The New York Times reports that greenhouse-gas emissions will climb to record highs in 2025 to about 38.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a 1.1% increase over 2024. Emissions did not rise everywhere, as they were nearly flat in China and Europe, but rose significantly in the United States and other parts of the world. At present, “China is responsible for 32 percent [of global emissions], the United States at 13 percent, India at 8 percent and the European Union at 6 percent.”

The Trump Administration responded to this news by continuing its efforts to make climate change worse, faster. Grist notes that “the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, the United Nations agency overseeing global shipping, had drafted a net-zero framework to move the sector toward cleaner fuels — a crucial step in the energy transition, since the industry that handles around 90 percent of global trade also accounts for 3 percent of the world’s emissions.” The framework, which included fees on emissions — essentially a carbon tax — that would be used to support decarbonization in developing countries, had the backing of the shipping industry. The U.S. used threats and intimidation to destroy this carefully crafted plan, with President Trump calling the proposal a “global green new scam tax on shipping.”

The New York Times reports that “an ambassador from Asia was told that, if he voted in favor of the plan, his country’s sailors would no longer be allowed to disembark at American ports. Caribbean diplomats were told that they could be blacklisted from entering the United States. And Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, personally called officials in several countries to threaten financial penalties and other punishments if they continued to support the agreement to cut ship pollution.” Foreign diplomats were stunned by what they described as “nasty” and “very personal” threats made by State Department officials directed mostly at leaders “from poorer or small countries that are economically dependent on the United States.” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse likened this effort to “a bunch of gangsters coming into the neighborhood and smashing windows and threatening shop owners.”

The New York Times reports that the Trump Administration is also acting to increase the amount of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, that is released to the atmosphere in the United States. The U.S. EPA announced it would delay a requirement, developed by the Biden Administration, to limit emissions of methane by the oil and gas industry, and is considering repealing the measure altogether. Methane is “responsible for nearly a third of the rise in global temperatures since the start of the Industrial Revolution.”

An article in The Atlantic considers how climate change will warp the future of America, and it’s not pretty, as entire regions will be socially and economically stressed. “Over the next 30 years or so, the changes to American life might be short of apocalyptic. But miles of heartbreak lie between here and the apocalypse, and the future toward which we are heading will mean heartbreak for millions.” The heartbreak includes the emergence of places where heat, storms and wildfires create unlivable (and uninsurable) conditions. As people leave, these places become public service deserts, along with “more food deserts, fewer libraries, and fewer small businesses. We should expect that, with a larger share of municipal budgets going to disaster mitigation and repair, city and county services will suffer or disappear.” With the rule of law already under attack, these places could spiral into authoritarianism.

The article notes that 11 million people were evacuated or relocated around the world just in the last year, and this number will only rise. “Without interstate coordination and federal relief funding, workers and politicians in receiving zones may try to keep out newcomers — especially poor ones, arriving en masse on the heels of a particular disaster — as they did during the Dust Bowl.”

Meanwhile, in Florida, Grist notes that the state government is removing mentions of climate change from state law in an effort the governor describes as “restoring sanity in our approach to energy and rejecting the agenda of the radical green zealots.” Democrats have been talking about climate change less since the 2024 election, emphasizing “cheap energy” instead. This may be politically expedient, and does stress an important issue for Americans, but glosses over the need to adapt to our changing climate. While Bill Gates recently stated that the climate movement has focused too much on mitigating emissions and not enough on adaptation, this cannot be a zero-sum game. We need to do both, because successful adaptation requires that we stop changing the climate. Expert Susie Moser notes, “once you begin adaptation and you see how difficult it is, mitigation looks like a cakewalk.”

The Guardian reports on a new study that concludes “more than 5,500 toxic sites nationwide could face coastal flooding by 2100 due to rising sea levels.” Nearly 80% of these sites are located in the states of Florida, New Jersey, California, Louisiana, New York, Massachusetts and Texas. The study also noted: if greenhouse-gas emissions are restricted to the low-emissions scenario, the number of projected sites at risk in 2050 is unchanged, while in the long-term there is only a 7% reduction. This is a good illustration of how we have already committed to significant sea level rise.

Despite the reality of sea level rise, the San Francisco Chronicle explores the continued popularity and high prices for homes at Stinson Beach in Marin County. Already, access can be cut off during king tides, and flooding occurs during major storms. “The resilience of Stinson Beach’s real estate market is an example of the ways that the wealthy are more insulated from climate change than lower-income residents.” A real estate agent notes that “a fair amount” of people buying homes in Stinson are using cash and can forgo insurance. One resident says, “I’ve been here for 20 years and I’ve not really seen a change at all. I don’t know why they’re printing this fear mongering doomsday.”

Canary Media reports on the struggles that Ford has had with sales of the F-150 Lightning, the electric version of its popular pickup truck. While introduced with much fanfare in 2021, including having President Biden give the car a test drive, production problems and slow sales have led to the company considering abandoning it. EV consumers are much more interested in purchasing sedans, SUVs and sports cars. The New York Times describes the growing interest in used EVs, which “often sell for less than comparable cars with internal combustion engines, making them a good deal even before calculating savings in maintenance costs and fuel.”

Scientific American describes plans for an enormous floating wind turbine with two spinning heads. It will generate nearly twice the amount of energy of the largest current turbine, which generates 26 megawatts (MW) of energy and has blades that are more than twice as long as a Boeing 777’s wingspan. According to the firm building it, the new turbine has a capacity of 50 MW, floats on the ocean surface and can withstand typhoons. One analyst notes that a turbine of this scale “can be a game changer in the floating wind industry.”

< back to news+views