Nations Agree to First-Ever Global Fee on Greenhouse Gases

The order specifically mentioned legislation in states like Vermont and New York called climate superfund laws, which are trying to hold companies liable for financial damages from flooding, wildfires, and other disasters that are a result of burning coal, oil, and gas. Other states, like Colorado and Michigan, could be targeted for laws focused on transitioning to renewable energy. In reaction to the order, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser told the New York Times that his state doesn’t want Washington, D.C., telling them they can’t govern the way they want, and that the state would not capitulate.

According to some legal experts who spoke to the New York Times, the executive order would not have any power because a president cannot invalidate state laws. Still, the directive could have a chilling effect on states and local governments that want to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Many governors and mayors did not retreat after the order was issued. Climate Mayors, a network organization of nearly 350 mayors, issued a statement that said the federal government is overreaching and fails to acknowledge the costs of delaying the transition to clean energy. A group called the U.S. Climate Alliance—comprising 24 governors and representing 55 percent of the country’s population—issued a statement saying they will not be deterred and will keep advancing solutions to the climate crisis.

Trump’s order was signed about three weeks after oil and gas executives told him they were worried about lawsuits by states, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.

According to a memo from the Office of Management and Budget, the elimination of the research office comes as part of a downsizing at NOAA, which would lose more than $1.5 billion from about a $6 billion budget. The research office allocation would drop from $485 million to about $170 million.

The downsizing was outlined in a memo obtained by Politico from current and former employees of NOAA which is aimed at balancing the federal budget. While the plans currently maintain spending levels for the National Weather Service, a part of NOAA, they are a step in the deconstruction of the agency, former NOAA Administrator Rick Spinard told Politico.

Project 2025, the conservative playbook for the first 180 days of a Republican presidency, said that NOAA should be disassembled because it creates much of the agency’s alarms over climate change. In line with Trump’s agenda, some of NOAA’s priorities are shifting away from activities like aquatic habitat conservation and restoration toward unleashing American energy and fossil fuel production.

Starting in 2028, ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, which collectively account for 85 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from the marine shipping fleet, will be required to increase their use of less carbon intensive fuels or face a penalty of $380 per metric ton exceeding a fixed emissions threshold, plus a penalty of $100 a ton on emissions above a stricter emissions limit. The agreement will reward vessels burning cleaner fuels. It will be formally adopted at an International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting in October 2025.

The draft accord was signed at a meeting of the IMO and is expected to generate $40 billion by 2030—revenue that will be used to fund innovation in the shipping sector toward the UN agency’s goal to cut emissions 20 percent by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050.

Most experts say those goals are not achievable. That sentiment is shared by Pacific Island nations, which are most affected by rising sea levels and who abstained from the vote, saying the agreement was too weak.

Oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Russia, and Venezuela also opposed the decision. Bloomberg reports that the United States pulled out of the talks, threatening to impose “reciprocal measures” against any fees charged to American ships. That’s probably more bark than bite because of the world’s 60,000 merchant ships, only 178 are U.S.-flagged, so not likely to affect revenues if they don’t comply.

Environmentalists criticized the deal, saying it will encourage destructive biofuels that can lead to deforestation, rather than more sustainable green hydrogen fuels. However, despite lacking unanimous support, the agreement marks the first time a global industry will pay a price on its climate pollution.

When we think of migratory species, we think butterflies or birds, but until now, nobody really knew the extent to which flies were on the move. The authors say flies are the most numerous and ecologically important of all terrestrial migrants, and the ones making a pit stop at your picnic are simply fueling up, so they can carry out tasks ranging from pollinating crops, eating pests like aphids, transporting nutrients, and decomposing waste so the planet isn’t covered in rotting carcasses and animal dung.

The authors say that mostly females migrate, traveling through mountain passes high in the Himalayas, on ships hundreds of miles out to sea in the Gulf of Mexico, and in their millions migrating through western Europe. They grant that some species, like mosquitoes, carry disease and are increasing their range because of global warming, but for the most part, flies have a positive impact.

Unfortunately, like many animals on Earth, humans are making life difficult for flies through habitat destruction and pesticide use. Lead author Will Hawkes wrote in The Conversation that we need flies as much as we need the air we breathe. So, he says, “the next time you see a fly on your window, open it and let it out. It has a long way to go and important work to do.”

The study was published in the journal Biological Reviews.