5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Climate
Voters in California City Become First in US to Approve Permanent Ban on Data Centers
"We hope that other communities will use the model set by residents here... as inspiration to stop data centers from encroaching in their backyard," said a Monterey Park city councilmember.
Jun 04, 2026
Voters in Monterey Park, California on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a permanent ban on data centers within city limits, becoming the first city in the US to prohibit the power-hungry facilities via a ballot initiative.
In total, the anti-data center resolution passed with 86% voter support, with only 14% of voters opposed. The resolution's text said that a ban was necessary to "protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health" and "prevent impacts to electricity and water rates."
Steven Kung, a leader of the local initiative, told ABC 7 Eyewitness News that the result was "a landslide victory."
Kung listed multiple reasons why residents in the city resoundingly rejected building data centers in their community.
"The noise pollution, the air pollution, the rise in the electricity rates," he said, "the deal just didn't make sense and it doesn't make sense for most, if not all, cities data centers go to."
In an interview with Politico, Monterey Park Mayor Elizabeth Yang predicted that her city would be far from the last to pass data center bans, noting data center projects have spurred protests across the country.
"A lot of the other cities that are facing data center proposals are going to follow suit," said Yang. "There's [a] bad reputation across the board, across the country, from other data centers that have been built in neighborhoods."
Monterey Park city councilmember Jose Sanchez expressed a similar sentiment, telling The Guardian that he hoped his city would become a inspiration to others.
"We hope that other communities will use the model set by residents here in Monterey Park," said Sanchez, "as inspiration to stop data centers from encroaching in their backyard."
Data centers have become political lightning rods in recent months, as residents across the country object to their massive resource consumption, which is leading to a major spike in utility bills, as well as the noise pollution they generate.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) earlier this year introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment."
A poll released on Wednesday by Public First showed US residents more opposed to data center construction than any nation in the world, with just 26% of Americans registering support for building more data centers.
This opposition isn't merely abstract, as it has caused major headaches for Big Tech firms that have been scrambling to increase their AI models' compute power.
As The Financial Times reported on Thursday, "dozens of projects collectively worth at least $156 billion have been blocked or stalled since 2025" thanks to local opposition to their development.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Appellate Court Tosses Youth Case Against 'Unconstitutional' Trump Orders Fueling Climate Crisis
“This decision lets the president direct a sweeping fossil fuel agenda, with no authorization from Congress and no meaningful judicial review, and then tells the children harmed by that agenda that they cannot challenge it until it is unconstitutionally implemented piece by piece," one lawyer said.
Jun 02, 2026
A federal judge in the District of Montana last year "reluctantly" dismissed a lawsuit filed by young Americans challenging a trio of President Donald Trump's anti-climate executive orders and invited the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to correct him—but the panel on Tuesday again tossed the case.
Backed by attorneys at Our Children's Trust and Public Justice, Eva Lighthiser, Rikki Held of Held v. State of Montana, and 20 other children and young adults sued in May 2025 over Trump's executive orders (EOs) boosting the coal industry, declaring a "national energy emergency," and calling on federal agencies to accelerate fossil fuel development.
After the first dismissal from US District Judge Dana Christensen, the young Americans and their lawyers vowed to appeal. However, the 9th Circuit on Tuesday found that "plaintiffs can only speculate that the executive orders are the cause of the many agency actions they allege will exacerbate climate change," and "they have not plausibly alleged that enjoining federal agencies from implementing the executive orders is substantially likely to prevent agencies from taking similar emissions-inducing actions under other lawful authorities."
Issuing an injunction sought by the plaintiffs "would effectively place one federal district court in charge of executive branch energy policy—'an extraordinary and unprecedented role' for a member of the 'unelected and politically unaccountable branch,'" the appellate court also concluded. "Further, by effectively challenging hundreds of current and anticipated agency actions in one lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to circumvent the jurisdictional and procedural rules Congress has established for challenges to agency actions."
Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and co-executive director of Our Children's Trust, declared in a Tuesday statement that "this decision lets the president direct a sweeping fossil fuel agenda, with no authorization from Congress and no meaningful judicial review, and then tells the children harmed by that agenda that they cannot challenge it until it is unconstitutionally implemented piece by piece. That is not how the Constitution works."
"The court did not decide whether these executive orders are constitutional. It did not decide whether the federal government may knowingly endanger children," she explained. "Instead, it slammed the courthouse doors on children fighting for their lives and told them to file hundreds of cases against every agency action carrying out the president's unconstitutional executive orders. Courts do not become policymakers when they stop unconstitutional government action. That is their job. These young people deserve a court willing to do it."
The lead plaintiff, Lighthiser, stressed that "the court never said we were wrong. They never said the harm isn't real. They just said they wouldn't stop the harm."
"They had the power to act. and they chose not to," she continued. "By the time we are harmed enough to satisfy them, it will be too late. I am a young person. This is my life, my health, my future. And I deserve better than this. We all do."
The decision comes as Trump and his allies continue to serve the interests of the fossil fuel executives who helped him return to power, regardless of the consequences for people and the planet—from gutting key agencies and attacking clean power projects to dismantling a deep-ocean monitoring system that helps researchers understand the impacts of the climate crisis.
"The Trump administration is responsible for a children's health emergency by obligating federal agencies to take actions that dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions and climate change," Dan Snyder, director of Public Justice's Environmental Enforcement Project, said Tuesday. "The 9th Circuit makes no mention of this emergency. Indeed, the 9th Circuit's decision is shocking in what it lacks."
"The court didn't even consider US Supreme Court decisions—or decisions from within its own circuit—which would require it to reach a very different decision than the one it did today," he highlighted. "The court ignored significant and undisputed facts that Trump's executive orders are causing real-world injuries to our children today. And the court ignores its most basic responsibility: finding workable remedies that provide relief to the uncontested injuries being inflicted by the Trump administration on our kids."
Keep Reading
Show Less
New El Niño Warning Compounded by Trump’s Attacks on Climate, Disaster Preparedness
"If and when a hurricane unleashes widespread death and destruction... Democrats should make Trump and his Republican accomplices pay a steep political price for deliberately putting people in harm's way."
Jun 02, 2026
The World Meteorological Organization on Tuesday issued a warning about an El Niño event forming that is expected to "increase the risk of extreme weather over the coming months."
El Niño refers to a climate pattern that features warmer than average temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. WMO said its latest forecast estimates an 80% likelihood of an event occurring this summer, with most of its models suggesting “it will be at least moderate—and possibly strong.”
WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo warned that a strong El Niño this summer "will exacerbate drought and heavy rainfall and increase the risk of heatwaves both on land and in the ocean," and said WMO scientists will be "carefully monitoring conditions in the coming months to inform decision-making by governments, humanitarian agencies, and climate-sensitive sectors."
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said the latest WMO projections must spur global action to address the climate crisis.
"The world must treat it as the urgent climate warning it is," Guterres said. "El Niño conditions will pour fuel on the fire of a warming world. Impacts will hit even harder, travel even farther, and cross borders with devastating speed. The only effective response is climate action equal to the crisis—ending the addiction to fossil fuels, accelerating the shift to renewables, protecting the most vulnerable, and delivering early warning systems for all."
An El Niño event could pose particular problems in the United States, as critics are warning that President Donald Trump's attacks on climate research and federal disaster preparedness are leaving Americans particularly vulnerable to extreme weather.
Revolving Door Project senior researcher Kenny Stancil on Tuesday published an analysis breaking down the ways the Trump administration "has relentlessly undermined disaster readiness and response capacity" by taking a hatchet to key institutions such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Weather Service (NWS).
Among other things, Stancil documented how the Trump administration has ousted "thousands of NOAA workers, including hundreds of NWS employees"; gutted FEMA's staff by "pushing out thousands of rank-and-file workers and dozens of veteran leaders"; and is "thwarting investments in disaster risk reduction, from slashing emissions to pursuing just and sustainable urban development."
Stancil added that while Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has reversed some of the cuts made by former DHS chief Kristi Noem, these "last-minute reversals can't undo" the "severe damage" caused by the initial actions.
"If and when a hurricane unleashes widespread death and destruction (if not in 2026, it could be in 2027 or 2028)," Stancil wrote, "Democrats should make Trump and his Republican accomplices pay a steep political price for deliberately putting people in harm's way."
Stancil's concerns about US preparedness for extreme weather events were echoed by Shana Udvardy, senior climate resilience policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who on Monday published an analysis outlining the current state of FEMA ahead of hurricane season.
Although Udvardy offered some qualified praise for Mullin for undoing some of Noem's worst policy decisions, she said FEMA still faces potentially catastrophic vacancies at key positions.
"Roughly half of FEMA’s leadership, 18 out of 38 of top-level positions, have yet to be filled as of today, at the start of the Atlantic hurricane season," she explained, adding that "it can take six months to a year to recruit and onboard a senior executive and a year to hire full-time staff."
The administration this week also announced plans to dismantle the Ocean Observatories Initiative, a deep-sea monitoring system that can provide crucial storm forecasting data while also tracking the health of coastal habitats.
Chris Robbins, associate director of scientific initiatives at Ocean Conservatory, said on Tuesday that the administration's effort to dismantle the system heading into a projected El Niño event "doesn't make any sense."
"Walking away from a $368 million investment in a state-of-the-art system, a feat of engineering already paid for by the American people, is absolutely myopic," Robbins said. "This system is a vital scientific asset that quietly protects American lives, communities, and the economy through unfettered access to world-class scientific data. Its loss would create an irreparable blind spot for our country in predicting earthquakes, fishery health, storm forecasting, coastal flooding, and more."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Absolutely Crazy’: Horror as Trump Moves to Dismantle Crucial Ocean Monitoring System
"Blinding the public to climate change won’t make it go away. It will only accelerate its profound consequences."
Jun 02, 2026
In what a number of scientists suggested was the Trump administration's latest effort to stop tracking the changing climate in hopes of convincing the public that the climate emergency isn't happening, the National Science Foundation announced Monday that it was dismantling a crucial deep-ocean monitoring system that for years has helped researchers understand the impacts of the crisis on the world's oceans.
The NSF said it plans to send ships this month to remove more than 900 instruments, part of a project called the Ocean Observatories Initiative. The project collects data on temperatures, currents, and the ocean's absorption of carbon dioxide off the coasts of Oregon, Alaska, Washington, and North Carolina, as well as in the Irminger Sea between Iceland and Greenland.
A spokesperson for NSF told The New York Times that the dismantling of the initiative will help the NSF in "prioritizing support for evolving scientific priorities and emerging technologies as well as a deliberate approach to smart life cycle management within its portfolio of research infrastructure.”
The reasoning given for the shuttering of the project, said Tara Blume, a journalist at Oklahoma City NBC affiliate KFOR, was "a master class in obfuscation and doublespeak."
Genevieve Guenther of the group End Climate Silence shared her own interpretation of why the $368 million ocean observation system is being discontinued, despite the fact that it had been set to collect data for 25 years.
"We need to track ocean currents to assess how close we are to climate tipping points that will essentially destroy the world as we know it," said Guenther. "The GOP doesn't want us to be able to do that. That's why they're dismantling ocean monitoring."
Scientists have used data gathered by moorings, robotic vehicles, and other instruments that transmit the information to research laboratories, to study changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC), a current system that moves warm water northward and cools the Arctic and Northern Atlantic regions while absorbing carbon dioxide deep into the ocean and keeping it out of the atmosphere.
Data gathered at the observation station in the Irminger Sea has been key to understanding AMOC, which scientists fear is gradually weakening due to planetary heating and could ultimately collapse, likely causing major global weather changes.
"This is absolutely crazy," said David Doniger, a senior strategist and attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and energy department. "Wouldn’t you want to know if the ocean currents are changing? Wouldn’t you want to know ocean temperatures? These things affect everything from fishing to hurricanes."
Following the announcement that the stations will be dismantled in the coming weeks, said Blume, "science gasps for breath."
President Donald Trump has attempted several times to shut down or drastically reduce the budget of the Ocean Observatories Initiative, which costs $48 million annually to run. Congress has restored the program's funding.
The dismantling of the program comes months after the Environmental Protection Agency repealed the "endangerment finding," which for years had underpinned the department's environmental regulations; after the administration closed down the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which had gathered data on hurricanes and extreme weather to help improve forecasts; and after the National Aeronautics and Space Administration released a statement on record-breaking temperatures in 2024 and 2025—without any mention of the climate crisis or climate change.
"Blinding the public to climate change won’t make it go away. It will only accelerate its profound consequences," said clinical researcher Iris Gorfinkel.
According to the Trump administration, said historian Nick Kapur, "apparently climate change doesn't exist if you prevent scientists from measuring it."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular