environmental justice
Newsletter
Credit: AlexandrMusuc/Big Stock Photo
Trump administration fires climate.gov team, leaving federal climate science site in limbo
A key federal climate education website may soon cease operations after the Trump administration terminated nearly all of its staff, raising fears the site could be shut down or repurposed.
In short:
- The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fired the entire contracted staff behind Climate.gov on May 31, halting its content production and casting doubt on its future.
- Staff say the move was politically motivated, describing it as part of a broader effort to restrict public access to climate information and reduce public engagement with climate science.
- The site’s former managers and contributors worry the Trump administration may repurpose Climate.gov to spread anti-science or partisan narratives, undermining its role as a trusted, nonpartisan source.
Key quote:
“We operated exactly how you would want an independent, non-partisan communications group to operate.”
— Rebecca Lindsey, former program manager at Climate.gov
Why this matters:
Climate.gov was one of the federal government’s most trusted and widely accessed sources for scientifically grounded climate education. In an era of rising climate-driven disasters, public access to clear, factual climate data plays a vital role in helping communities prepare and respond. The loss of the Climate.gov team not only silences NOAA’s public education efforts, but also weakens the nation's defenses against misinformation. Many Americans, especially educators, local officials, and journalists, relied on the site’s tools and insights to interpret weather trends and long-term climate patterns like El Niño. Without a neutral government voice in this space, the vacuum may be filled by partisan groups, eroding public trust and blunting effective action on climate resilience and preparedness.
Read more: Climate data is vanishing from government websites, raising alarms
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: jozzeppe/Big Stock Photo
Corporate climate promises are collapsing as companies retreat from green goals
Coca-Cola, BP, FedEx, and other global brands are quietly dropping or scaling back their climate commitments, a trend accelerating amid regulatory rollbacks under President Trump.
In short:
- More than 4,000 companies made climate pledges in recent decades, but many are now abandoning or weakening those goals, especially in the U.S., where regulatory pressure has eased.
- Some business leaders and academics say the corporate retreat reveals a deeper truth: Voluntary efforts were never enough and must be replaced with enforceable climate regulations.
- Critics highlight the hypocrisy of companies that publicly support climate goals while funding trade groups or lobbying efforts that block real policy change.
Key quote:
“I am heartened by the alacrity of the retreat and the ferociousness of it, because I think it uncovers the reality that we all need to understand, which is companies aren’t going to save the planet. The quicker that people understand and integrate that, the better.”
— Ken Pucker, professor at Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy
Why this matters:
Corporate sustainability plans have long served as a public face of climate action, reassuring investors and consumers while emissions continued to rise. Now, with many firms backpedaling on those commitments and policymakers in retreat, the pressure shifts to regulatory solutions. Without binding rules, cleaner technologies struggle to compete, and the few companies trying to lead face unfair market disadvantages. This undermines progress at a time when climate science warns of escalating threats to food security, public health, and infrastructure. The business community’s mixed messages — talking green while lobbying against change — further erode trust. As global temperatures rise and extreme weather events intensify, the need for clear, enforced standards is becoming more urgent.
Related: EU delays corporate sustainability rules as businesses push back
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: zimmytws/BogStock Photo ID: 299386018
Tulane faces backlash for silencing researcher exposing pollution and racial bias
A Tulane University scientist has resigned, alleging she was muzzled for exposing how Louisiana’s petrochemical industry harms Black communities through pollution and discriminatory hiring.
In short:
- Dr. Kimberly Terrell resigned from Tulane’s Environmental Law Clinic, claiming the university censored her advocacy and barred her from discussing her studies linking toxic pollution to racial health disparities.
- Internal emails show university officials feared her work would jeopardize political and donor support for a high-profile redevelopment project tied to New Orleans’ historic Charity Hospital.
- Terrell’s research revealed higher cancer rates, premature births, and unequal employment in Black communities near petrochemical facilities, sparking pushback from elected officials and donors.
Key quote:
“I cannot remain silent as this university sacrifices academic integrity for political appeasement and pet projects. Our work is too important, and the stakes are too high, to sit back and watch special interests replace scholarship with censorship.”
— Kimberly Terrell, former director of community engagement, Tulane Environmental Law Clinic
Why this matters:
Here's a story that cuts right to the bone of environmental justice in the South, where petrochemical plants line the Mississippi River with polluting smoke stacks and nearby communities have long been treated as sacrifice zones. It's another blow to environmental justice and academic freedom in the face of corporate and political influence.
Read more:
- “Cancer Alley” residents exposed to more than the lifetime exposure limit for cancer-causing compound: Report
- Op-ed: “I’m sorry, I can’t hear you” — disabling environments in Cancer Alley and the Ohio River Valley
- Community activists plead to be heard through “closed doors” outside nation’s top energy conference
- Lives “devastated’ by petrochemical industry pollution in Texas: Report
- Op-ed: Why is the chemical industry pitting public health against economic growth?
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: Photo by Konstantin Kitsenuik/Unsplash
Fossil fuel lobbyists are rewriting clean energy laws to keep methane gas on top
A wave of state bills pushed by fossil fuel interests aims to label methane gas as “clean” energy, undermining climate policies and misleading the public.
In short:
- Dark money groups and industry-aligned think tanks like ALEC are pushing model legislation across states to redefine methane gas as “green” or “clean,” threatening renewable energy goals.
- These laws could gut local and state-level clean energy standards, forcing cities like Nashville to count methane gas as renewable — even when their goals were to cut fossil fuel use.
- Methane is a major driver of climate change and poses serious public health risks, yet gas lobbyists are pushing this rebrand to preserve their profits and stall the shift to wind and solar.
Key quote:
“It’s simply a grand effort at greenwashing a dirty energy source.”
— Gabe Filippelli, executive director of the Environmental Resilience Institute and professor of earth sciences at Indiana University
Why this matters:
It’s a rebrand worthy of Orwell. In places like Tennessee, where Nashville’s leaders aimed to ditch fossil fuels, these bills could force cities to pretend gas is green, sabotaging climate goals and public health protections in the name of "choice" and “energy freedom.”
Read more: “I’m sorry, I can’t hear you” — disabling environments in Cancer Alley and the Ohio River Valley
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: International Rivers/Flickr/internationalrivers.org/en/day-of-action/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/
California tribe reclaims its legacy with massive return of Klamath River lands
In a historic move, the Yurok Tribe has reclaimed 17,000 acres of ancestral land along Northern California’s Klamath River, marking the state’s largest landback deal.
In short:
- The Yurok Tribe has regained control of 17,000 acres around the Klamath River, finalizing a 47,097-acre restoration effort that doubles their land base and designates key areas as salmon sanctuaries.
- This return follows the removal of four major dams from the river, reopening over 400 miles of spawning habitat for salmon and reviving Indigenous stewardship of crucial ecosystems.
- The deal was orchestrated with the help of the Western Rivers Conservancy and funded through a patchwork of private, state, and federal resources, including carbon credit sales and conservation loans.
Key quote:
“The Klamath River is our highway. It is also our food source. And it takes care of us. And so it’s our job, our inherent right, to take care of the Klamath Basin and its river.”
— Joseph James, Chairman, Yurok Tribal Council
Why this matters:
Restoring Indigenous stewardship of land has direct benefits for public health and biodiversity — protecting forests that sequester carbon, watersheds that sustain salmon, and ecosystems that support clean air and water. It’s part climate fix, part cultural revival — a living example of what environmental justice looks like when it’s done with purpose and persistence.
Read more: Restoring our waters is restoring ourselves
Keep reading...Show less
Top Story
Credit: Kristina Blokhin/BigStock Photo ID: 196171783
EPA repeal of limits on power plant emissions threatens key climate and health protections
It's official: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is moving to scrap pollution limits on greenhouse gases and toxic chemicals from power plants, reversing hard-won Biden-era rules that sought to protect public health and mitigate climate change.
In short:
- The EPA plans to repeal 2024 rules that limited greenhouse gas emissions and toxic pollutants like mercury, arsenic, and benzene from power plants — rules that were designed to cut health risks like cancer, birth defects, and premature death.
- The rollback comes as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin pushes for sweeping deregulation, which includes targeting the 2009 “endangerment finding” that allows the federal government to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
- Critics argue the changes give fossil fuel power plants a pass to pollute, while proponents say the move will save money and keep the power grid stable.
Key quote:
“Pollutants like mercury and greenhouse gases are harmful, a settled scientific fact for decades, and the evidence has only gotten stronger.”
— Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island
Why this matters:
The EPA just lit a match under one of the few major climate safeguards left standing. The administration’s argument — grid reliability and economic savings — echoes common pro-fossil fuel talking points. Meanwhile, the health of communities living in the shadow of smokestacks hangs in the balance. And as the Trump administration eliminates rules meant to curb the worst effects of climate change, it is also doubling down on efforts to sideline renewable energy.
Read more:
Keep reading...Show less
Credit: Louis Reed/Unsplash
Congress questions who’s in control as Trump budget cuts disrupt NIH research
A Senate panel pressed the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Jay Bhattacharya, to explain who is behind sweeping cuts to research funding, as confusion grows over the Trump administration’s influence on the agency’s operations.
In short:
- NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya deflected responsibility for the agency’s funding freeze and an $18 billion budget cut, blaming broader collaboration between Congress and the Trump administration.
- Senators from both parties criticized the cuts, warning they would stall progress on diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s and risk U.S. competitiveness in medical science.
- Internal dissent has grown within the NIH, with over a hundred employees signing a letter alleging the grant cancellations were ideologically driven and bypassed scientific input.
Key quote:
“There’s a range of decisions, I think, that led to some of those pauses of grants.”
— Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health
Why this matters:
The National Institutes of Health has long been a global leader in funding biomedical research, underwriting much of the basic science that drives breakthroughs in medicine. Cuts of the magnitude now proposed — nearly 40% — threaten not just lab jobs and university projects, but the foundation of U.S. innovation in health. When politics overtake peer-reviewed science, fields like public health, climate-linked disease research, and reproductive health often take the first hit. The sidelining of diversity and equity studies under the label of “politicized science” could further erode efforts to understand and address health disparities. As federal support evaporates, researchers may turn to private industry, where the incentive to cure may compete with the incentive to profit. And for the public, it means longer waits for accurate, objective answers about diseases that affect millions.
Read more: NIH workers warn of illegal orders and suppressed science
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
