Producing beef remains a major climate concern, and Tyson Foods is now facing a lawsuit over its marketing of “climate-smart” beef products that environmental advocates say mislead the public.
Tyson launched a product called Brazen Beef in 2023, claiming it produced 10% fewer greenhouse gases than conventional beef and labeling it “climate-smart,” the first such claim approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Environmental advocates and scientists questioned the legitimacy of Tyson’s emissions reductions and criticized the company’s lack of transparency; the product was eventually pulled from the market.
In response to mounting criticism and a lawsuit from the Environmental Working Group, Tyson defended its climate claims as protected speech and cited participation in emissions tracking initiatives, though a judge allowed the case to proceed.
Key quote:
“[U]nbeknownst to consumers, Tyson…has no plan to achieve these goals and is taking no meaningful steps to do so.”
— From the Environmental Working Group lawsuit
Why this matters:
Beef is among the most environmentally intensive foods, contributing disproportionately to climate change through emissions of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. Industrial beef production not only generates these gases through feed production and manure management, but also drives land degradation and biodiversity loss. While meat companies like Tyson seek to brand their products as climate-friendly, emissions cuts fall far short of the reductions scientists say are necessary. Marketing meat as “climate-smart” can mislead consumers who want to make sustainable choices and risks delaying the meaningful action needed to decarbonize agriculture.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has halted support for several key datasets used to monitor Arctic sea ice and snow, undermining efforts to track one of the fastest-warming regions on Earth.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) will no longer receive NOAA support for several Arctic datasets, including the Sea Ice Index, reducing their maintenance and responsiveness to issues.
These datasets, which inform national security, fisheries management, and weather forecasting, have historically underpinned scientific understanding and media coverage of global climate change.
NOAA’s budget cuts reflect broader Trump administration efforts to dismantle environmental data infrastructure, with additional programs and datasets listed for decommissioning.
Key quote:
“Any reduction or elimination of these data product services will have significant consequences, well beyond just tracking the state of sea-ice loss.”
— Zack Labe, climate scientist
Why this matters:
Losing federal support for Arctic monitoring datasets means researchers, journalists, emergency managers, and coastal communities will lack crucial information at a time when the Arctic is warming nearly four times faster than the global average. The Sea Ice Index and related tools have long served as canaries in the coal mine, warning the world of accelerating climate impacts. Without federal upkeep, these tools are more vulnerable to technical failures, misinformation, and gaps in coverage. This matters not just to climate scientists, but to Alaskan communities dependent on sea ice forecasts, military operations navigating the Arctic, and global shipping routes opening up as ice recedes.
It’s also a symbolic rollback: the dismantling of decades of public investment in open-access environmental science. While private and international efforts may try to fill the gap, no single organization can replicate the breadth and mission of NOAA.
Voters frustrated by high energy costs and inflation propelled Germany’s conservatives to power, prompting a recalibration of the country’s aggressive climate policies without fully abandoning its clean energy goals.
Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s government will slow — but not reverse — Germany’s renewable energy expansion while prioritizing economic competitiveness over climate policy.
The administration plans to lower electricity costs by cutting taxes and fees, address regulatory hurdles, and add 20 gigawatts of natural gas generation to stabilize the power grid.
Despite a “green backlash,” polling and advocacy groups report sustained public support for clean energy, though voters demand more cost-effective and socially fair transitions.
Key quote:
Economic policy has been “almost exclusively geared toward climate protection. I want to say it as clearly as I mean it: We will and we must change that.”
— German Chancellor Friedrich Merz of the Christian Democratic Union
Why this matters:
Germany’s energy transition, once a global model, now faces political headwinds as economic pressures collide with climate goals. The surge in energy costs following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine exposed vulnerabilities in Europe’s clean energy strategies. As German policymakers pivot to ease financial burdens on households and industries, they risk undermining long-term emissions targets and delaying the decarbonization of sectors beyond electricity, like heating and transport. The experience highlights a central challenge for industrialized nations: maintaining public support for climate action when its costs hit pocketbooks hard. With natural gas poised to serve as a transitional crutch, Germany’s decisions may shape the trajectory of Europe’s climate commitments.
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.
