Federal climate reports that help communities plan for extreme weather and rising seas have quietly disappeared from public websites, with little explanation from the Trump administration.
National Climate Assessments and other key data have been removed from their official websites, with no clear explanation or replacement links, despite being required by law.
NASA is reportedly taking over the data hosting, but searches on its websites turn up nothing, and federal agencies have not responded to inquiries.
Climate scientists warn the missing reports hinder local governments’ ability to prepare for climate risks like flooding, wildfires, and health threats.
Key quote:
“It’s a sad day for the United States if it is true that the National Climate Assessment is no longer available.”
— Kathy Jacobs, climate scientist, University of Arizona
Why this matters:
Local governments rely on federally published climate data to prepare for worsening storms, heat waves, droughts, and rising sea levels. The National Climate Assessment — compiled by multiple federal agencies and reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences — provides county-level insights that influence decisions like where to build, how to protect vulnerable infrastructure, and how to safeguard public health. Pulling this information offline not only disrupts emergency preparedness but also weakens public understanding of climate change impacts, especially in communities already at greater risk. Scientists see it as part of a broader rollback of environmental transparency and say it could cost lives. Without access to the best available science, cities and states are left guessing as they face an increasingly unpredictable climate.
The United Nations’ top climate and human rights expert urged governments to criminalize fossil fuel disinformation, ban industry lobbying and ads, and phase out oil, gas, and coal by 2030 to meet their legal obligations under international law.
UN special rapporteur Elisa Morgera called on wealthy nations including the United States, UK, and Canada to stop all fossil fuel subsidies, end exploration and flaring, and compensate affected communities for human rights violations linked to climate change.
Her report argues that fossil fuel companies have knowingly obstructed climate action for decades through misinformation, lobbying, and legal manipulation, while reaping trillions in profits.
Morgera proposes a full economic “defossilization,” including criminalizing greenwashing, dismantling industry influence in politics and media, and funding climate justice through taxes and penalties on polluters.
Key quote:
“The fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades.”
— Elisa Morgera, UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change
Why this matters:
Fossil fuel production remains a top driver of climate change, threatening public health, biodiversity, and basic human rights. Burning oil, gas, and coal pollutes the air, heats the planet, and intensifies extreme weather — putting vulnerable populations, especially in the Global South, at risk of displacement, disease, and food insecurity. These impacts are magnified by industry practices like gas flaring, petrochemical waste, and plastic production, which contaminate soil, water, and air. At the same time, fossil fuel companies continue to wield major political and financial power, often blocking efforts to reduce emissions.
A midlevel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency employee was secretly recorded on a Tinder date by a Project Veritas operative, triggering political attacks and agency rollbacks based on a misrepresented comment about clean energy funding.
Brent Efron, an EPA employee, was recorded without his knowledge by a Project Veritas operative during what he thought was a casual date, where he described Biden-era climate investments as “gold bars” being tossed from a sinking ship.
The phrase was used by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to justify halting $20 billion in grants meant for low-income and tribal communities under the Biden administration’s climate initiatives.
Although federal investigators found no wrongdoing, Efron faced harassment, a federal probe, and career setbacks after the video was shared widely online, including by Elon Musk and conservative media.
Key quote:
“It’s been used to justify actions that I view as terrible, in terms of trying to cancel grants and claw back funding, and I want to set the record straight.”
— Brent Efron, former EPA employee
Why this matters:
Climate funding decisions increasingly sit at the intersection of science, policy, and politics. The Biden administration’s $20 billion in clean energy grants targeted underserved communities, aiming to reduce emissions, promote public health, and prepare for climate impacts such as extreme heat and wildfires. The abrupt cancellation of those programs under a new EPA administration — based on political rhetoric rather than evidence — could delay urgently needed upgrades to public infrastructure, harm frontline communities, and undermine trust in government programs. Meanwhile, the targeting of civil servants via covert recordings raises broader concerns about chilling scientific discourse and public service in an already polarized climate policy landscape.
U.S. power plant emissions have surged to a three-year high, driven by a spike in coal use as utilities scramble to meet rising electricity demand during record summer heat and elevated natural gas prices.
U.S. power sector emissions rose 5% in the first five months of 2025, reaching 640 million metric tons, mainly due to a 20% increase in coal pollution as utilities shifted away from more expensive natural gas.
Natural gas prices jumped more than 60% compared to early 2024, prompting a 4.2% drop in gas-fired electricity generation and a 14% rise in coal-fired generation through June.
Power demand is expected to remain high through the summer due to widespread heat waves, further boosting fossil fuel use and emissions despite record solar power output.
Why this matters:
Coal remains one of the dirtiest sources of energy, and its resurgence in the U.S. power mix is pushing carbon emissions to troubling levels just as the country braces for more extreme summer heat. When electricity demand spikes, especially at night when solar power goes offline, utilities lean heavily on fossil fuels, exacerbating the very climate pressures driving heat waves. These emissions not only heat the planet further but also worsen air quality, affecting respiratory health, especially among children, the elderly, and people living near power plants. With gas prices high and renewable sources still not meeting total demand, the return to coal is setting back progress on both climate and public health fronts.
Cities worldwide are cutting emissions, greening streets, and adapting to climate threats faster than national governments, according to a new international report.
A report from the Global Covenant of Mayors and C40 shows 75% of major cities in the network are reducing per capita emissions more quickly than their national governments, with an average drop of 7.5% from 2015 to 2024.
Urban leaders are responding directly to rising local impacts of climate change — heat, flooding, and sea-level rise — by planting trees, electrifying transit, and improving walkability and energy efficiency.
Despite growing efforts, cities face major funding gaps: The report estimates they need $4.5 trillion annually by 2030 to meet climate goals, far above the current $179 billion invested in 2024.
Key quote:
“I think they’re going above and beyond in some respects, about planning for the future, as well as actually implementing some of the things that the federal governments have signed on to.”
— Dan Jasper, senior policy advisor at the climate solutions group Project Drawdown
Why this matters:
Urban areas house over half the world’s population. Their concrete-heavy landscapes absorb and retain heat, turning heatwaves deadly. Aging sewer systems buckle under increasingly intense storms, while sea-level rise threatens coastal infrastructure. As cities expand, these risks grow. Yet cities are also nimble: Mayors can act faster than national leaders and often enjoy more public support for visible improvements. But without enough funding, even the most ambitious cities will struggle to protect their people from what’s coming.
Residents in California’s Central Valley are pushing back against a state-backed program that incentivizes methane digesters at industrial dairies, arguing it locks in pollution and worsens environmental health in Latino communities.
California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) subsidizes methane digesters at large dairies, but critics say the policy encourages dairy expansion and entrenches fossil fuel infrastructure.
Lawsuits and community advocates argue the program ignores local pollution and fails to meet environmental review standards, while benefiting corporations like Chevron and BP.
Residents in towns like Planada, where many are undocumented Latino farmworkers, say they’re being treated as expendable in the state’s climate strategy.
Key quote:
“Many of us have witnessed this transition from an innovative regulation into a swag bag for venture capitalists, big oil, big agriculture, and big gas, increasingly coming at the expense of low- and moderate-income Californians.”
— James Duffy, former California Air Resources Board employee
Why this matters:
Methane digesters are promoted as a climate solution, but their deployment raises red flags for public health and environmental equity. These facilities concentrate pollution in rural, low-income communities already burdened by industrial agriculture. The Central Valley, a hub of dairy production, suffers from some of the worst air quality in the nation, with ammonia and nitrate pollution contaminating water and air. While digesters capture methane, they do not address emissions from cow burps or the fossil-fuel-intensive feed system. Worse, they may encourage larger herds and more waste. Critics warn the state's market-based approach favors industry profits over real emissions cuts.
A coalition of environmental, youth, and Indigenous groups is asking the New Mexico Supreme Court to revive a lawsuit claiming the state has failed its constitutional duty to protect residents from oil and gas pollution.
Plaintiffs argue the state has ignored Article 20, Section 21 of its constitution, which requires the protection of air, water, and natural resources, particularly amid the oil boom in the San Juan and Permian Basins.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals dismissed the case last month, prompting plaintiffs to appeal directly to the state’s highest court, citing environmental harm and unequal protection.
Oil and gas production in the state has grown tenfold since 2010, using billions of gallons of fresh water for fracking and contributing significantly to climate pollution.
Key quote:
“Oil and gas pollution continues to harm our communities, poison our water and air, and threaten our sacred places. The state has a constitutional obligation to control pollution and we’re calling on our highest court to uphold that duty.”
— Julia Bernal, executive director of Pueblo Action Alliance
Why this matters:
New Mexico is one of the country’s biggest oil producers, yet large parts of its fossil fuel industry remain shielded from full environmental oversight due to outdated exemptions. Fracking operations draw heavily on scarce freshwater reserves, accelerating stress in a state already battling severe drought and aridification from climate change. Airborne pollutants and toxic wastewater from fossil fuel extraction endanger frontline communities, many of them Indigenous, who face higher exposure to environmental hazards and fewer legal protections. With the state’s constitution promising clean air and water, the outcome of this case could test how far those rights extend.
