Under a deal disclosed in March, the Interior Department agreed to reimburse TotalEnergies $928 million, the sum the multinational paid the Biden administration for leases in federal waters to build offshore wind farms off New York and North Carolina.

—

Seven Democratic-led US states are suing the Trump administration over its $1 billion deal with a French oil giant to end an offshore wind project.

Under the deal announced in March, the Interior Department would reimburse TotalEnergies $928 million, the sum the multinational paid the Biden administration for leases in federal waters to build offshore wind farms off New York and North Carolina. TotalEnergies, one of the world’s top six “supermajor” oil companies and one of the 20 largest historical emitters of planet-warming greenhouse gases, promised in turn to reinvest that money in oil and gas projects in the Texas and elsewhere in the US.

New York Attorney General Letitia James was joined by state attorneys general from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont in challenging the cancellation of the New York offshort farm, the largest of the two. They argue the deal is “illegal” and would result in higher energy costs for their states.

“This administration cooked up a sham deal to pay a foreign energy company hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to abandon offshore wind and invest in oil and gas instead,” James said in a statement. “We are fighting back to stop this illegal agreement that threatens to erase over a thousand union jobs and cheat millions of New Yorkers out of clean, affordable energy.”

The New York project was estimated to deliver $25.6 billion in economic benefits to the state over its 25-year life, including $10 billion in savings on New Yorkers’ energy bills, according to the statement. It was also expected to create an estimated 1,716 new jobs in New York.

The TotalEnergies deal was just one of the many attempts by the Trump administration to to eliminate wind energy development in the country. The administration cited undisclosed national security concerns when it ordered five other wind farms along the East Coast to halt construction in December. Federal judges have since weighed in, dismissing the administration’s national security claims and ordering construction to resume. One judge called the suspension “arbitrary and capricious.”

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons.

In a statement, the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) encouraged scientists, researchers and educators to continue using its datasets in proposals, publications, and presentations. “Continued engagement demonstrates the scientific impact and wide-ranging applications enabled by the OOI and its data, underscoring its importance as a resource for the oceanographic community,” it said.

—

The Trump administration is dismantling a decade-old, deep-ocean observation network that scientists have used to track changes in the ocean and monitor marine heatwaves and coastal flooding.

On May 21, the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) announced that the recovery of over 900 in-water instruments at four of five operating arrays – the Irminger Sea, Station Papa, Endurance and Pioneer Arrays – has already begun and will take approximately 15 months. All previously collected data will remain accessible through the OOI Data Center while the Regional Cabled Array will continue operating, it added.

The network encouraged scientists, researchers and educators to continue using its datasets in proposals, publications, and presentations. “Continued engagement demonstrates the scientific impact and wide-ranging applications enabled by the OOI and its data, underscoring its importance as a resource for the oceanographic community,” it said.

In a statement issued a day later, Jim Edson, the initiative’s Principal Investigator, thanked those involved in making the project possible. “Over more than a decade, OOI has delivered the world’s most advanced continuously operating ocean observing systems, supporting science, engineering, education, and workforce development across the ocean sciences community. We are profoundly grateful for the extraordinary efforts of the scientists, engineers, operators, educators, students, and partners who made this facility possible and who continue to advance its legacy through the use of its data,” Edson said.

Funded by the National Science Foundation, the network was designed to collect physical, chemical, geological, and biological ocean data for up to 30 years. Scientists used the data collected by more than 900 instruments at five arrays in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans to monitor and understand marine heatwaves and coastal flooding, assess ocean acidification, measuring carbon sequestration and studying deep-ocean ecosystems

The data also helped monitor changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, better known as AMOC, a key component in global climate regulation. The system is part of a global pattern called thermohaline circulation, or what scientists refer to as the “great ocean conveyor belt”, a constantly moving system of deep-ocean water driven by differences in temperature and salinity. This natural process of global ocean current circulation helps ensure the Earth’s oceans remain continually mixed and that heat and energy are evenly distributed.

Scientists have repeatedly warned that the AMOC is nearing a tipping point as the planet heats up. Without this constant flow of current circulation, regional temperatures would become more extreme – intense heat near the equator and freezing in the poles – making less land on Earth habitable. 

Part of a Broader Pattern

The move marks another escalation in the Trump administration’s broader campaign to erase federal climate science and research.

Since taking office, President Trump has fired tens of thousands of federal workers from agencies such as the US Agency for International Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Forest Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Many of these employees were engaged in vital climate-related research and conservation work, as well as providing essential services like weather forecasting and wildlife monitoring.

The National Science Foundation was also affected, losing an estimated 40% of its members to cuts by the administration between January 2025 and February 2026. In April, the administration fired all board members of the National Science Foundation without providing an explanation for the decision.

Trump is also seeking to dismantle key research centers, including the Colorado-headquartered National Center for Atmospheric Research, which provides critical data on air quality, tools to improve aircraft safety, wildfire mitigation strategies, and forecasts for droughts, extreme precipitation events, and tropical cyclones. Another target is NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory, which has been collecting essential data on climate change, atmospheric composition, and air quality since the 1950s.

The White House also terminated funding for the US Global Change Research Program, the federal body responsible for producing the nation’s most comprehensive climate reports on the impacts of rising global temperatures. It shut down climate.gov, NOAA’s primary public-facing website for climate science, and axed NOAA’s Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disaster dataset, which provided vital information for first responders, the insurance industry and researchers to plan recovery efforts and assess weather-related risks.

The cuts extended to international climate efforts as well. In February, the administration pulled the US out of global discussions regarding an upcoming global climate change assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Trump also ordered federal scientists at NOAA and the US Global Change Research Program to cease all work related to IPCC climate assessments, effectively ending US involvement in one of the world’s most critical climate evaluations.

Craig McLean, NOAA’s acting chief scientist during the first Trump term, said the with the move, the adminitration is pushing the US “back yet again into a rear seat in global scientific leadership.”

Featured image: Andrew Reed/WHOI via Ocean Observatories Initiative.

For decades, the historic Black neighborhood of Ivy City in Northeast Washington, DC, has been treated as an industrial sacrifice zone, leaving its residents to battle severe environmental pollution alongside intense redevelopment pressures. As new investment pours into the area, grassroots resistance led by local organizers is fighting to ensure that community healing and environmental justice take priority over corporate gentrification.

—

By Kaitlyn Sullivan

Fresh paint and spackle can do wonders for damaged walls, but they do little for a cracked foundation. For decades, residents of Ivy City have seen redevelopment follow this same deceptive pattern: new buildings rise like a coat of paint, masking the deep-seated pollution and housing pressures that have never been addressed.

In this northeastern Washington, DC neighborhood, residents have long battled pollution concerns and redevelopment pressures that threaten to price them out. This small area exemplifies who gets to shape neighborhoods during transitional periods and who bears the costs when investment arrives before justice.  

“It’s organized residents against organized money,” said Bob Bingaman, an organizer with local non-profit Empower DC who has worked with Ivy City residents on environmental justice and redevelopment issues.

Ivy City’s Contradiction

In 1873, Ivy City was designed as a suburban development for African Americans by real estate developer Frederick Jones. Business, entertainment, and employment flowed into the now predominantly Black, prosperous neighborhood.  

However, by the early 20th century, what had been built as a residential Black community was encroached upon by rail yards, warehouses, and industrial facilities that brought noise, pollution, and heavy infrastructure. These additions surrounded Ivy City, isolating residents from the rest of DC.

The fight against industrial encroachment, alongside civic organizations formed in response to discrimination and segregation in the mid-20th century, helped lay the foundation for modern Ivy City.

In an interview with Earth.Org, Bingaman rarely used the word “neighborhood” to describe Ivy City, instead referring to it as a “community”. And he is not alone; for many residents, Ivy City is more than just a zip code. 

Today, the neighborhood remains “sandwiched between major arteries, a train track, and industrial uses,” according to Alex Freedman, a Senior Community Planner at the DC Office of Planning.

Freedman helped develop the Small Area Plan in late 2024 for Ivy City – a city planning document meant to guide future land use, transportation, housing and development decisions. The document could shape whether redevelopment addresses existing environmental harms or simply builds around them.

Ivy City’s contradiction is not confined to its history. As new development arrives and housing prices climb, many of the neighborhood’s older environmental burdens remain unresolved. At the center of that debate is a small chemical plant that has become a flashpoint for residents and organizers.

What NEP Symbolizes

The National Engineering Products Incorporated (NEP) facility has become one of the clearest symbols of Ivy City’s unresolved contradictions. The plant manufactures adhesive sealants and electrical insulating compounds used by the US Navy, products designed to fireproof electrical systems and secure ship engines. It also happens to share a wall with a mother of three.

“[A] plastic assembly plant and a residential community seem an odd thing to have next to each other,” said Greg Casten, the current owner of the facility. However, this is more than a simple inconsistency or fluke. Residents have spent years describing odors, health fears, and the feeling that industrial priorities continue to outweigh community wellbeing. 

“Some of the chemicals they use are odorless and colorless. They are in our community, they cause cancer, they cause leukemia, they cause birth defects,” said Sabrina Rhodes, an organizer and leader at Empower DC, a grassroots, non-profit community organization that fights for racial, economic, and environmental justice in the US capital.

The dispute escalated into formal litigation in 2025, when neighboring residents filed suit alleging toxic exposure. Public testing had previously detected elevated formaldehyde near the site, adding urgency to longstanding complaints. That same year, Casten acquired the facility after the prior owner struggled to sell it. “Just give it to me and I’ll figure out what to do with it,” he said, recalling the purchase.

Casten, who owns “20 different operating companies in Ivy City,” presents himself as a longtime investor in the neighborhood. 

Recalling a failed bid for the historic, long-vacant Crummell School site, he explained his plan to install a 300-unit apartment complex, which he pitched to the city. An alternative plan was presented by residents and Empower DC, which called for a community recreational space. 

“The kids really need a playground within walking distance…where they can play and their parents can look out…and see that they are safe. Let them turn it into something constructive for kids, but keep them off the street. And there are seniors in this neighborhood, also. And they need places to go so they can do their arts and crafts,” Jackie Council said in a pamphlet distributed during Empower DC environmental justice tours of the neighborhood. Council is a Crummell School alumna and Ivy City oral history participant cited by Empower DC. 

The disputes over the NEP and Crummell School sites were not only about one facility or parcel of land. They were about who gets to define what investment and development should look like in Ivy City and who that development aims to serve. This manifests in a tension between repairing old harms and simply building around them.

Empower DC Resistance

For Ivy City residents, these battles have demanded organized resistance. Few groups have played a more integral role than Empower DC.

“It’s part of our job to educate the community about the threats in the community and then mobilize public support around those threats,” said Bingaman.  

A major responsibility of the organization involves leading environmental justice walking tours through Ivy City, which attract dozens of residents, advocates, officials and visitors from across the DMV, a shorthand term for Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia. On these tours, Empower DC organizers and Ivy City residents guide participants to key sites, including Crummell School and the NEP facility, while explaining how pollution, land-use decisions and redevelopment pressures have shaped daily life in the neighborhood.

One of the primary objectives of the organization is to uplift the voices of the community. They do this by hosting open-access community forums and events. Casten even referenced attending one of these during his interview with Earth.Org.

“We talked to over 100 residents in Ivy City…we went door to door and talked to them,” said Bingaman, explaining how Empower DC aimed to represent the true sentiments and experiences of the community in their health survey. 

The group also focuses on protecting the community from displacement and ending housing insecurity. Freedman noted that just days prior to his conversation with Earth.Org, he had been in Ivy City and “every block had like a dozen for sale signs.” 

Despite opposition from well-financed developers like Casten, Empower DC says it helped secure city approval and millions in public funding to transform the long-vacant Crummell School site into a community center and park after a years-long campaign. Casten said he once lost $2 million on a previous Ivy City venture before later reinvesting in the neighborhood, illustrating the scale of capital often facing community organizers. 

But the resources and power that developers hold in this city have never discouraged Empower DC. In fact, Ms. Rhodes told Earth.Org that she has personally gone up against attorneys Holland & Knight, one of Washington’s largest law firms, which often represents corporate interests in land-use and environmental disputes. 

Rhodes and her colleagues’ work shows that organized residents can effectively shape planning and redevelopment decisions, even when facing far better-funded opposition.

A Global Issue

The case of Ivy City is far from isolated. Around the world, neighborhoods once treated as industrial sacrifice zones are now attracting new investment before older environmental harms are fully addressed. These transitions often coincide with pollution concerns, rising housing costs and the displacement of what are mostly low-income communities and communities of color.

In Chicago, researchers found that some environmental clean-ups and redevelopment efforts coincided with displacement pressures and demographic turnover, a phenomenon often described as environmental gentrification. Even in older cities such as London, studies suggest the geography of past industrial pollution still shapes inequality today. 

Across these cities, residents have also organized to demand clean-ups, affordable housing protections, and a greater voice in redevelopment decisions.

The struggle unfolding in Ivy City is playing out in cities worldwide, where redevelopment often arrives before repair. Ivy City stands out because residents and organizers have made it impossible to ignore who benefits from change and who it leaves behind.

Featured image: Kaitlyn Sullivan.

—

About the author: Kaitlyn Sullivan is an undergraduate student at Georgetown University, pursuing a degree in Government with concentrations in Environment and Sustainability as well as Journalism. She is from Chicago but currently lives in Washington, DC, working for an Illinois congresswoman. Kaitlyn is interested in the intersection between social justice and government and hopes to use her degree in journalism to uplift the voices of communities most impacted by inequality and high-level policy decisions.

A devastating event along the west coast of North America in 2013 wiped out nearly all of the area’s sunflower sea stars, with devastating consequences for kelp forests. A consortium of public and private organizations have been using aquacultural techniques to grow sea stars in laboratory settings, with the expectation that these efforts will lead to the eventual recovery of healthy kelp ecosystems and concomitant biodiversity.

—

Troubling reports of sea star wasting disease along the West Coast of the United States began in 2013. Its identification in Washington state spread southward, extending down to Baja. The symptoms of the disease spread rapidly, too – among them lesions, loss of arms, and breakdown of the body into what has been described as a pile of goo. 

Sunflower sea stars are a keystone species, the natural predators of sea urchins. As their populations shrank, they were no longer able to maintain a balance in the kelp ecosystem. 

A Deadly Disease

Lines of purple puff balls – vibrant in color and prickly to the touch – stretched upwards toward the light. The urchins are attached to the stipes or stem-like structures, the remnants of a once lush kelp forest. The abundant purple sea urchins denuded the kelp forest as they caused the functional extinction of the sunflower sea star.

Wasting disease has probably always been present in sea star populations along the US West Coast, but never at a magnitude to rival what occurred in 2013. The explanation for the extraordinary die-off remains unclear; however, scientists believe it may have been correlated to rising ocean temperatures, as increasingly warm temperatures have been shown to be associated with the prevalence and severity of marine infectious diseases. Furthermore, the shallow nearshore waters in which sea stars are found do not offer the kind of refuge from the rising water temperatures that deeper water offers.

A March 2023 study of California’s Monterey Peninsula documented the profound, decade-long decline of the kelp forest. The study, a collaboration of The Nature Conservancy, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and the University of California Los Angeles, used Kelpwatch.org, an open-source web tool, to detect the decline in canopy-forming kelps – giant kelpand bull kelp.

The Monterey Peninsula, which historically supported a dense and thriving kelp forest with sunflower sea stars, now supported carpets of purple urchins. Unchecked by sea stars, the urchins had devoured the kelp, resulting in a loss of both the kelp canopy and its understory foliage. This drastically altered ecosystem had implications for a variety of species – from the tiniest of zooplankton to larger creatures like gray whales. 

Sunflower Sea Stars

Sunflower sea stars are marine invertebrates. They are classified within the Class Asteroidea and, like all invertebrates, lack backbones. They have a water vascular system, which means seawater courses through their bodies, and their tube feet are animated by water. With age, the number of their arms also increases, with mature sunflower stars observed with as many as 24 arms. 

A characteristic that is proving valuable in their recovery is their ability to grow rapidly. At the Sunflower Star Laboratory, a non-profit based in Monterey, California, the sunflower sea star has been recorded to grow to 2.5 centimeters within six months and 28-29 centimeters by two years. At 25 centimeters, the star becomes reproductively active. Reproduction occurs through the broadcast of sperm and eggs into the water.  

Reintroduction Studies Underway

Private and public entities, each contributing their own set of strengths and resources, are collaborating in recovery efforts. A breakthrough occurred in 2021, when Friday Harbor Laboratories in Washington state successfully spawned sunflower sea stars from wild-caught adults. Later, Birch Aquarium in San Diego spawned what has become known as the “Cupid Cohort”, a reference to the spawning activity having occurred on Valentine’s Day. The larvae from this cohort were subsequently raised in other labs, including the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, California; the Academy of Sciences in San Francisco; and the Sunflower Star Laboratory. The work of recovery extends to finding successful strategies to house, feed, and grow the sunflower stars, with the ultimate aim to successfully reintroduce sea stars into the wild.

In 2025, a pioneering field study placed a dozen juvenile sunflower stars reared in the laboratory in an enclosed pod in Monterey Bay. During the five-day study, water samples were collected to evaluate the value of environmental DNA (eDNA) as a tool in endangered species recovery. A second study with 48 laboratory-raised juvenile stars had encouraging results: over the course of four weeks, 47 of the 48 sea stars survived.

Ashley Kidd, Conservation Program Lead and Cofounder of the Sunflower Star Laboratory, has been involved in the recovery efforts, first at the Aquarium of the Pacific and currently at the Sunflower Star Laboratory. Kidd is optimistic about the future because “the action that has been taken, up to this point, has been overwhelmingly collaborative.” The collaboration has involved scientists with a broad range of expertise such as disease ecology, genetics, cryobiology, and developmental larval research. 

Kidd is inspired by the efforts: “With every set of questions that we’ve put in front of each other and challenged each other to find solutions for, we have been meeting those answers.”

Featured image: Ingrid Taylar/Flickr.

Industry had been lobbying President Donald Trump since he took office in early 2025 to end the federal disaster management system that protects the nation from chemical catastrophes such as fires and explosions at high-risk facilities.

—

16 Trump-appointed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials were paid more than $2.8 million by chemical companies and trade groups seeking an end to the federal disaster management system that protects the nation from chemical catastrophes.

An analysis of financial disclosures by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), an ethics watchdog, revealed that 23 separate chemical companies paid EPA officials a total of $1,442,913 in salaries, bonuses, compensation for consulting and legal services and other payments before they joined the agency. Separately, eight chemical industry trade associations also paid EPA appointees a total of at least $1,431,638. Two of these associations – the American Chemistry Council and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers – publicly supported the rollback of key safeguards against chemical emergencies and disasters.

Both figures are likely a “dramatic undercourt,” CREW said, given that officials are not required to disclose exactly how much money they made from past clients.

Industry had been lobbying President Donald Trump since he took office in early 2025 to undo a Biden-era rule 12 years in the making that significantly strenghtened the Risk Management Program (RMP), claiming its provisions would be too expensive to implement. The RMP, a regulation under the Clean Air Act, requires facilities handling extremely hazardous or flammable chemicals to adopt safety, prevention, and emergency response programs to prevent accidental releases and to protect local communities and the environment from chemical disasters such as fires and explosions at high-risk facilities.

In February, Trump’s EPA announced proposed revisions to the program. The February proposal included changes that would weaken or delay such protections, such as ending requirements for industrial chemical facilities to assess and plan for natural hazards and power loss, as well as requirements to put safer technologies in place. The EPA also proposed ending community notification requirements, including providing information in multiple languages for affected communities.

The US experienced a fatal or life-threatening and environment-damaging chemical accident every 2.5 days on average between 2004-2025. Together, they racked up over $5 billion in damages, according to environmental law non-profit Earthjustice. 177 million Americans – over half the US population – live in worst-case scenario zones of chemical disasters.

Featured image: Wikimedia Commons.

You might also like: Health, Environmental Groups Sue US EPA Over Rollback of Mercury Standards for Power Plants

The agency wants to repeal maximum contaminant levels for six toxic forever chemicals in drinking water set in 2024 by the Biden administration after research linked them to health issues such as decreased fertility, increased risk of some cancers, immune system suppression, increased risk of obesity, and developmental delays in infants and children.

—

The US is set to kill Biden-era limits on toxic PFAS, colloquially known as “forever chemicals”, in drinking water.

Under Administrator Lee Zeldin, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will issue two new rules aimed at delaying and rescinding the limits. The first one will repeal 2024 regulations that set nationwide limits on four per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – GenX, PFNA, PFBS, and PFHxS – in drinking water. The agency will also restart a lengthy process to establish whether regulation of these substances is required – and if so, how to regulate them.

The second proposal would retain limits on two PFAS known as PFOA and PFOS, but extend the deadline for water utilities to comply with the regulations from 2029 to 2031. The Biden administration had limited levels of these two substances in drinking water to four parts per trillion, the lowest detectable level, citing scientific findings revealing that there is “no level of exposure to these contaminants without risk of health impacts, including certain cancers.”

The new proposals directly contradict the EPA’s April announcement, which named reducing PFAS risks to the public as a top two-year priority alongside “advancing investment into America and job creation through permitting reform.”

PFAS are synthetic compounds that have been used on a commercial scale since the 1950s. Besides containing both water-attracting and water-repelling ends, their chemical structure renders them resistant to chemical and thermal degradation, making them useful additions to products including non-stick cookware, food packaging, cosmetics, and firefighting foam. It is these same properties, however, that also make PFAS difficult to break down, posing environmental and health risks. Their stability and persistence in the environment are the reason why they are also known as forever chemicals.

Human exposure to PFAS occurs via routes such as ingestion, inhalation, and placental transfer. Beyond soil, air, and food, drinking water has been identified as a major source of PFAS, with water reservoirs and supplies worldwide commonly contaminated with PFAS. A federal survey released in 2023 found that forever chemicals contaminate nearly half of all US tap water and about 70% of urban tap water sources.

In 2024, the EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances and set maximum contaminant levels for six PFAS in drinking water after research linked long-term exposure to PFAS to health issues such as decreased fertility; increased risk of prostate, kidney, and testicular cancer; immune system suppression; increased risk of obesity; and developmental delays in infants and children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes. More research is needed to determine how different levels of exposure to different PFAS can lead to a variety of health effects as well as the consequences of low levels of exposure to PFAS over long periods of time, particularly for children.

Chemical companies and water utilities sued the EPA following the adoption of the standards, seeking to undo them. While initially defenfing the regulations in court, the EPA under Trump requested the court to partially vacate some limits on PFAS in drinking water, citing compliance costs and utility pressures. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia eventually declined to completely strike them down.

105 Million People Affected

Environmental groups were quick to denounce the EPA’s plan.

Katherine O’Brien, Senior Attorney at Earthjustice, said the move will “leave children and families to bear the cost of continued drinking water contamination.” Up to 105 million people nationwide would be affected by the standards’ rescission, according to the environmental law non-profit.

Erik D. Olson, Senior Strategic Director for Health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a non-profit international environmental advocacy group, said the proposal would “blow a big hole in protections from forever chemicals.”

“This is a clear cave-in to special interests like the petrochemical industry and water utilities that care more about their bottom lines than the health of Americans,” he added.

More on the topic: Understanding PFAS: Health Concerns, Regulations and Solutions to Tackling the Spread of Forever Chemicals

Grueling heat and humidity are much more likely to affect this years’s tournament compared to the 1994 event on the same continent because of climate change, the analysis concluded.

—

Players and fans are likely to face dangerous levels of heat and humidity throughout much of the upcoming World Cup tournament.

A team of 15 researchers with the World Weather Attribution group calculated the likelihood of all FIFA 2026 World Cup matches taking place when heat is in excess of what the global players’ union FIFPRO deems safe. 104 games are scheduled from June 12 across 16 host cities in Canada, Mexico and the US.

The analysis, which took account of actual game times, revealed that grueling heat and humidity are much more likely to affect this years’s tournament compared to the 1994 event on the same continent because of climate change. A large number of matches are scheduled at the hottest time of day – mid-day or afternoon – where high WBGT is most likely, contrary to FIFPRO recommendations.

In all, about one in four matches are expected to take place in temperatures exceeding 26C Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) – a measure of heat stress that accounts for temperature, humidity, wind speed, sun angle, and cloud cover. Heat stress occurs when the body cannot effectively cool itself, typically following prolonged exposure to elevated temperatures without sufficient rest or cooling breaks. According to FIFPRO guidelines, a WBGT above 26C should warrant multiple cooling breaks of around 30 minutes during matches.

Meanwhile, around five matches are expected to occur when the WBGT exceeds 28C – equivalent to about 38C in dry heat, or 30C in high humidity. FIFPRO deems this level unsafe and advises match delay or postponement.

Inadequate Venues

Researchers also looked at the adequateness of venues in mitigating heat-related issues during matches. They found that only three of the 16 venues have air conditioning, with over a third of the matches with at least a one in 10 chance of exceeding 26C WBGT – including the final, the third-place playoff, and two quarter-finals – scheduled in open-air stadiums.

World Cup venues are increasingly inadequate in a warming world. A 2025 study ahead of this year’s tournament warned that 14 of the 16 World Cup venues are already exceeding “safe-play thresholds” for extreme heat, unplayable rainfall, and flooding.

The “safe-play” benchmark for extreme heat is 35C (95F), which represents the limit of human adaptability to extreme heat. Once this threshold is reached, the body’s natural cooling system begins to fail, heightening the risk of heatstroke and dehydration, both for players and spectators. According to the report, several of the 2026 World Cup locations are already recording temperatures at or above this threshold. ⁠

Topping the list of the most climate-vulnerable stadiums in North America are Miami, Houston, Dallas in the US and Monterrey in Mexico, all of which face 100-160 days of unplayable heat by 2050, as well as flash flooding, extreme winds and water scarcity.

The 2026 World Cup “could be the last World Cup of its kind in [North America],” the study warned as it found that by mid-century, nearly 90% of host stadiums will face unsafe extreme heat conditions and 11 stadiums will experience unplayable heat. “Without significant adaptation, it is unlikely that future tournaments in North America will follow the same model as 2026 — with traditional summer scheduling, current infrastructure standards, and minimal climate protocols.”

Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

You might also like: The Carbon Footprint of Football: Unveiling the Dark Side of the Game

A council appointed by President Trump on the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency is calling for higher thresholds for states to receive federal support and for states and local governments to should responsibility for handling disasters, which are increasing as climate change worsens.

—

As the climate crisis fuels a new era of extreme weather, a new report is calling for a total overhaul of the federal agency tasked with America’s disaster response.

The report, compiled by a Review Council appointed by President Donald Trump and published last week, proposes sweeping changes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that experts warn could erode the country’s capacity to handle disasters, which are increasing as climate change worsens.

2025 was the third-highest year for billion-dollar disasters in the US, behind 2023 and 2024. A total of 23 weather and climate disasters racked up damages of at least $1 billion, claimed an estimated 276 lives and cost the country some $115 billion. And yet the 74-page report, which calls for major changes to the nation’s disaster programs, only includes one mention of the word “climate” and fails to address how these changes would meet the increasing need for rapid and efficient emergency disaster response systems.

FEMA coordinates the federal response to disasters. Its 2024 $28-billion budget included some $18 billion in disaster relief to support recovery efforts across the country, $4 billion for a program providing affordable flood insurance to property owners, and more than $3.8 billion in grants and direct payments to help individuals and communities recover from federally declared disasters. The agency also provides training and education to help communities prepare for disasters and funds mitigation and adaptation projects for natural disaster preparedness and resilience.

The agency employed more than 20,000 people before the Trump administration ordered mass layoffs last years. Those firings, combined with retirements and resignations, resulted in a loss of roughly a third of its full-time staff.

Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has repeatedly accused the agency of being inefficient and expensive and has threatened to shut it down. Much of the council’s report echoes Trump’s criticism of the agency and includes measures it says will make FEMA “more efficient and responsive,” although it does not go as far as recommending FEMA’s abolishment.

These proposals would fundamentally change how America handles catastrophe by effectively offload the burden of disaster management onto the states. States would face a higher threshold to unlock federal aid, though they would receive direct payments within 30 days rather than waiting for reimbursements. The plan also slashes federal oversight by reducing environmental audits and historical reviews, and pushes flood insurance away from the heavily indebted National Flood Insurance Program and toward the private market, while continuing to align premium costs more closely with risk.

While acknowledging issues at FEMA, which has indeed been stretched to its limits for years, experts warn that state and local governments are ill-equipped to fill the void left by the agency. In many rural areas, FEMA funding also covers emergency managers’ salaries besides providing crucial training on disaster management.

“[Small governments] rely a lot on Fema, and on federal expertise to help them,” Andrew Rumbach, a Senior Fellow at the Washington, D.C.–based Urban Institute, told the Guardian. “I think that this is going to be really a challenging proposition for them.”

The council also suggested FEMA should only help house those whose homes are deemed uninhabitable, instead of also those whose homes are damaged. But that would mean no more federal support to cover medical costs or transportation barriers for many disaster survivors, according to Madison Sloan, Director of a Disaster Recovery and Fair Housing Project at Texas Appleseed, a non-profit focused on social, economic and racial justice.

“There’s no help for you if your home wasn’t destroyed,” Sloan told The New York Times. She also echoed Rumbach’s fears that state and local governments may not be able to take on more responsibility for disaster response.

The 22 members of the board were informed in an email on Friday that they had been “terminated, effective immediately.”

—

The Trump administration has fired all board members of the National Science Foundation (NSF) without providing an explanation for the decision.

All 22 members, who are appointed by the US president and serve staggered six-year terms, received an email from the Presidential Personnel Office “on behalf of President Donald J Trump” on Friday informing them of their dismissal, according to media reports. They were told that their position had been “terminated, effective immediately,” but were not provided a reason.

The NSF is an independent federal agency founded by Congress in 1950. It supports academic research in fields like biology, computer science, math, and social sciences. The NSF board is tasked with publishing reports that help to guide the president and Congress on science and engineering policy. A report about the US ceding scientific ground to China was due to be released following a board meeting set for 5 May, Nature reported. It is unclear whether the report will be published.

‘No Surprise’

Affected and former board members told the media that they were “disappointed” by the unprecedented decision but not entirely surprised. “I think this is one more indication of the sweeping changes that the administration has in mind for the NSF,” Yolanda Gil, a terminated board member who works at the Information Sciences Institute of the University of Southern California, told the Guardian.

Some Democrats have also come forward to denounce the move. Zoe Lofgren, a member of the US House of Representatives from California and the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, said it was “no surprise” that the president, who has openly criticized the foundation since taking office, “would seek to destroy the board that helps guide” it.

Science Under Attack

Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has executed a broad assault on science, erasing scientific data and slashing billions of dollars in funding for climate research.

In the early months of 2025, tens of thousands of federal workers were abruptly fired from agencies such as the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the EPA, the Forest Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Many of these employees were engaged in vital climate-related research and conservation work, as well as providing essential services like weather forecasting and wildlife monitoring.

The NSF was also affected, losing an estimated 40% of its members to cuts by the administration between January 2025 and February 2026. The Trump administration has also sought to cut $5 billion in funding to its budget last year, although Congress blocked it. Now that the board is gone, these cuts may be easier to execute, some former board members have warned.

Trump is also seeking to dismantle key research centers, including the Colorado-headquartered National Center for Atmospheric Research, which provides critical data on air quality, tools to improve aircraft safety, wildfire mitigation strategies, and forecasts for droughts, extreme precipitation events, and tropical cyclones. Another target is NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory, which has been collecting essential data on climate change, atmospheric composition, and air quality since the 1950s.

The White House also terminated funding for the US Global Change Research Program, the federal body responsible for producing the nation’s most comprehensive climate reports on the impacts of rising global temperatures. It also shut down climate.gov, NOAA’s primary public-facing website for climate science, and axed NOAA’s Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disaster dataset, which has provided vital information for first responders, the insurance industry, and researchers to plan recovery efforts and assess weather-related risks.

The cuts extended to international climate efforts as well. In February, the administration pulled the US out of global discussions regarding an upcoming global climate change assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Trump also ordered federal scientists at NOAA and the US Global Change Research Program to cease all work related to IPCC climate assessments, effectively ending US involvement in one of the world’s most critical climate evaluation efforts.

Featured image: The White House/Flickr.

The Endangered Species Committee, comprised of six federal officials including the Interior Secretary, approved a Pentagon’s request for an exemption from the Endangered Species Act for all oil and gas exploration and development activities in the Gulf of Mexico after a 20-minute, closed-door meeting.

—

A panel comprised of Trump Administration officials on Tuesday approved an exemption from the Endangered Species Act for expanded oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Last month, the Pentagon requested that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum convenes a meeting with the Endangered Species Committee to discuss an exemption from the Endangered Species Act for “all … oil and gas exploration and development activities” overseen by federal agencies in the Gulf of Mexico over “national security” concerns. Since its inception in 1973, the law, which requires federal agencies to ensure their actions do not jeopardize endangered species or destroy critical habitats, has prevented the extinction of 99% of listed species.

On Tuesday, the committee, also known as the “God squad” for its power to decide whether a species lives or dies, approved the request after a 20-minute, closed-door meeting.

Addressing the committee, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the Endangerment Species Act risked “halting or severely compromising oil and gas activity in the Gulf” that are needed to power the country and the military and that the request was a “matter of urgent national security.”

“Recent hostile action by the Iranian terror regime highlights yet again why robust domestic oil production is a national security imperative,” Hegseth said. But environmental groups say the administration is seeking an exemption to avoid interference to its fossil fuel expansion plans and warn that such an exemption could set a dangerous precedent for future fossil fuel projects.

The committee only met three times since Congress established it in 1978, the last time in 1992. It is led by the Interior Secretary and comprises five other federal officials: the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Species At Risk

It is the first time the committee, which has the extraordinary authority to exempt federal actions that may lead to a species’ extinction from the safeguards of the Endangered Species Act, has been convened over national security reasons, the Center for Biological Diversity said in a press release. The conservation group last month filed a lawsuit seeking to block the meeting, although a judge rejected their request on Friday.

The Gulf of Mexico is home to 20 threatened and endangered species, including sea turtles, sturgeon, manta rays, sharks, and Rice’s whales. The latters are only found in the Gulf and have just 51 individuals remaining after the population collapsed in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

“It’s grotesque for Pete Hegseth to use national security as a pretext for giving the oil industry a free pass to wipe out America’s most endangered whales,” said Brett Hartl, Government Affairs Director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Hegseth is illegally perverting a narrow mechanism within the Endangered Species Act to target the Rice’s whale for extinction.”

Dozens of environmentalists gathered in protest outside the Interior Department on Tuesday, chanting slogans and holding signs that read “Save the Endangered Species Act,” “Fraud Squad” and “Whales and turtles here to stay! Big Oil go away.”

“No Administration, Republican or Democrat, has ever sought such a sweeping exemption from the Endangered Species Act,” said Susan Holmes, Executive Director of the Endangered Species Coalition, which joined the protest. “This closed-door effort to weaken protections for whales, sea turtles, and the Gulf ecosystem is a direct threat to wildlife already struggling to survive. Decisions about endangered species must be guided by science, not politics or corporate pressure.”

Beth Lowell, Vice President of Oceana, an ocean conservation organization, said Tuesday’s vote “puts endangered species on an unnecessary fast track to extinction.”

“For more than 50 years, the Endangered Species Act has protected endangered and threatened wildlife by ensuring that the federal government reviews projects and provides measures to minimize the threat to species on the brink of extinction. Today’s action reverses this trend by putting profits over protections. It is not what the authors of this bedrock law intended,” said Lowell.