
06 December 2017
It’s getting less appealing to drill for oil in the Arctic
Oil exploration in Norway’s Arctic seems to have lost some of its appeal after a disappointing drilling campaign.
A new federal rule to protect workers from extreme heat faces uncertainty as the Trump administration considers rolling it back or replacing it with a weaker version.
In short:
Key quote:
“All heat-related deaths are preventable because they all result from an overexposure that can be prevented.”
— Dr. John Balbus, former co-chair of a federal working group on heat
Why this matters:
As climate change drives record-breaking heat across the country, more workers face life-threatening conditions on the job. Outdoor and manual laborers — farmhands, delivery drivers, construction crews — bear the brunt of these conditions without consistent federal safeguards. Heat doesn’t just cause dehydration or fainting; it stresses the cardiovascular system, raising risks of stroke and heart attacks. But despite rising deaths, federal protections have lagged. Without national standards, workers’ safety depends on a patchwork of state laws, some of which are now being dismantled.
Read more: Trump’s OSHA nominee linked to companies cited for deadly heat risks
Temperatures nearing 90 degrees prompted Alaska to issue its first heat advisory, highlighting how unprepared the state remains for the effects of a warming planet.
In short:
Key quote:
“Even in places where people might think they’re immune from extreme heat — they’re not anymore.”
— Jennifer Marlon, research scientist at the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
Why this matters:
Extreme heat kills more Americans than any other weather event, and as climate change accelerates, regions historically immune to high temperatures are losing that buffer. Alaska, warming faster than any other U.S. state, is a stark example. Its homes and infrastructure are designed to trap heat, not shed it, and many residents aren’t physically acclimated to sudden spikes. Longer summer daylight and the absence of cooling systems compound the health risks. Heat waves can also melt glaciers faster, pushing rivers toward flood conditions, and feed wildfires that choke the air with smoke. The appearance of heat advisories in Alaska marks not just a meteorological shift but a deeper signal: The norms we’ve used to define safe, livable environments are slipping away, even in places once synonymous with ice.
Read more: Alaskan Indigenous communities adapt to climate change
A rush to mine nickel in Indonesia’s Raja Ampat archipelago, driven by the electric vehicle boom, has damaged one of the world’s richest marine ecosystems despite recent government action to curb operations.
In short:
Key quote:
“Mining is always going to be environmentally impactful and we all tend to think that electrification is a good idea. But what is the acceptable damage that we're willing to see?”
— Mark Erdmann, coral reef ecologist
Why this matters:
The transition to electric vehicles is often marketed as a clean solution to the climate crisis, but the materials fueling this shift come with environmental costs. Indonesia sits atop the world’s largest nickel reserves, a metal crucial for EV batteries. Mining those reserves, however, can destroy tropical forests, pollute water, and harm marine life. In places like Raja Ampat, sediment from mining flows downhill into coral reefs, clouding waters and suffocating marine species. These reefs not only support vibrant biodiversity but also sustain fishing and tourism economies. Coastal communities already vulnerable to rising sea levels now face degraded environments and damaged livelihoods. As global demand for “green” technologies accelerates, the environmental toll of extracting so-called critical minerals — whether from rainforests, seabeds, or islands — poses a growing dilemma for countries trying to balance ecological preservation with economic development.
Read more: Indonesia's nickel ambitions clash with environmental and human rights
Fishing-dependent Port Heiden, Alaska, lost a shot at cheaper, cleaner power after the Trump administration froze climate funds meant to replace the village’s polluting diesel system.
In short:
Key quote:
“These cuts can be a matter of life or death for many of these communities being able to heat their homes, essentially.”
— Raina Thiele, former adviser for Alaska affairs to Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland
Why this matters:
Many remote Alaskan villages, like Port Heiden, sit at the front lines of the climate crisis, where thawing permafrost and rising seas are upending centuries-old ways of life. These communities also rely on diesel fuel that is exorbitantly expensive and logistically challenging to deliver, driving up the cost of everything from heating to food storage. For tribes long excluded from energy infrastructure investments, grants like those from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund offered a rare chance to take control of their energy future and stabilize their economies. Replacing them with loans introduces bureaucratic and financial hurdles many small tribal governments are ill-equipped to navigate. The loss of federal support may worsen rural flight, further eroding the cultural and economic foundations of Native villages struggling to adapt to climate realities.
A fossil fuel promoter who advises GOP lawmakers is pushing Congress to gut renewable tax credits, influencing the Republican megabill backed by the Trump administration.
In short:
Key quote:
“What I was arguing for very strongly is at minimum, you have to get rid of the new subsidies, and you absolutely have to have them all expire and stop under Trump’s term.”
— Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress
Why this matters:
The future of U.S. clean energy development is being redrawn as political forces push to unwind landmark climate investments. Subsidies for wind and solar have driven historic growth in renewable energy, often benefiting conservative rural districts with new jobs and infrastructure. Rolling back those incentives risks stalling or reversing this momentum just as the grid faces escalating demands from extreme weather and electrification. Advocates warn that yanking support for renewables means increasing dependency on volatile fossil fuel markets and delaying the transition to cleaner, more stable energy systems. Meanwhile, fossil fuel proponents argue the grid can't reliably run on intermittent sources and that market forces should dictate energy choices. With Congress debating the terms of energy support, these policy shifts could reshape emissions, energy access, and investment for decades.
Learn more: Clean energy rollback plan could threaten U.S. power reliability, industry warns
Rising temperatures are reshaping ecosystems, and scientists warn that unless protected areas are designed with climate adaptation in mind, they may fail to preserve biodiversity in the decades to come.
In short:
Key quote:
“Protected and conserved areas can contribute towards climate change adaptation and mitigation. However, for this to work, it is essential that these areas are well connected, and that appropriate policies and effective management are put in place.”
— Elise Belle, project manager at the United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre Europe
Why this matters:
Protected areas are cornerstones of biodiversity conservation, but climate change is upending the assumptions on which they were built. As temperatures rise and rainfall patterns shift, animals and plants are moving in search of new habitats. Areas that once served as reliable refuges may no longer meet the ecological needs of species they were meant to protect. If new conservation zones are based solely on current species distributions, they risk becoming obsolete within a generation. Worse, existing protected areas could become population traps — isolated, unadaptable, and unable to connect wildlife with the corridors they need to survive. This matters not just for wildlife, but for the human communities that rely on ecosystems for clean water, pollination, food and flood control. Climate-smart planning could help maintain these life-support systems in the face of accelerating change.
Related: Climate change is erasing Indigenous languages along with biodiversity
A top federal emergency official has resigned after President Trump announced plans to phase out the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and shift disaster response responsibilities to states.
In short:
Key quote:
“I will not be complicit in the dismantling of this agency, and while I would implement change — even radical change — the current approach lacks a clear end state or plan, and has been done recklessly without regard to our current statutory or moral obligations to the American people.”
— MaryAnn Tierney, former deputy administrator of FEMA who left the agency last month
Why this matters:
A move to shutter FEMA or strip it of authority risks turning disaster recovery into a patchwork system where political favoritism could determine which communities receive help. The potential for delayed responses, increased human suffering, and avoidable loss of life looms large, particularly for vulnerable populations who depend on federal support when local systems fail. As extreme weather intensifies, so does the need for a coordinated, well-resourced national response system.
Read more: Trump announces plan to begin shutting down FEMA after hurricane season
One facility has emitted cancer-causing chemicals into waterways at levels up to 520% higher than legal limits.
“They're terrorizing these scientists because they want to keep them silent.”
"The reality is, we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.”
A new report assesses the administration’s progress and makes new recommendations
“We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable.”
“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.