
Credit: Danielle-Claude Bélanger/Unsplash
12h
U.S. scientists push forward with climate research despite government withdrawal
Five American scientists joined an international climate panel meeting in Japan, continuing their work despite the Trump administration's efforts to distance the U.S. from global climate initiatives.
In short:
- The Trump administration has pulled federal support for U.S. participation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but some American scientists are continuing their involvement independently.
- Scientists fear losing U.S. influence in shaping international climate policy, as well as reduced funding for participation in IPCC research.
- Cities are central to the upcoming IPCC report, with urban areas responsible for about 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Key quote:
“Two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions come out of cities and that makes them places where there are opportunities to reduce emissions.”
— Kevin Gurney, Northern Arizona University atmospheric scientist
Why this matters:
The U.S. has historically played a leading role in global climate research, providing critical data and shaping policy discussions. Withdrawing from the IPCC risks diminishing scientific influence and innovation, potentially setting back efforts to address climate change. Cities, responsible for the lion’s share of emissions, remain at the forefront of climate action. Without U.S. leadership in global research efforts, these urban centers may face greater challenges in accessing the latest climate data and policy recommendations. The absence of American expertise could leave gaps in critical climate assessments, affecting decision-making worldwide.
At stake is not just influence but the ability to direct the global response to climate change. The U.S. has historically helped set the pace for climate science, but stepping back could cede that role to other nations, reshaping the future of climate governance.
Related: Trump administration halts U.S. role in global climate assessment
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
insideclimatenews.org
Senator Whitehouse puts climate change on budget committee’s agenda
For more than a decade, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse gave daily warnings about the mounting threat of climate change. Now he has a powerful new perch.
Credit: Anastasia Palagutina/Unsplash
12h
Trump’s pick to lead clean energy office has deep oil industry ties
President Donald Trump has nominated Audrey Robertson, an oil and gas executive with no prior experience in clean energy, to lead the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, sparking criticism from environmental advocates.
In short:
- Robertson co-founded Franklin Mountain Energy, a fracking firm under EPA investigation for Clean Air Act violations, and has served on multiple oil and gas company boards.
- The DOE office she is set to lead funds research on solar, wind, geothermal, and energy efficiency programs, with billions in funding from the 2021 infrastructure law.
- Critics argue her industry background presents conflicts of interest, while some energy officials see potential benefits in her expertise with oil and gas infrastructure.
Key quote:
“Like most of Trump’s nominations, putting Audrey Robertson in charge of the DOE renewable energy office is no different than putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department.”
— Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity
Why this matters:
The Department of Energy’s renewable energy office has long been a key player in advancing wind, solar, and other clean power technologies. But with a leader now at the helm who has ties to the oil and gas industry, concerns are mounting that the federal government’s commitment to renewables could wane.
The nomination underscores a familiar pattern in the Trump administration, which has prioritized expanding fossil fuel production while rolling back regulations aimed at curbing carbon emissions. Under Trump’s first term, federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior were steered by officials with deep industry ties, leading to policy shifts that favored oil, gas, and coal. Now, with his return to the White House, advocates worry that the momentum built around renewable energy in recent years could be at risk.
Related: Trump’s focus on fossil fuels risks sidelining U.S. in global renewable energy shift
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
www.eenews.net
Credit: BILLPERRY/Big Stock Photo
12h
EPA defends freezing $20 billion in climate grants without new evidence
A federal judge ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to justify its decision to freeze $20 billion in climate and clean energy grants, but the agency has yet to present direct evidence of waste, fraud, or abuse.
In short:
- The EPA halted $20 billion in grants intended for clean energy projects, citing an "unacceptable risk," but has not provided clear evidence of financial misconduct.
- The move follows a Project Veritas video featuring an ex-EPA staffer making remarks about government spending, though his lawyer denies any connection to the grants.
- A lawsuit from Climate United, one of the grant recipients, seeks to release funds, arguing the freeze jeopardizes jobs and projects.
Key quote:
"These claims are not only misleading and undermining a critical effort to drive American energy independence, local resilience, and job creation in communities, but are consistent with a number of factual inaccuracies and misinformation communicated by the EPA."
— Spokesman for the Opportunity Finance Network, a recipient of one of the grants
Why this matters:
The decision to freeze grants intended for renewable energy projects has raised alarms among environmental advocates and policymakers, who fear the move could slow efforts to cut carbon emissions and improve energy efficiency. The stalled funds were earmarked for projects like solar panel installations and home insulation — initiatives that not only help reduce dependence on fossil fuels but also lower energy costs for consumers.
The lack of a clear justification for the freeze has fueled speculation about political motivations, especially as the energy transition remains a divisive issue. Critics argue that withholding funds for clean energy could set back progress on climate goals and undermine economic opportunities in a rapidly growing sector. The freeze also highlights broader tensions over climate policy, as governments and industries navigate the transition to a lower-carbon economy amid shifting political priorities.
Related: EPA faces legal pushback over canceled climate grants
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
www.nytimes.com
Credit: Filip Andrejevic/Unsplash
13h
COP30 coordinator: Climate action must be a priority, not a casualty, of defense spending
Countries ramping up military budgets must also strengthen climate efforts or risk more conflict in the future, warns Ana Toni, Brazil’s chief executive of the Cop30 summit.
In short:
- Ana Toni argues that climate change fuels inequality and poverty, which can lead to future wars, making climate action a key security issue.
- Many countries are increasing defense budgets, partly in response to Donald Trump’s foreign policy shifts, including withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.
- The UK is cutting overseas aid and renewable energy funding to boost defense spending, a move Toni warns sends a dangerous signal.
Key quote:
“Wars come and go. Unfortunately, climate change is there for a long time. We need to take climate change very seriously, otherwise we will have even more wars in the future.”
— Ana Toni, chief executive of Cop30
Why this matters:
The intersection of climate change and global security is becoming harder to ignore. As geopolitical tensions flare and nations ramp up defense spending, there’s growing concern that climate action could take a back seat despite mounting evidence that environmental crises themselves are driving instability. The U.S. decision to scale back climate commitments under the Trump administration adds another layer of uncertainty to international efforts, leaving a leadership vacuum in global emissions reduction and sustainable development.
If military budgets grow at the expense of climate initiatives, the world may face a self-perpetuating cycle: environmental degradation leading to conflict, which in turn justifies further military investment. Some experts warn that failing to address climate change as a national security threat now could make future crises even more costly — both in dollars and human lives.
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
www.theguardian.com
Credit: Zbynek Burival/Unsplash
14h
Texas oil boom brings wealth, but pollution leaves communities struggling
For many Texans living near the Permian Basin’s expanding oil and gas industry, economic growth has come at the cost of contaminated water, toxic air, and abandoned wells leaking hazardous waste.
Saul Elbein reports for The Hill and the Pulitzer Center. Part three of a four-part series.
In short:
- Residents of West Odessa, Texas, rely on well water that is increasingly at risk from nearby oil and gas infrastructure, with pollution linked to spills, fracking waste, and deteriorating old wells.
- Texas produces billions of barrels of wastewater annually, much of which is injected underground, raising concerns about groundwater contamination and even earthquakes from pressure buildup.
- Airborne toxins like benzene and methane, released from oil wells and flares, pose additional health risks, especially for children, while state regulations remain weak.
Key quote:
“What I learned when my water turned black is that, if it’s oil and gas, nobody is coming.”
— Sharon Wilson, director of the watchdog group Oilfield Witness
Why this matters:
Texas’ oil and gas boom has fueled jobs and revenue, but it has also left communities grappling with environmental hazards. Residents face polluted drinking water, exposure to toxic chemicals, and even the threat of earthquakes. With minimal regulatory oversight, old wells leak contaminants, and wastewater disposal practices threaten both groundwater and air quality.
Millions of Texans live close to oil infrastructure, heightening concerns about long-term health effects, especially for children. Scientists warn that benzene exposure raises cancer risks, while methane and nitrogen oxide emissions contribute to respiratory issues. Despite the dangers, state and federal responses have been slow, leaving many residents struggling for clean air and water.
Related: Community activists plead to be heard through “closed doors” outside nation’s top energy conference
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
thehill.com
15h
Wildfires in Los Angeles disrupted school for thousands of vulnerable students
More than 750,000 students in Los Angeles missed school due to January’s devastating wildfires, with low-income, Latino, and English-language learners facing the greatest hardships, a new analysis finds.
In short:
- The L.A. wildfires killed 29 people and damaged over 16,250 buildings, including schools, displacing students and disrupting education.
- Three out of four affected students were from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, and two out of five were multilingual learners who rely on in-person language support.
- School closures also cut off access to essential services like meals and after-school programs, further stressing families, especially undocumented immigrants facing additional fears of deportation.
Key quote:
“The basic facts are undeniable. Extreme weather events, made more frequent and intense by climate change, pose a clear and present danger to our education system.”
— Matthew Kraft, associate professor of education and economics, Brown University
Why this matters:
As climate-driven disasters become more frequent and intense, schools across the country, especially those in vulnerable communities, are struggling to keep classrooms open and students on track. Wildfires, floods, and extreme heat are forcing closures, sometimes for weeks, disrupting learning and straining families who rely on schools for far more than education.
For students in disadvantaged communities, the impact is especially severe. Many depend on schools for daily meals, access to technology, and language support. When classrooms shut down, those lifelines disappear. The disruptions also place added pressure on working parents who may not have flexible jobs or reliable childcare options. As climate disasters become more frequent, the question looms: How can schools adapt to a reality where extreme weather is no longer an occasional threat, but a recurring challenge?
Related: High school students lead push for fossil-free investments
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
insideclimatenews.org
Credit: lisafx/Big Stock Photo
15h
Rising temperatures could sharply increase heart disease risks by 2050
Extreme heat is already responsible for a significant share of heart disease cases in Australia, and new research predicts that without emissions reductions, the burden could double or even triple by mid-century.
In short:
- A study published in the European Heart Journal found that heat-related cardiovascular disease accounts for 7.3% of Australia’s heart disease burden.
- If greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, the number of healthy life years lost due to heart disease could increase by over 180% by 2050.
- Researchers emphasize the need for adaptation strategies, such as urban cooling and public health campaigns, to reduce risks.
Key quote:
"When the weather is hot, our hearts have to work harder to help us cool down. This added pressure can be dangerous, especially for people with cardiovascular disease."
— Peng Bi, professor of public health and environmental medicine, University of Adelaide
Why this matters:
As global temperatures rise, heatwaves are becoming both more frequent and severe, placing unprecedented stress on the human body. The heart, in particular, bears the burden as it works harder to regulate body temperature, a strain that can be life-threatening for individuals with cardiovascular conditions. The risks, however, are not evenly distributed. Older adults, young children, outdoor workers, and those in low-income communities face the greatest danger. Many live in areas with limited access to air conditioning, green spaces, or cooling centers.
The implications for public health are profound. Emergency rooms already see spikes in cases of heat exhaustion and heatstroke during hot spells, and experts warn that hospitals may struggle to keep pace as heatwaves grow more intense. As climate change continues to accelerate, the pressure on health systems will increase, demanding new strategies to prevent a surge in heat-related illnesses and fatalities.
Related: LISTEN: Daniel Carrión on the "heat stroke or go broke" dilemma
Keep reading...Show less
Read the Full Article on
www.abc.net.au
From our Newsroom
New evidence links heavy metal pollution with wildfire retardants
“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.
Op-ed: Why funding for the environmental justice movement must be anti-racist
We must prioritize minority-serving institutions, BIPOC-led organizations and researchers to lead environmental justice efforts.
Biden finalizes long-awaited hydrogen tax credits ahead of Trump presidency
Responses to the new rules have been mixed, and environmental advocates worry that Trump could undermine them.
Op-ed: Toxic prisons teach us that environmental justice needs abolition
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
LISTEN: Reflections on the first five years of the Agents of Change program
The leadership team talks about what they’ve learned — and what lies ahead.
Study shows $1 billion in lost tax revenue in Houston area from industry tax breaks
Top polluters are benefiting the most from tax breaks.