Climate change-driven disasters often strike hardest where inequality, colonial legacies, and poor infrastructure leave communities most exposed and least protected.
Climate scientist Friederike Otto argues that the true drivers of climate disasters are exposure and vulnerability — factors shaped by poverty, colonialism, and systemic injustice — not simply changes in weather patterns.
Her research into recent floods in Nigeria and drought in Madagascar shows that while climate change plays a role, failures in infrastructure, governance, and equity are often more decisive.
Otto critiques climate science for focusing narrowly on physics, calling for a broader lens that includes political, historical, and social dimensions in understanding and addressing climate impacts.
Key quote:
“Climate change is a symptom of this global crisis of inequality and injustice, not its cause.”
— Friederike Otto, associate professor, Global Climate Science Programme
Why this matters:
In many parts of the world, communities facing the brunt of climate disasters — like flooding, droughts, and extreme heat — have long been trapped in cycles of vulnerability shaped by colonial exploitation, racial inequality, and economic neglect. These disasters don't occur in a vacuum; the scale of suffering often reflects a failure to invest in people and infrastructure, not just the wrath of nature. Climate science rooted only in physics cannot fully explain why a flood becomes a humanitarian catastrophe. If climate policy continues to ignore these power imbalances, it risks reinforcing the very injustices that make global warming so deadly in the first place.
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.
Climate change, once a leading issue for Canadian voters, has slipped down the list of priorities in the 2025 federal election amid growing concerns over the economy and U.S. political instability.
Recent polling shows a steep decline in Canadians naming climate change as a top election issue, with concerns about the cost of living and U.S. threats dominating voter attention.
While climate policies like carbon pricing sparked early campaign debate, shifts in leadership and geopolitical events reshaped party platforms and public focus.
Experts suggest voters still care about climate issues, but politicians are reframing them through economic and national security lenses to avoid messaging regarded as divisive.
Key quote:
“Canadians need more immediate relief and they need that certainty and stability in their lives before they can look to things like long-term environmental strategy.”
— Eddie Sheppard, vice-president of Abacus Data
Why this matters:
While it’s common for public concern about long-term issues to recede in times of economic stress, climate disruption doesn’t pause for recessions or trade wars. Canada’s Arctic is warming at nearly four times the global rate, threatening ecosystems and Indigenous ways of life. The decline in climate salience on the campaign trail could have lasting consequences, especially if it sidelines policy changes urgently needed to meet emissions targets. Reframing climate policy as economic relief may offer a politically safer route, but it risks obscuring the science and delaying necessary action. And while polls show voters still expect government accountability on climate, the political reality is that what doesn't get named often doesn’t get done.
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey warned that President Trump’s attacks on research institutions and funding cuts are driving scientists out of the U.S. and weakening the country’s global leadership in science.
Gov. Healey said the Trump administration’s actions — especially against Harvard and the National Institutes of Health — are leading researchers to leave the country, risking U.S. intellectual capital.
Trump has criticized Harvard for resisting federal mandates, calling the university “a JOKE” and threatening to cut its funding.
Healey also pointed to broader federal budget cuts affecting education, health care, food assistance, and emergency aid, warning of their impact on state governments.
Key quote:
“Research labs are shutting down, scientists and researchers are leaving the United States and going to other countries to do their work. And essentially, Donald Trump is giving away intellectual assets.”
— Maura Healey, governor of Massachusetts
Why this matters:
Science thrives on stability, funding, and freedom of inquiry — conditions now under threat in the U.S. Cuts to research budgets and political pressure on institutions risk draining the nation's scientific talent pool and curbing its ability to innovate. The departure of researchers to other countries could delay progress in everything from medical breakthroughs to climate research. Universities like Harvard play a key role not just in higher education, but also in global collaboration and technological development. Federal attacks on academic independence could deter international students and scientists from staying or coming to the U.S. Many medical treatments, public health strategies, and clean energy technologies begin in the labs of universities now under fire.
Environmental organizations across the country are bracing for executive orders from President Trump that may challenge their tax-exempt status and chill legal and advocacy work.
Sources say the Trump administration is preparing executive orders that may revoke the tax-exempt status of environmental nonprofits, especially those engaged in litigation or environmental justice advocacy.
Some organizations are preemptively scrubbing language like “climate resilience” from their public communications and strengthening ties with groups in conservative regions to reduce risk.
Tax law and constitutional experts argue the administration has limited legal grounds to revoke nonprofit status for political reasons, and environmental groups vow to fight any such efforts in court.
Key quote:
“We never dreamed that, with us operating at a super local level, that we would have to worry about what somebody hundreds of miles away thinks about certain words that are used or about our work.”
— Warren Tidwell, Alabama Center for Rural Organizing and Systemic Solutions
Why this matters:
Nonprofit environmental groups play a key role in enforcing environmental protections, especially through litigation that holds governments and corporations accountable. Many of these organizations serve low-income or rural communities that are already vulnerable to pollution and climate hazards. If the federal government successfully strips these groups of their tax-exempt status, it could limit their ability to fundraise, erode their credibility, and reduce their capacity to defend communities most at risk. Even the threat of such action may cause groups to self-censor or scale back their advocacy. This move also signals a shift toward using the IRS as a political tool and raises alarm about the long-term impact on civil society, especially those advocating for clean air, water, and equitable environmental policy in marginalized communities.
A decade and a half after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, many Gulf Coast residents and cleanup workers still struggle to receive compensation for alleged oil-related health problems, even as environmental restoration slows and offshore drilling ramps up.
The Deepwater Horizon spill released 134 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, and while BP paid billions in damages, few of the thousands who claim health problems have won compensation.
Conservationists praise the billions invested in Gulf restoration, but Louisiana’s flagship sediment diversion project has been paused, facing local backlash over its impact on fisheries and dolphin populations.
The Trump administration is pushing new offshore drilling leases, with BP planning over 40 new wells, despite continued warnings from environmental groups about the risks of another disaster.
Key quote:
“They didn’t know the dangers. They didn’t do what they should have to protect these young people.”
— Tammy Gremillion, mother of a Deepwater Horizon cleanup worker
Why this matters:
Oil spills have long-term, often invisible consequences that ripple through ecosystems and communities for generations. In the case of Deepwater Horizon, toxic exposure from oil and chemical dispersants like Corexit may have contributed to serious health conditions, but proving those links in court remains elusive. Thousands of claims have been dismissed, leaving sick workers and coastal residents without recourse. At the same time, efforts to restore degraded wetlands and habitats have made progress but now face political and economic headwinds — especially as new drilling projects threaten to undo those gains. Offshore drilling in the Gulf continues under looser regulatory scrutiny, raising the risk of future spills even as communities and wildlife continue to grapple with the fallout from the last one.
A growing number of Texas residents are struggling to afford or even obtain home insurance as intensifying weather and economic pressures drive premiums to record highs.
Homeowners across Texas are seeing property insurance premiums rise sharply due to a combination of more frequent, severe weather events and inflation, with some annual rates now exceeding $10,000.
Insurers are limiting coverage, pulling out of risk-prone areas, and passing costs onto homeowners, while the state’s “file and use” policy allows companies to raise rates without prior regulatory approval.
State-backed insurers of last resort are expanding rapidly as more Texans are either dropped by private insurers or can no longer afford them, raising concerns about long-term financial stability.
Key quote:
“Consumers can choose completely unaffordable insurance versus the only affordable option, which is a hollowed-out policy.”
— Birny Birnbaum, executive director of the Center for Economic Justice
Why this matters:
Texas experiences nearly every type of natural disaster — hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and hail — and these events are becoming more frequent and costly. As insurers grapple with billions in claims, they’re hiking rates and shrinking coverage, forcing many residents to either underinsure their homes or drop coverage entirely. For families, this means making painful trade-offs. This growing instability in the insurance market could ripple beyond private homes, affecting rental prices, tax rates, and public infrastructure costs. It also raises broader questions about where Americans can safely and affordably live as the climate crisis accelerates. With Texas often promoted as a low-cost refuge from pricey coastal cities, the shift in affordability could reshape migration patterns and political priorities, even as the state resists stronger insurance regulations.
Agroforestry systems have reduced deforestation across Southeast Asia over the past eight years, but new research finds that without the right policies, they can also drive forest loss.
A study in Nature Sustainability found agroforestry reduced deforestation in Southeast Asia by more than 250,000 hectares annually between 2015 and 2023, avoiding up to 74 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year.
The impact of agroforestry varied across the region: while it curbed forest loss in areas like Laos and Sumatra, it accelerated it in others such as eastern Cambodia, depending on economic, ecological and governance conditions.
Researchers urge policymakers to support agroforestry through land tenure rights, community-led land-use planning, and incentives to boost productivity on existing farmland.
Key quote:
“These diverse [agroforestry] systems can provide alternative sources of income [for farmers] — fuelwood, timber, fruits, and other products — reducing the economic pressure to clear more forests.”
— Steve Hoong Chen Teo, study lead author and researcher at the National University of Singapore
Why this matters:
Agroforestry, the practice of integrating trees and shrubs into farmland, has gained traction as a way to tackle climate change while supporting rural economies. In Southeast Asia, where tropical forests are vital carbon sinks and biodiversity hotspots, deforestation from industrial agriculture remains rampant, particularly for crops like oil palm and rubber. This new study suggests agroforestry can slow deforestation and reduce carbon emissions, but only under certain conditions. If land rights are weak or markets demand rapid crop expansion, agroforestry can backfire, fueling more forest loss. Millions of people in Southeast Asia rely directly on forests for food, medicine and livelihood, and unsustainable clearing puts them at risk.
