Climate

The second Trump administration has been under fire for several stories as of late, and the recent development in Birmingham, Alabama, isn’t changing that precedent.

Jilisa Milton, Executive Director of GASP (Greater Birmingham Alliance to Stop Pollution), received a grant termination letter from the EPA under the Trump administration, revoking a $75,000 air monitoring grant awarded in 2023. The grant aimed to help African-American residents in North Birmingham monitor pollution from nearby industrial plants, particularly in neighborhoods designated as Superfund sites due to hazardous waste contamination.

Without these essential funds, Birmingham won’t be able to measure its air quality, and its majority African-American population will suffer from heavy pollution once again. 

The Facts

Environmental racism refers to the unequal access to a clean environment and basic environmental resources based on race. Climate issues disproportionately affect those who suffer from socioeconomic inequalities, including many people of color. For example, the U.S. oil and gas facilities release about 9 million tons of methane gas and other toxic chemicals into the atmosphere annually, and more than one million African Americans live within a half-mile of these natural gas facilities. 

This air pollution causes innumerable health concerns, which also disproportionately affect African-American children. For example, approximately 13.4% of African American children suffer from asthma as compared to only 7.3% of White children. This is all to say, environmental racism is a real issue, and is not unique to Birmingham.

On the topic of Birmingham, the “Pittsburgh of the South” has dealt with significant pollution for more than half a century. The smoke and smog only started dissipating after the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970. Even after the act, many corporations in Birmingham still violated air pollution permits and endangered the citizens of Birmingham—the Blue Stone Coke plant in North Birmingham, for example, was only fined in 2022, after 50 years of ignoring pollution legislation. 

The Question of Why

When Milton received the grant termination letter, she wasn’t surprised. She suspected that, due to the language used in the grant, highlighting its intent to help Black people, Trump’s administration would eventually come after it. Milton further said that, “Revoking this support sends a message that the health of Black, Brown, and low-income communities in Alabama is disposable.”

Unfortunately, GASP isn’t the only environmental justice program in Alabama being cut. Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced that it was ending a landmark settlement designed to enhance wastewater treatment services for majority-Black communities in Alabama affected by raw sewage, labeling the agreement an “unlawful DEI and environmental justice initiative.” The Trump administration has had a history of rolling back both DEI and Environmental Justice initiatives, and these developments in Alabama simply continue that trend.

Looking Forward

GASP does plan to appeal the termination to EPA officials, but Milton doubts the agency will change its mind. The hope is that, even if GASP isn’t able to have their grant reissued under the current administration, they can still keep providing their services through donations and charitable organizations.

The Nation Faces Energy Crossroads

Every nation is defined not only by its military or industrial capabilities but also by its ability to be self-reliant. It’s easy to forget how much our lives depend on a constant supply of energy, from brewing that first cup of coffee in the morning to using ChatGPT on our laptops. Now more than ever, energy isn’t just a convenience — it’s a matter of national security. 

As the world experiences a monumental leap in artificial intelligence, energy becomes more of a fundamental necessity than it's ever been. Over the past several fiscal years, the United States has not only met but consistently surpassed its energy requirements. Yet, this is only the beginning. With the rapid expansion of data centers across the nation and a wave of new technologies on the horizon, our energy requirements can only be expected to rise. 

Various studies indicate that energy consumption could rise between 25% and 50% by 2040, thus highlighting a vital necessity for energy across the nation. But here’s the thing—meeting these demands isn’t as simple as pouring more resources into our existing non-renewable energy infrastructure. As the consequences of climate change become increasingly potent, experts warn that immediate action is needed to break the negative feedback loop driving global warming. The path forward means shifting away from our dependence on greenhouse gases and working toward a cleaner, more resilient grid. 

From a purely environmental standpoint, the importance of clean energy has never been greater. Among the policies that catalyze growth in the renewable energy sector, net metering stands out as the most promising solution. Research indicates there are more benefits — it reveals net metering beyond its environmental benefits—it reveals a potential for increased energy independence, economic growth, expansion of local jobs, strengthened grid resilience, and long-term savings for consumers. 

Net metering is a policy that incentivizes energy customers to invest in renewable energy systems by allowing them to receive credit for the excess energy they sell back into the grid.

A System That Shortchanges Solar Customers

How does renewable energy work right now for the state of Tennessee? The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is the primary utility in the state and compensates individuals for their excess solar power at an avoided cost rate. This means that homeowners usually receive 2 to 4 cents for every single kilowatt-hour they send to the grid. 

Meanwhile, the electricity people pay from TVA is substantially more: around 12 cents per kilowatt hour for homeowners and roughly 11.87 cents per kilowatt hour for business owners. This is stark. In other states, people usually get paid the same rate they pay for power — this is what’s known as net metering. Tennessee’s approach ranks among that nation’s most restrictive. 

Tennessee’s Solar Potential

Tennessee receives 4.25 to 4.75 sun hours a day. That’s enough to make solar panels a valuable investment. A typical home solar setup, about 6 to 8 kilowatts, can generate 8,000 to 11,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year. Data from EnergySage shows the average electricity customer in Tennessee uses 17,196 kilowatt-hours annually, meaning that solar can cover a substantial portion of all needs.  

During summer, solar panels produce more electricity than a house or business can ever use. This extra power is very valuable because it flows into the grid when demand peaks. The timing is ideal.

The Economics Tell a Sharp Story

• For a 6 kW solar setup, it costs $18,000 before incentives and $12,600 after the federal tax credit (30% of the cost)
• People might send about 3,000 kilowatt-hours of extra power to the grid annually.
• TVA compensates for that, but at a rock-bottom rate. TVA pays roughly 2 cents per kWh, amounting to a compensation of $60.
• At this rate, it would take more than 210 years to pay the system off. That’s unrealistic.

But, if Tennessee had net metering like how 40 other states are in this moment:

• Residents would get credited for all extra electricity sent to the grid at the same rate they pay for electricity (about 12 cents). 
• A homeowner with 3,000 kWh of excess power would get $360.
• The total annual savings could reach $1,200 to 1,500. 
• The total time to pay off the system would be 8 to 10 years. That’s a real difference.

Perfect Alignment with Grid Demands

Tennessee’s electricity demand peaks during summer afternoons because that is when people turn up their AC. That’s exactly when solar panels are pumping out the most power. Every megawatt of solar added reduces the grid’s need for additional capacity at these times. This alignment helps TVA save money and avoid spending on expensive new power plants. The match between solar and grid demand could not be better. 

Tennessee Trails Behind Neighbors

Tennessee is clearly behind. Among our neighbors’ solar production, the numbers are striking:

State 

Solar Capacity (2023, MW)

Virginia

6,009.35

North Carolina

7,356

Georgia

7,281

Tennessee

903

In 2024, Tennessee ranked last among all U.S states for total installed solar capacity. The state also ranked last for new solar installations. Solar energy makes up just 1.65% of all electricity generated in the state, very low compared with neighboring states. 

Chattanooga Shows the Way Forward

Chattanooga’s Electric Power Board (EPB) has already led the way with modern energy infrastructure, installing smart meters that have connected all homes/businesses in EPB’s 600-square-mile area to the Smart Grid Management System. EPB also has advanced voltage controls, helping earn Chattanooga recognition for having one of the world's fastest internet connections. These advancements in Chattanooga’s energy grid create a perfect environment for net metering success. 

Chattanooga is uniquely positioned: the city receives more annual sunlight than most cities across the country, indicating great potential for solar energy. This isn’t hypothetical — the success of EPB’s community solar farm (Solar Share), located in downtown Chattanooga, demonstrates that solar energy works well in Chattanooga. The popularity of EPB’s Solar Share program demonstrates Chattanooga residents’ interest in renewable energy investment. Net metering would give them the practical means to participate in this clean energy revolution.

The city has the necessary ingredients for net metering success.

Economic Benefits Extend Statewide

Clean energy is already important in Tennessee. In 2022, the sector employed more than 82,000 people and added $56 billion to the state’s Gross Domestic Product. Each megawatt of solar creates about 5.5 jobs and brings in $1.2 to 1.5 million in investment. States with net metering see much faster solar growth and a significant increase in jobs. The benefits ripple compoundly throughout the economy.

Multiple Policy Options Available

Net metering could be implemented in several ways:

• Full retail rate credit (1:1)
• Time of use rates (higher pay during peak sunlight hours)
• Value of solar rates (based on benefits on the grid)

Research shows that full retail credit is the best way to start until solar makes up at least 10 to 15 percent of the grid. 

Addressing Utility Concerns

Studies show that solar on the grid does not cause problems when proper rules are established. Tennessee is projected to have among the lowest amount of solar installed compared with six Southeastern states, so the cost to people who don’t install solar is minimal. Utilities can protect their revenue through fixed charges and by saving money on peak demand periods.

Some critics argue that an influx of solar energy on the grid can create challenges for utilities. But studies and examples from other states show that when clear rules and best practices are established, solar adoption doesn’t impact grid reliability. Moreover, utility companies can utilize various tools to maintain financial stability, such as implementing reasonable fixed charges and capitalizing on cost savings during periods of peak electricity demand, when solar production is typically the highest.

The Path Forward

Tennessee’s current solar compensation policies pose barriers to renewable energy investment, thereby limiting economic opportunities and progress toward achieving its energy goals. The state has outstanding resources, existing grid infrastructure, and consumer interest. However, Tennessee has ranked last nationally in solar installations because of inadequate policy frameworks.

Net metering would bring Tennessee in line with the rest of the nation, unlock private investment, and create more jobs. All without any cost to taxpayers. 

For policymakers, the choice is stark. Continue with the current policy, which limits economic development and innovations, or implement a proven strategy that harnesses the state’s natural advantages for economic growth. Net metering is the smart policy for Tennessee’s future. It’s an opportunity the state cannot afford to miss.

Tennessee Lags in Solar Energy as Climate Stakes Rise

Behind the dopamine-infused assortment of digital-clothing algorithms on Shein and beyond, the latest sampling of generative artificial intelligence has taken reign. Notifying Shein where to increase supply and demand, and analyzing customer preferences, AI has become a tool for businesses to use. Now, at the crossroads behind fashion, the environment and new technology, the targeted use of AI sparks controversy for industry experts. 

As AI remains a fledgling force under legal systems and entrepreneurship, the use of its impact on the fashion industry remains unknown. While some propose that AI could be used as an altruistic, positive tool with a strong moral imperative, others face concerns about the use of generative use of algorithms, tackling and fueling the beast that is already the fast-fashion industry. 

What is Fast Fashion? 

“Fast-fashion” refers to the industry of quickly produced and discarded cheap clothing, made predominantly from polyester plastics and unsustainable fossil fuels. Brands like Shein, H&M, Zara and—now bankrupt again—Forever 21, are some of the world's largest polluters, which contribute to around 92 million tons per year in textile waste alone and act as a major contributor to carbon emissions. Environmental aspects aside, the constant violation of garment workers' rights through unlivable wages and working conditions remains a major issue in our global supply chain. 

Concerns/Issues with AI and Fashion

The first major caveat is copyright in the artistic sphere. Shein, perhaps the face of the fast fashion industry in the 21st century, has already been known to steal artists' works. Now, with the rise of intellectual property debates over the usage of AI, the waters become even greyer than prior. AI has been well-established as a threat to creativity across disciplines, due to the easily accessible artistic possibilities. Fashion is a niche world of copyright due to the subjectivity of what belongs to what designer, and AI analyzing and using these deigns raises major red flags, challenging what copyright is in the creative fashion world. 

The second major concern is the use of analyzing customers' data through consumers' interactions with clothing and creating a powerful algorithm that strengthens the sales of these producers. Through these corporate giants using personalized AI algorithms and garnering “recommended styles,” this may be the start to a new era of original, strong marketing tactics. Inherently, this is not a negative thing, but the use may have environmental consequences difficult to control. 

As shown, the fast fashion industry’s tumultuous impact on the environment has been well-documented. At this turning point in history, AI could increase the negative effects at light speed or, on the flip side, carve paths for greater environmentally conscious ways of producing. 

Possible Upsides

AI can be championed as a tool to identify the structure of an organization's carbon footprint in order to reduce it. The technology has the potential to not only increase business sustainability and stability, but also environmental protection as well, by bridging what is most effective to businesses. 

Since AI’s inception into fast fashion companies, however, it has only been used as a catalyst, increasing sales, and likewise, leaving more implications for the environment. 

In conclusion, legal clarity, prevention and awareness of these technological advancements must be at the forefront of fast-fashion. The possibilities are a two-sided coin, with one leaning towards exasperating an already out-of-control industry, or the other using the technology to create positive, humanitarian policies. Regardless, the impact on both the planet through textile waste and carbon emissions—and the garment workers behind these clothes—must be taken into heavy consideration as a new wave of legal considerations culminates.

The magnitude of climate change continues to unfold, dominating news headlines worldwide. As the continuation of wildfires and the melting of the polar ice cap causes sea levels to rise, it becomes clear that these impacts are no longer distant threats but immediate challenges. Alongside the visible threats to our environment, a hidden crisis is developing—the growing mental health impact of climate change.

Understanding Climate Anxiety

What’s often referred to as “climate anxiety” reflects the emotional distress tied to the growing consequences of climate change on both the natural world and everyday life. As coverage of environmental disasters becomes more frequent, so does the sense of uncertainty and fear about the planet’s future. With world leaders slow to respond, it’s no surprise that many individuals are expressing concern about the perilous state of our planet. Unlike traditional anxiety disorders, climate anxiety comes from awareness of large-scale, long-term risks. A global study of around 10,000 participants across ten countries found that nearly 60% reported being “very or extremely” worried about climate change, and two-thirds said it affected their daily functioning. This is not merely individual fear but part of a collective psychological response to environmental uncertainty.

Who’s Most Affected and Why

Young people in particular are more susceptible to mental health issues due to climate change. In the United States, Gen Z and Millennials report experiencing more emotional distress related to climate change than older generations, with Latino adults reporting the highest levels of distress across all age groups. This mirrors global patterns, where communities that have been historically marginalized or are located in high-risk areas often face more natural disasters and have fewer resources to recover. Additionally, youth have grown up with constant widespread access to information through their education, social media feeds, and daily news. This constant exposure increases awareness but also emotional burden.

Trauma Linked to Climate Disasters

When a hurricane destroys a home or an unexpected wildfire forces evacuation, the mental consequences can be severe. Direct exposure to floods, fires, or hurricanes can leave a lasting mental impact. After the 2020 Australian wildfires, residents in affected regions experienced significantly increased rates of PTSD, depression, and anxiety, especially among those who lost their homes or faced emergency relocation. Extreme weather conditions led to elevated suicide rates in farming regions facing drought, specifically low-income areas. These experiences go beyond the initial damage and highlight the ongoing stress caused by environmental changes.

Emotional Fatigue and Civic Action

For some, constant exposure to climate-related threats can lead to emotional numbness or disengagement. On the other hand, others report a drive to take action. Individuals experiencing climate anxiety are notably more incentivized to take collective action, from protests to contacting officials. This contrast shows how emotional responses to climate change can shape civic behavior in powerful ways. While some may shut down due to overwhelm, others channel their anxiety into activism. When supported, climate distress can become a motivating force for social and political engagement. 

Towards Integrated Solutions

Amid escalating environmental challenges, mental health providers are experimenting with new approaches to address climate distress. Some of these methods include group therapy focused on environmental grief and “green prescriptions,” encouraging time in nature. This approach is supported by a study from the Netherlands that found increased access to green spaces correlated with a measurable reduction in antidepressant use. Communities are incorporating mental health considerations into climate resilience strategies. This recognizes that the emotional impacts of the crisis are as critical as the environmental challenges presented. These efforts show that tackling climate change means caring for both the environment and people’s mental health. Supporting mental well-being along with environmental action helps communities become stronger and better prepared.

Looking Ahead

Acknowledging the emotional consequences of climate change is increasingly seen as a necessary step in addressing the issue as a whole. Including mental health in climate responses reflects the interconnected nature of challenges in the modern world and encourages more thoughtful, comprehensive solutions.

Greta came to Israel with a message—but left with a deportation.

Around 2 weeks ago, Swedish environmentalist and political activist Greta Thunberg was deported from Israel after their navy prevented her and a group of pro-Palestinian activists from sailing to Gaza on a ship with humanitarian aid. Though the activists may have been acting with good intentions, the Israeli Foreign Ministry dedicated itself to preventing any ship from reaching Gaza, giving their military permission to use any means necessary to stop naval blockade breaches. Greta’s expulsion from Israel sends a chilling message to political activists all over the world and raises questions about democracy and the geopolitics of protesting. 

The Story of Greta Thunberg

Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg has been in activism ever since she was a kid. At just 15, she organized a school strike on climate change, protesting outside the Swedish parliament every day and calling for stronger action on climate change. Thunberg’s youth and straightforward manner helped her relate and connect with people of all ages and backgrounds, which quickly put her into a position of great power and influence.

 A year later, at the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit, she delivered an inflammatory speech admonishing the world’s leaders for their inaction and indifference to environmental deterioration. After her high school graduation in 2023, she has only continued to advocate for the issues she is passionate about, using peaceful protests and civil disobedience tactics to mobilize her supporters. Though she has received lots of criticism, some due to her age, but she has also received numerous awards from Forbes and Time. 

Greta has never been the type of person to let criticism affect her actions or settle down for world leaders, and this latest situation just cements that fact.

The Price of Aid

In her latest mission, Greta and 11 other activists sailed on The Madleen, a yacht given to them by the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, on June 10th to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza in protest of current Israeli treatment of Palestinians. 5 of the other activists alongside her refused to sign the deportation order, condemning the Israeli government’s action as illegal. Though Greta was released on June 10th, all the activists were only released by June 16th. The activists said that they were trying to deliver a symbolic amount of aid and that the demonstration was mainly to protest the Israeli government.

Israeli government officials have a very different point of view. The Israeli foreign ministry condemned the act as a pro-Hamas stunt, with Foreign Minister Gideon Saar saying that the ridiculous protests' meager amount of aid had less than a truckload. Furthermore, according to Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, the detainees were shown a screening of the “horror film documenting the October 7 massacre” carried out by Hamas but refused to continue watching.

The Aftermath

As a result, Greta and her actions have once again been thrust into the international spotlight, with many continuing to speak out about the event. President Trump stated after the incident that he thinks she “has to go to an anger management class.” Greta would respond, saying, "I think the world needs a lot more young angry women to be honest, especially with everything going on right now." The FFC continues to condemn Israel’s actions as an illegal kidnapping due to its having no legal authority to detain international volunteers on international waters. Amnesty International, a global human rights NGO, also deplores the detention of the activists.

In the end, Greta may have been removed from Israel, but the attention she brought back to the conflict raging across the Gaza Strip lingers. The world is watching, and only time will tell how the future is affected.

The 30th annual Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP30) is set for November 2025 in Belem, Brazil, and it faces unprecedented challenges in meeting climate targets, particularly the limitation of temperature rises. An important checkpoint under the 2015 Paris Agreement, the COP30 is framed amid rising scientific warnings that the 1.5°C threshold, designed as an effort under the COP21, will be breached. It also comes under the weight of geopolitical division, specifically amidst oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia.

With only 13 out of the obligated 195 countries having submitted their NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) in February, many countries have broken agreed deadlines of the five-year cycles and undermined trust in the process. This analysis examines whether COP30 can overcome challenges surrounding political deal deadlock and logistical failures undermining credibility, conference legitimacy, as well as the feasibility of Brazil’s push to reset the climate agenda. 

Saudi-Led Obstruction Deepens Diplomatic Gridlock

The challenges became apparent even before the summit, as preparatory negotiations revealed deep divisions.

Oil-exporting countries, led by Saudi Arabia’s strong and recurring pushback during the meetings in Bonn, blocked preparatory talks on phasing out fossil fuels. Procedural fights led by the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) coalition pushed to add contentious new agenda items involving climate finance and tariffs, compelling a full two-day delay to the agenda. It is reported by delegates in Baku that Saudi opposition was unprecedented, with procedural objections blocking almost every set of talks and Saudi diplomats blocking negotiating texts that were years in the making. 

Conversely, during preparatory talks, Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), representing the interests of small nations, accused negotiations that downplayed the anticipated breach of the 1.5°C target to be responsible for an “attack on science”. They are now calling for the Warsaw International Mechanism(WIM) at COP30 for an action-oriented plan that emphasizes accessible, sufficient, and appropriately targeted support towards vulnerable populations. 

Talks coming up towards COP30 will further expose the already wide gap between major fossil fuel producers and the states most vulnerable to climate change. It will be up to the COP30 Presidency to carefully manage these disagreements and hopefully forge a compromise that advances climate ambition while accommodating political realities on all sides.

Belem’s Infrastructure Crisis Risks Undermining COP30

Beyond these diplomatic tensions, COP30 faces a more practical crisis that threatens to exclude key voices from negotiations entirely.

Logistical breakdowns are hindering COP30’s legitimacy. Belém experiences severe shortages in terms of accommodation as hotels have been quickly sold out, and alternative options such as cruise ship cabins cost up to $1300 per night. Panama’s envoy Juan Carlos Monterrey warns COP30 could become “ the most inaccessible COP in recent memory.” Even wealthier delegations are struggling with no delegation POLITICO spoke to at Bonn having booked accommodations by mid-2025. The African Group of Negotiators (AGN), the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and the Least Developed Countries (LDC) bloc have formally complained about the astronomical costs of the event which threaten to exclude more vulnerable minority stakeholders from participating adequately in negotiations. 

With focus and confidence in Brazil’s capacity as host eroding, this uncertainty has already distracted negotiators in Bonn. However, Brazilian officials, notably COP30 CEO Ana Toni have asserted that solutions are in progress. With 172 million reais allocated towards the Tourism General Fund , Brazil has started the construction of hotels and has started the funding of existing hotels. The Brazilian government has also been putting up efforts to curb price gouging, with special Secretary of COP30 Valter Correia stating that the Ministry of Justice is assessing price inflation and those found liable could face fines and lose their licenses. 

Brazilian leadership, such as Correia, affirms with confidence that there will be enough rooms to accommodate all delegations. If this problem is not solved, however, it could create damaging perceptions of elitism and undermine the multilateral consensus that the Paris Agreement stands on, 

Brazil's Push to Reset the Agenda Through Implementation

Against this backdrop of diplomatic deadlock and logistical chaos, Brazil is attempting to salvage the summit through ambitious new initiatives. Hosting it in a crucial carbon sink that is the Amazon, Brazil is planning to push to reset the climate agenda through introducing new initiatives surrounding fossil fuels and food systems.

Brazil’s environment minister Marina Silva proposes that a formal roadmap culminate to phase out fossil fuels. Silva specifies that the roadmap, unlike those declared in COP28, should not merely reaffirm broad intentions but should define specific operational steps, which could include the setting of clear timelines and milestones, measurable targets for production and consumption reduction, and coordinated international mechanisms.

On top of the roadmap, Brazil advocates for mandated groups to oversee compliance. Brazil proposes the creation of a “Circle of Presidencies”, a group of the previous nine COP presidencies and current UN presidencies on biodiversity and desertification to advise implementation, while COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago emphasizes his belief that using international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank is necessary as levers for enforcement.  

Alongside these international proposals, Brazil is also acting at home. Food systems and the prevention of food waste are expected to be key topics at COP30. As the host country, Brazil is the leader poised to address this much-overlooked challenge. Food waste contributes to 10% of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions, and its impact ranges between 20 million and 55 million tonnes annually. Thus, Brazil has also already begun incorporating food waste reduction in domestic policy, and is on path to cut down on methane emissions and hunger. They are set to showcase and discuss this initiative to push food waste up the global agenda and will reflect how addressing food systems will be both an environmental and humanitarian solution.

However, it should be noted that Brazil's climate leadership still faces challenges with credibility. Just months before hosting COP30, Brazil auctioned off 172 oil exploration blocks covering 145,600 km², with 19 blocks awarded in the environmentally sensitive Foz do Amazonas Basin - the first such offering since 2003. This happened without prior consultation with Indigenous communities, and it highlights the contradiction between Brazil’s international climate diplomacy and its domestic fuel expansion at home.

The Road Beyond COP30

COP30 comes with a culmination of political deadlock, logistical shortcomings, and credibility challenges for Brazil and the greater climate process. Political deadlock stalls the negotiation process, and Belem’s accessibility problems marginalize the voices of vulnerable communities. Brazil, although pushing their climate agenda through ambitious plans, is hampered by internal contradictions. If COP30 is led to demonstrate concrete implementation mechanisms despite these obstacles, it will boost the legitimacy and inclusiveness of future climate governance.

This year’s United Nations Ocean Conference was held in Nice, France from June 9th to June 13th. The conference was co-hosted by Costa Rica and France, and it brought together over 55 heads of state. Overall, having around 15,000 participants and 450 side events, the conference was definitely one to remember. Though the conference celebrated many of the international scene’s accomplishments, Pacific Island leaders expressed concern that global action is not matching the urgency of climate-change-induced sea-level rise. 

For Pacific Island nations, sea-level rise and climate change are not just a harmful environmental risk, but a possibly fatal security risk. Pacific Island countries are pushing for change, so how will the UN respond?

The History Behind the Advocacy

Pacific Island nations have been advocating for years for the world to pay attention to climate change and put more effort into addressing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Tuvalu, the 189th member to join the UN, has been a very instrumental player in emphasizing the effect climate change has given the country’s vulnerability to its impacts. For example, in June 2007, Prime Minister Apisai Lelemia wrote in the UN Chronicle that climate change was the "one issue that strikes at the heart of my nation." On the 29th of September, 2013, Deputy Prime Minister Sakaio concluded his speech to the General Debate of the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly with the words, "please save Tuvalu against climate change. Save Tuvalu in order to save yourself, the world." 

They haven’t been the only players though. On the 21st of September, 2023, the Presidents of Kiribati, Timor-Leste, Micronesia, and Nauru called for accelerated climate action, urging major emitters worldwide to commit to substantial reductions in emissions by 2030. On the 14th of February, 2023, Vanuatu requested an International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the obligations of States with respect to climate change. The reason for these cases is because Pacific Island nations have gotten tired of the empty promises proposed by the leading emissions emitters, and are still looking for real action.

The Problem and the Effects

At its core, the problem is climate-change induced sea-level rise. As a result, coastlines are vanishing, territories are washing away, and resources, like freshwater and farmland, have become scarce while masses of people are displaced. As this issue gets more severe every year, it is not just a nation’s safety that is put at risk, but its statehood. For example, Tuvalu Prime Minister Feleti Teo warned last year that, by 2050, over 50 percent of Tuvalu’s territory will be uninhabitable. 

The disappearance of land isn’t the only issue. Most Pacific Island countries and territories rely heavily on their fishing industry to bring in revenue. Kiribati earns 71 percent of its government revenue from fishing fleets; Tuvalu 54 percent, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia 48 percent; Nauru 31 percent. The Cook Islands earn 11 percent and the Solomon Islands earn 10 percent from their fishing industry. If essential fish like tuna are repulsed by the warmer water temperatures, these nations would face decreases in both their food supply and job market, compromising their economies. 

Another problem Pacific Island countries are calling attention to is deep-sea mining. Deep-sea mining is extremely harmful to fragile ocean ecosystems and leads to biodiversity loss, and Pacific leaders called for a moratorium on the activity. 

Where do we go from here?

Pacific leaders aren’t looking for handouts; they want the nations that are causing their plight to take responsibility and draft international law safeguarding the statehood and maritime boundaries of Pacific Island Countries in the case that these islands eventually become uninhabitable. 

The US has just recently fast-tracked a deep-sea mining operation. In response, the President of Palau said, “It’s our job now as the Pacific to stand up and say, this direction could be detrimental to all of us that depend on the Pacific Ocean and the ocean, and we ask that you act responsibly for humankind and for the Pacific.” Pacific Islanders have always stood up for the environment, and it is high time the UN recognizes and rewards their efforts. 

In a time of global turmoil and regional wars, diplomacy cannot be left to sink underneath the waves. The UN must rise to meet the challenge and every country must adopt tangible measures at the national level if the world hopes to save Pacific Island countries from total collapse.

120 Texans dead. Entire communities decimated by a devastating flood. The warnings came, so why did the nation still incur such a large loss? 

As the Guadalupe River rose 26 feet in just 45 minutes and lives were lost, the spotlight has been thrust not upon the climate, but on the Trump Administration, and budget cuts that might have weakened the infrastructure necessary to prepare for such a disaster. The Trump Admin, as per their “Project 2025” playbook, has long been in opposition with the National Weather Service, or the NWS, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. Keith Nagy, a spokesperson for former Florida emergency management director Jared Moskowitz said, “while Project 2025 does not call for the complete dismantling of the NOAA, it intends to undermine the agency’s independence from the executive branch and eliminate many of its internal departments.”Staff cuts have been in effect for multiple months now, starting with the review of NOAA DEI policies and the firing of ~880 probationary employees in February to over 500 buyouts and 40% of forecast offices being understaffed in May. It is time to ask an important question: Were we prepared?

The Texan Floods

On the day of and the day after Independence Day, rapid floods left over 160 citizens missing across Central Texas, 36 of whom were children. Only 40 people were found, with the rest pronounced dead. Texas Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd said on July 4th that, “everybody got the forecast from the National Weather Service,” but, “It did not predict the amount of rain that we saw." Though the NWS’ regional offices issued multiple flash flood warnings starting from July 2nd through the morning of July 4th, most of the warnings were sent from 11 PM the night of July 3rd to 4 am the morning of July 4th. Obviously, most citizens weren’t awake to witness and respond to these urgent warnings. Even the citizens who were awake didn’t see a drop of rain until the river rose rapidly from 4 am to 6 am.   Immediately after the incident, full effort was put into finding missing citizens and mobilizing the clean-up effort. 

The Great Debate

After the torrents, local officials and citizens heavily criticized the NWS on what they described as inadequate forecasts. Democrats in the majority Republican state quickly connected the Trump Administration’s NWS staff cuts to the inadequate response before and during the disaster. For example, in a recent interview, Rep. Lloyd Doggett said that it was, “totally unnecessary to have this big loss, so many lives, so many children’s lives taken when we have the technological means to do something about it.” Current and former NWS officials defended the agency, pointing to urgent flash flood warnings issued in the pre-dawn hours before the river rose. Though again, these pre-dawn warnings weren’t as helpful, as most were asleep during this critical period. Under the Trump Administration, the NWS lost hundreds of employees, with staffing decreased by around 20% at nearly half of their 122 field offices. Additionally, many of these field offices stopped operating 24/7 after the budget cuts. Many of the more experienced, veteran forecasters were pushed into early retirement. This wasn’t a concern unrelated to the problem either, as even the Austin/San Antonio NWS office, which oversees the devastated Kerr County area, had 6 out of their 27 roles empty. One of these roles was their lead warning coordinator, who left the office after 17 years because of internal retirement pressure. Both federal officials and other NWS officials continue to warn that blind budget cuts in the name of government efficiency could overwork existing staff and exacerbate existing problems within the weather system. 

The View from the White House

The White House pushed back this last Monday on claims that staffing cuts to the NWS by the Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.) contributed to or exacerbated the fatal floods. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that the NWS delivered critical alerts and labeled the disaster “an act of God,” rejecting suggestions of federal fault while introducing a religious innuendo. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had also called the accusations that the Trump Administration had fired any meteorologists as “fake news” at 2 separate congressional hearings last month. For some context, the NWS is a department of the NOAA, and the NOAA works under the US Department of Commerce. Commerce spokesperson Kristen Eichamer also responded to the criticisms of the NWS being understaffed, saying the “National Hurricane Center is fully staffed to meet this season’s demand, and any recruitment efforts are simply meant to deepen our talent pool.”

According to all of the evidence, it does seem as if budget cuts have had an effect on the operations of the NWS. Though critical alerts were sent in, evacuation commands came in much too late, and lives were lost as a result. Though it is still mostly unclear if this was an isolated incident, or if it is telling of a downwards trend in the effectiveness of the NWS. Only time will tell.

Major global powers are now navigating the intersection between the growing urgency of climate change and the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence. As AI becomes a key driver of economic innovation and public policy, an important question arises: can it be used meaningfully to advance climate goals, and if so, how do we ensure it’s applied wisely? From helping manage energy systems to monitoring environmental changes, AI is already playing a role. Yet its expansion brings new concerns, including high energy consumption, unequal access to data, and the risk of climate efforts being misrepresented. As nations work toward decarbonization, these complexities are becoming harder to ignore.

The Good and Bad of Using AI for Climate Action

AI is becoming a powerful tool in the fight against climate change. It’s being used in areas like smart energy use, tracking emissions, farming, water safety, and disaster warnings. These tools can help cut emissions, make systems more efficient, and help communities adapt. For instance, AI can help manage renewable energy by predicting demand and cutting waste, and it can help businesses measure their carbon footprints more easily and affordably. But there are also risks. Training and running large AI models uses a lot of electricity and creates significant emissions. If AI continues to grow without the tech industry switching to clean energy fast enough, it could actually make the climate crisis worse. 

Carbon Emissions

Running and training AI systems create significant carbon emissions. For example, training just one large model like BLOOM produced at least 25 tonnes of CO₂, and up to 50 tonnes over its full life cycle, which is about the same as dozens of transatlantic flights. AI is also using more electricity. By 2025, AI could take up as much as 20% of all data center energy globally, using around 82 terawatt-hours. This is similar to what Switzerland uses in a year.  Experts warn that if we don’t regulate AI development carefully, its environmental impact could cancel out its climate benefits. 

Inequity in Climate Data and Access

AI tools need strong data like satellite images, smart-grid info and city sensors to work well. But many lower-income regions don’t have this kind of data system in place, which makes it harder for them to use AI for climate solutions. Studies also show that wealthier countries have more consistent and aligned climate plans and progress reports, while poorer nations often have missing or weaker data. This creates an unfair advantage in global climate decisions. 

Using Policy and Data to Tackle Climate Change 

The future of climate governance will rely on a few important shifts happening at once. More money is going into digital and AI tools, especially in developing countries that still lack the resources they need. There’s also a push to standardize how climate data is collected and shared, so AI can work with better and more complete information. At the same time, experts are calling for clearer rules around AI’s energy use and how to keep its environmental impact low. Cooperation between countries will be key to set fair standards, share technology, and make sure poorer nations aren’t left behind. AI can’t replace strong leadership or community involvement, but if used wisely, it could help speed up the search for solutions we desperately need.

The Future is Ours to Shape

As the world pushes to meet climate goals, AI is both a powerful tool and a potential risk. The way we develop and govern AI today will shape whether it helps close climate gaps or makes them worse. For both governments and businesses, AI will only support real climate progress if we pair innovation with responsibility. That means being honest about its limits, reducing its own carbon footprint, and making sure its benefits are shared fairly. Without smart policies and strong accountability, AI could end up reinforcing inequality or delaying the transition to clean energy. AI is a force that must be guided with care, fairness, and foresight.

As global temperatures rise, and the mid-century Paris climate agreement goal nears, scientists and policymakers are exploring increasingly desperate interventions to address this crisis. Among one of the more controversial approaches is geoengineering, more specifically solar radiation- technology designed to artificially alter Earth’s climate system by reducing the amount of solar energy absorbed by earth.

Solar radiation management (SRM) can be performed through various techniques to reflect sunlight back into space before it can warm Earth’s surface. Unlike traditional carbon removal strategies that address the root cause of climate change by reducing greenhouse gases, solar radiation management targets warming effects through artificial cooling.

One highly discussed SRM method is stratospheric aerosol injection, which involves releasing reflective particles, like sulfur dioxide, into the upper atmosphere. These particles then form aerosols that scatter incoming solar radiation, mimicking the natural cooling effect seen after major volcanic eruptions. For example, when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it injected millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, causing global temperatures to drop by 0.5 degrees celsius for several years. Other approaches include marine cloud brightening, which is the process of sweater droplets being sprayed into lower-lying clouds in order to raise their reflectivity that would deflect sunlight before it reaches Earth’s atmosphere. 

Many proponents of SRM research argue that this technology could provide rapid cooling effects, buying crucial time for us to implement comprehensive carbon reduction plans. Unlike emission reduction strategies, which take decades to impact atmospheric gas concentrations, SRM could begin counteracting warming within months or years of deployment. 

The relatively low cost of some SRM methods make them particularly attractive to policymakers. Stratospheric aerosol injection, might cost tens of billions of dollars annually, expensive, however manageable compared to the trillions needed for global energy system transformation. However each approach presents unique technical challenges and harmful consequences.

The potential dangers of solar radiation management are profound. The most critical concern is the “termination problem”. If the use of SRM was suddenly stopped after decades or even years of use, global temperatures would rapidly spike to levels unseen by humanity. This rapid warming could trigger catastrophic consequences for ecosystems, causing them to collapse.

Regional climate disruption represents just another risk. While SRM might reduce global average temperatures, it could significantly alter precipitation patterns, causing floods in some areas, while flooding others.

Additionally, solar radiation management would do nothing to address ocean acidification, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would continue to rise. Oceans would become increasingly acidic, threatening marine-life and ecosystems that billions of people depend upon for food security. Governance also presents as a challenge when discussing SRM. Climate change is a global problem, therefore treating it with solar radiation is also one. The deployment, oversight, and cooperation of nations would prove to be a great difficulty when discussing using SRM.

Solar radiation management represents both humanity's boldest climate intervention concept and potentially its most dangerous solution. While SRM research continues to advance our understanding of climate systems, any consideration of deployment must involve international cooperation, rigorous governance frameworks, and continued prioritization of emissions reductions. SRM might someday serve as a bridge technology, but it cannot replace the fundamental work of creating a carbon-neutral world.

The Colorado River is drying up, and it’s not just the riverbed that’s cracking. What’s really showing strain is the way we manage and share the natural resources that keep life going. 

The long-standing tug-of-war between the federal government and western states over this river isn’t just a regional dispute anymore. It’s turning into a preview of the messy, high-stakes politics we’re going to see more of as climate change gets worse. 

This river, once powerful enough to carve out the Grand Canyon, now struggles to support the 40 million people who rely on it. That includes seven U.S. states and parts of Mexico. The demands are staggering: drinking water, agriculture, hydroelectric power, tribal rights, city growth… you name it. And yet, the river’s flow keeps shrinking year after year. 

When Lake Mead and Lake Powell, huge reservoirs built to store the river’s water, dropped to record lows, alarm bells didn’t just ring, they screamed. In 2021, the federal government announced the first-ever Tier 1 water shortage. That triggered water cuts, mostly to Arizona. It wasn’t just a technical call, it was a red flag waving over outdated water deals that were no longer working. 

The seven basin states, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California, have spent years trying and mostly failing to agree on how to use less water. Each one has its own mix of needs, politics, economies, and ecosystems. What works for Las Vegas doesn’t work for Southern California farms. So when Washington started urging stronger conservation and floated the idea of mandatory cuts, some states bristled. Some cried federal overreach. Others said the feds weren’t doing enough. 

Meanwhile, the people living through all this, farmers, Indigenous communities, city dwellers, just want a future that isn’t bone dry. These state-federal tensions aren’t exactly new. But the stakes are higher now.

Climate change is accelerating. Water is vanishing faster. And that means what’s happening on the Colorado isn’t just a local fight, it’s a warning shot. Other regions will face the same question soon: when resources run low, who gets to decide what happens next? Local governments? The federal government? Courts? Voters? The push and pull we’re seeing now are likely just the beginning of a much bigger national conversation. 

Or just maybe, arguments. 

Part of the challenge is, no one is the obvious bad guy here. California has old water rights, which protect its agriculture. Arizona’s invested a ton of money into conservation but still ends up with the biggest cuts. And tribal nations? They often have legal water rights that were either ignored or underfunded for years. That’s finally starting to change, but it’s been slow. 

As for the federal government, it’s a tricky position. They’re trying to referee a fight over a river that keeps shrinking, and every choice they make ticks someone off. 

The hard truth is, it’s easier to share when there’s plenty to go around. Now that the river can’t provide what it once did, trust is harder to come by, and compromise is even tougher. 

But the need for cooperation is bigger than ever. 

Another issue is the law itself. The Colorado River Compact, signed way back in 1922, divided the river based on unusually high flow estimates. Today’s flow is down at least 20 percent, but we’re still clinging to that outdated math. Updating those agreements is tough. 

But pretending they still work? That’s worse. 

Still, not all hope is lost. In the past few years, despite the friction, states have managed to hammer out some short-term deals. Farmers have left fields fallow. Cities are investing in conservation, water recycling, and even desalination. Tribes are stepping into long-overdue leadership roles. These aren’t permanent solutions, but they show what’s possible when people show up, listen, and negotiate in good faith. 

In the end, climate politics probably won’t be solved in courtrooms or with one-size-fits-all policies from D.C. They'll be worked out across kitchen tables, community meetings, and statehouse hallways by people who realize that surviving together means giving up a little, too. 

The Colorado River is drying up. But the choices we make today, who we listen to, how we negotiate, and whether we act, could shape the future of rivers, cities, and communities all over the country. 

The path ahead isn’t easy. But it’s still there, if we’re willing to forge it together and wade deep into the water.

A First for Rio de Janeiro

Rio de Janeiro is, as always, brimming with life. But today’s liveliness holds something new: the inauguration of Rio Climate Action Week (RCAW). For the first time, Rio de Janeiro is hosting an event supporting COP30, ahead of its November commencement in the Brazilian city of Belém. Modeled after London Climate Action Week, Rio Climate Action Week is the latest action week following London itself, and other cities like Bangkok, Dublin, and Shanghai. RCAW is also a partnership with the office of the Mayor of Rio de Janeiro, aiming to bring awareness of the city’s role in global climate action over the next seven days.

The main aim of the event is to showcase “mutirão,” or collective effort, in the wake of climate change. RCAW aims to demonstrate that both top-down and bottom-up strategies are necessary to mitigate climate change and its effects on the citizens of the city. 

Rio de Janeiro itself has been seeing worsening climate changes over the past decade. As a coastal city, changing rainfall patterns are fundamentally changing the way the city operates. More intense rainfall has increased flooding and landslides in vulnerable, low-income hillside communities. Yet, the city has also experienced some of its worst heatwaves in years in February this year, reaching a record high of 44 degrees Celsius. RCAW arrives on the heels of these worsening problems alongside coastal erosion, seeking to inspire tangible solutions that will support the COP30 conference in November.

A Hub for Action

RCAW 2025 plans to host 10 physical Hubs of climate action in the city, alongside partnerships with local, national, and international partners who are key stakeholders in climate change mitigation. The 10 Hubs have each partnered with a physical establishment in Brazil, based on the focus of each one.

For example, the Culture & Fashion Hub is to be hosted at the Museum of Art in Rio, where attendees can discuss the role of cultural norms and the impact of fashion in how the average citizen can mitigate climate change. The Geopolitics, Climate Policy & International Relations Hub hub at CEBRI will host debates and workshops with representatives from both the public and private sectors, bridging gaps between experts and the general public. It also aims to provide a collective framework towards international action. Each hub moves key pieces of the international picture of climate action forward. In addition to the Culture & Fashion and Geopolitics Hubs, the remaining Hubs (Community, Finance, Governance, Oceans & Water, Private Sector, Risk, Resilience and Insurance, and SME) will tackle communal action in each of their focuses, leveraging governance, collective movement, and partnerships in the march towards a secure and greener future for life on Earth.

The RCAW ethos reflects that goal. The week has committed to be reality-based, with low barriers to entry, and collaborative and inclusive throughout its duration. The organizers have also stated they welcome debate within the bounds of broader climate action, creating a space of critical thought and informed solutions.

A New Beginning

Slated to begin with a special service in front of the Christ the Redeemer statue, RCAW is emblematic of Rio de Janeiro’s strong movement towards sustainable solutions. The state of Brazil relies mainly on hydropower for its electricity, and plans to be a carbon neutral city by 2050. The city is prioritizing providing spaces for citizens to participate, as its partnership with RCAW demonstrates. It also prioritizes alignment between institutions, the private sector, and the public, another key value demonstrated through RCAW’s 10 Hubs and partnerships, another step towards a better tomorrow.

RCAW will continue through the 29th of August. During its duration, events will be held all over Rio de Janeiro. Main events will start on Copacabana Beach, the Lagoa, the Tijuca National Park, and the Jardim Botanico. The Museum of Tomorrow and the aforementioned Museum of Art will hold later events alongside AquaRio, the CCBB, and the Tiradentes Palace. Each event will support the six facets of COP30’s Action Agenda: transitioning energy, stewarding the environment, transforming food systems, building urban and infrastructural resilience, facilitating human development, and leveraging accelerators for action.

With new action on the horizon, the city could not be more alive. Each person, group, and institution in the city stands in a place to contribute to an international discussion. Now, only time will tell how each of them will uplift global climate action.