energy
Newsletter
Credit: Louis Velazquez/Unsplash
House spending bill could lead to government shutdown
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.
In short:
- 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.
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: David Veksler/Unsplash
Trump administration sued over frozen climate funds
A coalition that was awarded $7 billion for climate and housing projects has sued the Trump administration and Citibank, accusing them of unlawfully blocking access to the funds.
In short:
- Climate United, a recipient of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grants under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, filed suit to force Citibank to release the money and prevent the EPA from interfering.
- The lawsuit argues the Trump administration is illegally withholding funds appropriated by Congress and violating contract law and the Constitution.
- The EPA has criticized the fund as a “green slush fund,” but has not formally accused Climate United of misusing money or violating grant terms.
Key quote:
“EPA has failed to provide Climate United with a reasoned explanation for its actions or a meaningful opportunity to object or to be heard.”
— Climate United lawsuit
Why this matters:
The lawsuit highlights the ongoing battle over climate funding as the Trump administration seeks to undo Biden-era policies. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the largest program in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, was designed to drive private investment in clean energy and infrastructure. Blocking these funds could stall renewable energy projects, slow efforts to cut emissions, and impact jobs in the green sector. The case also raises broader questions about an overreach of executive branch power in withholding congressionally approved funds.
Related: Nonprofits still blocked from $20 billion in climate funds amid investigations
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: blinow61/Big Stock Photo
Shell faces legal battle in London over oil pollution in Nigerian
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.
In short:
- 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.
Learn more: Nigeria considers restarting oil production in polluted delta region
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Sammyayot254/Unsplash
Brazil’s data center boom raises concerns over energy access
As Brazil attracts billions in investment for new data centers, millions of people still face regular blackouts and energy shortages, highlighting tensions between digital expansion and basic electricity needs.
In short:
- Brazil has 60 operational data centers and 46 more planned, driven by demand for cloud storage, AI, and streaming services.
- While tech companies expand their energy-intensive infrastructure, over 1.3 million Brazilians live with little or no electricity, particularly in rural areas.
- Experts warn that data centers’ high water and power consumption could strain Brazil’s grid, increasing the risk of blackouts and raising energy costs for consumers.
Key quote:
“If they are going to build data centers where people don’t even have access to power, the companies need to provide compensation.”
— Elaine Santos, researcher in energy poverty at the University of São Paulo
Why this matters:
Data centers are essential for the digital economy but consume vast amounts of electricity and water, often in regions already struggling with power shortages. Brazil’s reliance on hydroelectricity makes its grid vulnerable to droughts, and the rapid expansion of energy-hungry industries could deepen inequalities. Rural communities and low-income areas face frequent blackouts while multinational corporations secure stable power sources. With electricity demand projected to rise 30% by 2050, the country must balance technological growth with fair access to essential resources.
Related: States push new rules as data centers strain electric grids
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Martina Janochová/Pixabay
New Mexico budget includes funding for uranium mine cleanup, but its future is uncertain
New Mexico lawmakers have included $50 million in the state budget to clean up hundreds of contaminated sites, including abandoned uranium mines, but the funding faces potential cuts as the legislative session winds down.
In short:
- New Mexico has at least 302 contaminated "orphan sites" and around 50 abandoned uranium mines with no responsible party for cleanup.
- The $50 million proposed budget allocation would fund initial cleanup efforts, but some lawmakers argue more money is needed, including a separate $75 million proposal for uranium mine reclamation.
- Advocates warn that budget negotiations could reduce the funding, as the Senate looks for ways to address other financial gaps.
Key quote:
“If they’re having to come up with money to fill some holes, a $50 million pot of money sitting there, it could be attractive to some to say, ‘Hey, let’s make that number a little smaller and help fill a hole somewhere else.’”
— Sen. Jeff Steinborn, D-Las Cruces
Why this matters:
New Mexico has a long history of uranium mining, with many abandoned sites still leaking radioactive and chemical contaminants into surrounding communities. Indigenous populations, particularly the Navajo Nation, have suffered health consequences for decades due to exposure from old mines. Cleanup efforts have been slow, with funding gaps leaving many sites untouched. While the proposed budget allocation is a step forward, advocates say it is not nearly enough to address the widespread contamination and ongoing risks to public health.
Read more: Uranium mining projects in New Mexico gain priority under new federal orders
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Mike Marrah/Unsplash
Fossil fuel industry ramps up political spending as investigations stall
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.
In short:
- 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.
Learn more: US oil and gas sector pours big money into GOP politics
Keep reading...Show less
Newsletter
Credit: Ricardo Gomez Angel/Unsplash
Trump administration weakens environmental review process, creating uncertainty
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.
In short:
- 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.
Learn more: Trump administration seeks to dismantle key environmental law
Keep reading...Show less
ORIGINAL REPORTING
MOST POPULAR
CLIMATE
