Two British men argue that the UK’s failure to protect them from climate-related harm violates their human rights and have escalated their case to Europe’s top human rights court.
Doug Paulley, who lives with multiple disabilities worsened by rising heat, and Kevin Jordan, who lost his seaside home to severe storms, claim the UK’s climate adaptation policies inadequately protect vulnerable populations.
Their challenge targets the UK’s 2023 National Adaptation Programme (Nap3), which they argue lacks lawful objectives, overlooks marginalized groups, and fails to properly assess climate risks.
Despite UK courts dismissing their legal challenges, the pair, supported by Friends of the Earth, are now appealing to the European Court of Human Rights, asserting the government’s climate policies breach human rights obligations.
Key quote:
“I know what it’s like to lose your home to climate change and will continue to campaign for a vastly improved set of adaptation policies that offers proper protection to our lives and communities.”
— Kevin Jordan
Why this matters:
As climate change intensifies, it is not only a scientific or policy challenge but also a human rights concern. People with disabilities, the elderly, and low-income populations often face disproportionate risks from heatwaves, flooding, and other extreme weather events. Legal actions like Paulley and Jordan’s highlight a growing global trend of citizens turning to courts to hold governments accountable for safeguarding their populations. The UK’s struggle reflects wider issues seen in many developed countries, where climate adaptation policies lag behind the escalating threats. This case also spotlights the importance of inclusive policymaking that considers the needs of society’s most vulnerable — not just as an ethical imperative but as a practical necessity for resilience in an era of accelerating climate disruption.
Canada’s newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, both seasoned climate advocates, now flank President Trump, creating a North American dynamic where climate leadership persists even when it’s not a campaign focus.
Mark Carney, a veteran of climate finance and former Bank of England governor, won Canada’s prime ministership without emphasizing climate but is expected to advance environmental policies through financial tools and incentives.
Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s president and a climate scientist, has similarly downplayed climate rhetoric while committing to renewable energy expansion and limiting oil production.
As Trump dismantles U.S. climate policies, Canada and Mexico may deepen environmental ties and pursue partnerships with other global players, especially around critical minerals for the energy transition.
Why this matters:
North America’s political landscape now illustrates a striking paradox: Climate leadership is growing not through loud pledges but through pragmatic, often understated governance. While public debates fixate on trade wars and electoral spectacle, leaders like Carney and Sheinbaum may quietly influence significant environmental progress. This model reflects a broader trend where voters prioritize economic and social issues, yet elect officials capable of threading climate action into broader policy frameworks. For the U.S., this divergence is more than symbolic. As Canada and Mexico leverage their vast reserves of critical minerals — essential for renewable energy technologies — they could dictate terms of trade that prioritize sustainability, potentially sidelining the U.S. if climate continues to be deprioritized in Washington.
A newly formed coalition of aviation professionals warns that the industry must urgently control flight growth and adopt deeper emissions cuts to avoid heavy external regulation and environmental harm.
Call Aviation to Action, a group of aviation workers, says the industry’s reliance on future technology and carbon offsets is insufficient to curb climate impacts.
The United Nation’s aviation agency, ICAO, faces criticism for weak action, with emissions projected to keep rising despite efficiency efforts and offset schemes.
The group proposes absolute emissions targets, fair management of flight demand, and a fundamental redesign of aircraft and fuel technologies.
Key quote:
“If we do not act, by 2050 aviation emissions will be about a quarter of all human-caused emissions – that will be really a very shameful position.”
— Karel Bockstael, co-founder of Call Aviation to Action
Why this matters:
Aviation’s environmental toll is growing, with the sector already responsible for more carbon emissions per mile than any other form of transport. As passenger numbers are expected to double by 2042, the industry’s promises of sustainable fuels and efficiency gains fall short of what climate science demands. Wealthier travelers disproportionately contribute to the problem, while poorer nations face challenges accessing air travel. Unlike other sectors, aviation’s global nature exempts much of its pollution from national climate commitments, leaving it under the purview of the UN’s ICAO, which has been criticized for industry influence and weak regulation.
A new Amnesty International report reveals that the majority of climate-related deaths in Pakistan are not recorded, obscuring the full human toll as extreme weather events worsen and overwhelm the country's fragile health system.
Pakistan’s health system, already stretched thin, is unable to track the true number of deaths caused by climate disasters such as floods and extreme heat.
Most deaths occur after the initial disaster, often due to disease or lack of access to health care, yet they are rarely classified as climate-related or recorded at all.
The report criticizes both Pakistan’s government and wealthier, high-emitting countries for inadequate responses and support amid escalating climate health crises.
Key quote:
“You’re only getting a tiny piece of the picture of who’s dying.”
— Laura Mills, Amnesty International
Why this matters:
What's happening in Pakistan reflects a larger global crisis: the failure to measure and address the true human cost of climate change. With over 95% of deaths in Pakistan going unregistered, the lack of data hinders both disaster response and public health planning. Poor and marginalized populations — children, the elderly, people with disabilities — are often the most vulnerable and the least likely to have their deaths recorded or linked to climate impacts. As floods and heat waves increase in frequency and intensity, they amplify risks of disease, malnutrition, and displacement, deepening poverty and health inequities. Wealthier nations, while historically the biggest polluters, are retreating from international aid and climate commitments, leaving frontline countries like Pakistan to bear disproportionate burdens.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to eliminate the Energy Star program and other climate initiatives as part of a major agency reorganization, according to internal documents and recordings.
EPA managers announced that climate change and energy efficiency divisions, including Energy Star, would be shut down, affecting programs that have saved $500 billion in energy costs and prevented four billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions since 1992.
The restructuring aligns with President Trump’s previous attempts to defund Energy Star, despite widespread consumer recognition and bipartisan support for the program’s role in promoting energy efficient appliances.
Industry groups and environmental advocates warn that eliminating Energy Star undermines efforts to reduce household energy costs and meet rising electricity demand projected through 2040.
Key quote:
“Eliminating the Energy Star program is counterintuitive to this administration’s pledge to reduce household costs.”
— Paula R. Glover, president of the Alliance to Save Energy
Why this matters:
Energy Star has long been a key part of U.S. efforts to promote energy efficiency, offering consumers a simple way to identify appliances and products that conserve energy and lower utility bills. Its potential elimination reflects a broader rollback of federal climate initiatives under the current administration. The program not only helps consumers save money but also plays a significant role in reducing environmental pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. As demand for electricity is expected to surge in the coming decades, sidelining efficiency programs like Energy Star could increase reliance on fossil fuels, exacerbate air pollution, and place greater financial burdens on households. The move also raises concerns about the privatization of energy standards, which could erode quality and accountability.
The U.S. clean energy sector has grown dramatically, but policy uncertainty under President Trump has already led to the cancellation or downsizing of nearly $8 billion in renewable projects this year.
Solar, wind, and geothermal power production in the United States has more than tripled over the past decade, cutting emissions and reducing power plant pollution.
Republican-led states in the South have seen some of the largest increases in renewable energy growth, though overall production still varies widely.
A wave of project cancellations totaling $7.9 billion has been linked to political uncertainty and possible repeal of clean energy tax credits, despite continued market demand.
Key quote:
“Clean energy companies still want to invest in America, but uncertainty over Trump administration policies and the future of critical clean energy tax credits are taking a clear toll.”
— Michael Timberlake, E2 spokesman
Why this matters:
The dramatic expansion of renewable energy in the U.S. has been an important countermeasure against climate change, slashing emissions and diversifying the nation’s energy portfolio. But as tax credits and federal support waver under the Trump administration, investors are pulling back. The cancellation of billions in clean energy projects threatens jobs, infrastructure progress and the health gains achieved by reducing fossil fuel dependence. The growth of renewables has also been a rare area of bipartisan advancement, particularly in traditionally conservative states, where local economies and public health have begun to benefit from cleaner, more resilient energy systems. Policy instability now jeopardizes this momentum, raising concerns about the long-term trajectory of the U.S. energy transition amid escalating climate risks.
Ten years after Pope Francis urged Catholic institutions to move away from fossil fuel investments, only a fraction have fully divested, with many still prioritizing profit or opting for shareholder engagement.
The Vatican’s 2015 Laudato Si’ encyclical and later recommendations spurred 1,600 institutions globally — 384 of them Catholic — to pledge fossil fuel divestment, though full transparency and completion remain elusive.
Germany’s Bank für Kirche und Caritas (BKC) and Pax-Bank have made significant though incomplete strides toward divestment, favoring sustainable investments and green bonds.
Some Catholic groups prefer influencing fossil fuel companies through shareholder engagement, but recent research shows most oil and gas firms continue expanding fossil fuel development.
Key quote:
"In short, the reason many continue to invest in fossil fuel companies is profit."
— Tommy Piemonte, head of sustainable investment research at BKC
Why this matters:
The fossil fuel divestment movement reflects a growing recognition of the financial and moral risks of continued investment in industries driving climate change. While faith-based institutions like those in the Catholic Church wield substantial economic and moral influence, their varied responses highlight the complexity of shifting global capital away from fossil fuels. As oil and gas companies persist in expanding exploration and drilling, even amid escalating climate impacts, the effectiveness of divestment versus shareholder engagement remains hotly debated.
