US power plants emit so much carbon that, if they were a country, they would rank sixth globally in greenhouse gas emissions — yet the Trump administration plans to end climate regulations for them.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to scrap all greenhouse gas limits on power plants, claiming their emissions aren’t globally significant.
A new analysis from NYU’s Institute for Policy Integrity finds U.S. power plant emissions have made up 5% of the world’s total climate pollution since 1990 and currently exceed the total emissions of countries like Japan and the UK.
The EPA also aims to delay methane protections and dismantle Biden-era air quality standards, amid broader efforts to revive coal and expand fossil fuel production.
Key quote:
““All of these harms stack up on top of each other. Climate change will be the most important public health issue this century and we can’t just ignore the US power sector’s contribution to that public health crisis.”
— Jason Schwartz, co-author of the NYU report
Why this matters:
Power plants are among the largest sources of air and climate pollution in the U.S., trailing only transportation. Burning coal and gas for electricity doesn’t just warm the planet — it sends fine particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and other toxins into the air we breathe. These pollutants increase the risk of heart attacks, asthma, strokes, and premature deaths, especially in communities near power plants. Although carbon dioxide is colorless and odorless, its cumulative effect drives extreme heat, floods, and other climate disruptions. Efforts to roll back existing rules ignore not only environmental science but also public health consequences that stretch across generations. While emissions from the power sector have declined since their 2007 peak, they still play a major role in accelerating climate breakdown and placing added burden on health systems and vulnerable populations.
A pending U.S. Supreme Court ruling could reshape the power of federal judges to block government actions nationwide, potentially altering how future climate and energy programs are challenged in court.
The Trump administration is urging the Supreme Court to curtail the use of universal injunctions, arguing they allow single judges to block national policies, including efforts to halt federal climate spending.
Legal scholars and some justices question the administration’s proposed alternative — class-action suits — saying they are harder to obtain and may not provide timely relief.
Republican lawmakers are pushing legislation to restrict lower court powers, while critics argue such moves aim to shield potentially unlawful executive actions from oversight.
Key quote:
“There are lots of obstacles that can be put in the way of getting a case approved by a court as a class action. And the solicitor general, when pressed, was very much aware of those [obstacles].
— Suzette Malveaux, a law professor at Washington and Lee University
Why this matters:
Universal injunctions have become a powerful check on executive authority, especially on sweeping regulatory and environmental actions. In recent years, they’ve been used to preserve billions in federal climate funding and enforce environmental protections. Restricting these injunctions could make it harder for citizens, states, or organizations to block harmful policies before damage is done — especially in areas like public health, energy infrastructure, or environmental enforcement. With one judge able to affect national policy, the stakes of limiting that authority are high, and the outcome could shift how fast and broadly new rules — sound or not — take effect.
The Trump administration plans to weaken regulations that limit mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants, potentially putting vulnerable communities at greater risk.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin is preparing to announce a rollback of Biden-era rules that sharply restricted mercury, lead, and arsenic emissions from coal plants, undoing limits designed to protect brain development and reduce heart and respiratory illnesses.
The proposal also eliminates a key requirement that plants continuously monitor their emissions, and it comes alongside a second rule that would scrap all restrictions on greenhouse gases from power plants.
Health experts and environmental advocates warn these changes would expose nearby communities — especially those already overburdened by pollution — to higher levels of dangerous toxins that accumulate in the food chain and harm developing fetuses and children.
Key quote:
“This administration wants to take a wrecking ball to our health protections and they don’t care about the health of the future generations whose developing brains are damaged by this highly toxic pollutant.”
— Matthew Davis, vice president of federal policy at the League of Conservation Voters and former EPA official
Why this matters:
Weakening these standards is a public health threat, especially for communities already suffocating under decades of pollution. This is a full-scale retreat from science-backed policies meant to keep people safe, happening at a time when climate-related disasters are getting deadlier and more expensive.
Eighteen more nations signed onto a United Nations treaty to protect biodiversity in international waters, leaving the agreement just 11 ratifications short of taking effect.
The High Seas Treaty, formally called the Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, would be the first legally binding international agreement to safeguard biodiversity in areas of the ocean beyond national control.
With 49 countries and the European Union now ratifying the treaty, only 11 more are needed to start a 120-day countdown to formal adoption, allowing for the creation of marine protected areas and enforcement mechanisms.
The treaty’s framework includes limits on extractive activities, supports equitable science and technology sharing, and mandates multilateral decision-making through future Conferences of the Parties.
Key quote:
“Until now, it has been the wild west on the high seas. Now we have a chance to properly put protections in place.”
— Megan Randles, global political lead for oceans at Greenpeace
Why this matters:
Nearly half the planet’s surface lies in the high seas — international waters that until now have had no enforceable conservation rules. These waters hold rich ecosystems crucial to planetary health, but they face growing threats from overfishing, climate change, and industrial ambitions like deep-sea mining. Without legal guardrails, fragile marine habitats could suffer irreversible damage. The High Seas Treaty represents a long-awaited step toward global ocean governance, providing a means to designate protected zones and regulate harmful activities. Scientists and advocates stress that achieving the treaty’s goal of protecting 30% of Earth’s oceans by 2030 is essential not only to preserve marine biodiversity but also to maintain the oceans’ role in carbon storage and climate regulation. What happens on the high seas can shape the future health of the entire planet.
Flash floods killed more than 200 people in Valencia last fall, and now Spain is investigating whether delayed emergency alerts and poor crisis leadership contributed to avoidable deaths.
Spain’s judiciary is weighing criminal charges, including reckless homicide, against regional officials in Valencia for a delayed response to the October 2024 floods that killed 228 people.
The judge leading the investigation, Nuria Ruiz Tobarra, cited “clear inaction” and is focusing on the two-hour delay in issuing a regional emergency alert, despite early weather warnings and live news coverage of worsening conditions.
Survivors and families of victims blame both Salomé Pradas, the official in charge of emergencies, and regional president Carlos Mazón, who continued his public schedule as the crisis unfolded.
Key quote:
“The problem did not lie in the absence of information — there was more than enough of it, from countless sources, in real time.”
— Judge Nuria Ruiz Tobarra
Why this matters:
As climate change intensifies storms across Europe, Valencia, long vulnerable to flash flooding, must reckon with how public institutions prepare and respond. This case challenges the assumption that no one is to blame for natural disasters, especially when early warning systems exist and go unused. Human decisions — from emergency staffing to political appointments — can turn a dangerous weather event into a lethal one. The Valencian flood illustrates the deadly consequences of bureaucratic hesitation, political cronyism, and miscommunication in the face of foreseeable risk. The tragedy reveals that public trust, especially during extreme weather, hinges not just on infrastructure but also on leadership that understands when to act — and how fast.
A punishing heat wave pushed temperatures past 117 degrees Fahrenheit across parts of northern India this week, disrupting daily life and overwhelming the region’s fragile power and health infrastructure.
Temperatures soared to 47.3°C (117°F) in Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, with Delhi and other cities also facing severe heat, prompting warnings from the Indian Meteorological Department.
The health ministry previously recorded over 100 deaths and 40,000 suspected heat stroke cases from last year’s heatwave, raising alarms about growing risks to vulnerable populations.
Power grids in populous states like Uttar Pradesh buckled under record-breaking electricity demand as residents relied on fans and coolers during prolonged outages.
Key quote:
“We are seeing the worst of both heat and humidity. This is no longer just a matter of discomfort. It is becoming a public health emergency.”
— Atul Kumar Singh, senior scientist at the Regional Meteorological Centre, Lucknow
Why this matters:
Heat waves are growing longer, hotter, and more frequent in India, fueled by climate change and rapid urbanization. These extreme events hit the poorest the hardest — outdoor workers, the elderly, and families in overcrowded housing often lack access to cooling or clean water. Power outages compound the danger, disabling fans, coolers, and health services. As cities like Delhi and Lucknow face both rising temperatures and unreliable infrastructure, the risks to public health become acute. Heat strokes, dehydration, and even death follow when bodies can’t cool down fast enough. While monsoon rains may bring relief in weeks, the expanding heat season signals a deeper crisis for one of the world’s most densely populated regions.
The Biden-era battery recycling boom faces major uncertainty as President Trump rolls back clean energy policies and shakes up trade rules, leaving recyclers navigating a volatile political and economic landscape.
Ascend Elements is launching the first U.S. facility to produce lithium carbonate from recycled materials, with plans to generate 3,000 metric tons annually, joining only one other domestic source in Nevada.
Despite Trump’s aggressive reversals of clean energy policies, some battery recyclers say key Department of Energy grants from the Biden era remain active and are helping expand domestic recycling capacity.
Recyclers are nervous about repeals of Inflation Reduction Act tax credits and new tariffs, especially those that could disrupt exports to partners like South Korea, a critical market for black mass.
Key quote:
“Critical minerals are central to creating a resilient energy economy in the U.S., and resource recovery and recycling companies will continue to play an important role in providing another domestic source of these materials.”
— Ajay Kochhar, CEO of the battery recycling firm Li-Cycle
Why this matters:
Lithium-ion battery recycling offers a vital alternative to mining, a process that scars landscapes, pollutes waterways, and often exploits labor. With electric vehicles and renewable energy storage demanding ever more lithium, cobalt, and nickel, recycling old batteries into new ones reduces dependence on geopolitically fraught and environmentally harmful extraction. China has already cornered the battery recycling market with government support, while the U.S. is only just beginning to scale. But the industry’s success hinges on stable policy and trade relationships. If federal support wanes or tariffs disrupt exports, recyclers may not find enough financial ground to stand on. That threatens the broader clean energy supply chain and undermines efforts to transition from fossil fuels.
