China dominates global solar manufacturing, and new tariffs from the Trump administration are jacking up prices on key solar components, especially glass and solar cells.
U.S. companies, buoyed by Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, have invested billions in homegrown production, but they still can’t compete with China’s scale — meaning both domestic and foreign panel prices are rising.
As installation costs go up and pricing remains uncertain, solar companies warn adoption will slow, particularly for homeowners and smaller installers already squeezed by interest rates.
Key quote:
“Really everybody’s losing when you think about it, because the systems are costing more for the customers and it’s also just making it more difficult, in some ways, for us to do business.”
— Brian DiPaolo, assistant sales manager at Cleveland-based solar installer YellowLite
Why this matters:
Tariffs may aim to boost American industry, but they’re also making clean energy harder to afford. For homeowners already feeling the pinch of high interest rates, that dream of slashing power bills with rooftop solar feels further away. Higher prices mean fewer rooftop solar systems, less carbon reduction, and more missed opportunities for families trying to save money and fight climate change at the same time.
Get the best positive, solutions-oriented stories we've seen on the intersection of our health and environment, FREE every Tuesday in your inbox. Subscribe here today. Keep the change tomorrow.
President Trump has opened a vast marine reserve in the Pacific Ocean to commercial fishing, rolling back more than a decade of protections in a move he says will boost the U.S. seafood industry.
Trump signed an executive order allowing commercial fishing in the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument, a 500,000-square-mile protected area established by President George W. Bush and expanded by President Obama.
A second order directed federal agencies to ease restrictions on fishing and aquaculture, with supporters arguing the move will help the economies of Pacific territories like American Samoa.
Environmental groups and marine scientists say the move threatens biodiversity and undermines legal protections, and they plan to challenge the order in court.
Key quote:
“This is a gift to industrial fishing fleets and a slap in the face to science and the generations of Pacific Islanders who have long called for greater protection of these sacred waters.”
— Maxx Phillips, director for Hawaii and Pacific Islands at the Center for Biological Diversity
Why this matters:
Marine protected areas function as biodiversity banks: When left alone, they teem with life, serve as fish nurseries, and often boost surrounding fisheries by allowing populations to regenerate. They also have a role in mitigating and building resilience against the effects of climate change. The Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument is one of the largest such zones on Earth, home to endangered whales, turtles, deep-sea corals, and countless species not found elsewhere. Opening it to industrial fishing risks damaging fragile ecosystems that may take decades — or longer — to recover. Critics argue the decision is part of a broader push to prioritize short-term economic gain over long-term ecological and food security. The U.S. holds jurisdiction over more ocean territory than any other nation. What it chooses to do with that responsibility will shape the health of the planet’s largest ecosystem and the livelihoods of coastal communities for generations to come.
A new carbon pricing system adopted by the International Maritime Organization could reduce global shipping emissions slightly by 2030 but fails to meet the agency’s climate targets.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has approved a global carbon pricing policy for shipping that penalizes companies for exceeding greenhouse gas intensity targets and rewards cleaner operators with tradeable credits.
Despite being called historic, the plan’s complexity and limited scope mean it is projected to cut emissions by just eight to 10 percent by 2030, far below the IMO’s goal of at least 20%.
Several small island nations and climate advocates criticized the deal for excluding a flat tax on emissions and restricting revenue use to the shipping sector, rather than broader climate resilience efforts.
Key quote:
“It doesn’t meet the IMO’s climate targets, but it’s generally still a very welcome outcome for us.”
— Nishatabbas Rehmatulla, principal research fellow, University College London Energy Institute
Why this matters:
Shipping is a major but often overlooked driver of climate pollution, responsible for roughly 3% of global emissions — on par with the aviation sector. Unlike land-based sources, maritime emissions are harder to regulate because ships cross borders and operate under international law. Small island nations, which face the highest risk from rising seas, have long pushed for bold shipping reforms, but wealthy and oil-producing countries have repeatedly stalled progress. The new carbon pricing system is a diplomatic compromise that exposes deep divisions about how to finance a just transition. While it sends a market signal toward cleaner technologies, its projected impact remains limited and may delay the pace needed to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. With shipping volumes expected to grow, the world’s ability to rein in this sector will be a litmus test for international climate cooperation.
A single year of emissions from U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports by ship outweighs the climate benefits of every electric vehicle on American roads, according to a new analysis.
Between 2017 and 2024, annual emissions from LNG tankers surged from 4.1 million to 18.4 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent, driven by a fivefold increase in voyages.
Most emissions stem from methane leaks during shipping, especially from poorly loaded auxiliary engines, making the process more polluting than widely assumed.
The Trump administration has greenlit several new LNG projects, even as global shipping regulations tighten and concerns grow about the full lifecycle emissions of exported gas.
Key quote:
“Shipping emissions are not really taken into account by either the exporting country or the importing country.”
— Alison Kirsch, senior energy analyst, Sierra Club
Why this matters:
Methane — the core component of natural gas — is a potent greenhouse gas, packing 80 times more warming power than carbon dioxide over a 20-year span. While it dissipates faster, its short-term punch makes it a prime target in the fight to slow global warming. The growing trade in liquefied natural gas has long been sold as a cleaner alternative to coal, but shipping it across oceans reveals an underappreciated climate toll. From fracking fields to foreign ports, every step leaks gas, with tankers releasing methane through a phenomenon known as “methane slip.” These emissions often go unmeasured, thanks to a regulatory blind spot over international waters and the technical challenges of satellite monitoring at sea. The industry’s unchecked growth raises questions about whether gas can truly serve as a “bridge fuel” in the transition to clean energy, or if it simply paves a longer road of fossil fuel dependence.
China is expected to buy more soybeans from Brazil — accelerating forest loss in the Amazon and the Cerrado — as U.S. tariffs disrupt global agricultural trade.
A new round of U.S. tariffs on Chinese imports, including a 145 percent duty, has led China to redirect its soybean purchases from the U.S. to Brazil, potentially increasing deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado biomes.
Brazilian right-wing governors are weakening environmental protections and attempting to void the Soy Moratorium, which has historically curbed Amazon deforestation linked to soy production.
Indigenous communities, such as the Munduruku, are facing environmental degradation and threats to land rights as soy plantations expand around their territories.
Key quote:
“The fact that the Amazon soy moratorium is actively being weakened right now, I think it puts Brazil at a really precarious place.”
— Lisa Rausch, University of Wisconsin at Madison
Why this matters:
Soy farming is a leading driver of deforestation in Brazil, especially in the Amazon and Cerrado regions — both critical carbon sinks for the planet. When forests are cleared, vast stores of carbon are released, worsening climate change. The recent spike in global demand for Brazilian soy, fueled by trade tensions between the U.S. and China, threatens to accelerate this deforestation. And it’s not just climate at risk: Indigenous communities, long-standing stewards of the forest, are losing access to clean water and land, while government leaders push to gut environmental regulations. These changes come at a time when enforcement in the Amazon remains weak, and land-clearing practices — often illegal — continue largely unchecked. If deforestation increases, the consequences extend far beyond Brazil: disrupted rainfall patterns could affect agriculture across South America, and the loss of biodiversity may prove irreversible.
Concrete, a cornerstone of modern infrastructure, faces an uncertain future as the federal government pulls back funding meant to reduce the cement industry’s significant climate impact.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has canceled 21 grants, including those aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions from the cement and concrete industries, weakening momentum from Biden-era decarbonization efforts.
Cement production generates roughly 8% of global carbon emissions, mainly due to fossil fuel-fired kilns and the chemical processes involved in making clinker, the binding element in concrete.
Despite federal cutbacks, some states and members of Congress are advancing bipartisan legislation and “buy clean” policies to promote low-emission materials in construction.
Key quote:
"That just means that we're not going to have the benefit of the federal government accelerating our progress. That would have helped. Clearly.”
— Lionel Lemay, executive vice president of structures and sustainability, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
Why this matters:
Concrete is second only to water as the most consumed substance on Earth, and the cement used to bind it is a major source of carbon pollution. The sheer scale of cement use — in roads, housing, and public infrastructure — makes its climate impact immense and hard to ignore. As the planet warms, emissions from cement are expected to rise sharply, especially in developing countries with growing infrastructure needs. Making cement cleaner is both a technical and economic challenge, but also a public health issue. Fossil fuel-fired kilns not only emit carbon but also release fine particulate matter and other air pollutants that can harm nearby communities. Delays in transitioning to low-carbon alternatives mean prolonging these exposures.
Most Americans recognize climate change as a serious threat, but a new study finds they rarely talk about it, deepening a silence that limits personal and political action.
A new study in PLOS Climate finds that a “spiral of silence” prevents Americans from speaking about climate change, even though most see it as a major threat.
The Trump administration has escalated efforts to dismantle federal climate programs, including mass firings at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and plans to gut the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and cut climate research funding.
The study found that personal conversations can break the silence, helping to normalize concern and motivate action within families and communities.
Key quote:
“When we don’t hear an opinion, or we don’t hear our thoughts out there, we assume we’re in the minority, and we become sort of afraid to speak out about it.”
— Margaret Orr, communication researcher at George Mason University
Why this matters:
When people stay silent about climate change, the silence itself becomes a barrier to action. Most Americans care about the issue, but a lack of open dialogue reinforces the mistaken belief that few others do. This leads to political stagnation, even as environmental damage accelerates. Meanwhile, cuts to scientific agencies under the Trump administration risk further muting the public conversation by eliminating key sources of trusted data. Without these institutions, Americans lose access to the facts they need to make informed decisions — from how they wish to cast their vote to how to live more sustainably.
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
