The Food and Drug Administration is considering whether to place a “black-box” warning—a high-danger label only used to flag risk of death, severe harm, or incapacitation—on Covid vaccines, CNN has reported.  According to the Friday CNN report, the initiative to include the warning—part of a range of efforts by Trump administration health officials to limit access to, public support for, and uptake of Covid shots and other vaccinations—is being led by FDA chief medical and scientific officer Vinay Prasad, who is also director of the agency’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. The plan to implement the warnings is expected to be made public by the end of December. Prasad has a long history of dismissing the pandemic, claiming in 2021 that Covid was not more harmful to children than the common flu. Health experts have continued to voice concerns that adding such a warning label may further reduce access to Covid vaccines by making clinicians more hesitant to recommend shots to groups who are at risk for severe Covid. Vaccines with black box warnings are particularly rare because vaccines are only approved after especially extensive safety and efficacy checks.  The news follows reporting earlier this week that the FDA is investigating whether Covid vaccines are linked to deaths in adults, continuing a campaign public health experts have viewed with extreme skepticism. Prasad wrote to FDA staffers in a November letter that “at least 10 children have died after and because of receiving COVID-19 vaccination,” without specific evidence. A CDC study released Thursday found that the 2024-2025 Covid vaccine was approximately 76 percent effective against emergency and urgent care visits in children aged 9 months to 4 years, and 56 percent effective for children 5-17 years old, compared to those who didn’t get the updated vaccine.  But since June, CDC recommendations have stated that “parents of children ages 6 months to 17 years should discuss the benefits of vaccination with their doctor.” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s FDA has already reversed previous federal policy on Covid vaccines, restricting the most recent vaccineto people who are at elevated risk due to age or an underlying health condition. Kennedy said in November that he instructed CDC to retract its long-held public stance that vaccines do not cause autism despite evidence to the contrary. (CDC’s website now claims that the assertion that vaccines do not cause autism is not “evidence-based.”) Health experts told my colleagues Kiera Butler and Anna Merlan earlier this year that RFK and his allies’ anti-vaccine decisions open the door to taking essential drugs off the market. “Kennedy’s crusade will create even more doubt over vaccines’ effectiveness, as he uses his position to broadcast and legitimize debunked ideas about their risks,” they wrote. “In the end, experts warn, it will be patients who suffer.”

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Years of underfunding and new delays in federal grantmaking threaten buoys and ocean monitoring assets run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that protect fishermen, cargo ships and endangered species across the country. With key grant deadlines now passed and new awards still pending, regional operators warn that some of those services could go dark at the peak of hurricane season. In the Northeast Channel, where warm, salty Gulf Stream waters collide with frigid meltwater from the Arctic, sensors that hung from a buoy like ornaments on a tree were stationed at the entrance to the Gulf of Maine. The sensors fed scientists and forecasters rare data from one of the Atlantic’s strangest crossroads. But in 2022, the buoy’s operator, the Northeast Regional Association of Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (NERACOOS), was forced to pull it from the water as stagnant federal funding made routine servicing impossible. Faced with hard choices, the group prioritized buoys closer to shore that are more critical for marine safety over the Northeast Channel buoy, which primarily supported research. Unlike many NOAA programs, the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS)—“the eyes of our ocean,” a network of regional associations that collect and track ocean data—enjoys bipartisan support in Congress. But year after year, federal appropriations have fallen short of what the program needs to properly service and maintain its buoys, sensors, gliders, and other equipment.   After the program was authorized by Congress in 2009, an independent study found that the program would need about $715 million to deliver on lawmakers’ vision. Since that study, the most the program has received is $42.5 million—a level it has effectively been stuck at for years. That number was always ambitious and would require slow, steady growth, according to Kristen Yarincik, executive director of the IOOS Association, a nonprofit that represents the 11 regional IOOS associations. But flat funding in recent years, combined with inflation and rising equipment costs, has made routine servicing and upgrades increasingly difficult. > “If one of our buoys goes offline, I hear about it from fishermen [first]. > What that tells me is that even a short outage really affects people.” This year, federal appropriations may offer some relief, matching the IOSS Association’s $56 million request—but only if the money actually moves on time. IOOS regions operate on five-year cooperative agreements with NOAA; the current agreements, covering 2021–2026, end on June 30 for most regions. IOOS sources say the next round of funding may be delayed by new layers of federal review within the Department of Commerce and the Office of Management and Budget. The situation is further complicated by the fact that Congress has not passed a full-year appropriations package, leaving agencies to operate under the president’s budget proposal, which zeroes out IOOS. “It’s so important that Congress finalize a full-year appropriations package for 2026 as soon as possible,” said Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a member of the House Committee on Appropriations. “Both the House and the Senate have proposed a funding increase for IOOS Regional Observations, and it’s my sincere hope that both chambers will push the administration to adopt these spending levels.” Regional associations say they need to submit proposals by the end of January. Because Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs) to federal contractors are legally required to stay open for about 60 days, they need to have been published by the end of November to avoid problems next summer, according to Yarincik. “After that, the timeline, and therefore continuity of data collection, becomes at risk,” she said. As of early December, those NOFOs still have not been released. The question now is how long awards will be delayed, and how long a funding gap may persist come July. Once proposals are submitted, NOAA must still review, negotiate, and approve awards—a process that has been slowing under new rules requiring the secretary of commerce, Howard Lutnick, to personally sign off on grants over $100,000. “They are a ways behind on this,” said Jake Kritzer, executive director of NERACOOS. According to Kritzer and Yarincik, NOFOs are typically published a year before the start date, making this round more than six months late. If a funding gap arises because of the delay, it would only exacerbate problems IOOS regional associations are already struggling with. > A funding gap next summer could hit just as hurricane season reaches its > height. In the Northeast, buoys lobstermen and cargo ships rely on are starting to show their age, Kritzer said. “Think of it like a car,” he said. “It may last 10 or 20 years, but over time the maintenance becomes more and more expensive.” And replacing an old buoy requires even more money up front. While the Gulf of Maine has lost a number of buoys, those that remain aren’t being serviced frequently enough. Buoys that should be serviced five times a year may see only a single visit, according to Kritzer. As sensors float at different depths, salt and biofouling buildup can degrade data quality, and sometimes the instruments go dark for hours or even days. “If one of our buoys goes offline, I hear about it from fishermen before our data guys or sensor technicians,” Kritzer said. “What that tells me is that even a short outage really affects people.” Fishermen use subsurface temperature data to find the most cost-effective places to fish and rely even more on IOOS data to decide whether it’s safe to leave the dock at all. “Maine lobstermen monitor the buoy readings and NERACOOS data products daily to understand sea conditions, make informed decisions about when it is safe to leave the dock, and be prepared for the conditions they will face at sea,” the Maine Lobstermen’s Association (MLA) said in a statement. “It directly impacts their ability to determine whether or not it is safe to go fishing.” The association also noted that NERACOOS data helps protect lobster populations and other sea life, including endangered whales, from human impacts. Sensors that monitor algal blooms and zooplankton help ensure lobsters have enough prey to feed on. Water-quality monitoring tracks pollution that can harm marine life. And acoustic monitoring systems help keep ships away from migrating whales. Cargo ships depend on that same real-time wave and wind data to plan safe transit in and out of port, avoid dangerous seas, and reduce costly delays. “Congress and NOAA should continue to fund and efficiently administer the IOOS and other navigation programs for the safe and efficient operations of our maritime industry,” said a representative from the American Association of Port Authorities. IOOS data supplements the National Weather Service’s own observation networks, sharpening coastal forecasts for local communities. The National Weather Service can still draw on its radars, satellites and other federal, military and private data, but IOOS-backed tide gauges and wave buoys help monitor flood risk and storm surge—data that allows emergency management to make more informed decisions.  IOOS officials warn that if regional systems go dark, many coastal forecasts would become less precise and less locally tuned. But the work that allows lobstermen to empty their traps, cargo ships to safely reach port, and coastal communities to get accurate flood warnings depends on steady funding. Supplementary funding sources can help keep IOOS regions afloat if a funding gap is realized, but IOOS leaders warn even a one- to two-month lapse in federal support could delay maintenance and force key services to go dark. If that happens, Yarincik said, “the availability of real-time data and accuracy of data products will be reduced, at a minimum, and this will impact navigational safety for commercial shipping, fishermen and recreational boaters; local flood monitoring for coastal communities; and weather forecasting, especially for hurricane intensity forecasts.”  IOOS helps supply the water-temperature data forecasters use to gauge how intense hurricanes may become. A funding gap next summer could hit just as hurricane season reaches its height, leaving lives and entire coastal communities vulnerable.

This story was originally published by Yale e360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Each year, the Sweeney Center for Public Policy at Rowan University in New Jersey hosts a conference on the state’s current and future energy landscape. In 2023 and 2024, the gatherings focused heavily on the rapidly accelerating development of offshore wind, which state officials then predicted would power some 2.5 million homes—about two-thirds of the state’s total housing units—by 2030. At this year’s event, however, the industry was barely mentioned, and when it was, its one-time advocates were subdued and almost eulogistic.   Tim Sullivan, the head of the New Jersey Economic Development Authority, which had been closely involved with the state’s efforts to develop offshore wind, sounded wistful. “I remain optimistic and confident that it gets done sometime in our lifetime,” he told the conference. Optimism about the future of US offshore wind has collapsed since President Trump, a vehement critic of the industry, returned to office in January. In the ensuing nine months, his administration has accelerated the end of federal tax credits for wind development, imposed tariffs on turbines and other needed parts, and eliminated funds for building onshore port facilities for servicing wind farms.  > Analysts say the administration’s policies will lead to $114 billion in > offshore wind investments being canceled or delayed. This has had a devastating effect, especially on the East Coast, where just two years ago some 30 utility-scale wind farm lease areas, spread across the continental shelf waters from Maine to South Carolina, were in the permitting and planning stages of development. According to a July 2024 report by the American Clean Power Association, investment in US offshore wind projects was predicted to hit $65 billion by 2030. By 2050, the report said, the country could be generating 86,000 megawatts of offshore-wind-generated electricity, enough to power roughly 40 million homes.  But in an April report, the market research firm BloombergNEF forecast a 56 percent decrease in offshore wind development by 2035 compared to its prediction the previous year. This reduction will delay or cancel some $114 billion in offshore wind investments, according to the report.  What remains of American offshore wind activity today are just seven farms off the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast coasts. The country’s first wind farm to be finished was a small, five-turbine array off Rhode Island’s Block Island, which became fully operational in 2016. The US’s first utility-scale farm, South Fork, came online just two years ago; it is located off Long Island, New York, and consists of 12 turbines capable of powering up to 70,000 homes. The remaining five farms are still under construction. Massachusetts’ Vineyard Wind, located about 15 miles off the coast off Martha’s Vineyard, is the furthest along; about half of the project’s planned 62 turbines have been installed and are sending power to the grid. Connecticut and Rhode Island’s shared farm, Revolution Wind, has installed about 70 percent of its planned 65 turbines. New York’s Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind, located off western and eastern Long Island, respectively, have begun preparing the seabed for turbine and transmission cable installation. Further south, the 176-turbine Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, located about 25 miles outside the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, is expected to begin sending power to the state’s grid early next year.  Together, and running at full capacity, these seven farms should be able to power 2.6 million homes. That’s a substantial achievement for a country that had no offshore wind a decade ago. But it is a far cry from the Biden Administration’s goal of 10 million homes by 2030.  Opposing wind power of all kinds has been a cornerstone of President Trump’s domestic energy policy. On the first day of his second term, Trump issued an executive order temporarily withdrawing “all areas on the outer continental shelf from offshore wind leasing.” The order also required a review of the federal government’s leasing and permitting processes for wind projects.  Following Trump’s order, the myriad federal agencies with a hand in regulating offshore wind moved quickly. In March, the EPA revoked the air quality permit for Atlantic Shores, a partnership between the oil giant Shell and the renewable energy company EDF Group, which was planning a project off the southern New Jersey coast that could have had up to 200 turbines. The EPA’s action was enough for Atlantic Shores to pull the plug on the whole endeavor. In a statement to E&E News following the project’s cancellation, a spokesperson for Shell said the company “will not lead new offshore wind developments.” And, just last week, another major oil company, BP, and its partner Jera Nex announced that they were pausing its only planned US wind farm, Beacon, located off the Massachusetts coast.  In April, the Interior Department had issued a stop-work order to Empire Wind, the 54-turbine project in the early stages of development off Long Island, New York. Other than an almost entirely redacted 36-page draft analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, presumably about Empire Wind’s impact on fisheries, no other information on the cause of the order was provided. Another stop order came in August, this time to Revolution Wind, the nearly completed 65-turbine farm located off the coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts. This time, the issuing agency was the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), which cited concerns about Revolution’s impact on national security. Other than the two-page order itself, BOEM provided no documentation justifying the decision.  > Offshore wind development had already faced intense opposition from coastal > communities and the fishing industry. After direct negotiations between New York’s governor and top Trump administration officials, Empire Wind was allowed to resume construction in May. Revolution Wind was able to restart in September following an injunction issued by a federal judge. But significant economic damage was done. According to Kris Ohleth, director of the research group Special Initiative on Offshore Wind, the stop-work orders led to “several hundred people a day who are no longer working” and weekly losses for the companies that amounted to $20-30 million. Offshore wind developers right now “are essentially riding it out by laying off staff and going back to skeleton crews,” she said.  Under Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the budget package passed by Congress in July, Biden-era federal tax credits for wind and solar developers, which would have expired no earlier than 2032, will now end in July 2026. This drastically shortened deadline spelled the end for the dozens of proposed offshore wind projects that were still in the planning stages, because, without the tax credits, they would be too expensive to build and maintain. To further jack up costs, the administration imposed a 50 percent tariff on wind turbine parts and components, most of which are produced in Europe and China.  In addition to tax credits, the Biden administration had made a massive investment in the onshore infrastructure to service the wind farms. Thirteen port projects were being built on both US coasts, most of which were in the Northeast. The facilities would have served as marshalling grounds for the turbines’ massive towers, blades, and engines before being loaded onto specially built transport ships. Other sites would have manufactured some of the parts needed to construct and service the turbines, transmission stations, and electrical cables.  But, in August, Sean Duffy, the secretary of the Department of Transportation, canceled $679 million in funding for offshore wind, $177 million of which was designated for port development. The money would instead be redirected to ship building. “Wasteful, wind projects are using resources that could otherwise go towards revitalizing America’s maritime industry,” Duffy said.  No onshore location is at more risk than New Bedford, Massachusetts, where the largest commercial fishing port in the US has been steadily transforming over the past decade into an offshore wind marshalling and manufacturing hub. Expansion plans for New Bedford have been scrapped or are on hold. “This was going to be a place that provided a substantial amount of jobs for a part of New England that is economically challenged,” said Elizabeth Wilson, a professor at Dartmouth College who studies the evolution of US offshore wind energy. “You have all of these manufacturing facilities that were planned but aren’t happening, so all of those jobs no longer exist.” > “Demand for electricity is growing nationally, driven by data centers that > power the digital economy,” says a grid operator. To be sure, the US offshore wind industry was already facing mounting challenges before Trump returned to office this year.  During the Biden years, offshore wind development was pushed along at breakneck speed. BOEM held six auctions that carved out over 30 offshore wind lease areas amounting to millions of acres of seafloor. In turn, states courted the streams of developers who had purchased the leases and needed to connect their farms to onshore transmission stations. In the case of some projects, seabed surveying—which uses sonar that could be loud enough to harm marine species, especially whales and dolphins—was conducted before environmental impact statements were done. This ignited intense opposition from coastal communities and the fishing industry. Commercial fishermen argued that large swaths of their lucrative grounds would become off-limits due to habitat destruction and the risk of fishing gear being lost or damaged from snagging on transmission cables or other infrastructure. Some scientists and environmentalists, who otherwise supported clean energy, raised concerns about the cumulative impacts of thousands of huge, noisy turbines operating in the middle of the migration routes of critical marine and avian species.  Most critically, though, the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine splintered the global supply chain, hiking the prices of many of the components needed for offshore wind development. The manufacturers were the first to back out of the US market—in 2023, Siemens Gamesa scrapped plans to build turbine blades in Virginia, while turbine engine manufacturer Vestas failed to establish a facility at a New Jersey port that would have assembled nacelles—engines— for turbines. And, in January, the Italy-based cable manufacturer Prysmian informed Massachusetts that it wouldn’t be moving forward with plans to repurpose a plant that once housed a coal-fired power generator into an offshore wind transmission cable factory.  The most significant blow came in New Jersey in 2023, when the Danish developer Ørsted canceled two massive projects off the state’s southern coast. Rather than endure the increasingly turbulent market conditions and a relentless campaign from opposition groups, Ørsted wrote off $4 billion in losses and focused on its smaller New York projects, Revolution and Sunrise Winds. After Atlantic Shores pulled the plug on its farm earlier this year, New Jersey’s offshore wind portfolio was reduced to zero.  The sinking fate of the US offshore wind industry comes at an inflection point for energy producers and providers on the East Coast and elsewhere in the country. At the Rowan University conference, Asim Haque, a senior vice president at PJM Interconnected, the Northeast US’s grid operator and the largest in the country, noted that, after years of procuring energy supply far above projected demand, PJM just barely managed to secure the capacity it predicts it will need for 2026-27.  > “Our current level of political and regulatory volatility does not support > large projects that take a long time to build,” an expert says. This, Haque said, is due to a confluence of factors. “Demand for electricity is growing nationally, driven by data centers that power the digital economy and the development of artificial intelligence,” he said in an interview. At the same time, Haque added, plants that generated power from fossil fuels or nuclear closed because they had either reached the end of the life cycle or were prematurely shuttered by state governments pushing to transition to renewable sources. Many of the states in PJM’s footprint are a part of a regional power sharing agreement, which has allowed certain ones, like New Jersey, long unable to produce enough of the electricity it needs on its own, to buy cheap power from neighboring states with energy surpluses. (In 2024, the state imported more than 35 percent of its power.) Those days appear over. With the huge surge in demand, Haque said, states are keeping much more of their energy for themselves. High demand and limited supply, of course, equal rate hikes.  Ultimately, Haque’s message, as well as those of the other speakers at the Rowan conference, emphasized the need for an all-of-the-above approach to energy—a point that would have been anathema in previous years, when expectations for offshore wind and other renewable sources were high. “These policy swings over the last four or five years, for a grid operator that has to actually make sure that an electron is generated and delivered in real-time across a many-million-mile transmission system [that’s] trying to serve 67 million consumers—it’s very tough,” he said.  Wilson, the Dartmouth professor, said the effort to launch US offshore wind provides lessons about the country’s ability to build huge, modern infrastructure of any kind.  “Our current level of political and regulatory volatility does not support large projects that take a long time to build and cost billions of dollars,” Wilson said. “Having a policy system that changes day-to-day doesn’t allow you to develop and invest in something that takes a decade to build.” In the meantime, zero carbon energy advocates are facing a tough reality. “PJM doesn’t pick and choose its resource mix,” Haque said of his company. “We operate the grid based on what we’ve got.”

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Coal miners, their family members, and union representatives rallied outside of the US Department of Labor’s headquarters in Washington one morning early last week, urging the Trump administration to enforce a rule that was meant to protect miners from serious health complications but has been on hold for months. The rally, which included members of the National Black Lung Association and the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), sought to highlight how lax industry standards for exposure to dangerous substances have impacted workers, and demand the government move forward with stricter protections. A new Biden-era rule, which went into effect in June 2024, was meant to limit miners’ exposure to silica dust, which is released during the mining process. Those tiny silica particles can cause dangerous and irreversible damage to miners’ health, including black lung, silicosis, lung cancer and other diseases. “If we don’t [enforce the rule], this is just going to be an earlier death sentence for our miners,” said Vonda Robinson, vice president of the National Black Lung Association. “Twenty-eight years old, 30, 35 years old and passing away—that shouldn’t be.” > “Put a pillow over your face, and that’s how these coal miners breathe. They > smother every day.” The rule requires mining companies to lower exposure limits for silica to half the previously permitted amount. It also requires mine operators to monitor workers’ exposures to silica dust, compel them to provide periodic health examinations at no cost to miners and update standards for respiratory protection. For Robinson and many of the attendees, the fight is personal. Robinson’s husband was diagnosed with black lung at 47 years old and is now “totally disabled,” she said. Some attendees at the rally carried portable oxygen machines, while others held up pictures of loved ones who had died from the disease. Black lung has been on the rise in the past 20 years, despite previously having been on the decline since the 1970s. In central Appalachia, the disease now affects one in five miners with 25 years of mining experience, according to the UMWA. Coal mines were originally required to comply with the new rule by April 14, 2025. However, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) pushed back that deadline by four months just days before it was set to be implemented, citing the administration’s restructuring of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as the reason for the pause. “Given the unforeseen NIOSH restructuring, and other technical reasons, MSHA offers this four-month temporary pause to provide time for operators to secure necessary equipment and otherwise come into compliance,” MSHA said at the time. Legal challenges filed by industry groups, including the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA) and the National Mining Association (NMA), prompted the Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals to issue a temporary stay halting enforcement of the rule. In a statement, NMA spokesperson Ashley Burke said that the association is “absolutely supportive of the new lower levels,” but that the rule “needs to allow for the use of administrative controls and personal protective equipment for compliance with the standard to supplement and enhance engineering controls.” “The MSHA rule must align with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s silica rule on methods of compliance,” Burke said, adding that OSHA “has adopted a strict but workable approach to achieve these same silica levels; we are asking for consistency across government.” Critics have said that those measures—such as rotating shifts and the use of respirators—are insufficient, arguing the practices would only increase the number of workers exposed to the dust and don’t sufficiently protect miners. The rule instead requires mining companies to implement engineering controls, such as ventilation and water sprays, as the primary method to meet lower exposure limits. > “President Trump loves to use coal miners as political props. But when the > cameras are turned off, he couldn’t care less.” MSHA chose not to defend the rule in court, instead asking the Eighth Circuit in August to keep the case on hold as it discusses a potential settlement with the industry groups. The agency also successfully urged the court to reject attempts by the American Thoracic Society, UMWA and United Steelworkers to intervene in the case in defense of the rule. The administration has now requested a third delay from the court due to the federal government shutdown. To some of those present at Tuesday’s rally, those moves represented a backslide on Trump’s promises to support coal workers. Trump is a vocal ally of the coal industry and has taken steps to boost production of the fuel in his first months in office. The president’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act mandated that millions of acres of federal lands be made available for mining, and his administration has consistently sought to prop up the industry in executive and regulatory actions. “President Trump said we’re going to dig, baby dig,” said Robinson. “OK, we can do that, but let’s take care of the health and safety of our miners.” “I would ask him—put a pillow over your face, and that’s how these coal miners breathe. They smother every day,” Robinson said. In an emailed statement, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said that “President Trump cares deeply about unleashing America’s energy potential, as well as standing up for those who fuel our country, such as hardworking coal miners.” “Blue collar Americans played a key role in sending President Trump back to the White House because they know he has their back, and with the help of great leaders across the administration…he is working tirelessly to deliver policies that improve the livelihoods of working families across the nation,” Kelly said. But Jason Walsh, a former Obama administration official and executive director of the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of labor unions and environmental organizations, said that Trump’s pro-coal rhetoric represented empty promises to the workers underpinning the industry. “President Trump loves to use coal miners as political props. But when the cameras are turned off, he couldn’t care less whether they’re sick or healthy,” Walsh said. “This is a guy who digs coal, loves coal, calls it beautiful. But what he really digs is coal industry profits. He really digs PAC checks from coal company CEOs. He couldn’t care less about miners or the communities they live in.”

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Gavin Newsom vetoed a California bill that was set to ban the sale of cookware and other consumer goods manufactured with PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” human-made compounds linked to a range of health issues. The governor’s decision on Monday followed months of debate and advocacy, including from high-profile celebrity chefs such as Thomas Keller and Rachael Ray, who argued that nonstick cookware made with PFAS, when manufactured responsibly, can be safe and effective and urged lawmakers to vote against the proposal. Newsom said in a statement that the legislation was “well-intentioned” but would affect too broad a swath of products and would result in a “sizable and rapid shift” of cooking products available in the state. “I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products,” Newsom wrote, adding that the state “must carefully consider” the consequences of a dramatic shift in available products. Concerns over the use of PFAS, chemicals used to make cookware and other items non-stick and water-resistant, have grown significantly in recent years. Called “forever chemicals,” because they do not break down naturally, PFAS are used in non-stick cookware, waterproof mascara and dental floss, among other items. They have been linked to a number of health issues, with some linked to high cholesterol, reproductive issues and cancer. A United States Geological Survey study in 2023 detected the chemicals in almost half the country’s tap water. Under the bill approved by California’s legislature, the state by 2030 would have banned the sale or distribution of goods, including cleaning products, cookware, floss, food packaging and ski wax, with “intentionally added” PFAS. The bill had the support of major environmental groups, as well as opposition from influential figures, such as Ray and Keller, and high-profile chefs who argued it would place an unfair burden on restaurants. Ray argued the focus should be on educating consumers rather than eliminating the products. “Removing access to these products without providing fact-based context could hurt the very people we’re trying to protect,” Ray said. Ben Allen, the state senator who introduced the legislation, told the Los Angeles Times he planned to keep working on the issue. “We are obviously disappointed,” he told the newspaper. “We know there are safer alternatives—[but] I understand there were strong voices on both sides on this topic.” Over the weekend, Newsom also vetoed legislation focused on racial justice, including a bill that would allowed universities to give the descendants of enslaved people preference in admissions preference, while approving funding for a reparations study. He also signed a bill allowing a wide range of family members to care for children if the federal government deports their parents.

In an exclusive story on Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported on the Trump administration’s plans to weaponize the IRS, much as he has weaponized the Department of Justice, against his perceived enemies. “Sweeping changes” are planned, the Journal reported, citing anonymous sources, “that would allow the agency to pursue criminal inquiries of left-leaning groups more easily.” > A senior IRS official involved in the effort has drawn up a list of potential > targets that includes major Democratic donors, some of the people said. A key aspect of the changes is giving President Donald Trump’s political appointees control over the IRS’s criminal investigations division. Gary Shapley, an adviser to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, will take the reins, per the Journal. In April, Shapley, a former IRS agent, was named acting commissioner at the behest of Elon Musk, and then fired days later after Bessent objected. He will now reportedly work to weaken the role of career IRS lawyers in investigations, paving the way for politically motivated probes of people and groups Trump and his allies dislike. Shapley is already collecting a target list of progressive donors and groups, the paper reported, including, not surprisingly, billionaire George Soros, that bogeyman of right-wing conservatives, and groups with ties to his Open Society Foundations. > “I’ve been speaking to friends…who are just absolutely appalled at at this, > and in shock that this would materialize.” “This is, without doubt, a very troubling development,” John Koskinen, who served as IRS commissioner under President Barack Obama and at the beginning of Trump’s first administration, told me in an email. Such investigations could be used not only in pursuit of criminal cases, but also as a rationale for yanking a progressive organization’s tax-exempt status, eliminating the ability of its donors to take a tax deduction—a potential death knell for any nonprofit group’s ability to survive and support its mission. (During the 1980s, the Reagan administration tried doing this to Mother Jones. Spoiler alert: We won.) Partisan IRS enforcement also happens to be illegal. “Section 7217 of the US Criminal Code prohibits the president or anyone in the White House from suggesting or ordering an IRS audit,” Koskinen says. “Putting administration loyalists in charge of the IRS generally and the criminal division in particular with the expressed aim of auditing individual taxpayers or trying to eliminate the tax exemption of nonprofits the administration does not approve of certainly violates the spirit if not the letter of the Criminal Code.” “We’ve been talking about this a lot,” says a corporate lawyer who specializes in criminal tax defense and asked for anonymity to protect his clients from potential retribution by the administration. “I’ve been speaking to friends of mine who used to work in the government, who believed in the system, and who are just absolutely appalled at at this, and in shock that this would materialize.” If that lawyer were defending one of these liberal entities—especially one that Trump and his minions have threatened in the past, like the Ford Foundation—he would make the case that the government was practicing selective prosecution: “There is a slim line of authority a defendant could use to argue here, and of course, the danger here is that the government will forum shop.” That is, the Justice Department would file the case in a judicial circuit whose judges were more likely to side with the administration. “But this seems like a situation,” the attorney adds, “where a lot of juries might rebel at what might be perceived as an overreach of government authority,” even if they believe the defendant is guilty: We’re going to find this person not guilty, and F you for bringing this case! Even if the group or individual prevails in court, however, the time and money required to defend against such actions is a major drain on resources—and a distraction from a group’s charitable mission. So even if a vindictive government loses in the courtroom, it still wins by harassing its foes. This whole episode, assuming the administration moves ahead with its plans, represents a wild about-face. After taking over the House in 2010, congressional Republicans were so incensed by the IRS’s investigation of sketchy tea party groups under Obama that they set about gutting the IRS’s enforcement budget, and launched a series of dog-and-pony House hearings to justify further cuts. Representing the government at one 2015 hearing was Koskinen, who had described the evisceration of his budget as “a tax cut for tax cheats.” Indeed, those cuts decimated the taxman’s ability to conduct audits of wealthy, sophisticated individuals and businesses. A Democratic-led Congress finally restored ample funding under President Joe Biden—an effort Republicans tried to defeat by spreading disinformation. But the GOP has since succeeded in rescinding the lion’s share, not to mention the Trump administration’s layoffs of virtually all IRS employees hired under Biden, which included lawyers capable of tackling those high-level audits. If the IRS goes after liberal groups as promised, another former agency higher-up told me, it would fall upon the Treasury Department’s Office of the Inspector General (TOIG) to investigate complaints and determine whether there was, in fact, improper politicization of tax enforcement. But in this era of rampant abnormality, it’s unclear that the normal oversight process will stand. Soon after taking office, Trump unceremoniously fired inspectors general throughout the government. On the list for dismissal was Loren Sciurba, a career deputy inspector general then standing in at TOIG, which didn’t have a confirmed chief. When that office reached out to the White House for clarification on its intent, noting that Sciurba wasn’t even in an “acting” role, it got no reply, and Sciurba apparently stayed on—he’s still listed as IG on the office’s website. (Sciurba did not respond to a message left for him at home.) Regardless of the outcome, the mere appearance that the IRS is willing to do the administration’s bidding “will undermine the average taxpayer’s confidence that the IRS is acting solely on the merits of the case rather than pursuing a political vendetta when they are contacted by the IRS,” Koskinen says.   “The fear generated by this action is totally inconsistent with the goal of having a government that follows the law rather than doing whatever it pleases or is asked to do by the president,” he continues. And the administration’s goal, per the Wall Street Journal, of trying “to remove to the extent possible the Chief Counsel’s office from criminal enforcement indicates that following the law is not a goal.”

Months before hundreds of federal immigration agents raided a rundown apartment complex in Chicago—some even rappelling onto the roof from Blackhawk helicopters in the early hours of September 30—local law enforcement had repeatedly visited the building to try to remove some immigrants living there, according to a longtime tenant. The immigrants, many from Venezuela, had fallen behind on rent, and the landlord, a real estate investor from Wisconsin, wanted them gone. During multiple visits, officers from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office locked some of the people out of their units, says Cassandra Murray, 55, a US citizen who lived on the building’s fourth floor for about a decade. The place was in dire need of renovations—mold, mice, broken elevators, and a putrid stench were common—but despite the barely habitable conditions, some of the evicted families returned soon after the deputies left. “I felt sorry for them, especially the women with children, because I could tell these people had nowhere to go,” Murray told me. The raid at 7500 S. South Shore Drive became a flashpoint in the Trump administration’s militarized effort to detain and deport immigrants. Nearly 300 federal officers from Border Patrol, the FBI, and other agencies arrested 37 people, forcibly separating children from their parents and pulling residents into vans outside. Afterward, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who criticized the operation, urged state agencies to investigate whether agents had used excessive force against kids in the building or infringed on people’s rights But the story of the raid is not only a story about aggressive agents; it is also a story about the struggles asylum seekers face while seeking safe and affordable housing. Some of the Venezuelans at 7500 S. South Shore were reportedly in the building without a lease; others had moved in with temporary rental assistance from a state program, but that funding ended and city-run shelters for immigrants had closed. “They were all just looking for somewhere to stay,” says Murray. To understand the raid, you need to rewind to 2022, when Texas’ Republican Gov. Greg Abbott began busing migrants to so-called sanctuary cities, including Chicago, to protest the Biden administration’s immigration policies. At the height of Abbott’s political stunt, 12 to 15 busloads of immigrants were arriving in Chicago every day—about 28,000 people by late 2023, and 50,000 by late 2024. Many slept on the floors of police stations or at O’Hare airport, waiting for space in shelters. Resettling the new arrivals was a financial strain: In November 2023, Chicago’s City Council allocated $150 million and the state chipped in another $160 million, on top of the $176 million that had already been given by the city, state, and federal governments. The funding would go toward an intake center and winterized tent shelters that could hold 2,000 migrants for up to six months at a time. But these were temporary solutions: By late 2024, as border crossings from Mexico plummeted, the city prepared to close the shelters in January 2025. Instead, Chicago announced a new “unified” shelter system that would house migrants together with non-migrants experiencing homelessness. “This will help to ensure that we have a single and equitable shelter system for anyone,” Mayor Brandon Johnson said at the time. > “That building was fucked up before the raid,” says a tenant organizer. “Now > you’ve got this horrific thing that happened.” There were downsides: Migrants who had been in the United States for longer than 30 days were no longer eligible for placement in a shelter. And there wouldn’t be enough beds for everyone. “Could this lead to people on the street?” Johnson added. “I don’t want to see anyone lose, right? But the harsh reality is that we can do what we can afford. We’ve been stretched to the limits.” In 2022, the state had also created a program to help transition immigrants from shelters to apartments; the Asylum Seeker Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ASERAP) provided up to six months of rental assistance. But this, too, was temporary. In 2023, six months of rental assistance was reduced to three months, sparking concerns that people might be forced back onto the streets if their immigration cases stalled and they didn’t have work permits yet. Three months “is such a short amount of time,” Charlotte Long, then a housing specialist connecting migrants with apartments, told Block Club Chicago. By mid-2024, ASERAP, which also relied on federal funding, was no longer taking applications. The Illinois Department of Human Services told me that the program assisted more than 6,600 households from 2022 to mid-2024. The state did not track what happened to immigrants after they were placed in apartments and their financial assistance ran out. But some were clearly struggling. In 2024, Injustice Watch reported that Illinois officials had placed recent Venezuelan arrivals in an apartment in Woodlawn that city officials had taken to court over unsafe conditions, such as rats and flooding. Others wound up in the South Shore neighborhood—the “eviction capital” of Chicago, as organizer Dixon Romeo, from the group Southside Together, put it to me. In fact, WBEZ reported that asylum seekers receiving state rental assistance were more likely to end up in the 60649 zip code, which includes South Shore, than anywhere else in the city. Broken and boarded up windows at 7500 S. South Shore Drive. Federal agents raided the building during the early morning hours of September 30. Residents were awaken by flash-bang grenades and helicopters.Joshua Lott/The Washington Post/Getty The apartment complex at 7500 S. South Shore was in disarray long before federal agents tore it apart. For years, tenants’ maintenance requests were ignored by management. In 2024, Jonah Karsh of the Metropolitan Tenants Organization started helping residents demand improvements, including having their gas turned on so they could cook. But it was an uphill battle. City lawyers eventually sued the owner’s companies for a long list of code violations, noting in court documents that fire extinguishers were missing and “all stairways are filthy with strong smell of urine.” “It’s difficult to walk through without swallowing a gnat,” reporters for WBEZ and the Chicago Sun-Times wrote after they visited the site. “It’s dimly lit inside and completely dark in some corners. A stray cat roams the second floor, likely hunting the mice or cockroaches that residents say infest the building…Elevators are out of order and filled with garbage…Water pours through the ceiling of one unit, pooling below.” “That building was fucked up before the raid,” says Romeo, the organizer at Southside Together, who has canvassed tenants there. “City, state, county, federal government—everybody has a role in why that building looks like it does. Now you’ve got this horrific thing that happened and there’s a lot of light on the situation,” he adds, “but there are buildings like that in every city in America, whether they’re raided by ICE or not. There are housing issues here.” > According to news reports, one resident saw someone he believed to be a worker > from the building photographing units “where the Venezuelans lived.” The 130-unit complex is owned by Trinity Flood, the Wisconsin real estate investor, who purchased it in 2020, along with two other distressed South Side buildings. After the sale, she sued the previous owners, alleging they’d overcharged her and hadn’t informed her about all the renovation needs, or that the apartment required 24-hour security, which Flood claimed would cost $15,000 a month. (The suit was settled in 2023, according to The Real Deal, a real estate news outlet that examined the property’s history of code violations.) The building had failed the past 14 annual inspections, per city records, and in April Wells Fargo sued to foreclose on the building. Both the bank and the city have requested that a court-appointed receiver be put in charge of the complex, but litigation is ongoing. Murray, the fourth-floor tenant, says conditions took a turn for the worse after Flood assigned a firm called Strength in Management to manage the building in 2024. The new company did not hire security for the building prior to the raid, even though the front doors didn’t lock. (Neither Flood nor Strength in Management responded to my requests for comment.) “The building was wide open, like we lived in a barn,” says Murray. Anyone could walk in. As a result, the unhoused population grew, driven in part by immigrants, including some whose rental assistance had run out. Murray estimates there were more squatters in the building than paying tenants. (Some had stopped paying rent in protest of the abysmal conditions.) Strength in Management filed 25 eviction cases in 2024, more than in the prior four years combined; sheriff’s deputies came around multiple times this year, Murray told me, but the squatters kept coming back, or new ones would arrive. “I remember hearing on the news about how the shelters shut down for them,” she adds. (The Sheriff’s Office declined to comment.) In August, a city attorney told a lawyer for Wells Fargo that Strength in Management had been unable to “re-assert control over the building” after it was overrun by “armed occupants.” The Department of Homeland Security, too, claimed its agents targeted the building because it was “known to be frequented” by members and associates of the Tren de Aragua gang; prior to the raid, a 25-year-old resident of the building was charged with murdering someone in the neighborhood. (DHS has since admitted that only 8 of the 37 people arrested in the raid had a criminal record, and only one was a verified Tren de Aragua member.) Murray says her immigrant neighbors weren’t causing trouble, and she never saw any gang activity or other behavior that scared her: “Even though the building was open the way it was, nobody ever bothered nobody—the building was quiet.” When some immigrants first moved in two or three years ago, she says, she felt frustrated that not all of them were taking their trash out, but they were receptive to her complaints and ultimately proved to be friendly neighbors: It was the Venezuelans who put up lights in the dark hallways, she says—not management—and they swept and mopped the floors and cleaned the stains off the stairs.   Debris and personal items belonging to Venezuelan immigrants were strewn in a hallway.Jim Vondruska/Reuters/Redux In the early hours of September 30, while residents were asleep in their beds, hundreds of federal agents stormed the apartment. Rodrick Johnson, a US citizen, told Block Club Chicago that he heard “people dropping on the roof” before FBI agents busted through his door. Officers handcuffed occupants with zip ties, then led them outside to vans, where they sat for hours wondering whether they would be arrested. It’s unclear who tipped off the feds for the raid. Chicago officials said they didn’t have advance notice about it or collaborate on the operation. Days earlier, according to WBEZ and the Sun-Times, one resident saw someone he believed to be a worker from the building photographing the units “where the Venezuelans lived.” After the raid, reporters found a map crumpled up in the entryway of the apartment that labeled each unit as either “vacant,” “tenant,” or “firearms.” The units designated as “vacant” had been raided—tape was left over their doors, labeled with the letters “PC,” according to a video I was shown of one hallway and a photo from WBEZ. Most units designated as “tenant” appeared to have been left alone, leading to questions: How did federal officers know about the building’s layout and occupancy? Karsh, of the Metropolitan Tenants Organization, notes that the landlord or property management would have likely possessed that information. Had federal immigration agents, he wondered, been deployed as an extralegal eviction force? After the raid, a small moving crew told Block Club Chicago that they were clearing out the now-empty units, but they didn’t say who hired them. “Doors were boarded up,” the outlet added. “In one room, there were zip ties and blood stains on the floor next to baby shoes.” As journalists came by, seeking more information, property management informed tenants that it would finally lock the front door and hire armed security. Murray, who just moved out, is frustrated about the timing. “Now they have security because they don’t want them to see the real truth,” she says. “But we have been asking for security for years and couldn’t get it.”

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Experts and members of the public on Tuesday voiced overwhelming opposition to the US Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to rescind its key greenhouse gas “endangerment finding” and vehicle emissions standards. That pushback came during the first of four scheduled public hearings on the agency’s plan to overturn its prior finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The finding, in turn, allowed prior administrations to regulate emissions from motor vehicles, power plants and oil and gas operations for more than a decade. The original finding followed a 2007 Supreme Court case, Massachusetts v. EPA, in which the court determined that greenhouse gas emissions qualify as air pollutants—and ordered the EPA to assess whether the emissions endangered public health. In 2009, the EPA turned its determination into one of the most consequential actions the agency had taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat the growing climate crisis. But in its new proposal, the agency has threatened to undo the very same environmental protections it once enabled. > “While the public comment period is necessary under law, personally, I believe > that the decision at EPA has already been made.” At the start of Tuesday’s hearing, Aaron Szabo, assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at the EPA, said that the agency is “committed to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to unleash American energy, lower costs for Americans, revitalize the American auto industry, restore the rule of law and give power back to states to make their own decisions.” The EPA declined an interview request for this story. But in a July press release, the agency criticized the Obama administration for “mental leaps” that led it to determine that greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles contribute “some unspecified amount to climate change, which in turn creates some unspecified amount of endangerment to human health and welfare.” According to the press release, the EPA’s new proposal to rescind that finding cites “new scientific and technological developments” that challenge the assumptions behind the endangerment finding. The EPA has justified the move by citing a Department of Energy report that top climate scientists have decried as “antiscientific.” The report contains a variety of claims that contradict the scientific consensus on climate change. It instead says that the crisis “appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed,” and it suggests that increased carbon dioxide levels could be a positive development by increasing crop yields and argues that climate model projections overestimate warming. But the vast majority of speakers during the opening day of the EPA’s public hearings hit back at those claims and urged the agency not to overturn the 2009 finding. From attorneys general to clergy members, from physicians to federal and state lawmakers, the message to the EPA was resounding. Out of roughly 200 people who testified on Tuesday, Inside Climate News counted fewer than 10 who spoke in favor of the EPA’s move. The rest expressed significant concerns over the agency’s rationale for the repeal and highlighted the potential consequences for public health, the environment and the United States’ moral stature on the world stage. > The EPA’s proposal relies on an “unvetted, scientifically unsound report from > the Department of Energy.” Representatives from organizations including the American College of Physicians, the National Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association warned the agency that rescinding the finding would have a disastrous impact on the health of all Americans—especially those with medical conditions and from disadvantaged communities. “In the case of climate change, things cannot be clearer: Greenhouse gases are driving climate change, which is harming people’s lungs across the country,” said Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association. “Standards that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles have been used by EPA for decades under multiple administrators,” Wimmer said. “Repealing them would not only threaten an acceleration of climate change, it would also lead to increases in harmful air pollution that impact lung health.” Dr. Ankush Bansal, president-elect of Physicians for Social Responsibility—a Nobel Peace Prize-winning nonprofit—drew a direct line between emissions from nonelectric motor vehicles and harms to human health. And Khadijah Ameen, co-founder and director of policy and research at the Georgia nonprofit BLKHLTH, said that the ramifications of greenhouse gas emissions are “concentrated in communities that have already been historically excluded and under-resourced.” Attorneys general and assistant attorneys general from eight states also decried the move as illegal and misguided. The EPA’s proposal relies on an “unvetted, scientifically unsound report from the Department of Energy to attempt to override the abundant and growing science supporting its endangerment finding and motor vehicle [greenhouse gas] emissions standards,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said. > “The reconsideration of the 2009 endangerment finding [of] greenhouse gas > emissions is completely flawed,” said a Republican farmer. Representatives from organizations including the American Petroleum Institute, National Automobile Dealers Association, American Trucking Associations, and the CO2 Coalition—a nonprofit advocacy organization that has been criticized for its climate change denialism—spoke in support of the EPA’s proposal. “CO2 should be celebrated, not demonized,” said Gregory Wrightstone, CO2 Coalition’s executive director. “We don’t have too much CO2—we don’t have enough.” Will Hupman, representing the American Petroleum Institute, thanked the EPA for its move to “unleash American energy,” adding that it will roll back “heavy-handed and one-size-fits-all vehicle mandates set by the previous administration.” “We understand the importance of reducing emissions from the transportation sector, but believe the Biden administration took the wrong approach,” Hupman said. “Its approach favored a single technology over all others, and would have effectively mandated the sale of electric vehicles. “This proposed rule takes a critical step towards restoring consumer choice and protecting the freedom of Americans to decide what to buy and drive to fit their personal needs.” Public hearings are expected to continue through Friday, and experts anticipate that the change will be challenged in court if the agency moves forward with its plan to rescind the finding. Despite the balance of testimony leaning heavily against the EPA’s proposal, it appears unlikely that the Trump administration will reverse course on a key component of its drive to deregulate and roll back environmental protections. “The reconsideration of the 2009 endangerment finding [of] greenhouse gas emissions is completely flawed,” said Jason Touw, who identified himself as a farmer and a registered Republican. “I want to say that while the public comment period is necessary under law, personally, I believe that the decision at EPA has already been made,” Touw said. “I hope I am wrong.”

This story was reported by Floodlight, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action.  It began with a lobbyist’s pitch. Tennessee Rep. Rusty Grills says the lobbyist proposed a simple idea: repeal the state’s requirement for reflective roofs on many commercial buildings. In late March, Grills and his fellow lawmakers voted to eliminate the rule, scrapping a measure meant to save energy, lower temperatures, and protect Tennesseans from extreme heat. Grills, a Republican, said he introduced the bill to give consumers more choice. It was another win for a well-organized lobbying campaign led by manufacturers of dark roofing materials. Industry representatives called the rollback in Tennessee a needed correction as more of the state moved into a hotter climate zone, expanding the reach of the state’s cool-roof rule. Critics called it dangerous and “deceptive.”  “The new law will lead to higher energy costs and greater heat-related illnesses and deaths,” state Rep. Harold Love and the Rev. Jon Robinson wrote in a statement.  It will, they warned, make Nashville, Memphis, and other cities hotter—particularly in underserved Black and Latino communities, where many struggle to pay their utility bills. Similar lobbying has played out in Denver, Baltimore, and at the national level.  Industry groups have questioned the decades-old science behind cool roofs, downplayed the benefits and warned of reduced choice and unintended consequences. “A one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t consider climate variation across different regions,” wrote Ellen Thorp, the executive director of the EPDM Roofing Association, which represents an industry built primarily on dark materials. But the weight of the scientific evidence is clear: On hot days, light-colored roofs can stay more than 50 degrees cooler than dark ones, helping cut energy use, curb greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce heat-related illnesses and deaths. One recent study found that reflective roofs could have saved the lives of more than 240 people who died in London’s 2018 heatwave.  At least eight states—and more than a dozen cities in other states—have adopted cool-roof requirements, according to the Smart Surfaces Coalition, a national group of public health and environmental groups that promote reflective roofs, trees, and other solutions to make cities healthier. Industry representatives lobbied successfully in recent months against expanding cool roof recommendations in national energy efficiency codes—the standards that many cities and states use to set building regulations. The stakes are high. As global temperatures rise and heat waves grow more deadly, the roofs over our heads have become battlefields in a consequential climate war. It’s happening as the Trump administration and Congress move to derail measures designed to make appliances and buildings more energy efficient.  The principle is simple: Light-colored roofs reflect sunlight, so buildings stay cooler. Dark ones absorb heat, driving up temperatures inside buildings and in the surrounding air.  Roofs comprise up to one-fourth of the surface area of major US cities, researchers say, so the color of roofs can make a big difference. Just how hot can dark roofs get? “You can physically burn your hands on these roofs,” said Bill Updike, who used to install solar panels and now works for the Smart Surfaces Coalition.  Study after study has confirmed the benefits of light-colored roofs, which typically cost no more than dark roofs. A study by the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that a cool roof on a home in central California saved 20 percent in annual energy costs. In a three-story rowhouse in Baltimore, Owen Henry discovered what a difference a cool roof can make. Living in a part of the city with few trees—and where summer temperatures often climb into the 90s—Henry wanted to trim his power bills and stay cooler while working in his third-floor office. So in 2023, he used $100 worth of white reflective roof paint to coat his roof. Henry said he and his wife immediately saw the indoor temperature drop. They reduced their electricity use by 24 percent.  Owen Henry shows off his white roof in Baltimore.Courtesy Owen Henry Known for its durability, a black synthetic rubber known as EPDM once dominated commercial roofing. But in recent years it has been surpassed by TPO, a plastic single-ply material which is typically white and is better suited to meet the growing demand for reflective roofs. Leading EPDM manufacturers—including Johns Manville, Carlisle SynTec, and Elevate, a division of the Swiss multinational company Holcim—have fought against regulations that threaten to further diminish their market share. Kurt Shickman, former executive director of the Global Cool Cities Alliance, said those companies have the money to hire top-notch lobbyists who know their way around hearing rooms—and who are on a first-name basis with decision makers. The EPDM industry has paid for research that has asserted that the impact of cool-roof mandates is inconclusive, and that insulation plays a bigger role in saving energy than cool roofs.  In an emailed response to Floodlight’s questions, Thorp argued that many of the studies cited to support cool roof mandates leave out important factors, such as local climate variations, roof type, tree canopy, and insulation thickness.  And she pointed to a recent study by Harvard researchers who concluded that white roofs and pavements may reduce precipitation, causing temperatures to unexpectedly increase in surrounding regions. But Haider Taha, a leading expert on urban heat, identified multiple flaws in the Harvard study, stating, “The study’s conclusions fail to provide actionable insights for urban cooling strategies or policymaking.”  When Baltimore debated a cool roof ordinance in 2022, Thorp’s group and the Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) lobbied hard against it, arguing that dark roofs are the most efficient choice in “northern climates like Baltimore.” In cold climates, industry representatives note, cool roofs can lead to higher winter heating bills. “Current research does not support the adoption of cool roofs as a measure that will achieve improved energy efficiency or reduced urban heat island,” Thorp wrote in a letter to one council member.  Multiple studies show otherwise. They’ve concluded that reflective roofs do save energy and cool cities by easing the “urban heat island effect”—the extra heat that gets trapped in many city neighborhoods because buildings and pavement soak up the sun.  Researchers have also found that even in most cold North American climates, the energy savings from cool roofs during warmer months outweighs any added heating costs in the winter.  Despite the opposition, Baltimore passed a cool-roof ordinance in 2023. Opponents of cool roof requirements like Baltimore’s say they oversimplify a complex issue. In an email to Floodlight, ARMA Executive Vice President Reed Hitchcock said such rules aren’t a “magic bullet.” He encouraged regulators to consider a “whole building approach”—one that weighs insulation, shading, and climate in addition to roof color to preserve design flexibility and consumer choice. Henry, the Baltimore homeowner, said he thinks the city’s ordinance will help all residents. “Phooey to any manufacturer that’s going to try and stop us from maintaining our community and making it a pleasant place to live,” he said. Elsewhere, the industry’s lobbyists have notched victories. They’ve lobbied successfully against a cool-roof ordinance in Denver and against stricter standards set by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)—a professional organization that creates model standards for city and state regulations. The current ASHRAE standard recommends reflective roofs on commercial buildings in US climate zones 1, 2, and 3—the country’s hottest regions. Those include most of the South, Hawaii, almost all of Texas, areas along the Mexican border and most of California. “We’ve been able to stop all of those…mandates from creeping into climate zone 4 and 5,” Thorp said in a recent interview.  Another group headed by Thorp—the Coalition for Sustainable Roofing—worked with the lobbyist to propose the bill that eliminated Tennessee’s cool-roof requirement.  That rule once applied to commercial buildings in just 14 of the state’s 95 counties, but an update to climate maps in 2021 expanded the requirements to 20 more counties, including its most populous urban area—Nashville. Brian Spear, a homeowner in Tempe, Arizona, has lived in the Phoenix area since the 1980s, back when there were fewer than 30 days a year when the temperature reached 110 degrees. Last year, there were 70 of those days—the highest on record—followed only by 2023, when there were 55 days of 110 degrees plus. These days, summer mornings start out scorching, he says, “and I feel like if you go outside between 10 and 4, it’s dangerous.” Spear says he’ll soon replace the aging roof on an Airbnb home that he owns. After weighing the usual concerns—cost and aesthetics—he has chosen a surface that he believes will help rather than harm: a gray metal roof with a reflective coating.  “If someone told me you couldn’t put a dark roof on your house…I’d understand,” he said. “I’m all about it being for the common good.”

This story was originally published by Vox.com, and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The Supreme Court handed down an opinion on Thursday that reads like it was written by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, the authors of an influential book arguing that excessive regulation of land use and development has made it too difficult to build housing and infrastructure in the United States. (Ezra is also a co-founder of Vox.) Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado concerns a proposed railroad line that would run through 88 miles of Utah, connecting the state’s oil-rich Uinta Basin to the broader national rail network. The line is expected to make it easier to transport crude oil extracted in this region to refineries elsewhere in the country. The court’s opinion in Seven County places strict new limits on a federal law that a lower court relied upon to prevent this line from being constructed—limits that should make it easier for developers to build large-scale projects. Before this rail project can move forward, it must be approved by the Surface Transportation Board. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), moreover, this board is required to produce an environmental impact statement, which identifies any significant environmental effects from the rail project as well as ways to mitigate those effects. > The court’s concurring opinions mirror a growing bipartisan consensus that > NEPA has become too much of a burden to development. Significantly, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh explains in the Court’s Seven County opinion, “NEPA imposes no substantive environmental obligations or restrictions” on the board or on any other federal agency. It requires agencies to identify potential environmental harms that could arise out of development projects that they approve, but once those harms are identified in an environmental impact statement, the agency is free to decide that the benefits of the project outweigh those harms. Nevertheless, NEPA is often a significant hindrance to land development because litigants who oppose a particular project—be they environmental groups or just private citizens looking to shut development down—can often sue, claiming that the federal agency that must approve the project did not prepare an adequate environmental impact statement. As a result, Kavanaugh writes in his Seven County opinion, “litigation-averse agencies…take ever more time…to prepare ever longer EISs for future projects.” Indeed, the Seven County case itself is a poster child for just how burdensome NEPA can be. The Surface Transportation Board produced an environmental impact statement that is more than 3,600 pages, and it goes into great detail about the rail line’s potential impact on topics ranging from water quality to vulnerable species, such as the greater sage-grouse. Nevertheless, a federal appeals court blocked the project because it determined that this 3,600-page report did not adequately discuss the environmental impacts of making it easier to extract oil from the Uinta Basin. The appeals court reasoned that the agency needed to consider not just the direct environmental impacts of the rail line itself but also the impact of increased drilling and oil refining after the project is complete. All eight of the justices that heard the Seven County case (Justice Neil Gorsuch was recused) agreed that this appeals court decision was wrong, although Kavanaugh’s majority opinion for himself and his Republican colleagues is broader than a separate opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The justices’ agreement in Seven County, moreover, mirrors a growing bipartisan consensus that NEPA has become too much of a burden to development. As Kavanaugh notes in his opinion, President Joe Biden signed legislation in 2023 that limits environmental impact statements to 150 pages and requires them to be completed in two years or less. Still, Kavanaugh’s opinion goes even further, repeatedly instructing courts to be deferential to an agency’s decision to greenlight a project after producing an environmental impact statement. One striking thing about Kavanaugh’s opinion is how closely it mirrors the rhetoric of liberal proponents of an “abundance” agenda, which seeks to raise American standards of living by promoting large infrastructure projects. These proponents often claim that well-meaning laws intended to advance liberal values can have the opposite effect when they impose too many burdens on developers. As Kavanaugh argues, NEPA has “transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool” that even stymies clean energy projects ranging “from wind farms to hydroelectric dams, from solar farms to geothermal wells.” Broadly speaking, Kavanaugh’s opinion imposes two limits on future NEPA lawsuits. The first is simply a blunt statement that courts should be highly reluctant to second-guess an agency’s decision that it has conducted an adequate environmental review. As Kavanaugh writes, “the bedrock principle of judicial review in NEPA cases can be stated in a word: Deference.” Kavanaugh also criticizes the appeals court for blocking one project—the Utah rail line—because of the environmental impacts of “geographically separate projects that may be built” as a result of that rail line, such as an oil refinery elsewhere in the country. As Kavanaugh writes, “the effects from a separate project may be factually foreseeable, but that does not mean that those effects are relevant to the agency’s decisionmaking process or that it is reasonable to hold the agency responsible for those effects.” Both Kavanaugh and the separate opinion by Sotomayor also point to the fact that “the Board here possesses no regulatory authority over those separate projects.” That is, while the transportation board is tasked with approving rail lines, other agencies are in charge of regulating projects, such as oil wells or refineries. As Sotomayor writes, an agency is not required to consider environmental harms that it has “no authority to prevent.” So Seven County is a fairly significant victory for land developers as well as for traditional libertarians and for liberal proponents of an abundance agenda. It significantly weakens a statute that has long been a bête noire of developers.