Trump rejects the “climate crisis” but renewables are gaining ground

Bob Sheak, Sept 21, 2025

In July, I reviewed Trump’s rejectionist position on global warming

(https://vitalissuesbobsheak.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=5921&action=edit). I wrote in the opening sentence,

“They [Trump and the Republican Party] favor energy from fossil fuels, even coal, and want to produce more oil, gas, and coal for domestic and foreign sales.”

He does this, despite what science is finding, namely, that the carbon dioxide and other toxins released when oil, gas, and coal are burned are the leading causes of global warming. Indeed, Trump’s mantra “drill, baby, drill” is an example of how, under his leadership, he encourages ever more production and consumption of fossil fuels. At the same time, he wants to slash the development and use of clean energy, or energy from solar, wind, and geothermal sources. His administration is also “dismantling the government’s disaster capabilities.”

In Bill McKibben’s new book, “Here Comes the Sun” (publ 2025), he notes, “…Americans inaugurated Donald Trump as president after he ran on the premise that global warming was a hoax” (p. 1).

———–

The earth is getting hotter

The evidence belies the views of Trump and his followers.

According to recent scientific evidence, NOAA [The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] finds that the “Earth had its hottest August in 175-year record” (https://noaa.gov/news/earth-had-its-hottest-august-in-175-year-record). Furthermore,

August “was also the 15th month in a row of record-warm months and wrapped up the Northern Hemisphere’s warmest meteorological summer on record, according to scientists and data from NOAA’s National Centers for

Environmental Information.”

“The average global land and ocean surface temperature in August was 2.29 degrees F (1.27 degrees C) above the 20th-century average of 60.1 degrees F (15.6 degrees C), ranking as the warmest August in the global climate record. This August marks the 15th-consecutive month of record-high global temperatures — which is itself a record streak.”

————

Outright denial of the climate crisis

This is Adam B. Kushner conclusion. Kushner reports on Trump’s dismantling of climate policies, based on the president’s climate denialistl views

(https://nytimes.com/2025/09/18/us/trump-climate-denial-banquet-kimmel.html). Here’ some of what he writes.

Once, the Trump administration merely downplayed the threat of global warming. Now it flatly denies science.

Kushner continues. “There is stronger evidence than ever that greenhouse gases are bad for us, the nation’s leading scientific advisory body said yesterday. Yet President Trump has proposed to cancel the government’s 16-year-old finding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health. Doing so would mean the Environmental Protection Agency could no longer limit emissions from cars or power plants.

“The Trump administration once merely downplayed the threat of global warming. Now it ‘flatly denies the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change,’ reports my colleague Lisa Friedman, who covers climate policy.

Kushner gives the following examples.

“Ending climate protections. The most significant is the proposed repeal of the ‘endangerment finding.’” No threat, no danger.

Consistent with this anti-scientific view, the administration “cut funding and took down the website of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a 35-year effort to track climate change and its impacts. It fired hundreds of scientists at work on the next version of the National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated report used to prepare for extreme weather events. And it created a new official analysis written by climate skeptics.”

The politically revised report was written by five “scientists” and economists known for their skeptical views on climate change. The revision was criticized by more than 85 other scientists as “biased, error-ridden and unfit for guiding policy,” according to a September 3 report by Haley Smith in the LA Times. A separate report by the National Academies of Science, Engineers, and Medicine found stronger evidence than ever that the climate crisis risks public health.

Trump has taken multiple actions to impede renewable energy projects, and “his domestic policy law phases out tax credits for new wind and solar development.” For example, in August “Trump ordered construction to halt on a $6 billion wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island and Connecticut that was almost completed.

“They don’t dispute that human activity is heating the planet, but they claim that some warming attributed to fossil fuels is actually driven by natural cycles or variability in the sun. They also argue that sea levels are not rising more rapidly, that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can boost crop yields, and that the risks from extreme weather events are overstated. All of these fly in the face of established research,” Kushner points out.

“The administration.” Kushner writes, “has stopped gathering certain climate data, as our colleague Maxine Joselow reports this morning. What are we no longer collecting? And what happens if we don’t know these things?

“Here are some of the biggies: The Trump administration retired an extreme-weather database that had tracked the costs of natural disasters since 1980. And it says power plants, oil refineries and other large industrial facilities needn’t report their greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, Trump’s proposed budget would eliminate funding for the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, which has tracked climate data every day for nearly 70 years. Scientists say wiping out scientific data will make it only more difficult to understand what is happening to the planet.”

———-

The victims – an example

This Researcher Studied How Climate Change Hurts Children — Trump Shut Her Down

Jessica Kutz reports for Truthout on Sept 13, 2025, how “climate change hurts children” (https://truthout.org/articles/this-researcher-studied-how-climate-change-hurts-children-trump-shut-her-down). Jessica Kutz is the gender, climate and sustainability reporter at The 19th. Prior to joining The 19th, she was an editor and reporter at High Country News, a regional nonprofit that covers the Western United States. Her work has been republished in many outlets including The Guardian, Slate, Mother Jones and The Atlantic. She is based in Tucson, Arizona.

Kutz refers to Jane Clougherty, a Drexel University professor, who has “spent years studying how extreme weather affects kids’ health,” focusing on “the health effects of air pollution and, more recently, extreme heat.” In May, “she got an email from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that ground her potentially life-saving work to a halt,” effective immediately.”

“There was no discussion, there was no warning, simply an email that said, ‘You’re done. This project is no longer within the administration’s scope. Cease and desist activities as of today,’” she recalled over the phone.

“Now, to complete the work, Clougherty is left to look into private funders and foundations to make up the nearly $400,000 she lost. But she’s not optimistic . ‘It is not realistic to expect foundations or private funders to pick up the degree of infrastructure that’s being destroyed with the loss of federal funding right now,’ she said.”

She is not alone.

“Clougherty, who had a final year of research left on the multi-year federal grant, is one of thousands of researchers whose work has been affected by the administration’s cancellation of research grants across agencies including the National Institute of Health, the EPA and the National Science Foundation. Among the research casualties was a grant to study how to reduce the health risks of wildfire smoke near schools, and another that would research how to help children in rural areas who are at increased risk of exposure to pesticides and pollution.

“It’s work, Kutz says, “that would have helped some of the country’s most vulnerable children at a time when extreme weather events are becoming more common and the gains made in protecting environmental health are being overrun by a pro-fossil fuel administration that is cutting regulations that curb air and water pollution.”

Furthermore, these are issues that “disproportionately impact low-income communities of color. And, it’s moms who typically end up having to juggle their jobs and caring for their children’s health issues.”

“Extreme heat is taxing on children’s bodies, because they have a harder time regulating their body temperature. Heat can also amplify air pollution by trapping it in place, which can affect kids with asthma or other respiratory issues.

What else is lost?

“If Clougherty’s work had been completed, it may have helped communities across the country better understand how to protect kids from these health issues, she said.

“That’s because in addition to analyzing how children in the state were being affected by extreme heat and air pollution, Clougherty and her team were also studying community assets that could buffer children from these same hazards by analyzing large data sets that provide insights into a community’s characteristics.

“They could analyze whether children lived in neighborhoods with a lot of green space, and how that correlated to their health when exposed to heat or pollution, she said. “We can also look at the characteristics of the schools that the children attend, and economic and other assets in their communities, such as access to grocery stores, Head Start programs, proximity to hospitals or health care services [and] quality of housing.”

“By calculating which of these assets could have the best protective effect on children’s health, it would have helped local leaders plan where to target limited resources ‘to create the most bang for their buck,’ Clougherty said.”

———-

Concluding thoughts

I have discussed trends that justify continuing the fight against the foolish and lethal policies of Trump and his followers. There is some progress. In his new book, Here Comes the Sun: A Last Chance For the Climate and A Fresh Chance for Civilization, environmentalist Bill McKibben documents how there is increasing solar and wind energy domestically and across the globe.

McKibben writes: “We live on an earth where the cheapest way to produce power is to point a sheet of glass at the sun; the second cheapest is to let the breeze created by the sun’s heating turn the blade of a wind turbine.”

There is exponential growth in both energy sources. McKibben writes, “in 2024, 92.5 percent of all new electricity brought online around the world came from renewables; in the US the figure was 96 percent. By April 2025, fossil fuels were producing less than half of American electricity, for the first time ever. There’s no longer a technical or financial obstacle in the way; we already have the factory capacity, mostly in China, to produce as many solar panels as the climate scientists say we need” (p. 3).

Information like that from McKibben buttresses the position of administration critics to build opposition to Trump’s anti-scientific and environmentally degrading policies and support renewable alternatives.

Trump and his party care less about global warming

Bob Sheak, July 15, 2025

Introduction

This position is revealed in many ways. They favor energy from fossil fuels, even coal, and want to produce more oil, gas, and coal for domestic and foreign sales. They are skeptical that fossil fuels are the major cause of global warming. It is a position that puts the U.S. and the world at grave risk at a time when global warming is accelerating. Here are recent articles that identify this myopia and stupidity.

—————

Slashing clean energy

Marianne Lavelle, et. al., report on how Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ is set to slash efforts to clean up the US energy system (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03072025/big-beautiful-bill-will-hurt-clean-energy-environmental-justice). The article was published on July 3, 2025

The $4 trillion, 887-page legislation “erases the landmark investment in cleaner energy, jobs and communities that a Democratic-led Congress made only three years ago in the Inflation Reduction Act.

“It stomps out incentives for purchasing electric vehicles and efficient appliances. It phases out tax credits for wind and solar energy. It opens federal land and water for oil and gas drilling and increases its profitability, while creating new federal support for coal. It ends the historic investment in poor and minority communities that bear a disproportionate pollution burden—money that the Trump administration was already refusing to spend. It wipes out any spending on greening the federal government.”

Lavelle et. al. cite “Amanda Levin, director of policy analysis at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who called the bill ‘a massive hit to both our clean energy economy, the US economy as a whole, and to our future from a climate perspective.’”

Boosting Fossil Fuels

“While the Biden administration had restricted oil and gas leasing in Alaska, the bill reinstates fossil fuel lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with Alaska receiving a majority of the royalties from this new production.”

Lavelle and her colleagues point out,

“An analysis by the REPEAT Project from the Princeton University ZERO Lab and Evolved Energy Research showed that the bill is expected to contribute an additional 470 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year by 2035, the annual equivalent of more than 100 million gas-powered cars on the road.”

“Already Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency had terminated funding for grants awarded under the program, for initiatives aimed at disaster preparedness, workforce development, air quality, flood control and high energy costs. The projects involved things like installing pollution notification systems and replacing lead pipes and were designed to strengthen communities against more damaging weather events while including community members in decision-making that affected their environment and health. Environmental groups had filed a class-action lawsuit to try to reinstate the canceled grants.”

—————

Trump’s Gutting of Weather Science and Reducing Disaster Response

Lisa Friedman, Maxine Joselow, Coral Davenport and Megan Mineiro consider this issue (https://nytimes.com/2025/07/13/climate-trump-cuts-disaster-preparedness-fema-html).

The journalists point out that experts have warned Trump not to go on “dismantling the government’s disaster capabilities.” They continue.

“In an effort to shrink the federal government, President Trump and congressional Republicans have taken steps that are diluting the country’s ability to anticipate, prepare for and respond to catastrophic flooding and other extreme weather events, disaster experts say.

“Staff reductions, budget cuts and other changes made by the administration since January have already created holes at the National Weather Service, which forecasts and warns of dangerous weather.

“Mr. Trump’s budget proposal for the next fiscal year would close 10 laboratories run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that research the ways a warming planet is changing weather, among other things. That work is essential to more accurately predicting life-threatening hazards. Among the shuttered labs would be one in Miami that sends teams of ‘hurricane hunters to fly into storms to collect critical data. The proposed budget would also make major cuts to a federal program that uses river gauges to predict floods.

Friedman et. al. continue.

“The president is also envisioning a dramatically scaled-down Federal Emergency Management Agency that would shift the costs of disaster response and recovery from the federal government to the states. The administration has already revoked $3.6 billion in grants from FEMA to hundreds of communities around the country, which were to be used to help these areas protect against hurricanes, wildfires and other catastrophes. About 10 percent of the agency’s staff members have left since January, including senior leaders with decades of experience, and another 20 percent are expected to be gone by the end of this year.”

“National security and disaster management experts agreed that FEMA — or any federal agency — could be improved but they said the chaotic changes the Trump administration is making to FEMA, as well as other parts of the government, are harmful.

“The federal government’s retrenchment arrives at a time when climate change is making extreme weather more frequent and severe. Last year, the United States experienced 27 disasters that cost more than $1 billion each.”

“For months, experts have warned that cuts to the National Weather Service, part of NOAA, could endanger local communities. Those fears have grown since the deadly flash floods in Central Texas earlier this month.

“By all accounts, the Weather Service issued the appropriate warnings for the region that was inundated by the Guadalupe River on July 4.

“But the agency had to move employees from other offices to temporarily staff the San Antonio office that handled the flood warnings, and the office lacked a warning coordination meteorologist, whose job it is to communicate with local emergency managers to plan for floods, including when and how to warn residents and help them evacuate. The office’s warning coordination meteorologist had left on April 30, after taking the early retirement package the Trump administration has offered to reduce the number of federal employees.

“Since Mr. Trump took office, the Weather Service has shed about 600 jobs from its work force of roughly 4,200 people. They are part of a greater exodus of nearly 2,000 employees from NOAA. Nearly half of the Weather Service’s 122 forecast offices had lost at least 20 percent of their staff as of April. Thirty offices were lacking their most experienced official, known as the meteorologist-in-charge, as of May.”

“Some forecast offices are no longer staffed overnight, and others have been launching fewer weather balloons, which send data to feed forecasts. The Weather Service has said it is preparing for “degraded operations.”

“The president is preparing to deal another blow to weather forecasting in his spending plan for next year, which would cut funding for NOAA by another $2 billion, or 27 percent. On the chopping block would be the agency’s entire scientific research division, one of the world’s premier weather and climate research centers, preventing the creation of new weather forecasting technologies.”

“Mr. Trump’s sweeping domestic policy and tax law, which Congress passed this month, also rescinds about $60 million in unspent funds at NOAA for atmospheric, climate and weather research. That money had been part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration’s signature climate law.”

“FEMA has lost about a quarter of its full-time staff in the past six months, including 20 percent of the coordinating officers at the agency, who manage responses to major disasters, as well as the head of FEMA’s disaster command center. Also gone: the deputy regional administrator in the agency’s Region 6 office in Texas.

———-

Unsurprisingly, Global warming worsens

Climatologist Michael Mann makes the connection between global warming and fossil fuels explicit (https://democracynow.org/2025/7/1/heat_dome-climate-crisis). Mann is the Presidential distinguished professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Here is some of what he had to say in an interview on Democracy Now with host Amy Goodman.

Links to articles by Mann.

“Heat domes and flooding have nearly tripled since the ’50s”

“Science Under Siege”

“Our Fragile Moment: How Lessons from Earth’s Past Can Help Us Survive the Climate Crisis”

Goodman: “Scientists say the burning of fossil fuels by humans is the primary cause of global warming. This week, the Senate is debating measures to include in Trump’s so-called big, beautiful budget bill, is set to shape U.S. fossil fuel policy in ways expected to accelerate fossil fuel extraction, in part by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars of clean energy incentives — in fact, taxing more clean energy incentives.

MICHAEL MANN: “‘you know, at some level, this isn’t that complicated. You make the planet hotter, you’re going to have more frequent and intense heat extremes. And we are seeing that. Our climate models capture that, and they predict that that will get much worse in the future if we, you know, as you allude to, continue to burn fossil fuels and warm up the planet.

Altering the jet stream

At the same time, there are some subtle mechanisms when it comes to how the pattern of warming of the planet is changing the Northern Hemisphere jet stream.”

“And some of our own research suggests that that pattern of warming, in particular, the fact that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet, is actually changing the jet stream in such a way that it’s more likely to get stuck in one of those very wavy patterns that you see on a weather map. And those waves are associated with big high- and low-pressure systems, that alternatively mean heat, drought and wildfires in one place, or excessive floods in other places. Those wiggles in the jet stream are tending to get larger, and they get locked in place, so the same location is under a heat dome day after day, like we’ve seen in North America this summer, like we’re seeing in Europe right now.

“And that mechanism is actually not very well captured in the climate models. It’s an important point, because critics of climate policy like to say uncertainty is a reason not to act. It’s just the opposite. Our models may, in fact, be underestimating the impact that climate change is already having when it comes to these damaging and deadly weather extremes.”

The consequences

MICHAEL MANN: “‘History will not judge them kindly, because at a time when we need to be accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels towards clean energy, they’re doing just the opposite. They’re doing everything they can to block, you know, the continued expansion of wind and solar and geothermal and clean energy solutions. And the rest of the world is moving on. So, what we have to recognize here is that this is — even if you don’t care about the climate, even if you don’t care about the human health consequences, any of that, if you care about the economy, this is the worst possible thing for American competitiveness, because the rest of the world recognizes that clean energy is the future, and right now we’re doubling down on antiquated fossil fuel energy in a way that is making us less and less competitive.”

—————

Big, Beautiful Bill ‘closes remaining pathways to limit global warming to 1.5°C’

Sustainability Online considers how Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” is disastrous for the environment (https://sustainability.net/news/big-beautiful-bill-closes-remaining-pathways-to-limit-global-warming-to-1-5c). The report was published on July, 2025. Here’s some of what they write.

“The Trump administration’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’, which has now been passed by the US Senate and House of Representatives, cuts off any chance of limiting global warming to below 1.5°C, the Environmental and Energy Study Institute has said.

Responding to the Bill, which promises to phase out tax credits for renewables and ramp up support for fossil fuel producers, EESI president Daniel Bresette said, ‘A little less than three years ago, we applauded the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act because of all the benefits it promised to deliver.

“‘Unfortunately, the opposite applies to the reconciliation bill just passed by the Senate and House of Representatives, so we have to condemn it. This legislation will increase household energy bills, put people out of work, and stall investments in clean energy technologies. Greenhouse gas emissions will increase as a result of this bill becoming law, essentially closing off the few remaining pathways to limit global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F) to avoid the worst outcomes of climate change.’

‘An irresponsible plan’

Sustainability Online cites Joanna Slaney, vice president for political and government affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDA), who said that the Bill ‘will raise household utility bills, take away job opportunities and threaten people’s health with more pollution’”.

Describing the Bill as “an irresponsible plan hatched at Mar-a-Lago banquet tables”, Slaney said that by making it “‘much, much harder to build new clean energy projects, the bill is effectively cutting off supply of cheap energy right when the U.S. needs it the most. It’s families and small businesses who will pay the price.

“The largest polluting oil and gas companies, meanwhile, would receive a 10-year reprieve from paying a fee on wasteful methane pollution, which would cause irreversible harm to our climate and public health. It’s clear that this deeply unpopular bill favors burning more fossil fuels while ignoring the damage it will do to people’s lives.”

Dr. David Widawsky, director, World Resources Institute US, added that while other countries are “benefitting from accelerated investment in the clean energy economy, the US is taking a step backwards.

“‘Working families, business owners and local governments will bear the brunt through higher electricity bills, fewer jobs, and reduced energy resilience to extreme weather. Billions of dollars of investment in infrastructure, manufacturing, energy savings will be lost; failure to keep pace with growing energy demand will make brownouts and blackouts more likely; air will become less breathable; and American economic growth will be at risk.”

Earlier in the week, Greenpeace USA deputy climate program director, John Noël, described the Senate’s vote on the Bill as one that will “live in infamy”, adding “This bill is what happens when a major political party, in the grips of a personality cult, teams up with oil company CEOs, hedge fund donors, and climate deniers.

“The megabill isn’t about reform—it’s about rewarding the super rich and doling out fossil fuel industry handouts, all while dismantling the social safety nets on which millions depend for stability. It is a bet against the future.”

Concluding thoughts

Trump puts the economic interests of the big corporations and the rich before other interests, including that of most Americans. This bias is revealed in many ways but certainly in his views and policies toward energy. In this regard, he and his administration prioritize fossil fuels in the U.S. energy system. This inevitably means that the existential problem associated with global warming will not only continue but accelerate.

A right-wing death cult

Bob Sheak, June 25, 2024

Introduction

We well know by now that Trump remains the undisputed leader of the Republican Party and seemingly has the unwavering support of an electoral base numbering in the tens of millions. His cult-like base seemingly accepts his statements as absolute truths, even when they contradict or ignore the relevant verifiable evidence. They believe his “big lie” that he won the 2020 presidential election, while the overwhelming evidence refutes it (https://thefulcrum.us/ethics-leadership/trumps-big-lie). They also believe falsely that global warming is a left-wing hoax.

Trump also has the support of large segments of the corporate community, including the Koch Brothers’ network. The network includes avid supporters and profitable beneficiaries of fossil fuels and right-wing politics generally. See Christopher Leonard’s book, Kochland: The Secret History of Koch Industries and Corporate Power in America, for an in-depth analysis (publ. in 2019). For example, Leonard writes: “In 2008, Koch Industries consolidated its [massive] lobbying operations into a single, newly formed company called Koch Companies Public Sector” (p. 405). According to Open Secrets, Koch Industries by itself has spent this political cycle $29.6 million on “contributions” and $3.5 million on lobbying (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/koch-industries/summary?id=d000000186).

Right-wing response to Heat waves

The disinformation about global warming is reflected in how right-wingers responded to the unprecedented heat waves that recently affected billions of people around the world and millions across the United States. Trump, the Republican Party, and their myriad allies want to avoid a public discussion that recognizes the problem, let alone proposing potential solutions.

Production and profits first

They want to see an increase in the production and consumption of fossil fuels and to continue the export of liquified natural gas. They want to maximize profits from fossil fuels rather than phase them out. They assert that fossil fuels are necessary to U.S. economic prosperity and the country would fall into chaos if their views are not taken seriously and implemented.

The rub is that, if they continue to follow Trump’s existentially-threatening lead, they will suffer along with everyone else. Still, the Trump-led movement is unlikely to take such concerns seriously, especially if they are advanced by the Biden administration, climate scientists, and even if their views contradict the empirical realty.

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a close ally of Trump, takes an especially extreme position. Sarah Al-Arshani reports that Greene has claimed that climate change is a “scam,” and added that fossil fuels are “amazing,” in a tweet on Saturday [April 13, 2023].

“‘If you believe that today’s ‘climate change’ is caused by too much carbon, you have been fooled,’ she said.”

Effects of June 2024 heat waves

Sarah Kaplan and Scott Dance report that “billions of people” experienced the

scorching heat that occurred across five continents, set 1,400 records the third week in June, and “showed how human-caused global warming has made catastrophic temperatures commonplace” (https://washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/06/22/deadly-heat-wave-climate-change).

Sarah Kaplan is a climate reporter covering humanity’s response to a warming world. She previously reported on Earth science and the universe. Twitter

Scott Dance is a reporter for The Washington Post covering extreme weather news and the intersections between weather, climate, society and the environment. He joined The Post in 2022 after more than a decade at the Baltimore Sun. Twitter

They give the following examples.

“Dozens of bodies were discovered in Delhi during a two-day stretch this week when even sundown brought no relief from sweltering heat and humidity. Tourists died or went missing as the mercury surged in Greece. Hundreds of pilgrims perished before they could reach Islam’s holiest site, struck down by temperatures as high as 125 degrees.”

“…in the past seven days alone, billions felt heat with climate change-fueled intensity that broke more than 1,000 temperature records around the globe. Hundreds fell in the United States, where tens of millions of people across the Midwest and Eastern Seaboard have been sweltering amid one of the worst early-season heat waves in memory.

“‘It should be obvious that dangerous climate change is already upon us,’ said Michael Wehner, a climate scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

“People will die because of global warming on this very day.” And, Kaplan and Dance write, “there are ominous signs that even more scorching conditions may still be on the horizon.”

Kaplan and Dance quote Michael McPhaden, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: “We’ve got the highest greenhouse gas concentrations in the last 3 million years. Carbon dioxide traps heat, so the temperature of the planet is rising,” said Michael McPhaden, “It’s real simple physics.”

The effects are hardly simple. “For some 80 percent of the world’s population — 6.5 billion people — the heat of the past week was twice as likely to occur because humans started burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, according to data provided to The Washington Post by the nonprofit Climate Central.

“Nearly half that number experienced what Climate Central considers “exceptional heat” — conditions that would have been rare or even impossible in a world without climate change.”

“All week long, ‘exceptional’ conditions could be found across much of Africa, the Middle East, southern Europe and southeast Asia. Surging air conditioning demand crippled power grids in Albania and Kuwait. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the past week has seen more than 1,400 high temperature records fall around the globe.”

The burning of fossil fuels keeps rising, heat is trapped in the atmosphere, and the earth’s temperature keeps going up. Kaplan and Dance refer to the following facts.

“Since the start of the industrial era, human activities — mostly burning fossil fuels — have warmed the planet by about 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit). Earth’s temperature over the past 12 months has been even hotter, averaging about 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.”

Kaplan and Dance quote Wehner again. “Climate change isn’t just making high temperatures and other extreme events more likely. It also makes every disaster that does occur more intense.

“Wehner’s research has found that heat waves like the one currently unfolding in the United States are now roughly 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter because of how humans have altered the planet. Strong hurricanes are at least 14 percent wetter because the warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. And storm surges are unfolding in oceans that are in some places more than a foot higher than they were half a century ago — allowing floodwaters to reach heights never seen before.”

Trump must be defeated

The U.S. heat dome and accompanying heat waves are a warning about the 2024 election.

Paul Waldman, author and commentator, contends in an article on MSNBC, June 19, 2024, that the country will be worse off if Trump rather than Biden is elected in the November presidential election. Indeed, “there may be no policy area with a clearer divide between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump” (https://msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/us-heat-wave-trump-election-20224-rcna157819). Here’s some of what Waldman writes.

“…this week, a heat dome has descended on much of the United States. Over the next few days, ‘temperatures could reach as high as 25 degrees above normal in many areas,’ NBC News reported. The National Weather Service says 200 cities could see record highs.”

“The rising temperatures that scientists began warning about decades ago have become reality….In fact, every one of the last 12 months was the hottest ever recorded: the hottest May ever, the hottest April ever, the hottest March ever, and so on.

“Rising temperatures are becoming inescapable in a way some effects of climate change are not; depending on where you live, you might not be directly affected by more frequent hurricanes or rising sea levels, but you won’t be able to avoid a heat wave. They are three times more common now than in the 1960s, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, ‘and individual heat waves are lasting longer and becoming more intense.’ The consequences are fatal: 2,300 people died from extreme heat in the U.S. last year alone.”

Deny, dismiss, do nothing

“Yet,” Waldman writes, “for many politicians, climate change is perennially pushed down the agenda. In fact, inaction has become the position of many of those who used to be outright climate deniers. The idea that climate change is a ‘hoax’ is seldom spoken out loud anymore, even by the staunchest supporters of the fossil fuel industry. Instead of denying the incontrovertible truth that the planet is warming, they leave that question aside and focus on condemning efforts to address it. Every solution is too difficult, too costly or too inconvenient; instead, we should just keep drilling and pretend the planet isn’t warming.

“The result is that the Republican Party is now emphatically anti-anti-climate change (in the same way they’re anti-anti-racism). They don’t necessarily want climate change to worsen; they just oppose every means of confronting it.”

Waldman continues.

Climate extremism on the Right

“As always with Trump, his dark impulses become much more dangerous when there are people around him who will put them into action. Should he become president again, the haphazard rollback of environmental progress that characterized his first term will be replaced by focused and furious action. You can see it in Project 2025, the 920-page governing blueprint written by his allies as they prepare an assault on the federal government. The document contains 150 references to climate — sometimes described as ‘climate extremism’ — and proposes eliminating a range programs, offices and agencies devoted to addressing climate change. ‘The Biden Administration’s climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding,’ it says.”

Biden has done some positive things

The authoritarian dreamers at Project 2025 are right about one thing: Biden has been more aggressive on addressing climate change than any president before him. The Inflation Reduction Act, which he [Biden] signed into law in 2022, was the largest climate bill in history. It supports clean energy development, electric car adoption, energy efficiency upgrades, carbon capture, electrical grid improvements, sustainable agriculture and much more. In addition, according to The Washington Post’s tracker of Biden’s environmental policies, his administration has enacted over 100 new environmental policies and overturned an almost equal number of Trump-era policies. In a second term, Biden would build on what he has done so far, with the goal of the country reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.”

Global warming will meanwhile continue to increase

Waldman continues. “As time goes on, the effects of warming will become more concrete and visible, all year round but especially in the summer. The coming decades will likely see a huge wave of climate migration, as people leave areas where climate change has diminished their opportunities or even made life impossible. Just within the United States we could see millions of climate migrants. And as we know, large-scale migrations frequently produce backlashes.

“Even under the most optimistic scenarios, warming is going to get worse before it gets better. The response we used to hear from climate deniers — ‘It’s summer, it’s hot, what’s the big deal?’ — is no longer tenable. Now the voters have to decide whether they want to do anything about it.”

What will U.S. voters do in November?

Andres Oppenheimer addresses this question in an article for the Miami Herald, June 7, 2024 (https://miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article289090739.html).

“…even though the planet endured record-breaking heat waves in 2023, and this year is marking a new high, climate change is almost absent from the campaign for the Nov. 5 presidential elections. It should be the hottest issue — pardon the pun — on the agenda, but it ranks 18th among Americans’ priorities, way below the economy and immigration, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. What’s worse, presidential hopeful Donald Trump, a long-time climate change skeptic, is ahead in several polls and could win.”

Oppenheimer continues.

Trump

“Trump has repeatedly mocked climate change warnings and promotes fossil fuels, ignoring the scientific consensus that climate change is likely caused by man-made greenhouse emissions. As crazy as it sounds at a time of record heat waves, Trump is publicly vowing to reverse the Biden administration’s ambitious laws to combat global warming. According to the Trump campaign website, a second Trump administration would unleash a wave of oil drilling and speed up approvals of fracking permits in public lands.

“‘To keep pace with the world economy that depends on fossil fuels for more than 80% of its energy, President Trump will DRILL, BABY, DRILL,’ the campaign’s official website says. The Trump campaign website also says that, ‘from day one,’ the former president would kill hundreds of laws to combat global warming adopted by the Biden administration, including rules to reduce car emissions and subsidies for buyers of electric vehicles. Trump would also again order a U.S. withdrawal from the 2016 Paris Agreement to control climate change, which calls on countries to substantially reduce planet-warming emissions. Trump had pulled out of the Paris Agreement at the start of his term, but Biden later reversed that decision.

Trump offers bribes and counterproductive policies

“At an April fundraiser with oil company owners and executives at his Mar-a-Lago compound, Trump promised to go out of his way to help fossil fuel industries if they donated $1 billion to his campaign, The Washington Post reported. Trump specifically vowed to scrap current policies that encourage production of electric vehicles, wind and solar energy, and other green power sources opposed by the oil industry, the Post said.”

“Trump’s main argument for dismissing climate change warnings is that the transition to green energies is too costly for industries, and is therefore an ‘industry-killing’ and ‘jobs-killing’ plan. Some of Trump’s fellow climate skeptics also point out, in this case with some reason, that electric vehicles will not solve the climate problems because we have not yet found the way to dispose of their batteries in ways that don’t harm the environment. But Trump’s ‘drill, baby, drill’ policy is economic populism at its worst. Like populists of all stripes, Trump is offering instant economic relief at the expense of the gradual destruction of the planet. It’s an incredibly short-sighted and dumb non-policy, especially at a time when many of us are suffering record heat waves and scientists are reporting that glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, and tropical storms are becoming more severe than ever in recent memory.”

Biden

Oppenheimer writes, “While Trump has called the concept of man-made climate change a hoax, Biden has described the climate crisis as an ‘existential threat.’ He reviews some of Biden’s accomplishments.

“In what may be one of his greatest achievements, Biden has passed a 2022 law that may amount to the most far-reaching strategy to fight global warming in U.S. history. Biden’s 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which was misleadingly called that way in an effort to get it passed through Congress, includes more than 100 new regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, preserve public lands, and promote the use of solar, wind and other alternative energy sources. Biden’s IRA provides more than $300 billion in tax credits to speed up the transition to clean energy sources, including tax relief measures for people who buy electric cars or install solar roofs in their homes. It also provides billions to help industries to cut emissions from their factories. According to the prestigious Science magazine, Biden’s IRA, alongside his Bipartisan Infrastructure law, will reduce U.S. toxic emissions by 40% from 2005 levels by 2030.”

Scientists fear a second Trump term

Maxine Joselow and Scott Dance report on this issue (https://washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/06/12/trump-federal-scientists-climate-environment).

Their main point is this: “Several federal agencies are working to safeguard research, including climate science, from future political meddling.”

They give the example of the union representing nearly half of the employees at the Environmental Protection Agency. In June, the union employees

“approved a new contract with the federal government this month, it included an unusual provision that had nothing to do with pay, benefits or workplace flexibility: protections from political meddling into their work.

The protections, which ensure workers can report any meddling without fear of ‘retribution, reprisal, or retaliation,’ are ‘a way for us to get in front of a second Trump administration and protect our workers,’ said Marie Owens Powell, an EPA gas station storage tank inspector and president of American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Council 238.

“The agreement signals the extent to which career employees and Biden administration officials are racing to foil any efforts to interfere with climate science or weaken environmental agencies should former president Donald Trump win a second term. Trump and his allies, in contrast, argue that bloated federal agencies have hurt economic development nationwide and that the Biden administration has prioritized climate science at the expense of other priorities.”

Trump’s record

“The Trump administration sidelined, muted or forced out hundreds of scientists and misrepresented research on the coronavirus, reproduction and hurricane forecasting, environmental advocates said. Now as an example of what’s to come, they point to a blueprint called ‘Project 2025,’ a plan for the next conservative administration drafted by right-wing think tanks in Washington.

“The plan calls for a sweeping reorganization of the executive branch, one that would concentrate more power in Trump’s hands. At the EPA, it recommends eliminating the office of environmental justice, which was created in 2022 to address the pollution that disproportionately harms poor and minority communities.”

“Career employees exited the Interior Department in droves during Trump’s four years in office. At the end of his presidency, there were 4,900 fewer employees at the agency than at the beginning, according to data from the Office of Personnel Management.

“The exodus was especially large at Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, which oversees roughly 245 million acres of public lands. After Trump briefly moved the BLM’s headquarters from Washington to Grand Junction, Colo., more than 87 percent of the affected employees either resigned or retired.”

Biden’s record

Soon after President Biden took office, his administration began imposing scientific integrity policies across the federal government, setting rules that protect research from political interference or manipulation. Many such policies are in place — though research advocates say they aren’t durable because they aren’t enshrined in federal law, and could be undone with new executive actions.”

“At the EPA, the new scientific integrity provision is part of a four-year contract with the agency. The provision ensures that workers’ complaints will be assessed by an independent investigator, rather than a political appointee.

“While any new president could quickly transform policies around scientific integrity through new executive orders, the union contract provision is one advocates had urged as a way to make the protections harder to undo without a legal fight.”

“EPA spokesman Remmington Belford said in an email that the agency is ‘pleased’ with the contract provision and “committed to ensuring the agency has a strong foundation of science that is free from political interference and inappropriate influence.”

“While helpful, the provision won’t be a panacea, said Tim Whitehouse, the executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit advocacy group, which helped advise AFGE on the scientific integrity language.

“‘It will be impossible to fully Trump-proof any agency or protect any scientist if Trump wins a new term and either the House or Senate is in Republican control,’ Whitehouse said. ‘Then there will be absolutely no meaningful oversight.’

Interior Department braces for more cuts

“It remains unclear whether Trump wants to eliminate the Interior Department or merely reduce its budget and staffing levels.” Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman for Trump’s 2024 campaign, did not directly respond to a request for clarification.

Trump ‘cut red tape and gave the [oil and gas] industry more freedom to do what they do best — utilize the liquid gold under our feet to produce clean energy for America and the world — and he will do that again as soon as he gets back to the White House,’ Leavitt said in an emailed statement.

Attempt to protect federal employees

In April, the Office of Personnel Management finalized a rule that will allow federal employees to keep their existing job protections and right to due process, including the right to appeal a reassignment or firing. The rule overturns a Trump directive, known as Schedule F, that allowed his administration to force out thousands of career employees by changing their status to at-will workers who could be fired without due process.”

“But as strong as the policies may be, they aren’t permanent, some critics note. Legislation introduced in the two most recent sessions of Congress would have codified a requirement that federal agencies adopt scientific integrity policies and could establish legal penalties for violating them.”

A National Climate Action Plan

John J. Berger considers “a national climate action plan” in the June 18 2024 issue of Tom Dispatch (https://tomdispatch.com/a-national-climate-action-plan). Here’s some of what he considers.

“It could hardly be clearer that the world is already in the throes of a climate catastrophe. That means it’s high time for the U.S. to declare a national climate emergency to help focus us all on the disaster at hand.”

“Such a declaration of a climate emergency is long overdue. Some 40 other nations have already done so, including 2,356 jurisdictions and local governments representing more than a billion people. Of course, a declaration alone will hardly be enough.

“As the world’s wealthiest and most powerful nation, and the one that historically has contributed the most legacy greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the U.S. needs to develop a coherent exit strategy from the stranglehold of fossil fuels, a strategy that could serve as an international example of a swift and thorough clean-energy transition. But at the moment, of course, this country remains the world’s largest producer and consumer of oil and natural gas and the third largest producer of coal — and should Donald Trump win in November, you can kiss any possible reductions in those figures goodbye for the foreseeable future. Sadly enough, however, though the Biden administration’s rhetoric of climate concern has been strong, in practice, this country has continued to cede true climate leadership to others.

“To make a rapid, far-reaching, and unrelenting break with our fossil-fuel dependency — 79% of the nation’s energy is now drawn from fossil fuels — a national mobilization would be needed, and it would have to be a genuine all-of-society effort.”

National Mobilization Amid Crisis

“What this country needs is a plan guided by scientific and technical analysis and based on an ambitious but attainable set of greenhouse-gas-reduction quotas. Its point would not be to override the climate agendas of any city, state, or group, or the aspirations of the Green New Deal (House Resolution HR 109). It would simply be to provide a reliable toolkit of measures and policies along with analyses of their costs and benefits — a compass for getting to negative carbon emission as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.”

The plan

“Call it America’s Energy Transition: Achieving a Clean Energy Future and imagine that it would build on previous authoritative studies, analyzing renewable-energy-generating and distribution technologies in terms of their costs, commercial readiness, resource constraints, and potential efficiency. It would formulate and model competing scenarios with clusters of complementary technologies, each requiring different policies for its implementation.

Regional advisory councils

“To build trust and engagement in the final plan, regional advisory councils made up of scientists, engineers, businesspeople, and major stakeholder representatives should be created to offer recommendations on how best to adapt such a plan to conditions in each part of the country. The final policy roadmap would then be designated as the “optimal energy path scenario” for the nation and provided to Congress, so that it could use the findings as a basis for funding and implementing new climate legislation.

Political Action is necessary

“…a strong popular constituency must be built nationwide capable of exerting powerful pressure on Congress to ensure the creation of a climate plan and the appropriate legislation to make it functional. Otherwise, no matter how sound the PR campaign on its behalf, serious political obstacles would stand in the way of its adoption, even by a Democratic Congress.”

“The creation of a powerful, broad coalition of constituencies — environmental, labor, public health, faith-based, and even progressive elements of the business community — could serve as a popular countervailing force against the mighty fossil-fuel industry. But as a first step, that coalition would need support, guidance, and a common accepted platform both to stand behind and to mobilize the public. The American environmental community could produce that platform. Yet this would not be a simple matter, due to the way that community is siloed, with each major organization catering to its own constituency, interests, and funders.

“To create a common consensual vision around which the national climate movement could mobilize, a broad civil society gathering should be convened to attract the leadership of all environmental and climate action groups and set the stage for the National Climate Action Plan. That gathering would, of course, focus on the roadblocks to implementing such a plan and to a swift, national clean-energy transition — and how those roadblocks could be dismantled.”

Concluding thoughts

The recent heat waves are a harbinger of what is to come if too little is done. The problem of global warming is worsening. This post has emphasized that Trump, the Republican Party, and their followers ignore the problem and, out of stupidity or distorted self-interest, want to increase the principal source of the problem, namely, the production and consumption of gas and oil – even coal.

Biden and the majority of Democrats recognize the problem and have supported some policies that could, if fully implemented, slow greenhouse gas emissions. It requires a plan of action, the mobilization of expert and scientific researchers, honesty (not lies) in discussions with the public, and assistance for those communities that need support during such efforts. To do otherwise is disaster.

Too little action on the climate crisis

Bob Sheak, April 21, 2024

Introduction

The best evidence on the climate crisis indicates that emissions from fossil fuels continues to increase, global temperatures continue going up, the temperature of the oceans rises at an unprecedented rate, more and more communities across the earth suffer debilitating heat levels, and there are rising levels of suffering, massive emigration, and environmental degradation.

Military policies exacerbate the climate crisis

Wars and militarized foreign policies compound the problem.

(See, for example, Barry Sanders” book, The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism, or Neta C. Crawford’s The Pentagon, Climate Change, and War.)

Melissa Garriga considers the effects of war on the climate crisis in an article published on April 20, 2024, and titled “Don’t Let Warmongers Greenwash their Ecocide This Earth Day” (https://commondreams.org/opinion/ecocide-2667821672). Note that there is, by and large, bipartisan support for increasing the military budget. Here’s some of what Garriga writes.

“As Earth Day approaches, prepare for the annual spectacle of U.S. lawmakers donning their environmentalist hats, waxing poetic about their love for the planet while disregarding the devastation their actions wreak. The harsh reality is that alongside their hollow pledges lies a trail of destruction fueled by military aggression and imperial ambitions, all under the guise of national security.

“Take Gaza, for instance. Its once-fertile farmland now lies barren, its water sources poisoned by conflict and neglect. The grim statistics speak volumes: 97% of Gaza’s water is unfit for human consumption, leading to a staggering 26% of illnesses, particularly among vulnerable children. Israel’s decades-long colonial settler project and ethnic cleansing of Palestine have caused irrefutable damage to the land, air, and water, consequently contributing to the climate crisis. In fact, in the first two months of the current genocide campaign in Gaza, Israel’s murderous bombardment, which has killed nearly 35,000 people, also generated more planet-warming emissions than the annual carbon footprint of the world’s top 20 climate-vulnerable nations. Yet, despite these dire circumstances, U.S. lawmakers persist in funneling weapons to Israel, perpetuating a cycle of violence and environmental degradation.”

Garriga continues.

“All of this destruction to the environment and acceleration of the climate crisis happen silently under the veil of ‘national security,’ while discussions on how the environmental toll of war is the most significant national security threat are absent in D.C. While the threat of nuclear annihilation and civilian casualties rightfully dominate headlines, the ecological fallout remains an underreported tragedy. The Pentagon is the planet’s largest institutional emitter of fossil fuels; Its insatiable appetite for conflict exacerbates climate change and threatens ecosystems worldwide. To make matters worse, the U.S. government wants to fund this destruction to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars a year while poor and low-wealth communities worldwide bear the brunt of climate catastrophes with little to no resources to protect themselves.

“At the heart of this destructive cycle lies a perverse economic incentive, in which war becomes a lucrative business at the expense of both people and the planet. The narrative of GDP growth masks the actual cost of conflict, prioritizing financial profit over genuine progress in education, healthcare, and biodiversity. However, instead of war-economy metrics such as the GDP, we could embrace alternative metrics such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI)that reckon with the actual toll of war on our world. We can shift from endless growth toward genuine well-being by valuing air quality, food security, and environmental sustainability.”

Partisan deadlock

When all is said and done, there are significant differences between Biden and the Democrats and Trump and the Republicans. Right-wing politicians in the U.S. and around the globe refuse to support or even identify changes that could, at least, increase the chances of slowing down the climate-crisis problem. Indeed, Trump and his followers reject or ignore the scientific and empirical evidence documenting the problem and want unhindered domestic use and export of fossil fuels with no significant government regulatory barriers.

Democrats, moderates, and leftists accept the mounting scientific evidence that the climate crisis is real and growing threat to humanity and life on earth generally and do offer relevant policies, though their policies, not always environmentally good, have not yet had the effect of reducing the emissions of fossil-fuel-related conduct and operations.

There are three parts to this post, considering (1) the evidence, (2) Trump’s denialism, and (3) Biden’s mixed results. Then there are concluding thoughts on what surveyed Americans think and how some are actively protesting the lack of sufficient government action to curtail the climate crisis.

#1 – The evidence on the rising climate crisis

The numbers

Bill McKibben considers the “numbers on climate” in an article published by Common Dreams on April 12, 2024 (https://commondreams.org/opinion/not-fast-enough-on-climate).

“At the most fundamental level, new figures last week showed that atmospheric levels of the three main greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide—reached new all-time highs last year. Here’s how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported the figures:

“While the rise in the three heat-trapping gases recorded in the air samples collected by NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory (GML) in 2023 was not quite as high as the record jumps observed in recent years, they were in line with the steep increases observed during the past decade.

“The global surface concentration of C02, averaged across all 12 months of 2023, was 419.3 parts per million (ppm), an increase of 2.8 ppm during the year. This was the 12th consecutive year CO2 increased by more than 2 ppm, extending the highest sustained rate of CO2 increases during the 65-year monitoring record. Three consecutive years of CO2growth of 2 ppm or more had not been seen in NOAA’s monitoring records prior to 2014. Atmospheric CO₂ is now more than 50% higher than pre-industrial levels.”

McKibben continues.

“Entirely unsurprisingly, the planet’s temperature has also continued to rise. Temperature rise is not as smooth as the growth in greenhouse gas emissions, because other factors—El Niños, volcanoes, and so on—can superimpose themselves on top of the greenhouse gas emissions to push temperatures slightly higher or lower. But at the moment, everything is coming up very very hot. March was the hottest March ever recorded globally, according to European monitors. As The Guardian reported:

“This is the 10th consecutive monthly record in a warming phase that has shattered all previous records. Over the past 12 months, average global temperatures have been 1.58°C above pre-industrial levels.

“This, at least temporarily, exceeds the 1.5°C benchmark set as a target in the Paris climate agreement but that landmark deal will not be considered breached unless this trend continues on a decadal scale.

Brett Wilkins also refers to the numbers in an article published on April 6, 2024

(https://commondreams.org/news/greenhouse-gas-emissions-266771709).

“NOAA said the three most important human-caused greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide—”continued their steady climb during 2023.”

“While the levels of these heat-trapping gases did not rise “quite as high as the record jumps observed in recent years,” the figures ‘were in line with the steep increases observed during the past decade.’

“Global surface CO2 concentrations averaged 419.3 parts per million (ppm) last year, an increase of 2.8 ppm. It was the 12th straight year in which worldwide CO2 concentrations rose by more than 2 ppm.

“Atmospheric methane—which while not as abundant as CO2 is up to 87 times more potent over a 20-year period—increased by 10 parts per billion (ppb) to 1,922.6 ppb, while nitrous oxide rose by 1 ppb to 336.7 ppb.”

According to NOAA:

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today is comparable to where it was around 4.3 million years ago during the mid-Pliocene epoch, when sea level was about 75 feet higher than today, the average temperature was 7°F higher than in pre-industrial times, and large forests occupied areas of the Arctic that are now tundra.

“About half of the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to date have been absorbed at the Earth’s surface, divided roughly equally between oceans and land ecosystems, including grasslands and forests. The CO2 absorbed by the world’s oceans contributes to ocean acidification, which is causing a fundamental change in the chemistry of the ocean, with impacts to marine life and the people who depend on [it]. The oceans have also absorbed an estimated 90% of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases.

“‘Methane’s decadal spike should terrify us,’ Rob Jackson, a Stanford University climate scientist who heads the Global Carbon Project—which tracks global emissions but wasn’t part of the NOAA effort—told NBC News.

“Fossil fuel pollution is warming natural systems like wetlands and permafrost,” Jackson added. “Those ecosystems are releasing even more greenhouse gases as they heat up. We’re caught between a rock and a charred place.”

The oceans are becoming hotter

Delger Erdenesanaa reports on relevant research for the New York Times, April 10, 2024 (https://nuytimes.com/2024/04/10/climate/ocean-heat-records.html).

“The ocean has now broken temperature records every day for more than a year. And so far, 2024 has continued 2023’s trend of beating previous records by wide margins. In fact, the whole planet has been hot for months, according to many different data sets.

“‘There’s no ambiguity about the data,’ said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. ‘So really, it’s a question of attribution.’”

“Last month [March 2024], the average global sea surface temperature reached a new monthly high of 21.07 degrees Celsius, or 69.93 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the Copernicus Climate Change Service, a research institution funded by the European Union.

“March 2024 continues the sequence of climate records toppling for both air temperature and ocean surface temperatures,” Samantha Burgess, deputy director of Copernicus, said in a statement this week.

Coral Reefs are dying

Catrin Einharn, writes that scientists find that rising ocean temperatures negatively affect the ability of coral reefs to survive

(https://nytimes.com/2024/04/15/climate/coral-reefs-bleaching.html).

“Top of Form

Bottom of Form

The world’s coral reefs are in the throes of a global bleaching event caused by extraordinary ocean temperatures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and international partners announced Monday.

“It is the fourth such global event on record and is expected to affect more reefs than any other. Bleaching occurs when corals become so stressed that they lose the symbiotic algae they need to survive. Bleached corals can recover, but if the water surrounding them is too hot for too long, they die.

“Coral reefs are vital ecosystems: limestone cradles of marine life that nurture an estimated quarter of ocean species at some point during their life cycles, support fish that provide protein for millions of people and protect coasts from storms. The economic value of the world’s coral reefs has been estimated at $2.7 trillion annually.

#2 -Trump’s denialism

Trump doubles down

Scott Waldman offers documentation on how Trump had been dismissive and increasingly willing to reject the scientific evidence (https://politico.com/news/2024/01/12/trump-second-term-climate-science-2024-00132289). While president, Trump “pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement, staffed his environmental agencies with fossil fuel lobbyists and claimed — against all scientific evidence — that the Earth’s rising temperatures will ‘ start getting cooler.’”

A second term would be worse

Waldman expects that “a second Trump presidency to show less restraint.

“Trump’s campaign utterances, and the policy proposals being drafted by hundreds of his supporters, point to the likelihood that his return to the White House would bring an all-out war on climate science and policies — eclipsing even his first-term efforts that brought U.S. climate action to a virtual standstill. Those could include steps that aides shrank back from taking last time, such as meddling in the findings of federal climate reports.

“‘The approach is to go back to all-out fossil fuel production and sit on the EPA,’ said Steve Milloy, a former Trump transition team adviser who is well known for his industry-backed attacks on climate science.

Trump celebrates Iowa caucus win

“In his first term, Milloy said, Trump surrounded himself with too many people who were part of Washington’s political class and resisted dismantling parts of the government. ‘A lot of the people he appointed were unfortunately weak,’ Milloy said.”

“But as the GOP front-runner, he’s gone back to alleging that human-caused global warming is fake, is baselessly blaming whale deaths on wind turbines and said last month that if elected he would be a ‘ dictator for one day’ — in part so he could ‘drill, drill, drill.’”

Trump and his advisers are planning for more fossil fuels

“Meanwhile,” Waldman writes, “many of his former staffers are building out a comprehensive plan to decimate both climate policy and regulations on fossil fuels. And Trump allies expect that the former president would fill his next administration with officials who are even more hostile to efforts to address global warming.”

“Dana Fisher, director of American University’s Center for Environment, Community and Equity, called the change in tone both notable and dangerous — showing that Trump is no longer concerned about reaching moderate and independent voters with his approach to climate policy.”

Plans to avoid “mistakes” of Trump’s first presidency if reelected

“Trump’s first term was defined by rolling back and weakening climate policy.

He gave energy lobbyists key positions of power, spent four years attempting to dismantle fossil fuel regulations and withdrew from the Paris Agreement. His appointees fought to keep coal-burning power plants open — even when utilities wanted to close them on economic grounds — and opened an antitrust probe of automakers that had volunteered to meet stiff clean-air standards.”

“Dozens of conservative groups have banded together to write climate policy goals that would devastate virtually every regulation of the fossil fuel industry.

The Project 2025 effort, led by the Heritage Foundation and partially authored by former Trump administration officials, also would turn key government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, toward increasing fossil fuel production rather than public health protections.

“‘We are writing a battle plan, and we are marshaling our forces,’ Paul Dans, director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, told E&E News for a story last year. ‘Never before has the whole conservative movement banded together to systematically prepare to take power Day 1 and deconstruct the administrative state.’”

May not be a winning election issue

“Seventy-three percent of U.S. adults want the government to do more to address climate change, according to a CNN poll released last month. Most want the government to cut emissions in half by 2030, including 50 percent of Republicans and 95 percent of Democrats, the poll found.”

Trump’s corporate support

Maxine Joselow and Josh Dawsey offer information on this point

(https://washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/04/12/oil-drilling-federal-lands-biden).

“On Thursday [April 11], Trump held a private dinner at his Mar-a-Lago Club and resort with about 20 oil executives from some of the country’s biggest firms, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, Continental Resources, Chesapeake Energy and Occidental Petroleum, according to a guest list reviewed by The Washington Post. The effort was largely organized by Harold Hamm, an oil billionaire and Trump donor who runs Continental Resources and has helped recruit other donors to the Trump campaign.

“In recent months, Trump has also talked with energy executives about the need for fewer regulations on drilling and has asked the executives what they need to drill more oil, according to people who have heard his comments, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

U.S. continues to produce and consumer higher rates of fossil fuels

It’s not as though the U.S. was drilling less oil and gas. “The United States is now pumping more crude oil than any country in history, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The trend is inconvenient for Trump as he seeks to loosen regulations on the energy industry, and for Biden as he touts his ambitious climate agenda on the campaign trail.”

————-

#3 – Biden’s mixed results

Policy and spending initiatives are up

Oliver Milman reports that “Biden races to commit billions to climate action as election looms” (https://theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/11/biden-climate-change-policy-election).

“In recent weeks, large tracts of funding has been announced by the administration to help overcome some of the thorniest and esoteric challenges the world faces in driving down carbon pollution, seeding the promise of everything from the advent of zero-emissions concrete to low-pollution food production, including mac and cheese and ice-cream, to driving the uptake of solar panels and electric stoves in low-income households.

“‘We are seeing billions of dollars going into really tricky parts of the energy transition and if there’s momentum behind this we will be measuring the impacts many years in the future,’ said Melissa Lott, a professor at Columbia University’s climate school. ‘I would expect these investments to have knock-on impacts well outside the US’s borders.’

“The spending,” Milman writes, ‘is the most significant yet to come via the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Biden’s signature climate bill, and the gusher of cash has a certain urgency.”

“Last week, $20bn was awarded under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, a mechanism set up by the IRA, to non-profit groups [to green banks] that will provide low-interest loans for clean energy projects, such as installing solar panels on community centers, or heat pumps and induction stoves in households that couldn’t otherwise afford them.

Milman continues.

“The aim of these new ‘green banks’ will be to multiply this infusion – the EPA predicts that the private sector will increase the overall funding seven-fold to about $150bn, accelerating the replacement of polluting appliances with cleaner versions, greening public transit and boosting renewable energy going to the grid, particularly in low-income neighborhoods.

“Each small win will deliver new emissions cuts, culminating years beyond the next election term, as will the Biden administration’s other big recent announcement, of $6bn to drive the decarbonization of industrial processes such as making steel, creating aluminum, pouring concrete and even producing ice-cream and pasta.”

“The administration has also poured millions into climate adaptation. On Thursday, it announced $830m in grants to boost the resilience of transportation infrastructure to climate disasters and extreme weather. And last month, it awarded $120m to Indigenous tribes to prepare for climate impacts.”

Leasing reforms

This news is reported by Earthjustice and published on April 12, 2024 by Common Dreams (https://commondreams.org/newswire/earthjustice-applauds-overdue-reforms-to-federal-oil-and-gas-leasing-program).

“Today, the Biden administration unveiled long-awaited reforms that will hold the fossil fuel industry to more reasonable standards when operators seek to lease and develop oil and gas on public lands. The Bureau of Land Management’s new Oil and Gas Rule includes new provisions that will save taxpayers money, help ensure public lands are used for their highest value, and better protect communities and the environment.”

Maxine Joselow and Josh Dawsey also report on the “leasing” story (https://washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/04/12/oil-drilling-federal-lands-biden).

“A final rule from the Bureau of Land Management will require firms to purchase bonds of $150,000 per lease on federal lands, up from $10,000.”

“The Biden administration on Friday finalized a landmark rule that will require oil companies to pay at least 10 times more to drill on federal lands. The rule from the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management represents the first comprehensive update to the federal oil and gas leasing program in more than 30 years, and is intended to generate more money for taxpayers.”

————–

Concluding thoughts

Despite laudable efforts by Biden and his administration, oil and gas production and consumption continue rising in the U.S. The evidence is compelling and has long aroused the concerns of scientists. Climate scientist Michael Mann concludes his recent book, Our Fragile Moment, as follows.

“Even under a business-as-usual scenario where we fail to build on climate policies already in place, the warming of the planet is unlikely to exceed 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit)….But at this level of warming, we can expect a lot of suffering, species extinction, loss of life, destabilization of societal infrastructure, chaos, and conflict.”

“That’s not a world in which we want to live, and it’s not a world that we want to leave behind for our children and grandchildren” (p. 240).

A majority of Americans, especially young adults, express concern about the climate crisis

While many in the public would not willingly sacrifice their economic positions to saving the planet, polls find that a majority of Americans have some worries. The Pew Research Center’s survey “of 8,842 U.S. adults conducted Sept. 25-Oct. 1, 2023, finds that 43% of Americans think climate change is causing a great deal or quite a bit of harm to people in the U.S. today. An additional 28% say it is causing some harm (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-read/2023/08/09/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-climate-change/#) ….

“Looking ahead, young adults ages 18 to 29 are especially likely to foresee worsening climate impacts: 78% think harm to people in the U.S. caused by climate change will get a little or a lot worse in their lifetime.”

“Despite widespread concern about future climate impacts there has been a slight decline in participation in forms of climate activism. The survey finds 21% of U.S. adults say they have participated in at least one of four climate-related activities in the last year, including donating money to a climate organization or attending a climate protest. This is down slightly from two years ago when 24% of Americans said they had participated in a climate-related activity.”

Other findings from Pew Research Center.

“…Americans are largely skeptical that climate activism builds public support for the issue or spurs elected officials to act. Just 28% think climate activism makes people more likely to support action on climate change and only 11% say it is extremely or very effective at getting elected officials to act on the issue.”

“Consistent with the slight decline in levels of climate activism, there has been no increase in personal concern on the issue in recent years. Overall, 37% say they personally care a great deal about the issue of climate change. This share is down 7 percentage points from 2018 and about the same as it was in 2016, the first time the Center asked the question.”

Partisan differences

The Pew research confirms that Republicans and Democrats have much different expectations for how climate change will impact their lives. “Just under half of all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents expect to make no sacrifices in their everyday lives because of climate change. By comparison, 88% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents expect to have to make at least minor sacrifices.”

“These partisan gaps are closely tied to differing expectations about national impacts: 86% of Democrats expect harms from climate change in the U.S. to get worse during their lifetime; just 37% of Republicans say the same.”

There are climate activists who are concerned about too little government action

As one example, Jessica Corbett reports on Sunrise protesters (https://commondreams.org/news/sunrise-movement-los-angeles). Here’s some of what she writes in this article published on April 15, 2024.

“Six young activists were arrested outside Vice President Kamala Harris’ Los Angeles home on Monday while calling on the White House to declare a climate emergency, according to the youth-led Sunrise Movement.””

“‘My generation is spending our teenage years organizing for climate action because people like Kamala Harris have failed us,’ said Adah Crandall, one of the activists arrested after blockading the street outside her California residence overnight.

“‘We’re ready to do whatever it takes to win a climate emergency declaration—we will camp out overnight, we will get arrested, we will mobilize our peers by the thousands to win the world we deserve,’ the 18-year-old continued. ‘The Biden administration are cowards for not standing with young people.’”

“The White House has been praised for climate provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act as well was a recent pause on liquefied natural gas exports. However, the president has also faced criticism for continuing fossil fuel lease sales, backing the Mountain Valley Pipeline and Willow oil project, and skipping last year’s United Nations summit.

“Just last week, the Biden administration approved a license for a pipeline company to build the nation’s largest offshore oil terminal off of Texas’ Gulf Coast—despite surging fossil fuel pollution that is pushing up global temperatures.

“Sunrise last week condemned the approval as ‘very disappointing’ and also joined with Campus Climate Network and Fridays for Future USA to announce Earth Day demonstrations intended to pressure Biden to declare a climate emergency.”

An international movement

Olivia Rosane writes on a “Youth Lead Global Strike Demanding ‘Climate Justice Now’ (https://www.commondreams.org/news/youth-strike-climate-justice). The article was published on April 19, 2024. Here’s some of what Rosane reports.

“Ahead of Earth Day, young people around the world are participating in a global strike on Friday to demand ‘climate justice now.’

“In Sweden, Greta Thunberg joined hundreds of other demonstrators for a march in Stockholm; in Kenya, participants demanded that their government join the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty; and in the U.S., youth activists are kicking off more than 200 Earth Day protests directed at pressing President Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency.”

“The first global youth climate strike, which grew out of Thunberg’s Fridays for Future school strikes, took place on March 15, 2019. Since then, both emissions and temperatures have continued to rise, with 2023 blowing past the record for hottest year. Yet, according to Climate Action Tracker, no country has policies in place that are compatible with limiting global heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.”

“The global strikes are taking place under the umbrella of Friday’s for Future, which has three main demands: 1. limit temperature rise to 1.5°C, 2. ensure climate justice and equity, and 3. listen to the most accurate, up-to-date science.”

“Participants shared videos and images of their actions on social media.

European strikers also gathered in London, Dublin, and Madrid.

In Asia, Save Future Bangladesh founder Nayon Sorkar posted a video from the Meghna River on Bangladesh’s Bola Island, where erosion destroyed his family’s home when he was three years old.”

Also in Bangladesh, larger crowds rallied in Dhaka, Sylhet, Feni, and Bandarban for climate action.

“Young climate activists in Bandarban demand a shift to renewable energy and away from fossil fuels,” said Sajjad Hossain, the divisional coordinator for Youthnet for Climate Justice Bangladesh. “We voiced urgency for sustainable energy strategies and climate justice. Let’s hold governments accountable for a just transition!”

“In Kenya, young people struck specifically to demand that the government sign on to the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“As a member of the Lake Victoria community, the importance of the treaty in our climate strikes cannot be overstated,” Rahmina Paullette, founder of Kisumu Environmental Champions and a coordinator for Fridays for Future Africa, said in a statement. “By advocating for its implementation, we address the triple threat of climate change, plastic pollution, and environmental injustice facing our nation.”

“Halting fossil fuel expansion not only safeguards crucial ecosystems but also combats the unjust impacts of environmental degradation, ensuring a more equitable and sustainable future for our community and the wider Kenyan society,” Paullette said.

“In the U.S., Fridays for Future NYC planned for what they expected to be the largest New York City climate protest since September 2023’s March to End Fossil Fuels. The action will begin at Foley Square at 2:00 pm Eastern Time, at which point more than 1,000 students and organizers are expected to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge to rally in front of Borough Hall.

“‘The strike’ is part of a national escalation of youth-led actions in more than 200 cities and college campuses around the country, all calling on President Biden to listen to our generation and young voters, stop expanding fossil fuels, and declare a climate emergency that meaningfully addresses fossil fuels, creating millions of good paying union jobs, and preparing us for climate disasters in the process, Fridays for Future NYC said in a statement.”

“The coalition is planning events leading up to Monday including dozens of Earth Day teach-ins beginning Friday to encourage members of Congress to pressure Biden on a climate emergency and Reclaim Earth Day mobilizations on more than 100 college and university campuses to demand that schools divest from and cut ties with the fossil fuel industry.”