A record-breaking heat wave sweeping across the U.S. and Europe is being driven by fossil fuel pollution and made more dangerous by nighttime temperatures that offer little relief.
Scientists say every heat wave today is hotter than it would have been without climate change, and computer models are underestimating the trend's severity.
This U.S. heat wave, affecting about 150 million people, is the first of the season and is already threatening all-time temperature records, including record warm nights.
Extreme heat is now more common on multiple continents at the same time, with humidity, longer duration, and earlier seasonal onset compounding the health and infrastructure toll.
Key quote:
“Every heatwave that is occurring today is hotter than it would have been without human-induced climate change.”
— Fredi Otto, climate scientist and lead of the World Weather Attribution project
Why this matters:
Heat waves are no longer isolated or predictable — they’re intensifying, spreading, and striking earlier in the season, catching people and infrastructure unprepared. As global temperatures rise, these events are becoming more humid and longer-lasting, which increases their threat to human health. Hotter nights deny the body time to recover, particularly for the elderly, infants, and those with chronic conditions. Urban areas bear the brunt due to heat-trapping buildings and pavement.
The implications stretch beyond health: Heat stresses power grids, warps roads and railways, and damages crops, threatening food security. While storms and floods draw dramatic headlines, heat quietly kills more Americans each year than any other weather hazard. And climate models may be underplaying what’s still to come.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed budget cuts and restructuring could reduce air monitoring capacity and delay public health responses to increasingly toxic wildfire smoke across the U.S.
The Trump administration plans to halve the EPA’s budget and eliminate thousands of positions, threatening the agency’s ability to monitor and respond to air pollution from wildfire smoke.
Wildfire smoke contains PM 2.5 and can chemically transform into more harmful substances like ozone; in some areas, it may carry heavy metals like arsenic from contaminated soils.
Federal monitors have played a crucial role in air quality forecasting; scientists warn that private and community sensors lack the precision to fully assess health risks without EPA infrastructure.
Key quote:
“In order to be able to better test these hypotheses, we need these federally funded monitors and networks and data. This is critical. Without that, it would be impossible to do this type of research and better understand what is going on.”
— Tarik Benmarhnia, professor of environmental epidemiology, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Why this matters:
Wildfire smoke is becoming a primary source of air pollution across North America, and its reach extends far beyond burn zones. Fine particles in smoke, especially PM 2.5, can lodge deep in the lungs and bloodstream, aggravating asthma, heart disease, and other health conditions. With more fires ignited by climate-fueled heat and drought, even historically clean-air regions are facing hazardous smoke days. The data gathered by federal air quality monitors is essential for real-time alerts, long-term research, and regulatory action. Cutting these systems weakens national capacity to track pollution spikes, protect vulnerable communities, and prepare for a smoke-heavy future that increasingly threatens public health.
Pregnant people exposed to wildfire smoke and extreme heat in the weeks before or during early pregnancy may face a higher risk of delivering smaller-than-expected babies, according to a new study.
A study of 713 births in Los Angeles between 2016 and 2020 found that exposure to wildfire smoke and heat stress just before or early in pregnancy correlated with babies born small for their gestational age.
The researchers used wildfire data from CalFIRE and smoke density data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to estimate individual exposure levels, combining this with neighborhood-level climate vulnerability indexes.
Heat exposure before pregnancy, especially in socioeconomically vulnerable areas, was also linked to higher odds of adverse birth outcomes, emphasizing the role of where someone lives and when they are exposed.
Key quote:
“Where you live makes a difference in your health. So does the timing of your exposure during or immediately before pregnancy.”
— Roxana Khalili, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Southern California
Why this matters:
The intersection of wildfire smoke, extreme heat, and pregnancy raises urgent public health concerns as climate change drives more intense fire seasons and heatwaves. Fine particle pollution from wildfire smoke can enter the bloodstream and affect fetal development, while heat stress may strain the body’s ability to regulate temperature during pregnancy. Both are more likely to impact people living in low-income neighborhoods where access to air conditioning, clean air, and prenatal care is limited. These findings point to long-term health risks for children born into communities already burdened by environmental injustice and limited infrastructure. As wildfire smoke and extreme heat become more common, understanding these risks becomes vital for shaping public health responses.
Senate Republicans are advancing a tax bill that would provide $18 billion in new benefits to oil and gas companies while stripping or weakening key incentives for renewable energy and electric vehicles.
The Senate Finance Committee's draft tax plan increases subsidies for fossil fuel companies, including raising tax credits for carbon capture tied to oil extraction and letting firms deduct more drilling expenses.
Provisions in the bill would reduce royalty payments for drilling on public lands, repeal electric vehicle tax credits, and mandate more federal oil and gas lease sales.
Environmental advocates say the legislation rewards polluters and reverses progress made under the Inflation Reduction Act, while Republicans argue it promotes domestic investment and trims wasteful spending.
Key quote:
“This is a reckless expansion of Big Oil handouts paid for with cuts to the social safety net.”
— Lukas Shankar-Ross, deputy director for climate and energy justice, Friends of the Earth Action
Why this matters:
The fossil fuel industry already enjoys some of the most entrenched federal subsidies in the U.S. economy. Expanding those subsidies while removing support for renewable energy comes at a time when climate scientists are warning of intensifying global warming and its cascading health and environmental consequences — heat deaths, crop failures, water shortages, and more. Increasing tax breaks for oil production tied to carbon capture could also entrench technologies that prolong fossil fuel dependence under the guise of climate action. Meanwhile, eliminating credits for electric vehicles and energy-efficient upgrades makes it harder for families to access cleaner, healthier options.
The Trump administration announced it will begin dismantling a rule that has preserved tens of millions of acres of roadless national forest from logging and roadbuilding for over two decades.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture said it will initiate the rollback of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, removing protections from nearly 59 million acres of the National Forest System, including most of Alaska’s Tongass National Forest.
The rule, enacted in 2001 under President Clinton, has long been a political flashpoint; while conservation groups defend it as vital to habitat and climate, the timber industry and some Western officials say it hampers economic growth and forest management.
Environmental groups vowed legal action, arguing the rollback favors industry profits over ecological integrity, while the administration claimed the change would improve wildfire prevention and reduce dependence on foreign timber.
Key quote:
“The Trump administration now wants to throw these forest protections overboard so the timber industry can make huge money from unrestrained logging.”
— Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife and oceans, Earthjustice
Why this matters:
National forests serve as critical habitat for wildlife, carbon sinks that help regulate the climate, and sources of clean water and recreation. The Tongass, in particular, is one of the world’s last remaining temperate rainforests, storing vast amounts of carbon in its centuries-old trees. Dismantling protections for these lands could increase carbon emissions, threaten biodiversity, and expose fragile ecosystems to industrial logging. Though wildfire prevention is cited as a justification, scientists note that clear-cutting often degrades forest resilience. With climate change amplifying fire risk, forest policy decisions now carry weight far beyond local timber markets or state politics.
New York will build a new nuclear power plant to supply electricity to up to one million homes, part of a broader pivot back to nuclear energy amid growing demand and grid reliability concerns.
Governor Kathy Hochul announced the plan without specifying the plant’s location, timeline, or cost, but said it would be managed by the New York Power Authority and seek private investment.
The plant is intended to replace power lost when the Indian Point nuclear plant closed in 2021, which led to increased fossil fuel use and delayed shutdowns of older gas-burning plants.
The move aligns with a national trend as other states and tech companies also return to nuclear energy to meet round-the-clock demand without greenhouse gas emissions.
Key quote:
“This is not your grandparents’ nuclear reactor. You’re not going to see this in a movie starring Jane Fonda.”
— Kathy Hochul, governor of New York
Why this matters:
As electricity demand surges — driven in part by A.I. data centers and chip manufacturing — states are scrambling to secure stable, low-emissions power sources. Nuclear energy, once on the decline, is now making a comeback thanks to its ability to produce steady, carbon-free electricity around the clock. But new projects come with high costs, long timelines, and public skepticism, especially over radioactive waste and safety. New York’s reversal on Indian Point’s closure illustrates the difficulty of balancing climate goals with grid reliability. With renewables still limited by storage and intermittency, the debate over how best to transition off fossil fuels is intensifying — and nuclear is back at the center of it.
Ecuadorian Indigenous leaders recently traveled to California to protest Amazon crude imports, prompting state lawmakers to consider a resolution examining the environmental and human rights impact of this oil trade.
California’s state senate introduced a resolution to review the state’s role in importing crude oil from the Amazon, after a visit by Indigenous leaders from Ecuador warning of rainforest destruction and rights violations.
Ecuador plans to auction off new Amazon oil blocks in 2026, despite a national referendum and international court ruling against oil drilling in protected Indigenous areas.
California refines more Amazon crude than any other region, raising concerns that its demand drives deforestation, Indigenous displacement, and climate impacts in South America.
Key quote:
“We’re seeing the same impacts from the oil well to the wheel here in California, where communities are suffering from contamination, health impacts, dirty water.”
— Kevin Koenig, director of climate, energy and extraction industry, Amazon Watch
Why this matters:
Oil extraction in the Amazon rainforest threatens one of the most biodiverse and climate-critical regions on Earth. The forest stores vast amounts of carbon, supports rainfall patterns across the hemisphere, and sustains Indigenous cultures that have stewarded it for centuries. When countries like Ecuador open protected areas to drilling—often under economic pressure—it undermines global climate goals and local sovereignty. Meanwhile, places like California, which prides itself on environmental leadership, continue to consume the oil produced there, tying local fuel consumption to global deforestation and cultural erosion. The public health consequences also ripple back home: Oil refining in California disproportionately affects low-income neighborhoods near refineries, contributing to toxic air and health disparities. The link between a tank of gas and a tree felled in Yasuni is shorter than it seems.
