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.
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.
The U.S. clean energy sector has grown dramatically, but policy uncertainty under President Trump has already led to the cancellation or downsizing of nearly $8 billion in renewable projects this year.
Solar, wind, and geothermal power production in the United States has more than tripled over the past decade, cutting emissions and reducing power plant pollution.
Republican-led states in the South have seen some of the largest increases in renewable energy growth, though overall production still varies widely.
A wave of project cancellations totaling $7.9 billion has been linked to political uncertainty and possible repeal of clean energy tax credits, despite continued market demand.
Key quote:
“Clean energy companies still want to invest in America, but uncertainty over Trump administration policies and the future of critical clean energy tax credits are taking a clear toll.”
— Michael Timberlake, E2 spokesman
Why this matters:
The dramatic expansion of renewable energy in the U.S. has been an important countermeasure against climate change, slashing emissions and diversifying the nation’s energy portfolio. But as tax credits and federal support waver under the Trump administration, investors are pulling back. The cancellation of billions in clean energy projects threatens jobs, infrastructure progress and the health gains achieved by reducing fossil fuel dependence. The growth of renewables has also been a rare area of bipartisan advancement, particularly in traditionally conservative states, where local economies and public health have begun to benefit from cleaner, more resilient energy systems. Policy instability now jeopardizes this momentum, raising concerns about the long-term trajectory of the U.S. energy transition amid escalating climate risks.
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.
The Trump administration is expediting the approval of a major Alabama coal mine expansion despite environmental and safety concerns, with most of the coal destined for export to foreign steelmakers.
The Warrior Met Blue Creek mine expansion will be among Alabama’s largest coal infrastructure projects, with production expected to rise by 60%, mostly serving overseas steel industries.
The Trump administration added the project to the FAST-41 program, speeding up environmental reviews despite past longwall mining in the area causing property damage and deadly methane explosions.
Critics warn the expansion threatens to worsen climate change and local environmental hazards while largely benefiting foreign markets rather than U.S. energy independence.
Key quote:
"We sell substantially all of our steelmaking coal production to steel producers outside of the United States."
— Warrior Met corporate filing
Why this matters:
Coal mining poses significant environmental and health risks. Longwall mining can cause land subsidence, damaging homes, and ecosystems. Methane leaks from mines have already led to deadly explosions in Alabama communities. Despite the U.S. government's justification that projects like Blue Creek reduce foreign mineral dependence, nearly all of this coal will fuel foreign steel production, not domestic energy needs. Fast-tracking such projects also undercuts comprehensive environmental reviews that evaluate long-term impacts, including contributions to climate change.
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.
