A “multitrillion-dollar tax breaks package” narrowly passed by House Republicans on Thursday last week “would gut clean-energy tax credits…while supporting increased mining, drilling and other traditional energy production”, the Associated Press reports. It continues: “The bill, which now heads to the Senate, repeals or phases out more quickly clean energy tax credits passed in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act [IRA] during former president Joe Biden’s term. Biden’s climate law has been considered monumental for the clean energy transition, but the House bill effectively renders moot much of the law’s incentives for renewable energy such as wind and solar power.” The newswire adds that “at least four” Senate Republicans “have urged continuation of energy tax credits, including support for traditional and renewable energy sources”. Reuters says the bill would “effectively halt…[the] US clean-energy boom”, but notes that it would “preserve” tax credits for nuclear energy. The Financial Times describes the bill as “Donald Trump’s showpiece” and says that clean-energy tax credits had been among the key sticking points before House Republicans agreed to back the draft legislation. The New York Times says: “The legislation would slash taxes, providing the biggest savings to the wealthy, and steer more money to the military and immigration enforcement, while cutting health, nutrition, education and clean energy programs to cover part of the cost. To win votes for passage, Republican leaders accelerated the implementation of work requirements in the Medicaid program and the repeal of clean energy tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, among other changes.” The newspaper explains that the bill would “quickly end most of the big tax credits for clean energy contained in the Inflation Reduction Act”. The New York Times Climate Forward newsletter says the bill, if passed, “would derail Biden’s signature climate law”. The Los Angeles Times describes the clean-energy rollbacks in the bill as “massive”. For the Hill, the cuts are “sweeping”. NBC News runs down the bill’s contents, saying it “terminates several hundred billion dollars” in clean-energy tax breaks for consumers, including for electric vehicles, as well as for developers in clean power, fuels and hydrogen. The Washington Post says these cuts only “partially offset” lost tax revenue under the bill.

The New York Times says the “divides that plagued the measure in the House are likely to resurface”, adding: “More moderate and politically vulnerable lawmakers have sought to protect Medicaid and fought to preserve clean-energy tax credits.” Bloomberg says the clean-energy tax credit cuts “won’t fly”, citing “key Republican senators”. The Los Angeles Times also says the bill is “facing an uncertain future among Senate Republicans”. Another New York Times story says “some Republican senators are leery of the House push to phase out tax credits for big energy projects in their states”.

Stocks in clean energy firms “tumble[d]” after the bill passed on Thursday, the Financial Times reports, adding that the cuts to tax credits had been “more aggressive than expected”. CNBC, the Wall Street Journal and Reuters all report on falling clean energy stocks in the wake of the bill’s passage. The Guardian reports on analysis saying that the bill would “cost 830,000 jobs and drive up bills and pollution emissions”. Politico asks if the bill would “hurt [Trump’s] energy agenda”. The Financial Times reports the comments of John Podesta, one of the “architects” of the IRA, saying that the bill “hand[s] a victory” to China by cutting clean-energy tax credits. Another Politico piece is titled: “In Trump’s war on clean energy, China (and everyone else) wins.” The Financial Times Energy Source newsletter reports the comments of Democratic senator Joe Manchin calling for Republicans to “kick the living daylights” out of aspects of the IRA that he does not support.

The US Senate on Thursday voted to block California’s “landmark plan to end the sale of petrol-only vehicles by 2035”, Reuters reports. The newswire continues: “The vote is a win for General Motors, Toyota and other automakers that heavily lobbied against the rules and a blow to California and environmental groups that say the requirements are essential to ensuring cleaner vehicles and cutting pollution.” The Financial Times explains that “the upper chamber of Congress passed the measure on Thursday in a 51-44 vote, sending the bill to president Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it”. It adds: “The resolution revokes a waiver that former president Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency gave to California to let the state implement extremely strict emissions standards and require all new vehicle sales be electric by 2035.” The New York Times calls the vote “a victory for the oil and gas industry and for Republicans who muscled through the vote by deploying an unusual legislative tactic that Democrats denounced as a ‘nuclear’ option that would affect the way the Senate operates way beyond climate policy”. The Hill reports that the “controversial” move allows lawmakers to “sidestep the parliamentarian in the process”. The Associated Press says Trump is also expected to sign “two other resolutions that would block California rules curbing tailpipe emissions in certain vehicles and smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks”. Politico reports: “Attorney general Rob Bonta said on Thursday that California will sue the Trump administration to protect its ability to set its own vehicle emissions rules.” The Wall Street Journal says the move is “effectively killing the country’s biggest driver of EV investment”. BBC News and the Los Angeles Times also have the news.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has drafted a plan to remove limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants, the New York Times reports, citing internal agency documents. The newspaper continues: “In its proposed regulation, the agency argued that CO2 and other greenhouse gases from power plants that burn fossil fuels ‘do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution’ or to climate change because they are a small and declining share of global emissions. Eliminating those emissions would have no meaningful effect on public health and welfare, the agency said…The EPA sent the draft to the White House for review on 2 May. It could undergo changes before it is formally released and the public is given the opportunity to offer comments, likely in June.” The newspaper calls the proposed regulation “part of a broader attack by the Trump administration on the established science that greenhouse gases threaten human health and the environment”. Reuters, the Washington Post and Bloomberg also cover the news.

In other US news, the Guardian reports that “this year’s summer months promise to be among the hottest on record across the US”. Elsewhere, the Associated Press says: “Environmentalists are challenging in court president Donald Trump’s executive order that they say strips core protections from the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument and opens the area to harmful commercial fishing.”

“The European Commission will announce next week that the EU is broadly within target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 compared with 1990 levels,” the Financial Times reports. Emissions are set to fall to 54% below 1990 levels by 2030, the newspaper says, citing EU officials familiar with the figures. It continues: “The data will be published weeks before the commission lays out how the bloc can reach its 2040 climate target, which should amount to a 90% emissions reduction. The EU has committed to reach net-zero by 2050 – one of the most ambitious targets in the world.” It adds: “Countries such as Italy and Poland have pushed for a lower target, while France has also expressed scepticism. Germany’s new coalition government has said it could support a 90% target if carbon credits could count towards the goal.” Euractiv says: “Germany’s new centrist coalition has aligned on an emissions reduction policy shaped by talks with the EU’s top climate official – signalling the likely form of a forthcoming EU proposal to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, according to sources involved in the recent discussions in Berlin.”

Separately, citing internal documents, Reuters reports: “The European Union is facing further pressure from member countries to delay and weaken its upcoming law to restrict deforestation, with 11 governments demanding changes.” The newswire continues: “The world-first policy aims to end the 10% of global deforestation fuelled by EU consumption of imported soy, beef, palm oil and other products, but has become a politically contested part of Europe’s green agenda.” Euractiv reports that under the regulation, all 27 EU countries have “ dodged the ‘high risk’ label”. It adds: “The category determines how strict due diligence rules will be for companies – which also means more checks – on those importing crucial agri-food commodities like cocoa, coffee, soy, palm oil and beef.” According to the outlet, the low-risk category includes countries such as the United States, China, Australia and Canada. Meanwhile, Belarus, Myanmar, North Korea and Russia are “high risk”. 

In other EU news, Reuters reports that “Italy fully supports EU efforts to stop Russian gas imports into the bloc by 2027”. The newswire continues: “The EU said this month it would propose legal measures to phase out imports of Russian gas and LNG by the end of 2027, ending a decades-old energy relationship which crumbled after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.” In contrast, Reuters says that Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban told the state radio that the plan to ban Russian energy imports must be prevented “by all means”. Reuters also says that “a European official said on Thursday that the United States is ‘not convinced’ about lowering the Group of Seven nations (G7) price cap on Russian crude oil”. Separately, Reuters says: “The European Parliament backed changes on Thursday to the European Union’s carbon border tariff that would exempt from the scheme companies that import less than 50 metric tons per year of relevant goods.” Meanwhile, Reuters says: “The European Union has rejected a Russian request for consultations on its carbon border adjustment package, a World Trade Organization document showed on Monday, citing Russia’s ‘war of aggression’ against Ukraine as the reason.” A final Reuters story says that the EU is launching “an inquiry into how the European Commission fashioned its recent proposals to simplify sustainability law”.

Last year, the loss of the world’s forests reached the highest level ever recorded, the Guardian reports. Citing analysis from the University of Maryland hosted on Global Forest Watch it says that forest loss in 2024 was driven by “a surge in fires caused by global heating”. It reports that forest loss in Brazil accounted for 42% of all primary rainforest loss in the tropics. It continues: “In Bolivia, the loss of previously untouched forest continued to rise, ranking second behind Brazil in overall loss for the first time, driven by drought, fire and government policies promoting agricultural expansion for soya, cattle and sugar cane. The loss of Bolivia’s primary forest has increased nearly fivefold since 2020.” According to Climate Home News, forest loss in 2024 was equivalent to 18 football fields vanishing every minute. It says this is nearly twice as fast as forest loss in 2023. The Associated Press says: “For the first time since record-keeping began, fires, not agriculture, were the leading cause of rainforest loss, accounting for nearly half of all destruction. Those fires emitted 4.1bn tons of planet-warming greenhouse gases, which is more than four times the emissions from air travel in 2023, the researchers said. Still, land clearing for agriculture, cattle farming and other causes rose by 14%, the sharpest increase in almost a decade.”  BBC News reports that “there was more positive news in South East Asia, however, with government policies helping to reduce forest loss”. Mongabay, Reuters and the Independent also cover the news.

There is widespread media coverage of the UK’s upcoming spending review. The Guardian reports that chancellor Rachel Reeves will “put £113bn of new capital investment at the forefront of the spending review and argue that the billions of investment in homes, transport and energy would only have happened under Labour”. The newspaper notes that Starmer confirmed last week that the government would “U-turn on the unpopular winter fuel cuts”. It adds that the Sizewell C new nuclear power station in Suffolk is also “likely to be approved”. The Times reports that Starmer “has been warned that his pledges on policing, housebuilding and climate change are being put at risk at a time of mounting cabinet tensions before the spending review”. The newspaper continues: “Ed Miliband, the energy and net-zero secretary, is fighting to save a pledge to spend an extra £6.6bn on insulating millions of homes by the end of this parliament. The scheme, called the warm homes plan, offers grants and low-interest loans to support investment in insulation, solar panels, batteries and low-carbon heating to reduce bills and cut emissions. Cutting the scheme will make it harder for the government to hit its commitment of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.” The Financial Times says that Miliband is also in negotiations about keeping the £8.3bn promised for GB Energy. It says that according to a person involved in the discussions, “wrangling had also been particularly tense with the Home Office, and both the energy and environment departments”. The Guardian carries a warning from charities that “plans to reinstate the winter fuel payment will be undermined if the government presses ahead with mooted cuts to home insulation upgrades”. The Daily Express quotes a “tax consultant” who says that “Reeves risks saddling the UK with up to £7tn in hidden ‘zombie debt’ thanks to the government’s ambitious net-zero target”. 

In other UK news, the Times reports that “Britain’s energy costs could be cut by at least £2bn a year through reforms to stop expensive gas-fired power plants setting the wholesale electricity price”. According to the newspaper, Adam Bell, head of energy strategy at the business department during 2020-21, said that gas plants should be removed from the wholesale electricity market and instead “given regulated returns to fire up when needed to keep the lights on”. The newspaper adds: “Gas plants generate only about 30% of Britain’s electricity, yet set the wholesale price 98% of the time, according to a new report by Stonehaven, the consultancy where Bell is now director of policy.” Elsewhere, the Financial Times covers new analysis which finds that the UK is “likely to fall significantly short of its five-year target for offshore wind power, as developers continue to delay or cancel projects because of rising costs and poor returns”.

BBC News reports that the Rampion windfarm off the Sussex coast has caused a “’surprising’ tourism boom”, according to local residents. DeSmog reports that “a Reform UK mayor who claims ‘net-zero madness’ is ‘bankrupting Britain’ has called for investment in an offshore wind project “to boost growth” in the local economy. The i newspaper covers the impacts of climate change on UK rivers. A Daily Telegraph story trailed on its frontpage says that “Starmer’s bid to boost the economy with a slew of new data centres threatens to undermine Labour’s net-zero goals, campaigners have warned”. Separately, the Daily Telegraph reports that “a massive hydrogen project at the heart of Ed Miliband’s net-zero plans risks being cancelled as BP retreats from green targets”. Further stories in the newspaper attacking the UK’s net-zero target claim that it is a “threat to national security” and “less likely to bring down energy bills”. The Daily Telegraph also covers figures published by the Conservatives which find that Scotland will not reach its net-zero emissions target until 2080. Meanwhile, BBC News reports on a fire in a hospital that “began in solar panels on the roof”.

Donald Trump on Friday signed four executive orders, instructing the Department of Energy to “fast-track” nuclear energy development, with the aim of quadrupling US capacity by 2050, the Financial Times reports. The outlet continues: “In a factsheet accompanying the executive order, the White House said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had an ‘overly risk-averse culture’, which requires nuclear facilities to emit as few emissions as possible, including below naturally-occurring levels.” According to Reuters, current licensing for nuclear reactors in the US “can take over a decade at times, a process designed to prioritise nuclear safety but which has discouraged new projects”. The New York Times says: “One order directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nation’s independent safety regulator, to streamline its rules and to take no more than 18 months to approve applications for new reactors…Another order directs the energy and defence departments to explore siting reactors on federal lands and military bases, possibly alongside new data centers. That could allow the agencies to bypass the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and develop their own, faster processes for approving reactors.” Bloomberg reports that the plans include building “small, untested designs that offer the promise of rapid deployment but haven’t yet been built in the US”. The outlet adds that Trump has “cast nuclear energy as a complement, rather than a replacement, for fossil fuels.” However, the Associated Press reports that experts say the goal of quadrupling nuclear energy capacity is ”highly unlikely” to be reached. According to the Guardian, Trump said the new reactors “would satisfy the electricity demands of data centres for artificial intelligence and other emerging industries”. The Washington Post says: “Administration officials say they expect the directives to result in new plants being built during the president’s term.” The Daily Telegraph calls the directives the “Manhattan Project 2”. The Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera, CNN, Inside Climate News, Forbes, CNBC, Agence France-Presse and the Daily Mail also cover the story. 

Donald Trump has urged UK prime minister Keir Starmer to stop building “unsightly windmills” and to instead accelerate drilling in the North Sea, the Times says. The newspaper reports that in a post on Truth Social, Trump said: “I strongly recommend to them, however, that in order to get their energy costs down, they stop with the costly and unsightly windmills, and incentivise modernised drilling in the North Sea, where large amounts of oil lay waiting to be taken. A century of drilling left, with Aberdeen as the hub. The old-fashioned tax system disincentivises drilling, rather than the opposite. UK’s energy costs would go WAY DOWN, and fast.” [Former Conservative ministers said that new drilling would be unlikely to reduce bills, the Guardian reported previously.] Bloomberg reports that the post on Truth Social came a few hours after Reform UK “was reported by the Financial Times to be trying to woo oil and gas companies with the promise of lower North Sea taxes”. The Sun says: “The US president called on the UK to mimic his ‘drill, baby drill’ policy to take advantage of 100 years of supplies left to bring down energy costs.” [North Sea gas production is set to decline 95% by 2050, even if the government issues new licenses.] The Press Association says: “President Trump has made no secret of the fact that he is not in favour of wind energy, and has previously ranted about ‘big windmill’ that “destroy everybody’s property values, kill all the birds”. He has claimed they are unreliable energy sources, once bizarrely saying, ‘and then, all of a sudden, it stops; the wind and the televisions go off.’” Other outlets including the Scotsman, the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express and Bloomberg also cover the comments from Trump. According to the Press Association, Scotland’s first minister John Swinney has said Trump’s post was no “surprise”, adding that his government is “absolutely committed” to its net-zero targets. The Associated Press reports that “US ambassador Warren Stephens has met prime minister Keir Starmer after president Donald Trump urged the UK to ditch wind power projects and drill for oil”.

Elsewhere, the Press Association adds that according to a report by the Just Transition Commission, “urgent action is needed to ensure the transition from fossil fuels to renewables happens fairly”. The outlet continues: “The independent advisory body warned an unjust transition is possible despite it being known for decades that the North Sea oil and gas sector would decline. Oil and gas workers in Aberdeen told the commission they fear a ‘cliff edge’ for their livelihoods.” The Times says the report, which was published on Thursday, “was critical of the lack of clear planning from governments for the transition away from fossil fuels”. The Daily Telegraph reports that “Labour and SNP ministers have ‘no plan’ for thousands of North Sea oil and gas workers who face losing their jobs as production winds down,” according to the “damming” report. The Guardian reports that Reform UK “has promised to reverse the government’s ban on fresh North Sea oil and gas drilling as a ‘day one’ priority if elected to power, with the taxpayer taking a stake in the projects”. The Sun covers the news under the headline “Net hero. Nigel Farage plans to shred costly net-zero rules on [his] first day if he becomes prime minister.”

Meanwhile, the Times reports that “a record-breaking marine heatwave has hit the seas around much of Britain’s west coast and Ireland”. It says that sea surface temperatures are up to 4C warmer than usual for the time of year.

Ed Miliband, the secretary of state for energy security and net-zero, has penned three separate comment articles carrying similar messages. In the Daily Express, he highlights recent announcements including the energy price cap drop and a consultation on expanding the “warm home discount”. However, he says that “the beating heart of our plan is to bring down bills and get off our dependence on fossil fuel markets controlled by dictators”. Miliband says that “fossil fuel shocks have caused half of Britain’s recessions since 1970”. He continues: “That is why this government is building the UK’s clean energy future- because every solar panel, every wind turbine and every piece of grid infrastructure we build helps get us off the fossil fuel rollercoaster so we can bring down bills once and for all. It is why we are making huge planning decisions to say yes to new homegrown power projects such as solar and wind. Since July we have consented enough wind and solar projects to power 2 million homes. We’ve also lifted the onshore wind ban and set up Great British Energy – Britain’s first publicly owned energy company in more than 70 years.” He concludes: “I know that some in British politics oppose this drive for clean homegrown power- siren voices who want to rip up clean energy projects, say no to the jobs they bring, and plunge the UK deeper into dependency on foreign markets. This Labour government will fight them all the way because the British people deserve energy security now and for the future.” In the Standard, Miliband writes: “Building clean homegrown power is the only way to take back control and protect billpayers from repeated price spikes. That is why the government is driving the most ambitious upgrade to Britain’s energy infrastructure in generations through our ‘plan for change’.” In the Daily Record, Miliband has a piece under the headline: “T​​he UK government is working relentlessly to bring down energy bills for Scots households.”

In other UK comment, Prof Dave Reay and Satwat Rehman, co-chairs of the Just Transition Commission, write in the Times that “the people whose livelihoods are tied to oil and gas production in Scotland need support as we move away from fossil fuels towards greener alternatives”. The piece warns that oil and gas workers in Aberdeen fear “a cliff edge” for their livelihoods. It continues: “So what does a credible plan look like? A key part is to accelerate the growth of offshore clean energy and make sure jobs coming on stream in wind, decommissioning, carbon capture and storage and green hydrogen have robust health and safety regulations and strong protections for workers on pay, conditions and union recognition.” John Redwood, a former Conservative cabinet minister and MP writes in the Daily Telegraph about his opposition to climate policies. A Daily Express editorial says: “The lowering of the [household energy] price cap should result in bills falling by £129 but the cost of powering a home is still far too high…Britain has untapped fossil fuel reserves and there is exciting potential for new small nuclear reactions and the might of nature is waiting to be harnessed. We need an energy revolution to jump-start Britain. Investment and innovation should not be delayed.” Climate-sceptic commentator Dominic Lawson writes in the Daily Mail: “What a farce! Labour is happy to import oil from Norway’s side of the North Sea – while banning drilling on ours”. Also in the Daily Telegraph, the Conservative peer Daniel Hannan argues that “Britain is heading for utter ruin”. He says: “We need to repeal the laws on which that state rests – the Human Rights Act, the Equality Act, the Climate Change Act – and the quangos they spawned.” In the Daily Telegraph, Jordan Peterson writes that “net-zero alarmism is a mental illness”.

An editorial in the Guardian highlights “an alarming new paper” which “shows that even if carbon emissions are slashed to meet the internationally agreed target of 1.5C, sea level rises will become unmanageable during this century”. The editorial continues: “[The paper] argues that a truly safe limit is likely to be 1C or lower, meaning seas would be unlikely to rise more than 1cm per year. Around the world, about 230 million people live within 1 metre above the current sea level.” It adds: “But people will adapt to sea level rises in the future as they have in the past. This is not to deny or underplay the scale of the threat, but to stress the importance of preparing for changes which are now inevitable, as well as trying as hard as possible to avoid the worst-case scenarios.” Elsewhere, an editorial in the Independent says: “Wealthier countries owe their support, financial and practical, to those countries overwhelmingly impacted by climate disaster – not only because it is right but because it has far-reaching implications for global security.” The editorial cites research undertaken by the Independent’s Rethinking Global Aid project, which “reveals the extent to which recent and continuing cuts in international aid programmes are leaving the world’s most vulnerable communities defenceless in the face of existential challenges”.

In other comment, Daniel Malinsky, an assistant professor of biostatistics at Columbia University, writes in the Guardian that “now is the time for scientists to stand up against Trump’s repressive agenda”. He writes: “Trump has also taken steps to sabotage congressionally mandated research on the climate crisis by dismissing expert authors of the National Climate Assessment. Opposing these moves and organising against them as scientists is a no-brainer.” Another Guardian editorial says Trump’s “big beautiful” budget “supercharges inequality”. The editorial notes that the bill “slashes green energy subsidies”. A Sun editorial says that “Trump is right” to tell Keir Starmer “to tear down the Chinese windmills that could be spying on us and start drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea”. 

Meanwhile, Dr Kimberley Reid, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Melbourne, writes in the Guardian that “the floods and droughts devastating Australia are fingerprints of a warming planet”. Dominic Jones, an associate in the Energy and Climate Change Program at Grattan Institute, writes in the Guardian that “as the energy transition ramps up, Australia risks becoming a more unequal society”. He says: “Governments must help households to make the switch to cleaner energy, and change the rules so that the benefits and costs are fairly shared.”

New research finds that floods drove people to move both in and out of counties in the US from 2006-19. It continues: “Younger, better-educated and employed residents leave, while older, less-educated and unemployed individuals move into affected counties. Such patterns can be amplified by media sentiment on flood risks.”