Articles & Videos

This summer’s World Cup will be unlike any other in the 96-year history of the world’s most popular sporting event. Never before have players on the field and spectators in the stands faced the intensity of heat expected to confront them at the matches taking place over the next 39 days, starting with today’s opener between Mexico and South Africa. The extra heat is due, in no small part, to rising global temperatures driven by the burning of fossil fuels, making the 2026 World Cup not just a sports story but a climate one too.Game-time temperatures at many of the host venues in the U.S. and Mexico are projected to be higher than during any previous World Cup, according to new scientific studies. (The 2022 World Cup was hosted by Qatar, but its desert heat was offset by shifting the tournament from summer to winter and holding matches in air conditioned stadiums.) Climate change has increased the number of extremely hot summer days in 14 of the 16 cities hosting matches during the 2026 Cup, the scientific nonprofit Climate Central found. Perhaps most at risk is Miami, which “now experiences roughly two additional weeks of extreme June and July heat compared to the 1970s,” Climate Central’s Ben Tracy reports.In anticipation of the exceptional heat, FIFA, the international governing body of soccer, has taken the extraordinary step of ordering referees to enforce a three-minute break halfway through each half so players can rest and hydrate. Nevertheless, the heat could be so intense, especially in Miami, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Guadalajara, and Mexico City, that players’ performance—how fast they can run, how many minutes they can play—is projected to suffer at 97 of the 104 total matches. “It has such a huge impact on the way you play,” former pro footballer Marisa Abegg told Tracy. That, in turn, has implications for the flow of play and the outcomes of matches: Teams that rely more on speed or endurance, for example, will potentially be disadvantaged.Spectators, too, will suffer. Eleven of the 16 venues are open-air stadiums where spectators will endure the full wrath of the prevailing heat and humidity. Health experts warn of increased risks of heat stroke, dehydration, and kidney failure. In response, some stadiums are adding cooling stations, misting tents, and additional medical staffing.So, a friendly request for our fellow journalists on newsrooms’ sports desks: Acquaint yourselves with the abundant science behind these warnings, via the links in this article. And mention that science occasionally in your reporting and commentary. To ignore climate change would omit crucial context that fans will find useful for understanding why their favorite teams and players excelled or languished during this World Cup.There will be plenty of opportunities to make the climate connection. Commercials will occupy two minutes and 10 seconds of each hydration break, but, for TV and radio commentators, it will be easy enough during the remaining 50 seconds of airtime to note that these breaks are taking place because, thanks largely to global warming, players are enduring some of the highest temperatures in World Cup history.A full account of the climate connection would include not only what climate change is doing to the Cup, but also what the Cup is doing to climate change. A Guardian article described how this year’s tournament is “on track to be the “most polluting” World Cup ever, with total greenhouse gas emissions hitting nearly two times the historical average.” The Guardian notes various “FIFA own goals,” including the association’s decision to increase the number of competing teams from 32 to 48. Most impactful, however, was FIFA’s decision to name three different host nations, rather than the usual one. And since Mexico, the U.S., and Canada are large land masses, teams and spectators traveling to and from venues must travel long distances by air, a notoriously carbon-intensive means of transport. Finally, in what The Guardian calls a sponsorship deal “that looks like it was concocted in a greenwashing laboratory,” FIFA in 2024 “signed a four-year partnership deal with Aramco, the state-owned Saudi energy behemoth that is the largest corporate greenhouse gas emitter on Earth.”In short, there are plenty of climate angles for journalists to explore while covering the 2026 World Cup. The same was true of the Winter Olympics earlier this year, and in 2022, and of the 2024 Summer Olympics. In each case, most coverage was disappointingly silent on the climate connection to these globally beloved sporting events. The next 39 days will reveal whether the 2026 World Cup will be any different.This article is published as part of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now.

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright admitted to Congress Wednesday that he made a false social media post about the Iran war in March.While Wright testified before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Democratic Representative Suhas Subramanyam asked him about a post he made in March on X “that the U.S. Navy had successfully escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz to ensure oil remains flowing through the global markets.”“Was that true?” Subramanyam asked Wright, who admitted it was not. “No. That was in error. It was not tweeted by me, but it was by my team that misunderstood something I said, but I take responsibility for it,” Wright said. Subramanyam then asked what he said to his team that was misunderstood.SUBRAMANYAM: You tweeted in March that the US Navy had successfully escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz. Was that true?CHRIS WRIGHT: No. pic.twitter.com/Xd9QVmfNnv— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 10, 2026Wright claimed that he said at a talk in Colorado that the U.S. would restore oil flow from the Strait of Hormuz. Subramanyam then questioned Wright’s claim on Tuesday that traffic is rising “meaningfully” through the strait. What that actually means was a point of contention between Wright and Subramanyam, as Wright would not give any specific numbers about how many barrels of oil were flowing.Oil prices plummeted and stocks jumped soon after Wright’s erroneous post in March, which he deleted after sending the markets into a tailspin.The oil that is leaving the Persian Gulf these days isn’t thanks to the U.S. Some of it may be due to oil tankers turning off their transponders, or through other means, such as a Saudi pipeline that flows east toward the Red Sea port of Yanbu. Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz remains under Iranian control, and peace talks between Iran and the U.S. seem to be stagnant despite Trump trying to claim that a deal is close.

President Donald Trump claimed Wednesday that 100 million barrels of oil had been transported through the Strait of Hormuz—much to the energy secretary’s surprise!In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed that last month, he’d directed the military to conduct a “secret mission” to support the flow of energy through the essential trade passageway. “Today, I am pleased to announce that this effort has resulted in more than 100 MILLION Barrels of Oil making its way through the Strait, and into the Open Market,” Trump wrote.“More than 200 Commercial Ships have safely traveled through the Strait. This wildly successful effort is because the UNITED STATES of AMERICA CONTROLS the Strait of Hormuz—NOT Iran,” Trump wrote. “Their military is defeated, and their economy is lost. It’s over for Iran!”Trump’s sudden announcement came as he struggled to justify the U.S. economy reaching its highest annual inflation rate in three years—and the president’s impulsive social media posts haven’t helped the situation. It’s not clear whether Trump is actually telling the truth. His administration has a history of lying about this exact thing, and the president has a penchant for using the war with Iran to try to manipulate the stock market. Trump’s claim is already failing the smell test. When asked about the 100 million barrels of oil Wednesday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright appeared confused and said he was “unaware” of the operation.Ohio Representative Emilia Sykes pressed Wright on whether he thought Trump was lying. “I do not think the president is lying, I think the president is talking casually about our efforts to stop the flow of Iranian oil,” Wright said, though clearly Trump was talking about oil that had made it out, not oil that had been blocked. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump divulged more details about the operation.“You know we’ve been taking out millions of barrels of oil. Nobody knows it. You know who doesn’t know about it? Iran until right now,” Trump said. “We took out, the other night, 22 ships, late at night with no lights because they don’t have any radar because we blasted the crap out of it.”It’s no secret that some ships have been able to exit through the Strait of Hormuz. Last week, a U.S. defense official told CNBC that the U.S. was coordinating with ships seeking passage through the Strait of Hormuz, but was not escorting vessels. Lloyd’s List Intelligence reported last week that roughly 40 ships stranded in the Persian Gulf have been able to exit the strait. The numbers Trump is claiming would indicate clandestine energy flows of a far larger scale, but it’s worth noting that before the U.S. attacked Iran, an average of 20 million barrels of oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz every day. That means the transit of more than two billion barrels of oil has been stalled in the 103 days since the U.S. and Israel first launched military strikes against Iran. This story has been updated.

A House committee hearing exploded into bluster and blunder Wednesday after Energy Secretary Chris Wright was called out for singularly defunding clean energy projects in blue states.Wright appeared before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to discuss oil shocks from the Iran war—but one particular exchange with Representative Gabe Amo put a spotlight on the unconstitutional use of his office.At issue was nearly $8 billion in Biden-era grants for clean energy projects that the White House gutted in October. Democrats have described the canceled grants as politically motivated retaliation by the Trump administration against liberal areas of the country. Amo quoted from a lawsuit filed against the Department of Energy, citing that the “primary reason” clean energy grants were funded or not funded in October 2025 was whether the grantee was “located in a blue state.”“The court rightfully found that you violated the Constitution. The only meaningful difference between the seven projects that won in court—and the hundreds of others—is that those plaintiffs sued,” Amo said. “So, Secretary Wright, my question is simple: When will you restore the funding for all the projects that were wrongfully terminated?”Wright appeared visibly irritated by the question.“Number one, you haven’t read the document or misinterpreted the document. We did not involve politics in the decision-making of our review process. Hands down, did not,” Wright said. “What about the outcomes, Mr. Secretary?” pressed Amo.That’s when the niceties ended, and the profanities began.“The court ruling you read—was a choice of announcements of some of the awards … not made by our department. No decisions, no decisions were made on politics,” Wright said. “It’s bullshit.”Amo then called for a note on parliamentary procedure, incredulously questioning if the committee was OK with “promoting language like that from witnesses.”“Watch your language there, Mr. Secretary,” drawled Committee Chair Brian Babin.Amo then tore into Wright. “Here’s the problem with your administration. You’re willing to huff and puff when it comes to showing up in front of Congress when your audience of one is paying attention. But the fact of the matter is, my constituents—and the constituents of people across this Congress—are struggling because of your decisions. And yet you want to use language like that, act out of hand, behave poorly, so you can prove that you have loyalty to the president,” Amo said.“That’s not how this works,” declared the Rhode Island lawmaker. “Do your job.”Chris Wright crashes out and calls Rep. Amo's line of questioning "bullshit," which prompts the Republican committee chair to tell him to "watch your language" pic.twitter.com/CsdTX7drSo— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 10, 2026

Along with dismantling vital sea monitoring, Trump aims to expand deep sea mining and loosen fishing regulations.

We continue to follow the impact of the Trump administration’s ongoing assault on scientific research in the United States with an update from climate scientist Peter Kalmus, who says he has been forced to resign from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) after 15 years at his “dream job.” In an immense loss to the government’s capacity to monitor and assess atmospheric conditions, the JPL has lost about 30% of its staff since President Trump took office for the second time, says Kalmus, who warns that the dismantling of federally funded scientific infrastructure comes as rising global temperatures put the Earth in “extreme danger.” “We’re on this escalator towards warmer and warmer and warmer temperatures, and world leaders are not doing anything about it.”

We’re joined by ocean policy expert David Helvarg to discuss the Trump administration’s dismantling of the Ocean Observatories Initiative, the “cutting-edge eyes [and] ears” of the ocean. The program’s closure, proposed in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 playbook for Trump’s second administration, involves the decommissioning of a vast network of ocean floor sensors that collect data on marine ecosystems, ocean currents and global climate data, protecting the world’s oceans and providing critical information about extreme weather. In their place is the increasingly unregulated expansion of resource extraction driven by the fossil fuel industry, “essentially developing the ocean for offshore oil drilling and mining — basically, as a gas station and a garbage dump.” Helvarg, the author of Forest of the Sea: The Remarkable Life and Imperiled Future of Kelp, also discusses “the world’s other forest crisis”: the loss of over half of kelp forests to warming ocean temperatures, throwing coastal ecosystems deeply out of balance. “We have an ocean,” adds Helvarg. “It’s full of life. It’s at risk. And we need to better understand the other 71% of our blue marble planet to protect it — and not to let a few individuals and corporations destroy it.”

Vietnam imported almost 80% of its oil from Kuwait before the start of the conflict, leaving it hugely vulnerable.

An uncomfortable energy deadline is looming for the White House.