Yesterday, 168 employees from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) office of environmental justice were placed on administrative leave, the New York Times reports. The newspaper continues: “Many of the agency’s additional 100 or so environmental justice employees who work in its regional offices around the country are expected to be the next in line to be placed on administrative leave, said two people familiar with the agency’s plans, who spoke anonymously out of fear of retaliation. By law, no employee can be on administrative leave for more than 10 days in a year. Observers said they interpret the [move] as a first step toward the eventual shuttering the office.” Inside Climate News says: “There is a disagreement among members of the Trump administration about whether staffers should be laid off or reassigned, said a former high-level EPA official.” CNN and Politico also cover the news. 

At the same time,“a flank of Democratic lawmakers converged on the EPA’s headquarters in Washington [yesterday] to denounce a freeze on funding, amid similar protests in recent days at the labor and treasury departments and other federal agencies”, Bloomberg reports. Politico says the rally drew around 100 people. The Hill reports that the democrats tried to enter EPA’s headquarters to meet with officials from Elon Musk’s department of government efficiency (DOGE), but were turned away. The Guardian reports that the new EPA administrator has outlined a new set of five priorities for the EPA. One of these references “clean land, air and water for every American”, but the other four “move into areas beyond the traditional mission of the EPA, such as bolstering ‘American energy dominance’, a pledge to speed up the approvals of new projects such as oil and gas drilling, a focus on ensuring ‘a great comeback of the auto industry’ and a promise to ‘make the US the Artificial Intelligence capital of the world’”, according to the outlet. In other developments, the Washington Post reports that Trump appointees have announced plans to fire about 20 employees from the justice department’s environment and natural resources division. Wired reports that many federal employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) received an internal email, ordering them to “temporarily cease communicating with foreign nationals, including those working directly with the US government”. The Washington Post also covers the story. 

Elsewhere, the Washington Post reports that the US Federal Highway Administration released a memo yesterday ordering states to halt a $5bn programme to build fast EV chargers on highways nationwide. Politico reports that the move “raises legal questions as two federal judges have already ordered the Trump administration to lift freezes imposed on federal funding”. Reuters reports that the US supreme court yesterday declined to pause a dispute over California’s standards for vehicle emissions and electric cars, although Trump’s orders could affect them. Separately, Reuters publishes analysis showing that Trump “has placed holds on tens of billions of dollars in congressionally-approved spending for projects across the US that range from Iowa soybean farmers adopting greener practices to a Virginia railway expansion”. The New York Times has published a factcheck on many of Trump’s actions and statements. It says Trump’s characterisation of the Paris Agreement as “one-sided” was “misleading”. Reuters reports: “Growth in oil output from the US Permian basin, the country’s top oilfield, is expected to slow by at least 25% this year despite President Donald Trump’s vow to maximize production, energy executives forecast on Thursday.” And, finally, professor Barbara Kates-Garnick from Tufts University outlines in the Conversation “what states lose” if Trump’s executive orders remain in place. 

In related news, Inside Climate News reports that House and Senate Republicans have introduced a rule to roll back a fee on methane emissions, “using a mechanism that would prevent the EPA from advancing a similar rule ever again”. And the Associated Press reports that a utility company in California has said that “its equipment may have sparked a small wildfire in Los Angeles that broke out the same day as two massive blazes in the area that killed at least 29 people and destroyed thousands of homes”. ABC News, Reuters, the New York Times, the Independent and the New York Times also cover the story.

Green campaigners are concerned that ministers are “poised” to award billions of pounds in free subsidies to the Drax power station, the Guardian reports. According to the newspaper, Drax claims to burn wood to generate “green” power, despite the large body of research which finds that wood burning contributes to emissions. It notes that Drax currently receives about £2m in subsidies per day, but these are scheduled to run out in 2027. “A government decision on whether to continue the support payments beyond the cut-off could come as soon as Monday,” the newspaper says. It continues: “Campaigners fear that ministers could allow Drax unrestricted subsidies for continuing to burn biomass, which one said would be ‘incredibly bad news’. A further option would be to impose strict time limits on the subsidies, or require Drax to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which could reduce the harm to the climate but still allow widespread destruction of trees.”

Separately, the Financial Times reports that Britain’s carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS) projects are under threat of Treasury cuts. The newspaper says: “The Treasury will heavily scrutinise carbon capture projects in this year’s spending review, according to people briefed on the process, with ministers admitting they will not meet ambitious targets for the new technology.” This comes as BBC News reports that on Friday, the House of Commons’ public accounts committee – a cross party group of MPs that scrutinises public spending – “raised serious concerns that the government had not properly assessed the financial impact” of CCUS on households and businesses. The outlet notes that in October, the government pledged £22bn for CCUS over 25 years, with three-quarters of the money coming from consumer bills. Bloomberg quotes the report, which says: “There is a high risk that CCUS will not deliver to the timescales or the level of carbon reductions needed and thus jeopardize the government’s ability to meet carbon reduction targets.” The Daily Telegraph has an article trailed on its frontpage that calls the report “damming”, noting that CCS will cost the equivalent of £800 per UK household. [This figure is £22bn divided by 28m households, but fails to mention the 25-year timescale or the funding coming from the government. The cost to billpayers would be more like £23 per year, assuming only households shoulder the cost despite using just a third of UK electricity.]

UK prime minister Keir Starmer has announced his plans to revamp the planning rules on nuclear energy in order to build small modular reactors (SMRs) across England and Wales, the Guardian reports. The newspaper continues: “Asked if, much like Trump’s pro-fossil fuels mantra of ‘drill, baby, drill’, he now advocated ‘build, baby, build’, Starmer replied: ‘I say: build, baby, build. I say: we’re going to take on the blockers so that we can build.’” It adds: “However ambitious, the project faces obstacles, including likely local opposition, despite hints from Starmer that people could get lower bills if they lived near a new reactor. The technology also remains untested, there is not a single commercial SMR operating in the world, and the sector is heavily reliant on government support.” The newspaper quotes Greenpeace’s UK policy director, who called the plan unrealistic and said that the Labour government “has swallowed nuclear industry spin whole”. BBC News notes that “the timeframes of nuclear projects are much longer than parliamentary cycles and governments with small majorities can be put off by controversy”. Agence France Presse reports that the government says the plan will “create thousands of new highly skilled jobs while delivering clean, secure and more affordable energy for working people”. The MailOnline also covers the story. Separately, both the Times and the Guardian have published explainers on SMRs. The i newspaper has published a list of “the 12 ideal sites for mini nuclear reactors, according to an expert”. 

At the same time, the Times reports that Starmer has given “his strongest hint yet that the government would approve the Rosebank oilfield”. The paper notes that following a court ruling last week, the Rosebank project and Jackdaw gas field must both re-apply for government consent. According to the newspaper, Starmer told Sky News: “What we said at the election was we weren’t going to interfere with existing licences – this process started obviously before the election. It will have to go through the process, but the mindset is we know that oil and gas is going to be a big part of the future for many decades to come. The application has got to come back in again…then there’s got to be a decision made properly.”, The Press Association, Daily Telegraph and Reuters also cover the news. The MailOnline reports that “panicking Ed Miliband has ordered his ministers to reduce energy bills to meet his pledge to save households £300”. 

In other UK news, the Guardian covers a new report about AI which calls on the UK government to “make tech companies submit mandatory reports on their energy and water consumption and carbon emissions in order to set conditions in which data centres are designed to use fewer vital resources”. The Times reports that Veru Motors – one of Britain’s biggest car dealers – “has warned that profits this year will come in ‘significantly’ below expectations, blaming the government’s zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate for causing ‘severe disruption’ to the new car market”. The Daily Telegraph also covers the story. The Press Association reports that Conservative MP David Simmonds has urged the government to draw lessons from the Thatcher-era cole pit closures in its drive towards net-zero. BusinessGreen reports that private landlords would need their rental properties to reach an energy efficiency rating of C or above by at least 2030, under proposals launched for consultation today. The Daily Telegraph also covers the story.

Mongolia plans to “press China to approve” a cross-border railway link that could boost “an already growing coal trade between the two countries”, Bloomberg reports. Mongolia, China’s fourth-largest supplier of foreign coal, will aim for a deal that covers “coal sales and purchase agreements”, it adds. China’s coal imports last year grew 14% year-on-year, doubling from 2022 levels to a record 542m tonnes, industry news outlet China Energy Network says. 

Meanwhile, China saw “a big surge” in issuance of green electricity certificates last year as it made “further efforts…to improve mutual recognition of [such] certificates” with Europe, state-run newspaper China Daily reports. Chinese electric vehicle (EV) brands have set “ambitious sales targets” this year, with some “eyeing over 100% year-on-year growth”, notes the state-supporting newspaper Global Times. Installed capacity of new energy storage in China “exceeded that of pumped storage for the first time” in 2024, China Daily says. Tim Daiss, an energy market analyst, writes in a commentary for the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) that “a focus on energy storage capacity will help Beijing meet climate targets”. China News Network says solar power projects have turned areas damaged by coal mining “from useless land to golden mountains”.

In other news, China has issued guidelines to “promote the high-quality development and circulation of refined oil”, according to energy news outlet International Energy Net. Unicef has linked air pollution to the death of “more than 100 children under the age of five…each day” in the Asia-Pacific, with 300m children in China at risk – the most in the region – the Straits Times says. BJX News republishes a commentary by Zheng Shanjie, chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC, China’s top economic planning body), which stated that priorities for the year ahead included more focus on “green” upgrading and for a “comprehensive green transformation of economic and social development.”. Power industry news outlet Dianlian Xinmei carries a commentary by Wang Peng, dean of the National Institute of Energy Development Strategy at North China Electric Power University, arguing China must “build a new type of electric power system that uses new energy as the main body and centres power users”. A Global Times editorial says there is a “pressing need” for EU-China climate cooperation. The New York Times publishes an opinion article by former Trump trade representative Robert Lighthizer arguing that “free trade” is the reason the US is “not competitive in important products like…solar panels [and] shipbuilding”, a problem that will be solved by tariffs. Another New York Times commentary by columnist Thomas Friedman argues against “impulsive tariffs”, adding “to be globally competitive…US automakers need battery tech transfer from China”.

The cost of clean energy technologies, such as wind, solar and battery storage, are expected to fall globally by 2-11% in 2025, according to a new study by Bloomberg NEF, Reuters reports. BusinessGreen says the report covers 29 technologies in more than 50 countries. The outlet adds that according to the report, the global benchmark cost for battery storage projects fell by a third in 2024 to $104 per megawatt hour (MWh). It continues: “BNEF is now forecasting that batteries will cross below the $100/MWh mark this year, while global benchmarks for wind and solar generation are also set to fall 4 and 2%, respectively.” Elsewhere, BusinessGreen reports that, according to an annual update from RenewableUK, global operational offshore wind capacity has now topped 80 gigawatts (GW). The outlet continues: “Global offshore wind capacity grew 15% in the past year to reach 80.9GW, up sharply from 70.2GW a year ago, despite on-going economic headwinds and supply chain challenges…China and the Netherlands delivered 63% of new capacity over the past year, adding 6.9GW and 1.7GW respectively.”

A group of 22 US states are suing New York over its recently approved “climate change superfund act”, the New York Times says. Under the law, the country’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters over 2000-24 must pay a combined total of $3bn every year for the next 25 years, the newspaper says. It adds that the funds will be used to repair and upgrade infrastructure in New York that is damaged by extreme weather events. “The measure, which was signed into law in December, is slated to go into effect in 2028,” the newspaper explains. Reuters says that the 22 states, led by West Virginia, called the lawsuit an “overreach”, arguing that it “punishes traditional energy companies for emitting greenhouse gases many years ago even though they complied fully with applicable laws”, and saying that the payouts could destroy thousands of jobs. The newswire adds: “New York became the second US state to create an industry-financed ‘superfund’ to address climate change, under a law signed by Democratic governor Kathy Hochul on 26 December. Vermont’s superfund took effect last July.” Meanwhile, the Daily Mail reports that proposed increase in energy prices in New York is “due in part” to the state’s climate change policies. A Wall Street Journal has an editorial on the story titled: “New York’s giant climate tax.”

There is continuing media coverage that last month was the warmest January on record, according to new data from the European Copernicus climate service. Sky News says: “The finding has baffled scientists, who had expected changes in ocean currents in the Pacific to take the edge off rising global temperatures.” The outlet notes that January 2025 was 1.75C warmer than the pre-industrial period, 0.1C above the record set last January. The Guardian says: “January marked the 18th month of the past 19 to record global-average surface temperatures above the 1.5C pre-industrial level…Climate scientists had expected this exceptional spell to subside after a warming El Niño event peaked in January 2024 and conditions shifted to an opposing, cooling La Niña phase. But the heat has lingered at record or near-record levels, prompting debate about what other factors could be driving it to the top end of expectations.” EuroNews reports that ​​the last 15 years have warmed at about twice the rate of the previous 40 years. CBS News adds: “The surprising January heat record coincides with a new study by a climate science heavyweight, former top NASA scientist James Hansen, and others arguing that global warming is accelerating. It’s a claim that’s dividing the research community.” The Hindu and Mongabay also cover the story.

The Times has published an editorial praising Labour’s plans to speed up the roll-out of nuclear energy. The editorial says that the UK is currently “at the mercy of the international natural gas market with industrial electricity costing four times more than in the US”, adding that: “to achieve energy sovereignty and competitiveness Britain needs to regain its nuclear mojo”. It notes that Keir Starmer’s plans to build more nuclear power are reliant on small modular reactors (SMRs), and says that “fortunately, this is a technology in which Britain excels”. It continues: “Stung by criticism that Labour’s approach has been too downbeat, Sir Keir was bullishness itself on Thursday, promising to free Britain from Vladimir Putin’s hold over the gas market…Amen to all that, but now comes delivery.” It concludes: “Sir Keir must convince business that Britain’s atomic renaissance is here to stay and worth investing in for the long term. The UK has led the nuclear field before, only to fall by the wayside. This time the government must stay the course.”

A new study finds that the “aboveground” biomass of seagrass ecosystems will decline by around 10% by the end of the century. Using climate models and data on current seagrass habitat, researchers project changes in seagrass habitat area, as well as biomass. They find that some of the countries with the largest current-day seagrass ecosystems – such as Brazil, Costa Rica, Panama, Japan and China – will be “severely impacted” by climate change, while the Arctic and southern Africa will gain seagrass biomass. They also find that the most important predictor of how seagrass distribution will change is the type of seagrass growing there, with temperature having the second-greatest impact.