Daily Briefing |
TODAY'S CLIMATE AND ENERGY HEADLINES
Expert analysis direct to your inbox.
Every weekday morning, in time for your morning coffee, Carbon Brief sends out a free email known as the “Daily Briefing” to thousands of subscribers around the world. The email is a digest of the past 24 hours of media coverage related to climate change and energy, as well as our pick of the key studies published in peer-reviewed journals.
Sign up here.
Today's climate and energy headlines:
- US House targets big climate, clean energy rollbacks in budget proposal
- More Chinese energy investments in Africa are going to renewables, report finds
- UK: Tory shadow energy minister claims 2050 net-zero goal ‘not based on science’
- UK: 'An incredibly divisive topic': Cornwall Insight warns switch to zonal pricing unlikely to be achieved before 2030
- Trump is illegally trying to overturn state climate laws
- Let's use early milestones to stay focused on climate action
- Reform UK can now influence over £100bn of pensions. Brace for the war on ‘woke investments’
- Explaining the adaptation gap through consistency in adaptation planning
Climate and energy news.
Republicans in the US House of Representatives have set out budget proposals that would “phase out clean energy tax credits, slash spending on electric vehicles and renewable energy, and claw back other climate-related funds as part of the Republicans’ attempt to pass a multi-trillion-dollar budget in line with President Donald Trump’s agenda”, Reuters reports. It explains: “The House Committee on Energy and Commerce laid out a proposal, which will be voted on on Tuesday, that would raise $6.5bn from the repeal of climate-related parts of the Biden administration’s massive Inflation Reduction Act legislation.” The newswire adds: “The House Ways and Means panel, meanwhile, proposed the phase-out or cancellation of several lucrative tax credits from former President Joe Biden’s signature climate law, including ending a consumer-facing credit for electric vehicle purchases and a tax credit for home energy efficiency improvements, and the phase out of various key clean energy subsidies for expiry by 2031, according to a document it released on Monday.” The Hill reports: “[The proposed legislation] claws back numerous Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) programs, including hotly contested ‘green bank’ funding, a $20bn programme that gave money to financing institutions so they can support climate-friendly projects. Other EPA programs targeted include a ‘methane fee’ that charges oil and gas companies for excess emissions during production, as well as programs that seek to provide monitoring outside of polluting facilities and address air pollution at schools. It also repeals a $3bn grant program that funds efforts that seek to reduce air pollution and planet-warming emissions in disadvantaged communities. In addition, the text repeals Biden-era rules expected to push the market toward electric vehicles.” E&E News says that the plans “threaten to increase carbon pollution by making it easier to build natural gas power plants and sustain some coal facilities”. Separately, the outlet reports that the legislation “would affect the Department of Energy’s loans program office, EPA’s greenhouse reduction fund and many other climate law initiatives”. Heatmap says the proposals would “effectively kill the Inflation Reduction Act”. Bloomberg says the proposal “may not be as bad for producers of clean electricity from sources such as solar and wind, who feared a more aggressive phase out”. Meanwhile, the Hill reports that “political leaders at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have told scientists there to apply to new jobs, implying that those who do not may be fired, according to an official with a union representing the agency’s employees”.
In other US news, Reuters says that developer Equinor has “warned that it will cancel the Empire Wind facility off the coast of New York if it cannot in the coming days reach a resolution over a month-old stop-work order issued by the Trump administration”. Bloomberg also covers the news. Separately, Bloomberg reports that “clean-tech companies that were eligible for support under former President Joe Biden are now considering leaving the US as the Trump administration pulls the plug on financing, according to the former head of the program that vetted the firms”. E&E News reports that “Hawaii lawmakers are encouraging insurance companies to sue the oil and gas industry for climate damages”. This is a “first-of-its-kind state resolution – which supporters hope can be replicated elsewhere”, according to the outlet. Elsewhere, Semafor says: “A Silicon Valley weather startup will soon begin replacing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather balloons with AI-powered alternatives, a cost-cutting measure brought on by severe budget cuts carried out by the Trump administration.” Reuters quotes former head of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, who says that “US companies may not be putting their hands up, but they are still investing in clean energy”. Yale Climate Connections asks: “Can states and cities lead on climate under Trump?”
Solar and wind power projects now account for 59% of China’s energy investments in Africa, according to a new report by UK-based thinktank ODI Global, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) says. The research also finds that “one-fifth of China’s overall energy sector and also a fifth of renewable energy investment and construction activity had taken place in Africa, amounting to $66bn between 2010 and 2024”, the outlet adds. The Communist party-affiliated newspaper People’s Daily reports that South African policymakers travelled to China to discuss “large-scale renewable energy integration”, “advanced clean coal technologies” and “sophisticated grid management”. Chinese president Xi Jinping said in a speech at the China-CELAC [Community of Latin American and Caribbean States] Forum in Beijing that “China would also provide 66bn yuan ($9bn) in credit” to the region and pledged to expand cooperation in “clean energy”, SCMP reports. Electricity news outlet Dianlian Xinmei says that, in the years ahead, countries included in the Belt and Road Initiative have “tremendous potential for renewable energy development”, adding there is “broad space” for Chinese companies to participate in energy-related projects.
Meanwhile, SCMP reports that although the total number of Chinese electric vehicle (EV) exports to the UK fell by 32.6% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025, exports of plug-in hybrid vehicles surged nearly 600%. Another SCMP article says India’s “fast-growing” domestic EV industry faces “renewed uncertainty”, following China’s curbs on rare earth exports. On the same day that the US and China “agreed a deal to slash tariffs”, China said that it will “strengthen controls over the full supply chains of strategic minerals exports”, Reuters reports. State-run newspaper China Daily reports that China’s production and sales of automobiles surpassed 10m units in the first four months of this year, adding that EVs accounted for 43% of new vehicle sales.
The Wire China publishes an opinion article by Jeremy Wallace, professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, discussing how China’s “combined wind, solar and coal bases” reflect the country’s economic strengths and weaknesses. Chinese researchers have “unveiled the world’s most advanced ocean simulation system”, which could enhance predictions of extreme weather events, SCMP says.
The UK opposition Conservative Party’s acting shadow secretary for energy, Andrew Bowie, has told the Guardian that the country’s 2050 net-zero target is “arbitrary” and “not based on science”, the newspaper reports. It adds that he also “indicated that the UK’s participation in the 2015 Paris climate agreement was up for reconsideration in the party’s ongoing review of key policies”. The outlet quotes Bowie saying: “We are not climate deniers and while we believe in getting to net-zero, what we shouldn’t do is be hamstrung by arbitrary targets such as a date of 2050, which was concocted simply because it was a good end point as a date. There’s no scientific rationale for choosing 2050 as the point to which we should reach net-zero.” The newspaper notes that, on the contrary, the 2050 date is in line with scientific advice on meeting the goal of the Paris Agreement. It continues: “Bowie said of the IPCC: ‘They’re biased towards their worldview, which is that we need to reduce climate emissions by a certain arbitrary date. That is not conducive to the overall economic wellbeing of this country.’ He added: ‘There’s quite a few scientists that say we don’t need to get to net-zero by 2050.’ Bowie and his office were unable to name such scientists when pressed.”
Separately, the Guardian covers new analysis, which it says finds that making the UK’s windfall tax on oil and gas producers permanent would raise at least £2bn per year – enough to ”fund switch to green jobs for North Sea oil workers”. The newspaper says the analysis comes from campaign group Oil Change International. Elsewhere, BusinessGreen says: “Plans for a giant 1GW [gigawatt] floating offshore wind farm in the North Sea could support over 1,000 jobs and generate nearly £11bn of investment for the UK over its lifetime, according to the developers behind the ambitious project.” The Irish Times reports that “Irish offshore windfarm developers have reacted with surprise and some alarm following the decision by the world’s largest wind developer to halt work on a vast UK project, citing rising costs and the risk of delays”.
In other UK news, the Guardian reports that “the British bioethanol industry could collapse as a result of Keir Starmer’s trade deal with Donald Trump, industry bosses have said”. Separately, the Guardian has published another article on Zack Polanski, the 42-year-old deputy leader of the Green party, who is standing in the party’s leadership election. The Press Association reports that a “huge cross-party group” of 71 MSPs and 10 MPs are “urging Rachel Reeves to deliver the money needed to progress the Acorn carbon capture and storage project in Aberdeenshire”. The Guardian reports that legal campaign group Wild Justice is “planning a judicial review against the UK government’s new planning bill, arguing it will result in a weakening of environmental protections which were fought for and created over decades”. The Daily Express reports that “highways bosses are set to permanently remove more than 140 miles of motorway lighting on some of the busiest sections in the UK – to cut carbon emission”.
BusinessGreen reports that “influential analyst firm” Cornwall Insight has published a new report, which finds that “even under ambitious timelines, it would likely take until the early 2030s to transition [the] UK market to a zonal electricity pricing regime”. The outlet continues: “The plans have been the subject of an intense lobbying battle that has divided companies and experts across the energy sector. Advocates for zonal pricing argue it could curb energy costs across the UK, deliver some of the lowest power prices in Europe to regions with surplus renewable power, and accelerate decarbonisation efforts by optimising the use of clean energy. But critics have countered such radical reforms would create uncertainty that could drive up the cost of capital for clean energy projects, delay projects that are crucial to meeting the government’s clean power goals, and create a ‘postcode lottery’ for energy bills across the UK.” The Press Association says: “Ministers are expected to make a decision on zonal pricing this summer after lobbying efforts for and against it have ramped up since Labour entered government.” The Financial Times carries a lengthy piece unpacking how zonal pricing would work and explaining the key points of the debate.
In other UK news, Euronews has factchecked the “misleading claims and conspiracy theories” surrounding new government-funded trials of solar radiation management. The outlet says: “Despite assertions that the UK’s plans are in the experimental stage, they haven’t stopped social media users from claiming that the country has already been engaging in geoengineering for years without public consent as a way to control the population. The claims also feed into the widely debunked ‘chemtrails’ conspiracy theory, whose believers insist that some vapour trails from planes contain harmful chemicals that are sprayed over the public around Europe or that others are being used to dim the sun and block out the light. EuroVerify put these notions to experts, who resoundingly rejected them.”
The Guardian reports on a new map of England’s peatlands, which shows that 80% of the regions are “dry and degraded”. The Press Association reports that scientists used “satellite imagery, artificial intelligence and in-depth data analysis” to create the map. BBC News also reports on the map. Finally, Simon Lee and Matthew Patterson from the University of St Andrews explain in the Conversation how a “blocking” weather system over the UK has “produced one of the driest, warmest and brightest starts to spring on record”. The scientists unpack how climate change may have played a role in setting up the “unusual spring”.
Climate and energy comment.
In a comment for the Hill, New York state senator Liz Krueger and New York assembly member Jeffrey Dinowitz write: “The foundation of American government rests on a simple but powerful principle: states are not mere departments of the federal government…President Trump’s recent executive order, which instructs the Justice Department to block state climate laws such as New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act, is a direct attack on that principle.” Krueger and Dinowitz continue: “Trump’s executive order does not simply challenge this one law, but rather the very idea that states have the right to hold powerful interests accountable when Washington will not.” They conclude: “The costs of climate change are here; the only question is who will pay those costs. States like New York are choosing fairness. We are choosing to make the biggest global polluters pay. The right to protect our communities belongs to the people and the leaders they elect, and it’s not limited by the whims of Washington insiders or oil industry lobbyists. We intend to defend that right, in the courts, in the legislature and in the court of public opinion, for as long as it takes.”
In other comment on the US, Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas writes: “For now, everything suggests the US won’t see a rapid decline in annual average oil production. A peak seems very likely; and even a slight drop could materialise if prices remain depressed. But nothing suggests that the US is about to see a repetition of the large decline in 2020, when average annual output fell almost 650,000 barrels a day from 2019.” Bloomberg columnist Gautam Mukunda writes that “slowing innovation is ruining American politics”. He says: “The administration’s new budget proposes a 55% cut to the National Science Foundation (the government’s primary arm for research outside medicine) and a 40% cut to the National Institutes of Health (America, and the world’s foremost medical research institution)…Even the flow of scientific talent into the US – long one of the nation’s greatest advantages – is reversing, with top AI minds no longer coming here and the EU allocating almost $600m to lure away top American researchers.”
COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev has written a comment piece for Climate Home News about last week’s ministerial meeting in Copenhagen. He highlights key climate finance pledges made at previous COPs, but adds that “unfortunately, we know that a promise made is not always a promise kept”. Babayev continues: “The Copenhagen ministerial meetings last week were an essential touchpoint. We heard again from small island states and the Least Developed Countries about the importance of the official funds such as the GCF, the Adaptation Fund, and the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage.” He concludes: “In Copenhagen we delivered a clear message to ministers responsible for climate action that they need to take ownership of lobbying their colleagues, their bosses and their banks to participate. They need to help pull finance ministers into our process at the same time as we go to theirs. They come to climate ministerial forums – we go to financial meetings.”
A Financial Times Alphaville piece explores the potential implications for local government pension schemes – and the wider UK pensions industry – of Reform’s recent electoral success, which it says gives the party “influence over £100bn of pensions”. The article concludes: “It seems likely that Reform UK’s success in May’s local government elections will result in changes to investment mandates for UK asset managers and pooling companies. The longer-term impact is contingent on how the forthcoming pensions bill is shaped. But regardless, it has the potential to create a real chilling effect across the UK asset management industry’s approach to net-zero.”
Elsewhere in UK newspaper commentary, Times columnist Magnus Linklater writes that “we must embrace renewables despite the impact on the landscape”. Alistair Osborne, the chief business commentator at the Times, writes: “Trade deals always require trade-offs: a ritual sacrifice for the greater good. So, in a sense, what’s the big shock in this: that Britain’s bioethanol industry has swiftly emerged as the key casualty of Keir Starmer’s accord with Donald Trump?” Lyndon Schneiders, the executive director of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation, writes in the Guardian that Australia’s new environment minister needs to “get reforms right”.
New climate research.
A “brief communication” in Nature Climate Change aims to demonstrate how “assessing consistency in adaptation plans can enhance understanding and help reduce the adaptation gap”. It continues: “An adaptation gap exists when adaptation efforts fail to meet adaptation needs. While conceptualising and operationalising this gap is challenging, we argue that it should begin with aligning climate risks with policy goals, measures and monitoring and evaluation, what we refer to as ‘consistency’ within adaptation policy.”