Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming

On January 10, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released their annual analysis finding that 2024 was the hottest year on record globally and that global average temperatures likely surpassed an increase of 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

On the same day, NOAA released its US Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters analysis for 2024 and found that last year an estimated 568 people in the US lost their lives to 27 weather and climate disasters that each had $1 billion in damages or more with a total tallied cost of $182.7 billion.

The same agencies have found that the 11 warmest years in the historical record have all occurred in the past decade, and that each of the last 6 decades was hotter than the last.

Human-caused climate change, driven primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to the hotter climate and more severe disasters, which include extreme heat, wildfires, intensified storms, drought and flooding. More people living in risky areas and the higher costs of damages are also adding to the trend of increasing billion-dollar disasters. People’s lived experiences throughout these deadly and terrifying events are the reason communities are feeling a sense of whiplash when it comes to the frequency and intensity of climate disasters.

During these uncertain times, as President Trump is nominating individuals to lead federal agencies, if there is one agency that could truly benefit from a steady, experienced hand at the helm, it would be the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) whose sole mission is to help people before, during and after disasters.

 Here are five things the nation needs from the next FEMA Administrator:

1. Defend against mis- and disinformation about disasters

To have the US president spreading misinformation and disinformation when it comes to emergency management and disaster recovery is reckless and dangerous because it could literally be the difference between life and death. The next FEMA administrator will need to defend against a marathon of false information by President Trump who has a fondness for distorting facts when it comes to disaster response and recovery.

The president lied about the devastating Hurricanes Helene and Milton that created confusion among disaster survivors while local, state, and federal government officials took time and energy to repeatedly communicate the facts. The previous FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell said the level of disinformation is at a point that she’s “never seen before.”

Then, as if witnessing the horrific wreckage of the LA fires isn’t disturbing enough, President Trump and some members of Congress spread mis- and disinformation about the cause of the fire and firefighting efforts. 

As my colleague Astrid Caldas explains, misinformation is the unintentional spread of false information while disinformation is spreading false information to be deliberately misleading. Given the level of harmful disinformation in the news regarding the LA fires, California Governor Newsom created a webpage to set the record straight. My colleague Juliet Christian-Smith wrote Six Facts About Water and Wildfire in the West to correct some misconceptions about why the fires are so bad.

I’m unclear as to why President Trump has decided to punt FEMA into the political crosshairs but one thing that is clear is the rampant misinformation about what FEMA actually does. The fact is, that disaster assistance has generally been a bottom-up approach in the US. For example, local/state/territorial and tribal governments already take the lead on emergency response, period. FEMA comes in only after a state has requested a disaster declaration for those catastrophic events in which the state does not have the financial or staffing capacity to respond on its own.  When it comes to disaster response and recovery, the role of FEMA is to supplement not replace state/state/territorial and tribal efforts.

The next FEMA Administrator is going to have to navigate skillfully, follow the science, ignore the bluster coming from the White House, and work overtime to overcome the public skepticism it creates. Lives and livelihoods will hang in the balance.

2. Defend the Stafford Act and ensure disaster relief is equitable and bipartisan 

The new FEMA head will have their work cut out for them to ensure that all states, localities, territories, and tribes are treated equally when disasters hit.

Adding salt to L.A.’s wounds, both President Trump, Congress and House Speaker Mike Johnson have been politicizing FEMA disaster assistance by suggesting that they support putting conditions on federal aid to help the victims of the Los Angeles wildfires.

Under President Trump’s first term, investigative reports found that President Trump initially refused to provide California disaster aid after the deadly wildfires in 2018 because of the state’s Democratic leadership. They also found that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) head, Russell Vought, delayed disaster aid to Puerto Rico for months after the Hurricane Maria devastation. Vought, a co-author of the dangerous Project 2025, is Trump’s pick again to lead OMB.

The notion of withholding disaster assistance unless a state or jurisdiction passes certain policies is simply against constitutional law according to Berkley Law expert Dan Farber.  As Mr. Farber points out, while the president does have broad discretion, Congress does not and must guide the use of executive discretion. Congress clearly notes this guidance in the first section of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Management Act (“the Stafford Act”) which is “to provide an orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government to State and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering and damage which result from such disasters…”. 

If the president blatantly ignores the law, who knows what will happen to communities suffering as they try to recover and get their lives back after a disaster? The next FEMA Administrator must help set the record straight on FEMA’s mission and the Stafford Act to ensure the president provides disaster assistance to everyone who needs it, regardless of whether they live in a red or blue state.

3. Advocate for robust funding for FEMA, the Disaster Relief Fund, and preparedness

The next FEMA administrator should work to make the case to Congress and the White House for robust appropriations for the agency, its staffing (currently experiencing a 35% gap), the Disaster Relief Fund, and preparedness and risk reduction measures.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the US averaged 25 major disaster declarations a year from 1979 to 1988 (the first decade of FEMA’s existence). That average rose to 63 over the last ten years, an increase of approximately 150%.

The same CRS analysis finds that in 2020, obligations from the Disaster Relief Fund exceeded an estimated $40 billion for the first time and have consistently reached that level every year since. While the “major disasters” portion of the Fund was initially expected to last into the middle of Danger Season (May through October), recent emergency funding was approved prior to the LA wildfires, the costs of which will be enormous.

The science is clear, as the planet continues to warm, we will see greater risks of chronic impacts, including higher rising seas, killer heat, and hurricanes that are dumping heavier rainfall.

Although FEMA and Congress have supported more funding for risk mitigation it’s not close to what is needed. The Fifth National Climate Assessment finds that the scale of adaptation (reducing risks and preparing for future risks) must accelerate dramatically given the unprecedented rate of climate change.

Currently FEMA spends 7x more on disaster response and recovery than on mitigating disaster risk even though data show the cost savings to FEMA (in addition to preventing the loss of life and disruptions to daily life) of reducing risk totals roughly $700 million annually. The next FEMA Administrator must advocate for funding levels necessary for both the ounce of prevention andthe pound of cure.

4. Play defense and offense: defend against Project 2025’s proposals and hold firm on climate science and integrity

We will need the next FEMA administrator to fend off Project 2025’s anti-science playbook. Project 2025 is the policy agenda put forth by the Heritage Foundation that has been described as an authoritarian playbook. My colleague Rachel Cleetus wrote passionately on the impacts of the agenda when it comes to climate action and disasters:

“Anyone sobered by the relentless rise in global average temperatures and the spate of devastating and costly extreme weather and climate disasters we’ve been experiencing, anyone who thinks policies to benefit the public should be informed by robust, independent science, should take this threat very, very seriously.”

The two page section on FEMA (see p. 153) explains how it would essentially gut the agency’s mission, reduce disaster assistance and resilience funding to state and local governments, and bury the agency within a different department from where it currently sits under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The FEMA Administrator should strive to leave the agency stronger, not weaker, than they find it and oppose Project 2025’s proposals. Instead, the new agency lead should embrace and advance the great strides accomplished by the office of Resilience including issuing guidance reports including its 2022-2026 strategic plan, Response and Recovery Climate Change Planning Guidance, adaptation planning, and alliances for climate action as well as training and tools such as the Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT).  

5. Understand the inequities of fossil-fueled climate disasters and prioritize equitable preparedness

The next FEMA administrator must understand that fossil fueled, climate-related disasters and extreme weather do not discriminate when it comes to political boundaries or affiliations. They have to know that climate impacts aren’t distributed equally among underserved and marginalized communities who regularly face disproportionately worse impacts from these events.

Over the years, FEMA has worked to make their grant programs more equitable. The most visible effort has been through the implementation of the Justice40 program that set the goal for federal agencies to target at least 40% of certain federal resources to benefit historically disadvantaged communities.

In one broad brush stroke, President Trump rescinded 78 Biden-era executive orders, including the Executive Order 14008 “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad” which established the Justice40 program. Both FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) fall under the Justice40 Initiative to meet environmental justice and equity goals. FEMA announced in July 2024 that they exceeded that 40% goal for BRIC by 67% for the sub-applications and 70% for the national competition.

The FEMA mitigation grant programs, particularly the BRIC program, are continuously oversubscribed —for example, in 2024, FEMA received 1,234 sub-applications requesting $5.66 billion in federal cost share, yet FEMA had funding to award funding to 656 sub-applicants, that totaled more than $882.6 million in federal cost share.

Project 2025 put a target on environmental justice by proposing to eliminate the EPA Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights and the Justice40 program, which President Trump did on his first day in office with his Executive Order entitled Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions.

Given the daunting risks and impacts of the climate crisis and the overwhelming need for risk mitigation and preparedness resources, the next FEMA administrator must make the case for robust funding for these pre-disaster mitigation grant programs and for the processes in place that make the distribution of these resources more equitable.

There is good news for advocates of just disaster relief

As the nation recently celebrated the life of President Jimmy Carter, one achievement of his that may have been overlooked is his establishment of FEMA 46 years ago. Since that time, FEMA has gone through many changes. But over the years, one hopeful note is that most former FEMA administrators have had considerable backgrounds in emergency management.

In normal times when we could rely on the adage that if the past is prologue, we could rest assured that the next FEMA administrator nominee will have an emergency management background. This is especially true given that the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (see p. 245) law requires that the administrator shall have demonstrated emergency management and homeland security knowledge and background and have a minimum of 5 years of executive leadership and management experience in the public or private sector.

Unfortunately, President Trump has nominated inexperienced, anti-science and extremists to run cabinet level positions, see for example nominees for US Department of Agriculture, US Department of Energy and the Department of Justice, that pose great dangers to the missions of these departments and the communities and business they support. In a similar fashion, President Trump has nominated an inexperienced interim FEMA acting director, Mr. Cameron Hamilton, a former navy seal who has no disaster management experience.

However, an early report suggested that President Trump may pick the Florida Division of Emergency Management Executive Director Kevin Guthrie to run FEMA. Mr. Guthrie has been with with the Florida Division of Emergency management for over six years and has an additional ten years of emergency management experience. So while he certainly holds a limited resume in the emergency management field, he understands the field and has been working in a state in which from experienced 19 disasters from 2023 to 2024 that each cost over a billion dollars.

Here’s hoping the President Trump follows the law and the next FEMA nominee has an emergency management background.

Editor’s note: Updates first paragraph for clarity

In late 2024, as part of a bipartisan funding bill, Congress authorized $110 billion in disaster recovery funds across federal agencies. Following Congress’ appropriation, The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced how their $12 billion tranche of disaster recovery funding would be divided among disaster-impacted communities at the city, county, and state levels. This funding, known as Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Recovery or CDBG-DR is intended to be flexible and allow recipients to design programs that respond to the local post-disaster needs. Usually CDBG-DR programs fall into one of three categories: housing, infrastructure repair, or economic revitalization.   

Disasters and the complicated process of recovering from them can deepen pre-existing inequality–a study of FEMA disaster aid on a county level found that awards exacerbated the racial wealth gap. The longer communities must wait for disaster funds to flow, the greater the financial and emotional strain on households.

Now that CDBG-DR funds have been allocated, there’s an enormous opportunity across 23 states and one territory not just to rebuild, but to create more equitable and resilient communities in the face of growing risk.  

What climate leaders and program administrators can do  

Following years of pressure by disaster survivors and advocates, HUD recently changed its program requirements to make disaster recovery more equitable. As cities, counties, and states that received CDBG-DR allocations create their required action plans to submit to the federal government, they should keep in mind the following recommendations alongside input from disaster survivors.    

Stick to 70%  

Federal rules around CDBG-DR funding require that 70% of funds be spent on activities that benefit low-to-moderate income households who find it harder to recover from increasingly severe and frequent disasters. Recipients of CDBG-DR funds can request to have that threshold lowered to 51%. An audit of CDBG-DR programs from 2001-2019 found that 137 of 193 grantees reviewed had reduced their requirement to 51%. At a time when more and more Americans are experiencing damage and displacement from extreme weather as a pocketbook issue, it’s critical that public officials from local governments all the way up to HUD staff honor the 70% requirement.   

Dovetail and Accommodate to Deepen Impact  

Disasters don’t occur in a vacuum–those that struggle to access long-term recovery assistance are often facing multiple challenges, something program administrators acknowledge, but find difficult to address.  In order to design and implement impactful long-term recovery, investments should be made in accommodations that ensure equitable access to recovery resources like providing transportation and home visit options for mobility-impaired residents and ensuring language accessible program materials.    

In addition to providing accommodations, administrators should also dovetail disaster recovery applications with trusted local programs that already reach vulnerable populations to deepen impact. A key challenge when homes are damaged or lost during a disaster is to ensure that eligibility requirements are inclusive and don’t worsen disparities. 

Take for example, the residents of heirs’ properties–where homes are passed down through generations without legal title. Heirs’ property is a common practice in Black communities born out of discrimination by lending institutions and the government and can make navigating disaster recovery programs especially difficult.

Following years of advocacy, including a lawsuit by disaster survivors in North Carolina, the federal government now requires programs to allow for alternate means of demonstrating ownership. After identifying heirs’ properties through disaster recovery efforts, survivors could be “funneled” into legal clinics to resolve their title issues and safeguard family wealth. Administrative pipelines between disaster programs and other services for populations that struggle to access aid hold enormous potential to improve public health outcomes and advance economic and racial justice.  

Remember Renters 

Across the country, more people rent their homes than ever before.  Despite a long-term trend in increased rentership and heightened political urgency around the affordable housing crisis, renters receive less initial disaster aid compared with homeowners. In the days and weeks after a disaster, renters may face dubious evictions and illegal price gouging when trying to secure alternative housing. 

While long-term recovery programs can’t prevent these costly and stressful experiences, they can be designed to be more responsive to renters’ needs. This might look like increasing the supply of meaningfully affordable housing by deepening subsidies for new development, repairing or providing resilience upgrades to existing affordable housing without pricing out tenants, preserving long-term affordability by transferring rental properties into a community land trust or investing in legal services for renters.   

A drop in the resilience bucket  

CDBG-DR funds will not meet all the resilience or housing needs of disaster impacted communities.  Other parts of the $110 billion disaster spending package passed will address different types of recovery efforts–from improving water systems to repairing public facilities and supporting agricultural recovery.

Still, this funding is a drop in the bucket.  Communities across the country deserve proactive and equitable investment in the face of growing climate risk and an affordable housing crisis. Until there’s the political will to make those life-saving investments–and to curb emissions to limit how much worse fossil-fueled climate disasters get–every drop in the resilience bucket counts and should be invested in ways that have the most equitable impact.

While watching the latest disaster movie is a pastime for many, living through extreme weather and climate disasters is painfully difficult for the people affected. It is made more difficult by a President who scorns disaster victims, as President Trump did to Puerto Ricans after Hurricane Maria, and spreads disinformation, as he did to Californians during the recent Los Angeles wildfires.

Now President Trump has revoked Executive Order 13985 (Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government) and Executive Order 14008 (Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad), with far-reaching implications for people in disaster areas, including how racial equity is addressed in disaster relief and recovery. Revoking these orders sends the US in the wrong direction as we face increasing danger from extreme events, such as Hurricane Helene in North Carolina.

Watching the administration unravel racial equity programs at federal agencies is its own disaster-in-the-making, on top of disasters guaranteed to come—like a disaster movie layered on a horror flick that the entire country will eventually experience.

If this was a movie, here is how it would play out.

(Spoiler alert: ignoring racial equity in disaster resilience will cost all of us more and lead to increasingly unfair burdens on already underserved communities.)

THE PREQUEL: Ignorance is not bliss

One important job of the federal government is to distribute billions of dollars to address the impacts of climate and other disasters. This function will be even more important with new executive orders that promote fossil fuels and end policies that reduce heat trapping emissions to limit the impacts of climate change.

To ensure the most effective use of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars for disaster response, recovery, and resilience, it makes sense to pre-position resources in the areas of highest need. Some communities—such as low-wealth communities or communities of color—are disproportionately impacted by disasters, in part because of historical or systemic disparities. A laser-like focus on assessing social inequities is thus essential for understanding where the highest areas of need are and to evaluate whether they are being assisted adequately. In short, matching disaster policy to social needs requires assessment of racial equity.

SCENE 1: The inequity avalanche

When racial equity is ignored, disaster policies exacerbate existing inequities. Policies based solely on “merit” fail to recognize the steeper hill being climbed by historically underserved communities granted less access to resources, information, and decision processes.

After Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans in 2005, Black residents returned to the city more slowly than White residents. Research by Elizabeth Fussell and her colleagues suggests that the racial disparity was explained by housing damage, rather than by socioeconomic status or other demographic characteristics. Put plainly, Black residents’ delayed return occurred because they suffered more severe housing damage, which occurred because they tended to live in areas that experienced greater flooding. A higher concentration of Black residents in the lower-lying parts of the city exists because of historical patterns of land development and residential segregation that resulted from the racist system of redlining. Without a focus on racial equity, disaster policies don’t just leave these communities behind, they in fact compound the health, environmental, and economic challenges being faced.

SCENE 2: The communication breakdown

Effective risk communication is crucial for disaster resilience. However, when racial equity is censored, communication efforts fall flat. Without a deep understanding of the social, economic, health, environmental, and cultural context in which a disaster is unfolding, critical information may not reach those who need it most. We saw this recently in Los Angeles with fire evacuation notices not reaching the unhoused population.

Not including racial equity considerations in the planning and implementation of risk communications ignores basic science, which in turn costs lives and money. The latest resilience research and practice emphasizes a multifaceted, “adaptive systems” approach to risk communication and decision making. This approach recognizes diverse perspectives, experiences, education levels, languages, and technological skills and the need for evidence-based deliberations before, during, and after disasters. We must first acknowledge and understand this diversity to be able to highlight the most effective pathways to disaster mitigation and resilience.

SCENE 3: The phantom of the funding

When federal funds for disaster resilience are distributed based on formulas that do not account for unique challenges, an uneven distribution of resources results, with some communities receiving more support than others. One example is FEMA’s flood mitigation grant program, which requires a cost-share by the community applying for the grant. Low-income neighborhoods and communities of color are less able to meet the match requirement, so FEMA has invested significantly more in wealthier, White neighborhoods (which reduces insurance costs and increases property values in those areas). If the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint is implemented, the cost-share requirement for communities will climb steeply.

Analyses of OpenFEMA data has found that disaster assistance funds are often distributed inequitably (controlling for total damages), such that as the percentage of racial and ethnic minority populations increase, the amount of assistance decreases. This disparity is set to increase with the new administration’s revocation of environmental justice directives.

SCENE 4: The resilience mirage

When racial equity is not integrated into disaster resilience policies, the concept of resilience itself becomes a mirage—an illusion of safety and preparedness that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

True resilience includes everyone, particularly those who have been historically marginalized. The pattern of impacts from events such as Hurricane Katrina reveal that response strategies that may seem comprehensive on paper, in fact leave certain groups disproportionately affected. Integrating racial equity into disaster resilience policies is essential to ensure that all communities are genuinely supported and protected in times of crisis.

GRAND FINALE: A call to action

So, what’s the moral of this cautionary tale? Integrating racial equity considerations into disaster resilience policymaking is not a luxury—it’s a necessity. By addressing the systemic inequalities that contribute to the disproportionate burdens borne by already underserved communities, we can develop policies that enhance resilience for everyone.

To our decision makers: It’s time to embrace the robust scientific evidence already available and ensure that disaster resilience efforts are inclusive, fair, and effective.

And to our readers: Stay informed, stay engaged, and keep reminding your elected officials that you care about the use of sound science in policymaking.

As part of his wide-ranging first-week activities, President Trump issued a barrage of executive orders specifically intended to boost the fortunes of the fossil fuel industry.   

Not for the betterment of the US public, as these actions would freeze, repeal, or actively undermine critical public health and environmental protections. 

Not for the betterment of the US economy, as these actions would undermine billions of dollars of forward-looking investments, cede leadership in innovation, and spike household energy bills. 

Not for the betterment of US energy abundance, as these actions sideline critical clean energy resources and threaten to stall the deployment of more.  

Not for the betterment of US global standing, as these actions would aggravate areas of escalating geopolitical risk and spurn areas of productive geopolitical coordination.  

Not for the betterment of anything beyond boosting the bottom line for a select polluting few.  

Now, there’s a yawning gap between President Trump’s bold pronouncements and his actual ability to see many of these things through. Much of it will simply amount to hot air.  

Still, there’s a roadmap here. And if not by executive order, this administration has made clear from the jump that it will try anything to deliver for fossil fuel interests, no matter the public cost.  

That makes understanding the what and the why critical, to be prepared for all the attacks to come. So here: a look at the Trump administration’s first moves in its whole-of-government approach to selling out the nation. 

A whole-of-government approach to selling the nation out 

The fossil fuel industry’s wish-list is sprawling. So too is the range of new executive orders designed to be to the industry’s benefit.  

On Day 1 alone, President Trump issued executive orders declaring a national energy emergency, exiting the Paris Agreement, halting offshore—and some onshore—wind development, “unleashing” American (fossil) energy, and expanding fossil fuel production in Alaska. These occurred alongside other executive orders striking down large numbers of cross-cutting federal initiatives, including those coordinating climate, environmental justice, and public health protections.  

President Trump has framed these early actions as intended to improve the nation’s economy by lowering energy costs—but the claim is immediately, preposterously undone by the logical incoherence of his actions.  

For at the exact same time President Trump declared an energy emergency, he simultaneously attempted to derail new offshore wind development, which would undermine reliability, and directed agencies to take actions that would decrease the efficiency with which we use energy, which would drive up consumer energy costs. He also froze funding specifically intended to spur the deployment of new energy resources across the country, as well as infrastructure intended to boost energy reliability, resilience, and access.  

Some way to solve a “crisis.” 

When you peel back the rhetoric, it’s clear there’s only one throughline here: actions that would boost the profits of fossil fuel companies, with the costs borne by everyone else. 

And that strategy makes sense when remembering that this is an administration that pledged fealty to fossil fuel executives so long as they opened their wallets during campaign season—which they did. Because ultimately, fossil fuel executives don’t want to drive down energy prices. They want higher earnings, achieved by lowering their costs of doing business while locking in long-term demand for fossil fuels. 

How the executive orders advance fossil fuel interests 

The executive orders attempt to advance fossil fuel interests through two main approaches: first, by making it easier to extract and transport fossil fuels, and second, by making it easier to use fossil fuels—including by making it harder to use clean energy resources instead.  

Making it easier to extract and transport fossil fuels. US fossil fuel production is at record highs. There is no shortage of fossil fuel production, nor—problematically, to our eye—is there any shortage of opportunities for future expansion. But fossil fuel companies object to any constraints on their ability to extract fossil fuels, wherever and however they want.  

Moreover, fossil fuel pipelines crisscross the nation and liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals extend the reach of gas transmission from within the country to around the globe. New pipelines, and new LNG terminals, are actively under construction—the latter of which are already projected to nearly double LNG capacity by 2028. But fossil fuel companies object to standards and accountability around where, how, and to what end those pipelines are constructed, as well as commonsense evaluations of the harmful economic, climate, and health implications of unfettered LNG expansion.  

The Trump Day 1 orders attempt to appease fossil fuels interests on these fronts by opening more areas for leasing; attempting to shortcut the permitting process for fossil fuel infrastructure—both by claiming an energy emergency to sidestep regulatory requirements and by attempting to unwind decades-old permitting processes and requirements; pushing the Department of Energy to advance LNG approvals; and directing agencies to review (and, implied, weaken or fully rescind) regulations governing pollution associated with fossil fuel extraction, processing, and transport.  

Making it easier to use fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are intertwined throughout the US economy—but less so every day. Renewable resources and energy storage are rapidly displacing coal-fired power plants and edging out gas-fired generation. Moreover, people are increasingly pivoting away from fossil fuel-burning end uses, such as vehicles, stoves, and furnaces, to electrified alternatives, such as electric vehicles (EVs), induction cooktops, and heat pumps. This existential threat of obsolescence means that even if fossil fuel extraction and transmission were fully unencumbered, if nobody wants what fossil fuel companies are selling, there’s nothing left to prop up. Queue the out-of-the-gate attempts to force ongoing fossil fuel consumption, following a two-pronged approach.  

First, President Trump directed agencies to discount, ignore, and potentially even outright reject the premise of, the harms of fossil fuel use to public health and the climate, thereby attempting to create a route to justify the weakening of pollution standards—which he also directed agencies like the EPA to reconsider. He also initiated the process of once more pulling out of the Paris Agreement, in so doing pivoting away from the single greatest commitment to global climate action. 

Second, President Trump attempted to derail the competitors to fossil fuel use, namely renewable resources like wind, solar, and storage, as well as energy end uses like EVs and heat pumps that run on electricity or, even, just more efficient use of fossil fuels. This included freezing federal leasing and permitting of offshore wind; freezing the disbursement of funds intended to support the clean energy transition at the individual, community, state, and national levels; and freezing the disbursement of funds loaned to companies investing billions of dollars in new US manufacturing facilities to advance innovative clean energy technologies.  

What comes next 

With these executive orders, alongside a slew of fossil fuel-friendly agency nominees, the Trump administration has made clear who’s once again calling their energy shots.  

However, vanishingly little of what’s been proposed thus far is at all guaranteed of coming to pass. Indeed, the overwhelming majority is directional at best, with no follow-through required. And even where there is follow-through, actual changes resulting from these orders will face substantial hurdles. 

When it comes to unwinding regulations, agencies like EPA will have to justify their actions—and that means actually looking at the science. The Trump administration immediately leapt to undermine that very science on Day 1, too, but even with these bald-faced instructions to outright deny reality, agencies will still have to contend with the facts, as well as the long and winding processes associated with administrative procedures.  

When it comes to halting the disbursement of funds from policies that have already been passed into law, such as those via the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, that means halting the disbursement of funds that are legally owed. To change the flow of funds, Congress must pass new laws—or the president risks outright violating the constitution. 

Finally, when it comes to popular buy-in, the administration will have to contend with the fact that people overwhelmingly favor clean air and commonsense standards; that people support innovation and advancement of clean energy technologies; and that people want real solutions to the devastating, escalating, staggeringly costly impacts of climate change.  

And those solutions? They sure aren’t this. 

Dear Colleagues,

We are living in an era where we must prepare for another dramatic pendulum swing in public policy. For those of you in federal government this is a known anxiety-provoker.

I worked at the EPA through multiple presidential transitions, including from President Obama to President Trump in 2017, and again the transition to President Biden in 2021. In this second Trump administration we know to expect attacks on federal science and federal scientists thanks to the President’s track record and his second campaign’s promises. Plus, there is the Project 2025 manifesto that lays out the plans of the new administration to repeal the gains made over the past four years and halt efforts to combat human-caused climate change and environmental damages alongside their inherent social inequities.

One of the pillars of the cynical Project 2025 agenda is to attack the underpinnings of federally funded science. Another is to attack the very people who work in regulatory programs of administrative agencies. I recall experiencing that jarring shift eight years ago. I wondered anxiously just how I might make it through. Many of my work friends in federal government found other work during the following years. I somehow stuck it out and have many lessons learned from that period.

What’s best for you is a very individual decision, but here are seven lessons I learned over the years as a federal employee.

1. Know you have allies in the NGO community who are cheering you on.

During the first Trump administration, I recall receiving postcards from random strangers thanking me for my public service. I realize now those postcard campaigns were organized by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) like UCS. I also remember seeing small First Amendment-protected acts, such as signs hanging in individual’s office space that said, “No Sides in Science.” The signs came from a Save Science rally organized by the NGO community. Seeing these cheered me up.

2. Tune out the noise and don’t overreact to the hype.

Much of the hype in the mainstream media is exactly that. Even if you get your information from independent media or social media, it can be deafening to consume too much. One lesson from the prior Trump administration is how much bluster there was that didn’t come to pass. Do not despair pre-emptively.

3. Understand the motivations of political appointees in your agency.

Each political appointee will have some power and an ego to satisfy. They will need to negotiate with other appointees who have their own interests and levers of power. While there will be memos from on-high, such as orders to reduce staff, agency appointees will also have to make good on requests by stakeholders with influence in the political context of your agency. We know, for example, that during the first Trump administration some industries needed permits issued, so those industries argued in favor of keeping relevant staff at EPA. Also, local businesses supported maintaining programs that offered community redevelopment opportunities, including brownfields and Superfund site cleanup. After all, it does take a clean, healthy, thriving environment to run a successful business. And, thriving local economies make good news.

4. Don’t be a mind-reader.

If there is a mandate from above, it should come in writing. Based on what I saw in the last go-around, agency leaders will try to avoid written records. If they don’t send a memo or email instruction, you have the power to send a summary of their instructions via email and make a note for the record. 

5. Use the rules to your advantage.

There are laws that lay out the protocols and steps that government functions, including regulatory decisionmaking, should take. For example, government analyses need to be documented for the administrative record. And, many governmental functions require involved officials to adhere to ethics rules. Be it the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, the Information Quality Act, or the Evidence Act—all those laws were created to keep meticulous account of the work of government. This is important for the long game and in cases where the Freedom of Information Act could be used to demonstrate instances of political interference or censorship.

6. Know the union resources and support that are available to you.

Much of the bluster we are hearing is about attacks on staff through changes to workplace conditions. Use your union contacts, even if you aren’t part of the union, to understand what is within bounds and what flexibilities you have. Demand those flexibilities before giving up on your job in the federal government.

7. Know your labor rights.

You have rights under federal labor laws. Make sure you understand those rights and your agency’s policies, including equal employment opportunity protections based on race, national origin, gender, and sexual orientation. There are organizations, like the Government Accountability Project, with lawyers on standby to support individuals who expect targeting.

I hope these seven lessons may be of some comfort to you during the coming months and years. In addition, here at UCS we have compiled this list of resources for federal science workers and have launched our Save Science, Save Lives campaign. We are actively working to ensure that senators ask President Trump’s cabinet nominees during their confirmation hearings about their plans for protecting science and scientific integrity. You can urge your senator to do so today.

I moved on from federal government two years ago. I continue to recognize the deep value of federal science and the system of regulations that were set up to protect those most vulnerable to the excesses of our socio-political system. This new administration has a particular view that is expected to attack the foundation of scientific integrity. We at UCS know this, and we stand ready to support those of you who want to keep your position in federal institutions. Not everyone may. We understand and respect that choice as well.

In solidarity,

Chitra

As the known drinking water nerd amongst my friend group, I have been informally fielding questions about whether their water is safe to use near the wildfires in Southern California. Some common questions I’ve heard include: How do I know if I can drink the tap water? Can I shower with it? When will it be safe? Beyond more generally getting the facts right on the water and wildfire issues in California, as this Guardian headline suggests, it’s smart to assume the worst about the safety of drinking water in and throughout the immediate aftermath of devastating disasters like the Los Angeles fires.

Why be concerned about the safety of your drinking water after a major fire?

As colleagues so comprehensively explained in their “Wildfire and Water Supply in California” report, there are a lot of pathways by which a wildfire can make your tap water unsafe (and a lot of great ideas on how to adapt to this growing challenge). In Northern California, the Tubbs Fire’s effects on Santa Rosa in 2017 and the Camp Fire, which burned the entire town of Paradise only a year later, were among the first wildfires known to cause widespread drinking water contamination in cities.

Wildfires in forests and wildfires in urban areas have different consequences. Alarmingly, after the Tubbs and Camp Fires, researchers found evidence of post-fire contamination from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like benzene, which is carcinogenic, and also from heavy metals, microbes and other contaminants that pose both immediate and long term public health risks. As fossil-fueled fires get worse, tap water contamination concern grows. Drinking water may not be safe for months, depending on the severity of the damage.

To name a few ways water can be contaminated post-fire:

• Incineration of urban infrastructure—houses, buildings, electric wires, etc.—leaches toxic chemicals not only into our air but when hot enough, can melt the underground pipe network that deliver drinking water.
  
• Toxic runoff from the combination of burnt infrastructure, any fire retardant that has been dropped and water to fight the fires, infiltrates into the ground and any stormwater system.
  
• Any disconnection or disruption to an otherwise closed loop treated drinking water distribution system creates risks of contamination.
  
• Distribution network depressurization may also allow for contaminant transport between differently impacted parts of the distribution system.

I live in or near a fire-impacted community, what should I do?

Figure out who your water provider is if you don’t know. Community water systems provide drinking water for most Californians, and there are a few tools to consult to identify your water system:

• The Community Water Center’s Drinking Water Tool, features an address-based search tool available in Spanish or English.
  
• For residents of LA County, the UCLA LA County Water System Governance Map, shows the service areas for more than 200 systems in the county, and is available in Spanish or English.
  
• The state regulatory agency for drinking water maintains a Human Right to Water Portal, which is also address based and includes not only community systems, but also the schools and daycares responsible for complying with safe drinking water standards.  

Then, check your water provider’s website for any advisories like “do not use”, “boil water”, or “‘do not drink”’ notices. (Learn more from the CDC about the difference between them). Depending on the contamination issue, and unless advised by your water provider, it’s unlikely that you can self-treat the water to make it safe by boiling, filtering, adding chlorine or other disinfectants etc.

Check out the LAist Cheat Sheet which compiled thorough FAQ for LA area residents, including how to understand different advisory types, where to get replacement bottled water and your local water provider’s phone number to get your questions answers.

Areas affected by Do-Not-Drink-Water notifications and other water advisories are dynamic. Large water providers like Pasadena Water and Power and LA Department of Water and Power are actively testing and working to get water back to regulatory standards. Smaller systems may have a harder time recovering.

The above concerns and suggested steps are focused on the safety of the tap water being delivered to your house and do not address very real concerns due to on-site contamination from damaged infrastructure on private property. Always review official resources for those impacted by the LA Fires: https://www.ca.gov/LAfires/.

I have a domestic well, what should I do?

If you are not in the service area of a community water system, your house may have a private domestic well. All the fire-related toxic substances infiltrate the soil and reach our groundwater, they contaminate it with dangerous substances that any added chlorine or household point-of-use filters may not remove. That translates to a higher level of pollutants in our tap water, especially when fires occur near a drinking water well.

Domestic well owners are responsible for managing their own water quality, even when impacted by events outside their control. While a brand new law now requires landlords to ensure their rental properties’ wells are tested, there is no state agency that regulates domestic well water quality they way they do for water systems.

Some ideas on how to learn about the safety of your tap water:

• Assess your well if impacted by wildfire, considering using the CDC’s rapid assessment form
  
• Review the SWRCB’s Guide for Well Owners and Well Testing Program Directory, and search by your county to see if which programs are available in your area.
  
• Follow the CDC’s checklist depending on issues experienced from loss of power, to loss of pressure and hire licensed professionals to repair or replace damaged components.
  
• If your house also has a septic tank, check for any signs of damage that could cause issues for indoor plumbing or domestic well contamination.
  
• Review official state resources for those impacted by the LA Fires: https://www.ca.gov/LAfires/

Not impacted by the fires, but want to help? Fire recovery will be a long process, and donations of critical supplies like bottled water will be needed long after the media moves on from this disaster. Find a trusted local organization, like the Pasadena Jobs Center, an organization coordinating volunteers on the ground and recommended by a friend who grow up in Altadena and lost their family home in the Eaton fire. Consider directly supporting mutual aid groups now and in the coming months.

President-elect Trump’s threats to swiftly implement a policy of mass deportation for immigrants in the United States without legal status, as well as end programs that provide lawful temporary protected status for many immigrants, are inhumane. Immigrant rights groups and legal experts have rightly sounded the alarm and are working actively to fight back and resist these actions, which could be announced on Day 1 of the Trump presidency. All of us—whether we or our families, friends and community members are directly impacted or not—have a stake in understanding why these policies are so harmful, morally reprehensible, and have no place in a democracy.

We in the US are part of a country whose history and present-day social and economic realities are deeply intertwined with and built on the experiences of immigrants, enslaved African Americans, and Indigenous peoples. Owning that history—the good and the bad—is a crucial part of what it means to be an American. And it’s the first step in charting a path to a better, fairer future for our country.

The current US system of immigration is clearly broken, and across the political spectrum there is a recognition that reforms are urgently needed. I am not an immigration expert so I will not opine here on the details of those reforms.

What is clear—or should be clear—to all of us is that if we arbitrarily judge some immigrants to be “better” than others, we will inevitably risk reinforcing a system that is based on biased and unequal power and economic structures that are pervasive in the world today. All too often, current legal pathways to immigration privilege a subset of people while shutting out many who work equally hard and are equally deserving.

As my colleague Karen Perry Stillerman points out, in addition to being morally repugnant, mass deportation programs would have a significant negative impact on our nation’s food system, which could not function without the labor of immigrants.

As another example, as extreme weather and climate-related disasters mount across our nation, it is often immigrants who help to do the difficult and dangerous work of cleaning up debris and rebuilding homes and infrastructure as quickly as possible. As a recent news article points out:

“The fact is that the people who rebuild those areas—from Palisades to Malibu to Altadena—it’s immigrant construction crews,” said Pablo Alvarado, co-executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. “They’re the ones who are the second responders.”

Unfortunately, climate and fossil fuel-driven disasters are also contributing to a growing toll on people across the world, destabilizing economies, threatening livelihoods, health, water supplies, and food security. If we fail to sharply curtail heat-trapping emissions and invest in climate resilience, the numbers of people suffering harm will rise steeply, and many might even find themselves forcibly displaced both at home and abroad.

Rich nations like the United States (which is the leading historical contributor to global heat-trapping emissions) have the capacity and the responsibility to advance resilience at home and provide climate finance to help lower-income nations transition quickly to renewable energy and adapt to climate change. They also have a responsibility to help address climate loss and damage and displacement with a human rights-centered approach.

Hateful political rhetoric from President-elect Trump and his allies that demonizes and dehumanizes immigrants shows political leaders who are more interested in scoring cheap political points through fearmongering and fanning the flames of xenophobia, rather than acknowledging the basic humanity and incredible contributions of immigrants to our economy and our society.

This is not a new tactic. Across history, here in the United States and abroad, in uncertain economic times, extremists have often targeted immigrants and made harmful and deceptive claims blaming them for all the ills in society. Punching down, further marginalizing those who are fearful and may not have access to resources to defend themselves, is also a classic tactic of bullies and doesn’t solve the urgent problems facing our nation and our planet.

It’s up to all of us to stand up for the facts and stop allowing politicians to misuse the important issue of immigration policy to spew hateful lies as a convenient way to further their narrow interests. Mass detention and deportations will tear apart families, cause lasting trauma and harm, and set back health and education in immigrant communities especially for children, alongside undermining the the U.S. economy.  

We all know instinctively that leaving one’s familiar home and embarking on a dangerous journey to a faraway place, with very few resources and no guarantee of safety, is often an act of desperation—especially when bringing children. But for luck, this could be the plight of anyone in any country around the world.

Seeing our shared humanity and acting based on that principle is the best path forward on immigration and for our country of immigrants.  

Here are some resources to learn more. Please share them with anyone who needs them.

• American Civil Liberties Union: Know Your Rights/Immigrants’ Rights
• National Immigration Law Center: Know Your Rights: What to do if You Are Arrested or Detained by Immigration
• National Immigrant Justice Center: Know Your Rights: If You Encounter ICE

Scientists have a long-standing, and probably well-deserved, reputation as a jargon-prone bunch—and I am no exception (see my post on vapor pressure deficit, for one). Despite this reputation we actually use jargon to avoid confusion and be as precise as possible, ensuring our ideas are clearly understood. This seems straightforward enough for phrases like vapor pressure deficit, which needs to be distinguished from concepts like, for instance, relative humidity. But, scientists have also assigned specific meanings to otherwise ordinary words and phrases, that take on additional nuance and meaning when used in a scientific context.  

Take the word risk. Engineers might use it to mean the likelihood of a bridge collapsing. Economists might use it to mean a potential financial loss. An environmental scientist might use it to signal possible harm to a species of fish or vulnerable habitat. And in casual conversation, risk can mean a general concern or danger. Without specifying the context, the statement ‘The risks of addressing climate change are too large’ could justify almost any decision from reinforcing a bridge to withstand extreme heat to ignoring greenhouse gas emissions because of the financial losses that the fossil fuel industry would incur.  

In the case of the incoming administration, malicious actors use and create this confusion to exploit scientific illiteracy, justify inaction, and cultivate chaos, all of which cause harm to our communities, health and environment. This can take many forms: spreading disinformation, overemphasizing uncertainty, weaponizing ambiguity and nuance, or claiming that existing science is insufficient or incomplete, leading to harmful policies that distort science while maintaining a veneer of credibility. science while maintaining a veneer of credibility.  

In its first iteration, the Trump administration launched a coordinated assault on science and scientific integrity, and so far, all signs point to more of the same the second time around. To counter this, it’s critical to recognize and interrogate the language that will shape public discourse in the next administration. Here are three critical concepts that everyone who recognizes the essential value of science should know—and be prepared to defend against bad-faith attacks. 

What is “Best Available Science?” 

Best available science is the most reliable, valid, up-to-date, and relevant, empirical knowledge, and is referenced in laws, regulations, and court rulings, from the criteria for listing new species and developing recovery plans as part of the Endangered Species Act to the regulatory structure used in decision-making by the Food & Drug Administration for approvals and labels.  Science is dynamic and constantly evolving, meaning that the best available science builds on this on-going cycle of scientific inquiry as well as data and evidence from a range of sources. Inherently, best available science also relies on peer review, and draws on experts across disciplines.  

In the decision-making process of many government agencies, expert panels and advisory committees serve this critical function of analyzing existing evidence. These panels are composed of experienced researchers who are in the know about cutting edge research, the strengths and limitations of methodologies, and the latest debates on specific details. In the first Trump administration, we saw these panels and committees disbanded or downsized at the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Department of Health and Human Services, among others. Last year’s Supreme Court decision overturning the Chevron doctrine further endangered the use of best available science in decision making by shifting power from experts within governmental agencies to the judiciary.  

Further, best available science also uses specific language (and, in some cases, jargon) to accurately describe scientific findings, like using specific forest type designations when calculating wildfire emissions or describing the consequences of rule changes on different orders of waterways. The first Trump administration, in some cases, blocked scientists’ ability to do this by, for instance, removing a term such as “climate change” from certain government communications.  

Outside the US, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea reaffirmed the importance of using the best available science in their unanimous advisory opinion outlining countries’ obligations to prevent, reduce, and control pollution in the marine environment, highlighting the importance of scientists engaging across all facets of decision-making.  

Scientific Consensus Explained 

The term “scientific consensus” refers to concepts that have broad agreement among scientists, based on multiple lines of evidence and extensive peer-reviewed research. Examples of where there is scientific consensus include: evolution as the driver of life on earth, the Big Bang as the origin of the universe; and that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is the primary driver of climate change.  This does not signal absolute proof, unanimous agreement, or the end of the scientific process, but consensus does provide a foundation from which scientists can continue to build knowledge to better protect our health, environment and communities.   

In the case of climate change, scientific consensus has led to countless new research questions about how we can adapt to protect our communities from rising seas, intensifying wildfires, and extreme heat. It has also painted a clear picture of how to mitigate future climate change and protect those who are most vulnerable—a fair and fast phase out of fossil fuels.   

The Role of Uncertainty in Building Trustworthy Science 

Quantifying and communicating uncertainty is a key part of any scientific endeavor, and one that scientists go to great lengths to understand and explain. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, widely regarded as the world’s leading body on climate science, has developed an entire system for describing scientific uncertainty and confidence in key findings throughout their reports.   

As I wrote in a blog last year: “Conversationally, uncertainty means something you don’t know — like I’m uncertain what I’m going to have for lunch. But scientifically, uncertainty means how well we know something— more like a confidence range and usually visualized with confidence intervals or error bars depending on the data (I’m 90-95% confident that I’ll be having beans for lunch).” 

When reading a scientific study, the absence of confidence ranges, explanations of methodologies, or other descriptions of how the researchers dealt with uncertainty is a major red flag. While those outside the scientific community might assume that the absence of uncertainty signals unwavering confidence in a finding, to other scientists it signals that the conclusions deserve particularly focused scrutiny.  

In the first Trump administration, we saw the Department of Interior overemphasize uncertainty around climate change in several of its reports, in direct opposition to the scientific consensus.  

Defending Science and Scientific Integrity 

As the second Trump administration looms, protecting rigorous research and scientific integrity is more critical than ever. When key scientific principles like transparency, accountability and continuous inquiry are compromised, as they were during Trump’s first term, the consequences ripple far beyond the scientific community, affecting public health, environmental sustainability, and the resilience of democratic institutions. The deliberate manipulation of scientific findings, whether by suppressing inconvenient truths, overemphasizing uncertainty, or distorting conclusions to fit a narrative, means that the best available science is absent from decision making.  

This erosion of public trust in science creates fertile ground for disinformation campaigns, stalls progress on urgent issues, and prioritizes political or economic agendas over the public good. During the first Trump administration, we saw these tactics in action, from the removal of climate change terminology from government reports to the systematic dismantling of advisory panels critical to applying the best available science to policy decisions.  

Defending science is not just the responsibility of scientists—it requires collective action by policymakers, educators, advocates, and the public. Together, we can ensure that science continues to serve the public good, guiding decision makers in a defensible and robust way toward a healthy, safe, and just future.  

L. Delta Merner, Lead Scientist for the Science Hub for Climate Litigation, contributed to this post. 

President-elect Trump has nominated Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright to be US Energy Secretary, confirming the fossil fuel industry’s outsized and undue influence in shaping and implementing the Trump Administration’s agenda. Liberty is a leading producer of methane gas through fracking and according to ABC News, Wright donated almost $230,000 to the President-elect’s joint fundraising committee. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is expected to hold a hearing on Wright’s nomination tomorrow. 

In videos and Congressional testimony, Wright portrays himself as a “truth teller,” while falsely  claiming that climate scientists and renewable energy advocates are deceptive. These performances are textbook examples of disinformation, employing the exact tactics Mr. Wright decries.  

These are dangerous deceptions for someone potentially charged with leading the Department of Energy (DOE), an agency specifically tasked with informing the nation’s energy transition. Should Mr. Wright engage in such tactics during his confirmation hearing, Senators on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee must not allow him to get away with this ploy.  

The motivation to engage in disinformation comes when accurate information is threatening. Here are the facts. 

The human-caused, fossil fuel-driven, Climate Crisis is here. 

NASA’s Climate Evidence webpage leads with this headline: “There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate.” The Fifth National Climate Assessment is equally clear: “Human activities are changing the climate . . . primarily because humans have burned and continue to burn fossil fuels for transportation and energy generation.” 

While Wright acknowledges the reality of climate change, he deliberately misrepresents climate data and research to downplay the seriousness of the problem and to undermine proven solutions including transitioning away from fossil fuels and accelerating the transition to clean energy. He adopts a purposefully shortsighted view when describing the impacts of burning fossil fuels on the world, focusing on profits over people.  

Yes, nations need energy for economic development, but that energy can and should come from clean resources, not dirty fossil fuels. Air and water pollution from fossil fuels is a major public health challenge and catastrophic climate impacts are setting back sustainable development and anti-poverty efforts, especially in lower income nations. The fact that fossil fuel companies have reaped enormous profits in the process is not an argument for more drilling. 

Wright’s frequent focus on the relatively recent past is purposely misleading. As NASA explains, over most of the last 800,000 years, until humans started burning fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 concentrations basically never went below 180ppm and never went above 280ppm. That 100ppm difference, though, was the difference between glacial and interglacial periods. During glacial periods, much of the northern half of North America was covered in an ice sheet a mile thick. That .01% change in CO2 concentration is the difference between a planet humans can live on, and one we cannot. 

Primarily driven by the burning of fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration has increased to more than 420ppm. For roughly every 10ppm increase in CO2 concentrations, we see about 0.1C (nearly 0.2F) of warming. In the last sixty years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has grown 100 times faster than it did at the close of the last ice age. These are the numbers that must motivate our future energy policy, not the profits generated by the post-World War II oil boom.  

Climate change is making extreme weather more intense and more frequent. 

Leading independent global and U.S. scientific assessments, including from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Climate Assessment, show that climate change is already having significant real-world impacts, and these will worsen as heat-trapping emissions rise. Advances in attribution science also show that climate change is contributing to worsening some types of extreme weather. For example, warmer air and oceans are contributing to more intense hurricanes, with record-breaking amounts of rain and rapidly intensifying windspeeds. 

Wright denies that people are experiencing the extreme weather that they are, in fact, experiencing, and misrepresents the IPCC in the process. In reality, the IPCC (a body comprised of thousands of experts from around the world who synthesize the most recent developments in climate science) writes in their Sixth Assessment Report, Chapter 11 of Working Group 1 on Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate: “It is an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial time, in particular for temperature extremes.”  

Real-world observations conducted by NOAA show the dramatic increase in billion-dollar extreme weather and climate-related disaster events in the US since 1980. Climate change has contributed to worsening several of these kinds of disasters—including floods, droughts, and wildfires—alongside growing development in risky areas.  

In 2024, at least 568 lives were lost in 27 separate disasters that each reported damages of $1 billion or more, with a total economic cost of at least $182.7 billion. 2025 is already off to a sobering start, with early estimates on the California wildfires ranging as high as $150 billion in damages. 

Wright’s false claims are shameful and should be particularly difficult to defend during hearings before a Committee which includes Senators Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, whose constituents suffered through the 2023 wildfires; Alex Padilla of California, whose constituents in Los Angeles are losing lives and homes as I write; and other lawmakers representing millions of Americans living through or recovering from disasters made worse by climate change. 

The US can meet its climate targets. 

Wright cites the persistent high price of oil, record profits for fossil fuel companies, and even his own personal wealth as evidence that a transition to renewable energy is not happening. His claim that a transition to a cleaner energy system is impossible because Wright and his allies have succeeded in delaying it is nonsense.  

UCS has documented that a transition to a cleaner energy system is feasible and would result in significant, long-term public health and economic benefits. By rapidly phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to clean energy, the United States can meet its climate targets with lower near-term energy costs and only modest long-term costs. UCS modeling has found enormous economic, health, and climate benefits to transforming the energy system—including more than $800 billion in annual public health savings, and nearly $1.3 trillion in avoided climate damages by 2050. 

Clean, renewable energy contributes to reliability. 

In addition to dirty air and dirty water, the industry that made Wright wealthy also has a dirty secret: it’s unreliable. The recent failures of the gas system, including gas plants, under extreme weather conditions have led to rolling blackouts, with serious safety and health consequences for communities left without power during critical times of need. Looking closely at recent extreme winter weather events, a UCS analysis found that gas plants were disproportionately vulnerable to failure. By contrast, renewable energy sources can be more reliable during challenging weather conditions. 

Carbon pollution is pollution. 

Wright argues that rising CO2 levels are not dangerous. The EPA has found the current (or any increasing) mix of atmospheric concentrations of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, poses a threat to human health. The EPA engaged in a public process that took more than two years and included exhaustive review of the scientific literature to reach this finding. And while Wright claims labelling CO2 as pollution is a “marketing” tactic, it was the U.S. Supreme Court, not the wind or solar industries, that forced the EPA to act on the basis of existing law, the Clean Air Act. 

Wind and solar are clean energy. 

While all energy sources have impacts, wind and solar are much cleaner than fossil fuels. Wright’s frequent, narrow focus on the use of fossil fuels in the manufacturing and construction of wind turbines and solar panels is highly misleading and doesn’t tell the whole story.  

The heat-trapping emissions from these activities are minor compared to the lifecycle emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. In fact, overall lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from generating electricity from methane gas and coal are 11-23 times higher than solar and 37-77 higher than wind, respectively, according to data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). And unlike fossil fuels, electricity generated by wind and solar does not use water or produce any emissions or wastes that can contaminate the air, land, or waterways. 

Defining the energy produced by wind, solar, and other renewable sources as “clean” is a factual description of what that energy does to our world when we use it, compared to burning dirty coal, oil, and methane. It is obvious why someone who has made a fortune in the business of dirty energy might not like that label, but if the dirty shoe fits . . .   

The Questions Senators Need to Ask. 

Again, the motivation to engage in disinformation comes when accurate information is threatening. For example, when people say, “this is not about the money,” you can be sure it is absolutely about the money. 

A Senate confirmation hearing should provide Senators and the public an accurate picture of the nominees’ views and fitness for public service. President-elect Trump has selected Chris Wright for the Department of Energy because he will double down on the production and use of the same old, dirty energy resources that have made him wealthy; wealth that Wright and other industry figures have used to fund the Trump campaign. (My colleagues have also shared insightful advice that should guide Senators’ approach in evaluating these nominees.) 

Rather than engaging in deceptive claims designed to turn facts on their heads, Wright should simply be honest about his views and let the Senate—and the public—decide whether he is the right person to set US energy policy for the next four years.  

As the climate crisis deepens, so does the urgency to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for decades of deception. Governments representing more than a quarter of the US population have filed lawsuits against major corporations including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, seeking justice for the harm caused by their lies about the dangers of their products. And especially on the cusp of a new Presidential administration that has vowed to support the fossil fuel industry and nominated appointees with a blatant disregard for science, the courts will become an integral arena to advance climate justice—and a pivotal space for scientists of all disciplines to make an impact. 

These lawsuits hinge on the best available science to uncover the truth and inform the courts. UCS is already working with social scientists and economists, civil engineers and health practitioners who can bring extensive expertise to multi-faceted litigation. As the fossil fuel industry spares no expense to obscure these truths, the work of scientists who engage with climate litigation is increasingly vital. They bring clarity, evidence, and credibility to a high-stakes fight where lives—and the planet—are on the line. 

To help scientists of all disciplines who are thinking about getting engaged, but might not know where to start, I turned to Delta Merner, Lead Scientist for UCS’s Science Hub for Climate Litigation. Merner’s research and expertise has informed climate litigation across the globe, as she connects legal teams with technical experts and leads trainings for scientists working at the intersection of climate science and law.  

AAS: What would you say to scientists who feel they don’t have the expertise or understanding to participate in climate litigation?  

DM: In many ways, climate litigation isn’t actually that different from the work scientists are used to doing. At its core, we’re still asking robust questions, conducting thorough research to assess those questions, and drafting compelling documents to communicate our findings. The fundamental process remains the same—it’s just a different format and audience. 

In some ways, for example, my PhD defense did prepare me with skills that translate well to the courtroom. After all, you quickly learn to stay calm and back up your claims when you have to stand in a room full of brilliant, critical people ready to poke holes in your every word. 

In both cases, you’re making a claim, presenting evidence, and responding to questions or criticism. The key difference is the audience. Instead of speaking to other scientists, you’re addressing a legal community that operates with its own rules of argumentation, unique citation methods, and a distinct language for making claims. 

So, while the tools and processes are familiar, adapting to this new audience requires an additional layer of thoughtfulness. You’re not just presenting facts— you’re translating complex scientific evidence into a form that meets the legal system’s standards of argumentation, while upholding scientific rigor and independence. That intersection between science and law is what makes this work so fascinating and impactful.

AAS: What was that transition into the legal arena like for you? Who did you look to for guidance and to learn from?  

DM: My first time testifying in court was during my PhD program, and honestly, I had very little guidance. I didn’t fully understand how different it would be to communicate my research to a legal audience. I knew my research inside and out, and I thought that would be enough—but it quickly became clear that presenting in this context is a skill in itself. It requires not only expertise in your subject matter but also the ability to convey that knowledge in a way that resonates with the specific needs and expectations of the court. 

This realization pushed me to seek guidance and learn from others. There are experts who have been doing this work for years, and generally speaking, science has been presented in US courts for a long time. For me, working through the courts felt like an opportunity to apply my research to create real-world change, but to do that effectively, I needed to broaden my perspective. I’ve learned a great deal from science communicators, organizers, researchers, and litigators who understand how to bridge the gap between science and law. Each has contributed to shaping how I approach this work and helped me find my voice in the courtroom.  

Historically, however, it can be difficult to find spaces to meet and work with others in this field–that’s why UCS started the Science Hub for Climate Litigation. The Science Hub for Climate Litigation has developed a valuable community of peers where scientists, communicators, and legal experts can learn from each other—whether it’s gaining insights from those with courtroom experience or collaborating to refine how we present complex evidence to drive meaningful change. 

AAS: UCS scientists often provide their scientific expertise to help inform policies. You’ve said that informing legal cases is just as critical as informing the formation of policy. Can you talk a little more about that? 

DM: That’s a great question, and it’s one that gets to the heart of our work. At UCS, we see climate litigation, informed by science, as one of the most impactful tools we have to address climate change—and the evidence is clear that it’s working. The last IPCC report stated that climate-related litigation “has influenced the outcome and ambition of climate governance.” It also highlighted that “outside the formal climate policy processes, climate litigation is an important arena for various actors to confront and interact over how climate change should be governed.” In short, climate litigation is actively shaping climate action today. 

Scientists have a critical role to play in this space. We can conduct robust, timely, and litigation-relevant research. We can help inform the courts through amicus briefs or other legal interventions designed to provide judges with the evidence they need to make informed decisions. And we can even step into the courtroom as expert witnesses. But engaging in litigation isn’t necessarily intuitive or straightforward for most scientists. That’s where the Science Hub for Climate Litigation comes in.  

The Science Hub focuses on four key areas: catalyzing legally relevant scientific research, expanding the community of scientists and legal experts informing litigation, making robust science widely accessible, and connecting legal teams with experts. Together, these efforts create a pathway for scientists to bring their expertise into the legal arena and make a tangible impact on climate action. 

AAS: First and foremost, like many of our readers, you are a researcher. Can you tell us a little more about those existing gaps in current scientific research that, if addressed, could further support climate litigation? 

DM: As a researcher, I see significant opportunities for science to further inform climate litigation by addressing critical gaps. Our recent report on research areas for climate litigation highlights several key needs. For instance, attribution science remains a priority—establishing causal links between emissions, climate impacts, and specific events is essential for many cases. However, there’s a pressing need to expand this research to underrepresented regions, particularly in the Global South, where baseline data is often lacking. Developing new methods to suit these contexts can help ensure justice is accessible to all communities impacted by climate change. 

We also identified the connections between climate change and human health as another priority. Cases that focus on health impacts, such as those related to extreme heat or air quality, require more robust data, particularly for vulnerable populations like children, older adults, and pregnant people. Similarly, economic research that quantifies the costs of climate impacts and the benefits of mitigation is vital for informing remedies in legal cases. Addressing these issues demonstrates how expertise from diverse disciplines—whether in public health, economics, or social science—can play an important role to inform climate litigation. You don’t need to be a climate scientist to make a meaningful impact. 

Beyond these priorities, our work highlights strategic areas like disinformation and greenwashing, emissions accounting, and fair share analysis for corporate and national accountability. Each of these areas presents opportunities for science to fill evidence gaps that are critical to informing litigation.  

By addressing these gaps, scientists can play a role in informing the evolving landscape of climate litigation and ensure that courts have the best available science to inform their decisions. 

AAS: In a recent blog post, you mentioned the opportunities to expand the scope of climate litigation in 2025. Could you elaborate on the stakes of what’s on the docket this year? 

DM: This year’s climate litigation docket has high stakes, with cases that could set major precedents for how we address the climate crisis. On the international stage, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is working on an advisory opinion to clarify what responsibilities countries have under international law to combat climate change. (UCS actually helped a number of states in the Global South to prepare draft their written submissions.) While this opinion won’t be legally binding, it could influence future cases and push governments to take stronger climate action. Similarly, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is considering how climate change disproportionately affects vulnerable populations, linking climate action to fundamental human rights. 

In the US, more than a quarter of people now live in places that are suing  major fossil fuel corporations for deceiving people about climate change and for the damage they knew their oil, gas, and coal products would cause. These cases aim to hold companies accountable for the disinformation that has blocked climate action and slowed the transition to clean energy. ExxonMobil and other major fossil fuel corporations have employed numerous procedural tactics to delay progress of these lawsuits (some of which have been ongoing for more than seven years), preventing them from being heard in courtrooms across the country. 

We’re also seeing more lawsuits following climate-related disasters, like the Maui wildfires and severe flooding in North Carolina. These cases often focus on holding governments or companies accountable for not doing enough to prepare for foreseeable climate risks, like stronger storms or longer droughts. They highlight the very real human and financial costs of climate inaction and aim to drive systemic change. 

This wave of litigation shows that courts are becoming a critical arena for climate action, especially as political systems struggle to keep up with the urgency of the crisis. By combining evidence from science, law, and lived experience, these cases have the power to bring about accountability and push for meaningful solutions. 

AAS: And I’ll close with this: it’s a new year, a fresh start, and folks are making resolutions. What is something concrete that you’re working on?  

DM: This year, I’m focusing on communicating the value and potential impact of scientists informing climate litigation. It’s crucial for scientists to understand that this work is about ensuring that courts have access to accurate, robust evidence to make informed decisions. Upholding the integrity of our research while making it actionable is essential to bridging the gap between science and justice. 

At the same time, I want to increase engagement among scientists to help them recognize the critical role they can play in legal processes. Whether it’s providing expert testimony, contributing to amicus briefs, or making their findings more accessible to legal teams, there are so many ways to contribute. By supporting scientists in these efforts, we can create a stronger connection between science and the legal system, and empower courts to drive meaningful change. 

→ Learn more and join the UCS Science Hub for Climate Litigation today 

While deaths and destruction are mounting and tens of thousands flee a devastating inferno in Los Angeles, the President-Elect has used the catastrophic wildfires to spread misinformation, offer false solutions, and disrespect the suffering of people and the hard work of first responders. Here, we provide the facts and avoid the fiction.  

Fact 1: reservoirs are full

Due to a relatively wet winter in Northern California, almost every reservoir in Southern California is at or above its historical average. There is ample water available in reservoirs to fight fires. The challenge is getting the water from the reservoir to the fire fighters. 

Fact 2: California’s water system is a patchwork  

California, like most states, has thousands of water systems. Federal, state, municipal, regional, and private water systems co-exist. Some are connected to each other, some aren’t. What happens hundreds of miles away in one system does not necessarily have an impact on your local supply. In other words, decisions about federal water in one part of the state don’t automatically increase or decrease how much water your local utility has available.  

Fact 3: City water systems are not designed to suppress massive wildfires 

Cities build infrastructure to meet demands without being unnecessarily expensive. For example, water systems are designed for the capacity to deliver enough water to serve customers’ normal household water needs and to provide a limited amount of “fire flow,” or excess capacity for fire suppression. During the initial hours of the Palisades fire, the LA Department of Water and Power experienced unprecedented water demand — four times the normal water use for 15 hours straight. This incredibly high, sustained level of water demand outstripped the ability of the system to keep the water flowing. It was water use, not water supply, that led to a temporary shortage for fire flows.   

Fact 4: Fire fighters often rely on air support to contain rapidly burning fires 

The Palisades fire ignited during some of the worst Santa Ana winds, gusting at more than100 miles per hour at times. This made air support dangerous and unreliable during the critical first few days of the fire, placing a larger burden on the municipal water system.   

Fact: Wildfires are worsening due to climate change 

At a basic level, the connection between wildfires and water is intuitive: fires start more easily, burn more intensely, and spread faster when it’s dry and hot. That’s bad news, because climate change is increasing temperatures and the risk of drought in many regions. It’s particularly pronounced in the western United States, where heatwaves and megadroughts are priming us for wildfire. In fact, western landscapes are now roughly 50 percent drier due to climate change. 

Fact: Fossil fuel companies are privatizing profit and socializing costs of climate change 

Emissions from the products of fossil fuel companies and cement manufacturers have fundamentally reshaped the climate of western North America and left behind a scarred, charred landscape in which people, communities, and the ecosystems that enable their existence are suffering. To-date, taxpayers and victims have been footing the bill for worsening wildfires.  

However, UCS’s new analysis quantifies the contribution of fossil fuel companies to fire conditions. Federal, state, and local governments have the power to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the costs of climate change impacts. And they should. 

President-elect Donald Trump seems hell-bent on filling his cabinet with anti-science extremists, including climate science deniers. While these nominations are dangerous, what’s even more disturbing is the opening they create for fossil fuel corporations that have masterminded climate deception campaigns to regain social license. ExxonMobil, Shell, and trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute now profess to accept climate science—even as they exacerbate the crisis by continuing to expand fossil fuel production and kick the climate action can down the road with greenwashing and doublespeak.

In a cynical effort to please climate-conscious investors, ExxonMobil Chair and CEO Darren Woods may choose to keep climate science deniers like DOE nominee Chris Wright at arm’s length. But with global temperatures rising, the carbon budget dwindling, and climate-driven disasters affecting people and communities around the world, we cannot afford to accept ExxonMobil, Shell, or other major fossil fuel corporations as the lesser evil—or even worse, as integral to climate solutions.

Trump reignites overt climate denial

During his campaign, Trump sought $1 billion from oil and gas CEOs in exchange for a pledge to reverse environmental regulations and prevent new policies from being enacted. Since Trump’s election to a second term, fossil fuel industry interests have published their wish lists—and patrons have been rewarded with appointments to key posts in the administration. And we’ve already seen a resurgence of outright climate science denial.

Chris Wright, Trump’s nominee for Energy Secretary, has denied the well-established connection between climate change and extreme weather events. Liberty Energy, the fracking corporation he heads, describes its Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) focus as delivering secure, reliable, affordable access to energy. Its ESG report downplays the urgency of the climate crisis and misrepresents the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This deliberate distortion of ESG builds on years of anti-ESG efforts by far-right activists including Vivek Ramaswamy, appointed by Trump to partner with fellow billionaire Elon Musk in weakening federal regulations and slashing government spending (notably, oil and gas subsidies are not on the chopping block).

Congressional allies pump up oil and gas

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee has continued its attack on ESG investing, most recently in an unhinged report that rallies behind ExxonMobil against an alleged “cartel” of climate-conscious investors. The committee seems to be living in an alternate reality in which investors using market tools to influence corporate strategy is somehow illicit, while fossil fuel companies colluding to fix prices is not. The Judiciary Committee’s upside-down world is detached from reality, ignoring both record high US oil and gas production under the Biden administration and the fact that renewables continue to be cheaper than fossil energy.

Representative Jim Jordan’s Judiciary Committee embraces anti-climate positions that ExxonMobil itself long ago abandoned, alleging that commitments to reach net zero global warming emissions by 2050 are part of a “left-wing climate agenda.” Does ExxonMobil, the nation’s largest energy corporation, really need protection by a paternalistic Congress against powerful bullying investors? More likely, ExxonMobil recognizes that to compete in the global market, it must convince investors that it is taking action to reduce heat-trapping emissions and limit the worst effects of climate change. (As my colleague Dr. Carly Phillips has shown, ExxonMobil’s recent climate reports are misleading at best, dishonest at worst—textbook examples of greenwashing).

Major fossil fuel corporations lit the fuse decades ago

Climate change denial is no accident. It was plotted decades ago by the fossil fuel industry—for example, in an infamous 1998 memo by a task force of the American Petroleum Institute, which said that “Victory will be achieved when average citizens understand (recognize) ‘uncertainties’ in climate science.” As my UCS colleagues and I wrote in the Climate Deception Dossiers, this plan was eerily reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s strategy, succinctly described in an internal corporate memo as, “Doubt is our product…”

Source: UCS

The fossil fuel industry’s concerted disinformation campaign has been so successful that ExxonMobil, one of the ringleaders, can now claim to accept climate science while cronies like Chris Wright and Jim Jordan continue to stoke doubt.

Fossil fuel interests have been in Trump’s inner circle from the jump

In 2016, President Trump tapped ExxonMobil Chair and CEO Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of State. As I wrote at the time, Tillerson was an inappropriate and deeply troubling pick for the post, for countless reasons—here were five of the most distressing ones.

One of those reasons was the ways Tillerson doubted and downplayed climate change. And after his service in the Trump administration, the Wall Street Journal revealed new evidence that Tillerson had dismissed the Paris Agreement’s goal of keeping global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels (and striving to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius) as “something magical.” Worse still, just months before the agreement was signed, Tillerson asked, “Who is to say 2.5 is not good enough?”

Climate scientists, backed by robust research, say so. The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5° C found that surpassing 2 degrees C of warming would significantly increase the frequency and severity of climate impacts, including extreme weather events, biodiversity loss, and threats to human health and livelihoods. However, limiting warming to 1.5 degrees C, could substantially reduce these risks, highlighting the critical importance of ambitious global climate action.

In 2017, Tillerson said he disagreed with President Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. He was fired from his position in the administration just nine months later.

ExxonMobil hides behind extremists

ExxonMobil is staking out a different position in the second Trump administration.

2024 wrapped up as the hottest year on record, with warming temporarily reaching 1.5 C. Unlike Tillerson or Trump, current ExxonMobil Chair and CEO Darren Woods professes to support the Paris Agreement. However, the corporation pushes technological “solutions” that can’t bend the emissions curve steeply downward in the critical period between now and 2030.

In December, ExxonMobil released its plan to 2030, which calls for an 18% increase in oil and gas production, thanks largely to growth in the Permian Basin (after last year’s acquisition of Pioneer) and offshore Guyana. Woods bragged about reducing ExxonMobil’s upstream (exploration and production) emissions intensity by 20% between 2016 and 2023—and says it is aiming to cut emissions intensity 40-50% by 2050.

However, upstream emissions intensity measures emissions per unit of production—and excludes emissions from burning oil and gas, which constitute roughly 85 percent of the heat-trapping emissions attributable to ExxonMobil. So, if production is increasing—as ExxonMobil’s is—absolute emissions will continue to climb even if upstream emissions intensity significantly decreases.

The corporation says it is pursuing “up to $30 billion in lower-emissions investment opportunities”—which for ExxonMobil means carbon capture and storage (CCS), hydrogen, and lithium. Among other projects, ExxonMobil’s Low Carbon Solutions business is developing a Texas plant to produce hydrogen from fossil gas (if the tax credit included in the Inflation Reduction Act survives) and a gas-fired power plant to support a data center. (Read more about how data centers’ rapidly growing energy use is changing electricity supply and demand—and what it means for energy infrastructure planning—in this blog by my UCS colleague Mike Jacobs).

Fossil fuel lobbyists grab seats at the table

ExxonMobil’s Woods was one of more than 1,770 fossil fuel industry lobbyists granted access to the annual UN climate negotiations (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan. The heads of Aramco, BP, and TotalEnergies were also registered to participate as guests of the host country.

Woods made headlines when he discouraged US President-elect Trump from withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement. Although some media outlets credited Woods with supporting climate policy and pushing back against Trump’s anti-climate agenda, what he actually said was, “The way you influence things is to participate, not to exit.” What I see in the oil and gas industry’s participation at COPs is not a commitment to climate action, but the determination—and access—to interfere with a fair, fast, and funded phaseout of fossil fuels by the international community.

What to watch out for in 2025

As 2025 begins, the challenges for climate advocates are at least threefold: 1) mobilizing fierce opposition and marginalizing climate science deniers who secure positions of power in Congress or the administration; 2) inoculating state, federal, and international policymakers against deception and greenwashing by ExxonMobil and other major fossil fuel corporations; and 3) defending and expanding the use of ESG investment strategies against bad-faith Congressional “oversight.”

With federal climate and clean energy policies likely to be stalled or rolled back, climate litigation is a key arena for progress in the United States. Preserving access to justice through the courts will be essential, in the face of veiled threats against climate-related litigation in Project 2025 and Trump’s promise to stop climate accountability litigation against the oil and gas industry.

The fossil fuel industry will attempt to cash in on its political influence in the United States by advancing deregulation, facilitating increased oil and gas production on federal lands and waters, expanding subsidies and other giveaways, blocking mandatory climate disclosure, evading liability for climate damages and corporate misconduct, and stoking political and legal attacks against activists and organizers. As President-elect Trump opens the floodgates to all kinds of disinformation—including climate science denial—some pro-fossil forces will fight climate and clean energy policies directly. But others will more stealthily seek to delay and undermine the transition away from fossil fuels, claiming to support climate action while defining “climate solutions” in their narrow short-term interests. These efforts to regain social license by those most responsible for the climate crisis are particularly insidious.

Both approaches—and the actors who employ them—endanger our health, environment, energy security, human rights, and democracy. Even as we steel ourselves to refute a barrage of lies from top officials in the Trump administration and Congress, we must resist compromising with leaders of an industry that has deceived the public and policymakers for decades, evaded accountability for the harm it has caused, continues to obstruct the urgent transition to renewable energy, and has not earned the public’s trust.

The year 2023 was by far the warmest in Earth’s recorded history, and perhaps in the past 100,000 years, shattering the previous record set in 2016 by 0.27°C (0.49°F). According to recent data from NOAA’s National Center for Environmental Information, 2024 is likely to be even warmer than 2023.  

Scientists are sounding the alarm because this warming is shockingly big—bigger than what we would have expected given the long-term warming trend from fossil fuel-caused climate change. But why were 2023 and 2024 so warm? 

The reason why 2016 was so warm was because of a strong El Niño event—a naturally-occurring cycle in the Earth’s climate system—which typically leads to a spike in Earth’s global-mean temperature. In that year, El Niño added to the increased warming caused by the build-up of heat-trapping emissions in the atmosphere, leading to that record-breaking heat. 

This is why 2023 and 2024 are so alarming: El Niño was only moderately strong (contributing a small amount of warming) in 2023 and was in a neutral state for most of 2024 (contributing almost no warming), so we cannot attribute the record-breaking warmth of  2023 and 2024 to El Niño like we did in 2016, and we definitely should not be shattering heat records under a neutral state El Niño. In other words, 2023 and 2024 have been much hotter than scientists’ predictions. 

What could be a potential explanation for the record-breaking warmth? This question was a focus at the 2024 annual American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in Washington, D.C., where 30,000-plus scientists gathered to present their latest research. The two leading theories to explain the record-breaking warmth are a reduction in tiny particles in the atmosphere called aerosols due to shipping fuel regulations that reduced sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions, or decreasing cloud cover. Before we get to those two likely culprits, let’s talk about albedo. 

What is albedo?

A concept that’s important in both of these theories is planetary albedo. Albedo is the total reflection of incoming solar radiation by Earth. This reflection is done partially by lighter-colored surfaces such as ice sheets and ice shelves, clouds, deserts, and also by aerosols. Think of walking outside on a sunny day after a snowstorm or in a desert; the sun’s rays are reflected by the light surface, making it harder to see. These solar rays are normally reflected out to space. 

The planet typically reflects about 30% of incoming solar radiation, but this number can change slightly depending on how much snow- or ice-cover there is, on the amount of cloud cover, or on how many aerosols are in the atmosphere (remember, these are tiny atmospheric particles that reflect light). Humans have a direct effect on albedo through emitting industrial aerosols such as sulfates, which accumulate in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels. 

You might be thinking, “if the burning of fossil fuels increases Earth’s albedo due to additional aerosols in the atmosphere, shouldn’t this offset any impact from the effects of increased heat-trapping emissions like carbon dioxide?” It’s a great question, but the warming effect from heat-trapping gases far outweighs the cooling effect from industrial aerosols. 

Reduction in aerosols leads to albedo decrease 

A popular theory that could explain why the past two years have been so warm has to do with a change in aerosol emissions due to new shipping fuel regulations aimed at helping to address pollution that harms health and the environment. In 2020, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) reduced the limit on the amount of sulfur in ships’ fuel oil, which then led to a reduction in sulphur dioxide and particulate matter emissions which form aerosols in the atmosphere.  

According to two recent studies, this reduction in aerosols may have led to a spike in the global-mean temperature. How? As industrial aerosols decreased due to this new regulation, particularly over the North Atlantic Ocean, the planetary albedo slightly decreased, which means that more incoming solar radiation was absorbed by the planet rather than reflected. 

However, another study found that the effect of additional industrial aerosols in the atmosphere would only affect global-mean temperature by a couple hundredths of a degree, rather than the 0.27°C observed in 2023. 

Of course, continuing to strengthen public health-based standards to cut harmful air pollution from burning fossil fuels, including sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, is essential and lifesaving. Further scientific work is underway to help advance our understanding of how and how much this contributes to changes in industrial aerosols and how that may be influencing the rate of warming. Meanwhile, sharply cutting our use of fossil fuels is the best way to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary driver of climate change.  

Diminishing cloud cover due to warming creates more warming 

A study released just last month, and another preprint of a study presented at AGU, provide a different explanation for the spike in global-mean temperature: clouds. In this case, the authors of both papers argue that a decrease in cloud cover led to the decrease in planetary albedo.  

Over the last few decades, there has been an observed decrease in total planetary cloud cover, especially over the North Atlantic Ocean off the Northeast US coast. Here, low-level cloud cover has decreased drastically, mostly related to an increase in ocean surface temperature.  

The decrease in low-level cloud cover due to warming ocean surfaces is particularly alarming because the process could be the manifestation of a feedback associated with global warming: as the oceans warm, low-level cloud cover decreases, which results in a lower planetary albedo and thus a faster warming world. 

Ocean surface temperatures in the North Atlantic could also be warming so much due to a weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which I blogged about in November. While ocean surface temperatures are increasing globally due to fossil fuel-caused climate change, they are warming even faster off the US Northeast coast, which could be the result of the AMOC slowing down and pooling warm water in the region. 

Important questions are still being sorted out 

Climate scientists are still trying to figure out what exactly made 2023 and 2024 so warm. We discussed some potential reasons that could explain the spike in warming, but the details haven’t been ironed out quite yet. 

What’s interesting is that the sudden warming could also be due to a combination of the two theories.

Did you know that in order for water droplets to form in the atmosphere to create clouds, they need a tiny particle to condense onto? These tiny particles are called cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), and one type of CCN is industrial aerosols such as sulfates. After the IMO lowered sulfur in shipping fuel oil, less sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere could have resulted in less CCN available for cloud droplets to form, resulting in a lower planetary albedo. 

To perhaps add another layer to everything, during my PhD research, I studied how different patterns of ocean surface temperature affect the rate of global warming. For example, if the West Pacific warms more than the rest of the world, then the planet will actually warm at a slower rate than if that warming was distributed evenly across the ocean’s surface. 

We found that the most likely ocean surface pattern of warming in the near future, which is currently developing, will result in a rapidly warming planet. This could very well be a piece of the puzzle as to why 2023 and 2024 were so warm. 

Scientists continue to sound the alarm 

The additional warming in 2023 and 2024 adds a layer of complexity to fossil fuel-caused climate change (and not the kind of complexity we want, given that the planet seems to be warming more rapidly than before). These two ideas from the science community are still being ironed out, and it will take some more time to understand exactly what caused this spike in global-mean temperature. 

One thing is for sure though: the planet is warming mainly due to increased heat-trapping emissions in Earth’s atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. The only way to slow down warming is by reducing said emissions through a fast and fair transition to clean, renewable energy.