GoGreenNation news

Costa Rica Ranks Third in 2025 Global Retirement Index

News Feed

Tuesday, December 2, 2025

Costa Rica has earned third place in International Living’s 34th Annual Global Retirement Index for 2025, a solid performance that keeps the country among the world’s top retirement spots despite a slight drop from recent years. The index, which evaluates countries based on factors like cost of living, healthcare, climate, and residency options, highlights Costa Rica’s appeal to retirees seeking a balanced life in Central America. This year’s ranking places Costa Rica behind Panama in second and Greece in first, according to the latest data from the index released earlier this year. Retirees praise the country’s focus on nature, safety, and community bonds, often summed up in the local phrase “pura vida.” A couple living in the coastal town of Samara, for example, reports monthly expenses around $1,593, covering food, utilities, and other basics while owning their home. Healthcare stands out as a key strength, with the public Caja system costing about $80 per month and private options like a mammogram available for $50. The Pensionado residency program remains a draw, requiring a $1,000 monthly pension to qualify. Climates vary from the dry northwest in Guanacaste to humid coastal areas, giving retirees choices that fit their preferences. These elements helped Costa Rica score high in categories like climate, where it topped the list, and environmental protection, with 25% of its land set aside as protected areas. Compared to past years, Costa Rica’s position shows consistency with some fluctuations. In 2024, the country claimed first place, praised for its affordable lifestyle and strong healthcare system. It also held the top spot in 2021, when the index noted its neighborly atmosphere and stable democracy. Back in 2019, Costa Rica ranked second, just behind Mexico, due to similar strengths in cost and quality of life. In 2018, it again led the rankings, drawing attention for its no-hassle residency and year-round mild weather. The dip to third in 2025 reflects growing competition from European nations like Greece, which jumped from seventh last year thanks to its low costs, Mediterranean climate, and community feel. Panama, our regional rival, edged ahead with its Pensionado Visa discounts—such as 25% off utility bills—and diverse terrains from highlands to beaches. Still, Costa Rica outperforms many peers, outranking Portugal in fourth, Mexico in fifth, and others like Italy and France further down the list. Experts here see this as a positive sign. “Costa Rica continues to attract retirees who value stability and natural surroundings,” said a real estate advisor in Guanacaste, where expat communities thrive. The country’s emphasis on safety ranks it 39th in the 2023 Global Peace Index, ahead of many Latin American neighbors, though retirees note the need for common-sense precautions. Economic factors play a role too. Property taxes stay low, and living costs allow a comfortable existence on modest incomes. A retiree in the Central Valley might spend $400 on groceries and $275 on electricity monthly, far below similar expenses in the U.S. or Europe. Healthcare access combines public universality with private efficiency, making it a reliable choice for older adults. While the ranking slipped from recent highs, it underscores Costa Rica’s continuing strengths. Retirees from North America and Europe keep arriving, drawn to places like the Nicoya Peninsula, one of the world’s Blue Zones for longevity. The index serves as a guide for those planning moves, and Costa Rica’s spot near the top suggests it will remain a favorite. As global trends shift toward affordable, health-focused destinations, Costa Rica adapts by improving infrastructure and residency processes. For locals, the influx supports tourism and real estate, though it also raises questions about balancing growth with preservation. In a nutshell, the 2025 index reconfirms Costa Rica’s role as a leading retirement destination, even as new contenders such as our neighbor Panama, emerge. The post Costa Rica Ranks Third in 2025 Global Retirement Index appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

This year’s ranking places Costa Rica behind Panama in second and Greece in first, according to the latest data from the index released earlier this year. Retirees praise the country’s focus on nature, safety, and community bonds, often summed up in the local phrase “pura vida.” A couple living in the coastal town of Samara, for example, reports monthly expenses around $1,593, covering food, utilities, and other basics while owning their home. Healthcare stands out as a key strength, with the public Caja system costing about $80 per month and private options like a mammogram available for $50.

The Pensionado residency program remains a draw, requiring a $1,000 monthly pension to qualify. Climates vary from the dry northwest in Guanacaste to humid coastal areas, giving retirees choices that fit their preferences. These elements helped Costa Rica score high in categories like climate, where it topped the list, and environmental protection, with 25% of its land set aside as protected areas.

Compared to past years, Costa Rica’s position shows consistency with some fluctuations. In 2024, the country claimed first place, praised for its affordable lifestyle and strong healthcare system. It also held the top spot in 2021, when the index noted its neighborly atmosphere and stable democracy. Back in 2019, Costa Rica ranked second, just behind Mexico, due to similar strengths in cost and quality of life. In 2018, it again led the rankings, drawing attention for its no-hassle residency and year-round mild weather.

The dip to third in 2025 reflects growing competition from European nations like Greece, which jumped from seventh last year thanks to its low costs, Mediterranean climate, and community feel. Panama, our regional rival, edged ahead with its Pensionado Visa discounts—such as 25% off utility bills—and diverse terrains from highlands to beaches. Still, Costa Rica outperforms many peers, outranking Portugal in fourth, Mexico in fifth, and others like Italy and France further down the list.

Experts here see this as a positive sign. “Costa Rica continues to attract retirees who value stability and natural surroundings,” said a real estate advisor in Guanacaste, where expat communities thrive. The country’s emphasis on safety ranks it 39th in the 2023 Global Peace Index, ahead of many Latin American neighbors, though retirees note the need for common-sense precautions.

Economic factors play a role too. Property taxes stay low, and living costs allow a comfortable existence on modest incomes. A retiree in the Central Valley might spend $400 on groceries and $275 on electricity monthly, far below similar expenses in the U.S. or Europe. Healthcare access combines public universality with private efficiency, making it a reliable choice for older adults.

While the ranking slipped from recent highs, it underscores Costa Rica’s continuing strengths. Retirees from North America and Europe keep arriving, drawn to places like the Nicoya Peninsula, one of the world’s Blue Zones for longevity. The index serves as a guide for those planning moves, and Costa Rica’s spot near the top suggests it will remain a favorite.

As global trends shift toward affordable, health-focused destinations, Costa Rica adapts by improving infrastructure and residency processes. For locals, the influx supports tourism and real estate, though it also raises questions about balancing growth with preservation.

In a nutshell, the 2025 index reconfirms Costa Rica’s role as a leading retirement destination, even as new contenders such as our neighbor Panama, emerge.

The post Costa Rica Ranks Third in 2025 Global Retirement Index appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

Pennsylvania bailed on a carbon market to appease Republicans

Governor Josh Shapiro pulled out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in exchange for a budget. Critics say he “got rolled.”

Last month, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro withdrew from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI (pronounced “Reggie”), a cap-and-trade program that establishes a regional limit on carbon emissions from power plants located in the Northeast. Here’s how RGGI works: Each year, credits allowing the power plants to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide, up to the cap, are auctioned off. The proceeds from these auctions go to RGGI member states, which can reinvest them into clean energy and consumer affordability programs. Crucially, the emissions cap gradually lowers over time, theoretically ensuring that total emissions continue on a downward trend. Pennsylvania is a giant within the program, because it has higher power sector emissions than all of the other RGGI states — Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and the District of Columbia — combined, so Shapiro’s exit sent shockwaves through the system. The Democrat withdrew from the program as part of a compromise to convince Republicans in the legislature to pass the state’s budget, which has been delayed since June, forcing schools and public transportation to dip into rainy day funds or take on debt to support services. As he signed the withdrawal bill, Shapiro said that state Republicans have used RGGI “as an excuse to stall substantive conversations about energy.” (Though Pennsylvania joined the regional pact in 2022, the move was immediately tied up in litigation, which was ongoing at the time of Shapiro’s withdrawal, meaning the state had yet to actually participate in the auctions.) “Today, that excuse is gone,” Shapiro added. “It’s time to look forward — and I’m going to be aggressive about pushing for policies that create more jobs in the energy sector, bring more clean energy onto the grid, and reduce the cost of energy for Pennsylvanians.” Read Next Why Trump can’t stop states from fighting climate change Matt Simon But some other Democrats and environmental advocates argue that the governor has essentially given away the store. “I would describe it as Faustian, except Faust got so much more out of his bargain with the devil,” Nikil Saval, a Democratic state senator, told Spotlight PA. Jackson Morris, senior state policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that Shapiro lost a chance to claim credit for a substantial environmental victory during a potential presidential run, which he is rumored to be considering. Democrats “basically got rolled,” said Morris. “The political calculus of all this is baffling.” Pennsylvania first moved to join RGGI in 2019 through an executive action by then-governor Tom Wolfe, but the program attracted pushback from Republicans immediately. A 2022 court order prevented the state from formally joining RGGI that year, and then the Commonwealth Court ruled Wolfe’s executive action unconstitutional in 2023. That decision is currently being reconsidered by the state’s Supreme Court, where Democrats retained their majority in elections last month. But Shapiro’s move renders that process moot. “To add insult to injury here,” said Morris, “we were about to have the answer from the court. And now we never will, because they gave up.” “It’s not just that we fumbled the ball on the 1-yard line, but then [we] picked it up and ran it into the other end zone,” said Patrick McDonnell, president and CEO of the Pennsylvania environmental group PennFuture. (The governor’s office declined to speak with Grist on the record.) RGGI has produced about $8.6 billion thus far for participating states. Virginia, fresh off the heels of Democratic Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger’s victory, is currently poised to rejoin the program after being forced out by the current Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin. When Youngkin’s withdrawal was found to be unlawful in court, Spanberger campaigned on returning to the compact. Some are more cautious in their criticism of Shapiro. “This decision [on RGGI] doesn’t feel final to me,” said Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at the research nonprofit Resources for the Future. In early 2025, Shapiro unveiled his “Lightning Plan,” a jobs-and-energy proposal that included something called the Pennsylvania Climate Emissions Reduction program. Known as PACER, it’s essentially a Pennsylvania-specific version of RGGI — a cap-and-trade program that gradually reduces emissions, creates tradable carbon credits that would (theoretically) be interchangeable with those of RGGI member states, and reinvests the profits toward lowering consumer electricity costs. “Pennsylvania is an elephant compared to the rest of RGGI,” said Burtraw, explaining the reasons that the state would want to create its own program and later link it to RGGI. “It would have been amazing to see Pennsylvania join RGGI,” he said. “But I think that we might be setting down a pathway that’s turned out for the better.” Others are less convinced. Joining RGGI was feasible, they say, only because it was implemented through executive action. The odds of anything like PACER making it through the state’s Republican-controlled senate are slim. “Pennsylvanians need and deserve serious plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions, lower energy bills, and deliver revenue,” said state Senator Saval in a statement to Grist. “So far, senate Republicans have shown little interest in even meager efforts to do any of this. It’s hard to imagine the abrogation of RGGI would help them, as it were, to find religion on this front.” Editor’s note: The Natural Resources Defense Council is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions. This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Pennsylvania bailed on a carbon market to appease Republicans on Dec 2, 2025.

Climate

CO2

Energy

“Climate Smart” Beef Was Never More Than a Marketing Fantasy

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Shoppers have long sought ways to make more sustainable choices at the supermarket—and for good reason: Our food system is responsible for a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The vast majority of emissions from agriculture come from raising cows on industrial farms in order to sell burgers, steak, and other beef products. Beef production results in two and a half times as many greenhouse gases as lamb, and almost nine times as many as chicken or fish; its carbon footprint relative to other sources of protein, like cheese, eggs, and tofu, is even higher. If you want to have a lighter impact on the planet, you could try eating less beef. (Just try it!) Otherwise, a series of recent lawsuits intends make it easier for consumers to discern what’s sustainable and what’s greenwashing by challenging the world’s largest meat processors on their climate messaging. Tyson, which produces 20 percent of beef, chicken, and pork in the United States, has agreed to drop claims that the company has a plan to achieve “net zero” emissions by 2050 and to stop referring to beef products as “climate smart” unless verified by an independent expert. “Even if you were to reduce [beef’s] emissions by 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.” Tyson was sued in 2024 by the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a nonprofit dedicated to public health and environmental issues. The group alleged that Tyson’s claims were false and misleading to consumers. (Nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice represented EWG in the case.) Tyson denied the allegations and agreed to settle the suit. “We landed in a place that feels satisfying in terms of what we were able to get from the settlement,” said Carrie Apfel, deputy managing attorney of Earthjustice’s Sustainable Food and Farming program. Apfel was the lead attorney on the case. According to the settlement provided by Earthjustice, over the next five years Tyson cannot repeat previous claims that the company has a plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or make new ones unless they are verified by a third-party source. Similarly, Tyson also cannot market or sell any beef products labeled as “climate smart” or “climate friendly” in the United States. “We think that this provides the consumer protections we were seeking from the lawsuit,” said Apfel. The settlement is “a critical win for the fight against climate greenwashing by industrial agriculture,” according to Leila Yow, climate program associate at the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy, a nonprofit research group focused on sustainable food systems. In the original complaint, filed in DC Superior Court, EWG alleged that Tyson had never even defined “climate-smart beef,” despite using the term in various marketing materials. Now Tyson and EWG must meet to agree on a third-party expert that would independently verify any of the meat processor’s future “net zero” or “climate smart” claims. Following the settlement, Apfel went a step further in a conversation with Grist, arguing that the term “climate smart” has no business describing beef that comes from an industrial food system. “In the context of industrial beef production, it’s an oxymoron,” said the attorney. “You just can’t have climate-smart beef. Beef is the highest-emitting major food type that there is. Even if you were to reduce its emissions by 10 percent or even 30 percent, it’s still not gonna be a climate-smart choice.” A Tyson spokesperson said the company “has a long-held core value to serve as stewards of the land, animals, and resources entrusted to our care” and identifies “opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the supply chain.” The spokesperson added: “The decision to settle was made solely to avoid the expense and distraction of ongoing litigation and does not represent any admission of wrongdoing by Tyson Foods.” The Tyson settlement follows another recent greenwashing complaint—this one against JBS Foods, the world’s largest meat processor. In 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS, alleging the company was misleading consumers with claims it would achieve net-zero emissions by 2040. Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy.” James reached a $1.1 million settlement with the beef behemoth earlier this month. As a result of the settlement, JBS is required to update its messaging to describe reaching net-zero emissions by 2040 as more of an idea or a goal than a concrete plan or commitment from the company. The two settlements underscore just how difficult it is to hold meat and dairy companies accountable for their climate and environmental impacts. “Historically, meat and dairy companies have largely been able to fly under the radar of reporting requirements of any kind,” said Yow of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. When these agri-food companies do share their emissions, these disclosures are often voluntary and the processes for measuring and reporting impact are not standardized. That leads to emissions data that is often “incomplete or incorrect,” said Yow. She recently authored a report ranking 14 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies in terms of their sustainability commitments—including efforts to report methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Tyson and JBS tied for the lowest score out of all 14 companies. Industrial animal agriculture “has built its business model on secrecy,” said Valerie Baron, a national policy director and senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in response to the Tyson settlement. Baron emphasized that increased transparency from meat and dairy companies is a critical first step to holding them accountable. Yow agreed. She argued upcoming climate disclosure rules in California and the European Union have the potential to lead the way on policy efforts to measure and rein in emissions in the food system. More and better data can lead to “better collective decision making with policymakers,” she said. But, she added: “We need to actually know what we’re talking about before we can tackle some of those things.”

Climate

Agriculture

Sustainable

Swiss Voters Reject Mandatory National Service for Women and New Inheritance Tax

Swiss voters have decisively rejected a call to require women to do national service in the military, civil protection teams or other forms as all men must do already

GENEVA (AP) — Swiss voters on Sunday decisively rejected a call to require women to do national service in the military, civil protection teams or other forms, as all men must do already.Official results. with counting still ongoing in some areas after a referendum, showed that more than half of Switzerland's cantons, or states, had rejected the “citizen service initiative” by wide margins. That meant it was defeated, because proposals need a majority of both voters and cantons to pass.Voters also heavily rejected a separate proposal to impose a new national tax on individual donations or inheritances of more than 50 million francs ($62 million), with the revenues to be used to fight the impact of climate change and help Switzerland meet its ambitions to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.Supporters of the national service plan hoped that it would boost social cohesion by adding jobs in areas like environmental prevention, food security and elderly care. But lawmakers opposed it, mainly for cost reasons and out of concern that it could hurt the economy by taking many young people out of the workforce.Young men in neutral Switzerland are already required to carry out military service or join civil protection teams. Conscientious objectors can do other types of service, and those who opt out entirely must pay an exemption fee. Each year, about 35,000 men take part in mandatory service.The failed initiative would have required all Swiss citizens to do national service — women can currently do so on a voluntary basis — and applied the concept of national security to areas beyond military service or civil protection. Its supporters pointed to “landslides in the mountains, floods in the plains, cyberattacks, risks of energy shortages or war in Europe” and said that their plan would mean everyone taking responsibility for “a stronger Switzerland that’s able to stand up to crises.”The government countered that the army and civil defense have enough staff, and no more people should be recruited than are needed.While compulsory military service for women might be seen as “a step toward gender equality,” it added, the idea would “place an extra burden on many women, who already shoulder a large part of the unpaid work of raising and caring for children and relatives, as well as household tasks.”The government also opposed the proposal for a new tax on large donations or inheritances, arguing that approval could prod some of the wealthiest in Switzerland — an estimated 2,500 people — to move elsewhere. Sums beyond 50 million francs ($62 million) could have been hit with a 50% rate.Switzerland holds national referendums four times a year, giving voters a direct say in policymaking.Geir Moulson contributed to this report from Berlin.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

Climate

Energy

Food

Colorado Finally Got Its Wolves Back. Why Are So Many Dying?

This story was originally published by Vox and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. On a sunny morning two years ago, a group of state officials stood in the mountains of northwestern Colorado in front of a handful of large metal crates. With a small crowd watching them, the officials began to unlatch the crate doors one by one. Out of each came a gray wolf—arguably the nation’s most controversial endangered species. This was a massive moment for conservation. While gray wolves once ranged throughout much of the Lower 48, a government-backed extermination campaign wiped most of them out in the 19th and 20th centuries. By the 1940s, Colorado had lost all of its resident wolves. But, in the fall of 2020, Colorado voters did something unprecedented: They passed a ballot measure to reintroduce gray wolves to the state. This wasn’t just about having wolves on the landscape to admire, but about restoring the ecosystems that we’ve broken and the biodiversity we’ve lost. As apex predators, wolves help keep an entire ecosystem in balance, in part by limiting populations of deer and elk that can damage vegetation, spread disease, and cause car accidents. “This was not ever going to be easy.” In the winter of 2023, state officials released 10 gray wolves flown in from Oregon onto public land in northwestern Colorado. And in January of this year, they introduced another 15 that were brought in from Canada. Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW)—the state wildlife agency leading the reintroduction program—plans to release 30 to 50 wolves over three to five years to establish a permanent breeding population that can eventually survive without intervention. “Today, history was made in Colorado,” Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said following the release. “For the first time since the 1940s, the howl of wolves will officially return to western Colorado.” Fast forward to today, and that program seems, at least on the surface, like a mess. Ten of the transplanted wolves are already dead, as is one of their offspring. And now, the state is struggling to find new wolves to ship to Colorado for the next phase of reintroduction. Meanwhile, the program has cost millions of dollars more than expected. The takeaway is not that releasing wolves in Colorado was, or is now, a bad idea. Rather, the challenges facing this first-of-its-kind reintroduction just show how extraordinarily difficult it is to restore top predators to a landscape dominated by humans. That’s true in the Western US and everywhere—especially when the animal in question has been vilified for generations. One harsh reality is that a lot of wolves die naturally, such as from disease, killing each other over territory, and other predators, said Joanna Lambert, a wildlife ecologist at the University of Colorado Boulder. Of Colorado’s new population, one of the released wolves was killed by another wolf, whereas two were likely killed by mountain lions, according to Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The changes that humans have made to the landscape only make it harder for these animals to survive. One of the animals, a male found dead in May, was likely killed by a car, state officials said. Another died after stepping into a coyote foothold trap. Two other wolves, meanwhile, were killed, ironically, by officials. Officials from CPW shot and killed one wolf—the offspring of a released individual—in Colorado, and the US Department of Agriculture killed another that traveled into Wyoming, after linking the wolves to livestock attacks. (An obscure USDA division called Wildlife Services kills hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of wild animals a year that it deems dangerous to humans or industry, as my colleague Kenny Torella has reported.) Yet, another wolf was killed after trekking into Wyoming, a state where it’s largely legal to kill them. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has, to its credit, tried hard to stop wolves from harming farm animals. The agency has hired livestock patrols called “range riders,” for example, to protect herds. But these solutions are imperfect, especially when the landscape is blanketed in ranchland. Wolves still kill sheep and cattle. This same conflict—or the perception of it—is what has complicated other attempts to bring back predators, such as jaguars in Arizona and grizzly bears in Washington. And wolves are arguably even more contentious. “This was not ever going to be easy,” Lambert, who’s also the science adviser to the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project, an advocacy organization focused on returning wolves to Colorado, said of the reintroduction program. There’s another problem: Colorado doesn’t have access to more wolves. The state is planning to release another 10 to 15 animals early next year. And initially, those wolves were going to come from Canada. But in October, the Trump administration told CPW that it can only import wolves from certain regions of the United States. Brian Nesvik, director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency that oversees endangered species, said that a federal regulation governing Colorado’s gray wolf population doesn’t explicitly allow CPW to source wolves from Canada. (Environmental legal groups disagree with his claim). So Colorado turned to Washington state for wolves instead. View this post on Instagram But that didn’t work either. Earlier this month, Washington state wildlife officials voted against exporting some of their wolves to Colorado. Washington has more than 200 gray wolves, but the most recent count showed a population decline. That’s one reason why officials were hesitant to support a plan that would further shrink the state’s wolf numbers, especially because there’s a chance they may die in Colorado. Some other states home to gray wolves, such as Montana and Wyoming, have previously said they won’t give Colorado any of their animals for reasons that are not entirely clear. Nonetheless, Colorado is still preparing to release wolves this winter as it looks for alternative sources, according to CPW spokesperson Luke Perkins. Ultimately, Lambert said, it’s going to take years to be able to say with any kind of certainty whether or not the reintroduction program was successful. “This is a long game,” she said. And despite the program’s challenges, there’s at least one reason to suspect it’s working: puppies. Over the summer, CPW shared footage from a trail camera of three wolf puppies stumbling over their giant paws, itching, and play-biting each other. CPW says there are now four litters in Colorado, a sign that the predators are settling in and making a home for themselves. “This reproduction is really key,” Eric Odell, wolf conservation program manager for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, said in a public meeting in July. “Despite some things that you may hear, not all aspects of wolf management have been a failure. We’re working towards success.”

Climate

Mountains

Animals

New England kicks off $450M plan to supercharge heat pump adoption

The program aims to use federal funds awarded under the Biden administration to deploy more than 500,000 heat pumps in the chilly region over the next few years.

New England winters can get wicked cold. This week, five of the region’s states launched a $450 million effort to warm more homes in the often-frigid region with energy-efficient, low-emission heat pumps instead of by burning fossil fuels. “It’s a big deal,” said Katie Dykes, commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. “It’s unprecedented to see five states aligning together on a transformational approach to deploying more affordable clean-heat options.” The New England Heat Pump Accelerator is a collaboration between Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. The initiative is funded by the federal Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program, which was created by President Joe Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The accelerator’s launch marks a rare milestone for a Biden-era climate initiative amid the Trump administration’s relentless attempts to scrap federal clean energy and environmental programs. The goal: Get more heat pumps into more homes through a combination of financial incentives, educational outreach, and workforce development. New England is a rich target for such an effort because of its current dependence on fossil-fuel heating. Natural gas and propane are in wide use, and heating oil is still widespread throughout the region; more than half of Maine’s homes are heated by oil, and the other coalition states all use oil at rates much higher than the national average. The prevalence of oil in particular means there’s plenty of opportunity to grow heat-pump adoption, cut emissions, and lower residents’ energy bills. Read Next Installing heat pumps in factories could save $1.5 trillion and 77,000 lives Matt Simon At the same time, heat pumps have faced barriers in the region, including the upfront cost of equipment, New England’s high price of electricity, and misconceptions about heat pumps’ ability to work in cold weather. “There’s not a full awareness that these cold-temperature heat pumps can handle our winters, and do it at a cost that is lower than many of our delivered fuels,” said Joseph DeNicola, deputy commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. To some degree, the momentum is shifting. Maine has had notable success, hitting its aim of 100,000 new heat pump installations in 2023, two years ahead of its initial deadline. Massachusetts is on track to reach its 2025 target, but needs adoption rates to rise in order to make its 2030 goal. The accelerator aims to speed up adoption by supporting the installation of some 580,000 residential heat pumps, which would reduce carbon emissions by 2.5 million metric tons by 2030 — the equivalent of taking more than 540,000 gas-powered passenger vehicles off the road. The initiative is organized into three program areas, or “hubs,” as planners called them during a webinar kicking off the accelerator this week. The largest portion of money, some $270 million, will go to the “market hub.” Distributors will receive incentives for selling heat pumps. They will keep a small percentage of the money for themselves and pass most of the savings on to the contractors buying the equipment. The contractors, in turn, will pass the lower price on to the customers. In addition to reducing upfront costs for consumers, this approach is designed to shift the market by encouraging distributors to keep the equipment in stock, therefore making it an easier choice for contractors and their customers. Read Next 10 charts prove that clean energy is winning — even in the Trump era Umair Irfan, Vox, Benji Jones, Adam Clark Estes, & Sam Delgado, Vox These midstream incentives are expected to reduce the cost of cold-climate air-source heat pumps by $500 to $700 per unit and heat-pump water heaters by $200 to $300 per unit. When contractors buy the appliances, the incentive will be applied automatically — no extra paperwork or claims process required. “It should be very simple for contractors to access this funding,” said Ellen Pfeiffer, a senior manager with Energy Solutions, a clean energy consultancy that is helping implement the program. “It should be almost seamless.” Consumers will also remain eligible for any incentives available through state efficiency programs, such as rebates from Mass Save or Efficiency Maine, but will likely not be able to stack the accelerator benefits with federal incentives like the Home Efficiency Rebates and Home Electrification and Appliances Rebate programs. Program planners expect to be finalizing the incentive levels through the end of the year, enrolling and training distributors in the early months of 2026, and making the first participating products available in February 2026, said New England Heat Pump Accelerator program manager Jennifer Gottlieb Elazhari. The second program area is the innovation hub. Each state will receive $14.5 million to fund one or two pilot programs testing out new ways to overcome barriers to heat pump adoption by low- and moderate-income households and in disadvantaged communities. One state might, for example, create a lending library of window-mounted air-source heat pumps, allowing someone whose oil heating breaks down all the time to research replacement options rather than just installing new oil equipment. The innovation hub will also include workforce development and training. Organizers are talking with contractors and other partners to figure out where the gaps are in heat pump training. In the first few months of 2026, they will develop a program with a target start date in April. The goal will be not only to ensure that there are tradespeople with the needed skills to install the systems, but also to lay the groundwork for faster adoption by spreading knowledge about the capabilities of the technology and the available incentives. The third major area of the accelerator is a resource hub to aggregate information for contractors, distributors, program implementers, and other stakeholders. Overall, organizers hope to have all three hubs operational in spring 2026. Accelerator planners expect programs to boost adoption even as a federal tax credit of up to $2,000 on heat pumps and heat-pump water heaters is phased out at the end of the year, leaving states to lead the way on clean energy action. “At the state level, this is one example of a way we are helping to make progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but with a solution that can help people take control of their energy costs,” Dykes said. “That’s really what we’re focused on.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline New England kicks off $450M plan to supercharge heat pump adoption on Nov 29, 2025.

Climate

Education

Energy

Suggested Viewing

Chicken Soup for the Soil

Chicken Soup for the Soil follows the journey of North Carolina farmers Rachel Herrick and Suzanne Nelson Karreman as they work to rehabilitate farm soil ecosystems one pasture at a time. We learn that animals are not commodities and insects are not pests. They are partners in regenerating the soil. These are grassroots farms working with Nature to help Nature bounce back.

Land Use

Agriculture

Climate

The Day She Stole The Sun

In 2019, after years of severe drought, Australia endured an unprecedented bushfire crisis. The fires spanned almost the entire length of the country… and one small village on the New South Wales South Coast was hit by the full force of its destruction. The village became a national symbol for resilience and unbreakable Australian spirit. Told by the people who were there, this is not a story about tragedy, it’s a story about community. This is the story of Cobargo.

Forests

Climate

Crisis

Sounding the Alarm ~ America's Climate Crisis

"It's really hard being a fire family. Every day it's getting worse." -Brett, wife of Marin County Battalion Chief in California.Every day, Americans who live close to the land and sea face the dangers of climate change—from a firefighter in California, to a beekeeper in Arizona, to a climate refugee losing her home in Florida. The changing climate affects our food systems, water and way of life. These American families are in the trenches sacrificing everything while facing depression, PTSD, and suicide—collateral damage of a crisis unchecked. Award-winning filmmaker, Peter Goetz, captures America's faces and voices, shot in 2020 leading up to the presidential election. Goetz and the Biden campaign made history, producing the first national climate spot to run during a presidential election. But this film dives deeper into the American climate crisis to explore the lives of the people who are sounding the alarm, worried about their grandchildren’s future, asking, "If not us, then who?" This is a story of the resilience, perseverance, and ingenuity of the American people. Ever hopeful, they collectively take on a common enemy. As the young, Navajo solar visionary Brett Issac insists, "We've got to turn this train around before it's too late."

Climate

Crisis

Government

Voices of Transition

Voices of Transition is an enthusiastic documentary on farmer- and community-led responses to food insecurity in a scenario of climate change, peak oil, and economic crisis. Concrete examples from Cuba, France, and the United Kingdom tell of a future society where our monoculture deserts will be restored to living soil, where fields will be introduced into our cities, and where independence from oil will help us live a richer, more fulfilling life.

Agriculture

Food

Climate