There is widespread continuing reporting following the Trump administration’s repeal of the 2009 “endangerment” finding that underpins US federal climate policy. On the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference over the weekend, Lee Zeldin – administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – told Politico that there was “no way that I’m gonna sit here and have any apology or regret” for the move. “There’s only one best reading of the Clean Air Act,” he continued, adding that “if you’re going to regulate the heck out of greenhouse gas emissions with trillions of dollars of regulatory costs on Americans…that’s something that Congress should have a debate and a vote on”.

The final text of the repeal itself relies on legal arguments alone, reports E&E News, after claims that “climate science is exaggerating the dangers of rising temperatures” were left “on the cutting room floor”. The text says it “is not relying on” a controversial Department of Energy report by a hand-picked group of climate-sceptic scientists last year, says DeSmog. [A Carbon Brief factcheck identified more than 100 errors or misleading claims in the report.] Politico describes the decision as a “silver lining” for scientists, adding: “For all of the administration’s public mockery of climate change…it appears EPA and White House are unwilling to risk a court battle over climate science.” Climate scientist Dr Andrew Dessler tells the outlet that “they would have been obliterated”. Inside Climate News has similar reporting.

BBC News looks at “six possible outcomes” from the repeal. It says that while fewer regulations might reduce the cost of manufacturing cars, they will be “harder to export” because “climate targets [are] still applicable in many international markets”. Volkswagen has already announced it “remains committed” to more efficient and low-emission vehicles, reports Reuters. The Guardian says that, while the Trump administration says the repeal will save consumers money, “its own analysis indicates that the new rule will push up gas[oline] prices”. 

Citing analysis from Carbon Brief on China’s decline in emissions, Bloomberg says that the “world’s two superpowers [are] signalling different paths for the future”. The Guardian has four key takeaways from the repeal, while the New York Times looks at how it will “set up a legal battle that’s all but certain to hinge on the supreme court”. Finally, DeSmog reports that the BBC is “under fire” for giving a platform to Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a former Trump advisor and staff member at the right-wing, climate-sceptic Heritage Foundation, on its Today radio programme. Commenting on the repeal, Furchtgott-Roth told the flagship radio show that “a lot of people like it a bit warmer”.

MORE ON US

• The US is urging governments to pressure Vanuatu to withdraw a UN draft resolution supporting a landmark International Court of Justice ruling that countries have a legal obligation to act on climate change, reports Al Jazeera. The Associated Press also has the story.
• The management of a supercomputer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research is to move to a “third-party owner”, but the National Science Foundation has declined to say who this is, reports the New York Times. CNN also has the story.
• Democratic lawmakers have launched an inquiry after the EPA said it would stop assigning a monetary value to the health benefits associated with regulations on fine particulate matter and ozone, reports the Guardian. 
• The Trump administration has ended a tax credit for cars with the “stop-start” feature where the engine automatically shuts off at red lights, reports the New York Times. 
• New tax guidance on foreign supply chains for energy projects “could expand the number of renewable energy projects that are prohibited from using tax credits”, reports Politico. 
• On Friday, the Treasury department issued a general license allowing certain large oil companies to invest in new oil-and-gas operations in Venezuela, according to the Wall Street Journal. 

China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) has outlined five “key tasks” to address for the start of the “15th five-year plan” period (2026-2030) during a meeting chaired by NEA deputy head Wan Jinsong, reports energy news outlet International Energy Net. According to the outlet, they are: “strengthening confidence” in policy and implementation; “boosting investment and…accelerating project construction”; resolving “grid integration challenges” to encourage greater use of renewable energy; developing a plan for renewable energy for the fifteenth five-year period; and “resolving challenges” in industry development. Specific tasks include issuing policies on “minimum renewable energy consumption targets” to further expand renewable energy and exploring new business models such as “non-power uses of new energy”, it adds. Meanwhile, NEA nuclear power department head Zeng Yachuan writes in a commentary for China Electric Power News that, over the next five years, the NEA will continue to promote building new nuclear power “along coastal areas”.

MORE ON CHINA

• The commerce ministry has emphasised “strong potential” for China-Germany cooperation on clean energy, says Global Times. A Global Times “GT voice” article says the EU should cooperate with China on “green energy” and “forge new comparative advantages” instead of using protectionist measures.
• New US guidelines “restrict companies from claiming federal clean energy [tax credits] if they are overly reliant on Chinese-made equipment”, says Reuters.
• Caixin reports that “blade defects” on wind turbines may be evidence that a “rush” for installations in China in 2015-2016 has led to “costly quality failures”. Another Caixin report says that China’s wind-turbine exports in 2025 rose 50% to 8GW.
• Xinhua: “Explainer: Think China’s NEV lead is all about subsidies? Think again.”
• Both China’s oil and gas reserves and its output hit record highs in 2025, reports Guangming Daily.
• China’s largest coal-mining firm was allowed to acquire $19bn in assets in order to “cushion [it] as coal consumption starts to plateau”, reports Bloomberg.

A UK start-up company is in talks with the Pentagon to build a floating nuclear reactor at a US military base, reports the Daily Telegraph, as US president Trump “seeks new ways to power the AI revolution”. It continues: “The groundbreaking plant being considered by the Department of War is seen as a faster way of exploiting the technology because it would bypass normal regulatory processes. The reactor is being developed by Core Power, a Chiswick-based company that wants to make floating power plants alongside nuclear-powered container ships.” In the UK, energy secretary Ed Miliband recently excluded these types of floating reactors from a process to support advanced nuclear technologies because they present “novel” risks, the newspaper notes. In contrast, US officials are looking at deploying the technology “as soon as 2028”, it adds.

Elsewhere, a new report from the UK’s energy department suggests that solar farms could be deployed in space to generate zero-carbon electricity, says the Daily Telegraph. The Times cites unnamed “industry sources” in warnings that Miliband will have to “choose between” imposing power blackouts or hitting net-zero targets. In response, the energy department described the claims as “scaremongering”, the newspaper notes. The Sunday Telegraph claims the UK government is drawing up plans to “UK will ramp up its net-zero targets and cede control over its energy policy as part of closer alignment with Brussels”. The Daily Mail picks up the story. The Mail on Sunday claims that Miliband “could run for Labour leader on a ‘unite the Left’ ticket with the Green party”. [This despite Miliband’s repeated denials that he does not want to lead his party again. The Mail newspapers are now running a “beware the Green menace” campaign.] 

MORE ON UK

• In an “exclusive”, the Politico London Playbook newsletter reports that California governor Gavin Newsom is in London today to meet Miliband and sign a memorandum of understanding on clean energy and climate cooperation between the US state and the UK.
• The Guardian reports on the “battle over plans for a windfarm by the Yorkshire Dales”.
• The Daily Mail reports that a £24m green power network at one of the UK’s busiest ports “has never been used because it is too expensive to run”.
• In a letter to MPs, an industry lobby group has urged the UK government to scrap the wind­fall tax on North Sea oil and gas oper­at­ors, reports the Daily Mail.
• The Daily Telegraph reports on a green tax on ferries to North Ireland and the Dorset town where “drivers are scared” to switch to electric vehicles. 

The head of France’s flood alert system tells Agence France-Presse that they have “81 departments in alert simultaneously for 154 rivers, so we have exceeded all our records”. The newswire also reports that floods have “wreak[ed] havoc in Morocco farmlands after severe drought”. Bloomberg reports on how Sao Paulo in Brazil is battling “floods and droughts at the same time”. And the Independent covers a recent study showing how UK winters are becoming “significantly wetter” as the climate warms.

Elsewhere, New Zealand’s weather forecaster has warned that more flooding could hit the country’s North Island, a day after floods caused power outages, road collapses, home evacuations and one death, reports Reuters. A state of emergency is in place for the districts of Waipa and Otorohanga, an agricultural region home to about 10,000 people to the south of Auckland, the newswire says. Six people have already died in flooding and landslides in January, it adds.

The repeal of the endangerment finding is “just one part of Mr Trump’s assault on environmental controls and promotion of fossil fuels”, says a Guardian editorial, but it “may be his most consequential”. However, it continues, “as Washington tears up environmental regulations, Beijing is extending carbon reporting requirements”. The article quotes analysis from Carbon Brief showing that China’s emissions have been “flat or slightly falling” for 21 months. The tone of the editorial is cautious, noting that the “shift in emissions may not prove enduring”. It adds: “No one can compensate for the grim reversal of belated US action on emissions. There is also a vacuum in climate diplomacy that China shows no signs of filling.”

In other reaction, Prof Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, and Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute, write in the San Francisco Chronicle that Trump is “slowing climate progress”, but “it won’t put a stop to global climate action”. They add: “The rest of the world is moving on and thanks to Trump’s ridiculous insistence that climate change is a ‘hoax’, the US now stands to lose out in the great economic revolution of the modern era – the clean energy transition.” Bloomberg columnist Tobin Harshaw warns Trump supporters that “you may not believe in climate change, but your insurance company does”. An editorial in the Hindu says that Trump is “trying to turn back the clock on environmental issues”.

Various commentators in climate-sceptic outlets write in support of the repeal. Matthew Hennessey, editor of the Wall Street Journal’s Free Expression newsletter, says: “I’m no scientist, but I exhale carbon dioxide.” Matt Ridley, who inherited a family estate which made money from coal mining, makes a similar point in the Daily Telegraph, claiming that “CO2 is simply not a danger to human health”. And Ross Clark uses a column in the Spectator to criticise BBC News for reporting the repeal alongside the news that China’s emissions are flat or falling.

MORE US-RELATED COMMENT

• An editorial in the Washington Post argues in favour of loosening “overly burdensome regulations” for nuclear power in order to keep up with rising energy demand.
• Mads Christensen, executive director of Greenpeace International, writes in Climate Home News that “the more Europe relies on the US for energy, the more it’s vulnerable to pressure by Trump”.

The obsession of right-leaning outlets and commentators with UK energy secretary Ed Miliband continues. An editorial in Saturday’s edition of the Times claims that Miliband “prefers the net-zero bit of his job description to the energy security one”. It says: “Sur­rounded by dedicated green advisers, he suffers from a delusion common among Britain’s ‘progressives’: that this country can alter global behaviour by setting a good example. This conceit is the only faintly plausible explanation for Mr Miliband’s barnacle-like attachment to the 2030 goal [to decarbonise the electricity grid]. In reality, even if it is achieved – a very big if – a decarbonised grid will have a negligible impact on climate change.” The newspaper argues in favour of fossil gas, criticising “ageing gas-fired stations and a lack of storage”, as well as the UK “abandoning” reserves in the North Sea. In the Sunday Times, economics editor David Smith says that Miliband’s “stock has risen as Keir Starmer’s has declined”, creating a “fear” among businesses of a “shift to the left – and net-zero”.

Elsewhere, there are columns attacking Miliband in the Daily Telegraph (twice), Sunday Telegraph (twice), Sun and Daily Express.

This edition of the Daily Briefing was written by Robert McSweeney, with contributions from Henry Zhang and Anika Patel. It was edited by Leo Hickman.

Subscribe for free.