Thirty-five House Democrats joined Republicans to overturn California’s plan to phase out gas-powered cars by 2035, citing concerns about affordability and heavy industry lobbying.
The House voted 246-164 to repeal California’s waiver allowing the state to require all new vehicles sold by 2035 to be electric or nonpolluting, with 35 Democrats breaking from their party.
Lawmakers cited high electric vehicle costs, impacts on working-class constituents, and aggressive lobbying from oil, gas, and automotive industries, which spent over $10 million opposing the policy.
Despite the vote, legal experts argue the Congressional Review Act does not apply to California’s Clean Air Act waiver, but the Senate may still act on the repeal.
Key quote:
“There’s no sugar coating this. This was a terrible vote.”
— Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president of government affairs, League of Conservation Voters
Why this matters:
Transportation is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making the transition to electric vehicles a cornerstone of climate strategies aimed at limiting global warming. California’s aggressive timeline for phasing out gasoline-powered cars was a model adopted by other states and represented a significant step toward reducing carbon pollution and improving air quality. The repeal effort, backed by powerful fossil fuel and automotive lobbies, reflects broader political and economic tensions surrounding the U.S. energy transition. While EVs promise lower long-term costs and emissions, high upfront prices, limited infrastructure, and economic anxieties pose challenges for consumers and lawmakers alike. The rollback could slow progress in cutting transportation emissions, which not only fuel climate change but also worsen air quality.
A new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal is moving forward in southwest Louisiana, adding to the state’s growing LNG footprint as federal and state officials push for more fossil fuel infrastructure.
Venture Global plans to build a second LNG export terminal, CP2, near its existing Calcasieu Pass facility in Cameron Parish, after receiving a federal export permit.
The Trump administration has approved five LNG-related projects since lifting former President Biden’s pause on new LNG permits, citing energy security and economic benefits.
Local residents and environmental groups report extensive pollution, health risks, and economic harm to fisheries, while LNG export growth raises concerns over long-term climate impacts.
Key quote:
“It has been damaging to our coast, damaging to our air quality and our water quality. It's destroyed property values [and] it's certainly damaging to our health.”
— Anne Rolfes, director of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade
Why this matters:
The surge in U.S. LNG infrastructure along the Gulf Coast reflects a global race to supply natural gas to markets in Europe and Asia. While proponents argue this bolsters economic growth and energy security, the environmental and health impacts are mounting. LNG production and export terminals can significantly degrade air and water quality, largely through frequent flaring and emissions that expose nearby residents to cancer-causing chemicals and respiratory hazards. Communities in Louisiana’s coastal parishes are already facing increased risks from pollution, habitat loss, and climate-driven sea level rise. Expanding fossil fuel exports also deepens global reliance on carbon-intensive energy. As both federal and state governments double down on LNG, residents and environmental advocates face steep challenges in mitigating the consequences.
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.
