As EV owners plug in their cars, there is a looming problem: pressures on the electricity grid if most drivers continue to charge their electric cars at night.
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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under Administrator Lee Zeldin, is downsizing staff to 1980s levels despite decades of added environmental responsibilities and growing public health challenges.
Administrator Lee Zeldin is implementing a plan to cut EPA staffing to Reagan-era levels, even as the agency faces expanded duties regulating pollutants, climate emissions, and chemical safety.
Critics argue the cuts will hamper EPA’s capacity to protect air, water, and public health, especially as staff reassigned from research and climate programs are unavailable to meet increasing demands.
The restructuring includes eliminating key science offices and scaling back climate initiatives, with some staffers warning of an “extinction event” for EPA’s climate work.
Key quote:
“They don’t want to have a scientist focused in a single area where they can really build their expertise and ensure the highest quality risk assessments.”
— Betsy Southerland, former EPA Office of Science and Technology director
Why this matters:
The EPA has long served as the nation’s frontline defense against air and water pollution, toxic chemicals, and emerging threats like climate change and PFAS contamination. Since the 1980s, the agency’s mandate has expanded dramatically to keep pace with scientific discoveries and evolving public health risks. Today, EPA not only enforces traditional pollution controls but also grapples with complex, cross-cutting issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, cybersecurity threats to water infrastructure, and hazardous “forever chemicals.” Staffing cuts of the magnitude proposed by the Trump administration could delay or derail enforcement actions, permit reviews, chemical safety evaluations, and responses to environmental disasters. The decision to shrink or eliminate scientific divisions risks undermining evidence-based policymaking.
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.
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.
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.
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.
