Ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica has quadrupled since the 1990s, becoming the main driver of sea level rise.
By 2050, just 20 cm of sea level rise could cost $1 trillion annually in damage to 136 major coastal cities.
Scientists say a rise of one to two meters is now unavoidable, with the “safe limit” for adaptation likely already surpassed at 1C of warming.
Key quote:
“What we mean by safe limit is one which allows some level of adaptation, rather than catastrophic inland migration and forced migration, and the safe limit is roughly one cm a year of sea level rise.”
— Jonathan Bamber, professor at the University of Bristol
Why this matters:
Sea level rise is no longer a distant risk. It’s a relentless force reshaping coastlines and economies. As the planet warms, polar ice sheets are melting at alarming rates, swelling oceans and threatening coastal areas where billions of people live. The most vulnerable populations — those in low-lying developing nations like Bangladesh or small island states — will face the harshest consequences. But even wealthy countries with sophisticated defenses, like the Netherlands or parts of the U.S., are not immune to the long-term costs and upheaval. Sea level rise amplifies the impact of storms, floods infrastructure, contaminates drinking water, and erodes habitats. Crucially, these shifts won’t happen centuries from now—they’re accelerating within our lifetimes.
When the Trump administration said it would ignore the economic costs of climate change, it marked a deeper shift in policy, dismantling the nation's ability to understand and react to a heating planet.
The Trump administration has dismantled key climate research efforts, dismissed scientists, and stopped tracking greenhouse gas emissions, undermining decades of work that informs climate policy.
Cuts to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Weather Service are eroding the nation’s capacity to prepare for and respond to disasters, with federal aid denied to communities hit by recent tornadoes and floods.
The administration is halting clean energy projects, slashing U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations on pollution, and withdrawing from international climate efforts, positioning the U.S. as a global outlier in climate denial.
Key quote:
“Here we see a government that is taking a hatchet to the scientific enterprise. It’s the kind of destruction that will have implications for a while to come.”
— Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director with the climate and energy program, Union of Concerned Scientists
Why this matters:
Scientific data from agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration underpins early warning systems for hurricanes, wildfires, and droughts—tools that save lives and limit destruction. The Trump administration’s cuts to climate research, pollution regulation, and disaster preparedness hollow out that safety net, leaving communities more vulnerable. Without consistent tracking of emissions or federal support for resilience, local governments are left to fend for themselves, often without the resources or expertise required. The rollback of EPA authority and clean energy investments also threatens public health: Pollution from transportation and power plants contributes to heart and lung disease, particularly in children and low-income communities. And with climate disasters becoming more frequent and severe, the lack of a coordinated federal response magnifies both human suffering and economic losses.
Tornadoes that tore through parts of Missouri, Kentucky, and Virginia this weekend killed dozens, exposing deep vulnerabilities in the nation’s weather alert systems as hurricane season looms.
Forty-two people died as tornadoes swept across Missouri, Kentucky, and Virginia, highlighting the importance of fast and accurate weather alerts to save lives during rapidly developing disasters.
The National Weather Service has lost more than 10% of its staff amid budget cuts from the Department of Government Efficiency, leaving 40% of forecasting offices short-staffed and impairing use of vital tools like Doppler radar and weather balloons.
While some observers credit local efforts for maintaining alert coverage in this storm, experts warn that broader, long-term damage to the alert infrastructure may be felt as hurricane season approaches.
Why this matters:
As climate patterns shift, the frequency and severity of extreme weather events are increasing, from hurricanes to fast-moving tornado outbreaks. Accurate, timely forecasts can be the difference between life and death, especially when storms strike with little warning. The National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration form the backbone of the nation’s severe weather alert system, but proposed budget reductions threaten this safety net. These cuts come at a dangerous time, as climate volatility accelerates and populations grow in vulnerable areas like the Midwest and Southeast.
The Trump administration sees clean energy tax credits as a boon for China and is aiming to dismantle key Biden-era incentives through a broad GOP tax and spending bill.
House Republicans are divided, with moderates hoping to preserve credits that benefit manufacturing in their districts, while hard-liners seek sweeping rollbacks to focus on fossil fuels.
Analysts warn that weakening these incentives could devastate U.S. clean energy manufacturing, allowing China and other nations to dominate future markets in solar, batteries, and EVs.
Key quote:
“What has surprised me is the extent to which the administration hasn’t just pursued an agenda but has thrown sand in the gears of the parts of agenda that they don’t agree with. Even when it costs American jobs.”
— Thom Woodroofe, former Australian diplomat in Washington who now works at the Smart Energy Council
Why this matters:
The future of U.S. clean energy policy is hanging in the balance. As the Trump administration shifts decisively toward oil, gas, and coal, billions in private investment tied to solar panels, battery factories, and electric vehicle production may dry up. The risk is not only to jobs and technology development at home but also to global competitiveness. China already leads in many areas of green manufacturing, having spent decades building up its supply chains. If the U.S. exits this race, it could be surrendering both economic opportunity and influence over the climate technologies that will define the next half-century.
The Biden-era-approved Empire Wind project will move forward after President Trump lifted a stop-work order, following direct lobbying from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Norwegian developer Equinor.
The Empire Wind project, stalled by an April executive order halting offshore wind work, will resume after Hochul held multiple calls with Trump urging him to lift the stop-work order.
Equinor had been losing $50 million per week during the pause and warned it would cancel the project if no resolution came soon. Work had already begun onshore in Brooklyn, with offshore construction set to start this month.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum praised Hochul’s willingness to work with the administration on energy infrastructure.
Trump has pushed to revive the Constitution Pipeline to bring shale gas from Pennsylvania to the Northeast; New York State did not provide environmental approval for that project and it was abandoned in 2020.
Key quote:
“We feel strongly that this is bigger than Empire Wind and the offshore wind industry. This is about energy projects that are under construction being stopped.”
— Molly Morris, president of Equinor Renewable Americas
Why this matters:
The Empire Wind case shows just how precarious the clean energy transition remains. Offshore wind promises thousands of union jobs and zero-emission electricity for millions, but abrupt reversals in federal support threaten to chill investment and derail progress. The Trump administration’s initial pause on Empire Wind sent shockwaves through the industry, signaling that even shovel-ready projects with major capital invested could be upended by political whim.
European investment funds marketed as sustainable held more than $33 billion in fossil fuel company shares as of late 2024, raising concerns about greenwashing and regulatory loopholes.
More than 480 European “green” funds governed by the EU’s sustainable finance disclosure regulations (SFDR) regulations collectively held $33.5 billion in fossil fuel stocks, including stakes in ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, and TotalEnergies.
Fund managers, including BlackRock, JP Morgan, and DWS, argue these investments enable shareholder influence over fossil companies, though climate analysts say the companies are not aligned with Paris climate agreement targets.
Upcoming European Securities and Markets Authority guidelines — set to take effect May 21— will allow regulators to hold funds accountable for the use of sustainability-related labels, though the rules are not legally binding.
Key quote:
“It is diabolical for banks and asset managers to invest billions in major fossil fuel companies under the rubric of ‘green investing’ when we need to accelerate investments in non- and low-carbon energy, in carbon efficiency, and in carbon removal technologies.”
— Richard Heede, Climate Accountability Institute
Why this matters:
The term “green investing” carries a promise: that your money supports environmental progress. But when so-called sustainable funds funnel billions into oil giants, that promise is broken. Funds operating under vague or loosely enforced definitions of sustainability risk misleading individuals, institutions, and governments alike. While regulators have begun to react — tightening rules around fund naming and disclosure — investors may still find themselves funding fossil fuel expansion through portfolios meant to fight climate change.
The clean energy transition is accelerating, but many communities of color in the United States remain stuck with unreliable power and rising energy costs due to the legacy of redlining and federal funding delays.
Detroit’s St. Suzanne Cody Rouge Community Resource Center is still waiting on $2 million in federal funding for clean energy upgrades, one of many delays linked to Trump’s freeze on Biden-era climate equity funds.
Neighborhoods historically subjected to redlining suffer higher rates of power outages, energy shutoffs, and barriers to clean energy adoption, including aging infrastructure and housing stock.
Community solar and subsidy programs show promise but remain inaccessible to many due to state restrictions, utility resistance, or poor program design.
Key quote:
“The current energy system has this imbalance, but if we don't fix that, we'll continue down that path, even as we transition to a cleaner, greener energy system.”
— Tony Reames, professor of environmental justice at the University of Michigan
Why this matters:
Across the country, historically redlined communities, often home to Black and brown residents, face compounding challenges: old electrical grids, outdated housing, and disproportionately high utility bills. These barriers make it nearly impossible for many to access the cost savings and resilience offered by clean energy technologies like solar panels and battery storage. And the problem isn’t just technical — it’s systemic. Federal support programs meant to close this gap have been frozen or gutted, while utilities often prioritize upgrades in wealthier, whiter neighborhoods. The result is a power system that reinforces old inequalities even as it modernizes.
