All UK coal-fired power plants that do not meet new CO2 emission limits will be closed by October 2025, the Government has confirmed. Publishing its response to a consultation on implementing the phase-out, the Government says it expects most coal plants to halt operations by 2022, but the last ones standing will be forced to close in October 2025 because of new pollution standards. The move implements a pledge originally made by the Conservative government in 2015 to end “unabated” coal generation – i.e. without technology to cut carbon emissions – in the UK by 2025, says the Press Association. Power plants will be limited to 450 grammes of CO2 for each kilowatt hour of electricity produced, notes Reuters, ruling out coal-fired plants unless they are fitted with technology to capture and store emissions underground. While the move will affect jobs, the government says it expects “the losses in activity associated with the closure of unabated coal generators will be compensated by increased activity in new, clean generation,” reports the Times. Coal-fired power has been been in rapid decline in the UK, says the Telegraph, quoting figures from a Carbon Brief article from last week, and including CB’s “death spiral” animation that shows coal-fired electricity generation falling 84% in just five years. And the Financial Timesreports that the world’s biggest insurers are opening up a new front in efforts to cut down on coal use by refusing to offer cover to miners and power generators that use the polluting fuel. Climate Home, DeSmogUK and BusinessGreen also have the story. In related UK energy news, the Telegraph also reports that grid operators are due to start work to blend hydrogen into the natural gas network. If rolled out to the whole of the UK, it could save 6m tons of carbon every year. The Telegraph also reports that 20 Conservative MPs have warned Theresa May that proposals for an “absolute” cap on bills will reduce competition between firms and “distort” the energy market. The formal submission on the Government’s draft Energy Price Cap Bill argues that the measure will lead to prices simply being raised to meet the new limit, and instead calls for a “relative” cap.

The UK government has kickstarted plans to plant a “Northern Forest” stretching from Liverpool to Hull. It is providing £5.7m to plant 50m trees along a belt spanning Manchester, Leeds and Bradford. The project will cost £500m over 25 years and the rest of the funds will need to be raised by charity. The Woodland Trust, which is leading the project, claims the new woodland will help tackle climate change by locking up an estimated 8m tonnes of carbon, reports the Guardian. Austin Brady, the director of conservation at the Woodland Trust, said planting more forests would “lock up carbon on a large scale, boosting wildlife habitat and greening our towns and cities”. ITV, Mail Online, the Independent, and Press Association all cover the story.

A tanker carrying Iranian oil and run by the country’s top oil shipping firm was ablaze and leaking oil into the East China Sea after colliding with a Chinese freight ship yesterday. Thick clouds of dark smoke could be seen billowing out of the Sanchi tanker, engulfing the vessel as rescue efforts were hampered by bad weather and fire on and around the ship. 32 members of crew are still missing. The Panama-registered tanker was sailing from Iran to South Korea, carrying 136,000 tonnes of condensate, an ultra light crude – equivalent to just under 1 million barrels. A subsequent Reuters article reports that the official China Central Television (CCTV) has said today that there are growing concerns that the tanker may explode and sink. A separate Reuters “Factbox” article lists the major oil tanker spills since 1970.

The US Interior Department rescinded several climate change and conservation policies issued under the Obama administration just before Christmas, saying they were “inconsistent” with President Trump’s quest for energy independence. The order, signed by deputy secretary David Bernhardt, removes four directives and policy manuals aimed at showing departmental employees how to minimise environmental impacts on federal land and in federal waters, and calls for the review of a fifth one that applies to the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The Post also reports that a tax on oil companies in the US that generated funds for federal oil-spill response efforts was allowed to expire last week. The money, collected through a nine cents-per-barrel tax on domestic crude oil typically generated $500m per year towards the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

One of Britain’s main fracking firms has been accused of misleading the public over its intent to explore for shale gas in a protected area of ancient woodland in Sherwood Forest. Ineos, a UK-based petrochemicals firm, has claimed publicly it would not undertake seismic surveys in site of special scientific interest (SSSI) in the forest. However, documents released under freedom of information rules reveal the company privately later sought and won permission from authorities to survey those areas, which involves laying small explosive charges underground. Ineos has now said that despite the license agreement seeking to survey the SSSI, it would not be going ahead with a survey there.

“Within the next few weeks the UK government has to make an important decision that is fundamental to its energy policy and, indeed, to its view of the role of state in economic life,” writes FT columnist Nick Butler. The immediate question is whether public money should be used to rescue the proposed nuclear power plant at Wylfa in Anglesey, Wales, he says. “Before deciding, the government should address three crucial questions,” Butler writes: “If funds are provided for Wylfa, will they also be offered to the new nuclear projects at Moorside and Bradwell?”, “Second, if the funds are found for the others, what about Hinkley?”, and finally “This [nucelar] is the only technology where costs are rising not falling: why?”

“The cold weather and swirling winds gripping the northeastern United States have created the sort of winter scenario that Energy Secretary Rick Perry has cited as a reason to bolster the reliability of the grid by boosting coal and nuclear power plants,” writes reporter Steve Mufson in the Washington Post. “But so far in this windy two-week cold snap, the region’s electricity grid has responded with little disruption, and without any need to rev up ageing coal plants,” he notes. Meanwhile, in the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, weather columnist Gabrielle Monaghan responds to President Donald Trump’s recent (repeated) suggestion cold weather proves the nonexistence of global warming. “Despite the president’s suppositions, cold snaps still occur in a warming climate,” she says, adding: “Indeed, some scientists say global warming may be responsible for cooler winters in the northern hemisphere, because a warmer Arctic is weakening the jet stream, allowing cold air to escape from the Arctic and shift to lower latitudes.” However, in today’s English edition of the Times, columnist Matt Ridley uses the cold snap to remind readers that some scientists many decades ago were concerned about “global cooling”. Ridley, an advisor to the climate sceptic thinktank the Global Warming Policy Foundation, goes on to discuss the potential threat of the next ice age, pointing out “If we aspire to keep the show on the road for another 10,000 years, we will have to understand ice ages.” He doesn’t mention that research has shown the modern day climate change is expected to delay the next ice age by 50,000 years. Confusingly, the article appears under the headline “Global cooling is a threat worth shivering at” in the print edition, but “Global cooling is not worth shivering about” online.

“If 2017 was the Trump administration’s year of grand pronouncements declaring an end to environmental regulations, 2018 will be the year of trying to finish what it started,” writes reporter Lisa Friedman in the New York Times. In a list of “some things to look for in 2018” for climate change in the US, Friedman picks out the potential fate of the Clean Power Plan, the “red team-blue team” debate on climate science pushed by Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt, and the impact of an expected Infrastructure Bill.

Winter snowfall in the Alps could fall by between 25 and 45% by the end of the century as a result of climate change, a new study finds. The research, which uses statistical modelling of the regional climate from now until 2100, also reports that snowfall in low-lying regions of the Alps could fall by up to 80%. “These decreases are driven by the projected warming and are strongly connected to an important decrease in snowfall frequency and snowfall fraction and are also apparent for heavy snowfall events,” the researchers say.