Veteran water commissioner will have oversight of Great Lakes restoration, inherits a drinking water crisis in Benton Harbor U.S. EPA Administrator Michael Regan named Chicago’s Debra Shore to...
A growing number of farmers in California’s Central Valley are ditching thirsty crops in favor of solar panels, unlocking major economic and environmental wins.
New research shows Central Valley farmers earn up to 25 times more by installing solar panels than growing crops, with each hectare generating about $124,000 annually.
Agrisolar systems — where crops or livestock coexist with solar arrays — can cut water use, boost panel efficiency, and help rejuvenate overworked soil.
Recent policy changes, however, slashed the financial returns of selling solar power back to the grid, making future installations less appealing despite long-term gains.
Key quote:
“This is the compromise that’s going to allow for both energy independence and food security.”
— Jennifer Bousselot, horticulturalist at Colorado State University
Why this matters:
As climate change drains water supplies and threatens food production, agrisolar offers a way to grow both energy and resilience. Agrivoltaics can slash water use, revive tired soil, and even make solar panels more efficient in extreme heat. But the party might not last. Recent policy changes have gutted the incentives for selling solar energy back to the grid, making future investments shakier. Still, in a landscape where climate change is rewriting the rules of survival, many see solar as not just a new crop, but the future of farming.
President Donald Trump has issued dozens of executive orders in his first 100 days, targeting climate policy, energy regulation, and environmental science across the federal government.
Trump signed 54 executive orders on his first day back in office, including re-exiting the Paris Agreement and declaring a national energy emergency to boost fossil fuel production.
The administration dismissed the authors of the National Climate Assessment and established a new agency, the Department of Government Efficiency, which has overseen significant cuts to staffing and funding for federal science agencies.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced plans for the biggest regulatory rollback in U.S. history, including reversing limits on greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.
Key quote:
"It has long been understood that good policy depends on careful analysis and good science, and we're seeing the capacity to deliver that foundation systematically undermined."
— Dan Esty, professor of environmental law and policy, Yale University
Why this matters:
Environmental protections are often built slowly, layer by layer, based on years of scientific research and public input. Undoing those protections can happen much faster, especially through executive orders and budget cuts that bypass Congress. Trump’s second-term push to deregulate climate and energy policy comes as scientists warn that the window to avoid the worst effects of global warming is rapidly closing. The rollback of carbon regulations, suppression of climate science, and weakening of federal oversight on air and water pollution can contribute to increased exposure to harmful pollutants, particularly for vulnerable communities.
These moves could also undermine the U.S.'s credibility in global climate talks, weaken international cooperation, and entrench fossil fuel dependence at a moment when climate-related disasters are becoming more frequent and severe. For families, communities, and ecosystems, the health consequences could last well beyond a single administration.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to terminate 781 environmental justice grants aimed at protecting vulnerable communities, nearly doubling previous estimates and triggering legal battles over the move’s legality.
The EPA disclosed in a recent court filing that it is canceling 781 environmental justice grants, all issued during the Biden administration, and has already notified about half of the recipients.
The decision affects projects meant to shield communities from wildfire smoke, coastal flooding, and indoor air pollution; critics argue the agency has not provided evidence of the legally required individualized grant reviews.
The Trump administration is also moving to dismantle the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and reassign more than 450 staff, deepening concerns among local officials and environmental groups.
Key quote:
“EPA’s attempts to terminate these grants not only violates their legal rights but abandons hundreds of communities across the country that were finally making progress reducing their energy costs and tackling polluted air and water.”
— Zealan Hoover, former senior adviser to the Biden EPA administrator Michael Regan
Why this matters:
Environmental justice grants fund essential services in some of the most vulnerable communities — places where people live next to industrial sites, breathe polluted air, or face rising floodwaters. Canceling these grants leaves schools, health centers, and local governments without resources they’d counted on to address long-standing environmental and public health threats. The disruption may delay or halt improvements in clean water access, air filtration, and energy efficiency at a time when these measures are becoming more urgent. Legal battles will determine if the terminations stick, but the policy shift already signals a broader retreat from commitments to environmental equity.
President Trump’s executive order jump-started a controversial push for commercial seabed mining, igniting a partisan battle in Congress and drawing international criticism.
The Metals Company filed the first U.S. permit application for seabed mining just days after President Trump signed an executive order encouraging the practice in both U.S. and international waters.
At a congressional hearing, Republicans emphasized the need to reduce mineral dependence on China, while Democrats questioned the business viability and environmental safety of seabed mining.
The Clarion-Clipperton Zone, where the Metals Company aims to mine, holds massive mineral deposits, but critics warn of unknown ecological impacts and international legal conflicts.
Key quote:
“The industry’s financial models are based on wildly optimistic assumptions and fail to reflect the volatility and reality of global mineral markets.”
— Representative Maxine E. Dexter (D-Oregon)
Why this matters:
Seabed mining targets vast stretches of the ocean floor rich in metals like nickel, cobalt and manganese — key ingredients in modern electronics, renewables, and energy storage. But the deep sea is Earth’s least explored ecosystem, and disturbing it risks harming species that haven’t even been identified. The ocean floor between Hawaii and Mexico, where these mineral-rich nodules lie, is thought to harbor hundreds of unique marine species. Mining could unleash sediment plumes, disrupt life cycles, and alter the food web from the bottom up. International law has long held that these waters are a global commons managed by the International Seabed Authority, but the U.S. is now asserting its own path. With geopolitical tensions around rare earth elements rising — particularly with China’s dominance in refining — industry pressure is building. Yet the potential ecological impacts remain uncertain and possibly irreversible.
Facing federal rollbacks under President Trump, the University of Massachusetts system is expanding its climate tech and sustainability efforts across its five campuses.
UMass President Marty Meehan announced a "whole-university" strategy to align with Massachusetts’ $1.4 billion climate tech development plan, emphasizing education, research, and economic partnerships.
Despite federal threats to diversity initiatives and energy policy reversals, UMass leaders plan to continue pushing clean energy, resilience projects, and climate justice initiatives at state and international levels.
UMass campuses are launching programs such as the Clean Energy and Environmental Legacy Transition at UMass Lowell, climate change curriculum at its medical school, and nature-based resiliency projects at UMass Boston, while planning major infrastructure upgrades funded by the state’s Bright Act.
Key quote:
"While forces seem determined to drag us backward, UMass and Team Massachusetts are going to continue to work together to move ourselves forward."
— Marty Meehan, president of the University of Massachusetts
Why this matters:
The University of Massachusetts’s aggressive pivot toward climate action highlights a broader trend: As the federal government retreats from environmental leadership, states and institutions are stepping up. Climate tech and sustainability efforts at major research universities can have cascading effects — training a workforce ready for green industries, driving regional innovation, and laying the foundation for community resilience. Energy-efficient building upgrades, climate-focused medical education, and projects like Boston Harbor’s living sea walls also have direct implications for public health and environmental justice, especially as vulnerable populations face disproportionate risks from extreme weather and pollution. Without coordinated federal support, these local and state efforts may become the front line in the fight to slow climate change and protect ecosystems that sustain human life.
As President Trump’s energy policies shift federal hydrogen funding toward fossil fuel projects, Pennsylvania’s ambitions for a renewable-powered hydrogen hub face major setbacks, with companies withdrawing and local plans unraveling.
The Department of Energy, under Trump, plans to defund four clean energy hydrogen hubs in Democratic-leaning states while maintaining funding for fossil fuel-based hubs in Republican states.
Pennsylvania’s natural gas company CNX paused involvement in the ARCH2 hydrogen hub project after federal funding uncertainty, reflecting broader industry instability.
Environmentalists warn that favoring fossil fuel hydrogen projects undermines efforts to create a truly clean energy economy, with former coal and gas towns now facing renewed economic uncertainty.
Key quote:
“The hydrogen hubs program was intended to spur innovations and demonstrations on how best to advance hydrogen as a tool in the clean energy economy. Blatantly co-opting these funds for use as handouts to political supporters and favored polluters would be shameful, and fully undermine the program’s ability to achieve those aims.”
— Julie McNamara, associate policy director for the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists
Why this matters:
The future of hydrogen energy sits at a critical intersection of climate, economy, and politics. Hydrogen, especially when produced with renewable energy, holds the potential to power industries and transportation with minimal carbon emissions. However, producing hydrogen from fossil fuels like methane can negate these benefits by introducing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Favoring fossil fuel-powered hydrogen production risks creating a network of projects that increase pollution rather than reduce it, undermining climate goals and public health protections. In states like Pennsylvania, where communities have long grappled with the health and economic fallout of coal and gas extraction, these decisions could prolong environmental harm and delay the transition to cleaner industries.
As hurricane-damaged solar panels continue to flood Florida landfills, a startup aims to build one of the nation's largest solar recycling plants to recover valuable metals and ease supply chain pressures.
OnePlanet Solar Recycling, based in Jacksonville, raised $7 million to develop a $90 million recycling facility in Green Cove Springs, Florida, aiming to open in 2027.
The company’s proprietary process uses artificial intelligence and sensors to separate and recover up to 97% of metals like copper and aluminum from broken solar panels.
A $14.5 million federal tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act supports the project, though uncertainties remain over future federal backing.
Key quote:
The funding “reflects our belief that solar module recycling is not only necessary — it is investable at scale, with durable tailwinds driven by regulation, economics, and resource security."
— Ashlynn Horras, partner at the climate-focused venture firm Khasma Capital
Why this matters:
Solar energy is booming across the U.S., but the industry faces a growing waste problem as damaged or outdated panels accumulate. Recycling offers a critical solution, keeping heavy metals and plastics out of landfills while feeding valuable materials back into the economy. Copper, silicon, and aluminum are essential not just for solar but for a range of clean energy technologies. With tariffs raising the cost of imported raw materials, domestic recycling could ease supply bottlenecks and lower the environmental toll of mining. Florida, hit hard by storms that shatter solar infrastructure, is a key testing ground for solutions like OnePlanet’s. As extreme weather intensifies and clean energy expands, developing efficient recycling systems could help stabilize the market and minimize environmental harm.
