The 112th Congress officially kicks off at noon today, and with new GOP leadership in the House and a slimmed down Democratic advantage in the Senate, it’s clear that legislation of energy and environmental issues will be taking a new course.


Here’s a roundup of where things stand on energy and environment.

Always a Bridesmaid: Putting energy and climate after health care? Sound familiar? Democratic leaders in House and Senate famously put health care first in 2008 and 2009, and the ultimate fizzle out of the Senate’s energy and climate bill was the result. Now, it looks like Republicans will be immediately targeting that same health-care bill that Democrats prioritized, before moving on to energy issues. Of course, they’ll be focused on energy and environmental oversight, and not passing a comprehensive economy-wide cap on carbon emissions. Expect the EPA and the Department of Interior’s administrative authority to be severely challenged.

Showdown at the EPA: Just before Christmas, the agency announced its long-awaited plan to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Almost immediately, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), the incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, announced his intention to prevent that from happening. “We will not allow the administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate,” calling it a “Christmas surprise [that] is nothing short of a backdoor attempt to implement their failed job-killing cap-and-trade scheme.”

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson obviously disagrees:

“We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans, and contributes to climate change…These standards will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home.”

As the judicial procedure currently stands—after a long, convoluted series of lawsuits and appeals—the EPA actually has the legal responsibility to consider whether greenhouse gases are a “public danger.” In December, 2009, the agency announced the “endangerment finding,” which Jackson once told me was perhaps the best and most comprehensive collection of climate science yet assembled. Since then, the administration has been wielding the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as a hammer, hoping that the threat would get legislators moving on a cap-and-trade bill. Now that that’s fizzled, it looks as though the administration will try to move forward with the regulation, while industry and moderate-to-conservative policymakers will try to figure out how to stop them. Upton has already hinted as using some pretty obscure tactics—like something called a “resolution of disapproval”—to block action.

Kate Sheppard has a great take on how that battle could play out. Stay tuned, as this will surely be one of the chief enviro-political dramas of 2011.

Upton Before Issa: Fred Upton (see above) will be the first wave of GOP attack on energy and environmental regulation. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who you may remember as the guy who quoted Genesis to dismiss the threat of global warming, has been outspoken in his intentions to use his position as chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to combat regulation. But a sneak preview of Issa’s list of initial investigations is notable for what it’s missing: climate change. So it seems that Energy and Commerce will be the first battleground for energy and climate, but don’t rule Issa’s Oversight Committee out for too long. (It was just revealed that Issa sent a bunch of corporations a letter asking them, essentially, which regulations they would rather live without.)

It’s also worth noting that Upton has recently shifted his position on climate change, declaring as recently as two years ago that “climate change is a serious problem that necessitates serious solutions.”

I Know What You Did Last Session: Speaking of flip-flopping. Darren Samuelsohn writes in Politico about the “green skeletons” that lurk in the closets of many now-outspoken GOP opponents to climate action.

Science on Trial: We’ll likely see some public hearings on climate science, perhaps in Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner’s (R-IL) Science Committee. While many fear these as some combination of witch hunt and disinformation firehose, with non-credentialed, climate denying “experts” standing shoulder to shoulder with true climate scientists, the president’s chief science adviser, at least, sees a possible upside.

Attack of the Climate Zombies: Read Brad Johnson on this. He’s got all the scary stories you need about these climate science-denying politicians who “plan to send the United States back to the Stone Age with respect to climate policy.” It isn’t pretty.

Who’s Who in Upper Chamber Energy: Politico has a good roundup of the 10 senators to watch on energy this session. Included: Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).

Death of Select Committee: The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is no more. Chaired by Edward Markey (D-MA), new Republican leadership in the House has opted not to extend its mandate. The panel issued its final report yesterday. The report concludes:

Someday, our children and grandchildren will look back on the record of the Select Committee. That record will reflect a respectful and rigorous debate and an unprecedented understanding of the challenges before us. Whether or not they will see that this generation has taken the bold action required by these challenges remains to be seen.

Finally, if you’re looking to learn more about the new members of the 112th, OpenSecrets is the place to start. They’ve got all the new members listed here, with links to their individual pages featuring donor and campaign contribution figures, so you can find out where their bread is buttered.

  • More women are rejecting ‘optimization culture’ for realistic wellness plans
    Photo credit: CanvaA woman intensely exercises, left, and a morning stretch, right.

    Being fit used to mean getting enough sleep, drinking more water, and moving your body, perhaps in a daily walk. With the explosion of social media and digital self-help trends, finding an acceptable level of wellness can feel like stepping into a full-time job with daily performance reviews.

    For many women, what started as self-care has slowly become another exhausting form of self-optimization. And increasingly, they’re pretty much done with it. According to Women’s Business Daily, one of the biggest wellness shifts happening right now is a move away from extreme routines. Women want habits that actually fit into real life.

    fitness culture, self-optimization, realistic wellness, mindful living
    An intense workout.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Wellness feels like a full-time job

    Instead of chasing perfection, more women are choosing what can be described as a more realistic approach to wellness, incorporating sustainable routines built around balance and emotional well-being rather than climbing a never-ending ladder of constant improvement.

    The shift comes after a solid decade of what many refer to online as “optimization culture.” This exhausting idea assumes that every part of life needs to be carefully measured, improved, and optimized.

    Experts believe this mindset is not only making people miserable; it’s unsustainable.

    wellness overload, social wellness, health fatigue, hustle culture
    An exhausting routine.
    Photo credit: Canva

    A backlash against the “always improve yourself” culture

    A recent article in Psychology Today found that “wellnessmaxxing” trends turn self-care into another form of anxiety. This is especially true when routines become so demanding that people feel more guilt than relief. As creators post TikToks showing themselves “maxing out” in some kind of self-congratulation, they spread unhelpful expectations that no longer promote self-care.

    Verywell Health explains that these influencers broadcast an all-consuming performance metric. People now face a painful realization that they can never do enough. It’s hard to miss the irony that wellness has begun to feel unhealthy.

    Women are increasingly embracing low-pressure routines instead of overly aspirational ones. Think walks instead of cross-training, and a morning meditation instead of a week-long stay at a Tibetan monastery. It’s okay to just eat more vegetables instead of a perfectly balanced daily nutrition plan of 150 grams of protein, wheatgrass smoothies, and specifically rated pH-balanced alkaline water.

    After all the extreme exercises, self-help books, and sophisticated meal plans, it’s time to get back to basics. Here’s one version of a realistic plan: drink some water, get outside, and try to sleep a little better.

    anti-hustle, performance pressure, happiness, lifestyle
    A casual walk with a dog.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Getting back to the basics

    A beauty editor writing for Who What Wear documented her attempt to follow a social-media-inspired wellness reset. With all the expensive and complicated habits she hoped would unlock the “incredibly high-functioning, ultra-productive version” of herself, she came away understanding that she should stick with the basics.

    Modern life already asks women to juggle careers, caregiving, appearance standards, finances, and relationships. Somewhere along the journey, wellness became just one more category to add to the pile.

    work life balance, culture, community, women wellness
    Maintaining a perfect life balance.
    Photo credit: Canva

    Women are choosing simple, sustainable routines

    Finding realistic wellness is a trend that reflects a growing desire for community-centered wellness rather than isolated self-improvement. Instead of wellness looking like a solo pursuit for an achievement award, many women are leaning toward connection: walking groups, shared meals, accountability with friends, and being honest about feeling burned out on all of it.

    The Times reports that people feel walking groups are less intimidating and more emotionally supportive. People don’t just want fitness; they want to belong to something.

    A 2025 study in Frontiers in Psychology focused on the benefits of women finding social support groups. Programs that incorporated women’s preferences into their daily lives were more likely to be enjoyed and maintained.

    Wellness cultures have told women the answer is to do more: more discipline, more self-reflection, more perfect sleep, more work dedication, more family direction, more effort.

    Making life more enjoyable and realistic can help well-being feel easier to maintain. A joyful life is better lived “in” than constantly measured “against” unrealistic expectations.

  • What a roommate can save you in 100 US cities: 2026 study
    Two persons petting a cat while unpacking boxes in their new room.

    Jaclyn DeJohn, CFP for SmartAsset

    What a roommate can save you in 100 US cities: 2026 study

    New college grads, transplants from other cities, and others might find myriad advantages in including a roommate in their housing plan — one of those being cost savings. Particularly in high cost-of-living areas, an extra cushion in the budget could make a big difference in discretionary spending, paying off debt, or investing for the future. Across large U.S. cities, splitting a two-bedroom apartment with a roommate versus living alone in a one-bedroom apartment could save the average renter about $541 per month, or nearly $6,500 per year. In many cities, the average savings climb much higher.

    With this in mind, SmartAsset ranked 100 of the largest U.S. cities based on the percentage of monthly rent saved by sharing an apartment with a roommate.

    Key Findings

    • Adding a roommate gets you the best value in Cleveland, Ohio. Splitting a two-bedroom with another person saves you nearly 48% compared to renting a one-bedroom alone. The average cost of one-bedroom rent in Cleveland currently sits at $1,150, nearly identical to the average two-bedroom rent of $1,200.
    • The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment is only $900 in this city. Shreveport, Louisiana, has the lowest two-bedroom rent out of 100 large cities. With an average one-bedroom price of $790, it ranks 10th overall with a savings of 43% with a roommate, or $340 rent savings per person per month.
    • In NYC, a roommate saves you $1,730 per month. The average one-bedroom rent in New York City is $4,380, while two roommates could split the average $5,300 two-bedroom rent for $2,650 each. Neighboring Jersey City, New Jersey has the second-highest raw monthly dollars saved with a roommate at $1,490 — or 46.7% savings over living alone.
    • A roommate saves you the least in the cities. Relative to local housing costs, sharing your space is least cost effective in Scottsdale, Arizona, where splitting a two-bedroom nets you a 26.0% discount, or a $440 monthly discount. Seattle (28.2% savings; $550 per month) and El Paso, Texas (29.4% savings; $250 per month), also are most budget-friendly to singletons.
    A table ranking U.S. cities based on the saving benefits of having a roommate.

    Top 10 Cities With the Most Savings With a Roommate

    Cities are ranked based on the percent saved in rent between splitting the average two-bedroom apartment with a roommate and living in a one-bedroom apartment alone.

    1. Cleveland, OH
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 47.83%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $550
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,150
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,200
    1. Baton Rouge, LA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 46.88%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $450
    • One-bedroom rent: $960
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,020
    1. Jersey City, NJ
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 46.71%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $1,490
    • One-bedroom rent: $3,190
    • Two-bedroom rent: $3,400
    1. Memphis, TN
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 46.24%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $430
    • One-bedroom rent: $930
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,000
    1. Boise, ID
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 45.49%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $605
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,330
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,450
    1. Augusta, GA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 45.00%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $450
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,000
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,100
    1. New Haven, CT
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 44.89%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $835
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,860
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,050
    1. Chattanooga, TN
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 44.44%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $520
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,170
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,300
    1. Virginia Beach, VA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 43.94%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $725
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,650
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,850
    1. Shreveport, LA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 43.04%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $340
    • One-bedroom rent: $790
    • Two-bedroom rent: $900

    Top 10 Cities Where It’s Most Cost Effective to Live Alone

    Cities are ranked based on the percent saved in rent between splitting the average two-bedroom apartment with a roommate and living in a one-bedroom apartment alone.

    1. Scottsdale, AZ
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 26.04%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $440
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,690
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,500
    1. Seattle, WA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 28.21%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $550
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,950
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,800
    1. El Paso, TX
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 29.41%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $250
    • One-bedroom rent: $850
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,200
    1. Albuquerque, NM
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 29.47%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $280
    • One-bedroom rent: $950
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,340
    1. Denver, CO
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 29.69%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $475
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,600
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,250
    1. St Louis, MO
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.11%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $280
    • One-bedroom rent: $930
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,300
    1. Dallas, TX
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.28%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $430
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,420
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,980
    1. San Francisco, CA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.47%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $1,155
    • One-bedroom rent: $3,790
    • Two-bedroom rent: $5,270
    1. Fort Lauderdale, FL
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.85%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $580
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,880
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,600
    1. St Petersburg, FL
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 31.33%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $470
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,500
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,060

    Data and Methodology

    This study examined data from 100 U.S. cities, comparing the average rents for one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments between March 2025 and March 2026 based on data from Zumper. Specifically, the cost of a one-bedroom was compared with half the cost of a two-bedroom for each city, assuming each roommate pays equal rent.

    This story was produced by SmartAsset and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

  • Parents trust report cards more than test scores, with consequences for kids
    A school report card showing straight A's.

    Jill Barshay for The Hechinger Report

    Parents trust report cards more than test scores, with consequences for kids

    Most parents want to help their children succeed. We check report cards, ask about homework and try to help our kids study. When that fails, we sometimes hire tutors. But in an era of rising grades, it’s easy to be misled.

    A new study reviewed by The Hechinger Report found that parents often assume everything is fine when their child’s report card shows mostly A’s, even when standardized test scores slide. That assumption may underestimate the help and guidance their child needs.

    In an online experiment, researchers at Oregon State University and the University of Chicago created hypothetical fifth graders, whom they called Stacey and Robert, and asked more than 2,000 parents how they would advise the children’s parents to respond to different scenarios of grades and test scores. Test scores were expressed as percentile ranks on standardized tests, such as the annual state tests that public school children take each spring, so that parents could compare Stacey and Robert with those of other children nationwide. And study participants were given an imaginary $100 per week to “spend” however they wished. Options included enrolling the child in an after-school program, hiring a tutor or saving the money for a vacation or bills. They could also invest their own time, such as helping with homework or reading together.

    Parents advised increasing time and money spent when both grades and test scores were low. Parents were less likely to provide extra help or resources when grades were high and only test scores were low. The researchers found that parents were more likely to step in when grades were low but test scores were higher.

    More than 70% of the parents said they trust grades more than tests for making decisions about their own child, and fewer than 9% said they had more confidence in tests.

    The findings appear in a draft paper that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal and may still be revised. It was publicly circulated by the Becker Friedman Institute for Economics at the University of Chicago this month.

    As test scores have fallen nationwide while grades have risen, the researchers believe that parents may be underinvesting in their children. “Parents are the key to children’s success,” said Ariel Kalil of the University of Chicago. “What you need is for parents to be making investments in their kids’ skill development, and you need that parental effort to be happening early and often. Anything that depresses parent investment is a problem.”

    Kalil is concerned that this underinvestment in children is more pronounced in low-income communities, where, she said, high grades are often issued for below-grade-level skills. After the COVID-19 pandemic, schools struggled to persuade families to enroll in free tutoring and summer programs to make up for months of disrupted instruction. Many report cards showed solid grades, reducing the urgency for parents to act.

    Paired with other recent research on long-term academic and economic consequences, this study strengthens the case that grade inflation isn’t harmless. Inflated grades may feel encouraging, but they can send false signals both to students, who may study less, and to parents, who may see less reason to step in. Ultimately, it not only hurts individuals but also American labor force skills and future economic growth, the researchers argue.

    Kalil, a behavioral scientist, believes that parents have more confidence in grades because they are familiar and easier to understand. Meanwhile, score reports are complicated, and even many well-educated parents are confused about scaled scores and percentile rankings.

    A survey that accompanied the online experiment revealed that a sizable share of parents don’t trust standardized tests. Forty percent of the parents in the study said that tests were biased. Almost 30% thought student scores were a reflection of family income. Fewer than 20% of parents thought tests captured their children’s skills.

    Kalil says there’s another psychological phenomenon at play even for parents who understand and value standardized tests: the tendency to ignore bad news when it is paired with good news. “If the report card is all A’s, there’s a cognitive bias towards sticking your head in the sand and rejecting the bad information,” said Kalil.

    There were hints in the data that Hispanic families were most trusting of grades and least trusting of test scores, while Asian families were more willing to heed test results. But few Hispanic and Asian parents participated in the survey, so these patterns were not statistically significant. (Almost 70% of the respondents were white and 20% Black.) Parents with at least a bachelor’s degree also paid more attention to standardized exams.

    Solving the problem won’t be easy. The researchers say schools can do more to explain what test scores measure and how to interpret them, but better communication alone may not shift parents’ instincts. Reversing grade inflation would be the most direct solution, but that would require a broader shift across schools — something that is unlikely to happen quickly.

    In the meantime, the burden is on parents to read report cards with a critical eye. When grades and test scores don’t align, it’s worth asking why. A strong report card can be reassuring, but it may not always tell the full story of what a child knows — or what help they might need.

    This storywas produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education, and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

Explore More Stories

Science

How much is a bat worth? Protecting these tiny insect‑eaters isn’t just good for farms – their deaths cost taxpayers and the wider economy

Public Good

Spanish town shaded from punishing summer heat thanks to senior knitters and their colorful blankets

Health

People who dread working out are trying ‘micro walks,’ and the results feel great

Science

How does your brain decide between the road not taken or the same old route? Resolving conflicting memories is key to navigation