
25 November 2018
National Climate Assessment: 3 takeaways
Climate change is here, it’s expensive, and it’s deadly, according to a dire new report.
The Trump administration’s proposed Department of Energy budget would slash funding for clean energy research while prioritizing artificial intelligence, data centers, and nuclear technologies.
In short:
Key quote:
“As much as the secretary is talking about how excited he is about fusion, the budget they proposed cut it. The truth is the Chinese are not cutting, and the competitors in Germany and the U.K. are not cutting.”
— Andrew Holland, CEO of the Fusion Industry Association
Why this matters:
The national labs have long served as a part of the backbone of American scientific innovation, driving breakthroughs in energy, public health, and climate resilience. Cutting funding to programs focused on solar, wind, hydrogen, and carbon capture could stall momentum on efforts to lower emissions and improve energy efficiency across the country. The budget shift signals a federal turn away from climate mitigation research and toward industrial and AI-focused infrastructure, raising questions about long-term environmental impacts. If passed, these cuts could halt progress on clean energy transitions and limit U.S. competitiveness in global energy markets.
For more: New grid rules struggle to keep pace with AI, extreme weather, and political divides
The European Union has begun scaling back major environmental protections under the Green Deal, sparking concern among campaigners who say the bloc is rapidly losing its climate leadership.
In short:
Key quote:
“This is highly relevant because it’s the first proposal under the simplification agenda that’s been put forward and … it’s not just weakening it a little bit, it’s slashing it. The heart of the proposal has basically been taken out.”
— Paul de Clerck, campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe
Why this matters:
Europe’s Green Deal was once hailed as a global blueprint for cutting emissions, protecting biodiversity, and making the economy more sustainable. Its current unraveling comes at a time when rising temperatures, pollution-linked diseases, and extreme weather are already straining public health systems and ecosystems. Policies to curb deforestation, regulate corporate polluters, and cut industrial emissions have direct links to reducing cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness, and cancer. Rolling back these rules under the guise of competitiveness risks shifting the burden of pollution from industries onto people, especially children, the elderly, and low-income communities. As the EU softens its stance, its credibility on climate leadership is weakening, just as global cooperation is needed most to limit irreversible environmental harm.
Read more: Greenwashing law reversal deepens political rift in European Union
Senate Republicans are backing a proposal that would strip penalties from federal fuel economy standards, a move critics say could drive up gasoline use and tailpipe pollution.
In short:
Key quote:
“If polluters are told that there’s no penalty for polluting, what do you think they’re going to do?”
— Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity
Why this matters:
Fuel economy standards have played a quiet but powerful role in cutting the nation’s oil consumption and tailpipe emissions for nearly half a century. Gutting the enforcement mechanism removes the primary incentive for automakers to invest in cleaner technologies, especially as the electric vehicle market remains costlier and less profitable for manufacturers. Without penalties, companies may scale back innovation and flood the market with bigger, thirstier vehicles, just as global efforts to combat climate change demand the opposite. The result is likely more smog, more carbon emissions, and more money spent at the pump. It also risks locking the U.S. auto industry into a losing position as China races ahead on clean vehicles.
Learn more: New Trump administration rule weakens efforts to promote cleaner cars
A budget bill moving through Congress could block most U.S. clean energy projects from receiving tax credits if any part of their supply chain includes ties to China.
In short:
Key quote:
“Practically speaking, as these bills are written, there’s no way to have sufficient confidence that one is compliant because the rules are just so extensive and get at such attenuated factors that the taxpayers themselves won’t have the information they need.”
— Seth Hanlon, senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University School of Law
Why this matters:
Clean energy development in the U.S. depends heavily on tax credits to attract investment and compete with fossil fuels. But new legislative language could turn these financial incentives into a minefield. The bill’s vague and expansive definitions may effectively disqualify many solar, wind, battery, and EV projects that have even remote ties to Chinese suppliers. China dominates the global supply chain for many clean energy technologies, from photovoltaic cells to battery materials, so this could cripple large swaths of the transition. The stakes are high: Delays or rollbacks in clean energy buildout could slow efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reduce air pollution, especially in communities already burdened by fossil fuel infrastructure.
Learn more: Republican tax plan would expand oil industry subsidies and cut clean energy support
A coalition of nonprofits, tribes, and local governments is suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency after it abruptly canceled $3 billion in environmental justice grants awarded under the Biden administration.
In short:
Key quote:
“We believe that our contract was illegally terminated. There was nothing in our terms and conditions that allows an administration — Trump or otherwise — to cancel a federal contract because they don’t like what the contract is about.”
— Jennifer Hadayia, executive director of Air Alliance Houston
Why this matters:
Environmental justice grants help communities on the front lines of pollution track emissions, clean up water systems, and prepare for extreme weather. Cutting these funds guts the ability of local groups to monitor and respond to environmental risks that threaten public health. Programs like the one in Houston empower residents to know when polluting industries plan to expand operations nearby. Without that transparency, communities can be blindsided by toxic emissions or contaminated water. The rollback also raises questions about how federal agencies allocate and rescind funding, and whether political shifts can erase legally binding contracts aimed at safeguarding health and the environment.
Learn more:
Vermont is preparing for a drawn-out legal fight after President Trump’s Justice Department joined fossil fuel interests in suing to block the state’s new Climate Superfund law, which seeks to make oil companies pay for decades of greenhouse gas emissions.
In short:
Key quote:
“Frankly, the president is using the Department of Justice as a political shield for his allies in the oil industry.”
— Ben Edgerly Walsh, the Climate and Energy Program director at the Vermont Public Interest Group
Why this matters:
As climate disasters grow more destructive and expensive, states like Vermont are trying to make polluters — not taxpayers — foot the bill. The Climate Superfund approach doesn’t regulate future emissions; it retroactively charges fossil fuel companies for past harms based on climate attribution science. That distinction is legally important and politically explosive. The stakes are high: Vermont is a small, rural state with limited resources, but its strategy has inspired similar bills in other states and could set a legal precedent. Meanwhile, the fossil fuel industry, with support from the federal government under President Trump, is mobilizing hard to kill it. The outcome will shape how the U.S. distributes the financial burden of climate change, and whether frontline communities can secure relief.
Related: States ramp up efforts to make fossil fuel giants pay for climate damages
A chemical-industry-backed researcher is using artificial intelligence to question links between pollution and health risks, prompting concern among scientists about bias and regulatory delay.
In short:
Key quote:
“Science denialism often sounds convincing because it contains some truthiness to it or elements of truth or elements of valid points, but it’s often based on either overemphasis or omission and doesn’t portray a full picture.”
— Chris Frey, associate dean, North Carolina State University College of Engineering
Why this matters:
The use of artificial intelligence to challenge established links between pollution and health risks poses a threat to scientific integrity and public trust. When backed by industry groups with a stake in avoiding regulation, such tools may serve less as neutral evaluators and more as sophisticated vehicles for obfuscation. The tactic mirrors historic efforts by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to delay policy by casting doubt on scientific evidence. At a time when exposure to air pollutants like PM2.5 and synthetic chemicals such as PFAS and PFOA are linked to chronic illness, undermining research through AI could weaken already insufficient public health protections.
Related:
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.