2025 was confirmed as the hottest year in recorded human history, continuing a streak that has now run for over a decade. The science is not the contested part anymore. What deserves more attention is the gap between what is being done and what the models say is necessary.

Global renewable energy deployment is genuinely accelerating. Solar installation in particular has beaten nearly every projection made ten years ago — costs have fallen faster and adoption has spread wider than analysts expected. This is good news and it is real. The problem is that it is happening alongside continued fossil fuel use rather than replacing it at the rate required to hit agreed temperature targets.

Politicians on both sides of the housing debate tend to focus on demand: make mortgages cheaper, give first-time buyers subsidies, cap rents. These measures are not useless, but they treat the symptom. The disease is supply.

The United States has underbuilt housing for roughly fifteen consecutive years following the 2008 crash. Developers pulled back sharply after the crisis, zoning laws made new construction slow and expensive, and NIMBY opposition to density in high-demand urban areas ensured that the places where people most wanted to live added the fewest units. The cumulative shortfall is estimated at somewhere between four and seven million homes, depending on the model.

The debate about social media and mental health has been running for a decade. The research has caught up, and the picture is sharper than it used to be.

The harm is not social media use broadly. It is specific: heavy algorithmic feed consumption, particularly among adolescent girls, correlates meaningfully with depression, anxiety, and disordered eating. The correlation survives controls for pre-existing conditions and reverse causality in the most rigorous studies now available. It is not a proven causal chain in every case, but it is strong enough that the “no evidence of harm” position is no longer defensible.