Several news outlets report on various aspects of the on-going disruption to the oil industry, with Politico focusing on new forecasting from the US Energy Department which suggests the nation is likely to become a net importer of crude oil and petroleum products this year. Coming amid a coronavirus-induced slump in demand combined with a “flood of oil” from Saudi Arabia and Russia driving prices down, the news “undercuts” President Donald Trump’s promises of US “energy dominance”, Politico says. According to the news website, the Department’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts the shift will occur in the third quarter as US crude oil production declines. However, Politico notes this outlook “may still be too rosy”, as many industry analysts expect production to sink by at least 3m barrels per day “as companies tighten spending and idle drilling rigs”. The Hill reports that production is already expected to drop this month, as American consumers purchase 17m fewer barrels each day compared with last year. Following the news that Saudi Arabia and Russia might agree to voluntarily cut their oil production if the US joins them, the Hill also reports on comments from the US president that he “may” consider taking such action. The Financial Times reports that the executive chairman of shale energy company Continental Resources says US producers are already being forced to act due to storage tank limits. In a statement from the US Department of Energy coevred by Reuters, it confirms that the nation’s oil output is already falling without government action, “in line with the White House’s insistence that it would not intervene in the private markets”. The news outlet notes that this decline will take place relatively slowly. Analysis from Axios suggests that while there may not be a top-down mandate from the US, market-driven cuts to production may be enough to satisfy the other big oil producers’ demands. It notes this will “come to a head very soon”, with Opec and G20 energy ministers’ meetings both scheduled for later this week. Associated Press notes that the US EIA projects a 7.5% drop in fossil fuel emissions this year in the US. And the New York Times has a feature on how in the US “oil companies are collapsing, but wind and solar energy keep growing”.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that the Canadian province of Alberta and its “oil sands boom”have been hit particularly hard by the coronavirus pandemic and Russia-Saudi price war. According to Reuters, Exxon’s work extracting oil in Guyana could be postponed due to delays in government approvals and the crude price crash. A feature in the New York Times explores how Guyana “once one of South America’s poorest countries”, is being impacted by its oil boom.

Following an interview with International Energy Agency executive director Fatih Birol, Axios reports that he “won’t let Big Oil off the hook” when it comes to action on climate change, despite the current crisis. “People around the world will notice whether or not those commitments that the governments, companies [have made] are going to fade away or disappear when the market conditions change…I think this is a really important issue for the credibility of the companies and the governments,” he tells the website. BusinessGreen reports on Shell’s latest 2019 Sustainability Report, which shows some progress on climate targets, although it notes concerns over the “incremental pace of decarbonisation”. Finally, Reuters reports on new research by Carbon Tracker which suggests that as some countries may be gearing up to stimulate their economies with more coal infrastructure, nearly half of global coal plants will run at a loss this year.

The German government has said it is set to miss the EU’s deadline for submitting a plan for climate and energy policies over the coming decade by more than half a year, according to Bloomberg. It notes the key issues holding back progress are the coronavirus pandemic and legislation to scrap coal as a power-generation fuel. The news source says this adds “to the risk that the European Union’s Green Deal is also delayed”. Reuters highlights a report from trade body WindEurope which suggests new windfarm financing in Europe will be hampered this year, noting that: “In the short-term, the global economic situation resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic is uncertain and delays to the financing of new farms are inevitable.”

Another Bloomberg piece compares responses to coronavirus and climate change, noting that what links them both is a lack of preparation: “If the world had spent adequately on preparing [for the pandemic], a lot of that pain could have been avoided. It’s a lesson worth heeding when tackling the other crisis that hasn’t gone away: climate change”. In more virus-related news, a New York Times piece looks at new research that suggests people from areas with high levels of air pollution before the pandemic are more likely to die from the infection.

Meanwhile, a piece from NBC News notes that, while coronavirus-induced lockdowns have effectively cut emissions plummeting, “environmentalists worry about what comes next”. The piece quotes Dr Simon Evans, deputy editor of Carbon Brief, who discusses the current status of nations’ climate pledges and what will be required for success at the next UN climate summit in Glasgow, which has been delayed due to the pandemic.

BBC News focuses on a new report that warns mass tree planting in the UK could actively harm the environment if not planned properly, despite hopes that trees could be a key instrument to tackle climate change. The Natural Capital Committee (NCC) notes bad planning of afforestation could increase greenhouse gas emissions, particularly if trees are planted on peat bogs. Carbon Brief recently produced a comprehensive article examining the various challenges associated with mass tree planting.

In other UK news, BusinessGreen reports on “milestone” highlighted in the latest quarterly energy market report from analyst firm EnAppSys, confirming renewables delivered nearly 45% of the nation’s power mix during the first quarter of this year.

BusinessGreen’s editor James Murray considers recent commentary on the coronavirus pandemic and climate change, concluding that while there are similarities between the two, “what should really scare us are the differences”. He says: “Over the past fortnight the coronavirus pandemic has triggered a surge in hot takes highlighting the unnerving similarities between the global public health emergency and the worsening climate emergency that runs alongside it”. By way of example, he notes interventions from former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger and the UN secretary-general António Guterres. “And yet, while the many parallels between the climate and coronavirus crises are informative and worthy of comment, why does the attempt to draw analogies make me a little uneasy?” Murray writes. Key issues are the way people perceive these events and the timescales over which they are taking place. Murray says that while there are plenty of useful lessons from the coronavirus crisis for climate change action, “chief among them is the need to recognise that the climate crisis is a fundamentally different beast, and it is long past time that the horrors it could unleash were taken seriously”. He concludes: “The climate crisis is not really like the coronavirus crisis in several critical ways. And as such perhaps climate should not be reflexively referred to as a ‘crisis’ or an ’emergency’. Because fundamentally it’s much worse than that”. Similarly, in Yale Environment 360, veteran environmental writer Fred Pearce notes that there are currently two “sharply divergent paths” for climate change that could arise out of the Covid-19 crisis.

A column in Reuters by Clyde Russell, meanwhile, looks at the future of energy and concludes that renewables “win over oil and gas in a post-coronavirus world”. Finally, a comment piece in the Los Angeles Times by Scott Martelle quotes Carbon Brief’s global coal map in which he says that such dirty fuel sources must be cut and renewables must be the future, “if we are to have one at all”.

A review examines the “environmental price” of the fashion industry, which is believed to be responsible for up to 10% of global CO2 emissions. The authors identify the environmental impacts at critical points in the textile and fashion value chain, from production to consumption, focusing on water use, chemical pollution, CO2 emissions and textile waste. The authors say: “On the basis of these environmental impacts, we outline the need for fundamental changes in the fashion business model, including a deceleration of manufacturing and the introduction of sustainable practices throughout the supply chain, as well a shift in consumer behaviour – namely, decreasing clothing purchases and increasing garment lifetimes.”