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.
Fossil fuel companies poured nearly $100 million into Donald Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign while lobbying against climate regulations, prompting concerns about industry influence and stalled congressional investigations.
Fossil fuel groups contributed a record $96 million to Trump and affiliated PACs in 2023-2024 and spent $243 million lobbying Congress.
Republican control of Congress halted an investigation into oil companies’ history of climate disinformation, which had uncovered internal documents acknowledging industry efforts to mislead the public.
Trump’s administration has appointed multiple officials with deep ties to the fossil fuel sector while rolling back environmental regulations.
Key quote:
"The fossil fuel industry is running perhaps the biggest campaign of disinformation and political interference in American history and they’re backing it up with immense amounts of political spending."
— Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Democratic senator from Rhode Island
Why this matters:
Fossil fuel companies have long influenced American politics, but their record-breaking spending in the 2024 election underscores their role in shaping climate policy. With Republicans in control of Congress, oversight of industry lobbying and disinformation campaigns is unlikely. Meanwhile, Trump’s pro-oil agenda threatens environmental regulations and climate action. As lawsuits against oil giants progress, state-level investigations may become the last avenue for uncovering the industry's internal strategies.
Less than a month after sidelining its entire environmental justice workforce, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is bringing back dozens of employees amid pressure from the White House and legal obligations.
The EPA reinstated many of the 171 employees it had placed on leave from its environmental justice and civil rights office, following new White House guidance.
Some returning staff say their work was legally required, and that the agency likely reinstated them to comply with statutory obligations.
Critics argue the initial cuts were reckless, with former EPA official Matthew Tejada saying reinstated employees play a key role in ensuring federal policy reaches affected communities.
Key quote:
“These leaves were conducted indiscriminately and without any consideration of statutory requirements, or of the effect the firings would have on Americans.”
— Kyla Bennett, director of science policy at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Why this matters:
While the reinstatement is a win for those fighting to keep environmental justice on the agenda, it also raises an uncomfortable question: If these roles were so essential that the EPA had to bring them back, why were they slashed in the first place?
The White House is stripping the Council on Environmental Quality of its authority to oversee the National Environmental Policy Act, leaving federal agencies to develop their own rules for evaluating infrastructure projects.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federally funded projects to assess environmental impacts. For 50 years, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has overseen its implementation.
A new Trump administration rule revokes CEQ’s oversight, directing individual agencies to develop their own standards, which could take years and lead to legal challenges.
Experts warn the change could create confusion and delays rather than streamline permitting, affecting industries from renewable energy to fossil fuels.
Key quote:
“It’s chaos. No business would run this way.”
— Deborah Sivas, director of the environmental law clinic at Stanford University
Why this matters:
NEPA has been central to U.S. environmental policy for decades, ensuring that projects account for their ecological impact. Weakening federal oversight risks inconsistent enforcement, legal battles, and delays. The policy shift also raises concerns about diminished public input, as NEPA has historically provided communities with a voice in decisions that could affect their health and local environment. Without rigorous environmental reviews, opponents fear that projects with serious ecological consequences could move forward unchecked, potentially undermining the very goal of efficient development.
The Trump administration is considering closing key facilities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a move that scientists and industry groups warn could weaken weather forecasting, disrupt businesses, and endanger public safety.
The General Services Administration is reviewing whether to sell or stop leasing three NOAA facilities, including a satellite operations center and a weather prediction hub.
NOAA’s workforce is already at a historic low, and further cuts could impact industries reliant on weather data, such as insurance, agriculture, and fisheries.
Scientists warn that losing access to NOAA’s data could have lasting consequences for climate research, disaster preparedness, and economic stability.
Key quote:
“This will literally bankrupt the U.S.”
— Brad Panovich, chief meteorologist at WCNC-TV
Why this matters:
A potential reduction in NOAA’s capabilities — whether through budget cuts, facility closures, or staffing shortages — could have widespread consequences. Weather forecasting relies on a network of sensors, buoys, and satellites, all feeding into complex models that help predict storms days or even weeks in advance. Less funding for NOAA means fewer data points, less accurate predictions, and greater uncertainty for decision-makers.
The timing is particularly concerning. Climate change is intensifying hurricanes, wildfires, and heat waves, making precise forecasting more crucial than ever. Emergency managers depend on NOAA data to determine when to issue evacuation orders, farmers use it to decide when to plant and harvest crops, and insurers set policy rates based on weather risk assessments. A less effective NOAA could mean more surprises — and more costly disasters.
Butterfly numbers in the contiguous United States have declined by 22% over the past two decades, with habitat loss, climate change, and pesticide use driving the drop, according to new research.
A study analyzing 12.6 million butterflies from 77,000 surveys found that 245 species declined between 2000 and 2020, with only 32 species increasing.
Common species, including the American lady and cabbage white, saw drastic drops, while some of the rarest butterflies faced near-total collapse.
Researchers suspect pesticide exposure, particularly neonicotinoids, is a major driver of declines, alongside climate shifts pushing species northward.
Key quote:
“The loss that we’re seeing over such a short time is really alarming. Unless we change things, we’re in for trouble.”
— Elise Zipkin, quantitative ecologist at Michigan State University and one of the authors of the study
Why this matters:
Butterflies are essential pollinators and serve as indicators of ecosystem health. Their decline signals broader environmental instability affecting plants, birds, and other wildlife. Pesticides and habitat destruction are reducing insect populations worldwide, with cascading effects up the food chain. While some species are shifting their ranges to adapt to climate change, others are disappearing altogether. Without intervention, these losses could further disrupt ecosystems and food production.
The Trump administration is ramping up support for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, with top officials promoting a major expansion project in southeast Louisiana despite environmental concerns.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright visited a Venture Global LNG facility in Louisiana, backing an $18 billion expansion as part of Trump’s push for "energy dominance."
The Biden administration had attempted to pause new LNG export approvals, citing risks of price hikes and increased greenhouse gas emissions, but Trump officials aim to accelerate approvals.
Environmental groups and local activists have raised concerns over pollution violations at existing LNG sites, with state regulators ordering compliance measures in 2023.
Key quote:
“Today is the celebration of the fact that America is back in business building export facilities to help Americans and help our allies.”
— Doug Burgum, U.S. Interior Secretary
Why this matters:
The expansion of LNG exports fuels a long-standing debate between energy independence and environmental impact. Proponents argue it strengthens U.S. influence in global energy markets, particularly in supplying allies in Europe and Asia. Critics warn that increased LNG production leads to more greenhouse gas emissions and industrial pollution, with local communities in Louisiana already reporting regulatory violations and safety concerns.
The Trump administration’s efforts to roll back restrictions imposed during the Biden years mark a broader shift in energy policy, prioritizing fossil fuel development over emissions reduction goals. While industry leaders welcome the regulatory changes, climate advocates say they could undermine U.S. commitments to curb greenhouse gas emissions, complicating international climate negotiations and domestic policy efforts aimed at addressing the effects of climate change.
Governments worldwide are delaying environmental policies due to fear of billion-dollar lawsuits from fossil fuel companies under the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system.
The ISDS system allows companies to sue governments over policies that could harm their profits, including climate regulations.
Governments in countries like Romania, Italy, Mexico, and New Zealand have altered or abandoned environmental laws to avoid litigation.
A Guardian investigation found that fossil fuel companies have received $84 billion in payouts, with the average claim exceeding $1 billion.
Key quote:
“My impression from working closely with governments is that ISDS is now increasingly on their radar, that is it’s increasingly an issue for them to consider: whether implementing a particular policy might give rise to claims.”
— Toby Landau, arbitration lawyer
Why this matters:
The ISDS system is shaping global climate policy, often in favor of fossil fuel companies. Countries that attempt to phase out oil, gas, and coal face the threat of costly legal battles, leading to weaker or delayed environmental regulations. Developing nations, in particular, struggle with the financial burden of these lawsuits, sometimes amounting to a significant portion of their GDP. As the climate crisis accelerates, the legal power of corporations to challenge green policies raises concerns about whether governments can effectively transition to renewable energy without facing financial ruin.
Prisons, jails and detention centers are placed in locations where environmental hazards such as toxic landfills, floods and extreme heat are the norm.
