SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Over three-quarters in a new survey endorsed the idea that the "future is frightening" and 62.9% agreed that "humanity is doomed."
More than half of young people in the U.S. are "very or extremely worried" about the climate crisis and an even larger percentage are motivated to do something about it, including at the ballot box.
The data came from a poll published on Thursday in The Lancet Planetary Health, which found that concerns about the climate crisis were impacting young people's decisions about their personal and public lives, with 52.3% saying they were "hesitant to have children" and 72.8% planning to vote for candidates who back ambitious climate policies.
"Climate change is causing widespread distress among U.S. youth and affecting their beliefs and plans for the future," the study authors concluded. "These effects may intensify, across the political spectrum, as exposure to climate-related severe weather events increases."
"There was no state sample where the endorsement of climate anxiety came in less than 75%."
The study was based on an online survey conducted between July 20 and November 7 of 2023. In what authors believe to be the largest of its kind to date, the survey considered 15,793 answers from young people aged 16 to 25 in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
The vast majority of respondents, 85%, were at least moderately worried about climate change, while 57.9% were very worried. Nearly two-thirds reported feeling anxious, powerless, afraid, sad, and angry about the climate crisis, while 51.2% felt despair. A smaller but significant number said that climate change was impacting their mental health and that worries about climate change were having a negative impact on their daily lives, at 42.8% and 38.3% respectively. Over three-quarters endorsed the statement, "The future is frightening," and 62.9% agreed that "humanity is doomed."
Many respondents anticipated the crisis to alter the trajectory of their lives, with 69.4% expecting it to impact where they would live, 66% expecting it to menace their health, 63.5% saying it would impact their future plans overall, and 65.5% saying it would outright make their lives worse.
However, many planned to take proactive steps to address climate change. In addition to voting, 68.2% said they would decrease their or their family's contribution to climate change, 67.4% said they would work for more sustainable employers, and 61.4% said they would join or back climate advocacy groups.
The climate crisis also shaped the respondents' thoughts and opinions, with 89.4% blaming corporations and industry for the emergency, 86% blaming the U.S. government, and 85.5% blaming other wealthy nations. Similar percentages put the onus on corporations, the U.S., and other wealthy governments to fix the problem. A full 71.9% of respondents agreed with the statement, "I don't want to participate in a social and economic system that harms the planet."
The survey results were consisted with past polls of young people. An earlier global poll, also published in The Lancet, found that 75% of U.S. respondents were moderately worried about the climate crisis and 46% were very worried. However, one thing that stood out in the most recent survey was how consistent the results were across state and party affiliation.
"One of the most striking findings of the survey was that this was across the political spectrum," lead author Eric Lewandowski, a clinical psychologist and associate professor at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine, told The Guardian. "There was no state sample where the endorsement of climate anxiety came in less than 75%."
In past surveys on U.S. climate attitudes, whether someone is a Republican, Democrat, or Independent has had a strong influence on how concerned they are about climate and whether or not they think the government should act on it.
However, the study authors noted, "Compared with these past reports, greater proportions of Republicans in this survey endorsed negative emotions and thoughts about climate change and the response of the U.S. government, and plans to vote for political candidates who support aggressive climate policies."
For example, while 92.6% and 86.5% of Democrats and Independents respectively said they were at least moderately worried about climate change, 73.5% of Republicans also said they were. While 83% of Democrats and 76.1% of Independents wanted the U.S. government to carry out a "plan to prevent the worst impacts of climate change," 69.1% of Republicans also did. And 62.3% of Republicans surveyed said they would vote based on a candidate's climate ambition, compared with 85.5% of Democrats and 74.5% of Independents.
Another factor that influenced respondent's climate feelings was whether or not they had experienced an extreme weather event, and this effect was not impacted by party affiliation.
"Despite baseline differences by political party, as respondents across the political spectrum perceived the impact of a greater array of severe weather events in their area, their distress related to climate change and their desire and plans for action increased," the study authors wrote.
Coming weeks after the devastation of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, the survey indicates that young people's mental health and well-being will consider to suffer as the climate crisis intensifies. This can be offset somewhat by giving these young people a chance to discuss and act on climate in their communities, schools, workplaces, and government. However, as with all climate impacts, the distress of young Americans has one overarching solution: rapidly phasing out fossil fuels to reduce emissions.
"These findings reinforce a theme identified in other research that climate change-related distress will continue to increase while climate change remains insufficiently addressed," the study authors concluded. "Accordingly, the response to address this distress must be for industries, governments, and policymakers to act at the necessary scale."
"They want to take climate out of the policy process entirely."
A key oil and gas industry group has devised a plan to dismantle Biden-era climate regulations, including on methane emissions, according to an investigation published Friday in The Washington Post.
The American Exploration and Production Council, a trade group of 30 oil and gas producers, aims to reverse a series of regulations the Biden administration has made, including the institution of a methane fee, the Post reported, based on AXPC documents that were leaked to Fieldnotes, a climate research group.
AXPC represents Big Oil companies including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, whose executives Republican nominee Donald Trump has aggressively sought out for contributions in his bid to return to the White House, even making a quid pro quo offer—deregulation in return for $1 billion in campaign cash—during a gathering at Mar-a-Lago in April.
David Doniger, senior adviser to the NRDC Action Fund, which is affiliated with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Post that Trump had "promised to grant their wishes" and the leaked documents, which Doniger reviewed at the paper's request, revealed their "wish list."
Paasha Mahdavi, director of the Energy Governance and Political Economy Lab at University of California at Santa Barbara, noted the comprehensiveness of AXPC's plans, which he also reviewed.
"They want to take climate out of the policy process entirely," Mahdavi told the Post. "They want government to stop regulating climate issues and stop thinking about climate risks."
Mahdavi said the AXPC documents showed that member companies were acting out of step with their own public climate pledges.
"They talk a lot about climate ambitions while doing something different inside their companies," he said. "If you are aligned with the Paris agreement, you cannot be part of a trade association trying to roll back these emissions regulations. Those two things are inconsistent."
Elizabeth Kolbert, an environmental writer at The New Yorker, said the plans were not surprising but were "still terrifying."
The oil and gas industry's plan for a Trump presidency involves pouring more methane into the atmosphere. Unsurprisingly, but still terrifying. https://t.co/RsVjiMefZH
— Elizabeth Kolbert (@ElizKolbert) October 18, 2024
Aspects of the AXPC plans had already been released publicly, including its goals to increase the production and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The leaked documents included a confidential survey of member companies showing that nine out of the 19 companies that responded had increased methane flaring between 2021 and 2023. Natural gas flaring is a longstanding but highly polluting industry disposal method. The survey also showed that the total amount of flaring across the companies increased by 20% from 2022 to 2023.
Methane is a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide, though not as long lasting in its effects. Methane emissions are responsible for about 20-30% of climate warming since the 1700s, scientists estimate—second only to carbon dioxide. Fossil fuels are a major source of those methane emissions, along with modern agricultural practices and other causes.
In March, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized its methane rule, which is projected to reduce emissions of the gas by up to 80% over 14 years. A group of Republican-led states and fossil fuel interests have challenged the rule in federal court. The case that's ongoing, though the plaintiffs' bid for an emergency injunction on the rule from the U.S. Supreme Court failed, so the regulation remains in effect.
The documents also show a number of other orders and regulations in the industry's crosshairs. One is a sweeping executive order issued in the first week of the Biden administration to establish a "whole-of-government" approach to tackling the climate crisis; it includes goals to limit drilling on federal land and decarbonize the grid. AXPC also seeks to undo an executive order that requires companies to disclose climate-related financial risks.
Other items in the AXPC roadmap include lifting the Biden administration's pause on LNG exports and undoing a rule requiring the climate to be taken into account in major infrastructure projects. The group also wants to see an executive order that promotes fossil fuel production.
AXPC spokesperson Mark Bednar, who previously worked for then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, told the Post that "our board documents make clear that our priorities are the same regardless of who is in the White House."
Yet the plan, which runs in contradiction to Democratic Party aims, will only be actionable if Trump returns to power.
Trump has phoned oil and gas executives regularly in recent months "to hear their wishes and raise campaign cash," the Post reported. As a group, AXPC hasn't contributed to the Trump campaign, but leaders of its member companies are Trump donors and fundraisers.
The International Energy Agency (IEA), which released a major report this week showing that the world's nations were not on track to achieve crucial climate goals, has documented the dangerous rise in global methane emissions—making the agency a target of the fossil fuel industry.
At a fundraiser this summer, fossil fuel executives told Trump he should push for Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director, to be replaced, according to the Post, citing an anonymous attendee.
ExxonMobil distanced itself from the leaked documents, telling the Post that it doesn't agree with all AXPC positions and that it has sharply reduced its methane emissions and supports the methane fee.
ConocoPhillips didn't reply to a request for comment by the Post but has said in filings that it supports the AXPC's position on methane.
"These companies are endangering my constituents, and I believe New York prosecutors should act accordingly," one state assembly member said.
Several New York City and state elected officials endorsed a memo published Thursday outlining how New York City prosecutors could charge major fossil fuel companies and their CEOs with reckless endangerment for knowingly contributing to the climate crisis that has worsened deadly, destructive storms like Sandy and Ida.
The memo, published by Public Citizen and Fair and Just Prosecution, argues that the reckless endangerment case against Big Oil is strong enough for New York prosecutors to launch an investigation.
"Big Oil's conduct was not just immoral. It was criminal," Aaron Regunberg, the senior policy counsel with Public Citizen's Climate Program, said in a statement. "Reckless endangerment occurs when someone engages in reckless conduct that risks injuring or killing another person. That's exactly what these companies and their CEOs have done by knowingly creating the climate crisis that is causing extreme—and extremely dangerous—weather events."
"The findings in this memo are clear—fossil fuel companies have knowingly put New Yorkers' lives at risk."
2021's Hurricane Ida, for example, damaged 3.3% of the buildings in New York City and killed more than a dozen people when it dumped nine inches of rain in less than 24 hours. Nearly a decade earlier, Superstorm Sandy killed 44 city residents, damaged nearly 70,000 residential buildings, and temporarily displaced thousands.
"Hurricane Sandy destroyed my home," said Rachel Rivera of New York Communities for Change. "My family deserves justice. That disaster didn't just happen—it was done to us by oil and gas companies. They made trillions of dollars, while we lost so much."
The memo names as possible defendants ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Occidental, BHP, and Peabody and possibly some of their CEOs. These companies have emitted 15.37% of all industrial-era climate pollution since 1965, the year the industry became "unquestionably aware" that oil, gas, and coal were heating the planet. Even earlier, at a 100th birthday bash for the U.S. oil industry in 1959, Edward Teller warned the guests that a 10% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide could raise temperatures enough to "submerge New York."
Yet the fossil fuel industry and its leaders have continued to pump climate-warming products and spread misinformation about the harm they cause, delaying action that could have prevented or mitigated storms like Sandy and Ida.
"If I committed a crime like that against a corporation, you can bet I'd get prosecuted," Rivera said. "So why shouldn't they be held accountable? Isn't that why we have a criminal justice system?"
Amy Fettig, co-executive director of Fair and Just Prosecution, said that charging the fossil fuel majors would mark an important reevaluation of the meaning of public safety.
"We are spending millions of dollars and using violent force to target minor crimes like fare evasion, while Big Oil corporations and their billionaire CEOs continue to accelerate a climate crisis that is actively putting residents in real, concrete danger," Fettig said.
Several New York elected officials have embraced this strategy. The memo earned statements of support from New York State Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Brad Hoylman-Sigal, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, New York State Senator Kristen Gonzalez, New York State Assembly Member Emily Gallagher, New York City Council Member Sandy Nurse, and New York City Council Member Carmen De La Rosa.
"We rarely include corporate crimes in our 'tough on crime' rhetoric and public safety strategies, but that's the crime truly threatening our communities," Gallagher said. "Because of Big Oil, so-called 'one-in-1,000 year' storms are becoming regular occurrences, and these dangers are only getting worse. These companies are endangering my constituents, and I believe New York prosecutors should act accordingly."
Reynoso added, "The findings in this memo are clear—fossil fuel companies have knowingly put New Yorkers' lives at risk."
He continued: "By willfully ignoring and concealing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their products, these corporations have contributed to a dramatic uptick in extreme weather events, which hit Brooklyn's most vulnerable populations the hardest. This is more than an environmental issue, it is a matter of public safety and equity across our borough, and those responsible for perpetuating the climate crisis in the pursuit of profit should be held accountable."
Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media welcomed the state and city leaders' words.
"WHOA! New York officials are calling for Big Oil to be 'criminally prosecuted' for climate disasters," Henn wrote on social media. "They say the oil companies have engaged in 'reckless endangerment' by fueling and lying about the climate crisis. It's time to #MakePollutersPay."
The latest memo is part of a broader movement to hold the fossil fuel industry legally accountable for climate harms. Henn is also advocating for legislation that would make planet-warming companies pay into a fund for disaster relief and climate adaptation. Vermont became the first state to pass such a Climate Superfund Act in May, and a similar effort in New York is awaiting the signature of Gov. Kathy Hochul.
Public Citizen is also developing a wider strategy for holding the fossil fuel industry accountable. In an earlier memo, the watchdog group outlined how local and state authorities might charge oil, gas, and coal companies with "climate homicides."
"We're building the case for criminal prosecution of Big Oil brick by brick," Public Citizen climate counsel Clara Vondrich wrote on social media of the latest effort. "Here is the first 'prosecution memo' that lays out the case for filing, and winning, criminal charges for 'reckless endangerment.' The law is clear. Barriers are only political."
While Thursday's memo focuses on New York, Public Citizen said it could be relevant to any localities that experience climate disasters and have reckless endangerment statutes on the books.
"This discussion is the starting point for any prosecutor who wants to build a case to protect their constituents from climate harms that are threatening public safety in communities across the country," the memo authors wrote.
"Fossil fuel interests lost, and clean air won," one group declared.
The climate movement on Wednesday welcomed a victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, the third temporary win for the Biden administration's environmental policies this month.
Although the right-wing justices have a record of rulings that have alarmed environmental and public health groups, the high court declined to block an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule intended to limit power plants' planet-heating pollution as a legal challenge to the April policy plays out.
"Given its rulings in recent years undercutting environmental protections, the refusal of the majority on the Supreme Court to block this vital rule is a victory for common sense. This warrants a sigh of relief from the millions of Americans experiencing the impact of the climate crisis," said Meredith Hankins, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"Today's ruling rejects the latest abuse of the Supreme Court's shadow docket by industry and some state attorneys general. The high court made the right call," she continued. "The Supreme Court evidently saw through their phony arguments."
"Power producers don't need immediate relief from modest standards that kick in eight years from now. And states have plenty of time to begin their planning process," Hankins stressed. "Now the case goes back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is moving quickly to decide the merits of this case. We will be helping to defend the standards there. The climate crisis demands that we do."
Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign, similarly said that "the climate crisis is actually an emergency affecting tens of millions of people across the globe every day. Today the court rejected the big polluters' attempt to seek an emergency stay based on their trumped-up allegations. We are in the middle of what will be the hottest year on record, with devastating and deadly extreme storms occurring regularly."
"The EPA's carbon pollution standards for power plants set reasonable targets for utilities and states to cut their carbon pollution, allowing years for them to meet those goals. The Supreme Court's decision rejected the big polluter arguments against slashing carbon pollution and paved the way for less climate pollution in the future," Alt added. "Of course, the fight isn't over. The D.C. Circuit must still rule on the merits. We support the EPA's authority to set commonsense pollution protections to slash climate pollution and protect our kids and communities from climate change and other dangerous air pollution."
The decision came after the justices in early October rejected industry-backed petitions to issue injunctions on new Biden administration rules for methane and mercury. However, conservative Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in Wednesday's decision due to financial conflicts and Justice Clarence Thomas said he would have granted the emergency request from GOP-led states and groups to block the rule.
Additionally, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said the states and groups "have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits as to at least some of their challenges," but there is no need for emergency action at this time "because the applicants need not start compliance work until June 2025," so "they are unlikely to suffer irreparable harm" before a final decision.
As The New York Times reported Wednesday:
The dispute was the latest bid by Republican-led states to undercut the Biden administration's ambitious climate agenda. The challenge carries similarities to a case the Supreme Court considered in the term that ended in July. Three states, Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia, joined with industry groups to challenge an EPA proposal aimed at limiting the flow of air pollution across state lines, asking the Supreme Court to intervene even as the challenge continued to be litigated in lower courts.
In June, the justices paused the proposal, known as the "good neighbor" plan, which requires factories and power plants in the West and Midwest to cut ozone pollution that makes its way into Eastern states.
Although green groups are pushing to preserve the April policy, some have argued that the Biden administration should have gone further with its actions to combat the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.
Climate Justice Alliance interim executive director KD Chavez said Wednesday that while the group applauds the path the latest Supreme Court decision "charts for what can be construed as a coal phaseout, this rule is still riddled with loopholes that give a lifeline to the fossil fuel industry to continue operations and experiment on frontline communities by exposing them to the dangers and health effects of unproven technologies such as carbon capture and storage."
"The rule does not go far enough to push the needle towards a fossil fuel phaseout and a just transition for the energy sector, the communities where energy projects are sited, and the workers who could tap into renewable energy jobs," Chavez emphasized. "Frontline communities deserve more, and given this rule won't be applied until next year, we will continue to work to ensure stronger power plant regulations that meet the growing threat of climate catastrophe we all currently face."