climate change
Top Story
Credit: Mariana Proença/Unsplash
Clean energy tech is outpacing politics and reshaping the global power landscape
Even as the Trump administration moves to expand fossil fuels and slash climate regulations, clean energy industries are accelerating beyond the reach of political backlash.
In short:
- Despite aggressive rollbacks on climate policy by the Trump administration, clean energy technologies such as wind, solar, and electric vehicles are growing rapidly and proving cost-effective.
- Globally, economies are increasingly investing in clean energy to boost growth while limiting emissions, with the U.S. once a leader but now at risk of falling behind.
- Vox’s Escape Velocity project examines how and where climate progress is gaining momentum, and how new technologies might overcome political resistance entirely.
Why this matters:
The global shift toward clean energy marks one of the most consequential transitions of our time, affecting everything from job markets and economic growth to geopolitical power and public health. As fossil fuels face declining returns, renewables are proving cheaper, cleaner, and more resilient.
Yet politics, especially in the U.S., remains a major wildcard. The Trump administration’s efforts to revive coal, streamline oil drilling, and dismantle climate safeguards may slow federal progress, but the economics of clean energy are increasingly winning out. Utility-scale solar, battery storage, and electric vehicle adoption continue to expand because they’re more profitable — not just more sustainable. The story isn’t whether the clean energy revolution is happening — it is. The question is whether the U.S. will keep up.
Related: Solar tax credit trading brings clean energy to underserved communities — but faces political risk
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: Photo by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases/Unsplash
Scientists scramble to save climate and health data as government deletions escalate
Amid a sweeping purge of U.S. government websites, scientists and activists are racing to archive vital health and climate data before it vanishes.
In short:
- Networks of volunteers and scientists are working around the clock to preserve decades of public scientific data — everything from CO₂ levels to disease statistics — being deleted from U.S. agency websites.
- The effort, led by groups like the Public Environmental Data Project, is a direct response to the Trump administration's sweeping rollback of federal science resources, particularly targeting data related to climate change and public health.
- Key tools like EJScreen, once publicly available through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have already disappeared, while long-term datasets essential for tracking climate threats are at risk of being permanently lost.
Key quote:
“It’s stunning to me that, at a time when we’re seeing more intense hurricanes, greater rainfall extremities, more drought, more wildfires – why at that point would we ever imagine cutting the science that is key to addressing those issues, and keeping people safe?”
— Paul Bierman, geomorphologist, University of Vermont
Why this matters:
Without these datasets, researchers lose the tools to understand rising health and climate threats, from respiratory disease to extreme weather. Researchers know what’s at stake, and in basements, back rooms, and makeshift digital bunkers, scientists and volunteers are scrambling to download, duplicate, and rescue whatever they can.
Read more:
- Trump administration undermines American scientific research
- NIH signals end to key research on climate change and health
- Trump administration crackdown halts over 400 NSF research grants tied to equity and studies on misinformation
- We mobilized to defend the EPA in Trump's first term. This time the stakes are even higher.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Alex Moliski/Unsplash
Trump administration slashes environmental reviews to speed fossil fuel permits
A new directive from the Interior Department will cut environmental reviews for drilling and mining projects on public lands from years to weeks, citing an emergency order from President Trump.
In short:
- The Interior Department announced it will reduce environmental reviews for oil, gas, coal, and mineral projects to as little as 14 days, citing President Trump’s energy emergency order.
- The order claims emergency authority under laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, though critics say the U.S. has no genuine energy emergency and already leads the world in oil and gas production.
- Environmental groups argue the move silences public input and undermines legal protections, and they have promised legal challenges.
Key quote:
“This is manifestly illegal if for no other reason than this is all a fake emergency. We’ll be in court, and we will challenge it.”
— Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity
Why this matters:
Federal environmental reviews are the last line of defense against unchecked industrial development on public lands and waters, ensuring projects don’t destroy wildlife habitat, pollute water, or bulldoze cultural sites before the public can weigh in. The Trump administration’s decision to bypass these protections under the guise of an emergency opens vast swaths of land — many ecologically or culturally sensitive — to fossil fuel extraction with minimal oversight. That could fast-track air and water pollution. Public comment periods often bring to light overlooked risks; eliminating that input increases the chances of long-term harm. Critics also say invoking emergency powers for non-emergency purposes sets a dangerous precedent that erodes environmental law and democratic processes.
Learn more: Bureau of Land Management removes climate and justice reviews from oil lease sale
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
More women than men now rank climate change as their top voting concern
A growing gender gap among environmental voters reveals women, especially women of color, are increasingly prioritizing climate issues at the ballot box.
In short:
- A new analysis by the Environmental Voter Project found that 62% of voters likely to prioritize climate issues are women, with the widest gender gaps among young voters and communities of color.
- The gap has grown over time, from 20 percentage points in 2019 to 25 in 2025, raising questions about whether men’s political focus is shifting away from environmental issues.
- Experts suggest that disproportionate exposure to climate-related hardships, like housing instability and pollution, may be pushing more women, especially mothers and caregivers, to act politically.
Key quote:
“Black women often carry the weight of protecting their families and communities. They’re the ones navigating things like school closures and skyrocketing bills; they are the ones seeing the direct impacts of these things. It is a kitchen table issue.”
— Jasmine Gil, associate senior director at Hip Hop Caucus
Why this matters:
The gender divide in environmental concern reflects deeper, lived realities of who bears the brunt of climate change. Women, particularly women of color, are more likely to live in lower-income communities that face increased exposure to pollution, extreme weather, and failing infrastructure. They’re also more likely to be caregivers, meaning the ripple effects of climate disasters land heavily on their shoulders and manifest in everyday concerns like health, housing, food, and safety. The growing gender gap suggests men and women are experiencing the climate crisis differently, or at least prioritizing it differently.
Related: Most Americans worry about climate change, but fear of isolation keeps them quiet
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: Kristina Blokhin/Big Stock Photo
Trump’s EPA risks billions in legal claims as it targets climate grants distributed under Biden
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is attempting to freeze and terminate $20 billion in climate grants awarded during the Biden era, despite internal legal warnings that the move carries significant risk of triggering massive financial liabilities.
In short:
- EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has worked to block eight nonprofit groups from spending Biden-era climate funds already distributed, even though agency lawyers warned this could expose the government to billions in damages.
- Internal emails show government attorneys prioritized freezing the money before securing proof of wrongdoing, launching investigations afterward in hopes of justifying the move.
- A federal judge has ruled that EPA’s termination of the grants violated legal procedures, and litigation is ongoing as the administration tries to shift the case to a court where damages could be limited.
Key quote:
“It just seems to me that this is end-justifies-the-means logic, that there’s no evidence that’s being cited.”
— Jillian Blanchard, vice president of climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government
Why this matters:
The $20 billion in question was intended to fund solar installations, energy efficiency upgrades, and climate resilience projects in low-income communities. If courts rule against the administration, taxpayers could end up liable for damages far exceeding the original grant amounts, while critical projects stall or disappear. The situation also reveals how vulnerable environmental and social policies can be to shifts in political leadership, even when money has already changed hands. For frontline communities that were expecting job creation and infrastructure improvements, the sudden halt may deepen distrust in government institutions and exacerbate disparities.
Read more: EPA chief Lee Zeldin defends freezing $20B in climate grants, citing alleged conflicts
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: Nach-Noth/Big Stock Photo
States ramp up efforts to make fossil fuel giants pay for climate damages
A year after devastating floods swept Vermont, new science is strengthening state-level efforts to hold oil and gas companies accountable for climate-driven destruction.
In short:
- Vermont passed the first U.S. law requiring fossil fuel companies to pay for climate damages, a model now spreading to other states like New York and Massachusetts.
- A new Nature study introduces a refined model of attribution science that connects emissions from individual companies to economic losses from climate events, such as heat waves.
- Chevron alone may be responsible for $3.6 trillion in global GDP losses due to heat-related impacts, though the company disputes the study’s scientific basis and claims the legal approach is unconstitutional.
Key quote:
“We believe in openly transparent science, especially since the work was paid for by U.S. taxpayers.”
— Justin Mankin, geography professor at Dartmouth College and an author of the Nature paper
Why this matters:
Climate change lawsuits are multiplying, and attribution science is rapidly evolving to meet the legal and moral demands of a warming world. For years, scientists could point to fossil fuel emissions as a global problem, but couldn’t say which polluter caused which storm, fire, or drought. That’s changing. The new generation of models can link specific oil and gas companies to billions — sometimes trillions — of dollars in climate damages. And states like Vermont are ready to use that information to recover funds. As science gets better at assigning blame, pressure grows on governments and courts to act. And as state-level laws push forward in defiance of federal resistance, the political and legal fights over who should pay for climate change are just beginning to intensify.
Read more: Oil companies seek legal immunity modeled on gun industry’s shield from lawsuits
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Michael Marais/Unsplash
Supreme Court weighs whether fuel producers can sue over California’s clean car rules
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on whether fuel companies can challenge California’s clean vehicle standards, a case that could undermine the state’s authority to limit car emissions.
In short:
- The court is reviewing whether fuel producers have standing to sue over California’s emissions rule, not the legality of the rule itself.
- Some justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, questioned why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency didn’t initially oppose the lawsuit on procedural grounds, suggesting a potential openness to reviving the case.
- If the case is revived, lower courts would reassess it, potentially affecting California's current and future emissions policies.
Key quote:
“Isn’t that a tell here? I mean, EPA, as you, of course, know, routinely raises standing objections when there’s even — even a hint of a question about it.”
— Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Why this matters:
California’s clean car rules are among the most aggressive climate policies in the U.S., setting standards that other states often follow. These regulations, which include a gradual phase-out of gas-powered cars, aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in a state plagued by vehicle pollution. But the pushback from fuel producers reflects broader tensions between federal authority, state environmental ambition, and the fossil fuel industry’s economic interests. A ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed could slow or weaken similar initiatives nationwide, emboldening legal challenges to local environmental efforts. The case also comes as climate scientists warn that transportation emissions must fall sharply to avoid the worst effects of global warming.
Read more: California regulators push back against car dealers' campaign on emissions rule
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
