Political scientists warn that the Trump administration’s handling of climate science and environmental policy recalls the Soviet dismissal of scientific integrity and comes amid a rapid erosion of democratic norms.
The administration has repeatedly weakened environmental regulations, from the Clean Water Act to the Endangered Species Act, while claiming emergencies that fast-track fossil fuel projects.
Politically connected companies, especially in oil and gas, benefit from tax breaks, regulatory rollbacks, and legal leverage, amplifying corporate influence over public policy.
The article links Stalin-era Soviet agriculture under Trofim Lysenko to the Trump administration’s climate and environmental policies, showing how both regimes subordinated science to ideology and political loyalty.
Key quote:
“The lack of constraints on the executive allow politically connected companies to either get around existing laws or to write laws in such a way that they’re toothless.”
— Timothy Frye, professor of post-Soviet politics, Columbia University
Why this matters:
Under the Trump administration, environmental rules designed to protect water, wildlife, and communities are being routinely rewritten or ignored, sometimes under the guise of an “emergency” that conveniently speeds up oil and gas projects. Federal agencies are challenging long-settled science on climate change and other environmental issues, with profound implications for human health. At the same time, companies with deep political ties are thriving, scoring tax breaks, looser regulations, and enjoying a legal playing field tilted in their favor. Frye notes that autocratic leaders often build their economies around natural resources because they are easier to control than other industries. Whether the U.S. will be able to recover its institutions, environmental protections, and its standing as a global scientific leader remains to be seen.
As Spain swelters under record-breaking temperatures, centuries-old coping methods — from siestas to thick-walled homes — offer practical lessons for a warming Europe.
Seville uses traditional shading, thick walls, and controlled airflow techniques dating back to ancient Persia to keep indoor spaces dozens of degrees cooler than outside.
Hospitals and workplaces are updating these ancient cooling principles, combining water-cooled systems with modern technology to protect patients, equipment, and workers.
Public health measures now include home visits to vulnerable older adults, labor regulations for outdoor work, and lifestyle adjustments like shifting children’s play to nighttime.
Key quote:
“The climate is changing, and it’s us who have to adapt to it — not the other way around.”
— Manuel Morales, wholesale market worker in Seville
Why this matters:
Spain’s blend of historical wisdom and modern solutions shows how communities can survive — and even thrive — while climate change turns up the heat. High temperatures can be deadly, especially for the elderly. In Seville and other Spanish cities, the sun can scorch, pushing temperatures into the triple digits and turning the city into a slow cooker. But Spaniards are responding by reviving centuries-old survival hacks, showing how historical ingenuity can meet modern crises. In an era of intensifying heat waves, Seville’s blend of tradition and science offers a lesson for a world running hotter and faster than ever.
Small plots in cities are being transformed into layered food forests, giving residents a chance to harvest fruits and nuts while supporting local ecosystems.
Food forests combine edible trees, shrubs, and plants in multilayered arrangements that mimic natural ecosystems, supporting pollinators and improving soil health.
Thoughtful design — including wide paths, sight lines, and seating — ensures these spaces are accessible, safe, and enjoyable for visitors of all ages.
Beyond nutrition, these urban forests provide habitat for birds, bees, butterflies, and other wildlife, turning underused city lots into mini ecosystems.
Key quote:
“You’re targeting different crops and trying to balance ecosystem restoration and food production, which I think we can do in the same piece of ground.”
— Lincoln Smith, founder of Forested
Why this matters:
The benefits of urban food forests extend far beyond the human eye. These innovative green spaces can improve public health by providing free, fresh produce and encouraging outdoor activity, while also mitigating urban heat and supporting biodiversity. In cities that often feel disconnected from nature, urban food forests offer a taste of both nourishment and resilience, proving that even amid urban sprawl, heat, and noise, communities can cultivate both health and habitat.
MIT scientist Daniel Rothman warns that the rate of carbon emissions matters more than the total, and today’s pace rivals the volcanic events that triggered ancient mass extinctions.
The end-Permian catastrophe, the worst die-off in Earth’s history, was fueled when magma ignited underground fossil fuels, unleashing CO2 on a scale that collapsed ecosystems.
Humanity is now injecting carbon into the atmosphere up to 10 times faster than those ancient eruptions, potentially short-circuiting Earth’s ability to stabilize itself.
Why this matters:
Picture Earth as a planet with a memory. Right now, it’s getting flashbacks to some very dark chapters. Scientists like MIT’s Daniel Rothman are sounding the alarm: It’s not just how much carbon we’re dumping into the atmosphere, it’s how fast. And fast is the scary part, threatening a potential short-circuiting of the planet’s life-support systems. Oceans could turn acidic, oxygen levels might plummet, and ecosystems could collapse in ways that echo the deadliest extinction the Earth has ever seen.
The U.S. Department of the Interior is applying decades-old environmental laws to slow or stop renewable energy development on public land, using legal tools once aimed at fossil fuels.
The Interior Department is requiring “elevated review” and personal sign-off from Secretary Doug Burgum for all solar and wind projects, while canceling permits and rescinding offshore wind zones.
Officials are using metrics like “capacity density” to disqualify renewable projects that generate less energy per acre than oil and gas facilities, despite differing land impacts.
Experts argue the administration is manipulating environmental law in bad faith to halt clean energy growth while expanding offshore drilling and weakening mining regulations.
Key quote:
“They are effectively trying to co-opt arguments that we have used for years to push back on fossil fuels.”
— Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director, Western Environmental Law Center
Why this matters:
The U.S. government has long subsidized fossil fuels and permitted extractive industries to degrade land and water, often at steep environmental and public health costs. Wind and solar are now being held to a different standard, with new regulatory barriers introduced under the guise of conservation. But oil and gas drilling has well-documented impacts — ground contamination, air pollution, and toxic runoff — that outlast any wind turbine or solar panel. Using environmental laws to stifle renewables while expanding offshore oil leasing and mining raises questions about motive and long-term consequences. The public lands at stake serve not just as potential energy sites, but also as critical ecosystems and shared resources.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency heard overwhelming opposition Tuesday as it opened public hearings on its proposal to revoke its 2009 finding that greenhouse gases harm human health.
The EPA has proposed repealing its "endangerment finding," a legal cornerstone that since 2009 has allowed federal regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
Of about 200 speakers during the first public hearing, fewer than 10 supported the repeal; opponents included doctors, scientists, religious leaders, and state attorneys general.
The EPA justified its decision with a U.S. Department of Energy report that contradicts mainstream climate science and claims rising carbon dioxide levels may benefit agriculture and have limited economic harm.
Key quote:
“In the case of climate change, things cannot be clearer: Greenhouse gases are driving climate change, which is harming people’s lungs across the country.”
— Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association
Why this matters:
The EPA's 2009 endangerment finding legally bound the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as threats to public health and welfare. Rolling back that determination could paralyze U.S. efforts to curb emissions from cars, power plants, and industrial sources. The implications stretch beyond climate, because as emissions rise, so do health impacts, particularly in communities already burdened by pollution. Children, the elderly, and those with preexisting respiratory conditions are at greater risk. Reversing this finding would not only unravel a decade of climate policy but also signal a sharp turn away from science-backed regulation at a moment when wildfires, extreme heat, and air quality crises are accelerating.
Nine states are challenging the U.S. Department of Energy’s use of a flawed report that could be used to keep coal and gas plants running past retirement dates, raising legal and economic concerns.
Attorneys general from nine Democrat-led states argue that the DOE's grid reliability report misrepresents future energy capacity and ignores planned additions of clean power sources like solar and wind.
The report supports President Trump’s April executive order enabling the DOE to force aging fossil-fuel plants to remain open under Section 202(c), already applied to facilities in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Experts and clean energy groups warn that relying on the report could cost consumers up to $6 billion annually and undermine state-approved energy transition plans.
Key quote:
“DOE’s analysis takes a series of outlier assumptions and applies them all in one study as the only future scenario, and the result is that we’re getting predictions of blackouts.”
— Caitlin Marquis, managing director at Advanced Energy United
Why this matters:
Keeping uneconomical coal and gas plants running under federal orders threatens both household budgets and long-term energy planning. Utilities and states have already approved plant closures after detailed reliability and cost analyses, betting on newer, cleaner, and often cheaper sources like wind and solar. By leaning on questionable data, the federal government may derail these plans and increase power bills — costs that will fall on ratepayers across multiple states. There’s also an environmental toll: extending the life of fossil-fueled plants means more air pollution, more greenhouse gases, and more health risks for nearby communities.
