Chinese firms are driving renewable energy development across Southeast Asia, but their expanding presence in mining and heavy industry is triggering pollution, health concerns, and political friction across the region.
Chinese companies now control over three-quarters of Indonesia’s nickel refining capacity, leading to environmental violations and rising protests at sites like the Morowali Industrial Park.
Water samples in northern Thailand show arsenic levels nearly five times higher than safe drinking water standards, with local communities blaming rare earth mining operations tied to Chinese firms in neighboring Myanmar.
Despite pouring $2.7 billion into clean energy through the Belt and Road Initiative, Chinese industries are relocating polluting sectors like steel and waste processing to Southeast Asia to avoid stricter regulations and tariffs at home.
Key quote:
“The reality is that most governments care more about economic development than they do environmental sustainability; exactly as the Chinese government did.”
— Zachary Abuza, professor at the National War College in Washington, D.C.
Why this matters:
The collision of clean energy investments and industrial pollution highlights a troubling contradiction in China's role across Southeast Asia. While Chinese-backed solar farms and dams promise greener infrastructure, the expansion of heavy mining and toxic industries risks contaminating rivers, degrading air quality, and exposing workers and communities to hazardous conditions. Countries like Indonesia and Myanmar, rich in minerals but often lax in environmental enforcement, are becoming hotspots for high-risk extractive operations. Health effects from heavy metals like arsenic can persist across generations. As demand for rare earths and nickel rises, especially for electric vehicles and electronics, the region is increasingly caught between economic development and long-term ecological harm.
Green burials, which avoid embalming fluids and synthetic caskets, are gaining ground across the U.S. as environmentally conscious Americans seek simpler, lower-impact alternatives to conventional funeral practices.
The number of cemeteries offering green burials has grown from 150 in 2016 to nearly 500 in 2025, with conservation burial grounds like Larkspur working alongside land trusts to preserve natural landscapes.
Although cremation remains more common due to cost and convenience, interest in green burial is increasing, particularly among aging baby boomers seeking environmentally aligned end-of-life choices.
Green burials eliminate embalming chemicals, metal caskets, and concrete vaults, instead using biodegradable materials and often involving loved ones directly in burial rituals.
Key quote:
“There are ramifications for all three processes that we can avoid by simply putting a body in the soil.”
— Lee Webster, former president of the Green Burial Council
Why this matters:
Conventional burial and cremation both leave environmental footprints. Embalming fluid contains formaldehyde, a probable human carcinogen, while cremation releases carbon dioxide and mercury. As land becomes scarce and ecosystems strain under human activity, green burials offer a low-impact return to the soil. They also reflect a cultural shift toward more sustainable, personalized end-of-life practices. Rather than isolating death in sterile settings, green funerals invite families to take part in intimate, meaningful ceremonies. These choices reduce toxic waste, conserve energy, and in some cases, protect open land from development.
More than 180 Federal Emergency Management Agency employees have warned Congress that mismanagement and unqualified leadership under the Trump administration are undermining the agency’s ability to respond to disasters.
FEMA employees say the agency is being led by unqualified officials without Senate confirmation, violating post-Katrina laws meant to ensure competent disaster response. They allege political interference from the Department of Homeland Security has blocked critical programs and decisions.
Internal budget restrictions and contract delays — especially under Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — have frozen key recovery programs and slowed FEMA’s emergency response, including during the deadly Texas floods in July.
The open dissent joins a broader movement among federal workers alarmed by deep cuts to science-based programs and the sidelining of expertise across multiple agencies under the Trump administration.
Key quote:
“This administration’s decision to ignore and disregard the facts pertaining to climate science in disasters shows a blatant disregard for the safety and security of our Nation’s people and all American communities regardless of their geographic, economic or ethnic diversity.”
— FEMA employees, in a letter to Congress
Why this matters:
FEMA exists to help communities before, during and after disasters. Its failure can mean lives lost, homes destroyed, and communities left stranded. When an agency tasked with national emergency response is underfunded, mismanaged or politicized, the consequences cascade, especially for those who are already most vulnerable. Indigenous, Black, Brown and low-income communities often live in areas more prone to disaster and have fewer resources to rebuild. As extreme weather worsens with climate change, the need for fast, science-informed federal response grows.
China plans to cap carbon emissions from major industries by 2027, transitioning from intensity-based rules to absolute limits as it ramps up efforts to cut greenhouse gases.
China will shift to absolute carbon emissions caps for industries with stable emissions by 2027, expanding its national carbon market beyond the current intensity-based system.
The emissions trading scheme will include industries like chemicals, petrochemicals, papermaking, and aviation, and broaden market access to banks and financial institutions to boost liquidity.
By 2030, the emissions trading scheme is expected to be fully established, covering most of China’s major carbon-emitting sectors.
Key quote:
"It is positive that China now has a clear timeline for the full scope expansion – but whether this will deliver significant effectiveness in reducing the country’s giant emissions remains to be seen."
— Mai Duong, Asia-Pacific carbon markets analyst with Veyt
Why this matters:
China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and its choices shape global climate outcomes. A shift from carbon intensity limits to hard emissions caps marks a major policy change. While intensity targets allow emissions to grow with economic output, absolute caps set firm limits, potentially slowing pollution. Adding financial institutions to the market could also increase transparency and trading volume, but the effectiveness of these reforms depends on how strictly caps are enforced and whether free allowances are reduced.
Southern European farmers are investing heavily in climate adaptations as rising temperatures, droughts, and extreme weather threaten long-established crops like grapes, olives, and citrus.
Producers across southern Europe are facing mounting pressure as droughts and wildfires disrupt crop yields and drive up costs for irrigation, water storage, and climate-resilient farming techniques.
Analysts project that climate-driven agricultural losses in the EU could rise by 64% by 2050, with Spain, Italy, Greece, and France expected to face the steepest losses, particularly from drought.
As growing conditions worsen, farmers abandon land or shift to hardier crops, while companies seek new growing regions and invest in storage to buffer against supply disruptions.
Key quote:
“Cheap wine is not going to be easy to find. It used to be that the south of France, Spain and Greece produced cheap wine of Europe. Now it is going to be very difficult to compete on price.”
— Stellios Boutaris, head of Kir-Yianni wine producers
Why this matters:
The Mediterranean basin, long known for its abundant vineyards, olive groves, and citrus orchards, is becoming one of Europe’s climate frontlines. Higher temperatures and prolonged droughts are hitting small family farms hardest, many of which lack the capital to adapt. Food prices are already responding to these pressures, with fresh produce and staples like olive oil becoming more expensive and less predictable in supply. Crops that once defined the region’s identity now face an uncertain future. As conditions worsen, shifts in agricultural patterns could change not just diets and prices but also rural economies and cultural traditions rooted in farming.
The Trump administration has abruptly halted multiple offshore wind projects, including the nearly completed $6.2 billion Revolution Wind farm, citing unspecified national security concerns and throwing the industry into turmoil.
The Interior Department has stopped construction on several offshore wind projects, including ones in Rhode Island, New York, and Idaho, despite full federal approvals, financing, and progress toward completion.
Officials have not provided clear explanations, instead referencing broad “national security” concerns, prompting legal and political backlash from state leaders and energy developers.
The delays jeopardize thousands of jobs, billions in clean energy investment, and grid reliability in the Northeast, while analysts warn of long-term damage to investor confidence.
Key quote:
“This action is a flashing red light for capital investment in clean energy projects. If you’ve gotten all your permits and spent billions of dollars, and even then they can pull the plug, well, who is going to want to put their money up?”
— Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University
Why this matters:
Offshore wind is a cornerstone of U.S. clean energy goals, designed to cut emissions, stabilize power grids, and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Projects like Revolution Wind promise to deliver electricity to hundreds of thousands of homes while supporting domestic manufacturing and union jobs. But the Trump administration’s sudden and unexplained reversals send a chilling message to developers and investors: Even fully permitted projects are not safe from political disruption.
Federal officials warn of power loss at Lake Powell as water levels continue to fall and states struggle to reach agreement on a new Colorado River allocation formula.
The Bureau of Reclamation’s latest 24-month forecast shows Lake Powell nearing the minimum level required to generate hydroelectric power, prompting calls for swift action from the Trump administration.
Critics say the government’s models are too optimistic, failing to fully account for climate-driven aridification and consistently underestimating how bad river flows will be.
Negotiations among the seven basin states remain deadlocked as they try to replace outdated water-sharing rules before a 2026 deadline, with a new “natural flow” proposal emerging but still lacking detail or consensus.
Key quote:
“This underscores the importance of immediate action to secure the future of the Colorado River.”
— David Palumbo, acting commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Why this matters:
The Colorado River supplies drinking water and irrigation to 40 million people and 5.5 million acres of farmland across seven states and Mexico. As climate change accelerates aridification, snowpack shrinks, and rainfall patterns shift, the river’s flows have declined sharply, placing growing stress on both water and energy systems. Lake Powell and Lake Mead, its two largest reservoirs, are dropping to levels that threaten not only supply but also hydropower generation. These cuts hit hardest in the Southwest, where cities, tribes, and farmers depend on these flows. The situation exposes deep regional tensions and outdated water agreements built on assumptions of abundance that no longer hold.
