As the world gathers for COP28, Canada, along with the U.S. and other major oil and gas exporters, are reporting greenhouse gas emissions under the Paris Agreement — without taking their global impact into account
A new study from Trinity College Dublin shows that heat waves can dramatically change how parasites behave, depending on temperature timing, duration, and severity.
The findings highlight how climate-driven temperature swings could reshape disease dynamics across ecosystems — and potentially in people.
U.S. cuts to research into infectious disease and climate change threaten the ability to respond effectively.
Key quote:
“We’re taking two hits. They’re backing off on climate science funding and they’re selectively targeting infectious disease funding and pandemic preparedness.”
— Peter Hotez, National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine
Why this matters:
Scientists are uncovering the unpredictable ways climate change — and specifically heat waves — can alter disease dynamics. These shifts can influence not only the severity and spread of infectious diseases but also their geographic range, potentially bringing once-rare tropical illnesses to temperate zones, including parts of the United States and Europe.
The research shows that there is no one-size-fits-all outcome: The effects of heat waves on disease vary depending on multiple factors like timing and baseline temperature. This complexity poses major challenges for forecasting and controlling outbreaks, especially in a world where both the environment and pathogens are changing rapidly. Political decisions — like the Trump administration’s cuts to infectious disease and climate research — have weakened the very scientific infrastructure needed to respond.
The Senate is reviewing a sweeping House bill that would slash tax credits for wind, solar, and battery projects, potentially reversing clean energy gains and escalating electricity costs.
The House bill sets narrow windows for clean energy projects to start and finish in order to qualify for tax credits, with added restrictions on sourcing components from countries like China, Russia, and North Korea, raising major compliance challenges.
Analysts warn the rollback could drastically reduce renewable energy deployment, with a Princeton University analysis projecting a one billion metric ton rise in annual emissions and job losses potentially reaching 300,000 nationwide, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.
Battery storage may be the hardest hit sector due to its dependence on foreign supply chains, with modeling by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions showing up to an 89% drop in deployment by 2035.
Key quote:
“Lost jobs in every single state are a recipe for disaster for American families, businesses, and the U.S. economy.”
— Abby Ross Hopper, Solar Energy Industries Association president and CEO
Why this matters:
Slashing tax credits for wind, solar, and battery projects could undermine years of growth in America’s clean energy sector. These incentives, expanded under the Inflation Reduction Act, have driven the rapid deployment of low-carbon technologies, supported hundreds of thousands of jobs, and made solar and wind competitive with fossil fuels. By tightening construction deadlines and introducing vague, geopolitically charged sourcing rules, the proposed legislation risks freezing many new projects in place. This is especially disruptive at a time when the U.S. grid faces rising demand and aging infrastructure. Penalizing projects for foreign components without clear alternatives in place could delay or derail vital capacity expansions. Meanwhile, electricity users could see rising costs, especially in states already strained by heat, wildfires, or power outages.
President Donald Trump’s effort to cancel $4 billion in federal grants for California’s high-speed rail project is galvanizing Democrats and labor unions to secure long-term funding and keep construction on track.
The Trump administration is moving to revoke federal grants issued during the Biden era for California’s high-speed rail, citing unreliable funding from the state’s emissions trading program as a key concern.
Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers are now rallying behind the project, proposing a $1 billion annual allocation from cap-and-trade revenues to ensure the rail’s construction, especially its first operating segment from Bakersfield to Merced.
Labor unions and allied interest groups have also thrown their weight behind the rail line, emphasizing the jobs it creates and making it a priority in their infrastructure agenda amid ongoing negotiations over California’s climate programs.
Key quote:
“Regardless of what happens here, we’re committed to making this project a reality.”
— Scott Wiener, chair of the California Senate Budget Committee
Why this matters:
High-speed rail has long symbolized California’s aspirations for cleaner transportation, regional economic growth, and a shift away from car culture. But the project also exposes the political fault lines between federal and state climate agendas, especially under different presidential administrations. At stake is a massive infrastructure endeavor aiming to reduce carbon emissions, connect underserved Central Valley communities, and support thousands of union jobs.
The project’s reliance on cap-and-trade revenues ties it directly to California’s broader climate strategies, which themselves have come under political attack. If Trump succeeds in pulling federal funding, it could chill other large-scale climate initiatives reliant on similar financing models. At the same time, doubling down on rail investment amidst rising political resistance sends a strong signal about state-level commitments to decarbonization and labor-backed development, even as timelines and costs balloon. The environmental and public health stakes remain high in a state where transportation accounts for the largest share of greenhouse gas emissions.
A surprise federal order has forced Michigan to keep open an aging coal plant that state regulators and the utility had planned to shut down, highlighting President Trump’s push to revive fossil fuel power through federal intervention.
The Trump administration used emergency authority to stop the closure of the J.H. Campbell coal plant in Michigan, despite opposition from the plant’s utility, state regulators, and grid operators.
The decision aligns with a broader federal strategy to prioritize fossil fuel energy over renewables, justified by claims that wind and solar can't reliably meet future electricity demands, particularly with rising artificial intelligence-related energy use.
Critics say the policy will raise electricity costs and undermine local clean energy goals, while pushing outdated, polluting infrastructure into extended use without sufficient justification.
Key quote:
“It came as a surprise to everybody, and it was baffling why they chose this plant. Nobody asked for this order. The power grid operator did not. The utility that owns the plant did not. The state regulator did not.”
— Dan Scripps, chair of the Michigan Public Service Commission
Why this matters:
Coal plants are among the dirtiest sources of electricity, emitting high levels of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. These pollutants contribute to climate change and directly harm human health, increasing the risk of respiratory diseases, heart attacks, and premature death. The J.H. Campbell plant, specifically cited as the largest local source of greenhouse gases in western Michigan, was slated for retirement based on both environmental and economic grounds. Reversing its closure not only delays air quality improvements but signals a federal move to override state efforts to decarbonize. By targeting renewables with new hurdles and re-prioritizing fossil fuels, the administration is shifting national energy policy in ways that could stall climate progress and saddle communities with dirtier air and higher costs. This rollback also limits the authority of state and local agencies that have worked to craft cleaner, more affordable energy plans.
New Jersey’s coastline faces more frequent flooding as sea levels rise faster than the global average, forcing towns and the state to grapple with long-term threats and contested climate policies.
Sea levels along New Jersey’s coast have risen 18 inches since the early 1900s — twice the global average — leading to increasingly common “sunny day” floods in low-lying areas like Atlantic City.
The state plans to finalize new climate resilience rules this fall, including building elevation mandates in high-risk flood zones and requirements for municipalities to integrate resilience into land use planning.
Local governments and developers argue the proposed Resilient Environments and Landscapes (REAL) regulations go too far, while state officials warn the risk will only worsen without action.
Key quote:
“Sometimes I have to close my business because the water’s at my door.”
— Jeraldo Diaz, manager of El Rinconcito grocery in Atlantic City
Why this matters:
Sea level rise is already disrupting life along the U.S. East Coast. In New Jersey, the risk is amplified by sinking land and dense coastal development. Even modest increases in sea level raise the odds of flooding during high tides, storms, and full moons, damaging infrastructure and threatening public safety. As tides creep higher, streets turn into rivers, homes become uninhabitable, and businesses shut their doors. The state’s proposed regulations attempt to brace for a wetter future, but without unified support and long-term funding — especially under a federal government less inclined to back climate adaptation — the region’s patchwork defenses may fall short. From Miami to Norfolk, coastal cities are racing the clock as rising seas test the limits of old infrastructure, land use habits, and emergency preparedness.
A proposed clean air rule in Southern California that would curb emissions from gas heaters and water systems is facing a strong backlash from SoCalGas and its allies, delaying action as wildfire risk rises.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District proposed zero-emission standards for residential and commercial gas appliances to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions and premature deaths. The rules were softened after lobbying efforts and now include phased targets instead of a full ban.
SoCalGas and business allies ran a coordinated campaign against the rules, circulating misleading claims that the regulations would ban gas appliances outright. Several local governments submitted opposition letters using near-identical wording from industry consultants.
A lawsuit filed by gas-aligned groups challenges the authority of the air district to regulate such emissions, threatening the agency’s ability to act on pollution even as wildfires grow more destructive across the region.
Key quote:
“They’re just putting profits over people. It’s sad and it’s selfish and it’s not right.”
— Barbara Ishida, Altadena resident
Why this matters:
California’s push to electrify homes comes as wildfires intensify, fueled by the same fossil fuel emissions the state is trying to cut. Gas appliances are a major source of nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses like asthma. The air in Southern California is already among the dirtiest in the country, and millions live in neighborhoods plagued by chronic air pollution. Transitioning away from gas space and water heaters could cut these emissions dramatically, but industry resistance has slowed progress. The current conflict exposes how fossil fuel companies influence public policy through lobbying, misinformation and lawsuits. As climate-related disasters become more frequent and deadly, local efforts to reduce emissions and protect vulnerable populations face steep political and legal hurdles.
Austria and Slovenia are the only European countries with net-zero emissions targets for their armed forces, while most others lack even basic accounting of their military carbon footprints.
Despite a continent-wide net-zero goal by 2050, many defense ministries, including those in Germany and the UK, have avoided setting direct emissions reduction targets, citing operational performance concerns.
Military decarbonization efforts have stagnated as European countries pour billions into rearmament following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and shifting U.S. defense policy under President Trump.
Key quote:
“Ignoring military emissions is not just concerning with regard to climate change. It ignores the growing recognition of climate change being a serious security risk for Europe and beyond.”
— Florian Krampe, director of climate research at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Why this matters:
The world’s armed forces generate more than 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet they operate in a regulatory blind spot. Military pollution isn’t tracked under international climate agreements, creating what experts call “military exceptionalism.” That invisibility becomes more dangerous as nations boost defense spending—often rapidly and without climate constraints—due to rising global instability. The tools of modern warfare — fighter jets, tanks, warships — are heavy fossil fuel users, and the emissions from their use and supply chains rival those of major industrial sectors. At the same time, climate change is increasingly recognized as a driver of global conflict, displacing communities, straining water and food resources, and fueling political unrest. Failing to cut military emissions not only undermines global climate goals but may also increase the risks of conflict itself.
