President Trump’s budget proposal, unveiled yesterday, “represents a wholesale repudiation of two main Obama administration objectives: fighting climate change and stoking a revolution in renewable energy”, the Washington Post reports. The budget proposal would cut US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding by nearly a third, the Guardian adds. This drew “swift reactions”, reports the Washington Post, which says no agency fared worse under the proposed budget than the EPA. It quotes former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, who says the plan is: “literally and figuratively…a scorched earth budget”. The New York Times carries reaction from scientists, who it says “bristled” at the extent of the cuts proposed by Trump. His plans would eliminate climate science programmes throughout federal government, it says. The proposals would “cripple” US international climate work, says InsideClimate News. A second InsideClimate News article has a rundown of planned cuts to climate-related programmes. The budget would scrap energy grants and a loan programme that supports cleaner vehicle development, says Reuters. The Associated Press, Climate Home, two articles from the Hill (second Hill article), Carbon Pulse, Nature News, Five Thirty Eight, BBC and Reuters all cover the budget proposal. Later on Thursday, the White House press team defended its plans to gut federal climate change funding, calling it a “waste of your money”, report the Hill and the Guardian, which both carry video of the statement. The cuts would also end federal support for states in environmental emergencies, the New York Times reports. With his budget proposal, Trump “trolls the global warming lobby”, says the Mailonline.

Fossil fuel CO2 emissions have remained flat for the third year in a row, the Financial Times says, based on findings from the International Energy Agency (IEA). The figures include a “striking drop”, a 3% cut in emissions from the US, the paper says. In a second article, the Financial Times says president Trump could become an “unlikely ally” in efforts to tackle climate change. This is because of his commitment to shale gas, which has pushed coal out of the US energy mix, the paper explains. The IEA’s global CO2 figures for 2016 support the preliminary findings of the Global Carbon Project, published late last year and covered at the time by Carbon Brief. Separately, FT also reports that Germany’s emissions rose by 0.7% last year. The increase is largely down to growth in road traffic, the Federal Environment Agency says, which “wiped out” efficiency improvements. The opposition Green Party says the increases make it “even harder” for Germany to attain its goal of cutting greenhouse gases by 40% by 2020.

Aircraft burning a mixture of jet fuel and biofuel produce less soot than those burning kerosene alone, the BBC reports, covering new research from US space agency Nasa. The finding suggests a way to cut aviation’s significant non-CO2 climate impacts, such as contrail and cirrus cloud formation. Carbon Brief looked at the problem of aviation’s non-CO2 warming effects earlier this week.

Britain’s energy system is poised for a rapid expansion of batteries, with 4 gigawatts expected to be operating by 2033, the Times reports, citing official forecasts. Renewables will also play a bigger role than previously expected, the paper says, resulting in far fewer gas-fired power stations being built. The forecasts also show no carbon capture and storage plants likely to be built by 2030.

Germany will use its presidency of the G20 group of major economies to lobby for a global carbon price, the BBC reports, quoting the director general of German energy policy. The official tells BBC News the annual G20 meeting in Hamburg in July will discuss an energy and climate action plan. German chancellor Angela Merkel and US president Donald Trump will meet later today. The German government will next week release a plan for the G20 to tackle climate change, Bloombergreports.

A new poll of the US public suggests concern about climate change is at record levels, but is this a justifiable conclusion?, asks Leo Barasi. It is just one poll, says Barasi, which means it “might be a rogue result,” but another recent poll for the UK “suggests something similar”. Putting all the evidence together, “we can probably say concern about climate change is greater than it’s been any time since 2010 – in the US at least,” he says, “but there’s not enough evidence to be sure it’s at the highest level ever.”

The New York Times has a newly formed team of journalists devoted entirely to climate change issues, explains Stephen Hiltner in the Times Insider column. The team, which has been around for a little over a month, has the same status as the national desk or the sports desk, he says, and is lead by climate editor Hannah Fairfield. She brings experience from nearly 15 years on the Times’ graphics desk, and aims to bring a visual emphasis to climate coverage.

A global switch from fossil fuels to low carbon electricity generation would have “strong human health benefits,” a new study suggests. Researchers conducted the first life cycle assessment of health and ecological impacts of global low-carbon electricity scenarios. For ecosystem benefits, there is a potential trade-off between reduced pollution and climate warming and the impact on land use from increases in biofuels, the study finds. This would be minimised by focusing on other renewables and nuclear power, the researchers say.

A new paper compares two strategies for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from US plastics production, which currently accounts for 1% and 3% of US GHG emissions and primary energy use, respectively. Switching to renewable energy could cut GHG emissions by 50–75%, the study finds, while replacing conventional plastics with bio-based ones could cut 25%. In the long-term, using both approaches could help the industry reduce emissions to approximately zero, the researchers say.