
www.motherjones.com
12 May 2018
Seventeen states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for halting billions in federal funding intended to expand the national electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
Sophie Austin and Alexa St. John report for The Associated Press.
In short:
Key quote:
“These funds were going to be used to shape the future of transportation.”
— Rob Bonta, California's attorney general
Why this matters:
Electric vehicle infrastructure is a cornerstone of reducing transportation-related emissions, which are a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Without reliable public charging access, especially in rural areas or for those without private garages, EV adoption slows. Fossil fuel combustion in cars and trucks contributes to smog, respiratory illness, and climate change. Rolling back funding undercuts not only U.S. efforts to curb emissions, but also threatens jobs tied to clean energy expansion and cedes technological leadership to countries like China.
Related: Republican efforts could slow the shift to electric vehicles
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, is downsizing staff to 1980s levels despite decades of added environmental responsibilities and growing public health challenges.
Sean Reilly, Jean Chemnick, Ellie Borst, and Miranda Willson report for E&E News.
In short:
Key quote:
“They don’t want to have a scientist focused in a single area where they can really build their expertise and ensure the highest quality risk assessments.”
— Betsy Southerland, former EPA Office of Science and Technology director
Why this matters:
The EPA has long served as the nation’s frontline defense against air and water pollution, toxic chemicals, and emerging threats like climate change and PFAS contamination. Since the 1980s, the agency’s mandate has expanded dramatically to keep pace with scientific discoveries and evolving public health risks. Today, EPA not only enforces traditional pollution controls but also grapples with complex, cross-cutting issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, cybersecurity threats to water infrastructure, and hazardous “forever chemicals.” Staffing cuts of the magnitude proposed by the Trump administration could delay or derail enforcement actions, permit reviews, chemical safety evaluations, and responses to environmental disasters. The decision to shrink or eliminate scientific divisions risks undermining evidence-based policymaking.
The Trump administration plans to shut down research led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) into pollution from satellites and rockets that is tied in part to Elon Musk’s expanding space ventures.
In short:
Key quote:
“These programs are under attack because they come up against strong commercial interests, and commercial interests that want to destroy the programs for their own personal gain.”
— Tim Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Why this matters:
Rocket launches and satellite operations introduce pollutants — including aluminum, black carbon, and nitrogen oxides — into the stratosphere, an atmospheric layer critical to shielding Earth from harmful solar radiation and maintaining climate balance. As the commercial space race accelerates, thousands of new satellites from companies like SpaceX and Amazon could exponentially increase this pollution. The aluminum particles, in particular, pose dual threats: While they might reflect sunlight and cool the planet, they could also disrupt the delicate chemistry that governs stratospheric temperature and ozone health. Without federal research, understanding these impacts will fall largely to the industries driving the pollution — a clear conflict of interest.
Read more: Satellites burning up in Earth’s atmosphere could worsen climate change and ozone depletion
The Trump administration’s removal of nearly 400 scientists from the National Climate Assessment signals escalating cuts to U.S. climate science, raising concerns over national and international research collaborations.
In short:
Key quote:
“There’s no way to replicate this incredible innovative scientific enterprise that we had in the United States overnight anywhere else.”
— Rachel Cleetus, Union of Concerned Scientists
Why this matters:
The United States has long played a central role in advancing climate science, thanks to its robust funding, infrastructure, and vast geographic diversity. The National Climate Assessment, mandated by Congress, not only informs domestic policy but also provides essential data and models used worldwide. Cuts to such programs risk degrading the quality and availability of data that scientists rely on to understand and predict climate change impacts. These setbacks come at a time when extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and shifting climate patterns pose growing threats to communities everywhere. The ripple effects of reduced U.S. participation will be felt globally, as fewer data inputs and collaborative opportunities can hinder international climate forecasting and policy planning.
Read more: Scientists move forward with climate assessment work despite federal dismissals
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has halted support for several key datasets used to monitor Arctic sea ice and snow, undermining efforts to track one of the fastest-warming regions on Earth.
In short:
Key quote:
“Any reduction or elimination of these data product services will have significant consequences, well beyond just tracking the state of sea-ice loss.”
— Zack Labe, climate scientist
Why this matters:
Losing federal support for Arctic monitoring datasets means researchers, journalists, emergency managers, and coastal communities will lack crucial information at a time when the Arctic is warming nearly four times faster than the global average. The Sea Ice Index and related tools have long served as canaries in the coal mine, warning the world of accelerating climate impacts. Without federal upkeep, these tools are more vulnerable to technical failures, misinformation, and gaps in coverage. This matters not just to climate scientists, but to Alaskan communities dependent on sea ice forecasts, military operations navigating the Arctic, and global shipping routes opening up as ice recedes.
It’s also a symbolic rollback: the dismantling of decades of public investment in open-access environmental science. While private and international efforts may try to fill the gap, no single organization can replicate the breadth and mission of NOAA.
Related: Arctic cold once defended Canada — now climate chaos threatens military readiness
Voters frustrated by high energy costs and inflation propelled Germany’s conservatives to power, prompting a recalibration of the country’s aggressive climate policies without fully abandoning its clean energy goals.
In short:
Key quote:
Economic policy has been “almost exclusively geared toward climate protection. I want to say it as clearly as I mean it: We will and we must change that.”
— German Chancellor Friedrich Merz of the Christian Democratic Union
Why this matters:
Germany’s energy transition, once a global model, now faces political headwinds as economic pressures collide with climate goals. The surge in energy costs following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine exposed vulnerabilities in Europe’s clean energy strategies. As German policymakers pivot to ease financial burdens on households and industries, they risk undermining long-term emissions targets and delaying the decarbonization of sectors beyond electricity, like heating and transport. The experience highlights a central challenge for industrialized nations: maintaining public support for climate action when its costs hit pocketbooks hard. With natural gas poised to serve as a transitional crutch, Germany’s decisions may shape the trajectory of Europe’s climate commitments.
Related: Germany’s election signals a retreat from green politics
Smoke from wildfires intensified by climate change caused an estimated 15,000 deaths and $160 billion in damages in the U.S. over a 15-year span, according to new research.
In short:
Key quote:
“We’re seeing a lot more of these wildfire smoke events. What does it really mean in a changing environment for things like mortality, which is kind of the worst possible health outcome?”
— Nicholas Nassikas, physician and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and an author of the study
Why this matters:
Wildfire smoke is a growing public health crisis. The fine particles in smoke, known as PM2.5, are small enough to penetrate deep into lungs and even enter the bloodstream. Long-term exposure is linked to heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory illnesses, especially in vulnerable groups like children, pregnant people, seniors, and outdoor workers. As climate change drives hotter, drier conditions across the American West, wildfire seasons are becoming longer and more intense, pushing toxic smoke far beyond burn zones. Urban areas downwind from fires face poor air quality for days or weeks. And when fires burn buildings and cars, the smoke can carry heavy metals and synthetic chemicals, compounding the health risks. Smoke doesn't stop at state borders. Its effects are national, even global.
Related: LISTEN: Carlos Gould on wildfire smoke and our health
One facility has emitted cancer-causing chemicals into waterways at levels up to 520% higher than legal limits.
“They're terrorizing these scientists because they want to keep them silent.”
"The reality is, we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.”
A new report assesses the administration’s progress and makes new recommendations
“We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable.”
“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.