China installed a larger amount of new solar capacity in 2023 than the total amount ever installed in any other nation, contributing to its already dominant position in the global renewable energy landscape, reports Bloomberg. According to the national energy administration (NEA), China added 217 gigawatts (GW) of solar capacity in 2023, a figure which surpasses its previous record of 87GW in 2022 and exceeds the “entire solar fleet of 175GW in the US”, the news outlet adds. Reuters also reports the NEA figures, saying China’s total solar capacity increased by 55% last year, while wind capacity grew by 21%. Chinese energy outlet IN-EN.com reports that NEA deputy director-general and spokesperson Zhang Xing says that, in 2024, the country’s top energy regulator will “base its efforts on ensuring energy security, promoting a green and low-carbon transformation and adopting multiple measures to boost the increase in storage and production of coalbed methane”. China Energy Net reports that Liu Gang, deputy director of the market supervision department of the NEA, says that “issues exist in building a nationwide unified power market”, including “improper market intervention in certain regions” and “unauthorised designation of trading parties, specified trading volumes and fixed trading prices”. Chinese outlet Jiemian reports that China’s development of new energy storage is “progressing rapidly, with installed capacity already exceeding 30GW”. This means that China has achieved the installation target for new energy storage outlined in the 14th five-year-plan “two years ahead of schedule”, it adds. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reports that the capacity of China’s energy storage sector has “nearly quadrupled” in the past year, driven by “new technologies like lithium-ion batteries”, following over “100bn yuan (US$13.9bn) [of] direct investments” over the past couple of years.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times says that “slowing” Chinese demand for electric vehicles (EVs) has “crushed the price” of lithium, quoting one analyst saying that “too many new [lithium mining] projects came online in too short a space of time”. Chinese financial outlet Yicai reports that industry experts say that battery prices of the EVs have “slumped amid overcapacity” and that “sustained large-scale investments will likely further add to the glut”. It adds that, according to the China automotive power battery industry innovation alliance (CAPBIIA), vehicle battery sales reached 616.3 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in China in 2023, “but only 387.7 GWh was installed”.

In other news, IN-EN.com reports that Pan Huimin, deputy director of the international cooperation department of the NEA, says that China plays a “pivotal role in global clean-energy development”. According to the latest data, in 2023, the global added capacity of renewable energy reached “510GW, with China contributing over 50% of this total”, he announces. China Youth Daily reports that Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin says that China is “a ‘doer’ in the global clean-energy transition”. An article in the Communist party-affiliated newspaper People’s Daily says that “in recent years, to ensure energy security and address climate change, China has consistently prioritised the development of clean energy and has achieved remarkable results”. Elsewhere, the Financial Times reports: “Construction on the Kremlin’s long-planned mega-pipeline connecting Russia’s western gasfields with China is expected to be delayed, the prime minister of Mongolia has warned, in a blow to Moscow’s plans to secure a new market for the gas it previously sold to Europe. The so-called Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, which will cross Mongolian territory, has been a priority for Moscow for more than a decade but gained even greater importance since Europe curbed its imports of Russian gas in response to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.” (For more, see the article published last week by Carbon Brief: “Analysis: Clean energy was top driver of China’s economic growth in 2023.”)

There is continued coverage of the news, officially announced on Friday, that US president Joe Biden “is delaying consideration of new natural gas export terminals”, the Associated Press reports. The newswire continues: “The election year decision by president Joe Biden aligns with environmentalists who fear the huge increase in exports, in the form of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, is locking in potentially catastrophic planet-warming emissions when the Democratic president has pledged to cut climate pollution in half by 2030.” It quotes Biden saying in a statement: “While MAGA Republicans willfully deny the urgency of the climate crisis, condemning the American people to a dangerous future, my administration will not be complacent.” It adds: “The current economic and environmental analyses the energy department uses to evaluate LNG projects don’t adequately account for potential cost hikes for American consumers and manufacturers or the impact of greenhouse gas emissions, the White House said.” The New York Times reports: “President Biden on Friday paused the permitting process for new liquefied natural gas export facilities in order to analyse their impact on climate change, the economy and national security.” The paper says: “In just eight years since it first began shipping natural gas overseas, the US has become the world’s leader in LNG exports. The country has seven terminals with another five approved facilities under construction. An additional 17 projects have been seeking permits. The move comes a month after the US joined nearly 200 nations at a United Nations climate summit in promising to transition away from fossil fuels.” It adds: “Within the White House, there was little debate over the decision to delay CP2 [Calcasieu Pass 2, a planned export terminal in Louisiana] because the US is already shipping so much gas overseas, said people familiar with the discussions who asked not to be named because they were not authorised to speak publicly. That capacity is set to nearly double over the next four years, making the need for CP2 less urgent.” The Financial Times says the pause to approvals for the 17 proposed export projects is  “indefinite” and quotes Biden saying: “During this period, we will take a hard look at the effects of LNG exports on energy costs, America’s energy security, and our environment…This pause on new LNG approvals sees the climate crisis for what it is: the existential threat of our time.” It quotes US energy secretary Jennifer Granholm saying: “The pause will not affect already-authorised exports, nor will it impact our ability to supply our allies in Europe, Asia or other recipients of already authorised exports.” The paper also quotes an EU official saying: “this pause will not have any short-to-medium term impacts on the EU’s security of supply”. Reuters says the review “will take months and then will be open to public comment which will take more time”. It continues: “Administration officials vowed that the pause would not hurt allies, as it has an exemption for national security should they need more LNG.” The newswire adds: “Karoline Leavitt, a campaign spokesperson for former president Donald Trump, a Republican, said the decision was ‘one more disastrous self-inflicted wound that will further undermine America’s economic and national security.’” Bloomberg says the pause in approvals is “likely to disrupt plans for billions of dollars in projects”. It adds: “The move strikes at the heart of the debate over LNG’s role in the future of energy. While advocates contend it’s crucial for getting developing nations to stop using coal and enabling Europe to power its economy without Russian gas, environmentalists warn that building the enormous infrastructure required to ship LNG ensures it will be burned for generations to come.” Politico reports: “Republicans and gas industry advocates denounced the action.” The Guardian, Hill, Daily Telegraph, Axios and Climate Home News are among the many others covering the pause.

In further analysis of the move, the New York Times reports that “it is creating unease outside the US about future energy supplies”. The Hill reports: “White House official cites young, climate-focused voters as key Biden constituency after LNG announcement.” Inside Climate News asks if the pause will “win back young voters”. Meanwhile, the Times asks what the pause will mean for the UK. The New York Times reports: “President Biden has done more than any president to tackle climate change, but strategists are grappling with an uncomfortable fact: voters don’t seem to know it.” For the Hill, Paul Bledsoe, professorial lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy in Washington, writes under the headline: “By attacking Biden on climate, the far left risks true disaster with a Trump win.” Finally, the New York Times reports on efforts to “stop American money from supporting a [gas export] project in Papua New Guinea”.

EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra “has warned the bloc must not be lured into a ‘false narrative’ that action against global warming is undermining the competitiveness of European businesses”, the Financial Times reports. It quotes him telling the paper in an interview ahead of proposals due next week on EU targets for 2040: “We need to stand on two legs: one leg is climate action, the other leg is the just transition, competitiveness and a thriving business community, because both are needed.” The paper continues: “Brussels intends to propose that the EU should cut emissions by 90% by 2040, compared with 1990 levels, according to drafts of the document seen by the Financial Times.” Elsewhere, Politico interviews Teresa Ribera, reporting: “Europe’s centre-right leaders assailing green policies are only feeding the rise of a Trump-style populism, Spain’s deputy prime minister warned in an interview.” It continues: “Now, as Europe gears up for EU elections in June, she’s fearful that anti-green campaign rhetoric emerging from the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group in the European Parliament, could create lasting damage for the EU. In recent months, the centre-right party has been increasingly lambasting EU efforts to cut carbon emissions and clean up the environment – including some core components of Europe’s goal to hit climate neutrality by mid-century. ” It quotes her saying: “My impression is that the reason why we see this behaviour is because they fear getting trapped and overcome by the far right.” The outlet continues: “She said that any attempt to steal votes from the far right would only serve to reinforce the messages and support of far-right parties – which, according to polls, are set to make large gains in the election.” It adds: “EPP officials rejected the populist tag in interviews with Politico, framing their retreat on some green files as a response to legitimate concerns about their burden – especially in rural communities. The EPP remains wholly committed to the EU’s effort to neutralise its carbon emissions by 2050, they said.” Politico reports under the headline: “How the far right aims to ride farmers’ outrage to power in Europe.” (See comment below.) Separately, the Financial Times reports: “Brussels is considering emergency support measures for Europe’s solar panel manufacturing industry as a flood of cheap Chinese imports threatens domestic production and industry figures warn the continent’s manufacturers are ‘on the brink’.”

A provisional UK record high temperature for the month of January was set at Kinlochewe in the Scottish Highlands on Sunday, BBC News reports. It says: “If confirmed [the peak of 19.6C] would be the highest January temperature in the UK, breaking a record set in 2003 by more than a full degree Celsius.” The broadcaster adds: “BBC Scotland forecaster and meteorologist Calum MacColl said the balmy weather was due in part to something known as the Foehn effect…He said southerly winds were also drawing up a very mild air mass across Scotland, leading to unusually warm conditions.”

Meanwhile, the Independent reports: “Spain’s weather agency says abnormally high temperatures for the season are set to continue in many parts of the country.” It cites the head of the agency, Marcelino Nuñez: “[He] said it was not possible to put the current high temperatures down to the climate crisis without carrying out studies, but they follow a trend of increasingly more frequent periods of unusually high temperatures that experts are associating with climate change.” Separately, Reuters reports: “Tens of thousands of people in Australia’s Queensland state were without power on Friday after a tropical cyclone hit overnight, bringing damaging winds and heavy rains…Australia is in the grips of an El Niño weather event, which is typically associated with extreme phenomena such as cyclones, wildfires, droughts and heatwaves.” The newswire adds: “Meanwhile, parts of Queensland and southern neighbour New South Wales were on heatwave alert, with temperatures in the high-forties Celsius possible on Friday for some regional areas of Queensland, the weather forecaster warned. In New South Wales capital Sydney, the temperature in the city’s west was forecast to hit 40C (104F), more than nine degrees above the average January maximum, according to weather forecaster data.”

In the US, Axios reports: “A January thaw for the record books is firmly established across much of North America, with Washington, DC, setting an all-time January high temperature record of 80F [26.7C on] Friday, as similar milestones fell elsewhere.” The outlet says: “According to a recent analysis from Climate Central, cold spells are moderating quickly across the US due to human-caused global warming.”

There is ongoing coverage and analysis of the Hinkley Point C new nuclear plant being further delayed until at least 2029, with the Financial Times reporting that the news has “raised fresh questions about the UK’s energy strategy”. It continues: “A new generation of nuclear power stations forms a crucial part of the government’s decarbonisation drive with plans to build up to 24GW [gigawatts] by the middle of the century up from 5.88GW at present.” It quotes Simon Virley of KPMG saying: “If we fail to build the necessary capacity, any gap is most likely to be filled by gas, thereby making it harder to get to a net-zero power system in the planned timescales.” The paper adds: “[T]he most pressing challenge is to hit the government’s target of having all electricity generated by low-carbon sources by 2035 (or 2030 should the opposition Labour party win the general election later this year).” It continues: “Analysts at LSEG estimated the latest delays to [the completion of Hinkley C’s first unit] would push wholesale power prices up by as much as 6% between 2029 and 2032, based on the assumption that unit two would come online in 2033.” The FT says: “The only other proposed large UK nuclear power station will be a near copy of Hinkley Point C at Sizewell in Suffolk. EDF and the UK government are in the process of trying to raise funds from outside investors to build it at an estimated cost of £20bn. Unlike Hinkley Point C, where EDF bears the risk of cost overruns – an issue the French state is putting pressure on the UK to help with – Sizewell C’s financing model will see billpayers exposed to some of that risk instead. Nevertheless, EDF’s record on delivery could make prospective investors wary.” A second Financial Times article says: “Fight with London over Hinkley Point comes as the state company has been tasked to build six to 14 reactors in France alone.” The Guardian says: “The French government is reportedly calling on the UK government to provide financial help for both Hinkley and the next planned plant, Sizewell in Suffolk, to keep the struggling nuclear revival afloat. The UK government has been quick to quash any suggestion that Hinkley’s financial fallout will be borne by UK taxpayers.” The Sunday Times carries a feature titled: “Hinkley Point C: why can’t Britain build new nuclear power stations?” It is subtitled: “From changing designs to Covid delays, there are myriad excuses for why the new nuclear power station is billions over budget and more than a decade late.” A Sunday Telegraph feature is titled: “How France left the British taxpayer on the hook as Hinkley costs go nuclear.” Separately, Reuters reports that France “has confirmed its interest in participating in Poland’s nuclear energy programme and building the country’s planned second nuclear power plant, the Polish climate ministry said on Friday after a meeting of top government officials”.

Shell will shut down its oil refinery in Wesseling, Germany, by 2025 and convert the site to produce bio-based oil “as part of its drive to reduce its carbon emissions”, the company said on Friday, reports Reuters. The newswire adds that the move is expected to reduce Shell’s operational carbon emissions, known as Scope 1 and 2 emissions, by about 620,000 tonnes annually. The move confirms an announcement it first made in 2021. However, Shell says it will continue crude-oil processing at its Godorf refinery within its Rheinland complex, notes Reuters.

Meanwhile, Die Zeit reports that offshore wind turbines in the North Sea delivered less electricity last year than in the previous year, “due to overloaded onshore networks and numerous bottlenecks in the power grid”. The newspaper explains that 19.24 terawatt hours (TWh) of wind energy was transferred to land, which was around 9% less than in 2022. It also adds that the German energy industry expects “additional billions in costs to stabilise the power grid in the next few years”. 

Elsewhere in German news, Table.Media reports that the German Climate and Transformation Fund (KTF) faces a potential financial gap as nearly €8bn is now needed to cover higher-than-expected costs for “green electricity” payments under the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG). The outlet explains that declining electricity prices have widened the disparity between income from “green electricity” sales and fixed remuneration for renewable energy plant operators. Therefore, the KTF, previously funded by an EEG surcharge until 2022, is now strained due to increased costs since 2023, notes Table.Media.

Finally, Tagesschau reports that Germany’s reliance on China for 89% of its rare-earth elements raises concerns about energy and foreign policy vulnerabilities amid the pursuit of energy transition, which relies on wind turbines, solar installations and electric cars. And Deutsche Welle has a feature headlined: Will nuclear energy make a comeback in Germany?”

In a comment for the Sunday Times, the director of industry group UK Steel Gareth Stace argues in favour of “electric arc furnaces” (EAFs), which he says can “produce new steel across all the products and grades that our customers demand”. He adds: “The narrative seems to be hung up on what ‘virgin’ steel is and why a G20 economy needs to have the capability to make it. And, yet, it is omitted from the debate that virgin steel is made from imported iron ore and coal – and just as questionable is whether it has to be produced from scratch.” Stace continues: “However, the narrow focus on the technical capability of EAFs slightly misses the point of what we are trying to achieve. The steel sector is faced with the colossal task of decarbonising, and tried and tested EAF technology is the quickest and most efficient way for the UK industry to drastically reduce its emissions. This is particularly true where our competitive advantage lies in terms of scrap-resource availability. Ultimately, it’s this transition that will meet the demand of our customers and secure the long-term success of our sector.” He concludes: “Let’s start having a factual debate on what our steel sector needs to do – in partnership with the government, trade unions and our customers – to ensure steelmaking has a future in the UK for many generations to come.” Meanwhile in the Sunday Telegraph, climate-sceptic columnist Liam Halligan writes under the headline: “Port Talbot fiasco will destroy well-paid jobs for fantasy net-zero benefits.” He claims the UK steel industry has been “hollow[ed] out…in the name of ‘net-zero’”. (A report in Saturday’s Times says: “Steel production in Britain has fallen to its lowest level in nearly a century, with output at its weakest since the Great Depression…UK Steel blamed the fall on depressed demand in a struggling British economy, as well as on the impact of cheap imports from China and other parts of Asia.”)

In other comment from UK media, the Guardian carries a letter from a group of MPs and academics, including Green MP Caroline Lucas, which says: “It is beyond doubt that the offshore petroleum licensing bill is performative politics. Not only does this bill fail to make Britain energy independent, but it does nothing to support oil and gas workers, and, as has been admitted by the energy secretary, it won’t lower bills either.” The letter adds: “This bill does achieve two things, however. First, by sowing division it fractures the UK’s valuable political consensus on climate action. And second, it sends an unmistakable message to the global community that Britain is no longer a leader on this critical agenda, but a laggard, doubling down on fossil fuels and holding back the transition to renewables, just at the moment when we should be accelerating.”

Meanwhile, omnipresent climate-sceptic columnist Ross Clark has another slot in the Daily Telegraph, arguing that all of London’s electric buses should be taken out of service because of a number of recent fires. [Clark does not appear to have penned any articles about the hundreds of fires in diesel buses since 2019. Per a 2023 Carbon Brief factcheck, fires are less common in electric vehicles than in other cars.] For the Daily Mail, climate-sceptic columnist Dominic Lawson writes under the headline: “From wind power to electric cars, the politicians’ net-zero fantasies are coming unstuck.” In the Sunday Times, climate-sceptic contributor Irwin Stelzer of right-wing US thinktank the Hudson Institute repeats another of the common myths about EVs tackled in Carbon Brief’s factcheck. He writes under the headline: “America is hitting the brakes on electric cars. Has Biden noticed?” [Data from the Argonne National Laboratory shows US sales of plug-in cars grew 42% year-on-year in 2023.]

The Sunday Times carries an interview with Labour’s shadow climate secretary Ed Miliband, reporting: “He has persuaded [opposition leader Keir] Starmer to make transforming Britain into a ‘clean energy superpower’ one of his five ‘missions’ for government. But the price tag – £28bn a year – has proved controversial, a political stick for the Tories to beat Labour with. Speculation as to whether the pledge will survive until the election is rife.” It continues: “Miliband is unfazed by the conjecture. ‘We are going to be sensible and prudent with people’s money,’ he says. ‘As Rachel [Reeves, the shadow chancellor] says, good chancellors and shadow chancellors know when to say no and when to say yes.’” The interview continues: “[I]t is likely the £28bn figure will be cut back – and may not even make it into the party’s election manifesto. Reeves has said any funding will have to fit within her ‘fiscal rules’ of reducing debt over the lifetime of a Starmer government. That decision, if it comes, will be made after Jeremy Hunt’s budget in March, when Reeves will reassess the economic outlook…One Labour frontbencher said: ‘The £28bn is not set in stone. It might have to adapt to evolving circumstances. But the idea that the green agenda is going to be junked at some point I just don’t buy. It’s too central to the growth plan.’”

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail carries an interview with Starmer, under the print headline: “Now Starmer refuses to commit to £140bn green spending plan.” [Labour has already said it would not hit the £28bn-a-year target until the second half of the next parliament.] The paper reports: “In an exclusive interview with the Mail, Sir Keir insisted the commitment to clean power by 2030 remains – but he refused to recommit to spending the sum Labour originally said was needed.” It quotes him saying: “So the £28bn will be realised in the second half of the parliament, subject to the money the government’s already earmarked… and subject to our fiscal rules.” The Times reports: “Labour’s pledge to spend £28bn a year on green technology is not the ‘holy grail’, the party’s business spokesman has said as he further watered down the flagship policy.”

A separate Sunday Times article profiles Starmer’s chief of staff Sue Gray, saying “top of her intray before the next general election is how to end the infighting over its £28bn green plan”. The piece says: “For the past six months the policy has been the subject of relentless speculation. Sunak sees it as a wedge issue he can use to divide Labour politically. Jeremy Hunt believes he can use it to target the opposition on fiscal responsibility. Starmer has said the policy will inevitably be subject to Reeves’s fiscal rules, suggesting that the £28bn figure is more of an aspiration. Yet a refusal to scrap the figure outright has led to confusion and, at the worst possible time, renewed friction between the fiscal hawks around Starmer and those who believe in a more expansive economic policy.” It continues: “Intriguingly, Gray has expressed sympathy with the policy, less because of her belief in its detail than out of concern that backing away from it may be painted as a U-turn and seized on as evidence that Starmer does not know what he stands for.” In a comment for the Observer, economics editor Philip Inman says the £28bn-a-year plan “looks puny in a global context” when compared with policies in the US and EU. For the Independent, chief political commentator John Rentoul says that he expects “Reeves (and Miliband) to set out Labour’s shiny new green objectives, without the £28bn number, in the next 10 days or so”. He adds: “The party is likely to focus on what it wants to achieve instead of the arbitrary £28bn number.”

An editorial in the Daily Telegraph is titled: “Farming is in peril throughout Europe.” It says: “The cost of living crisis, low prices from supermarkets, and energy bill increases have conspired to make farmers fear for their future.” [Energy bills have risen as a result of high gas prices.] It adds: “The push for ‘sustainability’ through mandatory crop rotation policies and carbon reductions is being pursued by Brussels in total disregard to the economic hardships facing the farmers.” (Politico reports: “The French government on Friday promised to cut taxes on agricultural fuel and reduce bureaucracy in an attempt to calm farmer protests that are spreading across the country.”) An editorial in the Times says: “There is growing anger in Europe over green policies that are costly, bureaucratic and hitting rural voters especially hard.” Pointing to protests in France, Germany and the Netherlands it says: “France is the biggest agricultural producer in the European Union. But it is not the only country where powerful farmers’ lobbies are shaking confidence in governments.” It says protests in Germany were “in protest at a proposed levy on meat, eggs and dairy products”, while in France, it points to “absurd” rules on egg production and hedge trimming. The editorial continues: “Poland and Romania have also had farmers’ protests, mostly over pay, living conditions and competition from cheaper imports, but also ­focused on proposed measures to comply with green targets.” It adds: “The farmers’ lobby in Britain is less powerful, but no less vocal. At issue are also policies linked to the green agenda: the ban on some pesticides and measures to reduce emissions and promote conservation that would cut farmers’ incomes. Both parties are now finding that their green boasts raise voters’ suspicions.” The paper concludes: “Reducing emissions matters. But too often net-zero legislation is running ahead of public opinion. As the bills fall due, there is every indication Europe’s leaders will pay a heavy political price for failing to level with their citizens about the costs.” 

Extreme heat and permafrost thawing will pose “severe threats” to global rail and road infrastructure as the planet warms, new research finds. The authors investigate changes in the exposure of global rail and road infrastructures to eight meteorological hazards, including extreme temperature and extreme rainfall, using models from the sixth coupled model intercomparison project. The paper finds that it is “possible to reduce the exposure of global infrastructures by 29-52% by pursuing more sustainable and lower radiative forcing development pathways”. However, it warns that “the fact that most areas will still be affected by multiple hazards is probably unavoidable”.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels would drive a 66% increase in carbon emissions from fires globally, compared to 1850 levels, according to a new study. The authors use seven earth system models to investigate the effects of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations on future fire activity. Most of the increase in fire carbon emissions would be due to enhanced vegetation growth, the study finds, while warming and drying have a “negligible” impact.