The environmental organization Greenpeace was ordered to pay more than $660 million dollars to the Texas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer this week over its role in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests nearly a decade ago. The outcome was a blow to the environmental advocacy group, which has previously said that a lawsuit of this size could bankrupt its U.S. operations. Energy Transfer, the operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline, accused Greenpeace USA and International of playing a central role in organizing the resistance to the pipeline at Standing Rock in 2016 and 2017. The protests drew national attention as activists set up camp on land owned by Energy Transfer in an attempt to delay the project’s construction. Law enforcement responded by deploying water cannons, tear gas, and other weapons on unarmed protesters—injuring hundreds. Greenpeace denied the company’s claims, and has said the case is “one of the largest Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) cases ever filed.” “Greenpeace played an extremely limited role at Standing Rock, and is proud of showing up in solidarity with Standing Rock activists,” Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor for Greenpeace, said in a statement in February. The protests brought together thousands of activists from around the country who opposed the development of part of the Dakota Access Pipeline on the Standing Rock reservation. “At no time did Greenpeace engage in property destruction or violence. All claims to the contrary are a reckless disregard for the truth.” Experts say that the success of the so-called SLAPP lawsuit—and heavy penalty Greenpeace was dealt—stands to silence other activists who speak up against big companies. “This verdict, especially given its scope, really changes the calculus for advocacy groups who are engaged in, not just environmental issues, but more generally, in advocacy,” says Jennifer Safstrom, director of the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt Law School. “They too could face liability for their advocacy efforts.” What are SLAPP Lawsuits? SLAPP lawsuits are a type of strategic civil litigation aimed at silencing speech by burying an organization or private citizen in legal fees. The term was coined by two professors in the ‘90s, Safstrom says, who notes that the practice was created in large part to target environmental activists—so much so that the professors used another term, “eco-SLAPP,” to define the practice. "It's an abuse of the court system, not for a legitimate legal end, but to try to shut somebody up,” says Gabe Walters, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The practice has grown in prominence in the last decade. EarthRights, a non-profit environmental law group, identified 152 cases by fossil fuel companies between 2012 and 2022 that used strategic lawsuits against critics. A report by the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE) documented 820 SLAPP suits in Europe as of August 2023, with 161 lawsuits filed in 2022, and 135 cases filed in 2021. (The European Union passed an anti-SLAPP directive in April 2024, which aims to provide safeguards against strategic lawsuits that target public participation.) Advertisement Thirty-five states and Washington D.C. have anti-SLAPP laws in place, though what protections they provide may vary. Some states require that verdicts be reached on expedited timelines, while others have implemented “fee shifting,” which allows a defendant to recover legal fees if they win their case. But in states that don’t have protections in place, the impact of a SLAPP lawsuit can be devastating for organizations and individuals alike. “The goal is not even necessarily to win in court,” says Walters. “Just having to defend a lawsuit can be financially ruinous for a private person or for a nonprofit advocacy organization because the costs of litigation are so high.” How are Environmental Groups Responding? Environmental groups have said they won’t back down from their work. In a statement released after the verdict was announced, EarthRights, said that the decision would not silence environmental advocacy. “EarthRights proudly joins Greenpeace USA in speaking up against brazen legal attacks and ensuring that the environmental movement only continues to grow stronger, despite the appalling result in North Dakota.” Advertisement Rebecca Brown, president and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law, said that “no abusive company, lawsuit, or court decision” would hinder the climate fight. “This misuse of the legal system stifles legitimate dissent and must be seen as a direct threat to environmental justice and democratic freedoms,” said Brown. “Such tactics will not deter us, they only strengthen our commitment to resistance and solidarity and defense of the constitutionally-protected right to protest.” ClientEarth CEO Laura Clarke, said in a statement to TIME that the loss “highlights the growing trend of big polluters using the legal system to intimidate and silence critics.” “The message they seek to convey is a deeply chilling one: that no organization that challenges polluting industries is safe.” Greenpeace has said it plans to challenge the ruling. The group’s international arm also filed a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer in 2024—one of the first tests of the European Union’s newly-enacted anti-SLAPP Directive. “Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight. We’re just getting started with our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest,” Kristin Casper, Greenpeace International General Counsel, said in a statement. Advertisement In the meantime, Walters warns that, without national anti-SLAPP protections in place, Wednesday’s verdict will likely embolden powerful companies—and potentially silence activists and groups that are unable to afford a costly legal battle. “The judgment in the Greenpeace case has two practical effects,” he says. “One is that the sheer size of the judgment will chill speech. It will deter others from criticizing powerful interests. The other effect is that it may incentivize copycat lawsuits. A large judgment like this can be a powerful incentive to file further litigation and try to silence critics.”

From December 2024 to February 2025, the effects of human-induced climate change were evident in nearly all regions of the world, new analysis from Climate Central has found. The report, which examined how climate change influenced temperatures around the world over the past three months, found that about one in five people globally—or 1.8 billion people—experienced temperatures that were strongly influenced by climate change every single day. And in half of the analyzed countries, and 287 cities around the world, the average person experienced temperatures strongly influenced by climate change for at least one-third of the three-months. The findings come as the planet breached 1.5°C of warming above pre-industrial temperatures last year—a critical threshold that nations were striving to avoid under the Paris Agreement. “We found that there were warmer than normal temperatures caused by climate change almost everywhere around the planet,” says Kristina Dahl, vice president for science at Climate Central. This January ranked as the warmest in the 176-year global climate record, according to data from the U.S. National Oceanic and and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information. Temperatures in Europe, Canada, South America, Africa, and much of Australia and Antarctica were above average, according to data from Europe’s Copernicus Climate Change Service. Within the same three-month period analyzed, about 394 million people experienced 30 or more “risky heat days.” These are defined as days where the local temperature was hotter than 90% of daily temperatures observed between 1991-2020. Risky heat days are “associated with a temperature threshold that carries additional risks for human health,” says Dahl. “Above that temperature, you start to see increased heat related mortality.” In February, parts of Kenya, Uganda, South Sudan, and the United Republic of Tanzania all saw temperatures soar during a heat wave. Hospitals in Uganda reported an increase in heat-related illnesses, including dehydration and heat stroke, according to local news sources. The research showed that a high number of risky heat days is far more common in the Global South: 74% of people who experienced 30 or more days of risky heat lived in Africa, while those living in Brazil, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea also saw 30 or more risky heat days. “[It] really reinforces something that we see consistently with climate change, [which] is that the people who have contributed the least to the problem are often disproportionately exposed and impacted,” says Dahl. In the U.S., around 45% of cities analyzed experienced average temperatures that were normal or warmer-than-normal, while 14 cities, mostly in the west, experienced at least three weeks’ worth of days where average temperatures were twice as likely to be impacted by climate change. “These [findings] are just the latest reminders that climate change is happening here and now it's not something of the future,” says Dahl. “People are experiencing it every day in their lives around the world.”

Earlier this week, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) head, Lee Zeldin announced 31 actions aimed at rolling back a number of significant environmental regulations—including reconsidering restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, rolling back vehicle emission standards aimed at accelerating the transition to EVs, and pushing to challenge a 2009 “endangerment finding” that determined greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and methane are a threat to public health. The agency called it the “greatest and most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history.” Legal experts say it's a marked departure from the agency’s historic purpose to protect human health and the environment. “It's an all out assault on climate regulation and environmental and public health protections,” says Michael Burger, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. However, the announcement does not mean that the EPA has legal authority to institute the proposed rollbacks, experts say. “It is not within the authority of an agency to take action or to push through decisions that are directly and diametrically opposed to its mandate and the reason it was created,” says Nikki Reisch, director of Climate and Energy at the Center for International Environmental Law. While each administration has flexibility in how they enforce agency regulations, the process of outright repealing regulations is more complicated, Reisch notes. “Merely making these pronouncements from up high does not change the law,” she says. “It doesn't change the statutes that exist to protect clean air and clean water, and to protect the health of people throughout this country.” In order to roll back a rule or regulation, the EPA would have to go through a process defined in the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires federal agencies to publish notices of proposed and final rules, and provide plenty of opportunity for the public to comment on those proposed changes. “One of the signature and most important features of the process is that the agency has to make clear what it intends or proposes to do and why,” says Reisch. “It can't just disregard these and steamroll ahead with what it intended, without explaining how it has considered and addressed those comments and why it is or isn't taking them into account. And that can be a really important opportunity for the public to send a strong signal to an agency that something matters.” As part of the process, the agency would have to back its proposal with scientific evidence. Among the most significant changes the agency has proposed is a reconsideration of a 2009 finding that determined greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health—a finding that laid the foundation for much of the work the EPA has been able to do in the last 15 years. Advertisement To undo the finding, the agency would have to show that the scientific evidence is incorrect—disproving a globally accepted fact. Pollutants from greenhouse gasses reduce air quality, which increases individual risk for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. “They have to [prove] the previous determination, that greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change and endanger public health and welfare, was wrong or was not based on sufficient scientific evidence. And there's no basis for that. The science is quite clear, and the consensus is global,” says Burger. Experts say that any attempted rollbacks will likely be litigated, and, given the scientific evidence against the agency’s proposals, courts are not likely to rule in the administration’s favor. But the process could take time. Meanwhile, the door is open for the administration—or corporate allies—to act in their own self interests. Advertisement “It might take some months or even a year or two to get this litigated, and maybe that's what they're counting on,” says Daniel Esty, an environmental law professor at Yale University. “By ignoring [prior regulations] during the time that there's a challenge underway, they can get most of what they want.” Correction, March 17 The original version of this story mischaracterized the power of federal agencies. They are able to roll back rules and regulations, but not statutes.

Severe thunderstorms intensified and impacted much of the Midwest region on Friday and into Saturday, with more instances of extreme weather expected throughout the weekend. In an update shared on Saturday morning, the National Weather Service warned that an "outbreak of tornadoes and severe thunderstorms [are] expected over parts of the Deep South and Tennessee Valley today into tonight." With a vast swath of the U.S. experiencing extreme weather, and storm warnings in place across various states, American Red Cross and other organizations are encouraging people to prepare themselves. “If you're prepared in advance, you're going to be more comfortable to respond when an emergency does happen. You'll be in the know of what needs to get done,” Stephanie Fox, media relations lead at American Red Cross, tells TIME. Amid rising concerns, here are the best ways to prepare for a storm. Secure your home Before a storm, try to trim trees and cut down branches near your home. By removing branches that are likely to break or fall during a storm, you can prevent them from damaging homes, vehicles, power lines, or causing injuries. Further, it can help prevent a tree from becoming uprooted and falling during a storm, and makes the cleanup post-storm less chaotic. Beyond trees outside the home, the National Weather Service suggests that those preparing for a storm “secure loose objects, close windows and doors, and move any valuable objects inside or under a sturdy structure.” Effort to stay updated Those within an affected-area of a severe storm can stay updated with the forecasted storm, its intensity and movement through multiple avenues, whether that be through NOAA Weather Radio, The Emergency Alert System (EAS), or their local weather channel. Oftentimes, communities have specific ways to send warnings, from outdoor sirens to alerts via smartphones. By learning how your community alerts residents to severe incoming weather—including warnings for storms and tornados tornados—you can make sure you stay updated in real-time. Fox notes that people need to make sure their updates do not just go off during the day, but at night too. “People don't always consider that they need to have something that's going to wake them up,” she says, adding that the NOAA Weather Radio is programmed to emit “a very loud buzzing noise that will absolutely wake up a household in the event that a warning is issued.” Advertisement Clean your gutters During a storm, you want your gutters to move as much water as possible, as easily as possible. The best way to ensure this is to clean your gutters prior to the storm hitting, in order to prevent water build-up during the weather event—at which point it likely wouldn’t be safe to go outside and clear any blockages. Water build-up can cause damage to home roofs, and create leaks and structural damage to your home. Build an emergency kit To prepare for a storm—and the days after a storm passes, in which necessities like electricity may still be out—it’s a good idea to build an emergency kit to help you and your loved ones power through. A disaster supply kit includes basic items that your household may need. Advertisement According to Ready.gov, a national public service campaign formed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) dedicated to educating Americans to prepare for and mitigate emergencies, a disaster kit should include water, food, a flashlight, a first aid kit, a mask, garbage bags, a whistle, a can opener, a cell phone with extra chargers and batteries, and more. You can read the full list here. After assembling the kit, Ready.gov recommends keeping canned food in a dry place and storing boxed food in tightly closed plastic or metal containers in order to ensure they remain edible, should a severe weather event or disaster strike. They also recommend keeping a kit in your car, in case you ever become stranded. Per Fox, it’s vital to have a “stay-at-home kit” that allows a household to navigate about two weeks in the house under emergency circumstances, and then a “to-go kit” that people can use if they have to evacuate, which should have enough resources to cover three-to-five days. Locate the nearest shelter According to the CDC, one way to prepare yourself in the event of severe thunderstorms is to locate your nearest shelters ahead of time and map out the safest routes to reach them. “If [people] live in mobile homes or campers, those are not safe when we get these types of outbreaks,” Fox says. “So it's really important for folks to identify if they have a community shelter. Maybe they can visit friends or family overnight.” The idea is to be out of harm’s way when the peak of the threat is expected. According to Randy Bowers, meteorologist at the National Weather Service, this also means planning for which room in your shelter or home will best protect you in the event of a bad storm—especially as large hail storms mean people should stay away from windows. “[The safest room] is usually the lower floor of your house. If you have a basement, that's ideal. But if you don't, then [aim for] the lower floor in an interior room,” he says. “The idea is to put as many walls between you and the weather outside as you possibly can, and to stay away from windows.” Make your pets a part of the plan If you have animals or pets, Fox says that they should be embedded in your family’s emergency plan. Make sure their carriers and leashes are accessible, so that when a severe storm—or other emergency— hits, pets can be evacuated with ease, if needed. “If they have any prescription medications, make sure you have an extra supply in your emergency kit—extra food, toys, just anything that your pet may need if you have to be confined to your home for a period of time, or if you have to evacuate,” she says. Fox also recommends making sure that pets are kept inside during storms, in case they get “spooked” by thunder and try to run away. Advertisement Consider buying surge protectors According to FEMA’s preparedness sheet for thunderstorms, lightning, and hail, buying surge protectors, lightning rods, or a lightning protection system can help protect your home’s appliances and electronic devices in the event of lightning strikes during the storm. Bowers says this can be a part of a “long-term plan,” and is something to think about especially if you currently live in, or are moving to, an area prone to storms.

Canada’s energy minister is angry. Speaking to me while in Houston for CERAWeek, Jonathan Wilkinson described the phases of Canada’s reaction to U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs and repeated taunting: shock, then hurt, and now anger. “We are resolute in our need to push back,” he says. Wilkinson says that the anger shouldn’t influence his government’s decision making. But, at the same time, no option is off the table—including restrictions on energy and natural resources. Because of the highly-linked energy systems of the two countries, such a move could wreak significant havoc on the U.S. economy. “We would be foolish to take tools out of the toolbox,” he told me. “In the context where there's no negotiation around trying to find a resolution here, certainly, export tariffs on energy remain in that toolbox.” There are many potential energy and climate change implications of the U.S.-initiated trade dispute. In the short term, Canada’s political conversation has been consumed by trade talks—squeezing out space for resolving some of the country’s thorny energy and climate policy debates. In the longer term, a sustained and intensified U.S.-Canada trade spat could lead to more investment in fossil fuel infrastructure in both countries. And, even under a new U.S. administration, this moment will not be forgotten, making it more difficult to build durable partnerships in areas like critical minerals—a key component of the energy transition. “Under the new Prime Minister, Canada remains committed to the fight against climate change,” says Wilkinson, referring to the newly elected prime minister Mark Carney. But “some elements of the climate plan probably have become a little tougher in the context of working with the Trump Administration.” Trump’s tariffs have shocked executives across the corporate world—and the energy industry is no exception. The sector is highly integrated, especially across the U.S.-Canada border. In the U.S. midwest, oil refineries run on crude that flows from Canada. In much of the northeast U.S., Canadian electricity helps keep the lights on. Meanwhile, Canada imports U.S. oil in its eastern provinces. “The integrated nature of the two economies, and in particular of the energy economies… pulling them apart is almost impossible,” says Wilkinson. And yet, nonetheless, Wilkinson says his country will be looking away from the U.S. “Canadians' confidence in their ability to simply rely on the United States to the exclusion of the rest of the world has been shaken.” A key area that may suffer is potential collaboration between the two countries on the critical minerals that will play an essential role in the energy transition. Canada has rich stores of lithium, cobalt, and nickel, among other resources, and had previously worked with the U.S. government to create a North American supply chain for batteries and other clean energy technologies. While Trump is no fan of the energy transition, he has homed in on critical minerals in his push to annex Greenland given the essential role the minerals play in manufacturing, defense, and advanced electronics. “Critical minerals in particular are a potentially useful tool, if we have to go there, given that the alternative sources of supply typically are going to be China, in some cases Russia,” Wilkinson said on March 12. “We're not there yet, and we prefer not to further escalate this at this point.” Advertisement A prolonged, deepened trade rift could push Canada to look more to Europe, South Korea, and Japan to help finance and purchase the product that comes with developing these resources. That would leave the U.S. at a disadvantage and reshape the centers of power in clean technologies. At CERAWeek, an energy conference that draws the world’s biggest players in the industry, some executives chatted about the possibility that Canada might revive plans to build an oil pipeline from the country’s oil producing west to its eastern cities. This would reduce Canada’s reliance on U.S. oil in the east and make it easier to sell Canadian oil domestically. Wilkinson offered deep skepticism, telling me that such a project would face difficult economics and likely require government subsidy. Nonetheless, he said, it could be worth considering on national security grounds should the situation deteriorate further. Advertisement “Presently, there is no one proposing to build a pipeline,” he says. “You could argue that there is an energy security issue, and that is a legitimate conversation… but we should be looking at all available options.” Like with much else tied to Trump Administration policy, it is hard to assess the exact climate implications of this trade rift. At the very least, it’s a distraction for Canada. When I first met Wilkinson last year, we had extensive conversations about the country’s carbon tax and engagement with the country’s Indigenous First Nations to build energy projects. Progress on those issues now feels miniscule in the scheme of things. But, more broadly, it provides a hint of what world may emerge in the wake of Trump’s wrecking ball: less collaboration and clean technology supply chains that don’t include the U.S.

If you’ve ever avoided a hurricane, ducked a tornado, evacuated ahead of a wildfire, or merely relied on a weather forecast to take an umbrella to work, you likely have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to thank. As America’s—and indeed the world’s—leading weather and climate watchdog and the parent organization of the National Weather Service (NWS), NOAA runs a standing army of personnel and hardware on and off the planet to keep an eye on the Earth’s often stormy temperament. The agency owns or operates 13 weather satellites; manages more than 200 deep-water buoys; and gathers weather and climate information from a storm of data provided by no fewer than 10,600 state, local, and federal governments, as well as universities and private companies nationwide. But NOAA is now threatened. As the Associated Press and others have reported, the agency’s already stretched workforce of 13,000 people is facing a deep cut of more than 1,000 of those employees mandated by the Trump Administration—a move that follows an earlier purge of about 1,300 in late February. The personnel reductions not only imperil NOAA’s ability to carry out its core chore of tracking and warning about upcoming severe weather events, they also hamper its ability to conduct basic research into climate change—carried out to help humanity better prepare for the sweeping environmental upheaval already evident in a steadily warming world. “NOAA does a lot of work with climate,” says Keith Seitter, former executive director of the American Meteorological Society and currently a professor of environmental studies at the College of the Holy Cross. “That's critically important in terms of planning for our future, knowing how to adapt to the changing climate, and understanding what we need to get ready for. In all of those things, NOAA is a really key player.” The current cuts to NOAA were equal parts ill-timed and foreseeable. Project 2025, the conservative manifesto whose policies are increasingly being adopted by the Trump Administration, includes a section on page 674 of the 900-plus page document headed “Break Up NOAA.” On the next page the agency is described as “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.” But NOAA and others are right to be alarmed. Recent months have seen climate-linked wildfires in Los Angeles and elsewhere; an increase in so-called atmospheric rivers—long, narrow bands of airborne water vapor that lead to local flooding and are growing worse in a warming world; and, in other spots in the U.S. and elsewhere, increasing droughts. Last year was also the first in which the world crossed the threshold of 1.5°C of warming over pre-industrial levels that the Paris Climate Accord declared a benchmark to be avoided, lest the planet tip into irreversible climate catastrophe. Environmentalists warn that the Earth is running a fever and, with the latest NOAA firings, we’ve begun sacking the doctors. Advertisement “These layoffs put us at significant risk,” says Alice Hill, senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on Foreign Relations. “They actually increase the risk to Americans if we consider how best to prepare for the worst extremes that climate change brings about. The first step in resilience or adaptation is early warning.” When it comes to weather and climate, it’s not just NOAA that’s been slashed; NASA is bleeding too. In a March 10 email to reporters, the space agency announced that in response to federal instructions to reduce its workforce, it was shuttering the office of technology, policy, and strategy, and the office of the chief scientist—a move that affects climate studies. “NASA does cutting edge research and science,” says Hill. “It observes sea level rise from space. It's got the best global surface temperature analysis. All of that contributes to our understanding of how climate change is unfolding, and with that understanding, decision-makers can make choices that leave people safer.” Advertisement Some of the NASA cuts could also hit American corporations in the pocketbook. According to Hill, studies show that 74% of Fortune 100 companies “routinely use NASA Earth Science data to support business operations, logistics, and risk management.” Some of those decisions involve grounding airplanes and bringing cargo vessels into safe harbor well ahead of dangerous storms. It’s the cuts to NOAA, however, with the agency’s exclusively earthy portfolio—as opposed to NASA’s literally other-worldly one—that are likely to do the most damage. Seitter cites not just the firehose of climate and weather data that NOAA collects, but the way it’s computed and modeled as one more vital service that could be at risk. “All of that data needs to be quality controlled, verified, and then assimilated into these massive weather prediction models,” he says. “NOAA is responsible for all of that work, and that's not insignificant. It's a huge part of the investments that are made in NOAA every year.” Advertisement Jeopardize those prediction models and you jeopardize both lives and treasure. Hill points to Chamber of Commerce estimates showing that every $1 spent on climate resilience and preparedness saves $13 in damages and cleanup costs. Cuts to NOAA will lead to a domino effect across the agency’s entire org chart. It’s not just the NWS that’s nested within NOAA. The agency oversees five other smaller departments, including the Office of Marine and Aviation operations, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Ocean Service. “There is the ocean side of NOAA,” says Seitter, “and those are the folks that monitor fisheries and work with communities to make sure that we have adequate fish reserves for feeding our country. That may be less dramatic compared to severe weather, but those are also really important functions.” NOAA also works with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), another institutional function that could be hurt by staffing cuts. “[FEMA] coordinates with people in the National Weather Service and other folks in NOAA to make sure that they're using their facilities in the best possible way, that they're pre-positioning their assets so that they can take advantage of having the right stuff in the right places before [a] storm hits,” says Hill. Cutting the workforce that makes any of this possible hurts the world beyond the U.S. Most countries don’t have the sweeping satellite and buoy technology that America takes for granted. Which means they must rely on U.S. data and forecasting to brace and prepare for extreme weather events. And, Hill points out, the more sophisticated AI becomes, the more meteorology will rely on it to predict and track storms—one more development that will require American innovation and initiative. “NOAA would be in a great position to be leading the charge for better AI in terms of a public good for weather forecasting,” she says. All of the losses that come with slashing NOAA’s staffing and budget will do precious little to achieve the ostensible goal of the White House and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. Eliminate NOAA’s entire 13,000-person staff and you have cut just 0.43% of the federal government’s three million-strong workforce. As for pocketbook savings, NOAA’s $6.6 billion annual budget represents just 0.097% of the $6.75 trillion Washington spent in fiscal year 2024. Compare that to the cost of climate change: In 2024 alone the U.S. experienced 27 weather or climate disaster events, each with losses exceeding $1 billion. Predicting extreme weather events, preventing catastrophic losses of life and property, and better understanding the climate trends that pose such a danger to humanity are a whole lot cheaper than cleaning up the mess—and tending to the dead—after a disaster strikes.

Tesla sales have been faltering worldwide as consumers push back against the company’s CEO Elon Musk and his political involvement with the Trump Administration. The company’s stock dropped 15% as of end of day on Monday, its steepest drop in five years, as the stock market plunged after President Donald Trump hinted at a recession on Sunday. And the president seems to have taken notice of Tesla’s dip—in a post on Truth Social Monday night, he blamed "radical left lunatics" for the boycott of Musk’s EV company and pledged to "buy a brand new Tesla." The automaker could use the boost. Recent data shows that the brand’s sales have seen major drops in markets around the world. According to the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA), Tesla sold just under 7,517 vehicles in Europe in January, half of what it sold in January the year prior. That’s despite sales of battery and hybrid electric vehicles of any brand rising in January as the E.U. continues to tighten regulations on emissions from new vehicles. Looking at Germany, the largest market for EVs in the E.U., the country saw a 30% year-over-year rise in electric vehicle sales in February, but Tesla sales were down more than 70% compared to last year—less than 1,500 new Teslas were registered in the country in February. Other European countries also saw sales fall. Between January and February of 2025, Tesla recorded a 50% drop in sales in Portugal and 45% in France according to Reuters, while sales fell 42% in Sweden and 48% in Norway. Sales are falling outside of Europe as well. In Australia, data from the Electric Vehicle Council shows that Tesla sales dropped over 70% compared to last year— recording just 1,592 sales in February compared to 5,665 in February 2024, the Guardian reports. Meanwhile, Tesla shipments from China dropped 49% in February, as the automaker shipped out 30,688 vehicles—the lowest monthly figure since July 2022, according to Bloomberg. Tesla has faced growing competition from domestic EV makers in the country—Chinese automaker BYD sold more than 318,000 electric and hybrid cars last month, a 161% increase from last year. In California—the biggest domestic market for EVs thanks to its state mandate that 35% of new 2026 car models sold by automakers must be zero emissions—Tesla sales slumped for the fifth consecutive quarter, according to the latest data from the California New Car Dealers Association (CNCDA). Advertisement Not every market, however, has been hit. Britain saw a record number of EV sales in 2024, and Tesla sales were up 20% in February. Musk has not commented on the sales dip, but when asked by Fox Business’s Larry Kudlow how he was running his other businesses, the billionaire said, “With great difficulty.”

In the coming days, former central banker Mark Carney is set to be sworn in as Canada’s Prime Minister, after winning the race to replace Justin Trudeau as the leader of the country’s Liberal Party. He will be tasked with leading Canada through a number of pivotal moments—including a trade war with the United States, a cost of living crisis, and a critical moment in the country’s fight against climate change. National elections must be called by Oct. 20, but could be triggered sooner by Carney or his opposition. Regardless of whether Carney’s Liberal Party or the Conservatives win, the next few years will be decisive for Canada’s fight against climate change. According to Environment and Climate Change Canada, the country must reduce emissions by at least 40-45% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels to meet its international commitments. Tapping his banking background, Carney has emerged as a leader in the climate space in recent years, bridging the financial sector and the climate fight. What is Mark Carney’s Climate Background? Since his time in the banking world, Carney has worked to bring the private sector into the climate fight towards net-zero emissions, calling the green transition “the greatest commercial opportunity of our time” during a London event in 2020. He became a U.N. Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance in 2019, and in 2021 launched the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, an initiative aimed at bringing together financial institutions to support the transition to a net-zero economy. It was his work with the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020 that brought the climate crisis into focus for him. “When I became governor of the Bank of England, which oversees the insurance industry, I saw that the number of extreme weather events had tripled and the cost of those events had gone up five times in a quarter century,” he said in an interview with the United Nations in 2021. “These things really concentrated my mind on climate.” What Would His Climate Goals Be as Prime Minister? Carney’s campaign has proposed a number of climate-forward economic initiatives. To start, Carney has proposed getting rid of Canada’s consumer carbon tax, which places an added fee on consumers using fossil fuels. He claims that it currently places the burden on consumers rather than big polluters. “When I see that something's not working I will change it,” he said during his victory speech on March 9. “So my government will immediately eliminate the divisive consumer carbon tax on families and farmers and small and medium-sized businesses.” Instead, he has proposed replacing it with financial incentives that will make environmentally friendly initiatives, like energy efficient appliances or electric cars, more affordable for consumers. He also supports the enactment of federal permitting reform to speed up approvals of clean energy projects and measures such as improving the Output-Based Pricing System to better reward high emitters that reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Advertisement Carney also pledges to phase out the use of fossil fuels in federal government buildings by 2030 and expand the country’s electric vehicle charging station infrastructure. What is Pierre Poilievre's Climate Stance? Both Carney and Pierre Poilievre, whose Conservative Party will face off against Carney’s Liberal Party in the upcoming general election expected later this year, say Canada’s carbon tax must go. Poilievre has made his “Axe the Tax” campaign a pillar of his political career. He blames the carbon tax program for the country’s cost-of-living crisis. Unlike Carney’s proposed green alternative to the tax, however, Poilievre and the Conservative party advocate for the expansion of oil and gas production in Canada. Poilievre has also opposed major climate initiatives—including a cap on pollution from oil and gas and the Clean Electricity Regulation which mandates a net-zero electricity system across Canada by 2035. Advertisement In fact, throughout his 20 years as an MP, he has rarely voted in support of climate initiatives—voting in favor of protecting the planet only 13 times in his career, according to an analysis of his voting record by DeSmog. This includes on measures such as protecting whales and clean drinking water for First Nations. That’s compared to his 400 anti-climate votes over the same period.

Ann and Billie Dumaliang say they’re “done with being friendly” with Maria Antonia Yulo-Loyzaga. The renowned conservationists and sisters, in an exclusive new interview with TIME, accuse the Philippine Environment Secretary of “malicious” actions, being “allergic to criticism,” and “strong arming” them into “abandoning” Masungi Georeserve, the internationally-acclaimed ecotourism site they manage just outside Manila. Their anger stems from shock. The Dumaliangs were surprised to see on the news that the Department of Environment and Natural Resources was evicting them from part of Masungi Georeserve—a move that could threaten their overall efforts to protect the 6,600-acre conservation area. On March 7, the department said in a press conference that it canceled a 2002 deal it had with longtime developer Blue Star Construction Development Corporation—the Masungi Georeserve Foundation Inc.’s affiliate company owned by Ben Dumaliang, the sisters’ father—over alleged failure to deliver a contracted government housing project as well as other alleged violations. The canceled deal covers some 740 acres, including the georeserve’s Discovery Trail. The department has ordered Blue Star to leave that 740-acre area within 15 days. “Everyone was quite caught off guard,” Ann Dumaliang tells TIME. “Not just because we were not involved in it at all, but because this is also the first time that they are raising all of these issues in the last 20-plus years that we have been protecting this place.” Masungi Georeserve is a popular eco-tourism destination, known for its rainforest and picturesque limestone formations. The site, its officers, and its rangers, have been recognized worldwide for conservation and geotourism efforts—standing out especially in a country that’s deemed the deadliest in the continent for environmental defenders. The Discovery Trail has allowed visitors to trek through the conservation area for at least 1,500 Philippine pesos ($26) to see karst limestones and other flora and fauna. Billie Dumaliang says the funds collected go toward the reforestation of the more than 5,900 acres around it—an area also under threat if a separate 2017 joint contract gets canceled—and help to pay the up to 100 rangers protecting the reserve. In Friday’s press briefing, an environment department official said, “everyone, even those with us in conservation and [environment] protection, if they violate the law, the government will take action.” But the Dumaliang sisters, who are trustees of the foundation, reject accusations of violating the law and decry unfair treatment. “[Other alleged] violators get, what, one to four show-cause orders?” Ann said. “We get an immediate cancellation. It’s terrible.” Billie added that the department’s move stands “in stark contrast to all of these environmentally destructive projects … that have been allowed to go on for all these years and despite strong opposition.” Yulo-Loyzaga has previously been blamed for failing to swiftly address controversies surrounding the country’s environmental landmarks. Advertisement The sisters also disputed Blue Star’s alleged failure to deliver on contractual obligations, claiming it was the department who did not hold up its end of the contract and did not engage with Masungi Georeserve’s officers. Billie Dumaliang says she believes environment secretary Yulo-Loyzaga has been particularly “vindictive,” after groups such as theirs have criticized her. “We’re very vocal about this, we’ve exposed illegal activities, we make her look bad, but these are very petty reasons for taking a course of action that is not in line with the mandate of the department,” Billie said. Billie added that Yulo-Loyzaga’s directive on Masungi also “puts into question the commitment of the current administration to its international commitments on climate change, human rights, biodiversity, land degradation, and peace.” The Philippines has pledged to rehabilitate 7.1 million hectares of degraded and deforested land by 2028. Advertisement Some Philippine lawmakers are also questioning the rationale behind the cancellation of the Blue Star contract. In statements on social media, Senator Nancy Binay criticized the haphazard decision and asked what the department’s plan and vision for the Georeserve is after the cancellation, while Representative Raoul Manuel slammed the department for failing to have a dialogue with the Masungi Georeserve Foundation before cancelling and painting the organization as an “enemy.” The Philippine environment department and secretary did not immediately respond to specific queries from TIME, referring instead to a primer made by the department that outlines the history of the Blue Star contract as well as Blue Star’s alleged violations, including: imposing fees and constructing facilities in the site without local permits, fencing a portion of government property, and failing to complete agreed upon housing units in the area. Advertisement For now, the Dumaliangs are planning to exhaust their legal remedies, even as the department mulls involving the police to enforce the eviction. They are aware of the security risks—those with interests in the land, such as resort owners, have been linked to attacks on the site’s rangers and officers patrolling and protecting the site, and the georeserve has been the subject of online smear campaigns and threats. They believe that with the order, Masungi’s detractors are “emboldened” to continue the harassment and potentially escalate violence. They say the order sends a “chilling effect” to all environment defenders. But still, they aren’t planning to leave Masungi without a fight. “We will invoke our right, of course, to continue our work,” Billie said. “If we need to use our bodies to shield, then we will.”

On Wednesday, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced that the country would be investing in major renewable energy projects—developing new offshore wind farms and large scale clean energy bases that combine solar and wind farms. It’s the latest move by the country, both a leader in renewable energy and the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, to make inroads in the green energy transition. China’s renewable energy dominance has been a long time coming, experts say. “Several of the clean energy industries were identified by the government several decades ago as strategic industries, where they really wanted to invest and position themselves as the global leader,” says Joanna Lewis, director of the science, technology, and international affairs program at Georgetown University. “This has really been a long-term strategic effort on behalf of the government to both put in place policies that would promote the deployment of renewables domestically within China, but also build up the industrial capacity to allow them to actually manufacture the technologies as well.” What is China's climate target? In 2020, China announced that the country would reach peak carbon emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. Since then, the country has been making strides towards adopting clean energy. That same year, the Chinese government pledged to double its renewable energy capacity by 2030—only to reach that goal six years ahead of schedule. And in 2024, the country led the world in energy transition investment, accounting for two-thirds of the $2.1 trillion spent globally last year on everything from power grids to electric transport, according to BloombergNEF. China currently produces 31% of its electricity from renewable sources including wind, solar, hydroelectricity, and geothermal. While the country is still heavily reliant on coal, estimates predict that by 2026 solar will overtake the fossil fuel as China’s leading energy source. The country is also expanding its reach and helping boost green energy adoption in other countries—most notably by shifting its Belt and Road Initiative, a global infrastructure development project, in developing nations to focus on clean energy and green infrastructure. “China wants to supply green energy goods for the world,” says Samantha Gross, director of the energy security and climate initiative at the Brookings Institution. “The push from the Chinese government to subsidize and really nurture its green energy industries wasn't just to serve the domestic market, it's to serve the global market.” China's renewable product exports grew by 35% from 2019 to 2023, and the country’s EV battery makers had a global market share of 60% in 2023 alone. Why is China still building new coal plants? Despite the country’s green transition, China is still heavily reliant on coal—the world’s biggest single source of greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy. Alongside last year’s record green energy investments, China’s coal power construction hit a 10-year high in 2024—approving 66.7 GW of new coal-fired power capacity. (One gigawatt alone is the equivalent of a large coal power plant.) “China uses coal for a lot of its electricity generation because that's what they have,” says Gross, who notes that the fossil fuel helps ensure the country’s energy security amid increasing demand. The coal industry is also a major economic hub in many Chinese provinces, presenting a sore spot for the country’s environmental goals. “There is this inherent conflict where China has some looming climate targets that it's going to need to meet in the next few years,” says Lewis. “And in order to meet those targets, you're going to need to see growth in renewables not only outpace growth in fossil fuels, but you're going to need to see a decline in the role that fossil fuels are playing in China's energy system.” Advertisement Earlier this year, the E.U. ambassador to China called for the country to stop building coal powered plants, but whether China is able to make the shift remains to be seen. Despite massive clean energy investments, the country’s emissions saw a 0.8% increase in 2024. How does China’s climate actions compare to other countries? In the U.S., China’s green energy push helped shape the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), a nearly $400 billion green industrial policy that aims to ramp up U.S. clean energy production. “[China] has spent a lot of money subsidizing and helping their electric vehicle industry, battery, solar panel, and they are world leaders in those industries as a result,” says Gross. “The Inflation Reduction Act was an attempt by Congress and the Biden Administration to to compete with that.” (The future of the IRA is currently up in the air, after President Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office freezing the program’s funding.) Advertisement While China is outpacing every other country in green energy investment, its continued reliance and investment in coal means that its not yet translating to reduced emissions. While China’s Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Accords—which lays out a country’s plan for how it will help meet the Paris goals—says that the country will “peak” emissions by 2030, it doesn’t specify a cap. In comparison, some countries, including the majority of the E.U. nations are beginning to see their emissions decrease. “Peak implies that emissions will stop going up, but it doesn't say at what level they'll stop going up,” says Lewis. Given that China is the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses, a firm commitment from the country to stabilize and then reduce emissions is the only way the world will be able to meet global climate goals. “If the peak is very high, it's going to make it very difficult for the world to limit emissions to a level that would hold warming at 1.5 degrees or even 2 degrees,” says Lewis. “We are not seeing enough signs—even with the really impressive build out of renewables—that China is getting on that path quickly enough.”