A global coral bleaching event has now affected over four-fifths of the planet’s reefs, the most extensive damage ever recorded, as ocean temperatures remain historically high.
The International Coral Reef Initiative says 84% of coral reefs have experienced bleaching in a crisis that began in 2023, surpassing the previous record from 2014–17.
Coral bleaching occurs when heat-stressed corals eject the algae they rely on for food and color, leaving them pale and vulnerable to death.
The U.S. Coral Reef Watch program had to expand its alert system as sea surface temperatures averaged a record 20.87°C in 2023, pushing many reefs past survival thresholds.
Key quote:
“We may never see the heat stress that causes bleaching dropping below the threshold that triggers a global event.”
— Mark Eakin, corresponding secretary, International Coral Reef Society and retired chief of the Coral Reef Watch program of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Why this matters:
Coral reefs are vital to life in the sea and protection on land. These marine structures support roughly a quarter of all ocean species, feeding millions of people and fueling industries from fishing to tourism. Once bleached, reefs don’t always recover. They can die, break apart, and vanish. This removes critical habitat for marine life and leaves coastlines more exposed to erosion and storm damage. Coral reefs also play a role in carbon and nitrogen cycling and help filter water. Their disappearance isn’t just an environmental concern; it’s a socioeconomic crisis in waiting for coastal communities around the globe.
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.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin on Monday defended his decision to halt $20 billion in climate funding, accusing media and courts of ignoring evidence of misconduct among grant recipients.
Lee Zeldin accused nonprofit climate grantees of conflicts of interest, mismanagement, and being unqualified, and has moved to cancel their awards despite federal judges finding insufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
A D.C. federal judge ordered EPA and Citibank to temporarily release some frozen funds to the nonprofits, citing a lack of "adequate evidence" from the agency, but that order was quickly stayed pending appeal.
Six of the eight impacted nonprofits are suing the EPA, and a decision on whether they can access funds for ongoing work is expected soon from the appellate court.
Key quote:
“Agencies do not have unlimited authority to further a president’s agenda.”
— Judge Mary McElroy, U.S. District Court for Rhode Island
Why this matters:
The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund was created to support renewable energy and climate resilience projects, especially in underserved communities. Halting nearly $20 billion in grants delays critical efforts to transition to clean energy, improve public health, and reduce emissions. At stake are programs that provide low-cost financing for zero-emissions buildings and transportation — initiatives that could help shield communities from rising energy costs and climate impacts. The legal battles also expose how changes in federal leadership can disrupt multibillion-dollar programs, undermining the stability and continuity needed for long-term climate planning. With courts now weighing whether the EPA acted within its authority or overstepped, the outcome will shape how environmental policy is implemented and challenged in future administrations.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright dismissed clean energy tax credits as ineffective and costly during an Earth Day interview, defending fossil fuels and calling global warming potentially beneficial.
Chris Wright criticized renewable energy tax credits on Fox Business, calling them political posturing that results in higher costs and less reliable electricity.
He argued that solar and wind require far more land and materials than fossil fuels and claimed they contribute to job outsourcing.
Wright suggested some global warming could benefit humans, despite scientific evidence linking it to sea level rise and ecological harm.
Key quote:
“That term ‘clean energy’ is just a marketing term. There’s no clean energy. All energy sources involve trade-offs.”
— Chris Wright, U.S. Energy Secretary
Why this matters:
The debate over clean energy tax credits goes far beyond politics—it touches on public health, economic equity, and the future of life on Earth. Fossil fuel combustion releases particulate matter and greenhouse gases that contribute to asthma, heart disease, and climate change. Renewable energy sources, while not impact-free, reduce many of these harms. Tax incentives have been key to scaling solar, wind, and other clean technologies, especially for households and communities that couldn’t otherwise afford the upfront costs.
Critics argue that these subsidies distort markets or strain the grid, but experts say the real challenge is updating infrastructure to handle newer technologies, not abandoning them. Wright’s comments also downplay mounting evidence of global warming’s threats — from coastal erosion and crop loss to species extinction and climate migration. More heat-related illness, food insecurity, and natural disasters are also projected in a warming world.
A wave of cancellations by the National Science Foundation (NSF) has ended hundreds of research grants, many focused on diversity and misinformation, amid a broader push by the Trump administration to reshape federal science funding.
The NSF has canceled more than 400 active research grants, many involving diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I.) or studies of misinformation, citing a shift in agency priorities and alignment with constitutional speech protections.
The cuts follow a freeze attempt and an executive order from President Trump targeting D.E.I. programs, and reflect months of political pressure, including a list of “questionable projects” compiled by Senator Ted Cruz.
Critics warn the move jeopardizes public-facing science, particularly work supporting marginalized communities and initiatives designed to diversify STEM fields, and could reverse years of progress in American research.
Key quote:
“It’s shocking to see the government do this. It cedes American leadership in science and technology to China and to other countries. I think it is going to take at least 10 years for American scientific and biomedical research to recover from this.”
— Jon Freeman, psychologist at Columbia University
Why this matters:
The federal government’s abrupt cancellation of hundreds of scientific research grants strikes at the heart of how and for whom science is done in America. Many of the affected projects were designed to make science more inclusive and responsive to real-world problems, like environmental injustice, misinformation, and disparities in STEM education. Pulling support from these efforts sends a clear signal: Research that examines power, equity, or systemic bias is politically vulnerable. That has serious implications not just for academic freedom, but for communities that rely on data and collaboration to hold polluters accountable, respond to health disparities, or advocate for safer neighborhoods. The defunding of such work weakens the scientific infrastructure needed to protect public health, especially in places burdened by environmental and economic inequality.
A Washington, D.C., judge accused climate scientist Michael Mann and his legal team of misconduct during a defamation trial, reigniting a legal fight that has spanned over a decade.
In 2024, Michael Mann won a $1 million jury verdict in a defamation case against two bloggers, but Judge Alfred Irving later reduced the award to $5,000 and imposed sanctions against Mann’s legal team.
The judge claimed Mann’s lawyers intentionally misled the court about research grant data, though the team insists the discrepancies were acknowledged and corrected before trial.
Mann’s lawyers are asking the court to reverse the misconduct ruling, while critics link the judge’s stance to a broader political trend undermining climate science.
Key quote:
“The current Trump administration is engaging in an aggressive effort to defund and marginalize climate science. In this atmosphere, attacks on climate science and scientists have increased.”
— Robert Brulle, professor of climate science and society at Brown University
Why this matters:
This case reflects the precarious position of climate scientists in the United States, where legal and political forces often shape public understanding of science. Lawsuits like this one have become a battleground over the legitimacy of climate research, especially when scientists challenge powerful industries or ideologies. When courts penalize researchers for procedural missteps — even ones acknowledged and corrected — it sends a signal that speaking out carries serious professional and financial risks. Judge Alfred Irving’s decision to slash damages and accuse Mann’s team of misconduct could embolden those who seek to discredit scientists through litigation rather than scientific debate. At a time when the Trump administration is scaling back climate programs and rolling back environmental rules, these rulings echo a broader push to marginalize and stifle climate expertise.
A surge in extreme weather events fueled by climate change is amplifying the global housing crisis, pushing prices higher and pushing vulnerable people out of their communities.
Wildfires, hurricanes, and floods are destroying homes and tightening housing markets, with post-disaster rent spikes hitting low-income renters hardest. In Los Angeles, 16,000 structures were lost to wildfires in January alone.
The trend of “climate gentrification” is emerging in cities like Miami, where rising sea levels are pushing wealthier residents inland, displacing poorer communities in higher elevation neighborhoods.
Experts warn that increasing climate risks are sending insurance premiums soaring. In the U.S., the average homeowners' insurance premium nearly tripled between 2001 and 2021 due to disaster-related risk.
Key quote:
"We need a clearer vision of the society we want to live in. What do we want to protect and invest in? How important is safe and affordable housing?"
— Zac Taylor, climate finance expert at Delft University of Technology
Why this matters:
The rising cost and scarcity of housing in disaster-prone areas is more than a real estate story — it's a public health and environmental justice crisis. Low-income residents, often in the most vulnerable areas, are displaced first and longest, locked out of rebuilding by soaring costs and limited affordable housing. Insurance becomes unaffordable. Neighborhoods rapidly gentrify. And with every storm or fire, the affordability gap grows. These shifts ripple across cities and countries, affecting access to healthcare, employment, education, and clean environments. Inaction means locking millions into a future where safe, stable housing is a luxury — not a right.
As utilities face growing wildfire liability tied to aging power lines and worsening climate conditions, lawmakers across the U.S. West are weighing whether to protect them from massive lawsuits or leave them on the hook.
Electric utilities in at least eight U.S. states are lobbying for legal protections that would limit their financial liability for wildfires started by their equipment if they follow mitigation plans like trimming vegetation or burying lines.
Opponents — including wildfire survivors, insurers, and attorneys — argue that limiting utility liability will shift the cost burden onto homeowners and reduce incentives to prevent fires.
States like Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming have already passed such laws, while others including Arizona, Montana, and Oregon are considering similar legislation that could reshape who pays when disaster strikes.
Key quote:
“We’re only one wildfire away from bankruptcy. Even if we avoid bankruptcy, we’d have huge rate increases to cover the cost of a lawsuit.”
— Shawn Taylor, executive director of the Wyoming Rural Electric Association
Why this matters:
As the climate warms and wildfires become more intense and frequent, communities across the West are grappling with who bears the financial burden when a blaze destroys homes, livelihoods, and ecosystems. Utilities, often the spark behind catastrophic fires, argue they can’t afford to stay afloat without legal protections. But shifting liability off corporations and onto homeowners and insurers raises serious equity concerns, especially as more people in fire-prone areas are dropped by insurers or priced out of coverage altogether. The legal and financial frameworks being built today will shape how — and whether — residents recover from tomorrow’s disasters.
