As wildfire seasons worsen, a growing number of rural residents are buying and outfitting fire rigs and other equipment to protect their property and themselves.
A Republican-led effort to repeal major clean energy tax credits threatens more than $500 billion in pending investments, many in GOP districts, and could reshape America’s energy landscape.
The Inflation Reduction Act spurred more than $843 billion in announced clean energy investments since 2022, but only $321 billion has been spent; the rest is now uncertain due to a proposed Republican rollback.
A House GOP budget bill would phase out tax credits for wind, solar, nuclear, EVs, hydrogen, and clean energy manufacturing, potentially stalling or killing numerous energy projects.
Many Republican districts, which stand to benefit most from these incentives, are caught between party lines, as business interests and job growth clash with ideological opposition.
Key quote:
“There is a remarkable tension right now, between probably the best fundamentals for investment in the energy sector that we’ve seen in a generation and the greatest amount of uncertainty that we’ve seen in the generation. That is a collision that all manufacturing now is trying to navigate.”
— Jason Grumet, chief executive of the American Clean Power Association
Why this matters:
Clean energy investment in the U.S. has exploded since 2022, driven by federal tax credits that support everything from solar and wind farms to battery factories and low-emission steel production. These credits have helped the U.S. begin to catch up with China in renewable technology and domestic manufacturing, creating tens of thousands of jobs, especially in states with Republican leadership. If repealed, these incentives would not only undercut American competitiveness in growing energy markets, but also reverse critical gains in reducing emissions and building resilient supply chains. Communities across the country — many in regions historically dependent on fossil fuels — could lose important economic lifelines.
The United States failed to meet a key international deadline to report its greenhouse gas emissions, prompting an environmental group to release the data, which shows the country is falling behind on its climate goals.
For the first time in nearly 30 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency did not publish its annual greenhouse gas inventory by the United Nations' April deadline; the Environmental Defense Fund obtained and released the data through a Freedom of Information Act request.
The U.S. has reduced its gross greenhouse gas emissions by 17% since 2005, far short of its stated goal to cut them by 26–28% by 2025 and by 61–66% by 2035.
Carbon dioxide remains the dominant greenhouse gas, with 93% of emissions coming from fossil fuel combustion; the transportation sector is now the largest emitter, surpassing electric power.
Key quote:
"We have to further accelerate the pace of those reductions to meet our science-based climate commitments."
— Peter Zalzal, associate vice president of clean air strategies for the Environmental Defense Fund
Why this matters:
The data reveal that progress toward climate targets has slowed to a crawl. With just a 17% emissions drop since 2005, the country is nowhere near its goal of slashing emissions by over 60% by 2035. Carbon dioxide, mostly from fossil fuel combustion, continues to dominate the nation’s emissions profile, and a rollback of climate policies threatens to deepen the crisis. Delays in reporting or acting on this data not only undermines international trust — it also risks public health, as air pollution and climate-driven disasters worsen.
A sweeping reorganization at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may cost hundreds of scientists their jobs and curtail independent research on public health and the environment.
Political officials at the EPA have reportedly told scientists to apply for newly posted jobs or risk termination, part of a broad restructuring under the Trump administration.
Internal communications suggest lab research in the Office of Research and Development may halt due to a lack of supplies, though the EPA disputes those claims and says research is ongoing.
The agency aims to cut its workforce by thousands and shift research responsibilities to regulatory offices, sparking concerns about the loss of scientific independence and institutional knowledge.
Key quote:
“Without the evolution of the science …we would see a difference that EPA will do less to protect public health and the environment.”
— Chris Frey, former head of the Office of Research and Development under the Biden administration
Why this matters:
The future of environmental science at the federal level looks increasingly precarious. The Environmental Protection Agency's research arm plays a pivotal role in assessing the health impacts of air and water pollution, chemical exposures, and climate change. Independent, peer-reviewed science underpins the EPA’s regulations, from setting safe drinking water standards to determining which pesticides stay on the market. The downsizing of labs and loss of expert staff would come as the U.S. faces mounting public health challenges from toxic chemicals, extreme weather, and industrial pollution. And shifting research to policy offices risks entangling science with political agendas.
European Union leaders face growing pressure to revise their 2035 ban on gas and diesel car sales as automakers struggle to compete with China, and conservative lawmakers warn of job losses and industry decline.
European automakers are struggling to meet the EU’s 2035 ban on internal combustion engines, citing high costs, job cuts, and competition from cheaper Chinese electric vehicles.
Political support for the ban is weakening, especially among right-leaning lawmakers and countries like Italy, who warn that the regulation risks economic harm and increased reliance on China.
As EV sales rise slowly and affordable models remain scarce, the EU is considering more flexible timelines, while battery production efforts face setbacks, including the bankruptcy of Sweden’s Northvolt.
Key quote:
“The idea that if you simply prescribe rules, it will all happen — it’s just too simply put. That realization is starting to sink in.”
— Sigrid de Vries, director general of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association
Why this matters:
The European Union’s transition to electric vehicles was supposed to be a flagship initiative to combat climate change and modernize one of its most important industries. But the shift is proving far more complex than anticipated. EVs remain expensive, and the supply chain — especially for batteries — is dominated by China. Meanwhile, automakers are slashing jobs, delaying launches, and lobbying for regulatory relief. These growing pains underscore a broader dilemma: how to decarbonize fast enough to avoid climate catastrophe while maintaining economic stability and political consensus. Europe’s automotive identity and economic engine are at stake.
The Department of Energy has proposed eliminating dozens of energy efficiency rules for appliances and fuels in what it calls a cost-cutting effort, triggering legal threats from environmental groups and states.
The Department of Energy announced 47 deregulatory actions that would eliminate over 125,000 words from the Code of Federal Regulations, primarily by rescinding efficiency standards on appliances such as dishwashers, stoves, and showerheads.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright, under President Trump’s directive, emphasized that the rollbacks are aimed at boosting consumer choice and reducing regulatory burdens within just over 110 days.
Legal experts and environmental advocates argue the move violates federal law, citing an anti-backsliding clause meant to prevent weakening existing efficiency standards, and predict lawsuits from states and advocacy groups.
Key quote:
“They are ignoring the law. When you take these standards away, that’s going to increase costs for consumers and businesses.”
— Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project
Why this matters:
Energy efficiency standards have long served as a quiet force for public health, environmental protection, and economic savings. By reducing the energy needed to run everyday appliances, these rules help cut greenhouse gas emissions and decrease utility bills for millions of households. Rolling them back could increase carbon emissions just as global climate efforts demand reductions. The legal dispute brewing over DOE’s move could shape how far executive agencies can go in unraveling regulations passed under previous administrations.
Decades after launching one of the federal government’s most widely used energy-efficiency programs, the Trump administration is now seeking to eliminate Energy Star as part of a broader rollback of environmental protections.
The Energy Star program, established in 1992 and credited with major energy savings and emissions reductions, is reportedly on the chopping block under the Trump administration’s restructuring plans for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The proposal has prompted widespread pushback from businesses, cities, and lawmakers, with over a thousand groups urging continued funding, citing the program’s low cost and large financial benefits to households.
The move is part of a broader federal effort to dismantle climate-related policies, including lawsuits against states with local climate initiatives and cuts to scientific climate programs and databases.
Key quote:
“I think what we’re seeing is they’re going after programs because they’re popular. They’re going after programs because people will notice, because they are in the process of repudiating the social contract.”
— Joe Goffman, former head of the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation under Joe Biden
Why this matters:
Energy Star is a voluntary labeling system that helps consumers identify energy-efficient products, from refrigerators to water heaters. Its blue label is one of the few widely recognized government signals in the marketplace, guiding millions of purchases and encouraging manufacturers to exceed minimum efficiency standards. Killing the program undermines an initiative that slashes electricity use and carbon emissions with minimal taxpayer investment.
California legislators have paused bills aimed at holding fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate damages, citing political headwinds, economic concerns, and fear of industry backlash.
Three proposed climate superfund bills in California, including one spurred by destructive Los Angeles wildfires, have been postponed or rejected amid concerns over job loss and fuel prices.
The oil industry and trade unions mounted strong opposition, while threats from President Trump to dismantle state emissions policies added pressure on lawmakers.
Supporters of the legislation cite mounting evidence that global warming, driven by major fossil fuel companies, has inflicted enormous economic losses and health impacts, with researchers estimating up to $14 trillion in damage from heat alone.
Key quote:
“The public is exponentially paying for climate damage, and we have to make a change.”
— California Assemblymember Dawn Addis
Why this matters:
California sits on the front lines of climate change, with worsening wildfires, droughts, and heat waves putting lives, homes, and the economy at risk. Scientists have grown more confident in models tying individual fossil fuel companies’ emissions to specific climate disasters and economic harm, bolstering calls for them to pay a share of the damages. But California’s legislature, once seen as a leader on climate action, is wavering. In an election year shaped by inflation fears and renewed fossil fuel lobbying, lawmakers are choosing political caution over bold environmental accountability. Meanwhile, the costs of inaction are stacking up. In just one wildfire episode, the Los Angeles region may have lost a quarter trillion dollars in combined property, economic and health-related damage.
