energy
Newsletter
Coal use drives sharp rise in U.S. power plant emissions amid summer heat
U.S. power plant emissions have surged to a three-year high, driven by a spike in coal use as utilities scramble to meet rising electricity demand during record summer heat and elevated natural gas prices.
In short:
- U.S. power sector emissions rose 5% in the first five months of 2025, reaching 640 million metric tons, mainly due to a 20% increase in coal pollution as utilities shifted away from more expensive natural gas.
- Natural gas prices jumped more than 60% compared to early 2024, prompting a 4.2% drop in gas-fired electricity generation and a 14% rise in coal-fired generation through June.
- Power demand is expected to remain high through the summer due to widespread heat waves, further boosting fossil fuel use and emissions despite record solar power output.
Why this matters:
Coal remains one of the dirtiest sources of energy, and its resurgence in the U.S. power mix is pushing carbon emissions to troubling levels just as the country braces for more extreme summer heat. When electricity demand spikes, especially at night when solar power goes offline, utilities lean heavily on fossil fuels, exacerbating the very climate pressures driving heat waves. These emissions not only heat the planet further but also worsen air quality, affecting respiratory health, especially among children, the elderly, and people living near power plants. With gas prices high and renewable sources still not meeting total demand, the return to coal is setting back progress on both climate and public health fronts.
Related: Trump EPA claims power plant emissions aren’t harmful, contradicting climate science
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: Daniel van den Berg/Unsplash
Cities are quietly outpacing nations in climate progress
Cities worldwide are cutting emissions, greening streets, and adapting to climate threats faster than national governments, according to a new international report.
In short:
- A report from the Global Covenant of Mayors and C40 shows 75% of major cities in the network are reducing per capita emissions more quickly than their national governments, with an average drop of 7.5% from 2015 to 2024.
- Urban leaders are responding directly to rising local impacts of climate change — heat, flooding, and sea-level rise — by planting trees, electrifying transit, and improving walkability and energy efficiency.
- Despite growing efforts, cities face major funding gaps: The report estimates they need $4.5 trillion annually by 2030 to meet climate goals, far above the current $179 billion invested in 2024.
Key quote:
“I think they’re going above and beyond in some respects, about planning for the future, as well as actually implementing some of the things that the federal governments have signed on to.”
— Dan Jasper, senior policy advisor at the climate solutions group Project Drawdown
Why this matters:
Urban areas house over half the world’s population. Their concrete-heavy landscapes absorb and retain heat, turning heatwaves deadly. Aging sewer systems buckle under increasingly intense storms, while sea-level rise threatens coastal infrastructure. As cities expand, these risks grow. Yet cities are also nimble: Mayors can act faster than national leaders and often enjoy more public support for visible improvements. But without enough funding, even the most ambitious cities will struggle to protect their people from what’s coming.
Related: Mayors lead climate fight with practical solutions as federal support wanes
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: MRC Témiscamingue/Unsplash
California residents challenge methane policy they say pollutes under the guise of clean energy
Residents in California’s Central Valley are pushing back against a state-backed program that incentivizes methane digesters at industrial dairies, arguing it locks in pollution and worsens environmental health in Latino communities.
In short:
- California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) subsidizes methane digesters at large dairies, but critics say the policy encourages dairy expansion and entrenches fossil fuel infrastructure.
- Lawsuits and community advocates argue the program ignores local pollution and fails to meet environmental review standards, while benefiting corporations like Chevron and BP.
- Residents in towns like Planada, where many are undocumented Latino farmworkers, say they’re being treated as expendable in the state’s climate strategy.
Key quote:
“Many of us have witnessed this transition from an innovative regulation into a swag bag for venture capitalists, big oil, big agriculture, and big gas, increasingly coming at the expense of low- and moderate-income Californians.”
— James Duffy, former California Air Resources Board employee
Why this matters:
Methane digesters are promoted as a climate solution, but their deployment raises red flags for public health and environmental equity. These facilities concentrate pollution in rural, low-income communities already burdened by industrial agriculture. The Central Valley, a hub of dairy production, suffers from some of the worst air quality in the nation, with ammonia and nitrate pollution contaminating water and air. While digesters capture methane, they do not address emissions from cow burps or the fossil-fuel-intensive feed system. Worse, they may encourage larger herds and more waste. Critics warn the state's market-based approach favors industry profits over real emissions cuts.
Related: California's dairy farms and the controversy surrounding methane digesters
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Mehaniq/Big Stock Photo
New Mexico groups take oil pollution case to state Supreme Court
A coalition of environmental, youth, and Indigenous groups is asking the New Mexico Supreme Court to revive a lawsuit claiming the state has failed its constitutional duty to protect residents from oil and gas pollution.
In short:
- Plaintiffs argue the state has ignored Article 20, Section 21 of its constitution, which requires the protection of air, water, and natural resources, particularly amid the oil boom in the San Juan and Permian Basins.
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals dismissed the case last month, prompting plaintiffs to appeal directly to the state’s highest court, citing environmental harm and unequal protection.
- Oil and gas production in the state has grown tenfold since 2010, using billions of gallons of fresh water for fracking and contributing significantly to climate pollution.
Key quote:
“Oil and gas pollution continues to harm our communities, poison our water and air, and threaten our sacred places. The state has a constitutional obligation to control pollution and we’re calling on our highest court to uphold that duty.”
— Julia Bernal, executive director of Pueblo Action Alliance
Why this matters:
New Mexico is one of the country’s biggest oil producers, yet large parts of its fossil fuel industry remain shielded from full environmental oversight due to outdated exemptions. Fracking operations draw heavily on scarce freshwater reserves, accelerating stress in a state already battling severe drought and aridification from climate change. Airborne pollutants and toxic wastewater from fossil fuel extraction endanger frontline communities, many of them Indigenous, who face higher exposure to environmental hazards and fewer legal protections. With the state’s constitution promising clean air and water, the outcome of this case could test how far those rights extend.
Read more: New Mexico lawmakers struggle to regulate oil and gas amid federal rollbacks
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Clean energy power line project faces legal challenge in Missouri
An 804-mile wind energy transmission line slated to cross four states is now under investigation by Missouri’s attorney general, threatening to derail one of the country’s biggest clean energy infrastructure projects.
In short:
- Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey launched an investigation into the Grain Belt Express project, claiming developers exaggerated job creation, misrepresented cost savings, and misled landowners.
- The $11 billion line, backed by Invenergy, aims to move wind-generated electricity from Kansas to Indiana but faces strong opposition from landowners, local officials, and Senator Josh Hawley.
- Though the project had secured permits in four states and federal support, Bailey is pushing to revoke Missouri’s approval, citing eminent domain abuse and private profit motives.
Key quote:
“This so-called renewable energy project is nothing more than a government-sponsored land grab disguised as environmentalism.”
— Andrew Bailey, Missouri attorney general
Why this matters:
The U.S. power grid is old, fragmented, and ill-equipped for the growing demands of modern life, including surging electricity use from AI data centers and a national push toward renewable energy. Projects like Grain Belt Express are designed to connect clean energy sources in rural areas to population centers hundreds of miles away, but they often collide with local resistance and complex permitting hurdles. Farmers and landowners worry about losing control over their property, especially when for-profit companies wield eminent domain. Meanwhile, delays in building new transmission lines slow the shift away from fossil fuels and threaten grid reliability.
Related: Senate passes GOP budget bill, hampering US shift to clean energy
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: meunierd/Big Stock Photo
Brazil shifts from asbestos to rare earths amid global mineral race
Minaçu, a Brazilian city built on asbestos mining, is betting its future on rare earth elements as global demand surges and geopolitical tensions strain China’s dominance over supply chains.
In short:
- Minaçu, once home to the Americas’ only asbestos mine, is now producing rare earth minerals critical for electric vehicles and wind turbines, aiming to become a key player outside Asia.
- Although the Serra Verde mine promises safer, water-based extraction, residents report environmental concerns including water pollution and cattle miscarriages, with little company response.
- Despite mining royalties, the city has seen persistent poverty, and past mining booms failed to deliver broad economic benefits, raising doubts about rare earths repeating the pattern.
Key quote:
“The fact that more than 20% of the population remains socially vulnerable shows that the profits from asbestos mining do not result in quality of life for the local population.”
— Ricardo Gonçalves, geography professor at the State University of Goiás
Why this matters:
Rare earth elements are essential for modern technology — from smartphones to renewable energy to missile systems — but their extraction is often dirty, dangerous, and politically fraught. China has long dominated this market, but tensions with the U.S. are prompting new investments in alternatives like Brazil, which holds the world’s second-largest reserves. Yet mining communities such as Minaçu face a dilemma: while rare earths promise economic renewal, they may repeat the extractive harm of asbestos, a mineral that killed thousands and left environmental scars. Without safeguards, Brazil risks trading one toxic legacy for another. As the energy transition accelerates, ensuring it doesn't replicate old injustices is a challenge for both health and the environment.
Related: The hidden cost of powering your phone might be someone else’s cancer
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Joe Benning/Big Stock Photo
New Jersey diverts climate funds to transit system as budget shortfall grows
New Jersey lawmakers have redirected $190 million from the state’s Clean Energy Fund to cover transit and budget gaps, marking the second-largest such transfer in the fund’s history.
In short:
- The Clean Energy Fund, financed by utility ratepayers to support renewable energy and emissions-reduction programs, lost $190 million — $140 million to New Jersey Transit and $50 million to the general budget.
- Governor Phil Murphy, despite pledging to stop these “raids” in 2017, has now presided over $832 million in Clean Energy Fund diversions during his time in office.
- The move comes amid federal clean energy cuts under President Trump and a looming $1.5 billion state deficit, with lawmakers arguing the transfer was necessary to avoid a government shutdown.
Key quote:
“Given what is happening in Washington right now … if we really are going to ensure that every single person in this state has access to clean air, clean water — that the electrical prices that we’re all talking about, that we can continue to do something about—it is critically important that we make these investments.”
— New Jersey State Senator Andrew Zwicker
Why this matters:
The Clean Energy Fund plays a vital role in helping New Jersey shift away from fossil fuels. Raiding this fund to cover transit and budget shortfalls undermines that mission, especially at a time when federal support for clean energy is drying up. The fund was built on the backs of utility ratepayers to cut emissions, support solar and wind infrastructure, and electrify transportation. New Jersey has some of the worst air pollution in the country, and transportation is its largest source of emissions. Redirecting clean energy funds slows the progress toward healthier air and a more stable climate, and sends a confusing signal about policy priorities in a state already vulnerable to climate impacts.
Related: New gas plant approved in Newark despite community objections over health and pollution
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
