Energy executives think investor pressure on oil companies and the economic realities of “a sector always beholden to oil prices” are likely to block US president Donald Trump’s mission to launch a new era of “American energy dominance”, the Financial Times reports. “Wall Street’s reluctance to approve another drilling binge” means that US oil output is likely to rise more slowly in the coming years than under the Biden administration, the newspaper says, and “much less than in the shale bonanza years in the previous decade”. It says company executives point out that Trump’s push for lower oil and gas prices “would make shale companies less profitable – and less likely to follow [his] command to ‘drill, baby, drill’”. Equally, industry figures tell Reuters that US oil and gas companies are “unlikely to expand development in Alaska and the Arctic”, despite Trump’s executive order enabling them to do so. The article explains: “US oil production is already at record levels due largely to increased production in more accessible areas like Texas and New Mexico, and companies have limited spending on new projects to focus on returning cash to shareholders.” It also notes that a future president could easily reverse Trump’s decision. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil Europe president Philippe Ducom tells Bloomberg that Trump’s plans to sell more liquified “natural” gas (LNG) could be hampered by limited supplies this year, with new capacity only emerging in 2026 and 2027. Another factor, the article notes, is reluctance in Europe to commit to long-term LNG deals, despite Trump threatening European governments with tariffs if they do not buy more oil and gas. However, Reuters quotes European Commission executive vice-president Valdis Dombrovskis, who says the EU is open to discussing purchases of US energy and arms to ward off tariffs. In related news, the Guardian reports that “big oil” spent $445m throughout the last election cycle “to influence Donald Trump and Congress, according to analysis by environmental NGO Climate Power. The article adds that this figure is “almost certainly a vast understatement” due to funds that are harder to track.

In a virtual address to executives at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump called on OPEC – the group of major oil producers – to push down global oil prices, the Financial Times reports. The president also praised the merits of “good, clean, coal”, the newspaper notes. Trump said he would expedite the construction of power plants for artificial intelligence, potentially powered by coal for “emergency” backup electricity, through an emergency declaration, according to CNBC News. (In an unusual aside, Trump said that “nothing can destroy coal, not the weather, not a bomb”, according to the Independent.) US coal producers’ shares surged following the president’s remarks, according to Mining Weekly. In related news, New Scientist says that this week OpenAI and other tech companies joined Trump to pledge private investment of half a trillion dollars in data centres as part of the “Stargate” project to boost US artificial intelligence technology. The magazine notes that the project “could strain the US energy grid”. Bloomberg reports that “at least some power for Stargate” will likely come from solar and battery storage projects.

The Washington Post has an article about Trump’s move to curb wind power, which it says is “perhaps the most paradoxical aspect of [his] sweeping plan to reorient America’s energy economy”. It adds that “energy economists said they are puzzled by the new administration’s math”, due to the apparent discord between wanting more energy production while also threatening offshore wind projects that are in development. The move away from clean energy under Trump puts it “out of step” with the rest of the world, according to the New York Times. It points to the EU, the UK, Norway, China and “even Saudi Arabia” as examples of countries with major renewable energy plans. Politico notes that the Republican party used to describe its energy strategy as “all-of-the-above”, including fossil fuels and clean power. It quotes Republican senator Jim Risch saying it is now “all the above, except wind”. The Conversation has a list of “nine things to expect for the climate” under Trump.

Meanwhile, veteran Brazilian climate diplomat and recently announced COP30 president Andre Correa do Lago has told journalists that negotiations will likely be “harder” at the climate summit this year, compared to last year’s meetings, due to the US departure from the Paris Agreement, Reuters reports. Separately, South African environment minister Dion George has expressed “profound regret” about the US leaving the Paris Agreement, according to Xinhua.

US president Donald Trump will travel to southern California today to visit communities affected by fires, while also threatening to withhold federal disaster aid, CBS News reports. Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Wednesday that he does not think the federal government should give California “anything” until it sends more water south, the article explains. This claim that California could better combat fires in Los Angeles if it directed water from the northern part of the state to the southern part has been repeated by Trump several times, the Hill says. The outlet notes that former president Joe Biden attributed apparent water shortages to utility companies shutting off power, in order to avoid starting additional fires, “which, in turn, cut the ability to pump water to hydrants”. The Associated Press says that, in recent weeks, Trump and his allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, have attacked California governor Gavin Newsom and “at times promoted misinformation about California’s response” to the fires. Trump attributes Californian Democrats’ refusal to send more water to their desire to protect the delta smelt, a threatened species of fish, the New York Times says. But the newspaper quotes experts who say the state’s water supply to southern California, “had nothing to do with the fires that raged uncontrollably” earlier this month. (See Carbon Brief’s overview of media reactions to the LA fires, including analysis of how climate change contributed to the disaster.) As Trump prepares to visit the scene of the fires, an editorial in the right-leaning Wall Street Journal supports the idea that aid for the state should be conditional on implementing certain policies to reduce future fire damage. 

Meanwhile, Newsom said yesterday he had yet to hear from Trump on the eve of the president’s planned tour of wildfire damage in LA, but confirmed that he was “planning to show up at the airport for a customary greeting”, Politico reports. The outlet says the governor has been performing a “high-wire act” since the fires started, defending himself against Trump’s misinformation while also seeking federal recovery funding. The Sacramento Bee reports on a “rare show of bipartisanship” as California lawmakers advanced $2.5bn “to expedite cleanup and recovery of the LA fires”. 

In further news coverage, risk modeling firm KCC estimates insured losses of around $28bn from the LA wildfires, which would mean they are already “the costliest wildfires in US history”, according to Reuters. Another Reuters story reports that a “massive new LA-area fire” has “swelled” and forced tens of thousands of evacuations north of the city. And, finally, the New York Times says that rain expected in southern California “could trigger flash floods and mudslides” in places “scarred” by fires.

The EU may introduce subsidies to help Europe’s “embattled car industry…update their capacities” as it weighs “options for an incentive programme” for the sector, the Financial Times reports. It quotes Teresa Ribera, head of the EU’s clean, just and competitive transition strategy, saying the scheme will have to prevent “subsidies flowing to Chinese carmakers”. She suggested it made “sense to see how we could figure out in a pan-European perspective, how to facilitate the measures instead of going through national subsidies”, warning against a “race where we could be confronting one national model versus another one”.

Meanwhile, Chinese ambassador to the UK Zheng Zeguang has called for the UK and China to “restart dialogue and collaboration” in areas including new energy, says state news agency Xinhua. Shanghai-based news outlet the Paper says “the global shift to clean energy will continue with or without the US”. In response to Trump’s threat to impose a 10% tariff on Chinese goods, commerce ministry spokesperson He Yadong said that the “essence” of US-China trade relations “lies in achieving…win-win outcomes”, reports state-supporting newspaper Global Times. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post quotes industry analysts saying that “a combination of government regulation and local opposition to mining projects” has prevented the US from building a domestic supply of critical minerals and reducing dependence on China.

In other news, the National Energy Administration (NEA) has issued guidelines on development of distributed solar, which set “the definition of distributed solar power generation, how to manage the industry…how to build projects, how to connect to the grid, and how to regulate the operation, covering the whole life cycle of distributed PV power generation projects”, Xinhua reports. NEA deputy director Zhang Xing emphasised actions taken in 2024 to “promote the high-quality development of coal” in a recent press conference, China Energy Net says. International Energy Net publishes the full transcript of the press conference, in which the NEA announced China issued 4.7bn green certificates last year, “28 times more” than in 2023. China recently published the power carbon footprint factor dataset for 2023, which is an “important cornerstone” that helps bodies “calculate their carbon footprint…and achieve the dual carbon goal”, Xinhua reports. A Financial Times Lex column says that “China may finally put a lid on coal”.

Finally, China is expecting the “heaviest snowfall” experienced this winter on 23-24 January, the Paper reports. China Daily also covers the story, saying that some areas could see temperatures “plunge by 20C” amid the “spring festival travel rush”. And President Xi Jinping has assured victims of natural disasters that they “can always count on the party and the government”, Xinhua reports.

UK energy security and net-zero secretary Ed Miliband has ruled out resigning if chancellor Rachel Reeves backs a third runway at Heathrow, despite his previous objections to the scheme on climate grounds, the Independent reports. When asked about the prospect of resignation, the news outlet quotes Miliband saying: “Don’t be ridiculous, no. The whole of the government is focused, and I’m focused, on delivering our clean energy mission as part of what we need to do as a country, as part of the prime minister’s mission and as part of meeting our economic growth mission – our number one priority.” The Daily Telegraph also reports the story, and states his comments “sparked an immediate backlash from green campaigners”. It says Reeves will formalise the government’s support for the new runway in a speech next week, alongside support for expansions at Gatwick and Luton airports. Politico says Miliband “is in another fight with the Treasury. And, as the government desperately pursues good news on economic growth, he looks destined to lose again”. Another Independent article quotes housing minister Matthew Pennycook defending Reeves’ statement that economic growth “trumps other things”, and stating that the government is not “ripping up” climate change pledges. The Daily Mail frames the issue as a “Labour civil war”, noting that Labour London mayor Sadiq Khan says he still opposes the runway. An article in the Conversation by sustainability policy researcher Richard Sulley, from the University of Sheffield, lays out the evidence for Heathrow expansion being “incompatible” with the UK’s net-zero goals.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports in an “exclusive” article that a “climate and nature bill”, which has been backed by more than 80 Labour MPs, “seems doomed after government whips ordered Labour MPs to oppose it following a breakdown in negotiations”. Separately, following an article by Keir Starmer in the Daily Mail earlier this week, which took aim at “NIMBYs” for blocking infrastructure projects, an environmental campaigner who feels the prime minister targeted him personally has accused the prime minister of “pathetic bullying”, Sky News reports. 

Germany imported fossil and nuclear energy worth more than €80bn from abroad in 2023, while all European Union countries together imported energy worth over €315bn from other parts of the world, according to a study by the Öko-Institut, which was made available “exclusively” to the RedaktionsNetzwerk Deutschland (RND). The data also shows that Germany has been gradually importing less coal, oil, and gas each year, notes the outlet. However, Bloomberg reports that Germany may need to keep its fleet of mothballed coal-fired stations available for longer than expected as a drive to build new gas plants is “severely behind schedule”, grid operator Amprion warned.

Meanwhile, Der Spiegel carries an article on whether it makes “economic sense” for Germany to specifically increase its imports of oil and “natural” gas from the US. The newspaper notes that Germany’s economy minister, Robert Habeck, noted that 80-90% of Germany’s liquified “natural” gas (LNG) imports already come from the US, leaving little room for increase. Given existing long-term contracts with European suppliers such as Norway, shifting to more US imports could strain political relationships and potentially raise gas prices, explains the article. 

Finally, Handelsblatt reports that Robert Habeck responded to US president Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, calling it a “fatal signal for the world” and “the beginning of a historic failure”. 

Veteran US climate diplomat Sue Biniaz, who until recently served in the Biden administration, has an article on the website Just Security explaining the ramifications of Donald Trump’s actions to withdraw the nation from international climate action, including the Paris Agreement. She says Trump’s executive order, which was titled “putting America first in international environmental agreements”, includes “provisions that are straightforward, inconsistent with international law and somewhat mysterious”. As it takes a year to officially leave the Paris Agreement, Biniaz says the language about US departure being “effective immediately” is not consistent with international law. She notes that, unlike the last time Trump signalled his intention to leave the Paris Agreement in 2017, the executive order this time does not include any reference to one day rejoining the treaty. She also highlights language about the US reversing commitments on international climate finance, and a future commitment to always put US interests first when negotiating agreements “with the potential to damage or stifle the American economy”, Biniaz concludes by pointing out that the US fought to create a system under the Paris Agreement wherein countries set their own climate targets, which are not legally binding: “As was the case last time, it would have been an option for the new administration to remain in the Paris Agreement and revise the US target in a manner it found economically acceptable.”

An editorial in the Washington Post questions whether the US is facing an “energy emergency”, pointing to record oil and gas expansion and a rapidly growing renewables industry. It continues: “By calling America’s energy situation an emergency, the same term he used to describe immigration across the southern border, Trump hopes to create legal room to override any congressional or judicial checks on his power.” The newspaper says that by rejecting renewable energy and leaving the Paris Agreement, Trump is undermining global efforts to tackle climate change. “To the extent that Trump ignores this challenge, he will increase the chance that a true emergency will occur,” it concludes.

In the Daily Telegraph, world economy editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has an article titled “when it comes to energy, Donald Trump is China’s useful idiot”. He explains that by “gut[ting]” the Inflation Reduction Act and withdrawing clean energy support, he is handing an advantage to China in clean technology. “This amounts to a unilateral withdrawal from the global green-tech race just as the US is finally catching up again,” Evans-Pritchard writes. There is a similar message in a Financial Times editorial, which concludes: “Though it is still burning a lot of coal, China’s green energy shift looks, then, like a bet on the future, while the US is betting on the status quo.” At the same time, a Financial Times Lex column explains that Trump does not have the ability to deliver the massive boost to fossil fuels he has promised. It says: “Any increase in US oil production is likely to push down prices and thus be short lived. The only thing gushing in the oil patch is rhetoric.”

George Eaton, the New Statesman’s senior politics editor, writes that the debate over whether to build a third runway at Heathrow has pitted chancellor Rachel Reeves against energy secretary Ed Miliband. He points to Miliband’s long history of opposing the runway on environmental grounds, and says prime minister Keir Starmer will be forced to choose between two political figures that he is very close to. The Times business commentator Alistair Osborne contrasts Reeves’ comments about growth “trump[ing] other things” and her previous rhetoric about the “growth benefits of our clean energy mission”. Osborne writes: “Does anything go now, green or not? And, if so, why not leave things to the private sector instead of funnelling £8bn of taxpayer’s money into something as nebulous as Great British Energy?”

The Daily Mail carries the latest in a long line of editorials criticising energy secretary Ed Miliband and his “relentless and financially crippling obsession with net-zero”. This time it takes aim at his opposition to the new runway at Heathrow, and suggests that the newspaper would like Miliband to resign. Finally, Matt Ridley – a former Conservative peer with links to climate-sceptic lobbyists and whose inherited estate has earned an income from coal mining – has an article in the Daily Telegraph taking aim at “Britain’s net-zero, green energy madness”.

A new study finds that natural variability in the climate creates “substantially” more uncertainty in projections of future crop yields than in projections of future climate. By running more than 2,000 simulations of future global maize yield, a researcher quantifies the effect of internal variability on maize yield. He finds that natural variability affects not only the size of the modelled yield change but even whether yields will increase or decrease in the future. He writes: “The results imply that future yield projections based on relatively limited samples of ICV can be highly misleading as they may, by chance, indicate low yield loss risk in areas which will, instead, be at high risk (or vice versa).”