Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming

Bit by bit, President Trump has been chopping away at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) downsizing it through cuts to the agency’s staff, programs and mission. Reports last week revealed a daunting threat from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Noem, who announced in a cabinet meeting: “We’re going to eliminate FEMA.”

Neither Secretary Noem nor President Trump has the legal authority to abolish FEMA—that power lies with Congress. Furthermore, dismantling or eliminating FEMA will endanger millions of people who rely on the agency to help prepare for and recover from disasters.

In fact, legislators from both parties signaled the need for FEMA by introducing legislation to transform it into a stand-alone, cabinet level agency as it once was before the Department of Homeland Security was formed. Republican Representative Byron Donalds and Democrat Representative Jared Moskowitz, both of Florida, introduced the bill on March 24, 2025.

Days before the DHS Secretary’s statement, on March 19, the president signed an executive order (EO) titled “Achieving Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness.” This action follows his earlier EO in January establishing a FEMA review council. While sparse on details, this new order prompts a major change in federal policy.

While details are scarce in the EO, there are two clear themes that emerge: shifting the burden of disaster response from the federal government to state and local government—even for major disasters that overwhelm states’ capacities—and using frames like “streamlining” and “efficiency” which this administration is already disingenuously using to decimate agency staffing and budgets to the point that they cannot fulfill their missions. Both of these will create significant risk and harm for communities in the path of and reeling from disasters.

Below I provide a summary of the EO including the new policy, initiatives and updates to current federal policies and the takeaways for each.

1. Shifting the national resilience and preparedness burden to state and local governments

The most significant piece of policy in the executive order seems to simply put in writing what he has been saying he wants all along: to shift more responsibility for disaster resilience, preparedness and response onto the shoulders of state, local, tribal, territorial governments.

If it comes to pass, disaster response and recovery will be more chaotic and ineffective, endangering more lives—especially the elderly, youth, those who have disabilities and others with fewer resources to prepare or evacuate. States, even larger states, don’t have the resources to handle catastrophic disasters. In those cases, governors will ask for a presidentially declared disaster.

Key takeaway: What will change for states?

Effective and well-resourced emergency preparedness and disaster response can mean the difference between life and death. Given that, the lack of details in the executive order (and fact sheet) is baffling, particularly considering the planning, time and level of funding that is needed for disaster preparedness and resilience. States will be unprepared to respond to major disasters on their own. That’s particularly dangerous during the summer months (May-October) when the risks of extreme heat, hurricanes, wildfires and floods tend to peak and collide—a time UCS calls “Danger Season.”

What level of coordinating capabilities, boots on the ground, financial resources and technical expertise can these state and local jurisdictions expect from FEMA when a major disaster is declared? This NPR article speaks to what will be at stake if FEMA is taken out of the equation:

“Without FEMA, states would need to find thousands of additional personnel to inspect damage, distribute disaster aid and plan the rebuilding of public infrastructure. Without federal funding, states would face billions of dollars in recovery costs. After Hurricane Irma in 2017, Florida relied on more than $5.5 billion dollars from the federal government.”

Of course, FEMA also helps with preparedness, as the article points out. And while there is a lot more that Congress and this administration could do to incentivize more emergency readiness by state, local, tribal and territorial governments, this administration hasn’t shown it understands the concept of reducing risk.

2. Develop a national resilience strategy

Section 3 of the executive order calls for a national resilience strategy to be developed within 90 days of the order. Specifically, it calls for the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Michael Waltz, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Kevin Hassett, to develop “a national resilience strategy that articulates the priorities, means, and ways to advance the resilience of the Nation.”

Key takeaway:  While a national resilience strategy sounds great under any other administration, I am extremely wary of what such a strategy could mean for Trump 2.0. Furthermore, this strategy already exists! In January 2025 the Biden administration released a National Resilience Strategy which was one of the many pieces of climate change resilience-related initiatives the Trump administration revoked. It’s hard to imagine a national resilience strategy that doesn’t address the climate crisis front and center.

A recent Forbes article underscores how climate change has ripple effects throughout the economy and is forcing how and where people live, shaking up real estate and insurance markets, and wreaking havoc on local governments and challenging their ability to provide basic services. And those who are hurt first and worst by climate change-related impacts are often those who live in the riskiest areas with the least resources. This is where and why decision-makers include an equity lens in any kind of disaster assistance, adaptation or resilience strategy.

My colleague Melissa Finucane explains that “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.”

It’s hard to imagine a valuable national resilience strategy being developed within a three-month timeframe. Based on what we’ve seen so far, one thing is for sure: we can expect the Trump administration’s national resilience strategy to be radically different from the Biden administration’s plan. It will also likely be in stark contrast to how climate scientists, policy and planning experts, emergency and floodplain managers understand resilience and how such strategies should be developed and informed by the latest science and public input, prioritizing the needs of communities that have the fewest resources.

3. Review and revise national critical infrastructure policies

Section 3(b) directs the President’s National Security Affairs Assistant, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and heads of relevant agencies, to review all critical infrastructure policies within 180 days and recommend “revisions, recissions, and replacements necessary to achieve a more resilient posture; shift from an all-hazards approach to a risk-informed approach; move beyond information sharing to action; and implement the National Resilience Strategy…”

Key takeaway:  Important policies that could be revised include the National Security Memorandum 22 “NSM-22” of April 30, 2024 (Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience) which replaced Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21). What I am particularly concerned about is what this administration might do to NSM-22, which was updated after a decade to address new complex threats, and while it has not been revoked, it has been taken down from the White House website. The modernized policy builds on PPD-21 and strengthens it by: 1) encouraging the private sector to comply with minimum resilience standards; 2) adding key new developments such as transitioning energy and transportation sectors away from fossil fuels; and 3) includes emerging threats such as climate change and supply chain disruptions.

Given the fact that this president has dismantled many federal advisory councils, I hope the administration will maintain and include the National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) in this process, as it has been very productive in producing “30 in-depth studies” with many important recommendations—including this related one that the nation must “Better prepare and respond to disruptions (like Superstorm Sandy) that can ripple across multiple infrastructure systems and paralyze services to entire regions.”

I will keep an eye out for how the administration will implement the “shift from an all-hazards approach to a risk informed approach” as the language leaves emergency manager-types scratching their heads. The NSM-22 updates the term all hazards “as all threats, all hazards” and defines this term as “a threat or an incident, natural or manmade, that warrants action to protect life, property, the environment, and public health or safety, and to minimize disruptions of Government, social, or economic activities. It includes, but is not limited to: natural disasters, cyber incidents, industrial accidents, pandemics, acts of terrorism, sabotage, supply chain disruptions to degrade critical infrastructure, and disruptive or destructive activity targeting critical infrastructure.”

A risk informed approach is one that evaluates all potential threats and hazards, identifies exposure and vulnerability. So could this be the administration’s “streamlined” and “efficiency” approach to removing any climate change-related risk such as sea level rise? Or, is instead a throwback to a time prior to the PPD-21’s “all-hazards” risk approach to one that is more focused on the risk of counterterrorism and infrastructure assets?

4. “Streamlines” the national continuity policy

Section 3(c) of the executive order calls for a review of all national continuity policies and recommendations to the president from this review within 180 days of this order. Specifically, it states that the President’s National Security Affairs Assistant, in coordination with the heads of relevant agencies, “shall review all national continuity policies and recommend to the President the revisions, recissions, and replacements necessary to modernize and streamline the approach to national continuity capabilities, reformulate the methodology and architecture necessary to achieve an enduring readiness posture, and implement the National Resilience Strategy described in subsection (a) of this section.”

Key takeaway: Continuity policies are just what they sound like, they provide a coordinated approach in the case of an emergency whether a natural hazard, or other type of disaster. Each of these different pieces of policies tie into each other and highlights that the administration could indeed be dismantling FEMA policy by policy, in this case by FEMA’s continuity policy and toolkit which helps ensure FEMA’s essential functions continue in the case of emergencies but also helps communities understand how to maintain their functionality.

I’m concerned that a so-called “streamlined” approach to continuity policies could mean some critical pieces of budgets could be cut and interagency projects and initiatives won’t be supported, all of which will make communities less resilient.

5. Review and revise preparedness and response policies

Section 3(d) of the executive order calls on the President’s National Security Affairs Assistant and other relevant agencies’ heads to review national preparedness and response policies and recommend revisions, recissions, and replacements necessary to the President to “reformulate the process and metrics for Federal responsibility, move away from an all-hazards approach,” and implement the National Resilience Strategy within 240 days of the order.

Key takeaway: Instead of building on the many years of plans and guidance on preparedness, this administration is underscoring the desire to downsize the federal responsibility and ensure this “reformulation” is reflected in the new national resilience strategy. In under eight months or sooner, the Trump administration will have developed new policies and metrics on what the federal role is in national preparedness and response and what this will look like for states and other jurisdictions.

If the administration takes a hatchet to the current policies, we’ll likely see changes in policies and guides such as the National Disaster Recovery Framework that outlines five main areas including federal support to states and local jurisdictions and emphasizes the need for resilient and sustainable recovery planning and the National Response Framework which helps communities, citizens, business, and others to build response plans. We will also have a better idea about what moving away from an “all-hazards approach” will look like —which doesn’t sound good no matter how you slice it.

6. Develop a national risk register

Section 3 (e) of the executive order calls for a national risk register to be developed within 240 days of this order. Specifically, the order charges the President’s National Security Affairs Assistant, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the heads of relevant agencies, to coordinate the development of a national risk register “that identifies, articulates, and quantifies natural and malign risks to our national infrastructure, related systems, and their users. The quantification produced by the National Risk Register shall be used to inform the Intelligence Community, private sector investments, State investments, and Federal budget priorities.”

Key takeaway: To my knowledge, a national risk register does not exist, however the NSM-22 establishes a coordinated approach to federal risk management for critical infrastructure, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has a national risk management center and FEMA developed a National Risk Index (NRI) which, while it has its flaws, is a tool for communities to see the level of risk for 18 hazards and overlays of social vulnerability, community resilience and expected annual loss. FEMA also had a climate change risk tool as well called the Future Risk Index that FEMA under the Trump administration (of course) removed, but fortunately scientists recovered and is available for free on GitHub.

The bottom line is, if the Trump administration does not account for climate change within the new risk register, it’ll fail to do its job to quantify the risks to the nation’s infrastructure and will cause a moral hazard.

7. “Streamlines” preparedness and continuity organizational structure

Section 3(f) calls on the Secretary of Homeland Security to “streamline” the federal governments’ current national preparedness and continuity organizational structure that spreads across five major functions within one year “to ensure State and local governments and individuals have improved communications with Federal officials and a better understanding of the Federal role.” The functions include: 1) the National Essential Functions, 2) Primary Mission Essential Functions, 3) National Critical Functions, 4) Emergency Support Functions, 5) Recovery Support Functions, and 6) Community Lifelines.”

Key takeaway: Each of these functional categories plays a role in FEMA’s mission.  Similar to changes in the related policies above, a simplified and streamlined version would do a disservice to FEMA’s ability to fulfill its mission. Agency staff know what to do, so it would take time and resources away from other efforts to train the federal family in learning and implementing a new organizational structure in time for hurricane season. 

What’s next?

UCS will closely watch the outcomes of this executive order and this administration’s continued attacks on FEMA because it’s crucial that communities are protected and not sacrificed in the name of harmful and disingenuous efforts purported to advance “efficiency” and “streamline” the federal government’s response to disasters.

We’ll have to wait to have many questions answered as much of the implementation of the EO will be reviewed, written and decided behind closed doors. In the interim, the FEMA Review Council just released a request for information to the public to provide comments on improvements to, and overall experience with FEMA during disasters, which are due May 15, 2025. This is a critical opportunity for the public  to weigh in on how important FEMA is in coordinating a “whole-of-government response in the period immediately after a disaster” – as two former FEMA administrators wrote.

Genuine reforms to FEMA should be informed by science, expertise, and the experiences of disaster survivors. Instead, this administration seems hell-bent on a cruel campaign of decimating an agency that millions of people rely on to stay safe and get back on their feet after floods, fires, hurricanes and more.

Given the actions planned to continue to downsize FEMA, including reducing staff even further, streamlining the mission and staff roles and the geographic footprint of the 10 FEMA regional offices, we need bipartisan defense of the agency. This should be a clarion call for lawmakers to keep communities safe by preserving resources meant for FEMA and making science-informed and evidence-based changes to the agency.

Growl. Sigh. Rinse. Repeat.

Yet another resource that belongs to us, the US public, has disappeared down the Trump administration’s memory hole. I just learned from the valiant Environmental Data and Government Initiative that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has removed the 2024 Climate Literacy Guide from its website (though a data savior has preserved it here). Now, no one can access a fundamental federal resource that helps the public understand climate change via its proper home at https://www.climate.gov/.

Who needs the Climate Literacy Guide? Trump’s Signal crew, that’s who

Anyone who wishes to understand what’s happening to our world—why we keep stacking hottest year on hottest year, why wildfires are so intense, why some hurricanes strengthen so rapidly—can learn from the Climate Literacy Guide.

But some key national security officials could use a new Signal chat, this time discussing the literacy guide to better understand essential principles of climate change science, impacts, and solutions. Bonus: None of this information is classified! And if an accidental invitation is available, I’d love to join officials who notably do use Signal:

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has just ordered the “elimination of climate defense planning,” scrapping years of Pentagon policy that identified climate as a major and mounting threat to national security.

Vice President JD Vance, who does not acknowledge human-caused climate change.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who again can’t quite figure out where he’s supposed to be in the (climate) conversation.

Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard, who apparently okayed the omission of climate change from the US intelligence community’s annual threat assessment report for the first time in 11 years.

Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller, who during the previous Trump administration wasn’t “interested in climate change” even after an internal report showed it was a driver of migration to the US (along with driving enormous human suffering). At the moment, Miller “is more powerful [on immigration] than ever.”

No one seems to understand why Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was included in the Yemen military attack Signal chat, so I propose swapping him out for Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who promised in his confirmation hearing that he would not dismantle NOAA.

Literacy versus lies

It so happened that NOAA disappeared the guide while I’m at the Climate Information Integrity Summit in Brasília, Brazil. The summit, organized by members of the Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) coalition, was a next step in the Brazilian government’s work with the UN and other member states to further progress on the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change.

More than 120 key actors from governments, multilateral organizations, and local and international non-profit organizations discussed concrete steps towards safeguarding the integrity of climate information in the lead-up to the next round of international climate negotiations, COP30.

CAAD members (including UCS) clearly see that climate disinformation undermines elections, renewable energy, science, and human rights. That’s why other nations are already taking action to limit the harm disinformation can do, whether the lies for profit come from fossil fuel companies, agribusiness, and Big Tech companies that run social media platforms or search engines. Climate denial and deception in turn lead to a delay in climate action that we simply cannot afford.

Climate literacy is fundamental to climate information integrity. A public armed with that science, plus an understanding of the disinformation playbook that corporate actors keep on running, is a key pillar of defense against the corporations who profit as people suffer.

No wonder the Trump administration, intent on enacting the fossil fuel agenda, doesn’t want us to know and understand what they’re doing to our climate. Authoritarians prefer an uncritical public that lives in ignorance. Heads up—we’re paying attention and we know.

In December 2024, state and local governments across the nation were allocated disaster recovery funds to help address the impact of extreme weather on affordable housing, local economies, and public infrastructure.

These funds, known as Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) flow through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and have the extraordinary potential to re-shape communities for the better. Unfortunately, the Trump administration is already undermining this valuable investment program.   

Influencing recovery

Positive recovery outcomes aren’t guaranteed, especially given the growing politicization of disaster recovery.  One counter to that politicization, which can delay or divert funds from reaching the most impacted communities, is robust local attention to recovery programs from design to implementation. A recent memo from the Trump administration both clarified points of confusion and rescinded previous guidance to state and local governments that was influenced by years of advocacy from disaster survivors.  

Right now, state and local governments, referred to as grantees, are in the process of submitting draft recovery plans to the federal government for initial approval.  I’ve previously written about principles these plans should embody. Once plans are approved by HUD, state and local governments must hold a public comment period. The exact dates of public comment will vary by each grantee, but this is a crucial opportunity in the disaster recovery process to shape programs and build community with other disaster survivors.  

We’ve compiled a spreadsheet that lists the amounts allocated to each grantee and links either to the initial plan for spending CDBG-DR funds or to the grantee website for disaster recovery. Most of the public comment periods are still open and last week’s memo floated the possibility of an extension of the current timeline.  

We encourage residents in impacted communities to engage in the public comment process to shape recovery plans and demonstrate the urgency of advancing resilience. Once public comment periods have closed, feedback is considered for incorporation for a final plan that is submitted to HUD for approval before programs are stood up and long-awaited funds begin to flow. Recent executive orders—and the agency’s insistence that state and local governments abide by them—are complicating an already complex process.

Disaster recovery and executive orders

A week before the memo that rescinded Biden-era guidance to grantees, HUD Secretary Scott Turner rejected the City of Asheville’s initial plan for spending Hurricane Helene recovery dollars on the grounds that the plan’s mention of supporting minority and women-owned businesses in economic recovery efforts contradicted President Trump’s executive order on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Asheville, which has a 15-million-dollar revenue shortfall after Helene, has since amended its plan.

Cities and states trying to help residents and local economies recover shouldn’t have to spend precious time balancing recovery needs against legally spurious executive orders to access critical funds.  As plans are submitted, we’re tracking both how they address housing and infrastructure needs and the potential for politically motivated interference in the recovery programs.   

In addition to the anti-DEI executive order, HUD is also requiring compliance with the executive order on English as the Official Language of the United States. Depending on how state and local governments choose to interpret this guidance—recovery may be placed further out of reach for non-English speakers.  Ignoring equity in disaster recovery is costly and deadly. 

It’s important to remember that many of the Trump administration’s executive orders conflict with federal law and the constitution. The prevailing wisdom of the courts, and the reason for this administration’s rebukes by the judiciary, is that federal laws passed by Congress and approved by the executive branch supersede executive orders.  

These recovery funds are allocated for six years, survivors engaging with the CDBG-DR process should keep in mind that disaster recovery is a long process.  Survivors from places as different as Texas, New Jersey, and Hawaii have demonstrated the power of residents to shape state, local and national recovery processes.  

As authoritarianism ramps up, we should expect that everything from formal processes like public comment on disaster to recovery to direct action to come with risk. But as anyone on the climate frontlines can tell you, storms and fires are continuing no matter the political whims—a fact that makes getting recovery and mitigation right even more important.

On February 27, 2025, over 1,000 employees at the National Weather Service (NWS) were illegally fired by the Trump Administration under the premise of “making the government more efficient,” even though the agency was already severely understaffed. That same day, due to the job losses, weather balloons were suspended at the NWS Office in Kotzubue, AK. But it didn’t end there. On March 7, Albany, NY and Grey, ME announced partial suspension of their weather balloon launches. And just last week, on March 20, NWS offices in Omaha, NE and Rapid City, SD announced the suspension of their weather balloons. Six other NWS offices in states like Nebraska and Wisconsin revealed a reduction in weather balloon launching capacity that same day. 

This might not sound like such a big deal, but as we’re gearing up for tornado season, which peaks between April and June, taking weather balloons offline in the Heartland of the United States, also known as Tornado Alley, will directly affect the NWS’s ability to predict severe weather, including tornado-producing thunderstorms. This could lead to more severe weather-related deaths that could have otherwise been avoided. 

The current coverage of weather balloon launches in the United States (not including one in Puerto Rico and other launch locations in the Pacific Ocean). The orange dots denote NWS Offices with less balloon launch capacity (one per day instead of two), and the red dots denote NWS offices with balloon launch suspensions. Figure used with permission from the creator, Chris Vagasky (@coweatherman.bsky.social).  Why do weather balloon observations matter? 

Weather balloons are a critical piece of the NWS’s observations infrastructure and have been for nearly a century. They carry radiosondes, instrument packages that report back temperature, pressure, wind, relative humidity, and GPS data to NWS offices, giving us a three-dimensional view of the atmosphere. In the United States, there are 92 NWS locations that release weather balloons, providing data to the NWS and their weather forecasting models. 

Weather models use data collected by weather balloons 

But why do we care about what’s going on in the upper atmosphere? Well, first of all, this data is invaluable for our weather forecasting models. As you may know, meteorologists use weather models to help predict what will happen to the atmosphere in the future. Models anticipate things like winter storms, severe weather outbreaks, flood-inducing rains, or conditions favorable for wildfire development. 

For a weather model to predict the future, it needs an accurate representation of what’s currently going on in the upper atmosphere. By suspending weather balloon launches at multiple locations, we lose data for the weather model, leading to a decrease in its predictability that negatively affects daily forecasts and outlooks for extreme weather events. 

In fact, out of eight types of observations by the NWS (including airplanes and station observations), weather balloons are the second most important in improving prediction of weather models. They also only cost about $10 million per year to launch (assuming each balloon is $200), compared with the total cost of GOES-R satellite—another critical piece of the NOAA observations infrastructure—of $350 million per year. Weather balloon launches are so useful for the prediction of severe weather events that NWS offices often launch more than the usual 2 balloons per day to better inform modeling of a potential tornado outbreak. 

Knowing what’s going on in the upper atmosphere could save lives 

Weather models aside, if we know what’s going on in the upper atmosphere, it makes weather forecasting in general a lot easier in the short-term. What goes on in the upper atmosphere is reflected by weather conditions at the surface. 

Imagine you live in central Oklahoma and wake up one morning in mid-May. For the past several days, the NWS and their weather models have been predicting the possibility of a tornado outbreak to the east of where you live. However, observations retrieved by a weather balloon launch that morning revealed favorable conditions for a tornado outbreak to start where you live, rather than to the east of you.  

Immediately, the NWS issues a tornado watch for your area, and you and your neighbors prepare for a potential tornado later that day. So, yes, the models were slightly wrong, but at least the NWS was able to provide some prep-time given the observations collected by the weather balloon that morning. If the NWS didn’t release a weather balloon, they may have missed the impending tornado outbreak, and you and your neighbors would have been caught completely off guard. 

Ok, it sounds like I’m exaggerating, right? Actually, not at all. On October 3, 1979, a devastating F4 tornado struck Windsor Locks, CT with no warning. According to a study in 1987, the lack of warning was determined to be due to a lack of upper atmospheric data (no nearby, timely weather balloon launches), which led to an underestimation of the strength of the thunderstorm that produced the tornado.  

Three people lost their lives in that tornado. It’s not science fiction to say that more people could lose their lives in the future given a lack of observation of the upper atmosphere. Because of this, and especially as we head into peak tornado season, it is critical for the NWS to remain fully staffed and fully funded. American lives are on the line.

Neither Lee Zeldin, nor Elon Musk, nor President Trump could possibly look Brian Kelly in the eye to tell him to his face that he is lazy.

They cannot tell Kayla Butler she is crooked.

They dare not accuse Luis Antonio Flores or Colin Kramer of lollygagging on the golf course. 

If Zeldin, Musk, or Trump knew a scintilla about them, they would dare not froth at the mouth with their toxic stereotypes about federal civil servants. All four work in Region 5 of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), responsible for pollution monitoring, cleanups, community engagement, and emergency hazardous waste response for Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

The Midwest is historically so saturated with manufacturing that just those six states generated a quarter of the nation’s hazardous waste back in the 1970s, and it is still today home to a quarter of the nation’s facilities reporting to the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory Program. When I recently visited Region 5’s main office in Chicago, one enforcement officer, who did not give her name because of the sensitivity of her job, told me there are still toxic sites where “we show up [and] neither the state nor the EPA has ever been [there] to check.”

With irony, I visited the office the same week the Trump administration and Zeldin, President Trump’s new EPA administrator, announced they planned to cut 65% of the agency’s budget. Zeldin has since then dropped even more bombshells in a brazen attempt to gut the nation’s first line of defense against the poisoning of people, the polluting of the environment, and the proliferation of global warming gases.

Zeldin announced on March 12th more than 30 actions he plans to undertake to weaken or cripple air, water, wastewater, and chemical standards, including eliminating the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights and getting the EPA out of the business of curbing the carbon dioxide and methane gases fueling global warming. Despite record production that has the United States atop the world for oil, Zeldin said he was throttling down on regulations because they are “throttling the oil and gas industry.”

Last week, the New York Times reported the EPA is considering firing half to three-quarters of its scientists (770 to 1,155 out of 1,540) and closing the Office of Research and Development, the agency’s scientific research office. Zeldin justifies this in part by deriding many EPA programs as “left-wing ideological projects.” He violently brags that he is “driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.”  

Impact of cuts at EPA felt deeply, broadly

Kelly, Butler, Flores, Kramer, and many others I talked with in Region 5 said all these plans are actually a bayonet ripping out the heart and soul of their mission. They all spoke to me on the condition that they were talking as members of their union, Local 704 of the American Federation of Government Employees. Nicole Cantello, union president and an EPA attorney, said the attacks on her members are unlike anything she’s seen in her more than 30 years with the agency. As much as prior conservative administrations may have criticized the agency, there’s never been one—until now—that tried to “fire everybody.”

Flores, a chemist who analyzes air, water, and soil samples for everything from lead to PCBs, said a decimated EPA means less scrutiny for another Flint water crisis, less eyeballs on Superfund sites, and limited ability to investigate toxic contamination after train derailments, such as the incident two years ago in East Palestine, Ohio. He added, “And we have a Great Lakes research vessel that tests the water across all the lakes. It’s important for drinking water, tourism, and fishing. If we get crippled, all that goes into question.”

Butler is a community involvement coordinator who works through Superfund legislation to inform communities about remediation efforts. She was deeply concerned that urban neighborhoods and rural communities will be denied the scientific resources to tell the full story of environmental injustice. Superfund sites, the legacy of toxic chemicals used in manufacturing, military operations, mining and landfills, are so poisonous, they can have cumulative, compound effects on affected communities, triggering many diseases. A 2023 EPA Inspector General report said the agency needed stronger policies, guidance, and performance measures to “assess and address cumulative impacts and disproportionate health effects on overburdened communities.”

Butler is deeply concerned cumulative impact assessments will not happen with cuts to the EPA, denying urban neighborhoods and rural communities the scientific resources to fully expose the horror of environmental injustice. “It’s a clear story that they’re trying to erase.” Butler said of the new administration.

For Kelly, an on-site emergency coordinator based out of Michigan, the rollbacks and the erasing of the story of environmental harms have an obvious conclusion. “People will die,” he said. “There will be additional deaths if we roll back these protections.”

What these workers also fear is the slow death of spirit amongst themselves to be civil servants.

Start with Kelly.

I actually talked to him from Chicago by telephone because he was out in Los Angeles County, deployed to assist with the cleanup of the devastating Eaton Fire that killed 17 people and destroyed more than 9,400 structures.

Between the Eaton Fire and the Palisades Fire, which took another 12 lives and destroyed another 6,800 buildings, the EPA conducted what it said was the largest wildfire hazardous materials cleanup in the history of the agency, and likely the most voluminous lithium battery removal in world history—primarily from the electric and hybrid vehicles and home battery storage people were forced to leave behind as they fled.

During a break, Kelly talked about how nimble he and his colleagues must be. He has worked cleanups of monster storms Katrina, Sandy, and Maria, and the East Palestine trail derailment. Based normally out of Michigan, he recalled a day he was working in the Upper Peninsula on a cleanup of an old abandoned mine processing site. He received a call from a state environmental emergency official asking him to drop what he was doing because 20 minutes away a gasoline tanker truck had flipped over, spilling about 6,000 gallons of gasoline onto the roads and down through the storm sewer into local waterways.

When he arrived, Kelly asked the fire chief how he could help. He was asked to set up air monitoring. But then he noticed anxious contractors who were wondering if they were going to get paid for their work. “They’re ordering supplies, they’re putting dirt down to contain this gasoline from getting any further,” Kelly said. “But they’re like, ‘Are we going to get paid for this?’”

“I found the truck driver who was talking to their insurance company. So I get on the phone with the insurance company and say, ‘Hey. This is who I am. This is what’s happening here. You need to come to terms and conditions with these contractors right now or EPA’s going to have to start taking this cleanup over!’”

The insurance was covered. Kelly said he could not have been so assertive with the insurance company without a robust EPA behind him.

“It’s one thing to be able go out and respond to these emergencies, but you have to have attorneys on your side,” Kelly said. “You’ve got to have enforcement specialists behind you. You’ve got to have people who are experts in drinking water and air. You can’t just have one person out there on an island by themselves.”

“Cruel for the sake of being cruel”

Butler wonders if whole communities will become remote islands, surrounded by rising tides of pollution. The very morning of our interview, she was informed she was one of the thousands of federal workers across the nation who had their government purchase cards frozen by Elon Musk, the world’s richest human and President Trump’s destroyer of federal agencies. In launching the freeze, Musk claimed with no evidence, “A lot of shady expenditures happening.”

Butler threw shade on that, saying the purchase system is virtually foolproof with multiple layers of vetting and proof of purchase. She uses her purchase card to buy ads and place public notices in newspapers to keep communities informed about remediation of Superfund sites.

She has also used her card to piece together equipment to fit in a van for a mobile air monitor. The monitor assists with compliance, enforcement, and giving communities a read on possible toxic emissions and dust from nearby industrial operations.

“I literally bought the nuts and bolts that feed into this van that allow the scientists to measure all the chemicals, all the air pollution,” Butler said. “I remember seeing the van for the first time after I bought so many things for years. And I was like ‘Wow this is real!’”

Not only was the van real, but air monitoring in general, along with soil monitoring— particularly in places like heavily polluted Southeast Chicago—has been a critical tool of environmental justice to get rid of mountains of petcoke dust and detect neurotoxic manganese dust in the air and lead in backyards.

“Air monitoring created so much momentum for the community and community members to say, ‘this is what we need,’” Butler said.

Kramer is a chemist in quality assurance, working with project planners to devise the most accurate ways of testing for toxic materials, such as for cleanups of sites covered in PFAS—aka ‘forever chemicals’—from fire retardants, or at old industrial sites saturated with PCBs from churning out electrical equipment, insulation, paints, plastics, or adhesives. His job is mostly behind the scenes, but he understood the meaning of his work from one visit to a site to audit the procedures of the Illinois EPA.

The site had a small local museum dedicated to the Native tribes that first occupied the land. “The curator or director told us how the sampling work was going to bring native insects back to the area and different wildlife back to the streams,” Kramer said. “It was kind of a quick offhand conversation, but it gave me a quick snapshot of the work that’s being done.”

Kramer wonders how many more scientists will follow in his footsteps to see that the work keeps getting done. He remembered a painful day recently when a directive came down that he could not talk to contractors, even those who happen to work in the same building as he does.

“I see them every day,” Kramer said. “They come say hi to me. They know my child’s name. Being told that I couldn’t respond if they came to my desk, looked me in the face, and said, ‘good morning,’ is just such an unnecessary wrench into our system that just feels cruel for the sake of being cruel.”

Staff stifled, heartbroken

The culture of fear is particularly stifling for one staffer who did not want to give her name because she is a liaison to elected officials. Before Zeldin took over, she would get an email from an elected official asking if funding for a project was still on track and “30 seconds later,” as she said, the question would be answered.

Her job “is all about relationships,” keeping officials informed about projects. Now, she said just about everything she depends on to do her job has basically come to a halt. “Everyone’s afraid to say anything, answer emails, put anything in writing without getting approval. Just mass chaos all the way to the top.”

Relationships are being upset left and right according to other staffers. One set of my interviews was with three EPA community health workers who feel they are betraying the communities they serve because their contact with them has fluctuated in the first months of the Trump administration. They’ve had to shift from silence to delicately dancing around any conversation that mentions environmental justice or diversity, equity, and inclusion.

They did not want to be named because they did not want to jeopardize the opportunity to still find ways to serve communities historically dumped on with toxic pollution for decades because of racism and classism.

“Literally since January 20, my entire division has been on edge,” said one of the three. “We kind of feel like we’re in the hot seat. A lot of people working on climate are afraid. If you’re working with [people with] lower to moderate income or [places] more populated by people of color, you’re afraid because you don’t want to send off any flags to the administration.”

The tiptoeing is heartbreaking to them because they see firsthand the poisoning of families from chemicals the EPA has regulated. One of the health workers has painful memories of seeing the “devastated” look on mothers’ faces when giving them the results of child lead tests that were well above the hazardous limit. “I feel like I made a promise to them that I would be there for what they needed,” she said. “And I feel like I’ve been forced to go back on that promise.”

Remembering their mission boosts morale

Despite that, and despite President Trump’s baseless ranting, which included saying during the campaign that “crooked” and “dishonest” federal workers were “destroying this country,” these EPA staffers are far from caving in. Nationally, current and former EPA staff last week published an open letter to the nation that said, “We cannot stand by and allow” the assault on environmental justice programs.

Locally in Region 5, the workers’ union has been trying to keep morale from tanking with town halls, trivia nights, lunch learning sessions, and happy hours. In a day of quiet defiance, many of the 1,000 staffers wore stickers in support of the probationary employees that said, “Don’t Fire New Hires.” Several of the people I interviewed said that if Zeldin and the Trump administration really cared about waste and inefficiency, they would not try to fire tens of thousands of probationary workers across the federal system. 

One of them noted how the onboarding process, just to begin her probationary year, took five months. “It wastes all this money onboarding them and then eliminating them,” she said. “That’s totally abusing taxpayer dollars if you ask me. It’s hard enough to get people to work here. We’re powered by smart people who went to school for a long time and could make a lot of money elsewhere.” Federal staffers with advanced degrees make 29% less, on average, than counterparts in the private sector, according to a report last year from the Congressional Budget Office.

Individually, several said they maintained their morale by remembering why they came to the EPA in the first place. Flores, whose public service was embedded into him growing up in a military family, said, “I didn’t want to make the next shampoo,” with his chemistry degrees. “I didn’t want to make a better adhesive for a box…the tangible mission of human health and environmental health is very important me.”

The enforcement officer who wanted to remain anonymous talked about a case where she worked with the state to monitor lead in a fenceline community near a toxic industry. Several children were discovered to have elevated levels of lead in their blood.

“People’ lives are in my hands,” she said. “When we realized how dire the circumstance was, we were able to really speed up our process by working with the company, working with the state and getting a settlement done quick. And now all those fixes are in place. The lead monitoring has returned back to safe levels, and we know that there aren’t going to be any more kids impacted by this facility.”

One of the community health workers I interviewed said her mission means so much to her because at nine years old she lost her mother to breast cancer after exposure to the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE). That carcinogen is used in home, furniture, and automotive cleaning products. The Biden administration banned TCE in its final weeks, but the Trump administration has delayed implementation.

“The loss of her rippled throughout our community,” the worker said of her mother. “She was active in our church, teaching immigrants in our city how to read. The loss of her had such a large impact.” She said if the EPA were gutted, so many people like her mother would be lost too soon. “We play critical roles beyond just laws and regulations,” she said. “We do serve vital functions for communities based on where the need is the most.”

The same worker worried that if an agency as critical to community health as the EPA can be slashed to a shell of itself, there is no telling what is in store next for the nation. “I know people don’t have a lot of sympathy for bureaucrats,” she said. “But I think what is happening to us is a precursor to what happens to the rest of the country. We’re supposed to be this nonpartisan force that’s working for the American people, and attacks to that is a direct attack on the American people.”

One of her co-workers seconded her by saying, “We’re fighting for the American people and we are the American people. We all began this job for a reason. We all have our ‘why.’ And that hasn’t changed just because the administration has changed, because there’s some backlash or people coming after us. Just grounding yourself with people whose ‘why’ is the same as yours helps a lot.” 

In the March 19th verdict in Energy Transfer v Greenpeace, a North Dakota county jury awarded more than $660 million to “one of the largest… energy companies in North America” because Greenpeace supported the efforts of Indigenous Water Protectors in their protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline.  

This verdict is an outrage because it undermines Tribal leadership and sovereignty. As Natali Segovia, of the Water Protector Legal Collective, said in the New York Times: “At its core, it’s a proxy war against Indigenous sovereignty using an international environmental organization.”  

This verdict is an outrage because it threatens First Amendment rights, including the right to free speech. 

This verdict is an outrage because it rewards a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), an egregious tactic of silencing and intimidation outlawed in 33 states but not in North Dakota.  

It’s an outrage that jurors’ conflicts of interest did not disqualify them from service in this trial. It’s a further outrage that one of Energy Transfer’s examples of defamation was Greenpeace’s statement that the Dakota Access Pipeline leaked. The court would not allow an expert witness to testify that the pipeline did, in fact, leak. 

Even if Greenpeace wins its appeal, the fact that this suit was allowed to proceed at all is an outrage. This verdict is yet another example of the fossil fuel industry’s agenda being enacted by multiple levels and branches of government. This is more than an outrage. It is a crime that will harm all people and species for generations to come.  

We must stand together to overturn this unjust and outrageous verdict. Here at the Union of Concerned Scientists, we’re resisting through Protect the Protest anti-SLAPP taskforce—and by organizing a climate accountability campaign targeting the fossil fuel industry. 

I’m imagining a few headlines that might have appeared over the past century if social movements had been SLAPPed for successful campaigns against powerful adversaries. 

City of Montgomery Wins Bus Boycott Suit, Awarded Damages

What if you’d opened your newspaper in 1957, one year after the Montgomery Bus Boycott had ended and seen this headline. Would you have been outraged? 

In reality, the Montgomery Bus Boycott ended in triumph when the City of Montgomery ended racial segregation on its buses. It was coordinated by Dr. Martin Luther King and the Montgomery Improvement Association, with the involvement of key civil rights leaders from Ella Baker to Bayard Rustin. It lasted for 381 days and cost the city approximately $3,000 per day in 1956 dollars—more than $13 million today. 

If the city had successfully sued the boycott organizers, would there then have been a Southern Christian Leadership Conference? A Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee? A March on Washington where Dr. King would deliver the speech from which many of our public officials conveniently cherry-pick one quote and one quote only: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?”  

There might well not have been. And that would have been an outrage. 

Temperance Movement Owes US Lost Revenue, Enforcement Costs During Prohibition

How about this for a 1934 headline? The 1920 enactment of the 18th constitutional amendment banning the manufacture, sale, or transportation of alcohol followed years of activism and lobbying by the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, a powerful coalition that included the International Workers of the World and John D. Rockefeller, the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan. 

The Prohibition era lasted for 13 years. In today’s dollars the total cost to the US government in lost revenue alone would be approximately $222.7 billion. 

The consequences of Prohibition went far beyond the cost to federal coffers: among other ill effects, it yielded enormous benefits for organized crime. Do we think today that the broad coalition of Prohibition activists should be held liable for the federal government’s loss of revenue after it enacted their policy demands, or for the tremendous societal costs of strengthened crime syndicates? Or do we think that organizing according to our consciences and beliefs is a fundamental right we must continue to enjoy? 

Boeing Gets $2 Billion in Damages from Machinists Union After 2008 Strike

No, this didn’t happen. What did: the International Association of Machinists (IAM) struck airplane manufacturer Boeing for eight weeks in 2008, with $1.2 billion in net income lost ($1.48 billion today). 

The union struck Boeing again in 2024. Estimated costs for that 53-day action cost Boeing and its suppliers: $9.66 billion. 

These are considerable losses for Boeing and the aircraft industry. But the power to strike is the ultimate power of the labor movement. Yes, a prolonged strike costs union members dearly in lost wages and the risk of losing their jobs entirely, but it costs employers dearly too. It’s a game of chicken, and without the ability to strike, the union isn’t driving a car—it’s a pedestrian. 

So far, industrial actions such as those taken by the IAM are not subject to the increased power of business to sue for damages. But in an environment where business interests often outweigh the interests of workers, public health and safety, and in the case of climate change, future generations, it’s important to watch closely how juries and courts are thinking about these issues. Because a lot of their thinking is outrageous. 

Whose Selfish Agenda Again?

Energy Transfer’s lawyer told the court that Greenpeace had exploited the Dakota Access Pipeline to “promote its own selfish agenda.” I find it hard to contain my outrage. 

Greenpeace’s “agenda” is “to ensure the ability of Earth to nurture life in all its diversity.” This is a public-serving mission. Here I speak as one who knows: the Union of Concerned Scientists is a generous employer, but no one is getting into the top1% of wealth fighting the insatiable greed of the fossil fuel industry.  

Energy Transfer’s agenda is “to safely and reliably deliver the energy that makes our lives possible,” as long as that energy comes from transporting, refining, and ultimately burning the fossil fuels that are wreaking climate destruction now and far into the future. This is a profit-seeking mission. Fossil fuel moguls, from the Rockefellers to the Koch Brothers, have made themselves fabulously rich feeding, and feeding off, its insatiable greed.  

The confusion of public and private interests, of what’s good for a company versus what’s good for a sovereign Tribal nation, or for all inhabitants of our planet—I can’t find words. 

Apart from outrage. 

This week, as wildfires break out across Texas, life-saving alerts are being issued by the National Weather Service (NWS), informing evacuations ahead of the advancing threat. On the ground, firefighters are using National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites for wildfire monitoring in real time. This is just one of dozens of emergencies our first responders rely on NOAA and NWS data for on any given week. Simply put: NOAA and the NWS save lives and must be defended against the Trump administration’s ongoing assault.

We are witnessing the vanishing of our own US assets which taxpayers have funded and built over generations to serve the public good. We need those assets and will suffer in their absence. And we may be forced to pay the private sector to dole them back out to us, piecemeal. We need to call the theft, harm and grift what it is—and stop it. 

The theft

Since 1849, when the Smithsonian Institution began furnishing telegraph offices with weather instruments, meteorological data have been continuously and systematically collected in the United States. In 1870, Congress established within the US Army’s Signal Service the very 19th-century named Division of Telegrams and Reports for the Benefit of Commerce and tasked it with issuing weather forecasts and warnings.

Later, the service became a civilian agency when Congress transferred its meteorological responsibilities to the US Weather Bureau under the Department of Agriculture. Today, those duties are carried out by the National Weather Service (NWS), housed at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the Department of Commerce. And thanks to the progression of recognizing the value of investing in weather forecasts and warnings, the American people own the NWS, a public service that is paid for with your tax dollars. That investment totals about $1.3 billion dollars annually—or about $7 per person in the United States—and it puts much more than this back into the US national economy.

The NWS’ own assessment in 2017 found that private businesses can derive up to $13 billion dollars in economic value from weather knowledge, and that its freely-available data powers a $7 billion-dollar market that creates tailored weather products for business and people. Economy-wide, the value of weather and climate information to the US economy exceeds $100 billion annually, which is roughly 10 times the investment made by taxpayers through federal agencies such as NOAA, involved in weather-related science and services. 

That weather app on your phone, or the weather report on TV? How about the storm forecast that the airports you fly in or out of receive every three hours for the next 36 hours and are the basis for rerouting or grounding planes? That’s critical for safe air travel, and yes, that was paid by taxpayers and also belongs to you. The 418 people who were rescued last year from incidents over water, land, and in downed aircraft? That was possible because the Coast Guard and the military had access to NOAA’s search and rescue-aided satellites. All of it is powered by NOAA’s free and public data that are available for public safety or business operations.

At UCS, we know full well how valuable the data are—we power our own Danger Season extreme weather tracker using the NWS’s daily-updated data (another free service!)  

But the valuable data and information that we obtain from NWS is at risk of being stolen. The Trump administration, Elon Musk, and DOGE—the black-box entity that has no actual legal authority to dismantle agencies created by Congress—have signaled as much by illegally invading NOAA headquarters, firing thousands of its staff, and canceling leases on some of its key buildings.

Here we are in the era of presidential overreach, where a Republican-controlled Congress is allowing the executive branch to usurp its powers, and a Democratic minority leadership is unwilling to use its remaining power to block these illegal actions. And that overreach has slipped into the judicial branch, where the Trump administration is openly ignoring judges’ decisions and orders to reverse course on illegal executive action. 

But why? The Trump government wants to dismantle the climate and weather science conducted by NOAA because evidence of a warming world resulting from burning their products is a pesky reality for the fossil fuel industry that gave millions to his campaign. In addition, he would like to put behind a paywall those parts that they will not be able to completely eliminate—the NWS. This is not speculation. Just read the chapter on the Department of Commerce in the Trump government’s blueprint for dismantlement, Project 2025.  Or if you can’t stomach the lunacy of the nearly 900-page document, read my blogpost readout of the plan for NOAA and NWS. This is very, very harmful. 

The harm

Where is the harm in dismantling—or even simply compromising—NWS and its parent office, NOAA? Without accurate, updated, and free weather information, we lose the ability to prepare ourselves for potentially lethal extreme weather such as hurricanes, heat waves, floods, and snowstorms.

Travel by air becomes an uncertain activity that could kill you (think of the Age of Exploration, when galleons departed with very little certainty of arriving safely on the other side of the world, much less coming back!), as airports will not have reliable and updated storm forecasts. The national economy suffers because weather events account for impactful fluctuations in the country’s GDP and affect the ability of all sectors to provide goods and services. Planning for weather-related risks requires information that can help reduce uncertainty that is costly for business; its absence hampers emergency managers and first responders.  

As it turns out, we lose quite a bit of life-saving alert information. I took a look at the number of times that the NWS issued an alert that impacted a county (or county-equivalents in the territories) each day between 2010 and 2024, a metric I call county-alert days. I use this metric rather than the raw number of alerts because NWS alerts often span multiple counties, so the raw number does not quite communicate the spread of alerts in counties.

NWS keeps track of nearly 70 different types of extreme weather, so I grouped them into thirteen categories. I am sure meteorologists may disagree with some of my grouping choices, but I think this serves to illustrate my point: Between 2010 and 2024, NWS issued extreme weather alerts that impacted all 3,144 counties (and equivalents) a whopping 3.7 million times.

I also grouped the alerts geographically according to the Fourth National Climate Assessment regions to show how different regions of the country face different kinds of extreme weather. Wildfires in the Great Plains, the Southwest, and the Northwest have prompted thousands of fire weather (also called “red flag”) alerts by the NWS; historically, alerts in the Southeast and the Northeast are mostly related to flood, cold, heat, and wind. The US Caribbean (that’s Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands) have faced floods, dangerous ocean weather and currents, and in the previous two years, extreme heat alerts that were not common before. Note that the small number of storms does not reflect their devastating impact, such as Hurricane María’s in 2017. Finally, Hawai’i and the Pacific Islands have faced much flooding and storms, and in the last few years have seen red flag weather alerts for wildfires such as the terrible Maui fires of 2023. 

NWS alerting us to potential harm: Between 2010 and 2024, NWS issued extreme weather alerts that impacted all 3,144 counties and county-equivalents in the US 3.7 million times. 

Let’s say you live in a coastal community along the Gulf of Mexico. Would you like to know how much storm surge or wind speed you need to prepare for in the face of an incoming hurricane, or when you need to evacuate to higher ground? Well, you could have this information if NOAA could fly their hurricane hunters, those very cool aircraft flown by very brave pilots who soar into hurricanes to collect data that are fed into storm track models to refine projections of intensity, speed, and landfall as hurricanes form, evolve, and intensify rapidly from one day to the next (a hallmark behavior of storms in the climate change era).

But guess what? There is no certainty we will have such information this hurricane season. In February, flight directors and other pilots were fired, but news media reported that some were rehired in March. No clear information is coming through from the administration, so it’s anybody’s guess if there will in fact be planes, pilots, and a flight plan ready to go if and when hurricanes threaten populated areas in the Gulf of Mexico. 

For other types of extreme weather worsened by climate change, harm will follow as well: farmers will lose drought monitoring that they rely on to plan and prepare for the season; forest managers and wildfire first responders will lose seasonal and monthly wildfire risk outlooks. Alerts about rapid-onset events such as extreme heat domes and flooding are also at risk of being lost.  

Hurricane season and the time of the year when climate change makes extreme weather more likely (we call it Danger Season) are right around the corner. Without our hurricane hunters and their pilots, weather balloons, and forecasters, we are going impaired into seasonal climate and extreme weather dangers that we already know are destroying lives and property.  

The presidential grift of what’s ours

So… <deep breath>. Let’s take Project 2025 seriously about its goal of privatizing NWS—which we definitely should take seriously, since in the first two long months of the Trump administration it has reliably been its modus operandi. According to pages 674-677, it appears that the theft and the harm will be followed by the further crime of privatizing what we own and pay for already.

What we already own and pay for is giving back dividends in lives and property saved, increasing prosperity, reducing uncertainty about extreme weather impacts, and providing the scientific bedrock of knowledge that can inform how to safeguard us from a climate-changed world. And the unilateral and illegal actions of the administration intend to put this service behind a paywall to make us pay again for it?

Public services exist to provide parity in access to all people in society without regard to their ability to individually fork out money for such a service—so those unable to pay will end up paying twice: once with their tax dollars, and once with their wellbeing or with their lives. Paywalled weather alerts will deprive individuals, households, or towns with lower incomes of access to life-saving services.

And there are early indications of the privatization to come. The private company WindBorne Systems has offered to backfill atmospheric data no longer collected by weather balloons in Alaska after the Juneau local NWS office lost 10% of its staff due to downsizing. While this may look like good corporate citizen action from a technically-savvy and well-resourced private company, businesses exist to make money, so it is a bit hard to see how WindBorne will be willing or able to permanently fill the gap in data collection in Alaska without compensation.  

Is this the wasteful spending that President Trump and Musk pledged to root out? Are we supposed to accept the demolition of the jobs, the infrastructure, and the data that saves lives and property and increases prosperity, under the pretense of rooting out a federal workforce that is falsely vilified as being lazy, leeching the system, and wasting taxpayers’ money?

There is a perverse psychology of revenge at play here. In dismantling the federal workforce, the administration’s goal has been, in the words of director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought (and architect of Project 2025), for “the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected.” This vengeful discourse has been embraced by a significant part of the country who gleefully watch the administration’s actions inflicting pain on the federal workforce across the board.

Year after year, billion-dollar disasters, many of them worsened by climate, destroy and displace communities across the country. And as Danger Season and the heat waves, hurricanes, floods, and wildfires it brings loom over us, people across the country and territories—regardless of political persuasion—will suffer under extreme weather disasters without life-saving information, and without adequately-funded and staffed emergency management, recovery, and reconstruction services.

The life- and property-saving value that federal workers bring to the people of this country is on the line, and I fear that the consequences of dismantling the country’s weather and climate forecasting enterprise as well as disaster assistance and recovery agencies will strike a blow to communities still reeling from previous years’ extreme weather in addition to this year’s worsening economic challenges related to market uncertainties and cost of living increases.  

The Trump administration is dismantling institutions, firing expert staff, and stealing data paid for out of our own pockets. Such theft will lead to harm as we lose the information that saves lives, protects property, and enables prosperity across many aspects of daily life in the US.  It will also change how the US has regarded science and the NWS as a beloved and public good.

The country has invested in, and innovated through, this scientific public service for over a century, not for selling it to the highest bidder, but for the common good. Dismantling NOAA and the National Weather Service is a presidential grift that we must oppose. 

When we save science, we save lives. Take action to tell the Trump administration to stop its all-out war on our science and our scientists.

Climate models are the main tool climate scientists use to predict how Earth will respond to more heat-trapping pollutants in the atmosphere.

But what exactly is a climate model? Let’s start off easy by breaking down the phrase “climate model.” The “climate” is simply the weather averaged over a long period of time. A “model” in this case is a physical approximation of a complex system. So a climate model is an approximation of the Earth’s weather over a long period of time.

Since their debut in the 1960s, scientists have been improving and increasing the complexity of climate models (check out my History of Climate Models blog), and my colleagues and I at UCS continue to use them today. 

General circulation models 

When climate scientists reference a climate model, they are generally referring to a general circulation model (GCM), which is the main tool climate scientists use to simulate and understand how the Earth’s oceans, land, atmosphere, and cryosphere (a word to describe the planet’s sea and land ice) respond to changes in both its own internal dynamics as well as changes in heat-trapping pollutants.  

Just by looking at the name, you can see that a GCM is a model that simulates the circulation of Earth’s different physical systems like the atmosphere and ocean. What causes a circulation? In my blog on the potential collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which is the conveyor belt of water moving in the Atlantic Ocean, I discussed how regions around the equator are warmer than the poles due to different amounts of incoming solar radiation, that is, energy from the sun.

The Earth’s climate system doesn’t like imbalances in heat given the difference in density: Earth will do everything in its power to mix the cold poles and the hot tropics. The Earth’s atmosphere and oceans create circulations in order to mix temperature differences between regions; GCMs, or climate models, simulate these circulations quite well. 

The AMOC is an oceanic circulation that transports warm, fresh water from the Equator to the North Atlantic and cold, salty water from the North Atlantic to the Equatorial region. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/amoc.html. 

How exactly do GCMs simulate circulations? In order to model the climate system, a GCM uses a set of equations that explains how energy, momentum (e.g., moving air), and water interact and change within the atmosphere and oceans. GCMs simulate the Earth as a giant three-dimensional grid and calculate how different variables (e.g., temperature, rainfall, etc.) change at each grid point. The models further simulate how heat and other climate variables travel to and influence values in other grid points. 

A climate model splits the Earth into a three-dimensional grid, with calculations of momentum, heat, and water changes at each grid point. https://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/breakthroughs/climate_model/welcome.html A climate model is made up of many models 

In my blog on the history of climate models, I discussed how the first climate model back in the mid 20th century was actually just a single model of the atmosphere, which is just one part of the climate system. We know that there are other components of Earth’s climate besides the atmosphere, for example, the ocean, the land, and ice. Today’s climate models are so complex because they are made up of all of these components: atmosphere, land, ocean, and ice. We also have scientists who specialize in each component, allowing for further complexity and improvement in prediction of the Earth’s climate system. Today, a climate model is made up of smaller, component models of the atmosphere, ocean, land, and cryosphere.

How exactly do all these different components of Earth’s climate system communicate with each other while a climate simulation is running? Through something called a coupler, which connects the different model components so that data can easily flow between the different sub-models. 

Modern-day climate models incorporate multiple subcomponents that are integrated by means of a coupler. 

Why do we need so many different models? Each model simulates something specific in its respective system. An ocean model calculates ocean circulation (like the AMOC) as well as ocean biogeochemistry, which is the science of how different molecules, such as carbon or nitrogen, cycle through the ocean. A land model will simulate:  

• vegetation  

• snow cover  

• soil moisture  

• evapotranspiration (process by which water moves from the land surface or vegetation to the atmosphere)  

• river flow

• and carbon storage 

A sea-ice model will calculate  

• reflection of incoming sunlight  

• air-sea heat exchange

• and moisture interaction between ice and water  

An atmospheric model calculates changes in  

• atmospheric circulation  

• radiation  

• clouds  

• and aerosols  

All of the different processes each climate sub-model will calculate. https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsearth-system-and-climate-models.  Model parameterizations 

You might be thinking, how could we possibly simulate clouds if they’re created from many tiny water droplets and ice crystals? If we were to simulate a cloud and all of its tiny droplets, our three-dimensional grid would have to be extremely detailed. Unfortunately, we don’t have the computer power to perform these kinds of detailed calculations (we also don’t fully understand the dazzling complexity of all the physics involved), so scientists developed something called a parameterization. A parameterization can be thought of as a model within a model.

Let’s say there’s a cloud in the eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean near the Galápagos Islands. This cloud exists under certain atmospheric conditions (temperature, moisture, wind) that support its existence.  

If we were to simulate this cloud in a GCM, these atmospheric conditions would first be reported to the cloud parameterization scheme from the main atmospheric model. The parameterization then calculates certain properties of the cloud, like how much sunlight the cloud reflects or how much cloud coverage there is in the cloud’s surroundings. The parameterization then reports back its findings to the main atmospheric model, which allows for continuous communication between the main atmospheric model and the parameterization to follow the cloud through its lifecycle. 

Many small-scale processes are parameterized in GCMs. Beyond clouds, air quality and turbulence are also parameterized. Turbulence is just the word for abrupt, small-scale changes in wind (think of being in a plane and suddenly experiencing a bump, or playing frisbee in a park and the frisbee changes direction or elevation as it suddenly experiences a gust of wind).

What are climate models used for?

The obvious use for climate models is to predict how the Earth’s climate may change given a “forcing” applied to Earth’s atmosphere. A forcing is typically a change in the composition of Earth’s gases in the atmosphere or a change in incoming solar radiation that leads to a radiative imbalance.  

What do I mean by this? A key feature of the Earth’s climate system is that it is always trying to maintain equilibrium—that is, the energy coming into the planet must always equal the energy leaving the planet. Why? Because the whole of the Earth’s climate system is subject to the laws of thermodynamics: energy in = energy out. But if the composition of gases in the atmosphere changes, then this can affect the energy balance.

When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, an energy imbalance is established, and the only way to reach energy equilibrium again is for the planet to warm up. This is why the Earth is warming in response to added CO2 in the atmosphere. 

In the 1960s, it started to become clear, with the help of climate models and theory, that fossil fuel use would warm the planet. The National Academy of Sciences released The Charney Report in 1979, which used climate models to predict, and warn the U.S. government, that the planet would warm due to fossil fuel emissions (though the U.S. government was warned about global warming as early as 1965). The authors estimated that the world would warm 3°C (5.4°F) given a doubling of atmospheric CO2 based on their climate model simulations in the 1970s. 

But this is just one example. You could use a climate model to ask any question that would affect the climate system: “What would happen if the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted?” “What if the sun disappeared for five days?” “What if all atmospheric nitrogen was removed?” You can also construct a climate model with any arrangement of continents—for example, a climate model to represent Pangea Earth or a “Waterworld” planet with no continents at all. Some scientists even built a climate model to simulate the climate of Westeros from the Game of Thrones TV show.

Today, climate models are so complex that we can study how climate may be changing on a more regional level. In my research, I’ve run climate models to study how drought in the U.S. Northeast is changing with climate change, how the Earth may start to rapidly warm in the near-future given a change in oceanic warming, and how precipitation patterns might shift in the Southwestern U.S.   

Climate models will continue to become more complex and more accurate 

GCMs are complex, made up of multiple sub-models, and have a few parameterizations. They have been improved on for decades and are the combined work of climate scientists, physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists. They’re also incredibly accurate—model simulations run in the 1990s predicted how much the Earth would warm by 2025, which matches our current observations. 

In the future, climate models will become even more complex, perhaps resolving small-scale features, like clouds, rather than parameterizing them. We need these improved climate models to better predict and reduce uncertainty of regional climate change. The more scientists can equip society and decision makers with the best available climate science, the more we can sufficiently respond, adapt, and prepare for the changes underway.

The fossil fuel industry’s role in driving climate change is undeniable, yet corporate accountability remains a contested space. As the scientific evidence strengthens, courts around the world are increasingly considering the role of major fossil fuel companies in climate-related damages. Our latest research—published today in Environmental Research Letters—adds a critical piece to this legal and scientific puzzle by quantifying how emissions from the world’s largest fossil fuel and cement producers have directly contributed to sea level rise, both historically and in the centuries to come. 

Advancing Climate Attribution Science 

Attribution science has evolved to the point where we can now link certain climate impacts to emissions from identifiable entities, including corporations. Our study applies the well-established MAGICC7 climate model to trace heat-trapping emissions from the 122 largest fossil fuel and cement producers—the Carbon Majors—and assess their contributions to present-day and future global mean sea level rise. 

Our findings are stark: emissions traced to these industrial actors are responsible for 37-58% of the observed global surface temperature increase and 24-37% of historical sea level rise. Moreover, our research projects that these past emissions alone have all but guaranteed an additional 10 to 22 inches (0.26-0.55 meters) of sea level rise by 2300 —even if all emissions were to stop today. Importantly, this projected rise is in addition to the sea level rise driven by emissions from all other sources. This long-term impact reflects the delayed response of ocean temperatures and ice sheet dynamics to past greenhouse gas emissions. 

These results demonstrate that the damages we are experiencing today, and those that will continue to unfold for centuries, are directly tied to the actions of a small number of corporate actors whose products and deceptive conduct have been driving climate change. 

Why This Matters for Climate Litigation 

Climate litigation has become a powerful tool for holding corporations accountable for their role in fueling climate change. Cases such as Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell , Saúl Luciano Lliuya vs. RWE, and Delaware v. BP et al. are among those seeking to hold fossil fuel companies legally accountable for their contributions to climate change.  

Our study provides quantitative, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that may help inform litigation strategies in several ways: 

• Strengthening Causation Arguments: Courts require clear scientific evidence linking defendants’ actions to damages. Our research quantifies the specific share of global temperature rise and sea level rise that can be attributed to emissions from major fossil fuel producers, reinforcing claims of causation. 

• Informing Liability and Damages Assessments: The long-term costs of sea level rise, ranging from infrastructure damage to displacement, are expected to reach trillions of dollars. By establishing a direct link between historical emissions and projected sea level rise, our findings contribute to discussions on liability and potential financial responsibility. 

• Countering Industry Defenses: Fossil fuel companies often argue that climate change is the result of collective emissions rather than the responsibility of any particular entity. Our study results directly challenge this premise by demonstrating that a share of sea level rise can be attributed to the products traced to a limited number of companies. 

• Emphasizing the Urgency of Action: Delayed emissions reductions all but guarantee future damages. Our study highlights that earlier mitigation efforts could have significantly reduced today’s impacts—and further delays will only increase the severity of future sea level rise and its consequences. The longer action is delayed, the greater the avoidable consequences for coastal communities worldwide. 

The Role of Science in Accountability and Justice 

Scientific research has played a role in informing policy and its importance in litigation is growing. Our study builds on past attribution work that has already been cited in legal arguments worldwide. This growing body of evidence works hand in hand with research showing that fossil fuel companies have long understood the climate consequences of their extraction, production, promotion, and sale of oil, gas, and coal.  

Rather than taking responsibility, they have actively misled the public about the dangersand the harms we are now experiencing. The consequences of their actions are no longer speculative; they are quantifiable, they are unfolding before our eyes, and they are disproportionately affecting people and communities with the least capacity to withstand devastating climate impacts. 

Looking Ahead 

As legal battles over climate accountability continue, science will remain a cornerstone of these efforts. Our study contributes to the broader understanding of how industrial emissions have shaped global climate impacts and provides courts with data to inform their deliberations. 

While litigation alone won’t solve the climate crisis, it is one piece of the broader landscape of climate governance. Establishing clear scientific links between emissions and damages is a critical step in ensuring that those responsible are held accountable and that decision-makers have the evidence needed to act. 

The scientific reality is clear: emissions traced to major fossil fuel producers have played a significant role in driving present-day sea level rise, and the long-term consequences of these emissions will continue to shape our world for centuries to come. 

Accountability for past emissions should be a critical part in addressing climate change. But the first step in seeking accountability for the highest emitters, whether corporations or countries, is quantifying their contributions. While the pursuit of accountability should consider their role in creating and spreading disinformation and their deception around climate science and research, their contributions of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere are an important place to start. Here, I’ll describe the data currently available to quantify these emissions, what they tell us about the drivers of climate change, and how we can achieve accountability for its harms moving forward.  

Who are the Carbon Majors?  

The Carbon Majors are the largest fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers, and a group to which 67.5% of all fossil fuel and cement emissions can be traced. To put a finer point on the immense impact of just a few organizations, more than one-third of these industrial emissions can be traced to just 26 companies. The Carbon Majors database includes emissions traced to investor-owned companies like ExxonMobil, BP, and Peabody; state-owned entities like SaudiAramco and Gazprom; and a handful of nation-states with dedicated fossil fuel and cement production, presently or historically, like China, Former Soviet Union.  

Earlier today, my colleague Shaina Sadai released a peer-reviewed study that links emissions traced to the Carbon Majors to present-day and future sea level rise. This study adds yet another example of how emissions from these entities are driving climate impacts globally. Previous UCS studies have already linked their emissions to increases in global average temperature, ocean acidification, and area burned by wildfires. When considered with the growing evidence of companies’ deception and disinformation, these studies paint a damning picture of how these companies shaped our world and the inequities that they’ve reinforced globally.  

These data also show that although humans have been emitting heat-trapping emissions into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution, 50% of emissions traced to the Carbon Majors have been released since just 2000.  When visualizing data, clarifying the units used is critical. When it comes to emissions, this means distinguishing between cumulative historical (all the heat-trapping emissions they’ve ever emitted over time) and annual (all emissions each year). Both aggregations tell important stories that can help us to mitigate and adapt to climate change, but not specifying how the data are expressed is not only imprecise but can be deliberately misleading.  The data in the figure below show annual emissions measured in gigatons of CO2 per year.  

Source: UCS/Carbon Majors Dataset

As I wrote in an earlier blog that detailed the nitty gritty and backstory of this data, lawsuits and legal submissions worldwide cite the Carbon Majors Dataset to draw attention to the outsized role of fossil fuel companies in driving the climate crisis, including:  

• Lliuya vs RWE, where a Peruvian farmer is suing one of Europe’s largest emitters of heat trapping gases for its role in increasing the risk of a glacial lake outburst flooding, which threatens him and the entire community of Huaraz. This case uses the Carbon Majors Dataset to quantify RWE’s contribution to global historic emissions.  

• Greenpeace Italia vs ENI, where affected communities are suing to force ENI, Italy’s largest energy company, to reduce emissions and limit global warming. This case uses the Carbon Majors Dataset and source attribution research to underscore the outsized role of ENI in driving climate change. 

• People of California vs Big Oil, where California is suing ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell and others for misleading advertising, failure to warn and fraudulent business practices. This filing uses these data to demonstrate that the contribution of heat-trapping gases traced to their defendants is quantifiable.  

• Multnomah County vs Big Oil, where the largest county in Oregon, home to Portland, is suing ExxonMobil and others for damages and adaptation costs following 2021’s unprecedented and deadly heatwave. This filing uses the Carbon Majors Dataset to show that emissions attributable to each entity are calculable using the amount, type, and emissions factor associated with each product.   

• Commission on Human Rights in the Philippines, which was petitioned to investigate the impact of climate change on human rights and the role of the ‘Carbon Majors’ in driving climate change and obstructing action. 

• InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, where Colombia and Chile requested an advisory opinion to clarify the state’s human rights obligations in light of climate change. UCS’ joint intervention used these data to highlight the role of a handful of corporations play in driving climate change.  

What about emissions from countries?  

When it comes to emissions, fossil fuel companies are not the only entities that have disproportionately contributed to the atmosphere’s ever increasing concentration of heat-trapping emissions. Some countries, like the United States, Russia, China and Germany, have also contributed an outsized amount of emissions to the atmosphere, and as a result should bear a proportionate amount of responsibility for addressing climate change and its impacts.   

The data presented below are from the Global Carbon Project and separate from the Carbon Majors data discussed above. This figure displays annual emissions by country, highlighting the massive historical contribution of the United States (nearly 25% of total global emissions), where several large Carbon Majors are headquartered. But more discouraging are the barely visible contributions (shown in purple) of many nations that are now bearing the brunt of climate change impacts —countries like Tonga and Pakistan, among many, many others. Plotted together, these data tell a powerful story about historical contributions and contextualize discussions around future responsibilities.  

Source: Global Carbon Project  What do these data mean for climate accountability?  

Emissions attributed to both the Carbon Majors and individual countries paint a picture of historical contributions that’s difficult to unsee—and inspires a call for accountability.  

In the US, states, counties, and communities are seeking accountability through the courts. These lawsuits primarily focus on fossil fuel companies’ deception and disinformation campaigns that delayed climate action for years and continues to pollute our public discourse.  While industry, trade groups, and their political allies have fought to dismiss the suits, courts across the country, including the Supreme Court just last week, have continued to affirm the right to seek accountability through the courts.  

Internationally, high emitting countries continue to benefit from their historical emissions at the expense of many emerging economies that bear the brunt of climate impacts but have contributed the least amount of heat-trapping emissions. In multilateral agreements, powerful countries have resisted and slowed the adoption of mechanisms for accountability sought by more vulnerable nations.    

At COP27 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, countries around the world established a Loss and Damage Fund to aid developing countries who are most vulnerable to climate change but have contributed the least to the atmosphere. Countries initially pledged more than 700 million dollars to the fund. While this appears to be an entry point in the path toward accountability, this amount is far below the estimated need of 300 billion annually by 2035 – just 0.2% of what is needed  Further, in early March, the US announced its withdrawal from the Loss and Damage Fund.  

But these data don’t tell the full story, particularly regarding the environmental racism and injustice wrought by the fossil fuel and high-emitting countries. This is especially evident in Cancer Alley in southern Louisiana, where a high density of petrochemical plants and refineries with scarce regulation and willful neglect, have led to elevated rates of cancer and other health issues, a burden particularly borne by Black residents.  

The Trump Administration has already reneged on the US’ bare minimum commitments  to address issues of climate justice. We’ve seen fossil fuel industry leaders and climate deniers put in positions of authority. The US has pulled out of the Paris Agreement and stopped federal scientists from engaging with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global scientific body.  

These data—both for countries and major carbon producers—tell a clear story about the history of human climate pollution, and the responsibilities of large emitters to act as the impacts of climate change grow increasingly severe. The need to hold them accountable, and guarantee they take up that responsibility, must guide our work every day.  

In a new study released today, UCS attributes substantial temperature and sea level rise to emissions traced to the largest fossil fuel producers and cement manufacturers. And for the first time, we extend sea level projections into the future, quantifying how past heat-trapping emissions from the fossil fuel industry will impact the world for centuries to come. 

The world’s largest fossil fuel and cement producers have known for decades that their products cause climate change, yet they spread disinformation to misinform the public and have profited as people around the world have suffered from ever-worsening climate impacts. Previous attribution research published by my Union of Concerned Scientists colleagues have allowed us to draw causal connections between sources of heat-trapping emissions and resulting impacts, like present day increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, air temperatures, sea levels, ocean acidification, and wildfire burned area. At the same time, social science research has shed light on what the industry knew and when they knew it.  

In our new study, we bring together those two lines of research to understand what would have happened if fossil fuels had been phased out following key developments throughout history. We found that heat-trapping emissions traced to major carbon polluters have contributed to nearly half of present day surface air temperature rise and nearly a third to the observed global mean sea level rise. And critically, we demonstrate how these emissions will cause harm for centuries to come.  

The past haunts the future 

Our new research quantifies how sea levels will rise for hundreds of years as a result of past emissions traced to products produced and sold by the Carbon Majors. By comparing scenarios, with and without industrial fossil fuel development and its associated emissions, we find that past emissions from the Carbon Majors are projected to lead to an additional 0.26-0.55 m (10-21 inches) of sea level rise by the year 2300. While the magnitude of future sea level rise will depend on how emissions evolve this century our results attributing additional future sea level rise to past emissions are largely unchanged, regardless of what future emissions trajectories the world follows.

If the Carbon Majors emissions had ceased after 1990, the long-term sea level rise just from past emissions traced to their products is projected to be an additional 0.17-0.35 m (6-14 inches), showing how just a few decades of emissions can have a big impact on the future. Every delay in phasing out fossil fuels will burden future generations who need to adapt to rising seas and recover from loss and damage due to sea level impacts. 

The world that could have been 

To represent versions of the world that could have been if different actions had been taken and the world had acted in a timely manner to address the harms of fossil fuels, we develop several different counterfactual scenarios. We use the newly updated Carbon Majors database which quantifies annual emissions associated with coal, oil, gas, and cement production by each of the 122 largest fossil fuel and cement producers from 1854-2022. We explore 3 counterfactual scenarios, where we remove the emissions from these companies starting in a particular year: 

• 1854 counterfactual: A world where industrial fossil fuel development never occurred. In this scenario we remove emissions from the world’s largest fossil fuel and cement producers starting in the year 1854. This is the earliest time period we can reliably know how much fossil fuels were being produced by different companies. 

• 1950 counterfactual: A world where fossil fuels had been phased out when the industry knew that fossil fuels were harming the climate system. In this scenario we remove fossil fuel industry emissions after 1950 when research has shown that companies were internally aware of the harms of their products. 

• 1990 counterfactual: A world where the international community had acted swiftly to phase out fossil fuels at the start of international efforts to address climate change. In this scenario we remove industry emissions after 1990, when the international community was first forming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

In each set of simulations, we subtract emissions traced to the largest producers from the full emissions that actually occurred, and use a climate model, the MAGICC model, to determine what would have happened if the emissions from these companies never entered the atmosphere. MAGICC (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change) is a publicly accessible model that been widely used, including in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports to understand how future climate could respond to different heat-trapping emissions scenarios. 

Across all scenarios, we find that the world would have been cooler and the sea levels lower if fossil fuel emissions had been phased out earlier. We find that heat-trapping emissions traced to the Carbon Majors during 1854-2020 have contributed to as much as 57% to present day surface air temperature rise and as much as 37% to the observed global mean sea level rise. In the 1950 counterfactual scenario, modern temperatures (averaged from 1990-2020) would have been 0.41-0.66°C above the preindustrial (1850-1900) average and global sea levels would have risen by 0.12-0.17 m. This implies that these companies are responsible for as much as 57% of the present-day air temperature rise and as much as 36% of the present day sea level rise in this scenario. Impacts are similar in the 1854 and 1950 counterfactuals due to the relatively small amount of heat-trapping emissions released 1854-1950 relative to the enormous amount of emissions released after 1950. 

In the 1990 counterfactual, the Carbon Majors are responsible for as much as 26% of the present-day air temperature rise and as much as 17% of the present-day sea level rise. The 1990 scenario has full historical emissions from 1854-1990 and then emissions from the fossil fuel industry removed 1990-2020. The climate impacts from emissions in recent decades are not yet fully realized, meaning this scenario underestimates the industry’s responsibility.   

How does this study compare to what was found in previous UCS research? 

The findings of our new research corroborate those of previous UCS studies, affirming the strength of our methods and accuracy of models used. By using the newest available emissions data for the Carbon Majors, this study extends this type of attribution research to present day. The main advancement of this particular study is the look to the future, which the updated methodology allowed us to do. 

This research uses the same climate modeling approach used in the 6th IPCC report (2021) to project future temperatures under different emissions scenarios. Previous UCS research had used methods derived from the 5th IPCC report, released in 2014.  

One of the biggest differences between these two approaches is how they determine sea level rise. The previously used model was only backward looking, meaning it could describe sea level rise in the past. The new model accounts for different drivers of sea level change, including ice sheet models and glacier models, capturing dynamics that were not happening in the recent past and allowing us to project into the future. 

Using research to motivate action 

Our research shows that emissions traced to the world’s largest fossil fuel and cement manufacturers have caused global temperatures and sea levels to rise, and that sea levels will continue to rise for hundreds of years in response to heat-trapping emissions which have already occurred. The fossil fuel industry knew by the 1950s that their products were causing climate change and at any time in the intervening decades they could have changed their business model to phaseout fossil fuels, yet they chose to keep producing, and profiting from, these harmful products. These actions have led to worsening climate change which will impact people in the future for centuries to come. 

 
As the people around the world experience the devastating impacts of stronger storms, more destructive wildfires, sea level rise, and other detrimental changes they are calling for those who are responsible to be held accountable. Communities around the world are pursuing accountability through court cases based on the fact that the fossil fuel industry knowingly deceived the public while producing products that would increase risks of climate change. Research that can trace specific climate impacts to the heat-trapping emissions produced by these companies can help inform this litigation. Researchers can help play a role by designing research questions that inform global action. It is long past time the world to phaseout fossil fuels and to get accountability for the harms that have occurred—and will occur in the coming years. The time to take action is now. 

The IPCC compiles scientific insights on climate change, informing policymakers and the public about risks and possible actions. One of its core tools is the use of future scenarios. Climate models and climate impact studies use emission scenarios—estimates of potential future changes in heat-trapping emissions—to help us see how choices made about emissions today can shape tomorrow’s climate. If you live in a coastal zone and have looked at maps of future sea level rise or have read about how climate change could be slowed with policy changes to reduce emissions, you’ve likely seen these scenarios in action. In essence, combined with climate models, they provide a way to envision the consequences of different actions or inactions. 

Scenarios used in the IPCC are often mentioned in discussions about national climate targets, corporate sustainability plans, extreme weather events, slow onset events like sea level rise, and climate litigation. But what exactly are emission scenarios, how are they structured, and why are they essential for understanding climate change impacts and mitigation strategies? 

What Are Future Climate Scenarios? 

Scenarios are projections of future human-caused emissions and their effects on the Earth’s climate system. These scenarios are not predictions; they are “what-if” frameworks that allow us to test the likely outcomes of various choices and actions. By examining possible trajectories for global economic development, technology adoption, and policy actions, the driving forces behind emissions, these scenarios help us assess a range of potential climate futures. 

How Scenarios Have Evolved 

Over the years, the IPCC and the scientific community has refined how it develops these scenarios. Initially it used four different emission storylines from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) as a scientific basis, however, recognizing the need for a more flexible and policy-relevant framework, scientists developed the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) for the IPCC reports. Four RCP scenarios describe different levels of radiative forcing in the atmosphere by 2100. Radiative forcing is the change in energy balance in the Earth’s atmosphere due to heat trapping emissions. The use of radiative forcing to understand emissions trajectories was then paired with varied political pathways to generate Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs).  

The IPCC currently uses five SSPs that represent different ways society could evolve, incorporating everything from energy use to policy decisions that shape the climate future we may experience. These pathways describe different global socioeconomic conditions (e.g., levels of cooperation or competition among countries, technology adoption, and inequality) in terms of radiative forcing. The five shared socioeconomic pathways are:  

• SSP1: Taking the green road– A world focused on sustainable development, global cooperation, and green technology adoption. This scenario would lead to the least amount of global warming. 

• SSP2: Middle of the road – A scenario where global trends continue along historical patterns, with moderate development and emissions reductions. 

• SSP3: A rocky road – A fragmented world with regional conflicts, slow economic growth, and high inequality, leading to continued high emissions. 

• SSP4: A divided world – A highly unequal world where some adopt clean technology while much of the population remains dependent on fossil fuels. 

• SSP5: Taking the highway – A scenario driven by economic growth and high fossil fuel use, leading to rapid warming. 

These scenarios are identified by their social pathway and the approximate level of radiative forcing resulting from the scenario by 2100.  

Figure 1: Future annual CO2 emissions in the five illustrative scenarios 

Source: Sixth Assessment Report of IPCC Working Group I, 2021 

By combining radiative forcing (the climate side, represented by the numbers at the end of each scenario name e.g. 1.9 and 8.5) with socioeconomic factors, SSP scenarios provide a richer description of how the world might develop and how that development would influence emissions.  

How Do IPCC Scenarios Inform Climate Research? 

IPCC scenarios serve as foundational tools in climate research, enabling scientists to explore how different concentrations of heat-trapping emissions influence global temperatures, sea level rise, extreme weather events, and broader environmental changes. These scenarios are used in climate models to simulate various outcomes based on emissions trajectories, helping researchers assess climate system responses to different forcings.  

One of the primary applications of IPCC scenarios is in global climate modeling. Climate scientists run general circulation models (GCMs) with these scenarios to simulate future climate states under these different emissions pathways. Studies show that high-emission scenarios like SSP5-8.5 lead to significant disruptions in atmospheric circulation patterns, affecting monsoons and mid-latitude storm tracks, compared to the low-emissions scenario SSP1-2.6. 

IPCC scenarios also help scientists evaluate changes in the intensity and frequency of events like hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires. A recent review of tropical cyclone studies found that under high-emissions scenarios (SSP5-8.5), storms become more intense and produce heavier rainfall—even if their overall global frequency decreases. Lower-emission scenarios (SSP1-2.6) show more moderate increases, underscoring how different policy choices alter storm behavior. 

These scenarios can also reveal how forests, oceans, and other natural systems might absorb or release carbon in the future. Research published in Earth System Science Data examined how under high-emission scenarios (SSP5-8.5), the ability of forests and oceans to absorb CO₂ weakens. Meanwhile, an intermediate scenario (SSP2-4.5) shows these natural “carbon sinks” remaining more effective for longer.  

These are just a few examples of how researchers use these scenarios to help us understand possible climate futures.  

Why Understanding These Scenarios Matters 

These scenarios illustrate the range of potential climate outcomes based on different emissions trajectories, helping to assess the impact of various policy choices. A world limited to 1.5°C warming contrasts sharply with a high-emissions path. Without these scenarios, it would be nearly impossible to quantify the consequences of different emissions pathways or evaluate which strategies might work best to address climate change. These scenarios provide more than just hypothetical futures; they are tools for informed decision-making. They allow researchers, policymakers, and the public to grasp the potential consequences of inaction versus proactive climate strategies.  

As we navigate the challenges of climate change, these scenarios remind us that the future remains open—and that our collective actions today will determine the climate reality we pass on to future generations. 

The ongoing destruction of federal agencies by the Trump team is an illegal effort that not only deprives the American public of essential services, upends lives and destroys livelihoods of federal workers, but steals our legacy of investment in tax-payer-funded institutions and functions. Since our country doesn’t work safely or effectively without these institutions and functions, either the thieves will privatize them and make us pay forever for something we built and already own, or we’ll suffer in their absence. Unless we stop them.

Vital federal agencies face fates ranging from near-total destruction in the case of USAID,  to deeply diminished functioning in the case of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), even as we face an intense and lengthening wildfire season and approach another hurricane season, to dangerous muzzling in the case of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, even as bird flu spreads. The moves are wasteful, harmful, egregious, ill- or uninformed—and in many cases, illegal. They are, as my colleague, Julie McNamara writes, pushing American innovation to the brink. And they are devastatingly costly, not just in wasted taxpayer dollars, but in human lives.

It’s our house and they are hacking it down

Federal agencies represent generational investment in a functional society. They are an asset of today’s generations to pass on in good form to the next. Are reforms important over time? Absolutely. This is not reform, though, it’s wreckage. But rather than verbally light my hair on fire for you, here’s a clumsy but apt metaphor for what the destruction means for everyday people.

You have a home.

It’s nothing fancy, but you’ve been building and investing in it for years and now it has all the necessities and basic comforts. You have to pay each month to keep the lights on, and sometimes you need to do repairs and upgrades, but you’re a careful homeowner on a budget and you make it work. Someday you’re going to pass it on to your kids.

These days, though,  your partner has different ideas.

One Monday you come home from work to find someone has torn your shed down. Your partner says, “it wasn’t doing anything useful”. You say, “but I was using it. Where am I supposed to keep my bike and my tools? Why was this necessary?” But they are taking a call.

On Tuesday, you come home and all your appliances have been hauled away. Your partner says, “they weren’t working efficiently”. You ask, “how are we supposed to keep our food cold? Or have clean clothes?” Your partner says a little short-term pain is worth the long-term gain; you’ve been signed up for an appliance subscription service. “But we owned those ones”, you say, “they worked just fine. How is this good for us?” But they have turned on a show.

On Wednesday, you come home and all your windows have been smashed. “They said they were drafty,” your partner relays as they board up the empty frames with plywood. “But how will we have any light? How will we get fresh air?” you ask. “I guess we’ll pay for more electricity and ventilation,” they say. You ask, “how is this good for us?” But they don’t hear you over the hammering.

On Thursday, you come home to find your solar panels and the roof beneath them are gone. “I don’t believe in them,” your partner says, as you frantically staple a blue tarp over the hole in your house. “Believe in what?!” you ask. “Solar electricity? Roofs? The sun? How is this good for us?!”

The next morning you wake up in a dark room to the drip of rainwater from your exposed attic. You put on dirty clothes and are fumbling your way downstairs when the jack-hammering starts. Outside, a crew is hacking away at your foundation. “Stop!” you yell. “This is my home! What are you doing?” The foreman checks his clipboard and says, “Well, it’s basically worthless now, so we’re going to clear it out”.

You turn to your partner, who is finally looking confused and afraid, and you ask again, “So tell me, how is this good for us?”

Our federal agencies are vital

Your partner in this story is people in America who are either initially supportive of these agency cuts or not paying close attention, but in either case, are due for real harm right along with everyone else. Those of us who can go about our lives with a sense of confidence and security do so in no small part due to the existence and effectiveness of our federal agencies. Check your weather app before you get dressed? Thanks, NOAA. Turn on your tap water with confidence that you can drink the coffee you make? Thanks, EPA. Review your kids’ college aid awards over breakfast? Thanks, Education Department. Opt to wear a mask to work because you heard the flu is surging? Thanks, CDC. Talk with your aging mom over lunch about a promising new dementia trial? Thanks NIH. Ask her how a cousin’s recovery from Hurricane Helene is going? Thanks, FEMA. Stop for some groceries on the way home because a big storm is coming? Thanks again, NOAA…

These agencies and their functions didn’t sprout from the head of some government mastermind. They came to be because we needed and demanded that these functions be filled. They were built over time because we funded them. And they exist today because we need and use them.

Destroying them is theft

Ripping them down like Elon Musk and DOGE, with President Trump’s urging, are doing is not governing in the public interest. It’s ruling by impulse and arrogance and out of the selfish, profit-minded interests of the billionaire class and big polluters. And for the public, it’s the governance equivalent of being carjacked by a gaslighter: violent, illegal, and what the hell—I’m using this car!—all while being told by the carjacker they aren’t taking anything they shouldn’t take…

And like a car-jacking, if and when we rescue these agencies from the chop shop, real damage will be done. To replace and rebuild what we had on January 20th will be incredibly costly and in the near-term, impossible: an unparalleled knowledge bank drained by the hemorrhaging of expert staff; skilled delivery of vital services stopped short by the firing of seasoned, dedicated public servants; decades-long data records vital to science permanently compromised by forced gaps in collection; infrastructure—from buildings to work stations—liquidated. These are all things paid for by us—not just for how they serve us today, but how they will serve us in our unfolding, uncertain future. And these are all things stolen from us.

For what?

The spectacle of the world’s richest man slashing federal programs, services and workers in the name of efficiency would be a bad joke, except for how much it hurts and costs. And for what? Obviously not for efficiency, possibly for ruinous tax breaks for the wealthy, certainly for the privatization of public goods and the colossal grift entailed.

So when we hear of more cuts, we should strongly support and defend the people losing their jobs, and we should feel anger for the blatant destruction and theft of our legacy of investment, say “how dare you,” and fight it all, tooth and nail.

There are also things that this administration is doing of a more blatantly authoritarian nature, like threatening to defund colleges that allow students to exercise their right to free speech, threatening deportation of people for their political views, and working hard to dismantle the free press. They want to rule, not govern, so they are coming for everything that makes a democratic society possible.

And so we need to fight them on every front, get every win we can, punch holes in their fascist power play and petro-masculine money grab. Protecting federal agencies like NOAA from being gutted and privatized is one of those fronts. But fighting on any front is important.

So, what can we do?

What we can do depends on the day and on the kind of risk our personal privilege enables us to take. Not everyone in this country can afford to take risks right now. But for those of us who have privilege, now is the time to use it, and the time to start stretching outside our comfort zone.

For the moment, we have to keep giving Congress hell…

• Over the spring/Easter Congressional recess (April 11th through the 27th), we can go to our members’ local town halls, if they are still holding them. And if they are not, we can demand that they hold them by writing letters to the editor, contacting the local media, building pressure on social media, or standing outside their office with a sign. Republicans have complete control of the federal government; they have no excuse to hide from their voters.
• Write a letters to the editor. Here’s UCS’s LTE guidance for writing an effective one. Feel free to use talking point from this or other UCS blogs!  
• Call members of Congress and tell them to defend against these attacks. Here’s a UCS resource for making calls.
• And write them specifically about protecting NOAA. Here’s another UCS resource.

And we can show up for federal agencies and staff…

• Support federal staff and scientists in our communities. Here’s a UCS resource for folks to have on hand.
• Keep our ear to the ground for opportunities to show up in person and demonstrate support for agencies and rejection of the ongoing harm.
• Help to amplify the stories of fired staff and the stressed staff who remain on social media and other channels.

I’ll be the first to say that this is not enough to turn the tides right now; it’s just about being and staying in the fight. At the same time, taking care of ourselves and each other and not burning out is essential. So let’s stay awake to evolving threats, unify in as big and bold a front as we can, and get ready for when it’s time to go bigger and be braver.

Climate models are the main tool scientists use to assess how much the Earth’s temperature will change given an increase in fossil fuel pollutants in the atmosphere. As a climate scientist, I’ve used them in all my research projects, including one predicting a change in Southwestern US precipitation patterns. But how exactly did climate models come to be?  

Behind climate models today lie decades of both scientific and computer technological advancement. These models weren’t created overnight—they are the cumulative work of the world’s brightest climate scientists, mathematicians, computer scientists, chemists, and physicists since the 1940s.  

Believe it or not, climate models are actually part of the driving force for the advancement of computers! Did you know that the second purpose for the world’s first electronic computer was to make a weather forecast? Predicting the weather and climate is a complex problem that combines computer science and physics. It is a form of applied mathematics that unites so many different fields. 

This is the first blog in a three-part series. This first one focuses on the history of climate models; the second will discuss what a climate model is and what is it used for; and in the third blog I will explore how climate scientists integrate the rapidly-changing field of Machine Learning into climate science.  

Predicting the weather and climate is a physics problem 

Scientists hypothesized early on that we could predict the weather and longer-term climate using a set of equations that describe the motion and energy transfer of the atmosphere. Because there is often confusion about the difference between weather and climate, keep in mind that the climate is just the weather averaged over a long period of time. The atmosphere around us is an invisible fluid (at least to the human eye): we can apply math to that fluid to predict how it will look in the future. Check out this website for a representation of that fluid in motion. 

In 1904, Vilhelm Bjerknes, a founder of modern meteorological forecasting, wrote:  

“If it is true, as every scientist believes, that subsequent atmospheric states develop from the preceding ones according to physical law, then it is apparent that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the rational solution of forecasting problems are: 1) A sufficiently accurate knowledge of the state of the atmosphere at the initial time, 2) A sufficiently accurate knowledge of the laws according to which one state of the atmosphere develops from another.” 

In other words, if we know the right mathematical equations that predict how atmospheric motion and energy transfer work, and we also know how the atmosphere currently looks, then we should be able to predict what the atmosphere will do in the future! 

So why didn’t Vilhelm try to predict the weather in 1904 if he knew it could be done? Well, at the time there was unreliable and poor coverage of observations for how the atmosphere looked. Vilhelm also knew that there would be an immense number of calculations, too many to do by hand, that go into calculating the future of the state of the atmosphere. 

It wasn’t until the early 1920s that Lewis Fry Richardson, an English mathematician and physicist, succeeded in doing what had been, until then, thought of as impossible. Using a set of equations that describe atmospheric movement, he predicted the weather eight hours into the future. How long did it take him to carry out those calculations? Six weeks. So you can see it wasn’t possible to make any reliable weather prediction with only calculations done by hand. 

Computers changed the forecasting game 

So how can we predict the weather and climate so well today? Computers! In 1945, the Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer (ENIAC) was invented in the United States. ENIAC was the first electronic computer that could perform an impressive number of calculations in seconds (here, “impressive” is relative to the era, as ENIAC could make about 5,000 calculations per second, while today’s iPhone can make billions of calculations per second). Note that there were computers before ENIAC, but they didn’t rely on electricity and weren’t as complex. 

Originally, this electronic computer was used for nuclear fallout calculations, but believe it or not, the second use for ENIAC was to perform the calculations necessary to predict the weather. Why? Because weather prediction was the perfect overlap of applied mathematics and physics that required the quick calculations of a computer. 

In 1946, one year after the ENIAC was finished, John von Neumann, a Princeton mathematician who was a pioneer of early computers, organized a conference of meteorologists. According to Jule Charney, a leading 20th century meteorologist, “[to] von Neumann, meteorology was par excellence the applied branch of mathematics and physics that stood the most to gain from high-speed computation.” 

Von Neumann knew that with ENIAC we could start predicting both the short-term weather and the longer-term climate. In 1950, a successful weather prediction for North America was run on ENIAC, setting the stage for the future of weather and climate prediction.  

Two of the ENIAC programmers preparing the computer for Demonstration Day in February 1946. US Army Photo from the ARL Technical Library archives. Left: Betty Jennings, right: Frances Bilas.

Who were the six programmers that ran these calculations? Jean Bartik, Kathleen Antonelli, Marlyn Meltzer, Betty Holberton, Frances Spence, and Ruth Teitelbaum, all women mathematicians recruited by the military in 1942 as so-called “human computers”. I mention this briefly here because women’s contributions to the advancement of computer technology and weather forecasting is often overlooked. During Women’s History Month it is even more important to elevate and remind folks of their critical contributions. 

The first climate model 

The weather forecast run on ENIAC in 1950 was for only a short period of time (24 hours) and included only North America. To successfully model the climate, we would need a model to simulate decades of Earth time that covers at least one hemisphere of the Earth. 

The first general circulation model (GCM)—what climate scientists call climate models— was developed by Norman Phillips in 1956 using a more sophisticated computer than ENIAC that could handle more calculations. However, this GCM was primitive in nature. 

After Phillips successfully demonstrated the climate system could be modeled, four institutions in the United States—UCLA, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) in Princeton, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory—independently developed the first atmosphere-only GCMs in the 1960s. Having four models developed slightly differently contributed to the robustness of the discipline early on in climate modeling. 

And thus, the age of climate modeling was born. These GCMs could predict the future state of the atmosphere and its circulation given any change to atmospheric composition (such as heat-trapping pollutants), which is the main application of GCMs to this day. 

Today’s climate models 

GCMs are much more sophisticated today than they were in the 1960s. They have higher resolutions (meaning they perform more calculations per area), they are informed by better physical approximations, and they can replicate the climate much better. With each decade since their conception, different earth system models that simulate phenomena such as carbon cycling, vegetation, and aerosols have been added, improving GCM complexity and accuracy. Present-day GCMs consider changes in not just the atmosphere, but also changes in the ocean, the land, and sea-ice (see figure below). 

Modern climate models incorporate multiple sub-components that simulate land, ocean, and sea-ice conditions to inform modeling of atmospheric conditions.

When scientists run a climate model, they are actually running four different models: one for the atmosphere, one for the ocean, one for the land, and one for sea-ice, simultaneously. These four models then communicate with each other through something called a “coupler” during the calculation stage.  

So, for example, if the ocean model says the temperature of the ocean surface changes by 3°C given a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, this information is then relayed to the atmospheric model, which can then respond and change the atmospheric circulation based on that temperature change.  

For more information on what a climate model is, how it works, and how climate scientists use them, check out my climate model explainer blog coming soon.

Climate models improve incrementally through decades of scientific work 

Climate models are some of the most reliable models in existence because they have been built upon, tested, and corrected for decades. And while there are some problems we’re still working on correcting, they can replicate the climate system overall with incredible skill and accuracy.  

Climate models are at the foundation of the scientific consensus around climate change. And at UCS, we use climate models to advance our understanding of the climate system in order to predict how communities are affected by a changing climate, and, importantly, to know who to hold accountable for the climate crisis.

This past week was a busy one for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

On Monday, a whopping 48 scientific societies, associations, and organizations—representing almost 100,000 scientists from diverse disciplines—sent a letter, organized by UCS, to members of Congress demanding they protect federally funded scientific research and federal scientists. Anyone who’s worked with any scientific organization on a collective effort knows it is quite the feat to get such incredible unity in the scientific community.

On Thursday, the Campaign Legal Center filed suit on behalf of UCS and other groups against Elon Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) for acting beyond their power to slash federal funding, dismantle federal agencies, and fire federal employees.

On Friday, UCS staff and members rallied with thousands of others at the Stand Up for Science 2025 events in cities and towns across the country. I spoke at the DC rally, and I was impressed to see the turnout and energy of the scientists and science supporters who trekked to the National Mall to tell the world in a unified voice that the administration’s attacks on science are unacceptable and the scientific community will not be silent.  

That night, I shared my rally message on MSBNC “Prime.” Here is the full segment on how the Trump administration’s all-out assaults on science and scientists are harming real people’s health and safety.

This has been a challenging month. Many in the scientific community—and in the general population—have been unclear about what to do in response to the Trump administration’s aggressive and unlawful disruptions to the federal government. The speed and scale at which the Trump Administration has taken a sledgehammer to federal science agencies and the dedicated experts within them has been alarming and disorienting. With limited levers of power across the government to stop these actions, and a complete disregard for policy, process, and law by Trump Administration officials, it is no surprise that people feel disillusioned and powerless.

But we mustn’t. The scientific community has never been one to walk away from a challenging problem. In fact, we pursue them. We undoubtedly face an uphill battle in our current environment, but there is a path forward. We must preserve as much as we can in the federal government, prevent new damages from happening, and rebuild from outside the government when necessary.

In my conversation with MSNBC host and White House veteran Symone Sanders Townsend, she noted that no savior is coming to save us, that we need to lead ourselves out of this, and it is the scientists who are now stepping into the streets.

I felt that on Friday as I spoke to a sea of science supporters overlooking the Reflecting Pool. It is us, as the scientific community, who now have the chance to lead, to be brave, and to do everything in our power to insist on an administration and a world that uses science for good.

I’m determined to face the wind and I hope you are, too.

Lee Zeldin was full of pablum in his January Senate confirmation hearing to run the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A former member of Congress from Long Island, New York, with scant regulatory experience, Zeldin promised to “defer to the research of the scientists” on whether climate change made oceans more acidic. In even more laudatory language, he said he would “defer to the talented scientists,” on whether Earth had hit thresholds for runaway climate change.

He said he “would welcome an opportunity to read through all the science and research” on pesticides and search for “common sense, pragmatic solutions” on environmental issues. Claiming there was “no dollar large or small that can influence the decisions that I make,” Zeldin went so far as to say, “It is my job to stay up at night, to lose sleep at night, to make sure that we are making our air and our water cleaner.”

It was all a lie. Last week, President Trump said Zeldin was considering firing 65% of EPA’s staff, which would amount to nearly 10,000 of the agency’s 15,000 workers. The White House later issued a clarification—as if it made any difference—that Zeldin was “committed” to slashing 65% of the agency’s budget. The EPA issued a statement saying President Trump and Secretary Zeldin “are in lock step.”  

Also last week, the news broke that Zeldin is urging the White House to strike down the 2009 EPA finding that global warming gases endanger public health and the environment. That finding, made under the Obama administration, girded federal efforts to reduce vehicle and industrial emissions. The finding, long a legal target for climate deniers, has so far held up, even in an ultra-conservative Supreme Court, but that has not stopped the administration from attacking it. Project 2025, the blueprint organized by the Heritage Foundation to guide this White House, calls for an “update” to the endangerment finding. Leading climate denier and former Trump transition adviser Steve Milloy told the Associated Press last week that without the finding, “everything EPA does on climate goes away.”

This is after Zeldin told senators in written answers for his confirmation that he planned to “learn from EPA career staff about the current state of the science on greenhouse gas emissions and follow all legal requirements.” Instead, Zeldin has scientists in a state of bewilderment. In one fell month, he has every employee looking over their shoulder, fearing the dismissal of their work or the tap of outright dismissal.

Zeldin’s latest “lock-step” actions cap an already-breathtaking first month in running the EPA.

He has launched an illegal effort to claw back $20 billion in EPA clean energy funding significantly targeted for disadvantaged communities. He placed nearly 170 workers in the office of Environmental Justice on administrative leave and oversaw the firing of about 400 probationary staff (although some have momentarily been brought back after public outcry).

Zeldin has begun a rollback of Biden administration energy efficiency and water conservation regulations for home appliances and fixtures, and is asking Congress to repeal waivers for California to phase out new, gasoline-only  vehicle sales and stricter emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks. Many other states in recent years have decided they would follow California’s standards, as they are allowed to under the Clean Air Act. Combined, these states add up to 40% of the automobile market in the United States.

There are surely many more attempts to come that will turn back the clock on environmental protection.

An EPA led by industry apologists 

Zeldin’s EPA includes a rogue’s gallery from President Trump’s first term.

Returning to the EPA in top spots for chemical regulation are Nancy Beck and Lynn Dekleva. Both formerly served on the American Chemistry Council, the top lobbying arm of chemical manufacturers, and Dekleva spent more than three decades at DuPont, one of the most notorious companies for burying the dangers of PFAS.  

In the first Trump administration, Beck was at the center of the suppression on science to resist the most stringent regulation or bans on carcinogenic chemicals such as trichloroethylene, PFAS, methylene chloride, and asbestos. She was also reported to have helped in burying the strongest possible health and safety guidelines to help communities reopen during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dekleva was accused during her first stint in President Trump’s EPA of pressuring employees to approve new chemicals and colluding with industry to weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The nominee to be Zeldin’s assistant administrator, David Fotouhi, is another returnee who was at the center of the first Trump administration’s efforts to strip wetlands protections. When not inside the EPA, Fotouhi has a long record defending industries in legal battles over standards or contamination lawsuits about toxic chemicals, such as asbestos, PFAS, PCBs, and coal ash.

Holding high-level positions in the Office of Air and Radiation are Abigale Tardif and Alex Dominguez. Tardif lobbied for the oil and petrochemical industry and was a policy analyst for the Koch-funded network Americans for Prosperity. Dominguez lobbied for the American Petroleum Institute, which opposed the vehicle pollution standards of the Biden administration.

Aaron Szabo has been nominated to be assistant secretary for Air and Radiation. Szabo was a contributing consultant to the Project 2025 chapter on the EPA that recommends sharply curtailing the agency’s monitoring of global warming gases and other pollutants and eliminating the Office for Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights.

Other recent EPA appointees who also contributed to Project 2025 (which President Trump disavowed during the presidential campaign) are Scott Mason and Justin Schwab. Steven Cook, a former lobbyist for plastics, chemicals, and oil refining, and another veteran of the first Trump administration, is also returning.

Zeldin may be inexperienced at regulation, but none of the above are. Kyle Danish, a partner at Van Ness Feldman, a consulting firm for energy clients, told the New York Times, “This group is arriving with more expertise in deploying the machinery of the agency, including to unravel regulations from the prior administration. They all look like they graduated one level from what they did in the first Trump administration.”

Same playbook at other agencies

Other agencies responsible for addressing climate change pollution have also quickly deployed the machinery of environmental destruction.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy issued a memorandum ordering a review of the fuel economy standards of the Biden administration, claiming without evidence that the standards would destroy “thousands” of jobs and “force the electrification” of the nation’s auto fleets. This is despite the agency’s own analysis showing the rules would save consumers $23 billion in fuel costs and result in annual health costs benefits of $13 billion from reduced air pollution.

Secretary Duffy also issued a memorandum canceling the Department of Transportation’s plans to address environmental justice in low-income populations and communities of color, climate change, and resilience polices for department assets and the department’s Equity Council. Again, no facts were offered as to why communities disproportionately beset with pollution and pollution-related diseases should be excluded from protection. He was just following President Trump’s Orwellian executive order that aims to wipe any consideration of race, gender, climate, equity, and disproportionate impacts from federal programs.

Over in the Interior Department, Secretary Doug Burgum issued a memorandum directing all his assistant secretaries to provide action plans that “suspend, revise, or rescind” more than two dozen regulations. The obvious goal is to plunder more public land and water for private profit for the fossil fuel and mining industries. Many of those regulations to be revised or killed involve endangered wildlife and plants, landscape and conservation health, the Migratory Bird Treaty, and accounting for the benefits to public health, property, and agriculture of reducing climate-related pollution.

In a recent interview on FOX News, Secretary Burgum said he was “completely embracing” the massive shrinking of the federal workforce by the Department of Government Efficiency, a cruel act that means he is just fine with DOGE’s 2,000 job cuts at Interior, including 1,000 in the chronically understaffed National Park Service, which has a $23.3 billion backlog for deferred maintenance. 

Climate mockery at Department of Energy

And then we have the reported layoff of between 1,200 and 2,000 workers at the Energy Department, now run by Chris Wright, a former CEO of one of the nation’s largest fracking companies. In President Trump’s Cabinet, Secretary Wright is the most blunt in dismissing the effects of the climate crisis. In 2023, he said the “the hype over wildfires is just hype to justify” climate policies. He said, “There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition.”

He has doubled down on his rhetoric during his first month in office. Wright told a conservative policy conference in February—without evidence —that net zero goals for carbon emissions by 2050 were “sinister” and “lunacy.” Wright also went on FOX Business in February to say that climate change is “nowhere near the world’s biggest problem today, not even close.”

Despite all the evidence already unfolding that climate change is a factor in the increasing number of billion-dollar weather disasters in the US, and despite a major 2023 study projecting that five million lives a year could be saved around the world by phasing out fossil fuels and their pollution, Wright said a warmer planet with more carbon dioxide is “better for growing plants.” Never mind the communities living in the crosshairs of contamination and climate catastrophe or conservationists who are concerned anew about endangered species.

Wright spent his first month in office postponing Biden-era energy efficiency standards for home appliances, claiming without evidence that they have “diminished the quality” of them. His office announced the canceling of $124 million in contracts, many of them connected to diversity, inclusion, and equity initiatives. He said those contracts were “adding nothing of value to the American people.” When asked if he wanted fossil fuels to “come back big time,” Wright responded, “Absolutely.”

Behind the pablum of confirmation hearings was an iron fist

And over in the Commerce Department, the 6,700 scientists and 12,000 staffers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are reeling from the recent first wave of hundreds of layoffs. Many more job losses are threatened, with sources telling major media outlets that the Trump administration and new Secretary Howard Lutnick are considering a 50% cut in staff and a 30% cut in the agency’s budget.

It is irrelevant to the Trump administration that NOAA is a bedrock agency that protects the public with its real-time tracking of dangerous storms. It is at the center of long-term federal analysis on climate, the toll in property and life of global warming, the health of our oceans, and the state of our fisheries. Instead of being placed on a pedestal for this central role, NOAA is as much a bullseye for polluters and plunderers as the EPA. Project 2025 calls for the breaking up of NOAA because it “has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future US prosperity.”

Lutnick, a billionaire Wall Street financier, told senators in his January confirmation hearing that he had “no interest” in dismantling NOAA. The firings suggest the dismantling has begun.

When Lee Zeldin promised at his confirmation hearing that he would “defer” to talented scientists on climate change data, it was a mere six days after NOAA and many other weather agencies around the world confirmed that Earth had its hottest year yet in 2024. That was obviously lost on him. In just one month, the only demonstrated deference of Zeldin, Burgum, Wright, Duffy, and Lutnick is to President Trump’s mantra of “drill, baby, drill” and the deregulation of toxic industries.

Left in the wake are demonized and demoralized federal scientists.

In his address to Congress this week, President Trump boasted about ending “environmental restrictions that were making our country far less safe and totally unaffordable.” Hopefully it will not be one hurricane, one contamination, or one disappearing species too many to realize we cannot afford to be without those scientists. We will be far less safe without them.

This past week, I attended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting in Hangzhou, China. Delegates from nearly 190 nations came together to discuss—and, in theory, make decisions about—next steps for the 7th assessment cycle. In previous posts, I’ve explained what the IPCC is, why this assessment cycle is crucial, and highlighted its role in climate action.  

As climate change advances, the IPCC’s goal—to provide policy-relevant science—becomes increasingly urgent. And yet, as I walked away last week, it was clear that urgency is not universally shared: we saw the weakening of scientific language, delayed deadlines, and a failure to reach consensus on some of the most fundamental and pressing areas of research. 

The Goals of the Hangzhou Plenary 

The agenda for this Plenary was packed with essential tasks shaping the next IPCC reports in this cycle. The main objectives included: 

• Approving and adopting outlines for the three major working group reports and an additional methodology report on carbon dioxide removal (CDR). 

• Approving report timelines to clearly state when working group reports will be completed.  

• Approving expert meetings and passing the budget. 

While the IPCC reports are a synthesis of scientific literatures written by scientists, it’s important to remember these Plenary meetings are not a scientific gathering. Rather, they’re negotiations where member countries review plans and make decisions about the structure and process of IPCC reports. 

Key Discussions and Outcomes 

As is often the case with IPCC Plenary meetings, discussions can feel slow. Many debates repeated points from earlier sessions, as delegations revisited unresolved issues. By the end of the session, some key decisions were made, although it took longer than anticipated—nearly every day of the week long meeting ran late and delegates worked more than 38 hours straight on the final day. 

1. Working Group Report Outlines Approved  

After much debate, outlines for each of the three work group reports were approved. Since these outlines were already drafted by experts nominated by the panel, agreeing to these outlines was the bare minimum. Each IPCC Working Group (WG) plays a distinct yet interconnected role in the 7th Assessment Report (AR7): 

• Working Group 1: Physical Science Basis – Examines the fundamental climate science, including observed and projected changes in temperature, precipitation, extreme events, and Earth system processes​. 

• Working Group 2: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability – Assesses the risks climate change poses to human and natural systems, the effectiveness of adaptation strategies, and emerging challenges such as climate-related displacement and health risks​. 

• Working Group 3: Mitigation of Climate Change – Evaluates pathways for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable development strategies, and the role of finance, technology, and policy in achieving net-zero emissions​. 

During the Hangzhou plenary, governments had the opportunity to review and adjust the draft outlines developed at earlier expert meetings. These outlines serve as a roadmap for the scientists who will write the reports, shaping the scope of each assessment. Although they are indicative rather than prescriptive, delegates debated word choices—sometimes late into the night—before finally approving the chapter structures for all three Working Groups. 

2. The CDR Methodology Report Failed to Achieve Consensus  

One of the most contentious discussions revolved around the outline for the proposed IPCC methodology report on carbon dioxide removal (CDR). The report, initially scoped in 2024 and planned for completion by 2027, aims to provide technical guidance on measuring, reporting, and verifying emissions removals from CDR technologies. However, disagreements over the inclusion of marine CDR prevented consensus, meaning the outline will be revisited at the next plenary​. 

This debate is not just technical—it is deeply tied to ethics, governance, and the role of the IPCC in assessing emerging technologies.  

Delegates questioned when (or if) the IPCC should develop methodologies for technologies with unclear risks. The IPCC’s core mandate is to assess existing science and provide neutral guidance, but defining methods for speculative technologies raises important ethical questions. Marine CDR lacks long-term observational data and has potential ecological risks. Some countries argued that including methods for ocean alkalinity enhancement and direct ocean carbon capture, two experimental marine CDR technologies, could prematurely legitimize these technologies before their environmental impacts are fully understood. 

3. Working Group Report Timelines Decision Delayed, Again.  
Although the outlines were approved, the timeline for producing each report was pushed back, again. Ultimately, delegates decided to postpone setting any hard deadlines. The key question remains whether timing will allow these reports to inform the next UNFCCC Global Stocktake (GST), expected to take place in 2028. The GST is a cornerstone of the Paris Agreement, designed to periodically gauge collective progress and identify gaps in ambition. Delays in the IPCC’s work could mean that policymakers won’t have the most up-to-date science in time for the stocktake discussions. 

4. Expert Meetings and Budget  

The IPCC will move forward with expert workshops on engaging diverse knowledge, which will include work on both Indigenous knowledge and using AI systems, and methods of assessment. The Plenary deferred decision on the proposal for an expert meeting on high-impact events and earth systems tipping points. The budget was also ultimately approved, however, much is up in the air since the overall timeline for the reports remains unknown.  

Backsliding on Science, Stonewalling on Deadlines 

While the approval of the AR7 Working Group outlines represents a significant step forward, several concerning trends emerged during the Plenary discussions—raising questions about whether the IPCC process and the heavy-handed role of the country delegations could end up limiting the scope and clarity of scientific assessments. 

Scientific Language and the Removal of Key Concepts 

Throughout the plenary, some delegations pushed for edits that weakened or removed previously accepted scientific language. While Working Group I (Physical Science Basis) largely retained its core concepts, Working Groups II (Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability) and III (Mitigation) saw key terms and phrases—many central to prior IPCC reports—either watered down, or removed entirely. 

Some of the most notable omissions from the approved outlines include: 

• Lock-in and maladaptation, both fundamental concepts for adaptation and resilience planning, were removed from the outline. 

• Fossil fuels, which are central to mitigation discussions but were largely avoided, reflecting ongoing political tensions. 

• Cost of inaction, subsidies, and trade, all key factors shaping climate policy decisions, were watered down or removed.  

• Policy evaluation, including ex-post assessments of mitigation and adaptation strategies, raising concerns about the ability to reflect on past successes and failures. 

• Removal of all legal references, including climate litigation and deletion of explicit language on corporate accountability and attribution in WG-II. 

The scientists writing AR7 still have the flexibility to incorporate these topics based on available research, but the removal of these terms from the official outlines signals a worrying trend—one that could make it harder to communicate critical findings in a clear and policy-relevant way. 

The Push Against Plain-Language Summaries to Promote Accessibility 

A proposal from Working Group I experts to include plain-language summaries in each chapter—aimed at making climate science more accessible—was rejected. While many delegates strongly advocated for clear, direct language, others expressed concerns that these summaries might be perceived as too policy prescriptive, ultimately preventing their inclusion. 

This decision underscores a broader challenge: as the climate crisis worsens, clear and effective communication of scientific findings is more critical than ever. The rejection of plain-language summaries risks making IPCC reports less accessible to decision-makers, journalists, and the public—undermining their impact at a time when clarity is essential. 

The Problem of Extended Negotiations and Equity in Decision-Making 

Another major issue is the repeated extension of negotiations, which once again ran late into the night and well past the scheduled close of the plenary. This disproportionately disadvantaged smaller delegations—many from climate-vulnerable nations—who often lack the financial resources to extend their stay and had to leave before the final decisions were made. 

This recurring problem within the IPCC raises concerns about whose voices are heard at the most critical moments. While the Plenary operates by consensus, the reality is that practical constraints, including funding and logistical challenges, mean some nations are effectively excluded from last-minute negotiations. This is particularly troubling given that these same nations are often the most affected by climate change and have the most at stake. 

What’s Next for the IPCC? 

Despite slow progress and ongoing challenges, the IPCC continues to move forward. With outlines now finalized for all three Working Groups, the next critical step is the call for authors—a process where countries and observer organizations, including UCS, can nominate experts to contribute to AR7. 

Experts selected as Coordinating Lead Authors, Lead Authors, and Review Editors will be responsible for assessing the latest science, drafting report chapters, and responding to expert and government reviews. Given the scale and importance of this assessment, it is essential that scientists from diverse backgrounds and disciplines stay engaged in the process. The absence of the US from this Plenary raises concerns about official US government engagement in AR7. However, US-based scientists can still participate if nominated through other channels, such as observer organization like the Union of Concerned Scientists.  

The IPCC remains a cornerstone of global climate science, shaping the foundation for climate policy and action worldwide. With AR7 now in motion, the real work begins. Scientists must remain engaged, ensuring the reports reflect the best available evidence, not just what is politically convenient.  Despite the debate that dragged on in the Plenary, the strength of the IPCC lies in its scientific rigor, collective expertise, and global collaboration. . 

After a relentless deluge of Trump administration attacks, overwhelmingly at the hands of Elon Musk, the nation’s exceptional, thriving innovation machine is teetering on the brink. 

The ramifications are calamitous.  

Since World War II, the US has committed itself to robustly supporting the scientific enterprise, that great endless frontier, in recognition of the wellspring of public benefits that such research can ultimately bring forth. At the heart of that commitment is the central tenet that science should be a public good, for public good. The US research enterprise reflects that, with the nation supporting a vast ecosystem within which a staggering array of public and private actors—and their many and varied areas of interest—can flourish.  

Musk is now knowingly, deliberately, gleefully taking an ax to the whole of it.  

With the full and unyielding support of President Trump and his administration’s leadership, Musk is directing the indiscriminate firing of federal workers, casting off hard-earned, impossible-to-replace expertise. 

He is hamstringing agencies and their capacity to execute research internally and launch significantly more research externally. 

He is slashing universities’ and research institutions’ capacity to pursue bold new ideas, as well as onboard and train the next generation of innovators. 

He is arbitrarily and catastrophically reneging on government contracts and agreements, leaving pioneering new investments in the lurch while undermining faith in future government-supported endeavors. 

He is isolating the nation’s researchers by attacking vital channels of international coordination and collaboration that have long improved our own country’s work.  

And instead, courtesy the world’s richest man whose riches rest upon the very system he now abhors: science behind a paywall; knowledge for a fee.  

Firing federal researchers, hamstringing federal agencies  

Federal researchers are positioned at agencies throughout the government, at institutions as wide-ranging as the Centers for Disease Control, the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Department of Agriculture, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  

From tracking food safety outbreaks, to studying pollution controls, to analyzing crop yields; from triaging pending pandemics, to identifying infrastructure vulnerabilities to cyberattacks, to flying through hurricane eyewalls. Civil servants, in civil service, pushing for insights that ultimately help to unravel how things work, how things break, and how we, as a society, can push ever forward.  

But now, Musk is directing the slashing of the federal workforce, without concern for the role, the expertise, the loss, the cost.  

Take, for example, the mass firing of federal workers on probationary status. Conservative estimates suggest that this has impacted approximately 20,000 workers thus far, though lack of transparent reporting, as well subsequent re-hirings, have muddied accurate accounting. The Trump administration has further signaled its apparent intent of ultimately slashing nearly all of the hundreds of thousands of employees on probationary status—albeit now under new cover. 

This move is illegal on its face, and is being advanced in a manner that is entirely devoid of authority. 

Moreover, it is fully untethered from any coherent strategy. Notably, “probationary” does not equal “junior” or even “new,” as promotions and position shifts can result in a return to probationary status. Indeed, such firings are only being advanced because probationary employees have fewer workplace protections and are thus easier to fire.  

The net result, the intended result, is a staggering theft of publicly funded, publicly held knowledge and expertise—as well as the theft of all the ways in which that publicly held expertise would have served the interests of the public in the hours, days, and decades to come.  

Much will be lost outright. That which is not lost faces threats of privatization and paywalls. Think hurricane warnings for the rich—not for the most exposed; drought forecasts for commodity traders—not for the farmers planting rows.  

And this is just the beginning.  

At the same time that agencies are being forced to draw up broader plans for even more massive reductions in staffing, they are also being directed to abandon core and critical areas of work. The ensuing involuntary atrophy of capacity and achievement will then be cynically invoked to justify even further staffing cuts in the time to come.  

For those who remain, the work will change. Not just in the way in which an administration change always signals the arrival of new priorities, nor even in the way in which a specifically, relentlessly anti-science administration will antagonize the means of executing those priorities.  

No, this cuts deeper.  

The Trump administration is already forcing the nation’s remaining federal scientists and experts to insulate and isolate: to depart from coordinating bodies, to abandon collaborative endeavors, to extract themselves from the inherently interconnected affair of scientific research. 

At Musk’s and Trump’s direction, federal agencies are seizing up. And as they do, so too does the capacity of the scientific enterprise to serve the public good.  

Slashing federal support for research and innovation 

As harmful as the arbitrary attacks on federal agencies and federal experts are for the nation’s public good, attacks on the federal government’s ability to support the broader innovation ecosystem threaten to be even worse.  

In 2024, US support for research and development totaled approximately $200 billion dollars.  

More than half of that funding was dedicated to defense. Of the rest, approximately half was allocated to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), while the rest was channeled through a range of agencies including the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, NASA, Commerce, USDA, and more.   

And yet, the Trump administration is now attempting to illegally seize the funds outright or, where stopped, undertake other means to achieve the same outcome.  

Take what’s occurred at NIH.  

Of NIH’s approximately $47 billion budget, as much as 85 percent is awarded to outside research. In 2023, that funding translated into approximately 60,000 awards, supporting more than 300,000 scientists, at more than 2,700 entities, across all 50 states. A recent sample of that research: a vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer, novel ways to detect Alzheimer’s earlier, and the most detailed mapping yet of human brain cells, to name just three.  

A scientific-, economic-, innovation-spurring, and life-saving colossus—which the Trump administration is now actively, unrelentingly working to break. 

Since Day 1, the Trump administration has alternately attempted: directly freezing funds, indirectly freezing funds, freezing the means by which funds can actually be granted, firing the workforce required to process funds, limiting the scope of what can be funded, and dramatically curtailing how research institutions are compensated.  

What’s occurred at NIH is shocking. It also should not be viewed as a one-off. 

For one thing, the administration directed the freezing of all funds, disbursed by all agencies. Same for limiting research agendas. Same for wildly disruptive workforce firings. And there is no reason to believe that attempts at abrupt, severe changes in indirect cost rates will stop at NIH. 

Accordingly, the chill is setting in. Research institutions across the country are confronting this injection of wild uncertainty into the funding picture and bracing for shattering impact. Already, word is emerging of institutions halting enrollment for the next class of researchers—the canary, in plain sight. But the specter of calamitous funding shortfalls is also leading to broader hiring freezes, holds on approvals of new instruments and equipment, and overall adoption of austerity measures.  

If these attacks do not soon relent, austerity will be just the start.  

Moreover, at the same time as the administration is attempting to knock out the research foundations of the US scientific enterprise, it is also—again illegally, again incomprehensibly—attempting to dismantle the scaffolding established by forward-looking industrial policy intended to help turn that research into applied solutions.  

These are policy instruments and investments meant to ensure that the technologies, the industries, the workforces our nation will want and need to have on hand to respond to the challenges confronting us are strategically nurtured and developed. Under Musk’s and Trump’s hands, however, the green shoots of those policies—the manufacturing investments, the job training programs, the novel solutions—are withering in salted earth.  

What could be—and what gets lost 

Musk and his team of DOGE scavengers revel in spotlighting off-beat grants—nevermind the repeated falsehoods of their “efficiency” claims, nevermind the rapidly accruing expenses resulting from their lawless execution of unconstitutional actions. Moreover, these identifications are not the wins they think. 

The hallmark of the US commitment to the scientific enterprise is just that: A commitment to science, and in so doing, a commitment to curiosity. It is precisely because of that fiercely held commitment to curiosity, and its attendant tolerance of funding work that could ultimately fail to deliver, that the US has cultivated the research envy of the world. These are, at their core, the conditions required to allow for pioneering, truly path-breaking discovery.   

Now, as Musk and his DOGE team hunt for the latest bad-faith headline to win the internet for the day, they lurch the country another step further, another step further, another step further to rendering the whole of the publicly-oriented scientific enterprise obsolete.  

As the endless frontier recedes, in its place looms the pitch-black darkness of pay-to-play, with a public cut off from the vast riches enabled by civil science, in civil service.  

Many people may be taken aback by reading the news headlines about hundreds of wildfires breaking out in the Carolinas and Georgia this week. The latest wildland fire outlook also shows extreme wildfire risks for the Southern plains, including parts of Texas and New Mexico. Unfortunately, hotter, drier conditions, coupled with gusty winds, are contributing to an early wildfire season, which already got off to a catastrophic start with the deadly, costly LA wildfires in January. The Trump-Musk regime’s cuts to crucial agency budgets and staffing will undoubtedly add to risks this year.  

Mapping wildfire risk

While wildfire risks in California have lessened for now, wildfire risk predictions in early February were already signaling the risks to the Carolinas. Here’s what the latest map of above-normal fire risk looks like for March. (And, yes, in case you were wondering, these outlooks depend in part on data from NOAA’s National Weather Service. Another reason why the Trump administration’s attacks on NOAA make no sense).

The latest wildland fire outlook report highlights especially high wildfire risks in the Southeast:

Most of the rest of the Southeast will start March off with unusually dry fuels for this time of year. The highest significant fire potential is expected to occur from the Florida Big Bend into western North Carolina due to impacts from Helene or other recent hurricanes, in addition to the longer-term dryness that has been the rule since hurricane season.

It also calls attention to high risks in the southern Great Plains:

Confidence is increasing in a high impact spring fire season across the southern Great Plains. The expected weather pattern and its impacts to the fire environment are of major concern, and at least weekly high-end wind events are plausible through March and April. Areas with normal and especially above normal grass loading will be most susceptible to unusually large fires

What’s behind the high wildfire risks?

The immediate spark for wildfires can come from fires carelessly or purposely set by people, malfunctioning power infrastructure, lightning or other proximate causes. But, once sparked, the background weather, climate and ecological conditions can greatly increase the risks of large fires taking hold and spreading rapidly.

Emerging dry and drought conditions are one of the classic precursors to an increase in wildfire risk, as we are seeing in parts of the southeast and southern plains now.

Another set of more complex factors is also highlighted in the latest wildfire prediction report: the multi-season, long-term effects of previous storms, droughts and bark beetle infestations.

For example, Hurricane Helene’s devastating impacts across Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas and Tennessee damaged and killed trees that are now more prone to serve as fuel for wildfires and burn under dry conditions. The record-breaking rainfall that accompanied that storm also contributed to the growth of new vegetation that is now drying out, again adding to the load of flammable material. A historic drought in 2023 and subsequent pine beetle infestation are also now contributing to higher fire risks in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.

All of these underlaying factors are affected by climate change, and they show how some of the markers for wildfire seasons are set well before summer, which is considered to be the time of peak fire risk.

April’s outlook shows that risks will remain high in the southeast and southwest. It also expands the above-normal fire risk to parts of Alaska, where abnormally dry conditions around Bristol Bay and Kodiak Island create high fire risk. As the report notes: If this trend continues into spring, there is the potential for a busy start to the fire season across much of southern Alaska.

It’s never too early to prepare for fire season

Hopefully, the fires burning right now will soon be brought under control and people will remain safe. If there’s one thing this potentially high impact spring wildfire season shows, it’s that it’s never too early to prepare. States and communities in these high-risk zones need to take stock now to make sure they have taken all the advance precautions they can to limit the risk of fires starting. And, should fires break out, there must be plans in place for how best to protect people from the dangers including safe evacuation routes if needed.

Policymakers at the state and federal levels must make sure adequate funding and resources are available to deal with wildfires, and to help fire-damaged communities get back on their feet.

Worsening wildfire seasons will also contribute to the ongoing challenges in the property insurance market, another hardship for homeowners and everyone struggling with the lack of affordable housing. And wildfire smoke is a health hazard that can affect people hundreds of miles away from the original fire site.

Trump administration budget cuts and layoffs will worsen risks to people

The Trump administration’s mass layoffs of thousands of forest service employees, combined with federal funding freezes that affect wildfire mitigation and prevention projects, are their own red flag warnings going into this year’s fire season. Across the board, indiscriminately cutting staff and budgets at agencies such as NOAA, USDA and FEMA that contribute to predictive data and wildfire risk mapping, firefighting, and disaster response and recovery will only make things more unsafe for everyone.

Instead, the nation must scale up investments in solutions that will help people this fire season, and in the future, as our climate continues to heat up.

Last week, I was invited to testify at a Congressional hearing entitled Leading the Charge: Opportunities to Strengthen America’s Energy Reliability. It was held by the House Oversight Committee’s subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs.

Ahead of the hearing, I submitted written testimony to the subcommittee. You can also watch the full hearing, including all the witness statements and the questions and answers afterwards. Here’s one exchange between Ranking Member Maxwell Frost (D, FL-10) and me.

RM @RepMaxwellFrost: "As the only economist among our witnesses today, how confident are you in Trump's promise to cut energy costs in half in the next 500 days?"@UCSUSA's Rachel Cleetus: "If that promise is predicated on what we've seen in the last month, I fear not at all." pic.twitter.com/9HOh7JYXmw

— Oversight Committee Democrats (@OversightDems) February 26, 2025

Speaking at this hearing gave me the opportunity to share the facts on the economic, health and climate benefits of accelerating our nation’s transition to clean, reliable, affordable energy, drawing on insights from research done by UCS and others.

Unfortunately, other panelists used their time to boost fossil fuels, bash pollution standards for the power sector, and give full-throated endorsement to the Trump administration’s destructive actions to roll back climate and clean energy policies. One panelist even engaged in pointed anti-science rhetoric, questioning the reality and harmful impacts of human-caused climate change.

Here are my oral comments, as prepared in advance.

Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Burlison, Ranking Member Frost and members of the subcommittee for holding this hearing. My name is Rachel Cleetus. I am the policy director for the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-partisan science advocacy organization.

I want to highlight three things today:

• Accelerating the transition of our electric system to one that’s modernized, more flexible, with more renewables and storage, is the best way to protect consumer’s pocketbooks as well as safeguard health, make sure that we’re competitive on the global stage and that we’re innovating as we go along. There are tremendous economic and health benefits from this transition.
• Doubling down on fossil fuels is harmful and it’s taking us in exactly the wrong direction.  And there is ample evidence that natural gas price volatility is one of the factors driving increased electricity prices, as well that gas-fired power plants raise reliability concerns for the power grid.  
• Today, in 2025, we should not ask any American to choose between their health and prosperity. We can have both and we should have both.

The solutions to many of the challenges we see today are clear: ramping up renewable, energy efficiency and storage, and investing in a modernized, more resilient electric grid will help cut power bills, boost business opportunities, and improve public health. Doubling down on fossils fuels will instead take us in exactly the wrong direction and only serves to promote the profits of fossil fuel companies at the expense of the American public.  

Renewable energy sources are now the dominant source of new power generation capacity because, frankly, in many parts of the country they are the lowest-cost source of new electricity generation. They are also faster to build. Last year, renewables and battery storage accounted for 94% of all new large-scale capacity, with solar and battery storage leading the charge. In 2025, renewables are on track to supply 25% of electricity generation. Solar generating capacity is projected to increase 45% between 2024 and 2026.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) provide critical funding for clean energy investments that are benefiting communities across the nation by expanding access to clean, affordable energy, building domestic manufacturing and supply chains, creating good paying jobs, and helping to limit pollution from fossil fuels. In the past year, U.S. investments in clean technologies reached $272 billion, crucial to keeping US businesses competitive in a world where greener products are increasingly in demand.

The current administration’s actions to claw back or freeze this funding are frankly unfathomable. It is creating disruptions and market uncertainty for businesses that are trying to lean into opportunities right now. It’s going to result in ceding U.S. leadership on technological advancement. It’s going to cut good paying jobs and, ultimately, it’s going to harm electric reliability and increase energy costs.

Trying to turn back the clock and boost fossil fuels makes no sense. Market factors continue to drive ongoing coal plant retirements. Meanwhile, an overreliance on natural gas and volatility in natural gas prices increase the risk of higher prices for industry and for consumers. A rush to further expand LNG exports is only going to exacerbate those risks. And in a carbon-constrained world, these kinds of projects are likely to become stranded assets.

Recent extreme weather events underscore that gas power plants face significant reliability concerns, with the most catastrophic failures occurring in winter. Worsening heat waves and drought are also putting pressure on the electric grid, especially during summer months. Hybrid systems that couple renewable energy with storage provide significant grid reliability services, often more effectively than gas generators. During the heat domes that we saw last year and the year before, it was solar plus storage that helped save the day.

The power sector does need to plan and prepare for increased demand both in the near-term from data centers and manufacturing and in the long term from increased electrification of energy uses. Managing and planning for this demand growth to align with the expansion of clean energy will be crucial to avoid electricity price increases, reliability concerns, and increases in pollution.

We already are at record fossil fuel highs, whether it comes to oil or LNG. There is no problem in terms of expansion of fossil fuels unfortunately, even as the climate crisis worsens. What we need to do instead is unleash clean renewable power, the transmission to go with it, and energy efficiency.

The grid is desperately in need of upgrades and expansion. It got a C minus grade from the American Society of Civil Engineers. During extreme weather and climate events we’ve seen  power outages that affect millions of people and cause billions of dollars of damages every year. We do need to quickly expand investments in a resilient transmission system built for the future climate conditions that scientists are telling us are going to worsen. By significantly expanding these grid investments, we can integrate higher levels of renewable energy, provide reliability benefits, and help reduce electricity bills.

Modernizing the power sector also provides opportunities to clean up air, water and soil pollution from fossil fuel use. Targeted investments and programs for low-income communities and communities overburdened by pollution will help ensure that all communities can reap the benefits of a cleaner, more affordable, more modern energy system.

Burning fossil fuels is also the primary driver of human-caused climate change which is already exerting a deadly and costly toll on communities and businesses across the nation. UCS research shows that we can cut sharply heat-trapping emissions while delivering billions of dollars in consumer energy cost savings and public health benefits.

In sum, modernizing and cleaning up the power sector is vital for the U.S. economy and for its ability to compete globally. It’s also the best way to protect consumers’ pocketbooks and enhance the reliability of the power system.

(There are some differences between this version and the actual remarks I delivered, as I didn’t read my comments verbatim. You can read my full written testimony here and watch my testimony below.)