In a world rife with disputes and divisions, there will be one emotion likely to unite most people at the stroke of midnight on 31 December: sheer relief that 2020 is finally over.
A once-vital NASA climate lab perched above Manhattan’s Tom’s Restaurant will shut down at the end of May, displacing scientists and reflecting the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle federal climate research.
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA’s top climate monitoring lab located above the diner made famous by Seinfeld, will close after nearly 60 years due to an executive order reviewing federal leases.
About 130 scientists are being forced to work remotely without a clear plan for relocation, as the administration seeks to slash NASA’s Earth science funding by 50%.
Despite the building’s modest lease and recent multimillion-dollar renovations, the shutdown appears driven more by ideology than cost-saving, sparking concern among former and current GISS scientists.
Key quote:
“They are trying to kill the messenger with the bad news, it’s crazy.”
— Dr. James Hansen, former director of GISS
Why this matters:
Climate science doesn’t happen in a vacuum — it needs infrastructure, continuity, and institutional support. GISS has played a critical role in shaping our understanding of global warming, from building the first climate models to documenting the accelerating pace of planetary heating. Its closure threatens not just a symbolic center of climate research, but the very mechanisms by which we monitor and respond to environmental change. Shuttering this lab sends a message that scientific expertise, especially in politically sensitive areas like climate, can be sidelined. The lab’s closure isn’t happening in isolation — it echoes a broader pattern of devaluing federal science, from vaccine research to weather forecasting.
Republicans in the Senate used a controversial procedural tactic to advance legislation that would block California from enforcing its planned ban on new gasoline-powered vehicle sales by 2035, challenging both state environmental authority and longstanding Senate rules.
Senate Republicans bypassed the usual 60-vote threshold to push through a resolution overturning U.S. Environmental Protection Agency waivers that permit California to impose stricter vehicle emissions standards than federal rules.
The maneuver invoked the Congressional Review Act in a “novel” way, despite objections from the Senate parliamentarian and the Government Accountability Office, who said the act did not apply to the California waivers.
Democrats argued the move undermines Senate procedure and states’ rights, accusing Republicans of favoring the fossil fuel industry and setting a dangerous precedent for future legislative fights.
Key quote:
“In order to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry, Republicans will erode away at the Senate and undermine this institution they claim to care about.”
— Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York
Why this matters:
California’s aggressive clean air policies have long set the pace for national vehicle emissions standards. Nearly a dozen other states follow its lead, making its rules de facto national benchmarks. Blocking California’s authority would not only reshape how climate policy is made in the U.S., but could also stall the transition away from fossil fuels in the transportation sector—one of the nation’s biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
A bitter Senate hearing erupted into shouting as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin defended sweeping grant cuts and environmental rollbacks under President Trump, sparring with Democrats over transparency and health impacts.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) challenged Zeldin’s claims that the EPA conducted individual reviews before canceling grants, citing contradictory statements from agency officials and U.S. Department of Justice court filings.
Zeldin accused Democrats of wasting taxpayer money and defended the agency's process, stating that multiple staffers had reviewed grants even if he had not personally done so.
In another heated exchange, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) warned Zeldin that environmental rollbacks could lead to increased cancer rates and criticized cuts to lead poisoning prevention in Santa Ana, prompting Zeldin to mock Schiff’s concerns.
Key quote:
“You could give a rat’s ass about how much cancer your agency causes.”
— Adam Schiff, U.S. Representative from California
Why this matters:
The EPA has historically played a central role in safeguarding clean air and water, but recent moves to scale back oversight and funding for pollution prevention have triggered alarm among public health advocates. Grants targeting lead contamination, for example, help prevent irreversible brain damage in children. Similarly, cuts to air quality monitoring or enforcement can lead to higher exposure to known carcinogens, increasing cancer rates, especially in urban and industrial areas. When elected officials downplay these risks or suggest that budget cuts won’t affect health, they ignore decades of scientific evidence linking environmental toxins to serious illnesses.
A California company’s bid to mine the seafloor near American Samoa gained momentum after the U.S. Interior Department agreed to review its proposal following a Trump administration order to fast-track seabed mining.
The Interior Department will assess a request by Impossible Metals to mine nearly 30,000 square miles of seabed in U.S. territorial waters off American Samoa.
The move follows President Trump’s April executive order pushing federal agencies to expedite seabed mining permits, even in contested international waters.
Environmental and legal pushback continues, as critics say unilateral U.S. action violates international norms and risks deep-sea ecosystems that are poorly understood.
Key quote:
“As soon as the executive order came out, that very much directed the different groups to accelerate and prioritize deep-sea mining.”
— Oliver Gunasekara, CEO of Impossible Metals
Why this matters:
Deep-sea mining offers access to minerals like cobalt, nickel, and manganese — critical for electric vehicles, renewable energy, and defense technologies — but at potentially high environmental costs. These ecosystems, found thousands of feet below the ocean’s surface, remain largely unexplored and may host ancient life forms uniquely adapted to extreme pressure and darkness. Disrupting the seabed to extract mineral nodules could irreversibly damage fragile habitats and threaten species not yet studied by science. Moreover, sediment plumes and noise pollution from mining operations may ripple through the marine food chain.
While most countries await international consensus through the United Nations-backed International Seabed Authority, the U.S. — which never ratified the Law of the Sea treaty — is pushing ahead unilaterally. American Samoa, with limited political representation and a history of environmental vulnerability, stands at the intersection of global power, corporate ambition, and Indigenous rights.
A deadly tornado system ravaged Black neighborhoods in St. Louis, exposing long-standing failures in emergency alert infrastructure and the federal government’s disaster response.
An EF-3 tornado with 150-mph winds struck St. Louis on May 16, killing five people and destroying hundreds of structures, including historic Black-owned businesses.
Despite known gaps in emergency siren coverage and digital alert systems, no warnings reached many residents; half of North City heard no sirens, and many lacked smartphone access to modern notification platforms.
The Trump administration recently cut nearly $1 billion from Federal Emergency Management Agency programs intended for disaster resilience in Black and low-income neighborhoods and is actively attempting to dismantle the agency.
Key quote:
“We were giving people water not because they didn’t have pipes, but because they couldn’t afford it before the tornado.”
— Antoine White, rapper and organizer with HandsUp United
Why this matters:
Tornadoes don’t discriminate, but the systems meant to protect people from them often do. When a tornado ripped through St. Louis, it revealed how decades of racial segregation, underinvestment, and neglect put Black neighborhoods at greater risk. In places like North City, where emergency sirens failed and internet access is scarce, residents had no warning. The federal response was slow to arrive, just weeks after the government slashed funding designed to build safer infrastructure in vulnerable communities. These are not isolated incidents. Studies show that Black counties receive significantly less disaster preparedness funding, face higher insurance premiums, and suffer more damage during storms — even when weather conditions are identical. As climate change intensifies weather extremes, the disparity in who gets help and who doesn’t is widening.
Strong climate action, not delay, is the key to stabilizing a global economy rocked by droughts, hunger, and rising prices, the UN’s top climate official said this week.
UN climate chief Simon Stiell said clear climate policies can drive economic recovery and investment, pointing to recent droughts in Panama that disrupted global trade as a sign of worsening instability.
Rich nations face pressure to deliver promised climate finance, but funding gaps loom large after the U.S. pulled back from the Paris agreement and slashed foreign aid under President Trump.
A coalition of 80+ organizations urged the UK to boost climate finance through taxes on fossil fuels and luxury emissions, arguing public support is strong and action is a matter of global justice.
Key quote:
“Famine is back, and the role of global heating cannot be ignored.”
— Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
Why this matters:
Climate-driven disruptions to trade, food supply, and infrastructure are no longer distant warnings — they’re reshaping the global economy now. The UN climate chief’s comments underscore how worsening droughts, like those hitting the Panama Canal choke off supply chains and inflate food prices, pushing millions toward hunger. Poorer nations, which have contributed least to global warming, are hit hardest and are struggling to build resilience without sufficient international help. Climate finance was designed to address this injustice, but promises made by wealthy countries are evaporating under new political leadership and shrinking aid budgets.
Salmon are moving into lakes and streams newly formed by melting glaciers in Alaska and British Columbia, even as mining firms rush to exploit mineral-rich lands newly exposed by retreating ice.
Glacial retreat in Alaska and British Columbia is transforming cold, sediment-choked rivers into clearer, warmer streams and lakes that could support expanding salmon populations in the decades to come.
At the same time, mining companies are rapidly staking claims in these newly exposed landscapes, fueled by record gold prices and high demand for copper, raising alarm among Indigenous groups and fisheries advocates.
Though new salmon habitat could emerge across nearly 4,000 miles of river by century’s end, much of it lies near existing or proposed mining sites, including projects without formal consent from downstream communities.
Key quote:
Are critical minerals “more critical than our lives? More critical than the fish?”
— Richard Peterson, president of the Tlingit and Haida government
Why this matters:
The race for minerals and the reshaping of ecosystems due to melting glaciers is a collision of environmental consequence and economic ambition. Salmon, already facing pressures from warming seas and dwindling freshwater flows, may find refuge in glacial waters that are now becoming more hospitable as ice recedes. But these same landscapes are becoming targets for mining companies lured by copper and gold, often aided by government subsidies. For Indigenous communities in Alaska and Canada, this trade-off is especially fraught: Salmon are both a vital food source and a cultural touchstone. As exploration moves into sensitive watersheds, calls are growing for stricter regulations, cross-border agreements, and Indigenous consent. Yet with glacial landscapes transforming faster than environmental policies can adapt, the outcome could determine whether these new salmon habitats become ecological lifelines or casualties of industrial expansion.
