The EPA administrator expressed frustration with reporters and a judge who have pointed to the agency’s unsupported claims of fraud in a climate program.

The president has ordered agencies to act “urgently” to curb asthma — a goal at odds with his moves to roll back air pollution limits and fire federal experts.

Conservatives want to reshape U.S. Energy Information Administration analysis to downplay clean energy and peak oil.

The petitions come as President Donald Trump reevaluates his predecessor’s push to expand the renewable energy source.

Electric vehicle chargers are almost never used in large rural states but are popular elsewhere, a new report shows.

The decision stands in contrast with Mayor Eric Adam’s refusal to criticize the president.

Moving to “e-methane” and “syngas,” boosters argue, can be achieved without compromising energy security or the stability of pipelines and power plants.

The French education ministry said it created an online platform to facilitate relocation for those focusing on a wide range of issues.

We’re in the midst of a long-overdue resurgence in antitrust litigation. In the past 12 months alone, there have been three landmark rulings against Google/Alphabet (in search, advertising, and payments). Then there’s the long-running FTC v. Meta case, which went to trial last week. Plenty of people are cheering these cases on, seeing them as a victories over the tech broligarchy (who doesn’t love to see a broligarch get their comeuppance?).

But we’re cautiously cheering for another, more fundamental reason: the Big Tech antitrust cases could and should lead to enforceable changes that will foster more vibrant online expression and more meaningful user privacy protections.

Antitrust doctrine isn’t just about prices – it’s about power. The cases are nothing less than a fight over who will control the future of the internet, and what that future will look like. Will social media platforms continue to consolidate and enshittify? Or will the courts create breathing room for new ways of connecting to emerge and thrive?

Take FTC v Meta: The FTC argues that Meta’s control over Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram – the latter two being companies Facebook acquired in order to neutralize them as competitors— gives it unfair monopoly power in personal social media, i.e. communications with friends and family. Meta disputes that, of course, but even if you take Meta at their word, there’s no denying that this case is directly concerned with online expression. If the FTC succeeds, Meta could be broken up and forced to compete. More important than competition for its own sake is what competition can deliver: openings in the canopy that allow green shoots to sprout – new systems for talking with one another and forming communities under different and more transparent moderation policies, a break from the content moderation monoculture that serves no one well (except for corporate shareholders).

These antitrust cases aren’t the sole purview of government enforcers. Private companies have also brought significant cases with real implications for user rights.

Take Epic Games v Google, in which Google insists that the court order to open up its app store to competition will lead to massive security risks. This is a common refrain from tech giants like Google, who benefit from the system of “feudal security” in which users must depend on the whims of a monopolist to guarantee their safety. Google claims that its app store security measures keep its users safe – reprising the long-discredited theory of “security through obscurity.” As the eminent cryptographer (and EFF board member) Bruce Schneier says, “Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can’t break.”

It’s true that Google often does a good job securing its users against external threats, but Google does a much worse job securing users against Google itself – for example, there’s no way to comprehensively block tracking for Google’s apps on Android. Competition might make Google clean up its act here, but only if they start worrying that there’s a chance you’ll switch to an upstart with a better privacy posture. Enabling competition—as these cases are trying to do—means we don’t have to rely on Google to get privacy religion. We can just switch to an independently vetted rival. Of course, you can only vote with your feet if you have somewhere else to go.

Related Cases: Epic Games v. Google

Enacting strong federal consumer data privacy laws is among EFF’s highest priorities. For decades, EFF has advocated for federal privacy law that is concrete, ambitious, and fully protective of all Americans’ data privacy.

That’s why, when the House Committee on Energy and Commerce recently established a Privacy Working Group and asked for comments on what we’d like to see from a Data Security and Privacy Framework, EFF was pleased to offer our thoughts.

Our comments highlight several key points. For one, we urge Congress not to weaken current federal privacy law or create new policy that supplants stronger state laws. A law that overrides strong state protections would hurt consumers and prevent states from protecting their constituents. 

We also urge Congress to include the most important tool to ensure that privacy laws have real bite: the individual right to sue over privacy violations. As we say in our comments:

It is not enough for the government to pass laws that protect consumers from corporations that harvest and monetize their personal data. It is also necessary to ensure companies do not ignore them. The best way to do so is to empower consumers to bring their own lawsuits against the companies that violate their privacy rights. Strong “private rights of action” are among EFF’s highest priorities in any data privacy legislation.

Additionally, we reiterate that any strong privacy law must include these components:

• No online behavioral ads.
• Data minimization.
• Opt-in consent.
• User rights to access, port, correct, and delete information.
• No preemption of stronger state laws.
• Strong enforcement with a private right of action.
• No pay-for-privacy schemes.
• No deceptive design.

As we have said in our Privacy First white paper, a strong privacy law would also help us address online harms, protect children, support journalism, protect access to health care, foster digital justice, limit private data collection to train generative AI, limit foreign government surveillance, and strengthen competition.

EFF thanks the committee for the opportunity to weigh in. We invite further conversation to develop strong, comprehensive law that affirms the privacy and civil rights of all American consumers. You can read our full comments here: 

• EFF Comments to the House Committee on Energy & Commerce - Privacy Working Group

The agency's cooperative institutes study everything from salmon stocks to tropical cyclones.

The high court this week will hear arguments on whether opponents have standing to challenge the state’s right to set tough pollution rules.

The Department of Transportation secretary said replacing the MTA as the project's lead will save $120 million.

The bank’s messaging on climate represents a delicate balancing act between the institution and the U.S., its largest shareholder.

The Solar Energy Industries Association is intensifying its defense of climate law incentives as Republicans hone in on repeals.

The hesitancy comes as the White House has sought to crack down on state climate laws. Local trucking groups have raised concerns too.

The commission president’s visit comes as the U.K. and EU explore closer ties.

China and most other nations missed a February deadline to file the nationally determined contributions, which will set climate-related goals through 2035.

The Green Impact Exchange expects to begin trading early next year.

Nature Climate Change, Published online: 21 April 2025; doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02310-4

Urban heat islands are known to increase heat-related mortality, but a global analysis of more than 3,000 cities reveals that urban heat islands also substantially reduce cold-related mortality — a more than fourfold offset, globally. Although commonly used cooling strategies benefit some tropical cities, they harm others at higher latitudes, and instead a seasonally adaptive approach to heat mitigation is needed.