Environmental experts and activists are sounding the alarm on Boston's air quality, with high asthma rates as an economic boom fuels the region's worsening traffic congestion.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge from Republican-led states that sought to block lawsuits holding fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in climate change.
The court’s decision allows lawsuits from Democratic-led states — such as California, Connecticut, and Minnesota — to move forward against oil giants like Exxon Mobil and BP for allegedly misleading the public about climate change.
Nineteen Republican attorneys general attempted to shut down these cases, arguing they could disrupt interstate commerce, but the Supreme Court refused to intervene.
The ruling is the latest signal that courts are willing to let states hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions.
Key quote:
“This was never anything more than an attempt to run interference, help the defendants in our cases avoid accountability, and play politics with the Constitution.”
— Keith Ellison, Minnesota attorney general
Why this matters:
This decision opens the door for states to press forward with lawsuits that could force oil companies to pay for climate damages, potentially setting a precedent for holding polluters accountable.
Think your old clothes find a new home after you drop them in a donation bin? Think again. An investigation tracking 15 geolocated garments reveals a global trade that buries the Global South in textile waste, feeding pollution, exploitation, and an unsustainable fashion industry.
Clothing discarded in Europe and the U.S. often ends up in African and Asian nations, where much of it is unsellable and dumped in massive landfills or burned, releasing toxic chemicals.
A tracking experiment found that seven out of 15 donated garments traveled over 65,000 km, passing through warehouses, resale markets, and waste sites, leaving behind a significant carbon footprint.
Despite rising textile waste, recycling options are limited, and fast fashion continues churning out low-quality clothing that degrades too quickly to be reused or repurposed.
Key quote:
“The common public perception of used clothing donations as generous gifts to people in need does not fully match reality.”
— European Environment Agency
Why this matters:
Cheap, disposable clothing is fueling an environmental and public health disaster, particularly in countries that lack the infrastructure to manage the waste. While donation bins may feel like a responsible choice, they often sustain a system of overproduction, pollution, and exploitation. Without major reforms, the cycle will only worsen.
A generation after acid rain was largely eliminated, scientists say rainfall is now carrying something even more insidious — microplastics and forever chemicals that are nearly impossible to remove.
Decades of environmental policy cleaned up acid rain, but modern pollutants like microplastics and PFAS (forever chemicals) have taken its place, contaminating rainfall worldwide.
Microplastics from roads, clothing, and oceans get swept into the atmosphere and fall with the rain, while PFAS, used in nonstick cookware and water-resistant fabrics, persist in the environment for centuries.
These pollutants seep into drinking water sources, and while treatment plants can remove some, a significant amount remains, exposing people and wildlife to chemicals linked to cancer, kidney disease, and immune disorders.
Key quote:
"It’s much worse than the acid rain problem. With acid rain, we could stop emitting acid precursors and then acid rain would stop falling. But we can’t stop the microplastic cycle anymore. It’s there and it’s not going away."
— Janice Brahney, biogeochemist at Utah State University
Why this matters: Even if you don’t drink untreated rainwater, these pollutants are making their way into tap water, food, and even human brains. Water treatment plants can catch some of it, but not enough. And with microplastics now found in human lungs, blood, and even placentas, the long-term health consequences are still unfolding.
House Republicans have introduced a stopgap spending bill that would cut billions from energy and environmental programs, but Democratic opposition could stall the measure and push the government toward a shutdown.
The House will vote on a continuing resolution that would extend funding through September while cutting $13 billion in nondefense spending, including energy and environmental programs.
Democrats oppose the bill, arguing it gives the administration too much discretion over funding and forces cuts to disaster relief and climate programs.
Even if it passes the House, Senate approval remains uncertain, with at least seven Democrats needed to send it to President Trump.
Key quote:
“Republicans have decided to introduce a partisan continuing resolution that threatens to cut funding for healthcare, nutritional assistance, and veterans benefits through the end of the current fiscal year. That is not acceptable.”
— House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
Why this matters:
The bill could significantly reduce funding for agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, affecting climate research, disaster relief, and water infrastructure projects.
For states like California, which have faced relentless wildfires and devastating floods, the potential loss of new disaster aid could make recovery efforts more difficult, leaving communities vulnerable. At the same time, a government shutdown — if negotiations fail — could further disrupt federal programs, delaying environmental protections, public health initiatives, and scientific research that helps forecast and mitigate climate risks.
The Biden administration’s investments in environmental justice programs are being reversed under President Donald Trump, leaving communities that relied on federal funding in limbo, according to former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official Matthew Tejada.
The EPA’s environmental justice programs saw historic funding under Biden, including $3 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act, but the Trump administration has halted grants and cut agency staff.
Hundreds of EPA environmental justice employees have been placed on leave or face potential termination, stalling oversight and support for communities disproportionately affected by pollution.
Funding freezes have left grassroots organizations uncertain about future projects, with some groups ordered to return already-spent grant money.
Key quote:
“The worst outcome I feared is happening — how quickly and how far the water would recede, we’re seeing it at an astonishing pace and scale.”
— Matthew Tejada, former director of the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice
Why this matters:
Environmental justice programs were designed to help communities historically burdened by pollution access federal resources for clean air, water, and infrastructure. The rollback of environmental justice programs threatens to deepen longstanding disparities in pollution exposure and public health, particularly for low-income and minority communities. These initiatives, originally designed to channel federal resources into neighborhoods burdened by industrial pollution, unsafe drinking water, and inadequate infrastructure, have been a lifeline for many.
Without funding and staff to support these programs, the most vulnerable populations could see worsening air and water quality, further entrenching health inequities. These communities have historically been sidelined in environmental policymaking, and with fewer federal safeguards, they may once again be left to bear the brunt of industrial and environmental hazards.
A Nigerian king has taken oil giant Shell to court in London, arguing that decades of spills have poisoned his community’s water and land, while the company denies responsibility.
King Godwin Bebe Okpabi, leader of the Ogale community in Nigeria’s Niger Delta, is suing Shell over chronic oil pollution, which he says has caused widespread illness and environmental destruction.
A 2011 UN report found severe contamination in the region, including benzene levels in drinking water 900 times higher than World Health Organization guidelines, with recent tests showing even worse conditions.
Shell argues it is not liable for spills linked to oil theft and illegal refining, while the case will be decided under Nigerian law in a full trial set for 2026.
Key quote:
“This is poison, and they are spending millions of dollars to pay the best lawyers in the world so that they will not clean my land.”
— King Godwin Bebe Okpabi
Why this matters:
The oil spills in Nigeria’s Niger Delta have left behind a trail of environmental and human suffering. For decades, leaking pipelines and blowouts have drenched the region in crude oil, poisoning waterways, farmlands, and the air itself. The health toll has been just as devastating. Cancer rates in affected communities are climbing, birth defects are on the rise, and respiratory illnesses are common. Many residents are forced to drink from polluted water sources, their options dwindling as cleanup efforts stall. Despite legal victories ordering oil giants like Shell to take responsibility, progress has been sluggish.
Now, Shell faces a landmark case that could reshape how multinational corporations are held accountable for environmental disasters. If successful, the case could pave the way for stricter enforcement and greater financial liability, but for many in the Niger Delta, the damage is already done.
The United States has pulled out of two key international climate finance initiatives, limiting support for developing nations facing climate disasters and slowing efforts to transition away from coal.
The U.S. withdrew from the "loss and damage" fund, which helps vulnerable countries recover from climate disasters, and from the Just Energy Transition Partnership, designed to support coal-dependent economies shifting to clean energy.
A U.S. Treasury Department spokesperson said the move aligns with Trump’s “America first” policy on international agreements, while critics argue it undermines global climate efforts.
The decision reduces a $13.8 billion pledge to South Africa’s energy transition by $1 billion and is expected to affect projects in Indonesia as well.
Key quote:
“By turning its back on international climate financing, the U.S. is failing its moral obligation as a historic polluter, abandoning the global community and shirking its share of our collective responsibility.”
— Namrata Chowdhary, chief of public engagement for 350.org
Why this matters:
Wealthier nations have long pledged financial help to poorer countries that bear the brunt of climate change but contribute little to its causes. The U.S., historically the world's largest carbon emitter, had been a key participant in global climate finance efforts. Its withdrawal leaves developing nations with fewer resources to recover from disasters and shift away from fossil fuels. The decision may further strain relations between industrialized and developing countries as climate change costs continue to rise.
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
www.vox.com
