturing “colossus”, he says. In contrast, “the Trump administration is trying to keep the party going for oil and gas companies. Instead of focusing on the parts of the economy where oil and gas might be most useful and saving the rest for export, he is bent on expanding fossil fuel demand, everywhere, at any cost.”

Elsewhere, in an editorial, the Financial Times says that the world “has to decide how to respond to the whirlwind that seems set to accompany, if not encapsulate, Trump’s second administration”. The newspaper says that the “simple answer” is “values in addition to interests”. It explains by saying that “Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord cannot, for example, become an excuse for the EU to slow its decarbonisation agenda; it should, though, ease the regulatory burdens and simplify its rules.” Also in the Financial Times, Martin Sandbu – the FT’s European economics commentator – writes that the “best response to Trumpian aggression is to use it to make Europe great again”. He writes: “But the [Make America Great Again] antipathy for anything green strengthens the case for doubling down on incentives to make more profitable in Europe the decarbonisation investments that have just become less profitable in the US.”

In other US comment, a trio of academics warn in the Hill that the consequences of Republican “climate denial will be costly”. They write: “Persistent climate denial will increase the domestic cost of extreme weather events driven by the warming now built into the global system. Incentives for where to live and build will be mis-aligned, needed institutional reform will be shelved, and priorities for protective investment will be distorted. Leaders of vulnerable states like Texas and Florida are following the same playbook.” There is also continued reaction to the LA fires, including a Los Angeles Times editorial on how time is running out to “rescue the pets that survived the Palisades fire”. A comment article in the same newspaper on the “risk of mudslides and debris flows that will test the limits of the region’s infrastructure”. A guest essay by an Australian journalist in the New York Times about the lessons from managing wildfires that California can learn from Australia. And a column from Patrick Jenkins – deputy editor of the Financial Times – arguing that “climate catastrophes call for state intervention on insurance”. 

A new study suggests that Chinese residents “implement appropriate protective measures” when temperatures exceed 30C, but underestimate the risks posed by temperatures of 25-30C. This can lead to “significant health issues”, the paper warns. The authors combined meteorological data with results from the China family panel survey, which includes data from around 33,500 adults on hospital stays and self-reported “unhealthy status”. The paper finds that increased healthcare expenditure and reduced physical activity are “two possible ways in which residents respond to climate change”.