A sweeping White House proposal would slash science budgets at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, dismantling key climate research efforts and prompting warnings from former agency officials about national security and economic risks.
Internal budget documents reveal plans to cut NOAA's climate research funding from $485 million to $171 million, effectively eliminating its oceanic and atmospheric research division.
NASA would lose 20% of its overall funding, with deep reductions to planetary science and the cancellation of major missions, including the Nancy Grace Roman space telescope and Mars Sample Return.
The proposed cuts also target the National Marine Fisheries Service and other climate-related programs, redirecting priorities to align with expanding fossil fuel energy development.
Key quote:
“This proposal will cost lives. When a room full of doctors tell you that it’s cancer, firing the doctors does not cure you.”
— Craig McLean, former director of NOAA's office of oceanic and atmospheric research
Why this matters:
Research funded by NASA and NOAA doesn’t just drive scientific discovery — it supports public health, food security, disaster preparedness, and global diplomacy. NOAA's ocean, weather, and climate data help communities brace for hurricanes, droughts, and flooding. NASA's Earth-observing satellites track everything from wildfires to shrinking ice caps. Gutting these programs risks making the U.S. blind to fast-moving environmental threats and vulnerable to crises that science could otherwise help predict or mitigate. While Congress has the final say, the proposed budget is a clear signal of political hostility toward climate science. If enacted, the consequences could ripple through sectors as diverse as agriculture, insurance, emergency management, and even national defense, where accurate environmental forecasting is critical.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency canceled a key science advisory board meeting without explanation, raising concerns amid broader efforts to dismantle its research division and lay off scientists.
The EPA abruptly canceled a scheduled meeting of its Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), an advisory group that oversees the agency’s scientific research, without rescheduling or explanation.
Administrator Lee Zeldin is reportedly preparing to dismantle the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the EPA’s only dedicated science branch, risking the loss of vital public health and environmental research.
Former EPA staff and advisors say the move is part of a broader plan to undermine science-based policy by eliminating independent peer review and slashing scientific workforce capacity.
Key quote:
“It just shows the lack of interest or respect that this administration has for science.”
— Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former EPA science advisor
Why this matters:
The Office of Research and Development, targeted for downsizing or elimination, is the agency’s central engine for evaluating environmental risks and guiding evidence-based regulation. Peer-reviewed findings from the ORD have shaped everything from smog standards to pesticide safety. Dismantling this capacity would not only gut essential public health protections but also sever the EPA’s ability to enforce laws like the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Losing independent scientific oversight could open the door to unchecked pollution, particularly in vulnerable communities already burdened by environmental hazards. As fossil fuel industries and chemical manufacturers seek looser regulations, sidelining science weakens the EPA’s mandate and risks turning back decades of progress.
A group of major shipping nations agreed Friday to impose a global fee on greenhouse gas emissions from ships, setting the stage for a 2027 launch despite resistance from the U.S. and some large maritime economies.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) will charge a minimum of $100 per ton of greenhouse gas emissions from ships that exceed certain thresholds, aiming to raise $11–13 billion annually for green shipping investments.
The measure, opposed by the United States and some large maritime nations, will be finalized in October and implemented in 2027; it includes a marine fuel standard to transition toward cleaner fuels.
A parallel decision established a new emissions control area in the North-East Atlantic, requiring ships in the region to meet tighter pollution standards.
Key quote:
“We came as climate vulnerable countries— with the greatest need and the clearest solution. And what did we face? Weak alternatives from the world’s biggest economies.”
— Simon Kofe, Tuvalu’s minister for transport, energy, communication, and innovation
Why this matters:
Shipping accounts for nearly 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions — more than most countries — and it's one of the few sectors not covered by the Paris climate agreement. Massive container vessels burn heavy fuel oil, a thick, tar-like residue that is among the dirtiest fossil fuels still in widespread use. These emissions not only drive climate change but also release harmful air pollutants that affect coastal communities. The International Maritime Organization’s plan to impose a fee on these emissions marks a milestone in global climate policy, albeit a contentious one. Still, the move may reshape how global trade is powered and who benefits — or suffers — from that transition.
China has halted exports of heavy rare earth metals and magnets vital to electric vehicles, defense systems and consumer electronics, escalating trade tensions following President Trump’s latest round of tariffs.
China suspended shipments of six rare earth metals and related magnets that are essential for car manufacturing, aerospace, semiconductors and military hardware. The move follows a steep tariff hike from the Trump administration earlier this month.
Rare earth metals like dysprosium are crucial to making magnets that function under extreme heat or electric fields, and they’re now subject to export licenses that don’t yet exist. Many U.S. companies lack significant stockpiles, unlike some Japanese firms that learned from past disruptions.
The export halt has disrupted global supply chains, as China accounts for 90% of the world’s rare earth magnet production. Factories in China’s Jiangxi Province, including a major supplier to Tesla and BYD, now face uncertain futures under tighter export controls and environmental scrutiny.
Key quote:
“Does the export control or ban potentially have severe effects in the U.S.? Yes.”
— Daniel Pickard, chairman of the critical minerals advisory committee for the Office of the United States Trade Representative and Department of Commerce
Why this matters:
China controls nearly all of the global supply of certain heavy rare earth elements, and when it cuts off access, the ripple effects can be immense. Factories in the U.S., Europe and Japan rely on these materials not just for consumer electronics but also for technologies critical to the energy transition and national security. Even small components like rare earth magnets hold together vast industries: They are critical components of wind turbines, help electric motors run efficiently, and keep defense systems operational under intense conditions. Unlike oil or wheat, these materials can’t easily be substituted or scaled elsewhere in a hurry.
A massive underground tunneling effort and £35 billion in planned upgrades signal Britain’s urgent push to modernize its electricity grid for renewable energy and digital growth.
National Grid is rebuilding the high-voltage electricity system in England and Wales to accommodate renewable energy and a surge in demand from electric vehicles and AI data centers.
The British government plans for 95% of electricity to come from low-carbon sources like wind and nuclear by 2030, up from about 60% in 2023, while power demand is expected to double.
Infrastructure delays, local opposition to pylons, and aging assets like a substation that recently caused a Heathrow Airport outage pose major challenges to reaching the country’s energy transition goals.
Key quote:
"Effectively, what we’re doing is reconfiguring the whole network.”
— John Pettigrew, chief executive of National Grid
Why this matters:
Britain’s electricity grid, built for a coal-powered past, is now being asked to serve a wind-and-solar future while handling rising demand from electric vehicles and the AI-driven digital economy. Unlike fossil fuel plants, renewable energy sources are intermittent and spread across wide geographies — often offshore — requiring a more dynamic, responsive grid. The country’s ability to meet its climate goals and energy security needs will hinge on its success not just in rewiring cables and substations, but modernizing policies and planning systems that critics say move too slowly. As other nations look to decarbonize, the UK's experience may become a global case study — for better or worse.
Donald Trump’s second-term strategy to dismantle appliance efficiency standards hinges on canceling a crucial government contract, sowing confusion among manufacturers, regulators, and environmental advocates.
The Trump administration has quietly targeted the Department of Energy’s efficiency standards program by canceling a $247 million contract with Guidehouse, the consulting firm that manages rule enforcement and testing.
The move, if finalized, would upend decades-old regulations that have cut energy use, lowered emissions, and saved Americans hundreds of dollars annually on utility bills.
While Trump issues flashy executive orders on items like showerheads, real damage may come from behind-the-scenes dismantling of administrative infrastructure, leaving regulations intact but unenforceable.
Key quote:
“The president is asserting king-like authority.”
— Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project
Why this matters:
Energy efficiency rules have quietly reshaped American homes since the 1970s, trimming waste and emissions from everything from dishwashers to lightbulbs. Today’s devices consume far less energy and water while performing better, thanks to years of data-driven standards negotiated among manufacturers, environmentalists, and regulators. These rules help cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce power plant demand, and ease strain on water systems, especially in drought-prone areas. Gutting the system by defunding enforcement invites a flood of cheap, inefficient imports and undermines domestic innovation. It could leave Americans with weaker tools to fight both high utility bills and climate change.
Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are expanding data centers in areas already struggling with drought, raising concerns about their use of local water supplies for cooling massive server farms.
The three largest cloud companies are building or operating 62 data centers in regions facing water scarcity, including in Spain, Arizona, and other drought-prone areas across five continents.
Amazon’s new centers in Spain’s Aragon region are licensed to use enough water to irrigate hundreds of acres of farmland annually, and the company has requested a 48% increase in water for its existing sites.
Tech firms promise to become “water positive” by 2030, but experts and even internal critics say offsetting water use elsewhere doesn’t solve shortages in the communities where centers operate.
Key quote:
“Neither people nor data can live without water. But human life is essential and data isn’t.”
— Aurora Gómez, Tu Nube Seca Mi Río
Why this matters:
Data centers are the invisible engines of the internet — processing everything from emails to AI, video calls to cloud storage — but they come with a physical footprint. That footprint includes massive energy use and a surprising dependence on fresh water to keep machines cool. In places where droughts are worsening with climate change, the demands of these centers are clashing with local needs for drinking water and agriculture. Some of these regions are already edging toward desertification, and water-intensive industries like tech may tip them further. Critics worry that promises of sustainability are greenwashing efforts that mask the environmental costs of maintaining digital infrastructure.
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
