Grist

In June, athletes from 16 countries will kick off the World Cup wearing other people’s used clothing.

Well, maybe. They’ll be sporting uniforms made from recycled fabric, potentially including a mix of scraps and old clothes. It’s the latest initiative from Nike, one of the world’s largest apparel companies, to incorporate more recycled material into the attire it makes. This time, the garment giant said it used “advanced chemical recycling” to produce its first elite performance apparel from 100 percent textile waste. 

Nike executives and some media coverage have implied that the outfits represent a turning point for sustainable fashion — that “circular” clothing, capable of being recycled over and over again, could soon reach everyday consumers.

The real picture, as you might expect, is a bit more complicated.

Nike has indeed signed deals with two chemical recycling companies, but no one is saying much about their technology or how scalable it is. Despite increasing investments from fashion brands, experts said not to expect to find sales racks lined with chemically recycled clothing anytime soon. 

“Yeah, it’s technically possible,” said Veena Singla, an environmental health researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. “But is it going to happen in reality?” She and others who study chemical recycling don’t think so — at least not in any way consumers might expect. The day when they can buy chemically recycled clothes, wear them, then return them for another trip through the cycle isn’t nigh. 

What seems more likely is the fashion industry expands its use of this recycling technique with industrial scrap fabric — and at nothing approaching the level needed to address projected increases in textile production.

Nike is right that the fashion industry has a sustainability problem. Apparel companies produce more than 100 billion articles of clothing every year. In the process they generate up to 10 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and an unfathomable amount of waste; the vast majority of textiles are eventually landfilled, incinerated, or sent to unofficial dump sites in poor countries. And all of this is made possible by fossil fuels, with nearly 70 percent of clothes made from oil-derived fabrics. The most common is polyester, a type of plastic also used in water bottles.

Rather than easing up on production, Nike and many of its competitors have pledged to boost the “circularity” of polyester — mostly through recycling.

The push to do so through chemical means is a response to the shortcomings of other strategies they’ve tried. Traditional mechanical recycling through shredding and grinding causes fibers to break down. The resulting fabric must be blended with 70 to 80 percent virgin material so anything made with it doesn’t pill and tear. 

The much more prevalent strategy involves turning discarded plastic bottles into new polyester. Patagonia pioneered this approach in the early ‘90s, and by the start of this decade virtually all recycled polyester was sourced from old bottles. Today, however, companies have increasingly faced lawsuits and regulatory scrutiny from those who would rather see bottles turned back into bottles.

Chemical recycling is supposed to be the next best thing. The term refers to using solvents to dissolve fibers into their base chemical units — building blocks that can be spun into new fabrics. On its face, this is a truly “circular” solution, because it doesn’t depend on bottles, and proponents say it can turn your used polyester shirts or running shorts into new ones over and over again, with no loss in fabric quality. 

That’s the vision now being promoted by fast-fashion brands like Gap, H&M, and Levi’s, many of which have signed multi-year agreements with a handful of chemical recycling startups. Last fall, Nike agreed to source “circular” polyester from two of them: the Swedish firm Syre and Loop Industries here in the U.S.

Research does bear out some of the hype. Technically, chemical recycling can produce virgin-quality polyester, and at least one method, called methanolysis, is capable of preserving that quality through repeated rounds of recycling. But there are significant constraints.

Diana Ferreira, a textile researcher at the University of Minho in Portugal, said textile-to-textile chemical recycling remains limited by the availability of suitable fabric to work with. “If we are dealing with clean, well-sorted, polyester-rich waste streams, chemical recycling can in principle produce material with properties comparable to virgin polyester,” she said. “However, if we are talking about post-consumer textile waste, the situation is much more complex.”

Read Next Your ‘widely recyclable’ Starbucks cup is still trash Joseph Winters

In other words, chemical recycling works best with industrial scraps, which are more uniform than piles of used clothes. The latter may include blends of cotton, nylon, wool, spandex, and acrylics, not to mention dyes, chemical coatings, thread, labels, and zippers. All of this stuff makes chemical recycling much less feasible — at least, not without meticulous sorting and repeated rounds of pre-treatment to chemically remove all of those contaminants.

“If we wanted it to work, we would have to have our clothes … be 100 percent polyester, and we’d need to get rid of so many toxic chemicals,” Singla said. 

Beth Jensen, of the nonprofit Textile Exchange, is more sanguine. She said “all solutions,” including chemical recycling, are needed to reduce the fashion industry’s dependence on fossil fuels. But she agreed that establishing the infrastructure required for companies to accept used clothing and use technologies like methanolysis to make it into new apparel remains a ways away. Plus, it’s not clear who will build it. Companies like Nike? Governments? Recyclers? Some combination of those entities working collaboratively? 

Even if the industry can hit its optimistic targets for chemically recycled polyester by the early 2030s — whether from scrap or from people’s old clothes — production of “circular” fabric would likely pale in comparison to the more than 169 million metric tons of polyester projected to be manufactured annually by then. Dionisios Vlachos, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Delaware, said Syre’s goal to produce even 3 million metric tons by 2032 is “too aggressive.”

Instead, companies need to “reverse the trend of fast fashion,” said Nusa Urbancic, CEO of the nonprofit Changing Markets Foundation. That means making less clothing overall, whether it contains recycled or virgin materials.  Last year, growth in recycled polyester — mostly from bottles — was dwarfed by an even larger increase in the production of fossil fuel-based polyester.

Urbancic sees chemical recycling as “an excuse to keep producing plastic clothes” and advocates for a shift away from polyester altogether; the material sheds microfibers and may expose consumers to hazardous chemicals.

Nike, Syre, and Loop Industries did not respond to interview requests or detailed lists of questions, highlighting a transparency problem flagged by Singla, Vlachos, and others Grist spoke with. Industry confidentiality makes it difficult to know what’s actually going on in these firms — and whether “#TheGreatTextileShift” they promise will be different from failed chemical recycling initiatives in the past.

It’s worth noting that Loop Industries has never turned a profit since its founding in 2010. The company is under investigation by the SEC following a 2020 report accusing it of systematically misrepresenting its technology to regulators and investors, and in 2022, it settled a class-action lawsuit over similar accusations. Syre, for its part, has not said how the “gigascale” factory it plans to build in Vietnam will be able to process consumers’ old clothes, given the country’s ban on used apparel imports.

“It remains to be seen whether [Nike’s announcement] amounts to anything,” Singla said. For the foreseeable future, it seems chemically recycled polyester will be limited to niche products like World Cup uniforms.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Nike’s recycled World Cup uniforms reveal the limits of ‘circular’ fashion on May 27, 2026.

When it comes to California’s climate future, the most important figure in the state’s chaotic governor’s race may not be any of the candidates on the debate stage. It may not even be outgoing governor Gavin Newsom or President Donald Trump. 

Instead, it might just be Chevron, the multinational oil company that was founded in the Golden State more than 100 years ago. It is among the largest producers, refiners, and sellers of petroleum products in a state rapidly shifting toward electric vehicles. Depending on which candidate is talking, the company is an example of how Big Oil is strangling consumers or an example of how climate regulations are strangling the state economy. 

The behemoth — it reported $12.3 billion in profit last year — took the spotlight last month when an interviewer asked leading Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra about Chevron’s contributions to his campaign. The former state attorney general and Biden-era health secretary gave what seemed to be a candid response:

“Chevron, that’s the problem with politics. They’re not the bad guy. Does everybody here drive an electric vehicle? You need Chevron. I need Chevron. My people of the state of California need Chevron … Chevron wants to give me a check, that’s — that’s their prerogative.”

The phrase “I need Chevron” soon appeared in anti-Becerra videos by the likes of climate hawk Jane Fonda, implying that the candidate was saying he needs Chevron to get elected. Progressive billionaire Tom Steyer, Becerra’s lead Democratic opponent, urged him to return the contribution and said he is “doing [the] bidding” of Big Oil. Representative Katie Porter, another leading Democrat, said in a statement that she “hasn’t made millions off Big Oil or taken their checks.”

Becerra is not entirely wrong. California consumes around 13 billion gallons of gasoline annually, all of it specifically formulated to meet the state’s stringent clean air standards. Most of it comes from just six refineries, and Chevron owns two that account for one-third of the state’s production. That gives the company and its peers tremendous leverage. But California’s gas consumption has declined by about 15 percent from a peak in 2004 due to improved fuel economy in conventional vehicles and growing adoption of electric vehicles. It could fall by half over the next two decades. 

The primary is June 2. The challenge for the next governor will be to continue the energy transition while retaining the infrastructure needed to move and refine oil. This has never been accomplished in a place as large as California, which was the world’s fifth-largest economy in 2025. The risks are tremendous: If the state moves too quickly, it could create shortages and price spikes for drivers already paying the highest prices in the country. If it moves too slowly, it could lock in decades of air pollution and hinder global climate progress.

“It’s messy,” said Emily Grubert. She is a civil engineer and sociologist at Notre Dame who has studied fossil fuel transitions and advised the state government on oil infrastructure. “As soon as you realize that actually transitioning away from fossil fuels means you have to close things, people get really freaked out.”

Newsom spent much of his governorship going after Big Oil, an effort that included a series of executive actions to restrict fracking in Kern County oil fields. When the war in Ukraine sent gas prices surging, Newsom and Democrats in the Legislature passed a series of bills to stop what he called “price gouging.” These laws empowered a new oil-focused watchdog agency, created a tool that could impose refinery price caps, and required refineries to maintain certain storage reserves, all of which cut profit margins for Chevron and others. The new refinery rules added to multiple carbon taxes that make selling gasoline in California more expensive.

However, there is some evidence refiners have overcharged Californians. Even after accounting for state taxes, environmental fees, and production costs, a gap remains between gas prices in the Golden State and everywhere else. This gap appeared in 2015 after a refinery fire in Torrance and has come to be known as the “mystery gasoline surcharge.” It now averages about $1. Last fall, a state regulator concluded that refiners’ monopoly power may be the reason for the price spikes.

Oil companies accused Newsom of trying to regulate them out of existence, and many threatened to leave. Two major refiners, Wilmington and Benicia, announced last year that they would close their operations, forcing a state that already imports about 60 percent of its oil to rely on imports of gasoline refined in Asia. Chevron relocated its corporate headquarters from the San Francisco suburb of San Ramon to Houston in 2024, and it has delivered a series of ominous warnings this year as climate regulators have revised the state’s almost 15-year-old carbon tax.

“The proposed regulation will cripple the survivability of the state’s remaining refineries, which will result in California losing the entire industry,” Andy Walls, the president of Chevron’s refinery business, wrote in an open letter to Newsom in March. The implication was clear: unless you relax your regulations, we will leave the state and strand you without gasoline. That would mean paying Asian refiners to produce more of the state’s specific blend, at significant cost.

The Newsom administration spent much of 2025 trying to work out a grand bargain with the industry. The Legislature eased rules governing drilling in Kern County oil fields, helping maintain a stable supply of crude to refineries. It also delayed implementing a refinery profit cap and allowed the temporary sale of gasoline with higher concentrations of ethanol. The state’s climate regulator has also suggested giving refineries free allowances under the state’s cap-and-trade system, even if it means less money for big projects like high-speed rail and sustainable housing. The idea is to give investors enough certainty that they’re willing to remain in California even as the state uses less gasoline.

Experts believe it will take a lot more than that to manage inevitable changes.

“You actually can’t have a smooth and safe and effective transition without some form of coordinating function for that decline,” said Grubert. She believes a degree of state ownership of refineries will be necessary to keep facilities open if they stop being profitable. The wrong approach, she says, would be to respond to each potential refinery closure with ad hoc subsidies and state support, since that would allow refiners to extort the state one by one. 

That point was reinforced this month by a report from the California Energy Commission that has not received much notice. The analysis of the state’s shaky fuel system found that “California cannot sustainably manage this transition through repeated crisis interventions at an asset-by-asset level.” It suggested options that included “legal obligations to operate,” “centralized planning of closures,” and “direct state management or ownership of assets.”

The Iran war will accelerate a decline in both the supply of, and demand for, oil. Gas retailers like Chevron are already struggling to find additional imports of refined fuel, and some experts predict shortages if the Strait of Hormuz does not open within weeks. Meanwhile, electric vehicles continue gaining market share, and Newsom plans to roll out subsidies for them this year. Wider adoption of these vehicles, and hybrids, will further crimp demand, making any remaining refineries more likely to shutter. 

Chevron’s Kern River Oil Field near Bakersfield is one of the largest oil fields in California. The state’s climate policies have helped reduce gasoline demand by more than 15 percent over the past decade. Mark Ralston / AFP via Getty Images

All of this helps explain the showdown between the leading Democrats in the governor’s race, who are each trying to find a lane in a field that at one time included more than 50 candidates.

Becerra has given lip service to clean energy, but many public statements suggest a friendliness toward oil producers. As attorney general, he initiated a few lawsuits against petroleum companies, and supported other state climate lawsuits, but punted on major investigations. He has focused his gubernatorial campaign on vows to fight Donald Trump and protect healthcare, and has made controversial promises to freeze utility and insurance rates. On decarbonization, he has noted that “climate action only succeeds if it is affordable, reliable, and fair.”

After the chaos of the early primary, many oil producers have decided that Becerra is their candidate. Chevron last month contributed the maximum allowable amount of $39,200 to his campaign, the first time in a decade it has backed a gubernatorial candidate. Last week, the company contributed another $500,000 to an independent political committee supporting Becerra. California Resources Corporation, the state’s largest driller, also gave $500,000 to a Becerra committee. And gas companies like Sempra are among the donors to an anti-Steyer political committee that has raised more than $24 million.

Steyer, meanwhile, has made attacking Big Oil the focus of his campaign, as it was during his 2020 presidential run. He says he would lower gas prices by activating the refining profit cap that Newsom has declined to use, investigating what is causing high gas prices (something the state has already done), and taxing private jet fuel. When refineries “inevitably” close, he says he will stockpile an oil reserve and import more refined fuel for as long as California needs it.

Steyer has also had to address his own fossil fuel ties. The hedge fund he founded, Farallon Capital, remains a major player in coal power finance abroad, including in Indonesia and Australia. Steyer still holds a stake in the firm, which he left in 2012, but his campaign says he no longer receives dividends from its fossil fuel investments. 

California uses a “jungle primary” in which the top two candidates advance to the general election, regardless of party. The latest poll shows Becerra essentially tied with former Fox News host Steve Hilton, a Republican, with Steyer trailing at around 15 percent. The most likely outcome is that Becerra or Steyer will make it to the general election. (The other Democrats, including Porter and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, trail behind in the double digits.)

Railing against Big Oil has long proven to be good politics in California. But in the wake of Trump’s second election victory, Democrats have sought to downplay climate issues and focus instead on affordability. The question in the governor’s race is how best to achieve that in the long run. Is it better to use a bully pulpit against companies like Chevron in an effort to break their market power, or conciliate them in the hope that they don’t flee?

Mike Madrid, a veteran California political operative, believes Becerra’s approach will resonate more with the young and Latinos, both of whom often decide statewide elections.

“This attack on Chevron, it works for the base Steyer already has,” he said. “Young Latino working-class men are the demographic most affected by gas prices. Do you think they’re saying we need to get rid of Chevron? Of course not.”

Steyer’s campaign may not get him over the line in the primary, but he has at least been consistent. In a 2013 blog post for this very publication, he celebrated the result of the Virginia governor’s race, where a climate-focused Democrat beat a fossil-fuel-friendly Republican with help from Steyer’s own war chest.

“A new political dynamic is emerging,” he wrote at the time. “Climate change is a winner, not a loser,” and is “no longer electoral Kryptonite.”

If Chevron has its way, next week’s primary results will prove otherwise.

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.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline ‘I need Chevron’: The oil company at the center of the California governor’s race on May 26, 2026.

Hawaiʻi has some of the freshest air in the nation, but in some parts of the state hazy skies can impact tourism and public health. 

Now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has pumped the brakes on a multi-decade effort to improve visibility and reduce fine particulates and other man-made pollutants.

On May 15, the agency announced it had partially denied Hawaiʻi’s 2024 Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, a detailed proposal that lays out the state’s intention to comply with the federal Clean Air Act. The plan was designed specifically to reduce haze in two iconic places: Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park on the Big Island and Haleakalā National Park on Maui.

Because the two parks are designated as Class I under the Clean Air Act, their air quality is legally entitled to the highest level of protection. 

Although the EPA is leaving some aspects of the haze plan intact, it is jettisoning its main thrust: the state’s long-term strategy, which included shutting down at least two of Hawaiian Electric Co.’s oil-fired electricity generating units in the Kanoelehua-Hill and Kahului power plants by 2028. The units are the dinosaurs of the industry; the Kahului unit was commissioned in 1948. 

The agency referred to the closures as “unconsented” and said in a press release that they could make Hawaiʻi’s grid less reliable and “violate the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution for the taking of private property without just compensation.” 

Determining to what degree natural and man-made emissions contribute to the overall air quality in the region requires a series of complex, evolving math equations. Erin Nolan / Civil Beat

The decision isn’t the first of its kind for the agency; in Colorado, it rejected a similar plan that involved closing a coal plant. But it is one of the first from the current EPA to impact Hawaiʻi, and part of a larger plan by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to execute on President Donald Trump’s executive orders to promote what he calls “energy dominance.” 

“This is one of the biggest bombs to drop in Hawaiʻi so far from the EPA,” Isaac Moriwake, managing attorney of Earthjustice’s mid-Pacific office, told Civil Beat. 

Earthjustice is part of a group of 10 national environmental advocacy groups, which also includes the National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Center for Biological Diversity, to respond to the decision, saying it will harm Hawaiʻi communities and result in dirtier air in the parks. 

Mike DeCaprio, vice president of power supply at HECO, describes the situation as a trade-off. He said the company still plans to retire the aging plants. But to do so by the end of 2028, DiCaprio said more biofuel plants and more solar farms and battery storage have to first come online.

“We felt that having a contingency to run these units longer if needed was in our interest, and in our customers’ interest, so that we don’t end up in a grid reliability issue,” he said. 

“Reliability on an island grid is a really tough issue, right? They’re very small grids. With size comes stability, and they don’t have size,” DeCaprio said. “Making sure that the lights stay on is the most important part.”

Regulation or ‘total regulatory taking’?

In a detailed 67-page comment on an earlier draft of the EPA’s decision, the environmental advocates accused HECO of exploiting the Trump administration’s fossil fuel agenda. 

The advocates asserted that the Clean Air Act was written in such a way that it already allowed for contingency plans if renewable energy wasn’t available. They also said that HECO had previously agreed to retire three of its oldest oil-fired generating units in the Hill, Kahului, and Māʻalaea plants after it was asked by the health department to submit a plan to upgrade the technology to improve air quality.  

“HECO was the one coming to Department of Health and saying, ‘Hey, we will commit to shutting down these plants in lieu of having to spend all kinds of money, which the ratepayers are going to pay for at the end of the day, to upgrade these plants to try to clean them up. It’s cheaper, it’s more reliable, it’s more affordable for our ratepayers to just shut them down,’” Moriwake said. 

Then, last August, Karin Kimura, director of the environmental division at HECO, sent a letter to the EPA’s regional administrator saying the company had been “forced under the SIP to accept enforceable retirement deadlines.” 

Read Next What’s behind your eye-popping power bill? We broke it down, region by region. Naveena Sadasivam & Clayton Aldern

Kimura said the retirement deadlines were no longer viable because of “actual or potential cancellations and delays” in renewable energy sources coming online to replace the power plants. Those projects had slowed down due to permitting challenges, changes in tax incentives and supply chain changes, she added. 

“Following this notification, Hawaii … needed to provide assurances that EPA’s approval of the unconsented source closure would not amount to a taking without just compensation under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” the EPA press office told Civil Beat in an emailed statement. “Hawaii did not provide such assurances, and EPA was therefore required to partially disapprove the state’s long-term strategy.” 

The haze plan process had been overseen by the Department of Health, but HECO sent the letter without the Department of Health’s involvement.  

The health department did not respond to a request for comment from Civil Beat but it noted this omission in its own letter to the EPA in April — once it was clear that the EPA was responding to HECOs request by shutting down the plan. In it, the state’s director of health, Kenneth Fink, said the EPA’s response was “not consistent with the purpose of Clean Air Act Section 169A which was enacted to protect visibility in national parks and wilderness areas” and “directly conflicts with EPA’s previous guidance” for developing such plans. 

The company also has already signaled it is raising its customers’ rates, in part to compensate for the plant closures, Moriwake noted. 

“HECO has a pending request right now,” he said. “It’s sitting in front of the PUC to increase customer rates by $45 million a year for this purpose.” 

Read Next Trump’s EPA vows to fight ‘forever chemicals’ by loosening regulations Zoya Teirstein

Jeff Mikulina, executive director of Climate Hawai‘i, acknowledged that renewable energy in Hawaiʻi is facing headwinds, thanks in large part to the Trump administration’s tariffs and choice to cut tax credits and other federal support. But he believes Hawaiʻi will continue to lead on renewables. And he’s particularly optimistic about what’s happening on Kauaʻi, where local lawmakers just approved two new solar-and-storage projects that could get them to 90 percent renewable energy by 2030.

“It’s important to look at the long-term signal as opposed to the near-term noise, and that long-term signal tells us that this technology is getting cheaper by the day, particularly energy storage, which is really that secret sauce that’s going to allow us to achieve our 100 percent renewable energy future.”

In its email, the EPA press office said it is “committed to working with the state of Hawaii to revise the SIP, in order to both follow the law and achieve clean air for all in the state.”

And yet the legal argument that the agency is using to justify its move away from a haze rule with teeth concerns the environmental advocates as much, if not more, than this one decision. In its legal rationale, the federal agency argued that the haze plan would unfairly restrict HECO’s use of its private property, in what it called “a total regulatory taking.”

“By asserting that the retirement deadlines in the 2024 SIP are now ‘forced,’ EPA opens a massive loophole in the Act’s requirements, allowing facilities to entirely evade compliance with the Regional Haze Program,” they wrote in their comments in April. They say they are concerned  that the agency could dismantle other parts of the Clean Air Act, such as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards Program.

“They are signaling that they want to overhaul this entire regulatory scheme,” Moriwake said.

Not to be confused with vog

When the Kīlauea volcano is erupting, vog — volcanic smog — adds sulfur dioxide and fine particulate matter to the air, particularly on the southern side of Hawaiʻi island. The Hawaiʻi Department of Health warns that even brief exposure can cause shortness of breath, chest tightness, and other respiratory problems.

Power plants and other industrial facilities — such as the Mauna Loa processing facility named in the state’s 2024 SIP — also emit sulfur dioxide as well as nitrogen oxides, which has been shown to aggravate lung and heart conditions. 

Determining to what degree these natural and man-made emissions contribute to the overall air quality in the region requires a series of complex, evolving math equations. EPAs under previous administrations have used specific tools to calculate the region’s “natural visibility conditions” while accounting for episodic volcanic events. 

But when the current EPA proposed its disapproval of the haze rule in February, it asserted that no methodology “has been developed that is able to fully screen out the volcanic impacts and thus isolate the visibility impairment caused by anthropogenic air pollution.”

The environmental groups disagree. In their comments they called the agency’s assertions “arbitrary and capricious.”

Civil Beat’s coverage of climate change and the environment is supported by The Healy Foundation, the Marisla Fund of the Hawai‘i Community Foundation, and the Frost Family Foundation.

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 The EPA just walked back Hawai‘i’s plan to retire its dinosaur power plants on May 24, 2026.

The Texas sun keeps rising, as Texas coal wanes.

For the first time ever, solar is set to generate more electricity than coal in the power market managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT. Nobody is building new coal power plants in the state, but developers are adding more solar there than anywhere else in the country. As a result of those diverging trajectories, the federal government expects ERCOT will receive 78 billion kilowatt-hours from solar in 2026 and just 60 from coal.

This trend does have seasonal variations. Last year, solar output beat coal on a monthly basis from March through August, and this year it is expected to do so from March through December, per the U.S. Energy Information Administration, or EIA, at the Department of Energy.

Nationally, the combination of wind and solar surpassed coal generation in 2024, as noted in an analysis by Ember, a think tank that conducts research on clean energy. In other words, the solar industry is further along in Texas than it is nationwide.

The Texas solar surge undercuts the prevailing energy narratives coming out of the Trump administration, which has attempted to boost coal and gas as tools of ​“energy dominance,” while blocking or canceling American energy that comes from renewables. The Department of Energy, for instance, is keeping struggling coal plants on life support at great expense to taxpayers. Meanwhile, the Department of the Interior is blocking wind and solar developments that intersect with public lands.

Read Next How deep-red Utah helped launch a portable plug-in solar movement Leia Larsen

Trump officials have argued that coal is more reliable than solar because it can generate power around the clock. But even with that advantage, coal plants in Texas can’t keep up with the total annual and monthly production from the rapidly growing solar fleet. This has not damaged grid reliability, because ERCOT meets evening demand with a diverse portfolio, including gas plants, nuclear, wind, and, increasingly, batteries, which store all that excess solar power for use when the sun stops shining.

Of course, Texas leaders did not set out to disprove the Trump administration’s energy claims. The maverick Lone Star State kept its electricity system out of the hands of federal regulators, and in the 1990s and early 2000s reformed it to promote free market competition instead of centralized planning by monopoly utilities. That market, coupled with lots of space and lax building regulations, has made an ideal environment for wind, solar, and batteries to flourish. Now, Texas is fortified with tens of gigawatts of new capacity with which to tackle heat waves and temper price spikes.

Deep-red Texas offers lessons for the liberal states that have committed to lofty climate goals yet failed to build much solar or batteries so far. They can’t immediately switch over to an ERCOT-style market, but they can take steps to speed up the time it takes to get permits and grid connection, dial back the level of deference to habitually conservative legacy utilities, and make sure that clean energy gets a fair shot in the race to serve surging energy needs. And it’s always a good time to reexamine old market rules that subtly privilege entrenched players at the expense of new entrants that would make cheaper and cleaner power.

After more of the rapid-fire solar buildout, EIA expects ERCOT will produce 99 billion kilowatt-hours of solar power in 2027, up 27 percent from 2026. At that point, the upstart industry will have left its well-established coal competition in the dust.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Solar to overtake coal on Texas grid for the first time ever this year on May 23, 2026.

Even as gas prices continued to rise across the United States, sales of electric vehicles fell in April. That is in contrast to strong growth elsewhere in the world, such as Europe. But American drivers are gravitating toward at least one more efficient powertrain: hybrids. 

Sales of new EVs fell roughly 18 percent from March to April, according to the latest data from Edmunds, an auto research firm. Another company, Cox Automotive, pegged the drop at closer to 6 percent. Either way, experts said it’s clear that high gas prices aren’t leading to a significant shift toward EVs. 

“There was a lot of window shopping,” said Ivan Drury, director of insights at Edmunds, noting that searches for electrified vehicles on the company’s site were strong. “It did not translate to tire-kicking and purchases.” 

Price remains the steepest barrier for most people, said Drury. While electric vehicles can be less expensive to operate over the long-term — especially when gas prices are high — the upfront costs remain significant. The average transaction price for an EV in April was $6,214 higher than for vehicles with internal combustion engines, Cox reported.

“It’s still a cost hurdle,” said Stephanie Brinley, a principal automotive analyst at S&P Global Mobility. “You don’t know how long it’s going to take to get that back.” 

At Thursday’s average gas price of $4.56 per gallon, an EV buyer would have to drive more than 40,000 miles to make up the difference with a car that gets 30 mpg. Savings on maintenance, like oil changes, could accelerate that timeline, but factors such as higher insurance prices and having to install a home charger could make the payback period even longer. If fuel prices fall, the advantage of an EV also shrinks. 

“It’s very difficult for people to wrap their head around, ‘Hey, if I spend this $55,000, I might over time save’,” said Drury. “It requires a bit more math than most people want to go through.” 

The calculus is much simpler for hybrid vehicles, which utilize batteries that can improve fuel economy by 25 to 45 percent without needing to plug in. A Honda CR-V, for example, gets around 29 mpg while the hybrid version gets 37. More and more popular models are only available as hybrids, a strategy that Toyota has perhaps embraced most notably. Last year, it ditched the gas-only version of the Camry sedan. The 2026 RAV4 followed suit.

Overall, Edmunds data shows that sales of hybrids are up 20 percent year-over-year and nearly 50 percent since February, when the U.S.-Iran conflict began. Sales of gas-powered gas are up about 11 percent over those same two months. 

“I think this is going to be a hybrid moment,” said Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of industry insights at Cox Automotive. “There are a lot of options.”

Used EVs provided another somewhat bright spot, she said. The segment saw a 3 percent increase in sales from March to April and a price premium of only $1,096 over used internal combustion vehicles. Used EVs also sold faster than their used gas-powered counterparts. “They’re really selling efficiently,” said Valdez Streaty, who added that there should be a glut of EVs available throughout the year as leases end. “I don’t think the inventory will be an issue.”

With Iran maintaining its hold over the Strait of Hormuz and summer travel season looming, gas prices appear set to keep climbing — which would only make an EV more appealing. Other parts of the world have seen significant jumps in sales since the conflict began, with Europe experiencing a surge and China setting an export record in April, according to BloombergNEF. 

In the United States, though, it seems that only people already in the market for EVs are making the leap. “Edge-case people,” as Brinley called them. Dramatic pump readings “might nudge them because they were already in that direction,” she said. “But what we’re unlikely to see is a shift in current [internal combustion car] owners just fundamentally making that change simply because of gas prices.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Why hybrids — not EVs — are winning over US consumers on May 22, 2026.

About six years ago, law students at the University of the South Pacific convinced the government of the small island nation of Vanuatu to take the harms wrought by climate change all the way to the International Court of Justice, the world’s highest legal authority. Vanuatu, along with the students, waged a campaign to convince the court that climate change was a human rights issue and that countries have a legal duty to protect the planet for future generations. In 2025, the court sided with them unanimously. In a legally nonbinding advisory opinion, it ruled that the failure of countries to tackle climate change is a “wrongful act” and that other nations harmed by a warming planet may seek reparations. 

Now, the effort has notched another win. On Wednesday, an overwhelming majority of countries in the United Nations voted to adopt a resolution backing the court’s ruling. The historic decision signals the political support behind the court’s finding that countries have a legal responsibility to address climate change, reduce its impact, and offer reparations to those it has harmed. More than 140 countries voted in favor of the resolution. Just eight  — including the United States, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Russia — voted against (28 countries abstained from the vote).

“This must be a turning point in accountability for damaging the climate,” said Vishal Prasad, director of the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change and one of the law students who campaigned to take the case to the International Court of Justice, or ICJ. “The journey of this idea from classrooms in the Pacific to The Hague and the United Nations gives us continued hope that when people organize, the world can be moved to act.”

The near-unanimous decision is a strong signal that multilateral cooperation on climate change has not completely unraveled. Over the past year, global unity on reducing greenhouse gas emissions has proven shaky. After Donald Trump’s administration announced it would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the United States has actively opposed climate action. Last year, it derailed countries that were close to setting a carbon tax on the shipping industry, which is responsible for about 3 percent of the world’s carbon emissions. A deal to regulate the industry’s emissions now seems uncertain. The U.S. has also helped kill a cap on plastics production and berated the International Energy Agency into projecting future energy demand under a scenario that climate action will stall out. 

“The unity and clarity expressed by the vote was striking,” said Nikki Reisch, director of the Center for International Environmental Law’s climate and energy program. Reisch said the resolution puts “political weight behind legal norms” and will help translate the international court’s conclusions into practical action. “It will become another pillar and proof of political backing for action and accountability.”

The Trump administration also mounted a campaign to block the United Nations from adopting the landmark international court ruling. In February, the State Department sent a missive to all consulates and embassies noting that it “strongly opposed” the U.N. resolution and that its adoption “could pose a major threat to U.S. industry.” In remarks ahead of the vote, Tammy Bruce, a former conservative radio host and now deputy representative to the U.N. in New York, said that the resolution is “problematic” and that “the United States continues to have serious legal and policy concerns” about it. 

“The resolution singles out certain groups for preferential treatment and makes alarmist political statements, such as the idea that climate change is an unprecedented challenge of civilizational proportions,” Bruce said. “Such hyperbolic statements are not appropriate in a resolution on an ICJ advisory opinion.” 

Tammy Bruce, deputy representative of the United States to the U.N. in New York, said the resolution is “problematic” and “makes alarmist political statements.” John Lamparski / Getty Images

The resolution reiterates the International Court of Justice’s core findings and calls on countries to implement measures to keep global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) while transitioning away from fossil fuels. It also affirms that nations must fulfill their climate obligations and that those countries harmed by others’ inaction are entitled to seek redress. Finally, the resolution calls on the United Nations’ secretary-general to submit a report next year on ways to comply with the international court’s findings. The resolution, like most U.N. resolutions, is not legally binding; rather, it’s intended to signal political priorities or views.

The U.N. vote comes as countries are cracking down on climate activism and litigation. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the government moved to amend climate laws to limit civil court proceedings against major greenhouse gas emitters for climate-related harm. 

Māori climate advocate Mike Smith is among those whose cases could be affected. Recent reports have found that land theft and colonization have exacerbated the effects of climate change on the Indigenous Māori people, who are more likely to be affected by extreme weather events. Smith is currently pursuing high court proceedings against six of Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, and he describes the U.N. vote as a “major shift,” arguing it reflects a changing understanding of climate change not just as environmental damage, but as something with legal consequences. 

“We know as Māori that the islands are part of our journey across the Pacific that’s led us here to Aotearoa,” he said. “New Zealand has a responsibility to stand with Pacific countries like Vanuatu, Kiribati, Tonga, and Tokelau. Not just symbolically, but in supporting stronger legal and international action on climate harm.” 

Although the U.N. vote is a victory for Indigenous activists from the Pacific and beyond, they believe that many countries still must be pushed to uphold their climate obligations. 

“The law is clear that climate action cannot sit on the shelf, it must be turned into action,” Prasad said.

The Indigenous News Alliance contributed reporting to this story.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In a rare show of global unity, countries adopt landmark climate ruling on May 22, 2026.

A new paper generated a fair amount of consternation and eye-rolling when the authors claimed that New Orleans, the largest city in Louisiana, is at risk of being surrounded by open water by the end of the century. 

As human-caused global warming continues to drive sea level rise, coastal Louisiana, the paper states, has likely “already crossed the point of no return.” Under the current warming trajectory, the projected loss of the remaining coastal wetlands in southern Louisiana puts over 1 million residents “in harm’s way,” according to the authors. Though that may sound shocking, it wasn’t the controversial part of the paper, which was published in Nature Sustainability this month — at least not to some outspoken critics. 

Instead, the authors were criticized for arguing that New Orleans should consider managed retreat, or relocating further inland to higher ground to avoid the worst climate impacts.

“[P]lease stop saying ‘relocate New Orleans.’ That’s not going to happen,” wrote Christopher Ard, an 11th-generation New Orleanian, in an opinion column in The Lens, a local nonprofit newsroom. Ard added, “If people want to move, they will,” and that researchers should instead use “words like ‘abandon’ or ‘give up on’ or maybe even ‘find somewhere new,’” to describe this out-migration. “Relocate just sounds silly,” he wrote. 

In their paper, the authors estimate coastal Louisiana could face 3 to 7 meters (about 10 to 23 feet) of sea level rise and further predict that parts of the state’s shoreline will move inward by 100 kilometers (62 miles), closer to Baton Rouge. And while they acknowledge that the timeline for these processes is unclear, they insist that the region has a matter of decades to plan for migration away from these dangers, not centuries. The paper does not propose how and when those living in the Mississippi River Delta should move, but rather urges that preparing for projected sea level rise “is a long process that cannot be put off.”

Left out of the paper’s scope is what happens to people whose jobs and livelihoods are tied to the coastline — like fisherpeople — in a managed retreat scenario. Louisiana is the second largest producer of seafood in the United States, after Alaska, and New Orleans is a central hub for fisheries that catch shrimp, crabs, and fin fish from the wild, as well as harvest oysters, catfish, crawfish, and alligators.

“For the fishermen in the state of Louisiana, the loss of, or not being able to use New Orleans as a hub, as a source of infrastructure, as a place to sell seafood — New Orleans consumes a lot of seafood as a market — would be devastating,” said Jeffrey Plumlee, an assistant professor at the School of Renewable Natural Resources at Louisiana State University. 

An abandoned boat sits in coastal waters in Venice, Louisiana.
Drew Angerer / Getty Images

It’s important to note that while the paper advocates for managed retreat from the coast, the authors caution against overstating the impacts of sea level rise. “Eventually, yes, this is not going to be a livable place anymore,” said Torbjörn Törnqvist, one of the paper’s co-authors. But “New Orleans is still going to be around by the end of the century,” he said — it just may look a lot more like Venice, Italy, a city completely surrounded by open water.

Such a process would undoubtedly impact the seafood industry in Louisiana, which has already been hit hard by worsening hurricanes — among other factors that have turned the fishing profession into precarious work. Severe storms have badly damaged critical infrastructure for fisheries, like ice houses and fuel docks. When those facilities are destroyed — or if they’re never repaired or replaced — the work becomes harder, and people start looking for opportunities elsewhere.

Additionally, young people see the challenges of the industry and start considering other lines of work. “It’s called ‘the graying of the fleet,’” a term that describes how the fishing workforce is aging, said Plumlee. 

This process is not dissimilar from what is happening in southern Louisiana more broadly, where the population has fallen four times in the last five years according to census data. That population decline is not only or specifically tied to extreme weather or environmental conditions.

“What you notice in coastal Louisiana is the aging of the population. Young people are leaving to go find jobs and places where they have more opportunities,” said Beth Fussell, a sociologist and demographer at Brown University, who peer-reviewed the managed retreat paper. This out-migration, she says, “most likely has nothing to do with their perception of environmental risk.” It’s true that it is difficult to say with certainty who qualifies as a climate migrant or climate refugee — and in the case of coastal Louisiana, Törnqvist and his co-authors acknowledge movement out of this area is “multi-causal.” But it’s undeniable that environmental factors also shape what jobs and economic opportunities are available — for example, insurance companies have been raising prices or even pulling out of Louisiana entirely. 

According to Lawrence Huang, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, the challenge of moving to a new place and finding new ways to make a living is exactly why people in low-lying communities like New Orleans should make plans sooner rather than later. 

“This is why starting early and planning now matters, because it takes such a long time to help people find new skills and new occupations,” said Huang. In a situation where a major U.S. city becomes unlivable due to sea level rise and decides to relocate, he added, “we’re going to have to re-skill people so that they can find jobs in their new location. That is the unfortunate reality.”

Read Next The world is getting too hot to feed itself Ayurella Horn-Muller

If the notion of picking up a whole community and moving it sounds far-fetched, one only needs to look at recent history — and particularly, the experiences of Indigenous peoples — to see that Huang is right. In southern Louisiana, the Jean Charles Choctaw Nation, a state-recognized Native American tribe, received nearly $50 million from the federal government in 2016 to relocate to higher ground after the island on which the tribe lived lost 98 percent of its landmass due to severe coastal erosion and subsidence. 

The tribal nation is considered the country’s first climate migrants. In a 2022 interview with StoryCorps, Albert Naquin, the chief of the Jean Charles Choctaw Nation, noted that members’ ways of sustaining themselves shifted along with the geography of the island. “Where we used to walk at, now we use boat to travel in,” said Naquin. “And where we used to trap and raise cattle, now we shrimp.” Nevertheless, according to many tribal members, the relocation was a bust. “It’s not worth it. I wouldn’t recommend it to anybody,” one tribal member who relocated told The New York Times.

The issues with relocating are myriad, and go beyond what job one will have after migrating. Huang emphasized that, “Planned relocation and managed retreat are not popular terms and it’s because people don’t want to move.” 

Any conversation around climate-driven human migration, therefore, should “start from that point,” he argued. Still, he admitted, “It’s a good conversation to be having.”

toolTips('.classtoolTips5','In scholarly research, a “peer-reviewed” study or article is one that has been independently evaluated by other experts in the field to assess scientific accuracy. Not all studies go through a peer-review process, so peer-reviewed studies and journals typically indicate a higher level of confidence in methodologies and results.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline As seas rise, where will Louisiana’s fishers go? on May 21, 2026.

Georgia is 1 of only 10 states that elects its utility commission — the board that has final say over how much nearly 3 million Georgians pay for electricity. The state’s public service commission, or PSC, also has substantial say over how that electricity is made and, because fossil fuel power plants are a leading producer of greenhouse gases, the PSC’s decisions directly influence Georgia’s climate future. 

From 2006 until last year, all five members of the PSC were Republicans. Democrats Peter Hubbard and Alicia Johnson won upset victories and have since made it more difficult for Georgia Power to have their decisions rubber-stamped. Those elections have had ripple effects in other utility commission races around the country: In Arizona, national activist groups on both sides of the aisle have gotten involved in the race; Alabama lawmakers overhauled their commission in an attempt to shield it from the chance that voters will oust its Republicans.

On Tuesday, Georgia held party primaries for two seats on the PSC. November’s elections, then, will be the Democrats’ next chance to win a majority presence on the commission, and could lead to more renewable energy in Georgia and more scrutiny of Georgia Power’s ongoing expansion plans.  

In the District 5 race, Democrat Shelia Edwards defeated opponents Craig Cupid and Angelia Pressley. Republicans Bobby Mehan and Josh Tolbert will square off in a runoff on June 16. Libertarian Thomas Blooming is also running for the seat.

“I’m running to be that third vote that’s going to help them change the trajectory of the PSC,” said Edwards in an interview before the primary. “And to bring some balance to something that’s been completely imbalanced for years.”

Edwards, Mehan, and Tolbert have all said they support clean energy, but the Republican candidates clarified they don’t support any sort of renewable energy mandate.

“I do not think there is a place on the commission for advocates,” said Tolbert. “It’s not a legislative body. It doesn’t set particular policies. Its job is to ensure that Georgians have reliable, affordable electricity.”

Tolbert’s main pitch to voters has been his technical expertise as an engineer with experience working in multiple types of power plants. Mehan, meanwhile, has said his business experience means he can find innovative solutions to problems. He described himself as a pro-gas, pro-nuclear, “all-the-above energy guy.”

Read Next The Iran war is destroying oil demand. Could it also spark a shift to clean energy? Kate Yoder

Control of the commission does not hinge only on Edwards’ race, however. It will also come down to whether Hubbard can retain his seat. The race for District 3 could come down to a rematch between Hubbard and Fitz Johnson. Last year’s election in District 3, which Hubbard won, was only for a one-year term. Hubbard ran unopposed in the Democratic primary, but the Republican race was too close to call as of Wednesday afternoon. Johnson leads his primary opponent, Brandon Martin, by less than 3,000 votes. The results fall within the margin for a recount should Martin request one. Martin did not reply to requests for comment on the result. The winner will serve a full six-year term.

Unlike most candidates from both parties in the primary, Johnson says the commission has done enough to protect ordinary ratepayers from the costs of serving data centers — a hot-button issue as more data centers flock to the state and Georgia Power spends billions of dollars on new resources to serve them.

The commission’s votes on that utility expansion help drive home the repercussions of this election.

In December, after the two Democrats’ resounding election victory but before the new commissioners took their seats, the five Republican commissioners voted unanimously to approve Georgia Power’s proposal to add 10 gigawatts of energy, most of it made with natural gas.

Earlier this year, advocates pushed the commission to reconsider some of the new energy, arguing that the plan would generate more electricity than the utility’s own forecast calls for. The commission, they argued, overstepped its legal authority. The new Democratic commissioners voted to reopen the issue, but the effort failed — with all three Republicans voting against it.

toolTips('.classtoolTips3','Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other gases that prevent heat from escaping Earth’s atmosphere. Together, they act as a blanket to keep the planet at a liveable temperature in what is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Too many of these gases, however, can cause excessive warming, disrupting fragile climates and ecosystems.');

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Georgia’s PSC elections have become a referendum on energy prices on May 21, 2026.