According to the Pew Research Center, about two-thirds of Americans feel the federal government is not doing enough to counteract the effects of climate change.
The Trump administration plans to shut down research led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) into pollution from satellites and rockets that is tied in part to Elon Musk’s expanding space ventures.
The administration aims to halt two NOAA projects studying how metals and other emissions from spacecraft accumulate in the stratosphere, potentially harming the ozone layer and climate stability.
Critics argue the cuts, justified by officials as removing “woke ideology,” will benefit Musk’s SpaceX and Starlink, which dominate satellite launches and could face future regulations stemming from such research.
Scientists warn that with 100,000 satellites expected in orbit within a decade, unchecked pollution could disrupt stratospheric chemistry and temperature regulation, yet little independent monitoring will remain if the projects end.
Key quote:
“These programs are under attack because they come up against strong commercial interests, and commercial interests that want to destroy the programs for their own personal gain.”
— Tim Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Why this matters:
Rocket launches and satellite operations introduce pollutants — including aluminum, black carbon, and nitrogen oxides — into the stratosphere, an atmospheric layer critical to shielding Earth from harmful solar radiation and maintaining climate balance. As the commercial space race accelerates, thousands of new satellites from companies like SpaceX and Amazon could exponentially increase this pollution. The aluminum particles, in particular, pose dual threats: While they might reflect sunlight and cool the planet, they could also disrupt the delicate chemistry that governs stratospheric temperature and ozone health. Without federal research, understanding these impacts will fall largely to the industries driving the pollution — a clear conflict of interest.
Seventeen states have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for halting billions in federal funding intended to expand the national electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
The Trump administration ordered a stop to electric vehicle charger funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, blocking an estimated $3.3 billion already distributed.
Attorneys general from California, Colorado, and Washington argue that only Congress has the authority to revoke this funding, calling the move unlawful.
Some states, like New York, report that hundreds of millions are now withheld, while projects face continued delays due to contracting and permitting hurdles.
Key quote:
“These funds were going to be used to shape the future of transportation.”
— Rob Bonta, California's attorney general
Why this matters:
Electric vehicle infrastructure is a cornerstone of reducing transportation-related emissions, which are a major source of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Without reliable public charging access, especially in rural areas or for those without private garages, EV adoption slows. Fossil fuel combustion in cars and trucks contributes to smog, respiratory illness, and climate change. Rolling back funding undercuts not only U.S. efforts to curb emissions, but also threatens jobs tied to clean energy expansion and cedes technological leadership to countries like China.
The Trump administration’s removal of nearly 400 scientists from the National Climate Assessment signals escalating cuts to U.S. climate science, raising concerns over national and international research collaborations.
Nearly 400 scientists working on the sixth National Climate Assessment (NCA6) were dismissed, jeopardizing a congressionally mandated report that guides U.S. climate policy and offers data valuable worldwide.
The dismissals follow months of cuts to federal science bodies, including NOAA and the U.S. Global Change Research Program, leading to reduced data collection and concerns over the integrity of future research.
International climate science collaborations are already strained, with some U.S.-based scientists seeking to relocate abroad, and European leaders working to attract displaced researchers.
Key quote:
“There’s no way to replicate this incredible innovative scientific enterprise that we had in the United States overnight anywhere else.”
— Rachel Cleetus, Union of Concerned Scientists
Why this matters:
The United States has long played a central role in advancing climate science, thanks to its robust funding, infrastructure, and vast geographic diversity. The National Climate Assessment, mandated by Congress, not only informs domestic policy but also provides essential data and models used worldwide. Cuts to such programs risk degrading the quality and availability of data that scientists rely on to understand and predict climate change impacts. These setbacks come at a time when extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and shifting climate patterns pose growing threats to communities everywhere. The ripple effects of reduced U.S. participation will be felt globally, as fewer data inputs and collaborative opportunities can hinder international climate forecasting and policy planning.
Smoke from wildfires intensified by climate change caused an estimated 15,000 deaths and $160 billion in damages in the U.S. over a 15-year span, according to new research.
A study published in Nature Communications Earth & Environment attributes about 10% of wildfire-related particulate matter deaths between 2006 and 2020 to climate change, with Western states like California and Oregon hit hardest.
Researchers estimated the toll by comparing real-world wildfire data with a climate change-free scenario, isolating the specific contribution of global warming to deaths from fine particulate pollution (PM2.5).
Experts not involved in the research say the study’s methods are innovative, but some raised concerns about downplaying other wildfire drivers and warned against overrelying on emissions reductions as the sole solution.
Key quote:
“We’re seeing a lot more of these wildfire smoke events. What does it really mean in a changing environment for things like mortality, which is kind of the worst possible health outcome?”
— Nicholas Nassikas, physician and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and an author of the study
Why this matters:
Wildfire smoke is a growing public health crisis. The fine particles in smoke, known as PM2.5, are small enough to penetrate deep into lungs and even enter the bloodstream. Long-term exposure is linked to heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory illnesses, especially in vulnerable groups like children, pregnant people, seniors, and outdoor workers. As climate change drives hotter, drier conditions across the American West, wildfire seasons are becoming longer and more intense, pushing toxic smoke far beyond burn zones. Urban areas downwind from fires face poor air quality for days or weeks. And when fires burn buildings and cars, the smoke can carry heavy metals and synthetic chemicals, compounding the health risks. Smoke doesn't stop at state borders. Its effects are national, even global.
As Iraq’s rivers run dry and desert sands overtake farmland, families once rooted in the Fertile Crescent are uprooting their lives in search of water and survival.
Iraq is facing intensifying climate impacts, with temperatures rising nearly twice as fast as the global average and water scarcity accelerating desertification in historically fertile regions.
Once-thriving farms now rely on dwindling and contaminated water sources, forcing families to abandon livestock and leave behind generational land as crops fail.
Displaced rural communities often move to informal urban settlements with poor sanitation and limited opportunity, while tensions over water access have led to local conflict and armed violence.
Why this matters:
Iraq, once the cradle of civilization, is now a case study in how climate change can destabilize entire societies. Iraq’s present struggles could be a preview for other regions where weak governance, conflict, and warming temperatures converge. From the Middle East to parts of Africa, South Asia, and even western North America, climate-driven water crises threaten to reshape borders, upend economies, and provoke mass migrations. As these pressures mount, the global community may face not only humanitarian emergencies but deeper geopolitical instability.
India is ramping up efforts to produce solar panels and batteries domestically, seeking to meet its soaring energy needs and capitalize on global shifts away from Chinese energy supply chains.
India, currently a minor player compared to China, is investing heavily in solar and battery manufacturing through subsidies and trade policies to reduce reliance on Chinese imports.
Domestic demand and export opportunities — especially to the U.S., where tariffs on Chinese goods have surged — are driving growth in India’s renewable energy manufacturing sector.
New clean-energy factories, especially in Tamil Nadu, are creating jobs for young Indians, including many women, but challenges remain due to dependence on Chinese materials and volatile global trade policies.
Key quote:
“It’s very important you have a supply chain that’s not vulnerable to two or three countries.”
— Praveer Sinha, chief executive of Tata Power
Why this matters:
As countries accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to renewables, controlling the production of solar panels, batteries, and critical minerals has become a strategic priority. India’s push to localize manufacturing aims to reduce carbon emissions and create jobs, but it also reflects a broader anxiety about overreliance on China, which dominates much of the global green technology supply chain. For the United States and other nations, diversifying these supply chains is essential to avoid future disruptions and price shocks. Yet this strategy often entails higher upfront costs and navigating complex international trade dynamics. India’s success — or struggles — in scaling its renewable sector will influence global efforts to build cleaner, more resilient energy systems while addressing workforce needs and social mobility.
As Colombia races to expand renewable energy through wind farms in La Guajira, tensions grow between Indigenous Wayuu communities and the companies building on their ancestral land.
Colombia’s La Guajira region, home to the Wayuu people, is the focus of a national wind energy expansion, with 15 wind farms under construction and more planned.
While some communities have gained infrastructure and income from the projects, others cite spiritual disruption, poor consultation, and mismanaged benefits, leading to internal divisions and protests.
Energy firms and researchers warn of rising social conflict and a lack of legal frameworks to address the environmental and cultural consequences of the green energy transition.
Key quote:
"At night, the noise from the turbines disturbs our dreams. For us, dreams are sacred."
— José Luis Iguarán, Wayuu community member
Why this matters:
The global push for renewable energy has often overlooked the specific needs and rights of Indigenous populations whose lands are rich in wind, sun, or minerals. In Colombia’s La Guajira, the Wayuu people face a double burden: environmental change driven by climate goals, and cultural dislocation caused by megaprojects that rarely deliver local electricity or economic control. Though these wind farms promise clean power for cities, they can fracture rural communities and disrupt deeply held spiritual beliefs, especially when developers fail to consult or share benefits equitably. As more countries embrace green energy, La Guajira offers a cautionary tale: Even the cleanest projects can produce harm when they ignore the people who live on the land.
