A federal judge said federal officials failed to do a complete analysis of pipeline's environmental impacts. The decision marks the second setback for President Trump's infrastructure push in just two days.
A British recycling company is turning shredded electric vehicle batteries into new power cells, offering a path toward cleaner supply chains and energy independence.
Altilium, a UK startup, has developed a water-based method to recover valuable metals like nickel and lithium from used EV batteries, avoiding emissions-heavy techniques like pyrometallurgy.
The rise in EV adoption and growing concerns over mining's human rights and environmental costs are fueling interest in battery recycling, but the industry is still in its infancy.
Governments, including the European Union and the US, are introducing policies and incentives to support battery recycling as a way to secure resources and reduce reliance on unstable global supply chains.
Key quote:
“We have to remove that myth that batteries go to landfill.”
— Christian Marston, president and COO of Altilium
Why this matters:
Most of the world’s EV batteries are built on materials sourced from places where labor rights are murky and environmental oversight is practically nonexistent. As demand surges, so does the pressure to mine deeper, faster, dirtier. Recycling offers a way to break that cycle by mining not the Earth, but yesterday’s batteries. The future might still be electric. But to get there sustainably, more companies will have to learn how to bring batteries back from the dead.
Get the best positive, solutions-oriented stories we've seen on the intersection of our health and environment, FREE every Tuesday in your inbox. Subscribe here today. Keep the change tomorrow.
Paris cut fine particulate matter by 55% and nitrogen dioxide by 50% since 2005, thanks to car restrictions, green policies, and a sharp focus on livability.
Air pollution maps show that nearly the entire city was once smothered in harmful nitrogen dioxide; today, red zones linger only around highways.
Despite pushback, Parisians are embracing the shift — voting to pedestrianize hundreds more streets and hiking SUV parking fees to encourage smaller, cleaner cars.
Key quote:
“An urban policy based on well-being.”
— Carlos Moreno, professor at Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University and former adviser to the city
Why this matters:
This is what it looks like when a city treats clean air not as a luxury, but a birthright. Paris didn’t wait for some future innovation to fix its pollution. It just did less of what made the air dirty in the first place. What used to be a city blanketed in nitrogen dioxide — those invisible fumes we’ve learned to associate with asthma, heart disease, and early death — is now breathing noticeably easier.
New research shows that climate protests — peaceful or disruptive — are changing minds, nudging elections, and keeping democracy alive in the face of rising authoritarianism.
A major review of 50 studies shows that climate protests, especially those combining disruptive and traditional tactics, shift public opinion and media coverage without triggering backlash.
Even controversial actions, like road-blocking or symbolic vandalism, can boost support for moderate climate groups through the “radical flank effect.”
Protests can influence elections and policy, as seen with the UK’s Just Stop Oil campaign and early Earth Day turnout affecting future air quality.
Key quote:
“The whole idea of the Green New Deal, was that to solve climate change, we need to harness the power of the federal government. They’re destroying the federal government. So inherent to the success of solving climate change is defending these institutions.”
— Saul Levin, director of campaigns and politics at the Green New Deal Network
Why this matters:
In a time of political rollback on environmental protections, protest movements are proving to be one of the most powerful tools to protect clean air, water, and democratic institutions. The health of our democracy might be at stake here, too. In a world where climate denial and authoritarianism often go hand in hand, protests keep the spotlight on scientific truth and the moral urgency of the climate crisis.
Companies like Oklo and Curio are developing reactors that run on spent nuclear fuel, framing it as a climate-friendly way to cut waste and reduce uranium mining.
Critics argue reprocessing spent fuel makes plutonium more accessible, increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation and terrorism.
Despite technological advances like pyroprocessing, experts remain divided on whether the benefits outweigh the risks, especially without a permanent waste disposal plan in the U.S.
Key quote:
“It takes a lot of effort, human-made effort, to actually create these materials. So that’s a great thing. But once you have the material, it’s not all that hard [to create a weapon], and that’s a really bad thing.”
— Ross Matzkin-Bridger, senior director of nuclear materials security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative
Why this matters:
It sounds like a silver bullet for the climate crisis — taking the nuclear waste we’ve already got piling up in steel casks and spinning it into new energy gold. The pitch is seductive: cut radioactive waste, sidestep fresh uranium mining, and unleash untapped energy potential all in one go. But beneath the surface is a nuclear headache we thought we’d shelved decades ago: plutonium.
Federal agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Geological Survey are losing scientists due to layoffs, retirements, and budget cuts, threatening their ability to conduct the environmental reviews necessary to permit energy projects.
Experts warn that eliminating research infrastructure not only stalls permitting but may also undermine long-term planning, like in the past when basic permafrost research saved the Alaska pipeline from disaster.
Morale is collapsing in science agencies, graduate students are leaving the field, and efforts to clear chemical backlogs may compromise research on air, water, and “forever chemicals.”
Key quote:
“There’s nothing to permit if you don’t know what the mineral potential is, or the oil and gas potential.”
— Mary Lou Zoback, former U.S. Geological Survey senior research scientist
Why this matters:
Retirements, political pressure, and plummeting morale are emptying out the ranks of scientists responsible for everything from reviewing the risks of new drilling sites to analyzing the spread of toxic chemicals. Without them, the legally mandated environmental reviews that these projects depend on grind to a halt. It’s like trying to build a pipeline with no engineers — except in this case, it’s also the air, water, and public health at stake.
The Trump administration is moving to end National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for research on how climate change harms human health, a shift scientists warn could endanger lives.
The NIH, under U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now deprioritizes research on climate change, instructing scientists to remove related topics from grant proposals.
Scientists warn this decision will gut studies on how disasters like wildfires and heat waves impact heart health, pregnancy outcomes, and immune function.
Without federal support, institutions around the country, like the University of Cincinnati’s Center on Climate Change and Health, say most of their research will halt, leaving the U.S. unprepared for mounting health threats.
Key quote:
“Our work isn’t driven by politics or ideology. It’s driven by the idea that we can do things now to protect the future health of our children and make our communities places that will be more able to withstand the impacts of extreme events.”
— Dr. Shohreh Farzan, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine
Why this matters:
Climate change is being scrubbed from federal grant proposals like it’s a dirty word. Researchers have been tracking how heatwaves worsen heart disease, how wildfire smoke messes with our lungs and immune systems, and how pregnant people suffer when the planet’s on fire. When the science dries up, so do the warnings — leaving parents, doctors, and entire communities flying blind through disasters, and lacking important data to pursue effective climate resilience when it comes to health.
Scientists are bracing for a dangerous 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, even as the Trump administration pushes steep cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency responsible for storm forecasting.
Forecasters from Colorado State University and AccuWeather expect an above-average Atlantic hurricane season, driven by unusually warm ocean temperatures, with up to 10 named storms and at least four major hurricanes likely.
The Trump administration, through the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), plans to cut NOAA’s budget by 25% and eliminate its research arm, jeopardizing critical forecasting tools like buoys, weather balloons, and hurricane-hunting aircraft.
Scientists fear these cuts will reduce forecast accuracy and delay warnings, especially during rapid intensification events when hurricanes quickly strengthen, threatening lives and infrastructure.
Key quote:
“Now we are nervous if those data will be provided — and will be provided on time — from NOAA.”
— Xubin Zeng, director of the Climate Dynamics and Hydrometeorology Center at the University of Arizona
Why this matters:
NOAA's data help scientists warn communities about deadly hurricanes, track flooding threats, and prepare emergency responses. In recent years, the Atlantic has grown hotter, fueling stronger and more erratic storms. Hurricanes that rapidly intensify — jumping in strength overnight — are becoming more common and more dangerous. Accurate forecasts don’t just inform storm tracks; they guide evacuations, protect hospitals and nursing homes, and limit economic damage. If NOAA’s capacity is gutted, warning systems could fail at the worst possible moment. Public safety would hinge on outdated models or privatized forecasting that may not reach vulnerable populations. Disabling NOAA’s infrastructure in the face of escalating climate risks could mean the difference between life and death for those in the path of extreme weather.
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
www.bbc.com
