News Feeds

Last week, New York became the first state in the country to weaken a mandatory climate law passed by its own legislature.

The change comes at the behest of Governor Kathy Hochul, a moderate Democrat who has often criticized climate action for increasing consumer costs. After months of backroom negotiation, the legislature reached a deal that weakens the 2019 law in several different ways — most notably by giving the state an additional decade to meet legally-required emissions targets.

The original law, one of the most ambitious in the U.S., required the Empire State to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent before 2030. (The state used its 1990 emissions as the baseline for comparison, per standards set by the United Nations.) Thanks to the law’s uniquely strict accounting rules, the only way for the state to meet this target was to shift away from natural gas, which provides most of the state’s electricity and almost all its heating fuel. 

But as the 2020s progressed, New York failed to wean itself off of gas. The reason for that depends on who you ask. Some argue that President Donald Trump’s attacks on renewable energy have slowed the state’s progress, and others believe that state politicians have backed natural gas when they could have invested in more clean energy. Either way, the state fell way behind schedule, and it stood no chance of meeting its 2030 goal without dramatic action that would have taxed or banned consumption of fossil fuels.

Besides delaying the 2030 deadline by 10 years, the deal will also change the law’s accounting to give less weight to natural gas, and it will slow the rollout of a cap-and-trade system, which would force polluters to bargain with each other to stay below a hard limit on total emissions. Hochul has defended these changes as an attempt to protect New Yorkers from rising costs, blaming Trump for the state’s slow progress. She has warned that meeting the state law’s ironclad emissions target — something a court ordered her to do last year — would require huge pollution taxes that would end up inflating utility bills and gasoline prices, imposing thousands of dollars on the average household. (The budget deal also includes language that would require the state to consider the impact of its climate regulations on household budgets.)

Legislators and climate activists who support the original climate law said Hochul pushed the changes without giving lawmakers a chance to discuss a path forward for climate action in the state.

“This really came out of nowhere, it was sprung on us, and it was difficult even to understand what was happening,” said Marcella Mitaynes, a progressive state assembly member who represents a swath of waterfront neighborhoods in Brooklyn with many working-class residents.

Some experts who study decarbonization in New York said that the state’s legally binding emissions target had become virtually impossible to hit given broader headwinds against a national or global transition away from fossil fuels.

“It was going to be really difficult to meet, because the economy wasn’t cooperating,” said Al McGartland, who served as the chief economist at the Environmental Protection Agency from 2005 to 2025. McGartland, an expert on carbon taxes, said that the change to the law is “not all bad because I think it does buy time to think this thing through carefully, and do it right.”

The biggest change is delay. The budget deal sets a new target of reducing the state’s emissions 60 percent by 2040, a number that the governor’s office says is far more achievable than the 40 percent originally required by 2030. It also delays the launch of a “cap-and-invest” system, which was supposed to launch last year, until 2028. This system would assess new fees to polluters such as power plants and oil terminals and would funnel that revenue toward climate projects such as electric-vehicle chargers and heat pumps. Many climate experts believe such systems are the most efficient way to nudge an economy away from fossil fuels, but Hochul had grown concerned that the system would raise gas prices and utility bills at a time when many consumers are already struggling with fuel prices. 

The deal also makes two important changes to the way the state counts its emissions. Under the old system, New York had to account for the climate pollution associated with extracting the fossil fuels that it imports from other states. For instance, when a natural gas field in Pennsylvania leaked planet-warming methane before piping the gas to New York, the latter state had to count those leaks as its own pollution, in addition to that caused by burning the fuel for energy. Most other states don’t do this. Once New York makes this change, it will reduce its apparent emissions by about 15 percent overnight — a result of the fact that the state imports most of its natural gas.

This dynamic was compounded by the fact that the state’s old accounting system also gave extra weight to methane, which is the second most common greenhouse gas after carbon. Methane warms the Earth about 80 times faster than carbon dioxide, but it disappears from the atmosphere after around 20 years. Most countries evaluate their greenhouse gas emissions by considering the warming that will take place over 100 years, but New York only considered 20 years of warming, which makes methane look much worse compared to carbon. 

The 20-year outlook benefited certain polluting sectors and disadvantaged others. Under the new system, for instance, the warming impact attributed to the state’s livestock industry and its landfills will fall by two-thirds. Unlike the accounting change for imported fuels, however, the change to a 100-year framework can be defended as ultimately more climate-conscious: The 100-year framework is the standard used by the United Nations climate secretariat that administers the Paris Agreement, and many climate scientists have criticized the state’s 20-year framework for distorting the true costs of warming. (The reason, in short: If you have a system that prioritizes methane over carbon, you may limit some warming in the short-term while baking in much more in the long run.)

But even with these changes, the state still won’t be on track to meet its original 2030 goal. That’s because it has made little progress on the biggest sources of carbon: cars, power plants, and residential buildings. 

Natural gas provides around 50 percent of the state’s electricity, and it is the heating fuel for almost all the big apartment buildings in New York City and its suburbs. In order to fully ditch fossil fuels, the state will have to convert all those buildings to electrical systems like heat pumps. And then it will still have to replace all its natural gas-fired power plants with emissions-free sources like wind and solar.

These are both very difficult tasks. For one thing, electrifying a place like New York is expensive. The cost of replacing gas boilers with electric heaters in a century-old apartment building can run into the tens of millions of dollars, and landlords have been struggling to find that money without bankrupting their tenants. The New York City Council has passed its own law, Local Law 97, that requires large buildings to make the switch by 2030 or face steep fines. But some building owners have said the fines might still be cheaper than the cost of making the switch.

The law’s 2030 target provides an powerful spur to decarbonization even if some buildings will struggle to meet the deadline, said John Foley, an executive vice president at First Service Project Management.

“The goals may be difficult to reach, but they’re important to have,” said Foley, whose firm handles construction projects for a large portfolio of multifamily buildings. He said that while new heat pump technology has made decarbonization easier for some buildings, meeting the Local Law 97 target will depend on the state’s grid.

“The solution seems to be going towards electrification a lot more, and in order for electrification to be the answer, then you have to produce energy in a cleaner way,” he said.

Steam rises from the smokestacks of the Ravenswood Generating Station, the largest power plant in New York City. The state has struggled to build out enough clean power to replace its natural gas power plants. Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein / Corbis via Getty Images

Finding clean sources of electricity to replace gas-fired power plants has also been an uphill battle. A new transmission line carrying clean power from hydropower dams in Canada down to New York City will come online this month, but it was delayed for years by litigation and environmental permitting. Two major offshore wind farms, Empire Wind and Sunrise Wind, will also come online this year, despite the Trump administration’s attempts to block them. But they will only displace a fraction of the state’s gas supply, and won’t provide much power in the summer when demand is highest. (Coastal winds tend to be calmest in the summer when the oceans are hot and there are fewer storms.) Plus, developers have shown little interest in building more offshore wind farms due to Trump’s opposition.

Some of the challenges, however, are of the state’s own making. The state made its own electricity grid much more polluting when it closed the Indian Point nuclear power plant in 2011 due to environmental concerns. After the plant closed, the state had to import more gas to make up the loss.

The borough of Brooklyn, where residents who live near seasonal power plants complain of asthma and respiratory conditions, shows just how difficult this transition is. The state has been trying for almost a decade to close the particularly dirty “peaker” gas plants that turn on to provide power during the hot summer months when electricity demand is highest and not enough power is available from other sources. But even once the new Hudson transmission line and Empire Wind come online, the state’s independent grid operator says New York City could still need those peaker plants to avoid blackouts come 2031. 

“To me, the heart of the climate law was really to invest in our communities and reverse this legacy of pollution,” said Mitaynes, the Brooklyn assembly member who represents residents who live near such peaker plants, like the Gowanus Generation Station. She said that the delayed cap-and-trade system would have funneled 35 percent of its revenue toward disadvantaged communities. That money could help address poor air quality and support the buildout of an offshore wind manufacturing facility on the waterfront. “This law really set us up as leaders, and [Hochul] has taken this opportunity to dismantle it,” she said.

Hochul spokesperson Ken Lovett said the changes are “commonsense reforms” and that the governor “remains committed” to climate action.

“Governor Hochul has made clear her top priority is keeping the lights on and costs down for all New Yorkers,” he told Grist.

The state is still making investments in decarbonization: One state agency is investing heavily in large batteries that could store clean energy and thereby replace some natural gas capacity, and another will purchase $100 million in new renewable power this year. The state budget also increased a tax credit for New York City landlords that electrify their buildings. The budget deal also ups the proportion of future cap-and-trade revenues that will go to disadvantaged areas.

But other than that, Hochul has shown little interest in a plan for the state’s transition off of gas. Indeed, she appears to have decided that the state will need gas for the long run. Last year she approved water permits for a new Trump-backed pipeline project that will carry natural gas from Pennsylvania to Queens. The pipeline endorsement was part of a deal to protect the Empire Wind project from Trump’s interference, but Trump’s Interior Department attempted to stop Empire Wind a few months later anyway.

The new gas pipeline broke ground in April at a ceremony in Brooklyn attended by Trump administration Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and Environmental Protection Agency head Lee Zeldin. Hochul herself did not attend.

toolTips('.classtoolTips4','The process of reducing the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that drive climate change, most often by deprioritizing the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas in favor of renewable sources of energy.'); toolTips('.classtoolTips7','A powerful greenhouse gas that accounts for about 11% of global emissions, methane is the primary component of natural gas and is emitted into the atmosphere by landfills, oil and natural gas systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, and wastewater treatment, among other pathways. Over a 20-year period, it is roughly 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline New York backtracked on its climate goals. Here’s why. on Jun 3, 2026.

This story is made possible through a partnership between Grist and The Flatwater Free Press, Nebraska’s first independent, nonprofit newsroom focused on investigations and feature stories.

Standing before the Otoe County Board and a room of neighbors, Wynee Benedict ticked through a long list of concerns.

Do we have enough water for them? Who pays for their power? What if they create a heat island?

The source of Benedict’s worries: data centers. Since learning earlier this year that their county, south of Omaha and a little east of Lincoln, could become home to a new data center, Otoe residents have been abuzz with questions and concerns like Benedict’s, leading some residents to call for a temporary ban on the industry. 

That’s effectively what the board did last month, voting to suspend the permits needed for a new data center for up to a year, according to commissioner Chuck Cole. The pause is intended to give county officials more time to study how the developments fit into the county’s future plans and to update its regulations accordingly. 

Around the country, opposition to data centers is growing. The massive, resource-guzzling buildings needed to power artificial intelligence and our digital infrastructure have emerged as a galvanizing issue. Local governments from California to Maine have adopted or are considering temporary bans. And at least 14 states so far this year have weighed statewide moratoriums.  

Elsewhere in Nebraska, Madison County set requirements for data centers to get a special permit, which allows added oversight and public input. In Gage County, the planning and zoning commission will hold a hearing on a data center moratorium later this month.

And more will likely follow suit thanks to a recent change in state law forcing counties to make a decision on certain development projects within a specific amount of time, said Jon Cannon, executive director of Nebraska Association of County Officials. The goal, according to the bill’s supporters, was to prevent counties from needlessly delaying projects. But the law could have an unintended consequence. 

“I think that you’re likely to see a number of counties that say, ‘We need to get our regulations in order,’ and … they may put moratoriums on a lot of things, not just data centers,” Cannon said.

Read Next A look behind the scenes of what could be Google’s biggest test of carbon capture Anila Yoganathan

Data centers are just the latest in a long line of controversial developments, like wind and solar, that counties in Nebraska and other states have grappled with. And much like those other developments, attitudes toward data centers could vary from county to county, Cannon said. He advises developers to communicate with residents in rural Nebraska early and transparently about large projects.

“When people are aware of something coming to town, because, ‘Oh, my neighbor told me that he just signed this big contract for a right of way’ — when people find out that way, they get very excited, and not in a good way,” Cannon said.

From an environmental standpoint, it’s hard to know how much data centers are impacting Nebraska. There’s no centralized information source for their location, ownership, and water usage. 

Read Next data centers” class=”js-modal-gallery__hidden” srcset=”https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/GettyImages-2236721497-e1763760608494.jpg?quality=75&strip=all 1022w, https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/GettyImages-2236721497-e1763760608494.jpg?resize=330%2C186&quality=75&strip=all 330w, https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/GettyImages-2236721497-e1763760608494.jpg?resize=768%2C432&quality=75&strip=all 768w, https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/GettyImages-2236721497-e1763760608494.jpg?resize=160%2C90&quality=75&strip=all 160w, https://grist.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/GettyImages-2236721497-e1763760608494.jpg?resize=150%2C84&quality=75&strip=all 150w” sizes=”(max-width: 1022px) 100vw, 1022px” height=”575″ width=”1022″ loading=”lazy” decoding=”async”> How to make data centers less thirsty Naveena Sadasivam

But that is expected to change. 

Lawmakers approved a bill this year aimed at increasing transparency. It requires data centers to annually report the names of their owners and developers, physical size, location, annual electricity demand, annual water usage, and any sales and use tax exemptions and incentives they receive. 

That information will likely be helpful to local officials, like those in Otoe County, as they weigh regulations. 

Other Otoe County residents echoed the concerns expressed by Benedict, who referenced reporting by the Flatwater Free Press and Grist about a proposal by Google to build a massive new Nebraska data center. The proposed data center could require more than triple the electricity the entire city of Lincoln uses during the hottest months of the year, when electricity use spikes. 

The proposal, detailed in documents shared at a private utility meeting in January, did not identify a specific location. However, Flatwater reported that a potential partner in the overall project — the Omaha-based private energy developer Tenaska — had optioned large chunks of land in southeast Nebraska, including Otoe and Gage counties. The news sparked discussions in both counties.

However, some residents who spoke at the Otoe County board meeting appeared to have different views on whether to temporarily ban data centers.

“We have said ‘no’ to a lot of things, almost a knee-jerk reaction. Maybe we need to say ‘yes’ to a few things,” resident Jim Nemec said at the meeting, adding that he understood the need for a temporary ban to study the issue. “But I also worry about the intention or impression it gives. Are we sending out the impression that business is closed here?”

In the end, Benedict is happy that the commission voted for the moratorium. Now, she and her neighbors are turning their attention to researching the consequences these developments may have. “We needed regulations on the books prior to a data center coming to this county,” Benedict said. “We don’t want to have to play catch-up and regulate something that’s already here.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Nebraskans are taking a hard look at data centers on Jun 3, 2026.

The Trump administration is promoting multibillion-dollar funding packages to help states and disadvantaged communities secure clean drinking water as part of its promise to “Make America Healthy Again.” There’s just one catch: The federal dollars were previously promised under a climate and infrastructure law passed by Congress during the Biden administration.

Last month, the EPA announced a $1 billion commitment to address drinking water contaminated by PFAS, a class of synthetic compounds commonly referred to as “forever chemicals.” Two days later, it announced $2.9 billion to help track down and replace lead pipes, which can leach lead — a potent neurotoxin that can cause irreversible cognitive, cardiovascular, and reproductive harm — into drinking water. 

“The Trump EPA is committed to Make America Healthy Again by ensuring clean air, land, and water — and by taking on PFAS,” said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in a statement. In a separate statement, EPA Assistant Administrator Jess Kramer said that the “Trump EPA is committed to tackling lead exposure” and that the funds “will help protect current and future generations across America by accelerating local efforts to find and replace toxic lead pipes.”  

But both funding streams were appropriated well before Trump took office. Congress originally passed the bipartisan infrastructure law, also known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA, in 2021, promising to deliver more than $50 billion over five years to revamp the nation’s water infrastructure — the largest investment of its kind since the passage of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Billions of dollars for lead pipe removal and PFAS contamination were tucked into the Biden-era law and scheduled to run out this year.    

Approximately $15 billion of those funds were set aside specifically for removing lead service lines, which deliver drinking water to homes and businesses. For the past five years, the EPA has been distributing these funds based on the share of lead lines in each state. The nearly $2.9 billion that the agency announced last month is the fifth and final of the annual disbursements required under the IIJA. Another $5 billion was set aside for PFAS cleanup.

But this year’s funds for lead pipe removal fell short of what Congress originally pledged. Republican lawmakers repurposed $125 million from this year’s appropriation for wildfire prevention, and the Trump administration initially delayed releasing the $2.9 billion allocated for 2025. The EPA only released the funds after pressure from Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi and six other Illinois lawmakers, who alleged that the funds were being withheld from Democrat-led states. 

The Trump administration has also proposed cutting the EPA’s budget in half in 2027, including a 90 percent reduction in long-standing funding for lead pipe replacement. Federal rules require that most water utilities remove all lead pipes across the country by 2037. Reductions in funding could jeopardize their ability to meet those targets. 

Scott Berry, a senior advisor on policy and external affairs with the nonprofit US Water Alliance, said those funding cuts are occurring at a time when states are trying to clean up lead pipes.

“As of now, there are no plans to increase the funding or even maintain IIJA levels, despite the fact that there is a massive need for investment,” Berry said. He added that deferring water infrastructure spending could ultimately cost homeowners more, potentially increasing utility bills by an additional $1,000.

In a statement, the EPA press office told Grist that the agency has taken “significant actions” to protect American families and children and “is following the law and disbursing funds appropriated by Congress.” The agency did not respond to questions about projected funding for drinking water infrastructure.

Nationwide, the EPA estimates there are approximately 4 million lead service lines buried across the country that are still in use. Illinois leads the nation, with about 1.5 million lead pipes. More than 400,000 of the state’s lead service lines are in Chicago as a result of the city’s building codes, which required lead connections up until 1986. As a result, Illinois received about 10 percent of the federal dollars — the largest allocation among all 50 states.

“[We] will work hard to secure our fair share, but there is no determination yet about how much Chicago will receive,” according to a statement from Megan Vidis, spokesperson for the Chicago Department of Water Management.

Due to the funding reductions approved by lawmakers this year, Illinois will receive approximately $15 million less than originally expected. 

“If the federal government is serious about getting the lead out and modernizing the nation’s aging water infrastructure, then it must sustain bipartisan infrastructure law investments and be committed to strengthening — not scaling back,” said Chakena Sims, a senior policy advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Editor’s note: The Natural Resources Defense Council is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

toolTips('.classtoolTips12','An acronym for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS are a class of chemicals used in everyday items like nonstick cookware, cosmetics, and food packaging that have proven to be dangerous to human health. Also called “forever chemicals” for their inability to break down over time, PFAS can be found lingering nearly everywhere — in water, soil, air, and the blood of people and animals.
');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Biden’s clean drinking water plan is being rebranded as MAHA on Jun 3, 2026.

The Labour government wants to cut UK greenhouse gas emissions to 87% below 1990 levels by 2040, which it says will deliver £865bn in economic benefits.

The target has been set out in draft legislation for the seventh “carbon budget”, a legally binding limit on emissions during the five-year period from 2038-2042.

The government says this would protect billpayers from “fossil-fuel shocks”, boost energy security, improve quality of life and help tackle climate change, by getting the country on track for net-zero by 2050.

The UK would need to invest around £880bn over 25 years to meet the budget, but doing so would yield benefits worth £1,620bn, according to a government impact assessment.

Pointedly, the government presents these benefits and costs relative to a policy of “no net-zero”, as the opposition Conservatives and hard-right Reform UK have both pledged to abandon the 2050 goal.

The 137-page impact assessment mentions energy security more than 30 times and says the seventh carbon budget would help save £445bn up to 2050 from ever decreasing fossil-fuel imports.

Moreover, the assessment is based on fossil-fuel price projections published in 2024, before the cost of oil and gas surged earlier this year after the effective closure of the strait of Hormuz.

The document says that the UK’s climate goals would be even more beneficial – worth £1,035bn, relative to “no net-zero” – if the country is exposed to “persistently high fossil-fuel prices”.

The seventh carbon budget must be approved by parliament before the end of June and the government must then publish a plan to meet it “as soon as reasonably practicable”.

• What is the UK’s seventh ‘carbon budget’?
• What target is the government aiming for?
• How could the UK meet the seventh carbon budget?
• What are the benefits and costs of reaching this target?
• What happens next?

What is the UK’s seventh ‘carbon budget’?

The UK’s efforts to tackle and respond to global warming are governed by the Climate Change Act, which was passed with near-unanimous cross-party support in 2008, by 463 votes to five.

In 2019, the then-Conservative government amended the Act to set a long-term goal for cutting emissions to 100% below 1990 levels by 2050, known as the net-zero target.

(The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has affirmed that reaching net-zero is the only way to stop global warming from getting worse – and that emissions would need to reach net-zero by 2050 globally to have a chance of limiting the rise in temperatures to 1.5C.)

To stay on track for the 2050 target, the act requires the government to set a series of “carbon budgets”. These are binding limits on the UK’s emissions covering successive five-year periods.

The UK met its first three carbon budgets, covering 2008-2022. It is currently just over half way through the fourth “carbon budget”, covering 2023-2027.

Under the act, the government is required to set the level of the seventh carbon budget, covering 2038-2042, by the end of June this year.

Before setting the budget, the government must take advice from the Climate Change Committee (CCC). In turn, this advice must take into account a range of factors, including the latest scientific evidence, technological trends, the state of the economy and public finances.

No government has ever gone against the advice of the CCC when setting carbon budgets. However, the government could have chosen not to do so, if it had explained why.

What target is the government aiming for?

The CCC recommended last year that the UK should aim to cut its emissions to 87% below 1990 levels under the seventh carbon budget for 2038-2042 – equivalent to a three-quarters reduction on current levels.

The government has followed this advice, setting a draft seventh carbon budget of 535m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e), some 107MtCO2e per year.

The proposed 2040 target is shown in the figure below, alongside previously legislated budgets and the UK’s international climate pledges for 2030 and 2035 under the Paris Agreement.

UK greenhouse gas emissions including international aviation and shipping (IAS), MtCO2e. Lines show historical emissions (black) and the pathway to reaching net-zero. Legislated carbon budgets levels are shown as grey steps. The first five budgets did not include IAS, but left “headroom” to allow for these emissions (darker wedges). Source: CCC progress reports, Carbon Brief analysis.

In a written statement to parliament, energy secretary Ed Miliband said the target would reduce the UK’s exposure to “volatile international fossil-fuel markets and protect bill-payers”, as well as delivering benefits for jobs, growth, health and the natural environment. Miliband wrote:

“Against the backdrop of heightened geopolitical instability, including the ongoing crisis in the Middle East and its implications for global energy markets, the case for setting a clear and credible long-term pathway for the UK on clean energy and climate action is stronger than ever.”

Echoing a 2023 review commissioned by the then-Conservative government, Miliband also wrote that “clean energy and climate action is the economic opportunity of the 21st century”.

(On the day of the draft budget, the Guardian reported findings that the UK’s “net-zero economy” was worth “more than £100bn a year”, according to consultancy CBI Economics.)

The impact assessment sets out the climate-change “case for action”. It says the “science is clear” that the UK is becoming wetter and warmer, with increasing floods, droughts, heatwaves and wildfires. This is “unequivocally” due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. It continues:

“Without action, climate change will continue to endanger the UK’s food and water security, exacerbate global population displacement and pose national security risks.”

The document adds that the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) found the “costs of climate damage are getting higher, while the cost of the net-zero transition is getting lower”.

In its impact assessment, the government also outlines a less ambitious goal to cut emissions to 83% below 1990 levels by 2040 and a tighter target for 89%.

In what may be an attempt to pre-empt future legal challenges (see: What happens next?), the government outlines why it is not choosing to pursue either greater or lesser ambition for 2040.

It says the low end of ambition “increases the risk of underinvestment”, while the highest target could face “deliverability risks [that] may undermine [the UK’s] credibility”.

Note that the sixth and seventh budgets were set in line with the net-zero target, whereas previous budgets were set on a pathway to 80% by 2050 – hence, the step change in the figure above.

The sixth and later carbon budgets include the UK’s share of emissions from international aviation and shipping. These emissions relate to journeys that start or finish at UK ports and airports. Draft legislation to make this change was laid in parliament earlier this year.

The UK’s legally binding climate goals do not include the “imported” emissions associated with the production of goods and services in other countries. Among other reasons, this is because the UK does not have legal jurisdiction over activities taking place outside its borders.

The UK’s imported emissions were growing until around 2008, but have remained relatively flat since then. This means that the UK’s overall “carbon footprint”, including imported emissions, has been falling by a similar amount as the territorial emissions within its own borders.

How could the UK meet the seventh carbon budget?

To date, UK emissions cuts have largely come from the power sector, as the country has stopped burning coal to generate electricity and shifted from gas towards clean power.

In order to meet the seventh carbon budget, the UK will need to cut emissions across the economy. According to the CCC’s advice, the biggest contributions would come from electrifying transport, heat and industry, driven by a massively expanded supply of clean electricity.

It said at the time of its advice:

“In many key areas, the best way forward is now clear. Electrification and low-carbon electricity supply make up the largest share of emissions reductions in our pathway.”

This would mean shifting to electric vehicles (EVs), electric heat pumps and electrified industrial processes on a massive scale, reducing the need for fossil fuels.

Since electrified technologies are far more efficient than those based on fossil-fuel combustion, this shift would also dramatically cut the need for oil and gas imports, the CCC said.

In broad terms, the government backs a similar path to cutting UK emissions through mass electrification. In its release on the seventh carbon budget, it says:

“Half of the UK’s recessions since 1970 have been caused by fossil-fuel shocks. The government is investing in renewable and nuclear energy to get the UK off the rollercoaster of fossil-fuel prices…By 2050, the UK could cut its reliance on fossil fuels from around three quarters of our energy today to around 15%, while avoiding around £445bn in fossil-fuel spending over the next 25 years.”

In its “delivery plan” for the sixth carbon budget, covering 2033-2037, it said roughly a third of UK homes should have heat pumps by 2035 and around half of cars on the road should be EVs.

There is one key difference between the CCC’s suggested approach to meeting the UK’s carbon budgets and that of the government. Specifically, the CCC suggested there would be an important role for behaviour change in relation to diets and efforts to limit the rise in the number of flights.

In contrast, the government has placed much less emphasis on these areas. This means that it relies to a greater extent on expensive technologies that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Despite this context, some right-leaning newspapers have misleadingly focused their coverage on the perceived need to alter diets to meet the seventh carbon budget.

What are the benefits and costs of reaching this target?

The government says that the proposed seventh carbon budget would “deliver the benefits of clean energy and climate action for jobs and growth, health and our natural environment”, as well as aligning with the 1.5C target of the Paris Agreement to “avoid climate disaster”.

Overall, it says that the net-zero target for 2050 “continues to represent value for money, with strong net benefits relative to alternative pathways”.

The detailed impact assessment sets out the benefits and costs of meeting the proposed seventh carbon budget in monetary terms, in line with Treasury guidance under the “green book”.

The results are presented in terms of “net present value” (NPV). This takes into account the human preference for enjoying benefits today, rather than in the future. When measuring NPV, future costs and benefits are “discounted”, to reflect their lower value in the present moment.

Specifically, meeting the proposed seventh carbon budget would have net benefits worth £865bn to the UK, relative to a world where the net-zero target is abandoned and existing technology continues to be used. For example, in this “no net-zero” alternative, gas boilers and petrol cars would be replaced like-for-like when they reach the end of their life.

It says that a lower bill for fossil fuels is a “major component” of the net benefits, with savings reaching £445bn over 25 years if the seventh carbon budget is met, relative to “no net-zero”.

The “vast majority” of these savings result from electrification – in other words, swapping those boilers and petrol cars for heat pumps and EVs.

However, the largest benefit of the proposed budget comes from avoided climate-change damages, which amount to £1,495bn over 25 years, according to the document. This benefit relates to lower UK emissions limiting climate impacts, such as extreme heat and flooding.

The government also acknowledges that significant investments would be required to meet the seventh carbon budget. It puts the cost of these investments at £880bn over 25 years, including financing, relative to the alternative of “no net-zero”.

These benefits and costs of the proposed budget are shown in the figure below. In aggregate, these add up to the headline net benefits of £865bn over 25 years.

Net benefits and costs of meeting the UK’s seventh carbon budget, measured over the period 2025-2050 in present-value terms, £bn. Source: Department of Energy Security and Net Zero.

In addition to the “no net-zero” baseline, the impact assessment compares the proposed budget with a continuation of current policies. The results are directionally similar to, but slightly lower than, the net benefits relative to “no net-zero”.

The document also considers a range of “sensitivities” to explore the impact of higher or lower technology costs and fossil-fuel prices, as well as to consider alternative pathways that use less carbon capture and storage (CCS), fewer EVs or a reduced number of heat pumps.

Finally, the impact assessment also considers the ongoing benefits and costs of meeting the seventh carbon budget when looking out to 2060.

This roughly doubles the net benefits of meeting the target from £865bn by 2050 to £1,520bn by 2060, because the upfront investments yield ongoing savings, such as lower fossil-fuel bills.

Notably, the impact assessment is based on fossil-fuel price projections published in 2024, when the average cost of wholesale gas was around 80p per therm.

These projections envisaged gas prices of 75p/therm in 2025, falling to 70p by 2030. A “high” case, explored in the impact assessment, had prices of up to around 110p/therm.

In reality, prices climbed to around 85p/therm in 2025 and gas is currently trading at 115p, having reached as high as 150p/therm in the immediate aftermath of the US-Israel attack on Iran in February. This was still well below the 640p peak seen during the global energy crisis in 2022.

In the “high” case for fossil-fuel prices – in which prices are below current levels – the net benefit of the seventh carbon budget climbs to £1,035bn over 25 years.

The impact assessment does not consider the potential for “feedback and system loops, which have potential to decrease costs faster than estimated”.

Setting aside the benefits of meeting the UK’s climate goals, the government analysis says that the net investment costs of the transition would be equivalent to around 1.2% of GDP per year, with a range of 0.8-1.6% reflecting uncertainty in fossil-fuel prices and technology costs.

It says that investing 1.2% of GDP in meeting the seventh carbon budget would not mean the UK’s GDP being 1.2% lower. On the contrary, it says the impact on GDP could be positive. It says:

“The investment in home-grown clean energy and electrification and the reduced reliance on fossil fuels has the potential to generate positive impacts on GDP over time.”

It goes on to compare this figure with the cost of the 2022 global energy crisis, which it says hit the economy by around 2-3% of GDP, including taxpayer-funded bill support of £42bn.

Citing recent analysis by the CCC and its own modelling, it says the seventh carbon budget would leave the economy around £90bn better off, if a fossil-fuel price shock were to hit again in 2040.

In addition, the assessment notes figures from the OBR, suggesting that climate damages resulting from global warming of 3C could wipe around 8% off UK GDP.

Notably, the government assessment of net abatement costs is significantly higher than the equivalent figure published by the CCC, of just 0.2% of GDP. It says this reflects two main factors.

First, the government’s reduced emphasis on behaviour change, which as noted above results in a greater need for expensive CO2 removal technologies. Second, it says the CCC “expects a more rapid decline in the costs of technology” than the government assumes.

For example, whereas recent government analysis has assumed that EVs will never be cheaper to buy than petrol cars, the CCC assumes that “price parity” will be reached within a few years. In fact, the latest data indicates that EVs are already cheaper to buy than petrol cars, on average.

.cb-tweet{ width: 65%; box-shadow: 3px 3px 6px #d3d3d3; margin: auto; } .cb-tweet img{ border: solid 1.25px #333333; border-radius: 5px; } @media (max-width:650px){ .cb-tweet{ width:100%; } } What happens next?

Under the Climate Change Act, there is a deadline of 30 June 2026 to legislate for the seventh carbon budget, subject to parliamentary approval.

In setting out the draft target, the UK government has already taken into account the views of the devolved administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The impact assessment notes that none of them had made “representations” on the level of the seventh carbon budget.

The draft carbon budget legislation is subject to the “affirmative procedure”, which means it must be debated and voted through by both houses of parliament.

For the sixth carbon budget, which was legislated under the then-Conservative government in 2021, this vote took place during the “committee stage”.

The government statement says that its delivery plan for the sixth carbon budget, published in October 2025, will “drive substantial abatement into the carbon budget seven period”. It adds:

“These policies will continue to deliver the bulk of emissions savings needed for carbon budget seven. This provides a strong and credible starting point…reducing delivery risk and giving confidence that the transition can be delivered in an affordable and manageable way.”

Specifically, the impact assessment says that the existing CB6 delivery plan “would get the UK to 84% emissions reduction” by 2040, only just shy of the proposed 87% target.

The government commits to publishing a new delivery plan for the seventh carbon budget “as soon as reasonably practical”, in line with the wording with the Climate Change Act. It says:

“This statutory sequencing recognises the time needed to develop and agree an ambitious and robust package of policies to deliver the target.”

The impact assessment notes that the delivery plan will determine how the UK meets the seventh carbon budget, as well as the implications for different regions and sectors of the UK economy.

Two earlier delivery plans, published by previous Conservative governments, were subject to successful legal challenge in the High Court. These cases, brought by groups including Friends of the Earth and ClientEarth, resulted in the latest delivery plan, published last October.

A separate group, calling itself “Carbon Reckoning”, is attempting to crowdfund a fresh legal challenge to the government’s plans for the seventh carbon budget. In late May 2026, it wrote to Miliband arguing that the 87% by 2040 target “fails to comply with international obligations”.

Q&A: The current state of ‘carbon dioxide removal’ around the world

Negative emissions

|

02.06.26

EM-DAT: Trump aid cuts could close database storing ‘world’s memory of disasters’

Extreme weather

|

29.05.26

Media reaction: UK and Europe’s ‘mind-boggling’ May heat and climate change

Extreme weather

|

28.05.26

Experts: Why migration is ‘not a failure of adaptation’ in a warming world

Risk and adaptation

|

22.05.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_aebca9a904f5ba24d99746c2a128f20a .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Q&A: How UK’s seventh carbon budget will deliver ‘£865bn’ in economic benefits appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Oil shocks, currency crises, refugee flows and rising geopolitical disorder: analyst and columnist Mihir Sharma explains why the consequences of war with Iran will be felt far beyond the Middle East.

Why do people with access to the same facts arrive at radically different conclusions about the future? Physicist Tom Murphy reflects on an impasse with Dave Murphy over modernity, ecological limits and humanity's place in the living world.

Is hypocrisy the one thing that can grow infinitely on our finite planet? When you learn that humanity’s fossil fuel burning, including your own, is contributing to climate chaos, what can you do?

The Northern Territory government has granted approval for gas giant Santos to drill 12 fracking wells in the Beetaloo Basin, despite concerns that the project would mainly serve the export market while putting water and environment at risk. 

In early April, I had the chance to see a wetland flourish on what was once a golf course in Santa Barbara, and smell sweet hummingbird sage and sticky monkey flower where there was once barren land...

A government-owned power company that can sell electricity for 44 per cent less than market price is one answer to problems faced by heavy industry.

The post “The private market cannot deliver:” Unions want government to build low cost green power for big industry appeared first on Renew Economy.

A new framework will help determine the cost of different measures to shift or reduce electricity demand, rather than supply.

The post What is the value of energy efficiency and flexible demand? A new tool will help us find out appeared first on Renew Economy.

• Cities should densify their inner-ring suburbs to reduce car trips and greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Another study of 15-minute cities found that, for every 10 percent increase in residents living in walkable neighborhoods, transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions fell by 5 percent. (Cities)
• Air pollution slows the lung growth of children, and even young adults up to age 24. (The Guardian)
• Financially, people who drive a lot and own an aging gas-powered car are better off buying an electric vehicle, which is also better for the climate. (NPR)
• From schedules to accessibility, transit agencies are not doing a good job of adjusting to an aging population of riders, according to a Chinese study of Asian and European cities. (The City Fix)
• The key to winning the PR battle over traffic enforcement cameras is to convince the public they’re not just a money grab by local governments. (CT Mirror)
• An Illinois law reforming Chicago transit governance and pumping $1.5 billion into the system took effect Monday. (Tribune)
• The transit agency in Montana’s capital city, Helena, is facing a $200,000 deficit and considering cutting service, primarily affecting the elderly and disabled. (Free Press)
• The Kansas City Streetcar is studying the feasibility of a third extension. (KCTV)
• Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson joined an annual mass bike ride through downtown to celebrate Wisconsin Bike Week. (WTMJ)
• What should Charlotte call its new transit-oriented, walkable arts and entertainment district? (Ledger)
• Riding e-scooters and other personal mobility vehicles has become a popular after-work activity in Canada. (CBC)
• Car Free America explains how Copenhagen built its famously excellent bike infrastructure.

On April 20, the Federal Highway Administration launched its “Freedom to Drive” initiative, asking governors to nominate their worst traffic bottlenecks for federal capacity expansion. On May 17, House transportation leaders released the draft BUILD America 250 Act — a $580 billion, five-year surface transportation reauthorization, which the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee marked up on May 21.

Taken together, the two announcements amount to the largest federal sprawl subsidy in a generation, proposed at exactly the moment American households can least afford it.

There is a real freedom in being able to drive. But the “freedom” the initiative actually delivers isn’t “freedom” at all, because it leaves households with no alternatives.

For roughly 30 percent of Americans — children, older adults, people with disabilities, and households without a vehicle — driving is not an option. For nearly everyone else, the built environment makes it the only practical way to reach a job or a grocery store. We have grown so used to automobile dependence that we no longer notice the shackles. The “freedom” on offer is pure car-dealer Americana — red, white, blue, and one more promise that the next round of expansion will finally clear the traffic.

Recommended Trump’s ‘Freedom Means Affordable Cars’ Rings Hollow As Gas Prices Surge Kea Wilson March 30, 2026

Start with the household ledger. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that American households spent an average of $78,535 in 2024 — 33.4 percent on housing and 17.0 percent on transportation, more than half of household spending. The Center for Neighborhood Technology’s Housing + Transportation Affordability Index sets the combined affordability ceiling at 45 percent of household income, and most U.S. communities routinely exceed it.

But the H+T Index measures only direct household costs. It does not capture the federal subsidy that engineered the sprawl pattern, which households absorb, and it does not show how that subsidy gets returned in degraded form. 

Federal, state, and local governments spent $626 billion on transportation and water infrastructure in 2023, with highways as the largest category. Federal capacity expansion is increasingly deficit-financed, and households pay it back through inflated prices, eroded wages, and higher mortgage rates.

The road bill never goes away. It just gets routed through the dollar.

Recommended Congress Gave States Enough Money to Fix Every Road in America; Some States Set It On Fire Instead Kea Wilson May 11, 2026

Beth Osborne at Smart Growth America has argued for years that the federal performance-measurement framework is structurally biased toward expansion: we count vehicle throughput, not access, and the incentives push state DOTs to build new capacity rather than maintain what they already own. Her organization’s Repair Priorities reports have tracked this misallocation for over a decade. 

Chuck Marohn at Strong Towns arrives at the same diagnosis from a different tradition. He argues that the postwar suburban development pattern is financially insolvent because its maintenance liabilities exceed the tax base it produces, which he calls the “growth Ponzi scheme.”

Different schools, same conclusion: we are buying liabilities and calling them assets.

BUILD America 250 is the diagnosis in legislative form. It does real work—bridges need repair, freight matters, road workers deserve protection. But the architecture is backward. The bill cuts Safe Streets and Roads for All by $1.25 billion, eliminates the Carbon Reduction and PROTECT resilience programs, and repeals the Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program — the only dedicated federal source for closing gaps in walking and biking networks, whose first grant round was oversubscribed forty to one.

It then channels new money into capacity expansion at the moment traffic deaths remain at 39,254 a year. In their recent update of the U.S. sprawl index, Shima Hamidi’s Johns Hopkins team ties those deaths directly to the development pattern federal road dollars keep subsidizing: more vehicle miles and higher speeds, which lead to elevated rates of fatal and pedestrian crashes.

Recommended New House Infrastructure Bill: Cuts To Transit, Mixed Bag for Active Transportation Kea Wilson May 20, 2026

The fiscal logic gets worse. The federal gas tax sits at 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel — unchanged since 1993. Users should pay for the infrastructure they use; that has historically been the conservative position.

But even as Congress writes new revenue streams to shore up the Highway Trust Fund, Washington is floating a gas-tax holiday in response to another Middle East conflict. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates a five-month suspension would cost the trust fund roughly $17 billion — 46 percent of projected FY2026 fuel-tax revenue.

So the user fee that funds roads gets suspended because of an oil shock to which the road system itself made us all vulnerable — while Congress fills the gap by borrowing, and households pay back the borrowing through devalued wages.

That isn’t conservatism. It’s debt-financed dependency with a flag decal.

Recommended Advocates Decry Proposed ‘Gas Tax Holiday’ — And Offer Alternatives to Ease Pain at the Pump Kea Wilson June 23, 2022

A serious conservative transportation policy starts from three principles: maintenance before expansion, pricing before subsidy, and access before throughput.

Roads, freight, emergency access, and rural connectivity all matter. The argument isn’t road abolition. It’s fiscal sanity — and a refusal to keep mailing U.S. households the bill for a development pattern that bankrupts it.

America is not underinvesting in roads. It is overbuilding liabilities and underpricing their true cost. “Freedom to Drive” isn’t a new vision. It’s the same old invoice — stamped urgent, mailed to taxpayers, and wrapped in red, white, and blue.

By Jeremy Brecher,
Senior Strategic Advisor, LNS Co-Founder

Listen to the audio version >>

As we saw in the previous commentary, Donald Trump is conducting a full spectrum counter-revolution against the Greentech revolution that is transforming energy production and consumption worldwide. This commentary shows that he has managed to significantly impede the onward march of Greentech in the US, but that Greentech is marching on nonetheless.

Collage featuring a photo of Donald Trump (Trump’s second presidential portrait, taken in June 2025 by Daniel Torok, The White House, Public Domain) and an aerial view of broken solar panels on a rooftop (Envato, Bilanol)

In the aftermath of Trump’s assault, the Greentech revolution in America is churning – both stopped in its tracks and driving forward.

Climate journalist and musician Jael Holzman recently took a “cross-country rock n’ roll tour” with her band Ekko Astral. Shee observed:

“Driving across the country with my band, I saw solar and wind projects in Wisconsin, Kansas, Arizona, and Idaho. One drive from Austin, Texas to Rozwell, New Mexico, sent me through a dizzying maze of wind farms in a western portion of the Lone Star State that surrounded my vehicle on all sides with spinning blades and transmission lines — and fracking rigs, because it was Texas. It felt like some sort of twisted, magnificent energy wonk video game.”

But she also noted:

“I drove through open fields and farmland in the Midwest and the Great Plains, including places where building solar or wind is banned outright. I drove straight through the part of central Idaho where Lava Ridge, once the largest wind farm in the country, would have been built this year if not for Donald Trump.”

First, the bad news

President Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBBA) into law on July 4, 2025. The law rolls back many parts of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act by ending tax credits for wind and solar energy, removing incentives for electric vehicles and home energy efficiency, and increasing support for fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and traditional agriculture. Photo credit: The White House, Public Domain

Trump’s Greentech counter-revolution has succeeded in making many corporations and governments cut back or abandon climate goals and policies. The consequences are catastrophic for the climate – and for the future of the American people.

• A week before the 2024 election, Idaho’s largest electric utility struck a 35-year deal to buy power from the Jackalope Wind project that would span an area the size of Chicago, with hundreds of wind turbines generating clean electricity by 2027. But President Trump’s Interior Department quickly stalled Jackalope’s environmental review. In September, the Idaho utility finally canceled its contracts with Jackalope Wind, citing “uncertainties related to the federal permitting process.” Jackalope is only one of more than 60 large wind and solar farms that are being blocked on federal lands. According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, 73,000 megawatts of solar projects on land are currently at risk from political interference due to the Trump administration’s “blockade.”
• After the tax credit for buying an EV was allowed to expire at the end of September, sales of EVs plummeted by about 46 percent. In 2025 as a whole, American businesses and households invested $91 billion in zero emission vehicles, a 5% decrease from the previous year. Ford took a $19.5 billion loss from abandoning a planned battery factory and canceled its F-150 EV. In the face of the global shift to EVs, Big Three’s share of the global auto market has fallen from nearly 30 percent in 2000 to about 12 percent today, while China’s share has risen from 2 percent to 42 percent.
• According to the Rhodium Group’s Clean Investment Monitor, the pipeline of new clean energy and transportation manufacturing investment—measured by new announcements in manufacturing projects—totaled $44 billion over the past two years, down by 70% compared to $149 billion during the previous two years. In the first quarter of 2026, clean energy and transportation investment in the United States totaled $61 billion, a 3% decline from Q4 2025.
• The impacts of Trump’s cuts can be felt in the smallest and most impoverished communities. Solar Holler, a solar developer and installation company with 105 employees across Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio and Virginia, had been growing 20 to 30% annually. Solar provided 70% of the company’s business. But residential solar tax incentives were cut off under Trump’s big, beautiful budget. The company’s growth forecast for 2026 is down from 30% to “roughly flat.” Appalachian Voices, a non-profit working with local communities, was awarded a half-million-dollar EPA grant to help five former coal communities in Virginia. The grant was summarily terminated by Elon Musk’s Doge.

While the impact of Trump’s policies is just beginning to be felt, they are already pushing back the forward march of the Greentech revolution. For example, late in 2025 the International Energy Agency (IEA) nearly halved its forecast of renewable energy growth in the United States, citing the end of tax incentives, new import restrictions, the suspension of new offshore wind leasing, and restricting the permitting of onshore wind and solar PV projects on federal land.

Tens of billions of dollars of manufacturing projects to build solar panels, batteries, charging stations and other clean technologies have already been canceled, with hundreds of billions of dollars of additional announced investments imperiled. According to the Princeton University-led REPEAT Project, the rollback of Biden-era climate regulations will cause an estimated 7.6 billion tons of additional greenhouse gas emissions to be released in the coming decade, as much as 150 million gas-powered cars would emit in that same time.

The Greentech Revolution: Bloodied but Unbowed

Data source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, January 2026

Despite Trump’s efforts to gut fossil free energy, during his first year in office, solar generation rose by 83 TWh (+27%), meeting 61% of the 135 TWh rise in electricity demand. By mid-year, renewables generated more than half of US electricity for the first month on record. Even without subsidies, renewables remain the most cost-competitive form of new power generation.

In a report posted on January 16, the US Energy Information Agency said, “We expect the combined share of generation from solar power and wind power to rise from about 18% in 2025 to about 21% in 2027.” Utility-scale solar is the fastest-growing source of electricity generation in the United States, increasing from 290 BkWh in 2025 to 424 BkWh by 2027.” Almost 70 gigawatts (GW) of new solar generating capacity projects are scheduled to come online in 2026 and 2027, “a 49% increase in U.S. solar operating capacity compared with the end of 2025.” “The three main dispatchable sources of electricity generation (natural gas, coal, and nuclear) accounted for 75% of total generation in 2025, but we expect the share of generation from these sources will fall to about 72% in 2027.”

In 2025, $278 billion was invested across the U.S. in the manufacture and deployment of clean energy, clean vehicles, building electrification, and carbon management technology – up 5% from 2024. This despite an 11% decrease in the fourth quarter relative to the same period in 2024. Investment to decarbonize energy and industrial production over 2024-5 was up 35% compared to the prior two years. Investment in emerging climate technologies in 2024-25 —clean hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuels, carbon management and new approaches to decarbonizing the production of cement, iron and steel, and pulp and paper— was 53% higher than in the previous two years. In the past two years, companies have announced a total of $347 billion in new investments in clean energy production and industrial decarbonization projects, a 16% increase compared to the previous two-year period.

Worldwide, the blocking of the Straits of Hormuz and the subsequent crisis in the cost and availability of fossil fuel energy has radically accelerated the Greentech revolution, with countries around the world scrambling to expand their fossil free energy production. Ironically, Trump’s petro-war on Iran is radically accelerating the very Greentech revolution he is attempting to destroy.

The Greentech Revolution is proceeding over, under, around, and through Trump’s counterrevolution. Greentech is an irresistible force; it may not immediately overcome the immovable object of Trump’s obstruction, but it is already circumventing and eroding it.
Subsequent commentaries in this series will show how.

Get “Strike!” via EmailGet “Strike!” via Substack DONATE ONLINE

The post Irresistible Greentech Revolution Meets Immovable Trump Counter-Revolution first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

Resolutions to undo the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument’s Management Plan using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) have been introduced by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT-02). Once either chamber of Congress takes up the legislation, we’ll post live updates as they consider this legislation, with the most current information at the top of this webpage (as well as a link to watch the proceedings live). If you haven’t already, review our actions you can take to defend the monument. A timeline and additional information can be found below.

(All times are MT. These updates come from SUWA staff and our best interpretations of proceedings)

Live Updates Timeline:

• March 4, 2026 –  Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT-02) – introduced joint resolutions to undo the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). If both chambers of Congress pass the measure by simple majority votes, the plan – which sets expectations for how these remarkable public lands will be managed for recreation, camping and outdoor access, collaboration with Tribal Nations, dark night skies, grazing, and other uses – will be undone and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will be barred from issuing another plan that is “substantially the same” in the future. 
  
  
• February 26, 2026 – Senator Mike Lee formally begun the process to fast-track the destruction of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument byadding the Government Accountability Office (GAO) opinion regarding the Monument’s Management Plan to the Congressional Record (see page 51). Conservation groups began sounding the the alarm regarding the GAO opinion, requested by Rep. Maloy, on January 22, 2026. 
  
  
• January 7, 2025 – Following two and a half years of work, anew Monument Management Plan was finalized for Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. As a part of that work, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) engaged in extensive outreach to Tribal Nations, the State of Utah, local governments, stakeholders (including outfitters and guides, ranchers, local utilities), and the public. During the planning process, BLM received overwhelming support from throughout Utah and the nation for a holistic, conservation-based management plan worthy of this remarkable place.

Additional information about the CRA:

In March 2026, the elected officials behind 2025’s failed public lands sell-off attempts – Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT-02) – introduced a joint resolution to undo the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). 

If both chambers of Congress pass the measure by simple majority votes, the plan – which sets expectations for how these remarkable public lands will be managed for recreation, camping and outdoor access, collaboration with Tribal Nations, dark night skies, grazing, and other uses – will be undone and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will be barred from issuing another plan that is “substantially the same” in the future. This would be a devastating blow to the monument and could turn it into a wildly different place. We cannot let this happen. 

Actions you can take to defend the monument.

The post Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument CRA Vote – Live Updates appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

On May 21, 2026, 15 candidates for City Council Districts 3 and 4 joined us for our Action Night Meet & Greet. We had an insightful, inspiring evening, and are so appreciative of the candidates that joined us and mingled with community members before and after sharing their campaign goals. We are also immensely grateful for 350PDX’s volunteers, staff, and board members that helped make this happen. It takes all of us! Check out photos by the luminous Dana Schot. And check out our video below which features each candidate discussing their campaign goals as they relate to our climate.

 

The post May 2026 Action Night! City Council Candidate Meet & Greet appeared first on 350PDX: Climate Justice.

Not long ago, Bengaluru had a different identity. People called it the Garden City, a place of wide, tree-lined roads, quiet lakes, and a climate so gentle it earned the nickname Pensioners’ Paradise. That city still exists in the memories of older residents, in photographs, and in the stories people tell when they are feeling […]

With New York Legislature adjourning June 4, advocates urge swift passage of bill to ban Parkinson’s pesticide Anthony Lacey June 2, 2026

ALBANY, N.Y. – Ahead of New York’s legislative session ending June 4, environmentalists and other advocates are urging state lawmakers to pass a bill banning paraquat, a widely used herbicide with links to Parkinson’s disease, childhood leukemia and other serious health harms.

At a virtual briefing Tuesday, representatives from the Parkinson’s Foundation, American Parkinson Disease Association, Environmental Working Group and allied advocates called for lawmakers to back the legislation, A.10074A/S.9094A. A medical expert and a person living with Parkinson’s disease also talked about the urgent need to pass the bill.

If enacted, it would make New York the second state to prohibit the toxic weedkiller, after Vermont last month enacted its landmark ban on the use of paraquat.

The bill, led by Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal (D,WF-Assembly District 67) and Sen. Pete Harckham (D,WF-40th Senate District), would deliver critical protections for farmworkers and rural communities who face the greatest exposure risk from paraquat. It would represent a significant step in shielding future generations from the crop chemical.

‘Very challenging disease’

More than 70 countries – including China, where most paraquat is produced – have already banned paraquat, yet it remains legal and widely used in the U.S. New Jersey and Pennsylvania are among other states now weighing similar restrictions.

During the virtual briefing, Rebecca Gilbert, M.D., Ph.D., chief mission officer of the American Parkinson Disease Association, described the full burden of the disease and the urgency of acting on preventable risk factors, like exposure to paraquat used on U.S. farm fields. She said:

As a doctor, I see people with Parkinson’s, and I can tell you that it is a very challenging disease to live with. . . . And the disease may be famous for causing tremor, which can be very challenging, but there’s much more than that. 

“There’s stiffness, slowness, falls and then a lot of symptoms that are not related to movement at all, like depression or anxiety, sleep, problems, hallucinations, problems with cognition.

In laboratory studies, paraquat can very clearly damage the very brain cells that die in Parkinson’s disease. . . . And so putting paraquat onto cells in a laboratory can basically recreate the disease.

Forever changing lives

Gilbert continued:

It’s a disease that steals independence and it slowly steals it in a way where the person with the disease feels that they can’t control what it’s stealing from them and that is a situation that’s very difficult to be in. And it affects not just the person diagnosed but the entire family with the care partner responsibilities, financial stress and social isolation.

. . . I want to highlight that Parkinson’s is not just a disease of the elderly, as it is often thought of, because there is such a thing as young onset Parkinson’s that can be diagnosed in those under the age of 50, people in their 30s and 40s, sometimes even in their 20s.

And these individuals are given this news when they’re raising their children, building their careers, and the diagnosis then forever changes the trajectory of their lives. 

So, when evidence mounts that there’s a known and preventable environmental exposure that contributes to the risk of Parkinson’s, we all have a responsibility to act, because we can do better. 

Banning paraquat is something that we can do as a community to protect ourselves. So this is not about politics. This is about public health.

Protecting public health

At the press event, Mike Mooney, a former landscaper and resident of Pittsford, N.Y.,  who is living with Parkinson’s disease, spoke about his diagnosis. He explained why he believes a ban is a straightforward public health decision:

[A]fter diagnosis . . . one of the first things I did was get the genetic testing that’s available to see if you have any known genetic links to Parkinson’s. And for me, it’s not really a unique story from that standpoint because only 12.5 percent or so of people with Parkinson’s have any genetic link . . . so 80-plus percent, or more  . . . have no known genetic link. . . . It’s crazy. 

So when I see countries like China producing this [paraquat], but they banned it for their people . . . I just ask the question, what are we doing? It makes no sense.

My view, the number one role of the government should be to the people. And there’s no public trust right now. Nobody knows what is going on with these chemicals. They don’t know. . . .  

It’s like Russian roulette . . . but we know that one sip of paraquat will kill you. And it just seems like a no-brainer for us to ban this chemical. 

New York can be a leader

Jessica Hernandez, legislative director at EWG, warned that inaction this session would leave New Yorkers exposed for years to come.

“New York has an opportunity to lead on this issue and help prevent future cases of Parkinson’s disease,” she said. “We hope New York will be the second state in the nation to ban paraquat and urge the legislature to pass the Rosenthal-Harckham bill this session.”

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Parkinson’s patients, medical experts and environmental health groups unite in calling for New York to become second state to prohibit toxic weedkiller paraquat Press Contact Alex Formuzis alex@ewg.org (202) 667-6982 June 2, 2026

RNs at Research Medical Center in Kansas City, Mo., will hold a rally on Thursday, June 4 to demand immediate action to address what nurses describe as dangerous patient care conditions impacting emergency and surgical services following the Sept. 8, 2025 closure of units that provide labor and delivery, neonatal intensive care, and obstetrics emergency care services.

Snowchange celebrates its 25th anniversary this month. Cooperative lands are close to 10,000 hectares across over 200 sites and through land concessions 63,000 hectares are under positive influence from rewilding. Indigenous and community delegates, staff and close allies gather on 16th June to Finland to celebrate.

Summer is here and the boreal and Arctic landscapes bathe in the night without night. New peatlands and forests have been added and we expect the 10,000 hectares to be reached in June. Karoliina leads the fisheries on traps, and catches have been plentiful. This month we also have seen media attention to the rewilding programme from GEO and Le Monde making extended visits.

June 16th we gather in Snowchange headquarters, members of the international steering committee, Indigenous delegates, community representatives and other friends and allies to celebrate SNOW25 through a new exhibit, and other means. We thank all supporters, friends and the like for this quarter of a century and will be back with summer news later in the month.

Purnukoski rapids rewilding area in Sodankylä