

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.
Temperatures are higher than they’ve ever been, even before El Niño breaks above our heads this summer. And yet we’re talking very little about climate change in our national conversation. That needs to change.
I woke up this Earth Day morning in Santa Barbara, California—which is appropriate, since the offshore oil spill here in 1969 was one of the galvanizing events for the first Earth Day 56 years ago. People got mad, they squawked, and government began to listen. We should never forget what they accomplished—in 18 months Congress had adopted the suite of laws (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Environmental Protection Agency, etc) that the Trump administration is still trying to gut. And within five years those laws had begun to work. The air is far cleaner than it was, thanks to them. You can swim in far more lakes and rivers, thanks to them. Because they got loud.
We face a more complicated moment today, of course. The ecological crisis of our time is not caused by something going wrong—an engine spewing small amounts of carbon monoxide into the air—and not easily fixed by adding a catalytic converter to the tailpipe. Global warming is the result of things going as they’re supposed to: A “clean-burning” engine emits just water vapor, and lots and lots and lots of carbon dioxide. But that CO2 traps heat, and is now warming the planet disastrously. To fix it we have to replace an energy system that runs on fossil fuels with another that runs primarily on the sun. And we have to do it fast.
I flew here Tuesday, and for my carbon sins got a clear-sky view of pretty much the entire western United States. It was, as always, majestic—to fly above the Grand Canyon is to glimpse deep time. But it was also almost unbelievably sad. I’ve been telling you that this was the hottest winter, by far, in the history of the West. But to see it is different. I flew over peaks where I’ve glissaded down snowfields in June, and there was not an inch of snow to be seen. Lake Mead from above looked like a bathtub with the plug open. Sere brown and tawny withered gold as far as you could see, and with it the scary promise of what will come this summer, the smoke that will rise and the flames that will burn orange against the night.
Temperatures are higher than they’ve ever been, even before El Niño breaks above our heads this summer. And yet we’re talking very little about climate change in our national conversation. There are many reasons for that—the most obvious is that the constant psychic assault from the president leaves so little room to think about anything else. But there’s also been a concerted effort among Democrats and some of their environmental allies to stay away from the topic on the grounds that it will distract from or undercut messages about “affordability” which are supposed to be the ticket to electoral success in the fall.
If they think he’s got tariffs wrong, and the war wrong, and immigration wrong, and pretty much everything else wrong, why would they think he had the science of climate right?
I’m committed to that electoral success—my calendar for the months ahead is mostly red districts, where Third Act is busy trying to move the needle with older voters. And I understand the concerns, but I think they’re basically wrong, and that talking straightforwardly about the climate crisis is both politically useful, and an excellent way to take on affordability. And I also think that human beings just need to be discussing the single biggest thing happening on planet Earth, especially since we’re causing it.
The so-called “climate hushing” among Democrats is a product of political consultants looking at polling data. As Claire Barber explained in an excellent essay last month:
The Searchlight Institute, a Democratic think tank run by veteran Democratic political strategist Adam Jentleson that opened its doors in 2025, made waves with its focus on shifting Democratic messaging away from progressive causes, like climate and LGBTQ issues. The think tank is pointed in its stance on climate messaging. A report released in the fall reads, “The First Rule About Solving Climate Change: Don’t Say Climate Change.”
“While battleground voters overwhelmingly agree climate change is a problem, addressing it is not a priority for them,” the report said. Similar to the American Mind Survey, Searchlight found that a majority of Americans believe that climate change is a problem, but rank it below other key issues, like affordability. Searchlight also found high partisan (Democratic) association with the terms “climate” and “climate change” and suggested jettisoning mentions of both altogether.
The phenomenon really dates, I think, from the 2024 presidential campaign, and Vice President Kamala Harris’ abbreviated run for the White House. Climate campaigners were perfectly happy to shut up during that run for an obvious reason: President Joe Biden had given them, in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), most of what DC could provide: a massive infusion of funds for the energy transition we require. The job was to pull Harris across the finish line so that her administration could continue the work well underway with the IRA. We failed at that: Her message, on the politics of joy and the dangers of Donald Trump, ran aground on frustrations with inflation. Climate played no discernible part in the election; I’m not sure any issue played a part in the election, save a kind of general kvetchy grumpiness, and a sense that normal people were being squeezed.
In the wake of their defeat, Democrats have seized on “bread and butter issues,” and left supposed culture war clashes behind. That’s come at a real cost. Corporations, feeling only pressure from the right, have backslid dramatically on their climate commitments. (The Big Tech guys, who just a couple of years ago were noisily pledging they’d go net zero, are currently planning gas-fired data centers that Wired reports today will produce more emissions than midsized European countries). And journalists are, not surprisingly, wandering away from the whole area: The wonderful Amy Westervelt yesterday described a dour meeting of environmental reporters where, among other things, she learned that not just The Washington Post but also Reuters was laying off its climate desk:
Meanwhile, funders of climate journalism are largely folding, too, opting to back comms projects instead or simply stay away from anything as "controversial" as climate and journalism altogether. The cowardice is breathtaking.
As the media watchdogs at FAIR make clear, this decline in coverage is very real:
Our research has found that online news coverage of climate change has been trending down. A search of the term “climate change” in Media Cloud’s US–National dataset, which indexes 248 online outlets, found that there was almost 32% less climate coverage in 2025 than 2024.
This trend is similar in TV news. A recent Media Matters (3/4/26) study found that climate coverage on major US commercial broadcast TV networks was down 35% in 2025.
In fact, they even put the decline on a chart. Powerpoint time!
What’s interesting about all this is that it’s not being driven by some change in the basic underlying politics of climate. New polling data makes clear that Americans are as concerned about climate change as they ever have been. Gallup last week reported that:
Americans’ concern about global warming or climate change remains elevated compared with what it had been prior to 2017. At least 4 in 10 US adults have expressed “a great deal” of concern about the matter throughout the past decade (except for a 39% reading in 2023). Between 2009 and 2016, worry was typically in the low-to-mid 30% range but dropped to as low as 25% in 2011.
Currently, 44% of US adults worry a great deal about global warming or climate change, among the highest in the full trend since 1989, along with 46% measured in 2020 and 45% in 2017.
And another series of Earth Day polls made the numbers even clearer. Americans, in increasing numbers, think that our environment is getting worse, and that government should be doing much more about it. Gallup again:
Americans’ assessments of the environment are particularly bleak ahead of Earth Day, as a record-low 35% offer a positive rating of the environment’s quality and two-thirds say it is worsening.
More than 3 in 5 US adults, 63%, think the government is not doing enough to protect the environment, and most believe environmental protection should be prioritized over economic growth (58%) and development of US energy sources (57%).
The key data point here, for political thinkers, is that the increase in worry about the environment is being driven by independent voters, precisely the people who will determine how the midterms go.
And it doesn’t surprise me a bit. It’s not as if the president or his oil-soaked cabinet has made some convincing new case about the climate. He just blusters on about the “green new scam” and insists, as he did last week, that the “planet is cooling.” By this point, Americans have decided he’s an idiot—his approval ratings are now dropping into the mid and even low 30s. If they think he’s got tariffs wrong, and the war wrong, and immigration wrong, and pretty much everything else wrong, why would they think he had the science of climate right?
So, especially as the climate disasters of this hot summer start to mount, and as the El Niño starts to scare people anew, I’d spend some time if I were campaigning making fun of the president on this score. I’d show that clip of him insisting the planet is cooling. It makes Republicans, who have supported him down the line in Congress on energy issues, look like idiots too.
But of course I’d couple it with a full-on assault about affordability, leaning not into the price of eggs, but the price of gas, utilities, and insurance. The first is tied to the war, but they are all three also about the folly of continuing to rely on our current energy system. All you have to say is: A quick move to clean energy drives down prices. If I were preparing ads for congresspeople, I’d definitely have one about how a solarized Australia will, in June, start providing electricity free for three hours every afternoon to all its citizens. Talk about affordability!
One problem with keeping quiet about climate is that it leads people to think that they’re alone in their fears. Here’s an interesting survey from last month fronm the folks at EcoAmerica:
Most Americans are concerned about climate change, but they don’t think most others share that concern. That quiet misunderstanding is one of the biggest barriers to climate action in the United States… The findings point to a striking paradox: While many Americans trust the information they encounter and are concerned about climate change, they believe others are far less concerned and less able to recognize accurate information.
I think some politicians are starting to recognize the possibilities here. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, venerable campaigner for climate action (with a particular focus on insurance) this winter tweeted out a memorable thread:
There’s a thing out there called a “climate husher.” Anyone who cares about what fossil fuel pollution is doing to Earth’s natural systems needs to ignore these so-called “climate hushers” —people who think Dems should stop talking about climate.
In an electorate focused on costs, 65% say climate change is raising their costs. Climate-driven hikes in home insurance are the top economic issue in many places. By 74-10, voters want companies to pay for the harm their pollution causes.
{Poll-chasing analysts] ignore the "leadership lack loop." When leaders don’t talk about something, enthusiasm falls among voters. In politics, you can often make your own wind, or you can make your own doldrums.
Last, they ignore that this is a fight in which there are real and dangerous villains. Our climate peril didn’t “happen,” it was done—by fraud and corruption.
The fossil fuel climate denial fraud operation and the fossil fuel dark money corruption operation are villainous. It’s evil stuff. Villains need to be fought. Plus, it’s a better story with villains. And true.
I’m pretty sure he’s right. Look, at Third Act we too are focusing a lot of our messaging on the Republican attack on democracy. But we can talk about a couple of things at once. And you can only have a working democracy on a working planet.
Happy Earth Day, all!
"Alongside robust adaptation and risk reduction strategies," the report says, "the only durable solution to the escalating threat of extreme heat lies in ambitious, multilateral climate change mitigation."
Just a month after a sweeping World Meteorological Organization report led United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres to declare that "every key climate indicator is flashing red," WMO and another UN agency marked Earth Day on Wednesday by releasing an analysis focused on "how extreme heat is reshaping food production and food security."
Simply titled "Extreme Heat and Agriculture," the WMO and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report lays out how extreme heat "is influenced by multiple interlinked drivers," including the trends and inertia of human-induced climate change, natural climate variability, and meteorological phenomena such as droughts and atmospheric and marine heatwaves. Then, it gets into what that means for agriculture.
"Extreme heat is increasingly defining the conditions under which agrifood systems operate," WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo and FAO Director-General Qu Dongyu stressed in the foreword of the report. "Rising temperatures and heatwaves, occurring with greater frequency, duration, and intensity, are often accompanied by prolonged drought and other climate extremes."
"Higher temperatures parch soils, reduce harvests, strain livestock, disrupt fisheries, and increase wildfire risk. When combined with water scarcity, the consequences intensify, cutting production, lowering incomes, and tightening food supplies," the pair wrote. "These impacts extend far beyond the farm gate. They represent a systemic risk to global food security and to the livelihoods of more than 1.23 billion people who rely on agriculture."
For example, yields of staple crops such as maize and wheat have already declined by 7.5% and 6%, respectively, with 1ºC of global temperature rise beyond preindustrial levels. The publication points out that yields "are projected to decline by up to an additional 10% for every 1ºC of warming in the future."
It also notes that "under high-emission scenarios, nearly half the world's cattle could be exposed to dangerous heat by 2100," resulting in annual losses nearing $40 billion. Under a low-emission scenario, the report adds, "impacts from livestock exposure to extreme heat are reduced by nearly two-thirds."
The report details vulnerabilities, observed impacts, and projections for not only crops and livestock but also fisheries and aquaculture; forests, plantations, and orchards; and agricultural workers.
Saulo and Qu highlighted that "agricultural workers are already experiencing effects on their health, productivity, and income. As climate variability intensifies, hard-won progress in reducing hunger and poverty comes under strain, with shocks rippling through economies and households and disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable."
The report outlines the existing "range of technical agricultural adaptation options and other broader nontechnical risk management strategies" for responding to extreme heat, as well as barriers to implementing them. It also offers a case study: the extreme heat event that hit Brazil in 2023-24.
That period in the South American country "serves as a stark example of the breadth and severity of compound impacts that can be triggered by a primary extreme heat event," the report states. "On top of a warmer baseline shaped by climate change and amplified by El Niño, the heatwave simultaneously impacted crops, livestock, forests, fisheries, and human health."
"The interconnected failures highlight the profound vulnerability of the entire agricultural sector and the grave implications such events have for the livelihoods and food security of the millions who depend on it," the report continues, emphasizing that "building systemic resilience through adaptation and dedicated risk reduction is imperative."
"While this report outlines a path toward enhanced resilience, solutions and opportunities are not infinite," the publication adds. "Alongside robust adaptation and risk reduction strategies, the only durable solution to the escalating threat of extreme heat lies in ambitious, multilateral climate change mitigation."
🌡️ Extreme heat is already affecting crops, livestock, forests, fisheries & the people who produce our food.New @fao.org-@wmo-global.bsky.social report on #ExtremeHeat & Agriculture shows the impacts & #ClimateAction needed to respond to this growing threat.🔗 https://bit.ly/4cXmmOe#EarthDay
[image or embed]
— Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (@fao.org) April 22, 2026 at 4:15 AM
After the most recent UN Climate Change Conference, COP30, concluded in Brazil late last year, critics called it "another failed climate summit." The United States is the world's largest historical climate polluter, yet President Donald Trump didn't even attend, and has spent his second term not only repealing climate policies but also serving the planet-wrecking fossil fuel industry whose campaign cash helped him return to power.
Trump has also started a new illegal war in the Middle East, partnering with Israel to target Iran. That assault has underscored how armed conflict negatively impacts agriculture and food systems around the world. The Iranian government has restricted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz—a key trade route, including for fertilizer and fossil fuels—which has prompted mounting alarm about a global food crisis.
Earlier this month, ahead of the current fragile ceasefire, the FAO's chief economist, Máximo Torero, warned that farmers would soon "have to choose: Farm the same with fewer inputs, plant less, or switch to less intensive fertilizer crops."
Jorge Moreira da Silva, executive director of the UN Office for Project Services, said Tuesday that "the planting season has already started, and in most countries in Africa it will end in May. So, if we don't get some solution immediately, the crisis will be very significant and severe, particularly for the poorest countries and for the poorest citizens."
The environmental movement has already shown what collective action can achieve. The question now is whether we are prepared to use that power again.
Fifty-seven years ago, Earth Day changed American politics. On April 22, 1970, 20 million American, about 10% of the entire US population, took to the streets, campuses, and town squares in a single day to demand action after 150 years of uncontrolled industrial pollution. The demonstrations were so large and bipartisan that Washington responded almost immediately, probably out of fear but also respect for the intensity and size of the demonstrations. Within just a few years, President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress passed 20 landmark laws including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. Americans and their environment enjoyed that nonpartisan honeymoon for over a decade.
Again in the early 1990s, cooperation between Democrats and Republicans produced significant environmental progress, including the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which addressed acid rain, smog, and toxics, and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, which stopped pollutants at their source. Were they costly? Initially to the polluters yes, but the health and safety results, estimated to be close to $2 trillion in health-cost savings, have been stunning. And eventually industry investment in clean technologies led to efficiency, profits, and innovation. These laws and others demonstrated that bipartisan cooperation could deliver both environmental and economic results.
What is often forgotten today is how broad that political coalition once was. Environmental protection was not a partisan cause. Republicans and Democrats almost competed to be seen as environmental champions. Conservative lawmakers voted for pollution limits, and no wonder: 75% of Americans supported increased government spending to reduce air and water pollution, and large majorities said they were willing to pay higher costs for clean air and water.
For a time, that public pressure worked.
When citizens demonstrate that protecting the planet matters—to their communities, their votes, and their future—leaders respond.
But the momentum that first Earth Day created has slowed and increasingly reversed. Why? One major turning point came in 2010, when the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowed corporations and outside groups to spend unlimited money in elections. In the years since, political spending by all groups has surged but particularly by polluting industries, which outspent health and environmental groups 20 to 1. According to Climate Power, the fossil fuel industry spent $450 million during the 2024 election cycle.
In the past year, 425 environmental and health and safety laws and regulations have been rolled back or crippled, many of which, including all climate change related policies and laws, were promised during the election. The quid pro quo for donations was pretty straightforward—denial that climate change exists or is harmful.
Citizens United opened the spigot for anti-environmental spending, and what is coming out of those spigots is hurting our children, our health, and American innovation and economic leadership.
The influence of that spending has helped transform environmental policy from a bipartisan priority into one of the most polarized issues in Washington. In the years before the ruling, bipartisan climate legislation was still possible. In the years after Citizens United, cooperation largely collapsed. The result has been legislative gridlock at precisely the moment scientists and many economists say immediate action will both reduce or even solve the climate crisis and keep America from losing its place in the impossible to stop green economy.
Ironically, this reversal of environmental policy has occurred even as public concern has remained high. Surveys consistently show that large majorities of Americans believe climate change is real and more than 70% of Americans support stronger measures to address climate change. This disconnect between public concern and political action is the defining challenge of this Earth Day and the environmental movement itself.
That is why the theme of this year’s Earth Day, Our Power, Our Planet, is more than a slogan. It is a reminder of a fundamental truth that shaped the first Earth Day: Political power ultimately flows from citizens—real people—to Congress and the White House.
The environmental breakthroughs of the 1970s and 1990s did not happen because leaders suddenly discovered science. They happened because millions of people made environmental protection politically unavoidable. Citizens marched, organized, voted, and demanded action. They made it clear that protecting the planet was not optional. Today, that same civic power and engagement is needed again.
If governments believe environmental protection is a low priority for voters, progress will stall. If they believe the public is divided or disengaged, short-term political pressure and massive corporate dollars will always win. But when citizens demonstrate that protecting the planet matters—to their communities, their votes, and their future—leaders respond.
That is the real meaning of Our Power, Our Planet. The environmental movement has already shown what collective action can achieve. The question now is whether we are prepared to use that power again. Because the progress of the past half-century was never guaranteed; without sustained public engagement, it could easily erode.
Earth Day was never meant to be a celebration. It was designed as a demonstration of public will. Fifty-seven years later, the challenge is the same: to show governments, once again, that the power to protect our planet ultimately belongs to the people.
This piece was distributed by American Forum.