SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
greenhouse gas emissions
Albany Is Moving the Climate Goalpost While our Communities Are Still Flooding
Instead of relying on numbers that make our progress appear better on paper, New York state leaders should focus on the investments that actually protect New Yorkers from the impacts of fossil fuels.
Jun 21, 2026
Back in 2012, over the course of two days, water, wind, and rain flooded my neighborhood.
At that time, I was living in the Baruch Houses on Manhattan's Lower East Side while working as a babysitter in Park Slope, Brooklyn. Unlike the families I was working for, my neighbors and I didn’t have the luxury of leaving our homes to seek refuge in a safe place. So we stayed.
That night I watched as a green flash cracked across the sky before everything went dark. I didn’t know it at the time, but I later came to find out the Con Edison plant just six minutes away from my building had exploded. The feeling of loss and fear that day didn’t just happen to me: Over 69,000 units were damaged and lost, thousands of New Yorkers were displaced.
Thirteen years later, these vulnerabilities revealed within our infrastructure still remain today, and with every major storm or heavy rainfall, our subways and homes continue to flood. Yet, with the new passage of the New York State Budget and the rollbacks on our climate goals, Albany has chosen to weaken key environmental commitments.
People that look like me pay for fossil fuels with our health, our safety, our democracy, and our children's right to a clean and healthy future.
While the budget still has some investments in clean energy, it also delays our committed climate benchmarks and measurements. Essentially, this budget moves us further away from the emissions goals we’ve legally bound ourselves to. Instead of focusing on meeting these goals already established under state law, Albany has chosen to move the goalposts.
Changing the ways in which we measure our emissions may make progress look better on paper, but it doesn't reduce the actual consequences of climate inaction.
For decades, communities that look like mine have felt the ramification of climate change more harshly. Oftentimes, these ramifications result in not just the physical terror like I and many experienced during Hurricane Sandy but can also manifest in poorer health outcomes.
The fossil fuel sector is literally choking us to death with no regard to how they contribute to the exacerbation of other conditions in my community. Fossil fuel consumption in New York City makes up for 70% of our local greenhouse gas emissions. It also causes around 2,400 premature deaths annually due to air pollution.
So, instead of moving the goalposts and relying on numbers that make our progress appear better on paper, Albany should focus on the investments that actually protect New Yorkers. And, even though with the recent announcement of the $100 million commitment for climate resiliency projects through the Environmental Bond Act is a step in the right direction, we still need to go even further by fully funding and accelerating the comprehensive flood protection plan. This includes the Lower Manhattan Coastal Resiliency Program aimed at strengthening flood resilience, modernizing infrastructure, and safeguarding our communities.
While we associate fossil fuel costs with our utility bills, people that look like me pay for fossil fuels with our health, our safety, our democracy, and our children's right to a clean and healthy future. We can not afford to sacrifice any longer or delay any further the commitment we made to reduce emission. As storms become stronger, and infrastructures continue to decay, the greatest impacts will be on forgotten neighborhoods like mine. And whether I’m elected to represent this district in Albany or not, I will continue to push for the funding we need to no longer live in survival mode every time a storm occurs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Scrapping the Endangerment Finding: Payback for the Billionaire Climate Criminals
Who's responsible for rolling back the endangerment finding? We believe it is time to name names so future generations—and future climate justice tribunals—will know who is responsible for incinerating our futures.
Mar 24, 2026
The February rollback of the "endangerment finding"—which provides the legal basis for regulating climate change—was many years in the works. It's the ultimate payback for a politically engaged fossil fuel industry and the climate criminals who use their wealth, power, and position to block efforts to help us transition to a post-oil, gas, and coal era.
Who's responsible for rolling back the endangerment finding? We believe it is time to name names so future generations—and future climate justice tribunals—will know who is responsible for incinerating our futures. Researchers at the Climate Accountability Research Project have tracked several of the key individuals working to undermine climate protection for the last two years
On February 12, 2026, Lee Zeldin, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced the rescission of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding, repealing regulations for GHG emissions of motor vehicles. According to The New York Times, a small group of fossil fuel-funded right-wing operatives have pushed to roll back government regulation of greenhouse gases for the past 16 years and have finally succeeded. Myron Ebell, a leading climate denier and fellow at the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, stated that “no amount of public support would have done anything if there hadn’t been those four people: Russ and Jeff and John and Mandy.”
So who the heck are “Russ and Jeff, and John and Mandy?” Russell Vought, Jeffrey Clark, Mandy Gunasekara, and Jonathan Brightbill are well-known operatives within right-wing circles. For example, Russell Vought, President Donald Trump’s director of the US Office of Management and Budget, and Jeffrey B. Clark, former acting administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, are veterans from the first Trump administration.
Rolling back the endangerment finding will have devastating and irreversible consequences to the planet.
Clark has been fighting the government’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases since 2005. In 2022, Vought was vice president of the Heritage Foundation and managed Project 2025, the blueprint for many Trump initiatives. Vought hired Clark to draft executive orders for a future Republican president to easily reverse President Joe Biden’s climate initiatives. In 2023, Clark described climate change regulation as part of a plot to “‘meta control’ Americans.” Following the 2024 election, Vought and Clark were both asked to serve in Trump’s second administration where they were able to push for the repeal of the endangerment finding.
The “Mandy and Jonathan” are lesser known right-wing operatives. Mandy Gunasekara is an environmental attorney, former chief of staff for the EPA during the first Trump administration, and author of the Project 2025 report chapter on reforming the EPA. Gunasekara fought against policies from the Biden administration regarding emission reduction and self-identified as the “chief architect” behind Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. The Climate Accountability Research Project identified Gunasekara as a Climate Criminal in 2024 because of her historical role in rolling back greenhouse gas regulations.
In 2015, Gunasekara infamously handed the late Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) a snowball to use as a prop on the Senate floor as “proof” that climate change wasn’t a real threat. Gunasekara was serving as an aide to Sen. Inhofe, who was considered to be one of Congress’ most outspoken climate skeptics at the time. Gunasekara was also a former visiting fellow with the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, where she helped draft a policy agenda that “unleashes American energy production, and reduces barriers to economic freedom.”
Following Gunasekara’s resignation from the EPA in 2019, she founded the Energy45 Fund, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization “to promote the Trump energy agenda” and inform the public on the "environmental and economic gains made under the Trump administration.” The sources of funding for this organization have remained anonymous, and the organization has even been dubbed as a “dark money group” by Open Secrets.
In 2023, the Heritage Foundation published Project 2025, which featured Gunasekara’s 32-page chapter “Mandate for Leadership,” outlining a conservative agenda to move the EPA away from its focus on climate change. Key policy proposals outlined in her chapter include resetting scientific advisory boards, scaling back greenhouse gas regulation programs, and updating the 2009 endangerment finding. Gunasekara’s chapter also included the “Day One Executive Order,” which included a list of immediate actions to be taken on the first day of President Trump’s second term, with orders like “stop all grants to advocacy groups and review which potential federal investments will lead to tangible environmental improvements” and “revise guidance documents that control regulations such as the social cost of carbon.”
Jonathan Brightbill is currently the general counsel of the US Department of Energy. Brightbill argued against Obama-era climate policies while serving in the Justice Department in the first Trump administration.
In 2022, Gunasekara and Brightbill began their secret campaign to end the endangerment finding, in which they secured $2 million in funding from right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation. The funding allowed Gunasekara and Brightbill to draft regulatory documents that would simplify the abandonment of the endangerment finding. Over the years, the two collected an “arsenal of information” to dispute the scientific evidence of climate change. The evidence collected along with their detailed plans of attack helped the Trump administration end the endangerment finding.
Rolling back the endangerment finding will have devastating and irreversible consequences to the planet. There will come a day, maybe sooner than we think, when climate criminals like “Russ and Jeff and John and Mandy” will be held to account.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Another Oil-Fueled War Erupts, Study Reveals Planet Heating at Unprecedented Rate
The findings mean global temperatures are on track to surpass 1.5°C above preindustrial levels before 2030.
Mar 06, 2026
Nearly a week into President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran that is likely to increase climate-warming emissions, new research has found that the pace of human-caused global heating has accelerated over the past 10 years.
The study, published in Geophysical Research Letters on Friday, concluded that global heating had nearly doubled from a rate of less than 0.2°C a decade from 1970-2015 to 0.35°C between 2015-25. This would put global temperatures on track to surpass 1.5°C above preindustrial levels before 2030.
"Warming proceeding faster is not unexpected by climate models, but it is a cause of concern and shows how insufficient the efforts to slow and eventually stop global warming under the Paris Climate Accord have so far been," study authors Stefan Rahmstorf and G. Foster wrote.
Scientists had long suspected that global warming was speeding up, given that the past three years were the three hottest on record. Yet previous studies had not been able to find statistically significant evidence of acceleration. The new study removed the natural variability from solar variations, volcanic eruptions, and El Niño from the data, which revealed a statistically significant speedup.
“How quickly the Earth continues to warm ultimately depends on how rapidly we reduce global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to zero."
It follows a study from 2025 that found a smaller increase of 0.27°C per decade from 2015-24.
“Either way, this represents a significant increase in the rate of warming,” Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth and a co-author on the earlier study, told The Guardian. “[This] should be worrying as the world hurtles toward crossing 1.5°C later this decade.”
Whatever the rate of increase, the solution, from a scientific perspective, is clear.
“How quickly the Earth continues to warm ultimately depends on how rapidly we reduce global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to zero,” Rahmstorf, a Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research scientist, told The Guardian.
Yet the findings come at a time when emissions look set only to increase, as the US launches an oil-fueled war on Iran that risks drawing other major military powers into a greater conflict.
"The outbreak of any war is bad news for the climate, just as the election of politicians hostile to climate action is," Mark Hertsgaard, Covering Climate Now executive director and co-founder, and Giles Trendle, former managing director of Al Jazeera English, wrote in a newsletter on Thursday. "The climate implications of this new war are not the center of attention at the moment, but they are essential context for understanding what’s at stake. At a time when civilization is hurtling toward irreversible climate breakdown, to overlook the climate consequences of three of the deadliest militaries on Earth going to war would be journalistic malpractice."
War itself increases greenhouse gas emissions. Studies have found that Russia's invasion of Ukraine emitted as much in its first two years as the annual emissions of the Netherlands, while Israel's genocide in Gaza emitted as much in its first four months as each of the 135 lowest-emitting nations in a year.
The Conflict and Environment Observatory observed 120 incidents of environmental harm during the first three days of the Iran conflict, and noted that attacks on oil and gas infrastructure had global implications:
There are also consequences for the global environment through changes in greenhouse gas emissions. Attacks on oil and gas sites will release methane, carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gasses, but the curtailment of production—as has occurred with Qatari LNG [liquefied natural gas], oil production in Iraqi Kurdistan, and Israeli offshore gas—does not necessarily reduce emissions. Instead energy price signals can lead to short term substitution, as well as more complex downstream energy supply changes over longer timeframes.
Fossil fuels are also required to power the machinery that makes war possible.
"What’s beyond dispute is that this war could not be fought without oil," Hertsgaard and Trendle wrote. "The aircraft carriers, jet planes, and the myriad support systems they require gobble immense quantities of fossil fuels. Which helps explain why the US Department of Defense is the largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases globally."
There is also the speculation that control of fossil fuels is one motivation for the war itself, given that Iran has the world's third-largest reserve of oil. While Trump has not included oil in his incoherent word salad of war aims, as he did when he kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, climate advocate Bill McKibben pointed out that members of US oil industry have said that they would rather develop Iran's oil than Venezuela's, as its industry is more "structurally sound."
"Europe, Asia, and other regions whose energy costs skyrocket because of this reckless escalation by the Trump administration are reminded, yet again, that fossil fuels are volatile, insecure, and expensive."
"The military attacks on Iran are not about peace and democracy, but rather about sowing fear, bloodshed, and despair as the US attempts to further destabilize the region and secure access to profitable natural resources that it wants to control," the Climate Justice Alliance said in a statement. "This is not surprising given recent foreign policy actions taken by the Trump administration in Venezuela and Cuba, and our ongoing history of engaging in coups, occupations, and endless wars to control resource-rich countries, especially for oil and gas."
Yet, at the same time, the war is already offering an object lesson in the dangers of relying on fossil fuels—for everyone except fossil fuel CEOs. The war could disrupt markets such that profits soar for Big Oil and liquefied natural gas companies while ordinary people suddenly find themselves struggling to pay gas or heating bills.
"Iran is in the middle of one of the world’s most important energy corridors," Lorne Stockman, Oil Change International research director, told Common Dreams. "Roughly 20% of global petroleum flows through the Strait of Hormuz, so when military escalation disrupts that route, global energy markets are immediately impacted."
Stockman continued: "That instability means higher energy bills for people around the world while communities in the region suffer the devastation of war. Europe, Asia, and other regions whose energy costs skyrocket because of this reckless escalation by the Trump administration are reminded, yet again, that fossil fuels are volatile, insecure, and expensive. The only question is whether governments will heed that signal and make a fair fossil fuel phase out a priority.”
Chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Tzeporah Berman made a similar point on social media: "Drones hitting Saudi oil fields, Qatar halting LNG production, Iran putting a squeeze on the Strait of Hormuz, and US attack on Iran’s Kharg Island oil terminals—all of it should be a wake-up call that fossil fuel phaseout is a national and energy security priority."
Yet Berman noted that the energy landscape is different today than it has been during previous periods of war.
"Unlike previous oil wars renewable energy is now available at scale," Berman continued. "It's distributed, diversified, and resilient. Most importantly, solar panels don’t blow up and once they are in place you don’t need ships to constantly feed them to make energy. The sun is looking like a pretty stable energy source right about now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warnings of 'Permanent' Damage to People and Planet as Trump EPA Set to Repeal Key Climate Rule
One critic blasted the impending move as "an obvious example of what happens when a corrupt administration and fossil fuel interests are allowed to run amok."
Feb 10, 2026
In what experts warn would be the most sweeping rollback of US climate policy ever, the Trump administration is expected this week to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's "endangerment finding," the Obama-era rule empowering climate regulation over the past 15 years.
The endangerment finding determined that six greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride—caused by burning fossil fuels are a single air pollutant that threatens public health and welfare, rather than treating each gas individually, for regulatory purposes.
The 2009 finding has served as the legal foundation for EPA climate rules, including limits on power plant emissions and automobile fuel economy standards under the Clean Air Act.
The new rule would end the regulatory requirement to measure and report vehicle emissions, certify the results, and comply with limits. It would also repeal compliance programs and credit provisions.
“This amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a Monday interview with the Wall Street Journal.
However, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) warned Tuesday on the upper chamber floor that "this week, the Trump administration is set to take one of its most nakedly corrupt steps since Donald Trump returned to office, and that’s saying a lot: a wholesale reversal of essentially all greenhouse gas regulations."
"Trump is making a radical move that will send shockwaves across the economy—uncertainty for manufacturers, states, regulators everywhere. And it flies in the face, of course, of basic science," Schumer said. "Let's be very clear what this announcement represents: It is a corrupt giveaway to Big Oil, plain and simple."
"Big Oil has worked tirelessly for decades to undermine rules that protect against emissions, and now that they have their guy in the White House, they are taking their biggest swing yet," the senator added. "Remember, in the spring of 2024, Donald Trump invited top oil executives to Mar-a-Lago and told them, if you raise me a billion dollars to get me elected, I will cut regulations so you can make more money. That devil’s bargain is now coming true."
Trump is trying to repeal the "endangerment finding" -- the scientific investigation that led EPA to conclude that climate change is dangerous to humans.It's scientifically unjustifiable of course, but they're going to have to justify it to a court. That should be fun to watch.
[image or embed]
— David Roberts (@volts.wtf) February 10, 2026 at 9:22 AM
Big Oil spent over $445 million to elect Trump and other Republican candidates during the 2024 election cycle.
Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit advocacy group, said in a statement Tuesday that “Zeldin took a chainsaw to the endangerment finding, undoing this long-standing, science-based finding on bogus grounds at the expense of our health.”
“Ramming through this unlawful, destructive action at the behest of polluters is an obvious example of what happens when a corrupt administration and fossil fuel interests are allowed to run amok,” Goldman added.
More than 1,000 scientists and other experts have implored EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to not repeal the endangerment finding. In a statement last year, the Environmental Protection Network warned that repealing the finding would result in “tens of thousands of additional premature deaths due to pollution exposure” over the next several decades and spark “accelerated climate destabilization with greater risks of heatwaves, floods, droughts, and disease spread.”
While Trump administration officials told the Journal that the new rules would not apply to regulation of emissions from power plants and oil and gas facilities, some said that repealing the endangerment finding could set the stage for additional rollbacks favoring such polluters.
UCS noted Tuesday that the Trump administration “relied heavily on shoddy science in a report developed by a ‘Climate Working Group,’ composed of five skeptics well outside the scientific mainstream in its proposal to repeal the endangerment finding."
“The report, which was commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), has been thoroughly discredited by the scientific community, which found that the report ‘misrepresents the state of climate science by cherry-picking evidence, exaggerating uncertainties, and ignoring decades of peer-reviewed research,’” UCS continued.
On January 30, Judge William Young of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, ruled that the DOE violated the law when Energy Secretary Chris Wright—the former CEO of a fracking company who denies there is a climate emergency—handpicked the five researchers for the dubious report.
Republicans have been working toward killing the endangerment finding for years. Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a right-wing overhaul of the federal government, explicitly mentions the rule as ripe for repeal. Project 2025’s policy lead, Russell Vought, now directs Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
OMB Acting Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Jeffrey Clark—a purveyor of the “Big Lie” that Democrats stole the 2020 election—has also been working hard at dismantling federal climate regulations, which he once likened to a “Leninistic” plot to control the US economy.
“Instead of rising to the challenge with necessary policies to protect people’s well-being, the Trump administration has shamefully abandoned EPA’s mission and caved to the whims of deep-pocketed special interests,” Goldman said. “Sacrificing people’s health, safety, and futures for polluters’ profits is unconscionable. We all deserve better and this attack against the public interest and the best available science will be challenged.”
Climate scientist Michael Mann called the campaign to repeal the endangerment finding “a reminder that, while some of the damage that Trump [and the] GOP are doing might seem temporary, the damage they’re doing to the planet is permanent.”
Or, as Cardiff University ecologist Aaron Thierry put it, “You can repeal an endangerment finding. You can’t repeal the endangerment.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The US Isn’t Leading at COP30—But It Is Un-Damming Its Way to Climate Resilience
By removing obsolete dams, the US is reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building climate resilience.
Nov 20, 2025
As delegates huddle in Belém, Brazil for the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, they are considering how to prevent runaway climate change, and also how to bolster resilience to extreme weather. The United States won’t have much to offer officially—the Trump administration has said it won’t send any high-level delegates. And with President Donald Trump pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement earlier this year, the country is far from a climate leader these days.
But all is not lost. Local level climate work continues in the United States, with accomplishments worth cheering—and replicating. For the last few years, I’ve tracked one of the most overlooked: the removal of harmful and obsolete dams. The United States has been leading the global charge on dam removals. In just the last 25 years nearly 2,000 dams have been blasted and backhoed from our rivers and streams.
Dam removals, like the four-dam effort completed last year on the Klamath River, are often celebrated for helping imperiled fish, like salmon. But they also offer two important benefits for the climate.
The first is reducing emissions. A growing body of scientific research dating back to the 1990s has found that reservoirs from dams can produce greenhouse gas emissions, some on par with thermal power plants. The biggest culprit is methane, a potent greenhouse gas that traps 80 times more heat as carbon dioxide over 20 years. As organic material breaks down in a reservoir, methane is diffused from the water into the air.
Dam removals aren’t a climate cure-all, but the magnitude of the crisis we face will require all the tools we can muster—and master.
As we take stock of our greenhouse gas emissions, an honest accounting of the input from dams could help us make reductions where dams are unneeded, unsafe, or doing more harm than good. In some states there are thousands of “deadbeat” dams, which serve no purpose at all anymore, and should be put on the chopping block. And if you’re wondering if it makes sense to remove infrastructure that can produce “clean” energy, know that the vast majority of large US dams—upward of 97%—don’t produce power.
The second is strengthening resilience. Many dams are outdated, dilapidated, or not designed to handle the onslaught of water that comes with climate-amplified storms. Some have already failed, risking lives and costing millions. After Hurricane Helene slammed North Carolina last year, 40 dams were damaged or destroyed. Expect to see more of that. A recent report from researchers at Utah State University found that incidents of dam failures or interventions needed to prevent failures are skyrocketing. From 1990 to 1999 we averaged two such incidents a year. That number jumped to an average of 50 a year from 2020 to 2023.
After two years of dangerous floods, Vermont has gotten the message. Last year the state passed a law to identify dams that worsen flooding and create a fund to remove them. Other states are also assessing dam removal to boost climate resilience. Removing damaging dams and helping rivers reconnect with their floodplains can help protect communities from severe weather and save money.
Dam removals offer other climate resilience benefits. Dams hold back water, but they also block the movement of sediment, which depletes coastal beaches and speeds erosion. One of the most notorious examples is the Matilija Dam near Ojai, California, a now-defunct dam that has corralled nearly 9 million cubic yards of sediment. Removing Matilija would reinvigorate downstream beaches in Ventura. As rising seas eat away at ocean beaches, upstream dam removals can help protect coastal communities.
Dams also change the temperature of rivers. As climate change pushes up the mercury, some reservoirs are becoming more like bathtubs. Higher water temperatures can foster toxic algal blooms that threaten human health and kill wildlife. Dam removals can flip the script, helping to restore more natural stream temperatures and flows, improving water quality in rivers that millions of Americans rely on for drinking water. It can also support biodiversity by enabling aquatic animals to find cooler upstream waters to better weather our changing climate.
Dam removals aren’t a climate cure-all, but the magnitude of the crisis we face will require all the tools we can muster—and master. Several decades of dam removals across the US has proved they work to restore rivers better and faster than anything else. Now let’s put them to use for climate action, too
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Victorious Hamburg Climate Resolution Is a Model of Hope-Fueled People Power
While the current German government is rolling back or even boycotting climate action, Hamburg is showing the world that grassroots climate action is effective.
Nov 09, 2025
“This is a story of pure hope in times of climate roll-backs around the world.”
Young climate activists like Luisa Neubauer, cofounder of Fridays for Future in Hamburg, have good reason to celebrate: The city of Hamburg recently voted in favor of more ambitious climate action. Famously, Hamburg was where the Beatles took off. Now the city has another big project that could take off. Neubauer: “Germany’s second largest city has shown that citizens—after all—demand climate action and are willing to self-organize around a just transition.”
At a time when the climate crisis has seemingly been pushed aside by too many other crises, the decisive win of Hamburg’s “Zukunftsentscheid” (Decision about Our Future) at the ballot box on Sunday, October 12, was a win for a dramatically more ambitious climate action plan for the second-largest city in Germany. While the current German government is rolling back or even boycotting climate action, Hamburg is showing the world that grassroots climate action is effective. The new law will make climate policy more fair, more transparent, and more responsive to the needs of future generations. The result could be used as a blueprint by other cities in Germany and far beyond. American cities are perfectly positioned to adopt a similar plan. After all, Americans are actually much more familiar with ballot initiatives than Germans.
Hamburg’s over 1.9 million residents were asked to vote in favor of a binding referendum to require annual carbon dioxide reduction targets, with the goal of net-zero emissions moved up from 2045 to 2040, and requirements that all climate policies will have to be socially just. A majority of over 303,000 residents, or 53.2%, said yes; 43.6% of eligible voters participated in the decision.
While the federal government is indeed moving aggressively against climate action, ballot initiatives give power to the grassroots.
The revised bill, in typical German style comprehensively named “Klimaschutzverbesserungsgesetz” (climate protection improvement law) will require that the city administration must present an emissions estimate no later than six months after the end of every calendar year.
There is a lot in this new climate law that the wonky types among climate activists will love. On their website, proponents list the exact amount of tons of carbon (in thousands) the city will be permitted to emit each year until 2040. If the permissible total annual emissions for the previous calendar year have been exceeded, the government must take measures to offset the excess total annual emissions within five months. If the total emissions exceed or fall short of the permissible total annual emissions from the year in which the act comes into force, the difference shall be credited evenly to the remaining total annual emissions for the next five years until 2040 at the latest, thus greatly incentivizing ramped-up action and disincentivizing delay.
But the referendum’s emphasis on a just transition is also key: If climate action is to benefit everyone, not only those with large pockets who after all tend to also be the bigger emitters, measures taken to protect the climate must be designed in a socially acceptable way. The changes to the existing climate protection law will make climate protection more fair for all in Hamburg, impacting housing, energy, and transportation. Homeowners, for example, will be incentivized to retrofit their homes, but won’t be able to push the costs entirely onto their tenants. Public transit will be prioritized without penalizing those who commute by car.
By emphasizing transparency and predictability (“Planbarkeit”), the proponents also took the needs of companies into account that invest in climate protection initiatives. And because the referendum included legislation, the newly revised law will automatically go into effect within a month from this vote, i.e. on November 12, 2025.
Opponents were quick to complain that the new law would endanger jobs in the city. But over 100 businesses had written an open letter in support of the referendum, and the proponents include positive impacts on economic growth and job prospects for the city in their FAQ.
While the federal government is indeed moving aggressively against climate action, ballot initiatives give power to the grassroots. The climate movement in Hamburg had fought for two years to make this referendum happen. A group of volunteers from various backgrounds contributed to drafting and refining the text. Over 80 different organizations joined a broad alliance of supporters, including cultural and religious institutions, companies, and NGOs. Even the soccer club FC St. Pauli cosponsored the referendum. The chances were not high for it to win—typically, a referendum only wins once every 10 years.
Americans have lots of experience with the process of running ballot initiatives. Portland, Oregon, for example, ran a successful initiative that resulted in the establishment of the PCEF (Portland Clean Energy Fund), a smart move that has since brought hundreds of millions of dollars into the city’s coffers. Over 5,000 miles apart, Hamburg and Portland nevertheless have something in common: Hope-filled people power—sometimes a few frogs mix in…Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Is Taylor Swift's Engagement Bigger News Than the Risk of AMOC Collapse?
Media’s obsession with one story—and its ignoring of the other—highlights the gaps that remain in treating the climate crisis like the cataclysm it has become.
Sep 12, 2025
Chances are you’ve heard that Taylor Swift is getting married. When she and Travis Kelce announced their engagement last month, it was all over the news, all over the world.
Chances are equally good that you did not hear some other, literally Earth-shaping news that broke two days later. On August 28, some of the world’s foremost climate scientists dramatically revised their estimate of how soon one of the foundations of Earth’s climate system could collapse.
Media’s obsession with one story—and its ignoring of the other—highlights the gaps that remain in treating the climate crisis like the cataclysm it has become. While progress has been made in many newsrooms, old journalism habits linger, including sidelining important climate news out of misguided fears that it’s depressing or too complicated. As Covering Climate Now’s 89% Project has shown, that’s not how most readers or viewers see it.
The collapse of what is commonly called the Gulf Stream—the vast Atlantic ocean current that scientists refer to as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, AMOC—would deal a crushing blow to civilization as we know it. Sometimes known as Europe’s “central heating unit,” the AMOC is why Britain, France, The Netherlands, and their northern neighbors enjoy relatively mild winters, even though they sit as far north as Canada and Russia.
AMOC originates in the Caribbean, where sun-warmed sea water flows northeast across the Atlantic toward Greenland. The amount of heat AMOC transports is staggering: 50 times more heat than the entire world uses in a year. Without AMOC, the history and present day of Europe would look very different. Winters would be much colder and longer. Food production would be much less, as would the human population and infrastructure the region could support.
The scientific study released on August 28 concluded that AMOC’s collapse “can no longer be considered a low-likelihood event,” to quote The Guardian, one of the very few outlets to report the news. Indeed, such a collapse is more likely than not if humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions remain on their current trajectory. If emissions continue to rise, there is a 7 out of 10 chance that AMOC will collapse, the scientists calculated. If emissions fall to a moderate level, the odds are 37%—roughly 1 in 3. Even if emissions decline in line with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 to 2°C, there is a 1 in 4 chance of collapse.
“It’s like the saying that every disaster movie starts with scientists warning and being ignored.”
Although the collapse might not occur in this century, the scientists warned that the system could pass a “tipping point” in the next decade or two that makes its eventual collapse inevitable. As 44 scientists explained in an open letter to the Nordic Council of Ministers, AMOC might well collapse in this century, but there is an “even greater likelihood a collapse is triggered this century but only fully plays out in the next.”
The only hope, the scientists added, is a “global effort to reduce emissions as quickly as possible, in order to stay close to the 1.5 [°C] target set by the Paris Agreement.”
By no means is northern Europe the only region in peril. A collapse, or even significant slowdown, of AMOC would devastate agriculture in Africa and other parts of the Global South by massively disrupting rainfall patterns.
All of which helps explain why Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who coauthored the new study, was frustrated by how little attention he and his colleagues’ warnings got. “What more can we do to get heard?” he asked. “It’s like the saying that every disaster movie starts with scientists warning and being ignored.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Trump Admin's Climate Denial Proposal Contradicts Science, Law, and Public Opinion
The world’s highest court recently affirmed that climate action is a legal duty and that governments must regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Aug 24, 2025
When US Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last month his official proposal to rescind the agency’s foundational determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare, he insinuated that previous administrations (under former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden) had “twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science” in order to achieve their regulatory agendas. And the regulations of these planet-warming emissions, not the emissions themselves like carbon dioxide, are “the real threat to Americans’ livelihoods,” Zeldin suggested.
EPA’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding, established in 2009, serves as the basis of its legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from sources such as motor vehicles and power plants. The finding was based on an extensive review of the scientific record, which has gotten even more robust over the last 16 years, and has survived all legal challenges brought against it.
The Trump administration’s move to do away with the finding contradicts the overwhelming scientific evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are driving dangerous climate change impacts. There are also arguments to be made that it is unlawful. And, it goes against the pleas of the hundreds of Americans who have spoken out this week in opposition to Zeldin’s sweeping deregulatory proposal. In other words, contrary to Zeldin’s assertion, it is actually the Trump administration that is twisting or ignoring the law and public sentiment and warping science.
Let’s start with the science. The world’s premier body of climate scientists—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—has stated that it is “unequivocal” that human activities are warming the planet and causing rapid and widespread changes, such as more extreme weather, that are unprecedented over millennia. The US Fifth National Climate Assessment report observes that “harmful impacts from more frequent and severe extremes are increasing across the country” and notes that “climate changes are making it harder to maintain safe homes and healthy families; reliable public services; a sustainable economy; thriving ecosystems, cultures, and traditions; and strong communities.” These are authoritative statements from reports involving hundreds of scientists and extensive peer review.
What the Trump administration is doing with repealing the endangerment finding and all GHG regulations that flow from it, therefore, could be a violation of international law under the ICJ’s recent advisory opinion.
But to support its proposal to rescind the endangerment finding, Trump’s EPA relies instead on a new report issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and claims that GHG emissions and climate impacts are not harmful. The report, hastily written by five climate skeptics over a period of just two months, recycles many climate denialist talking points and, according to one analysis, includes over 100 false or misleading statements. As science historian Naomi Oreskes puts it, “Climate denial is now the official policy of the US government.”
“What the Trump administration and the Department of Energy did is pull together this small hand-picked group of people to work in secret to write this report that questions that mountain of scientific evidence that climate change is harming people,” said Erin Murphy, a senior attorney at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
“In and of itself, the conclusions of that report are inaccurate and inconsistent with the vast, vast majority of scientific findings and the consensus across the scientific community,” she added. “But also, the report is inconsistent with federal law.”
EDF and the Union of Concerned Scientists have filed a lawsuit against the DOE, the EPA, and the group of five climate skeptics arguing that the secretive manner in which the report was pulled together violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which mandates transparency and opportunities for public engagement in government advisory proceedings.
The report has not gone through formal peer review, and although it is currently open to public comment, the time window for commenting is limited to just 30 days (closing on September 2) during a month when many people take vacations or might otherwise be unavailable. And until this week, none of the hundreds of comments that have come in were publicly visible. That hiding of the comments, Murphy said, “further underscores the government’s efforts to do this in secret.”
The lawsuit aims to block the Trump administration from using this report in its efforts to rescind the endangerment finding.
It was clear to me that the speakers—from environmental groups, the medical community and scientists to municipal and state governments and private citizens—were overwhelmingly united in their disapproval of the nixing of EPA’s foundational finding that GHG emissions endanger our health and welfare.
Even if EPA plows ahead and finalizes its move to eliminate the finding, that action will certainly be challenged in court. It remains to be seen what legal arguments environmental groups and other challengers will put forth.
One thing that is clear is that climate action is no longer optional, but rather a legal obligation, as several international courts have affirmed in recent landmark climate change advisory opinions. The International Court of Justice, considered the world’s highest court, delivered its opinion on July 23. The ICJ clarified that states have obligations under multiple sources of international law to reduce emissions and that governments must regulate the emissions of private actors. The customary law duty to prevent significant environmental harm to the climate system, which applies to all countries regardless of whether they are parties to specific treaties, includes putting in place “regulatory mitigation mechanisms” to reduce GHG emissions, the court said. Such rules “must regulate the conduct of public and private operators.” According to the court, failure to act in good faith to regulate emissions could be considered an unlawful act.
What the Trump administration is doing with repealing the endangerment finding and all GHG regulations that flow from it, therefore, could be a violation of international law under the ICJ’s recent advisory opinion. And while the opinion itself is nonbinding, it may be invoked in domestic court proceedings around the world, including in the US.
Zeldin’s endangerment finding rescission also seems to be untenable in the court of public opinion. “In repealing the endangerment finding, the Trump administration is stepping far out of line with public opinion, as voters across partisanship are in strong agreement that greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to public health and should be regulated,” Data for Progress says in reference to new poll results it released last week.
EPA held virtual public hearings last week on its proposal, and almost everyone who testified spoke in opposition to eliminating the endangerment finding. Out of the roughly 200 people who spoke on Tuesday, fewer than 10 voiced support for EPA’s rollback, Inside Climate News reports. I tuned into some of the hearings on Wednesday and Thursday, and it was clear to me that the speakers—from environmental groups, the medical community and scientists to municipal and state governments and private citizens—were overwhelmingly united in their disapproval of the nixing of EPA’s foundational finding that GHG emissions endanger our health and welfare.
“The EPA has a responsibility to regulate greenhouse gases for what they are—a clear, present, and growing threat to the health and well-being of every American,” Kim Cobb, a climate scientist, told the EPA panel in concluding her testimony.
Tiffany Covarrubias Lyttle, a registered nurse and mother of seven children, said during her testimony that the father of her children recently passed away from cancer, specially an environmentally triggered adenocarcinoma.
“Repealing environmental protections and rescinding [the endangerment] finding will make stories like mine more common,” Lyttle said. “Clean air, clean water, and a stable climate aren’t just environmental issues. They are in fact a matter of life and death.”
This piece was originally published on Dana Drugmand’s Substack One Earth Now on August 21, 2025.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The EPA Is Abandoning the 10 Commandments of Climate Policy
By repealing the Endangerment Finding, Administrator Lee Zeldin is disabling the central moral and legal framework designed to keep us safe and healthy.
Aug 12, 2025
The Environmental Protection Agency’s decision last month to repeal the Endangerment Finding is like tossing out the 10 Commandments.
That might sound hyperbolic. But sadly, it isn’t. After months of relentless anti-environmental regulatory efforts at the EPA, Administrator Lee Zeldin is now tearing out the foundation of our country’s climate regulatory framework. Known as the “Endangerment Finding,” this 2009 document is the scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. By abrogating that finding, Zeldin and the EPA are essentially stripping away our government’s ability to regulate the emissions that are heating our planet. It is not only a profoundly misguided decision, it is one aimed at destroying the legal framework our country has developed to drive a coherent climate policy.
Interestingly, back when he was a congressman, Administrator Zeldin supported some climate regulations. At Dayenu, the leading Jewish climate organization that I direct, we had actually hoped that the first Jewish head of the EPA might honor the most basic of Jewish values—like pikuach nefesh (saving a life)—and pursue environmental policies that support a more livable future in the face of a fast acceleratingclimate crisis.
Instead, Administrator Zeldin has embarked on an almost unconceivable path. Since taking office earlier this year, he’s overseen the wholesale dismantling of the environmental policy framework designed to keep Americans safe. Scores of regulations have been repealed, imploding the basic legal and regulatory structure of American environmental policy. The coup de grace, though, has been his decision last month to abandon the Endangerment Finding.
The Endangerment Finding translates the lived reality of the climate threat—namely, that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to our health and well-being—into a legal framework that has enabled us to begin mounting a substantive response.
Like the 10 Commandments, the Endangerment Finding is not only a legal framework, it is also a codification of basic truths. The commandment not to murder (lo tirzah), for example reflects a truth: that it is wrong to wantonly kill another human being. The commandment institutionalizes a basic moral precept. The same goes for the Endangerment Finding. By now, it should be blindingly obvious to us all that the threat to our climate is here and real. Whether or not we choose to accept that truth, we are all being impacted by climate change. From wildfire smoke in New York, to ravaging hurricanes in Florida, to the wildfires in Los Angeles, to floods in Texas, to summers that are each hotter than the last. We now know, at the most intrinsic level, that our world is not the same as it was five years ago. Or 50. The climate is changing, and we as humans are responsible.
The Endangerment Finding translates the lived reality of the climate threat—namely, that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to our health and well-being—into a legal framework that has enabled us to begin mounting a substantive response. True, climate regulations have oftentimes not gone far enough. The first Trump administration did terrific damage to crucial pieces of environmental policy passed under the Obama administration. But what is happening under Administrator Zeldin takes our nation to an infinitely more reckless place.
Administrator Zeldin claimed that the Endangerment Finding was “the holy grail of climate change religion.” This not only makes a mockery of religion, it distorts the objective science and obvious moral framework at hand. As people of faith, we are concerned with the fundamental principles and values of our society. Administrator Zeldin is weaponizing the very concept of religion to suggest that those of us confronting the climate crisis are fearmongers, that the lived realities of millions of Americans harmed by climate change can simply be ignored. But his language is a smokescreen. We know what the truth is here. The EPA is essentially taking the 10 Commandments out of the Bible—they are disabling the central moral and legal framework designed to keep us safe and healthy.
Administrator Zeldin is knowingly courting disaster. As an administrator, as an American, and as a Jew, he must do better. It is not too late to reverse course.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Graveyard of Corals': Bleaching Led to Great Barrier Reef's Worst Die-Off on Record
"We will ultimately get to a tipping point where coral cover can't bounce back," warned one researcher. "We have to mitigate the root causes of the problem and reduce emissions and stabilize temperatures."
Aug 06, 2025
After last year's climate-fueled bleaching in Australia's famed Great Barrier Reef, large swaths of the GBR suffered the worst coral die-off since records began, a government report revealed Wednesday, prompting renewed calls for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as reef conservation and restoration.
The GBR "experienced unprecedented levels of heat stress, which caused the most spatially extensive and severe bleaching recorded to date," the Australian Institute of Marine Science's (AIMS) annual report states.
AIMS studied the health of 124 coral reefs between August 2024 and May 2025 and found that northern and southern branches of the approximately 1,400-mile (2,300 km) GBR suffered the "largest annual decline in coral cover" ever recorded since monitoring began nearly 40 years ago.
Data collected last year from aerial surveys showed that 75% of the GBR had been bleached amid record heat driven by the worsening climate emergency. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned in March 2024 that the bleaching would likely be the worst the world had ever seen.
The new report confirmed that "the 2024 event had the largest spatial footprint ever recorded on the GBR, with high to extreme bleaching prevalence observed across all three regions" of the GBR.
According to AIMS:
In 2025, hard coral cover declined substantially across the GBR, although considerable coral cover remains in all three regions. Regional declines ranged between 14% and 30% compared to 2024 levels, with some individual reefs experiencing coral declines of up to 70.8%. These declines are primarily attributed to coral mortality from the 2024 mass coral bleaching event, compounded by the cumulative impacts of two cyclones in December 2023 and January 2024, freshwater inundation, and some crown-of-thorns starfish activity.
In 2025, 48% of surveyed reefs underwent a decline in percentage coral cover, 42% showed no net change, and only 10% had an increase. Reefs with stable or increasing coral cover were predominantly located in the central GBR.
Scientists described the resulting seascape as a "graveyard of corals."
AIMS research lead Mike Emslie told Agence France-Presse that the "number one cause" of GBR coral decline "is climate change."
"There is no doubt about that," Emslie added.
The problem is by no means limited to the GBR. A mass global bleaching event has devastated more than 80% of the world's coral reefs over the past two years, affecting 82 countries and territories.
Prior to the current die-off, the last major GBR bleaching event occurred in 2014-17, when scientists said nearly one-third of its coral died and approximately 15% of all reefs worldwide experienced major coral deaths.
"These impacts we are seeing are serious and substantial and the bleaching events are coming closer and closer together," Emslie said in a separate interview with The Guardian.
"We will ultimately get to a tipping point where coral cover can't bounce back because disturbances come so quickly that there's no time left for recovery," he warned. "We have to mitigate the root causes of the problem and reduce emissions and stabilize temperatures."
AIMS called for greater global efforts to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions fueling planetary heating, "continued good local management," and more interventions "to help corals adapt and recover."
Larissa Waters, leader of the Australian Greens and a federal senator representing Queensland, on Monday urged the governing Labor Party to "follow the science, set 2035 targets at net-zero, stop new coal and gas, or risk losing our reef, its immense biodiversity, and the 60,000 jobs it sustains."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy