Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming

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.)

Project 2025, the far-right’s playbook for systemically reshaping the federal government, specifically calls out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to be “dismantled,” “downsized,” and “eliminated.” Calling the agency “the source of… climate alarmism,” it recommends the privatization of many of NOAA’s essential functions, some of which are congressionally mandated.

Although denying any knowledge of this plan throughout the campaign, the new administration appears ready to follow through. Roughly 10% of NOAA staff have been fired, with more layoffs expected. Confidential and proprietary data have been compromised, budgets are threatened, and scientists censored and ignored. And this is just the beginning.

So, what’s the big deal? How will this affect people in the United States, including those who support efforts to cut government spending? Through their mission of science, service and stewardship, the work of NOAA helps everyone in the U.S. every day. You may be most familiar with their weather forecasts, which are available to all free of charge (under Project 2025, you may need a paid subscription to get weather alerts). But NOAA provides so much more to every American every day.

Sure, NOAA lets you know if it will rain or whether you will need a light jacket or heavy coat. But the agency is responsible for so much more than that.

Your community’s safety and prosperity rely on NOAA

Your community uses NOAA products and tools to plan events and development. It relies on forecasts of hazardous weather events and blue sky flooding to protect property and save lives. Working with NOAA, towns and cities as well as rural communities and counties take science-informed actions to prepare for a changing environment and enhance their resilience to climate change and sea level rise. For every dollar invested in disaster resilience, informed in a large part by NOAA climate information, companies and communities avoid $13 in economic losses from extreme weather.

NOAA amergency alerts of severe weather events, like wildfires, tornadoes, and flash floods give people and communities more time to prepare, and protect lives and neighborhoods. NOAA scientists fly on the iconic “Kermit” and “Miss Piggy” hurricane hunters to collect data for more accurate, longer-term storm forecasts. Their seasonal outlooks and drought monitoring are essential for farmers to plan what and when to plant and harvest. Are you taking a commercial flight today? NOAA serves up aviation weather forecasts to guide your airplane safely and smoothly to its destination.

NOAA watches the oceans and coasts for you

Do you like seafood? NOAA inspects domestic and imported fish and shellfish products to insure they are safe and properly labeled. They also manage commercial and—with the states—recreational fisheries to ensure they are sustainable and productive for future generations. NOAA monitors and certifies seafood trade. Their research protects endangered species and helps vulnerable marine populations recover to healthy levels. NOAA also works to prevent and eradicate aquatic invasive plants and animals from our coastal and Great Lakes waters.

How about a day at the beach? NOAA’s monitoring and forecasts protect you from oil and chemical spills and red tides, from high surf and tsunamis, and from plastics and marine debris. They even provide a UV index so you know how much sunblock to apply. Going sailing? You’ll probably rely on a NOAA navigation chart to avoid shoals and hazards, and marine weather and tidal predictions to time your voyage.

NOAA helps the ‘blue economy‘

The nation’s thriving maritime industries and businesses contribute over 2 million jobs and $500 billion annually to the US economy. NOAA’s restoration and conservation projects protect coastal, wetland, and streamside habitats and green infrastructure, while boosting coastal resiliency and recreational opportunities, decreasing safety hazards, and creating jobs.

NOAA services and products improve the precision of marine navigation and the efficiency and safety of our ports and harbors. Ocean energy exploration and production—conventional and renewable—depend on information from NOAA to carry out siting and operations in areas and in a manner that optimizes their investment and minimizes negative interactions with marine animals and other economically important activities. Beyond traditional commerce sectors, NOAA’s New Blue Economy initiative harnesses the power of technology and big data to apply ocean and coastal data and information to our nation’s economic vitality, growth, and sustainability, and to address our societal challenges.

Marine sanctuaries and estuarine reserves protect resources and fuel local economies. NOAA scientists also study and forecast natural ecological events such as coral bleaching, marine heatwaves, and shifts in fish stocks that impact economically and culturally important marine resources and the people, businesses, and coastal communities that depend on them.

NOAA and national security

NOAA’s impact extends beyond our shores. It works closely with the Department of Defense (DOD) to protect our military assets and plan operations. Global weather forecasts are coordinated between DOD and NOAA entities, and NOAA informs resource management through dual use of DOD data and products. It coordinates with the US Coast Guard to combat illegal, unauthorized, and unregulated fishing and human trafficking. NOAA even goes extraterrestrial, monitoring solar activity and space weather that can disrupt electric power transmission, radio and satellite communications, and global navigation, as well as advising us when to expect awesome Northern Lights displays.

In short, NOAA is a critical source of factual, evidence-based, and unbiased information about our environment, communities, and economies. It helps individuals, leaders, and businesses make decisions based on science, not politics, alternative facts, or speculation. Because of NOAA, lives have been saved, property is protected, businesses are vibrant, communities are safer, and ecosystems are healthier.

What can you do to protect NOAA?

The threat to NOAA’s science, services, and stewardship is dire. The agency cannot carry out its critical functions on limited staff, shrinking budgets, and aging ships and satellites.

Call or message your elected representatives and remind them about the vital role of NOAA to you and your community. Contact your local news media; ask them to report on what is happening to NOAA and other federal science agencies and how it will impact your community and neighbors. Share your story about what NOAA means to you and how you are protecting it. And show your solidarity with federal scientists by sharing critical resources from UCS and other organizations.

NOAA has offices, labs, facilities, and staff in every state and territory, and overseas. If you want to learn more about NOAA in your state and community, you can download fact sheets about their facilities, programs, and activities.

NOAA remains a target to those taking a chainsaw to its critical government services. Take action to save NOAA in your state and your hometown.

It’s almost the end of California’s wet season. California is in a Mediterranean climate zone, characterized by long, dry summers and short, wet winters. Snow is a crucial part of our year-round water supply, serving as a natural reservoir and providing up to a third of our water supply. Today, the California Department of Water Resources conducted a snow survey to determine how much snow we have stockpiled to date. Today’s survey shows we are at 85% of average levels, statewide. That could spell trouble given above average temperatures that the state is currently experiencing. In addition, significant regional differences reveal some of the ways climate change is shifting our water supplies.

StatewideNorthCentral SouthPercent of normal to date85%104%80%70%Snowpack as of 2/28/2025 SnowTrax – Home

While February saw a set of strong atmospheric rivers bring snow to Northern California, Southern California is still well below average for yearly precipitation. Indeed, drought conditions are present across Southern California and much of the American West. In addition, 2024 was the world’s warmest on record globally, and the first calendar year in which global temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above its pre-industrial levels. Recent wildfires in the Los Angeles (LA) region highlighted the sometimes-disastrous consequences of this combination of hot and dry conditions. Scientists have found that climate change made the conditions that drove the devastating fires some 35 percent more likely than they would have been had the fires occurred before humans began burning fossil fuels on a large scale.

Current drought conditions U.S. Drought Monitor Climate change is increasing the gap between water supply and water demand

Climate change is increasing the misalignment between when we get water from our snowpack and when we need it in our streams, fields, and cities. As climate change accelerates snowmelt and heats up spring temperatures, springtime runoff is projected to peak between 25 and 50 days earlier than it does now. That’s around a month added to California’s dry season when other stored water resources will need to meet demand. The Department of Water Resources noted that current above average temperatures mean snowpack is melting quickly.

Warming temperatures also amplify the risk of the water stored in snowpack coming down in massive, damaging, and hard-to-capture flood events rather than a more gradual steady stream. This can happen when lots of rain falls on top of snowpack, washing both the rainfall and the snowmelt into streams all at once—as in Oregon’s 1996 Willamette River flood, one of the worst natural disasters in that state’s history. The state of flooding emergency called for LA in 2017 and the devastating flooding in the US Midwest in 2019 was a similar situation.

Political stunts aren’t helping Levee breached in Pajaro River in 2023. California Department of Water Resources

What all this means is that there is more of a need to conserve our dwindling winter water supplies for the long, dry summer season. Despite this, President Trump unexpectedly ordered the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to release water from dams into the federal water supply system known as the Central Valley Project last month. This political stunt not only did not help anyone in Southern California fight fires but also wasted water that could have been stored for the summer. The sudden water release came without local and state coordination, threatening to undermine earthen levies that protect many farms and cities in the Central Valley. No one benefited— not farmers, not fish, not cities. 

The political theater didn’t stop there. A related Executive Order directed federal water projects to ignore legal protections like the endangered species act and water quality standards in order to pump more water South. Unfortunately, the reality is that exporting significantly more water out of the Delta actually threatens Southern California’s water supply. The Public Policy Institute of California explains: “If the Central Valley Project takes more water out of the Delta, the burden to meet water quality standards would fall on the State Water Project. This would likely lead to less water available for Southern California, not more.”

Currently, the federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project share the burden of meeting state and federal water quality standards in the Bay Delta. These standards protect drinking water quality, requiring enough water to flow out through the Bay Delta and into San Francisco Bay to hold back seawater that would otherwise intrude and make the water too salty for human consumption.

Real solutions to climate-proof water supplies are available

Indeed, LA’s largest wholesale water provider, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, has shifted from an historic focus on increasing water imports to maximizing local water supplies, like water recycling, given climate impacts. That’s why the Metropolitan Water District, along with many other water agencies, supported the recent climate bond to invest in a range of smart water solutions.

These include climate-proof strategies, such as:

• increasing groundwater recharge and storage,
• modernizing water rights,
• strategically repurposing land to maximize water savings and community well-being,
• and conserving and reusing whenever possible.

Californians resoundingly support these solutions, as shown by the passage of the climate bond in November 2024. While we expect the federal political stunts to continue, states can chart their own path to real solutions. In red and blue states alike, people expect government to continue to provide essential services like safe and affordable drinking water. Now, more than ever, states must step up.

By my count, representatives from roughly 190 countries are currently gathered in Hangzhou, China, to advance the current cycle of scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, one country is notably absent: the United States. Just as I boarded my flight to China to attend the IPCC meeting as an observer, news broke that the Trump administration’s “work stop” order would prevent any US federal scientists from participating in this crucial IPCC meeting.  

This raises urgent questions: How does this decision impact international climate collaboration, and what can we expect moving forward? The US has historically played a critical role in the IPCC in three main ways: providing scientific expertise, participating in negotiations, and helping to fund the process. The current de facto withdrawal affects all three. 

Absence of Federal Scientific Expertise 

One of the most immediate and significant consequences of the US withdrawal is the absence of US federal scientists at the IPCC plenary. US scientists from federal agencies such as NASA and NOAA have long played an important role. In this cycle, they have a prominent role in Working Group III (WG3), which focuses on climate change mitigation—assessing methods for reducing heat-trapping emissions and removing them from the atmosphere. 

The impact of this absence is particularly severe because NASA’s chief scientist, Kate Calvin, is currently the co-chair of WG3. Without her leadership, the group loses an essential voice in shaping climate mitigation strategies. 

Additionally, each working group relies on a Technical Support Unit (TSU) to provide scientific, technical, and organizational assistance. The WG3 TSU is staffed almost entirely by US personnel (9 of 10 people), and its contributions are substantial: just last cycle, the WG3 report spanned over 2,000 pages. Compounding the challenge, the NOAA Assessment Technical Support Unit, which provides editorial, data visualization, IT, and production services, is also sidelined by the work stoppage and anticipated attempts to dismantle NOAA.  

While this stoppage is technically temporary, if federal experts continue to be barred from participating, it would represent a major loss to the IPCC’s ability to produce rigorous and comprehensive reports. 

No US Negotiators at the Table 

IPCC plenary meetings are where representatives from participating countries review, discuss, and make key decisions to advance the IPCC’s work. During the meeting this week, countries are debating outlines for all the major IPCC reports. This is an important moment that sets the stage for work over the next few years. While country negotiators do not author the reports themselves, the IPCC’s influence stems in part from its consensus-based approach—ensuring that governments accept and commit the science and its conclusions. The absence of US negotiators means that the US has effectively removed itself from this process. 

Why does this matter? Without US participation, other countries will shape the discussions without US input, reducing the nation’s influence in shaping global climate assessments. This might be an overall benefit to the IPCC based on Trump’s public anti-science rhetoric on climate change, but historically the US has been a value-add to the process.  

Loss of US Funding for the IPCC 

Countries make voluntary contributions to support the IPCC’s work. The Biden administration had pledged approximately $1.5 million for this year’s IPCC budget, but those funds have not been delivered. Given Trump’s past actions—he pulled US funding from the IPCC during his previous term—there is little expectation that his administration will reinstate financial support. 

The loss of US funding, while not crippling, creates additional financial strain for the IPCC. Other nations or philanthropists (Bloomberg stepped in to cover UNFCCC funding) may step in to fill the gap, but the de facto withdrawal reinforces the message that the US is abdicating from its commitments to international climate cooperation. 

What This Means for the Future of the IPCC 

Climate change is a global challenge that requires global solutions. The IPCC was founded to foster international collaboration on climate science—science that is not policy-prescriptive, but rather provides world leaders with information crucial to crafting policy decisions. While this week’s IPCC plenary is proceeding, the absence of the United States signals a retreat from international climate leadership at a time when the worsening climate crisis demands stronger global cooperation.  

In the face of these restrictions, it’s important to remember that the IPCC’s structure allows for continued participation from non-federal scientists in the US—scientists like me. The IPCC’s strength lies in its ability to convene voluntary experts from universities, NGOs, research institutions, and government agencies worldwide. The last cycle included thousands of authors, most of whom are independent researchers unaffected by the federal work stoppage.  

However, the withdrawal of US federal support weakens the IPCC’s collective ability to provide the science the world needs to help tackle the climate crisis. In a moment when urgent, coordinated action is needed, this step back from collaboration could have long-term consequences. The path forward may not be easy, but the IPCC will continue its work and adapt to these challenges. As an observer organization, the Union of Concerned Scientists will continue to actively engage in this important scientific process. The real question now is how long the US will remain on the sidelines, and at what cost to the global effort and US communities? 

More and more communities across the United States are being exposed to extreme weather and fossil-fueled climate disasters. In 2024 alone, 27 declared disasters caused over one billion dollars in damage. Growing physical risk from extreme weather is colliding with the nationwide shortage of affordable housing. A thoughtful and equitable reimagining of our disaster response and recovery system has never been more urgent. But the Trump administration’s dismantling of federal agencies and programs responsible for disaster response puts Americans everywhere at extraordinary risk and will hamper state and local government’s ability to prepare for and recover from disasters.  

Cuts to HUD will hurt disaster recovery and affordable housing 

The Trump administration has signaled that it plans to reduce the workforce at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by half. One of the targets within HUD for layoffs is the Office of Community Planning and Development—a leaked document suggests 84% of the staff in the office will be terminated. Staff in that office run the Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) which support states and local governments to rebuild homes, public infrastructure, and fund economic development activities in areas where disaster has been declared. The Office of Community Planning and Development also administers the Continuum of Care program, which funds nonprofits and local governments in their response to homelessness—which is at a record high. Staff terminations will cause delays in these crucial programs.   

Within a week of HUD Secretary Scott Turner’s confirmation, details about climate-specific research and programs have disappeared from the HUD website. Advocates are raising concerns about the agency’s failure to disperse the most recent tranche of funding for the Green and Resilient Retrofit program, which supports improvements to federally-financed, affordable apartments.  

FEMA cuts harm communities pre- and post-disaster 

The Trump administration has also announced significant layoffs and cuts to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA has the sole mission to help people before, during, and after disasters. As my colleague Shana Udvardy notes, the agency needs both competent leadership and funding to accomplish its mission. Unfortunately, we are seeing the exact opposite right now.  

Currently, FEMA is operating under an interim head who has little experience in emergency management or disaster response. Adding to that, recent layoffs to an already understaffed agency means decreased capacity to respond to increasingly frequent disasters. In addition to disaster response, risk reduction and resilience efforts also seem to be on the chopping block. FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities and Flood Mitigation Assistance programs have obligated over 1.6 billion dollars nationwide in the last five years. Although both programs existed before the creation of the Biden administration’s Justice40 initiative, their designation as Justice40 programs in light of recent rollbacks raises questions about the continued funding despite enormous need for resilience investments.  

A pattern of politicizing disasters 

While the level of funding and personnel cuts may be unprecedented, the politicization of aid by President Trump is not. During his first term, Trump used the Office of Budget and Management (run then as now by Project 2025 architect Russell Vought) to delay obligated disaster recovery funding to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria in 2017. This weaponization of aid has continued into the second Trump administration, as evidenced by his threats to withhold aid to California after the January 2025 wildfires in Los Angeles, and FEMA acting administrator Cameron Hamilton’s refusal of Georgia Governor Brian Kemp’s request to extend the 100% federal cost share for continuing Hurricane Helene clean-up efforts. 

Ripple effects of uncertainty in federal disaster funding 

The politicization of disaster aid doesn’t just delay recovery and increase near-term risk, it poses longer-term threats to frontline communities. One such threat is the impact on municipal bond markets, which provide debt securities for state and local governments to finance everything from day-to-day operations to critical infrastructure investments needed for climate adaptation. Until recently, the municipal bond market has been slow to reflect climate risk, in part because of information gaps and in part because federal investments in disaster response and recovery can help reduce future risks and thereby ameliorate the negative impacts of these disasters on local communities’ creditworthiness.   

Federal aid to state and local governments both directly increases resilience through disaster recovery grants, and indirectly by reducing the riskiness of municipal bonds through reducing climate risks to communities. The worst thing that could happen to communities hit by a climate disaster would be to then find their credit rating hit too, through no fault of their own. Investments in climate resilience pay off—for communities and for their ability to raise money through bond funding. Slashing disaster aid and resilience programs based on political whims will inject uncertainty into municipal bond markets that state and local governments simply can’t afford.  

Rethinking local climate planning as defense 

Already, state and local governments are mounting legal challenges to this administration’s rollbacks. Outside of the courts, state and local governments will need to take a more expansive view of planning for climate change, beyond emissions reductions. These expanded goals should be pursued with all available financing options before investor confidence in municipal bonds wanes drastically.

Investments in meaningfully affordable housing—from the building of new homes in less risky places to weatherization and upgrades to existing single and multi-family housing—will increase resilience. Policy changes should co-occur with investment. For example, adopting stronger building codes will help homes withstand increasingly severe storms, and developing tenant protection policies will ensure that well-intentioned investments in housing won’t inadvertently spur displacement. As property insurance premiums increase and put greater strain on homeowners and affordable housing developers, regulators on the state level could compel insurers to report more thorough data on rate increases and policy cancellations with the goal of moving towards risk reduction partnerships.    

While state and local governments can play important defense against resilience policy and funding rollbacks at the federal level, they can do much more with the funding, strong standards, and technical assistance from the federal government. As the US Congress enters budget reconciliation, lawmakers should fight tooth and nail for agencies like HUD and FEMA, federal workers, and funding that communities across the country rely on.

Amid the Trump Administration’s illegal moves to freeze Congressionally-authorized funding, shutter Congressionally-authorized agencies, and fire civil servants for political reasons, budget reconciliation looms.

Does Congressional budget reconciliation even matter right now given our unfolding Constitutional crisis?

Yes, it does. Budget reconciliation is a legislative tool with the power to fundamentally reshape federal spending for a decade if Congress and the President manage to deploy it successfully. And unlike much of what the Trump administration has sought to do so far, it is allowed by law. As a result, even as President Trump and Elon Musk continue sowing dangerous, illegal chaos, it is important to spare some energy to crawl into the weeds on budget reconciliation and understand what awaits us in the months ahead.

Who is responsible for Congressional budget reconciliation?

While both the US House and White House play critical roles in budget reconciliation, this is really all about the Senate.

Most commonly, there are two ways to move legislation through the Senate: unanimous consent or a vote of three-fifths of the Senators (60 out of 100) called a supermajority. The history and legitimacy of the supermajority requirement in the Senate are topics for another day. For our purposes, the thing to know is that requiring a supermajority vote makes enacting sweeping, partisan legislation, especially when it comes to rearranging tax and spending priorities, exceedingly difficult.

What is budget reconciliation?

Enter the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (CBA). Passed by the 93rd Congress and signed into law by President Ford, the CBA governs all aspects of the federal budget process. Among the law’s most important provisions is a rule that if the House and Senate can agree on a budget resolution, legislation implementing the spending levels in that resolutioncan pass the Senate by a simple majority vote (51 out of 100 senators). Such legislation is called a budget reconciliation bill because it is supposed to reconcile actual spending and revenues with the new budget resolution.

Reconciliation is unworkable when the two political parties share control of the federal government. During unified control of the Executive and Legislative branches, as is the situation currently with the Republicans controlling the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate, budget reconciliation offers a rare opportunity for the party in control to reshape the federal government for years to come.

Recent examples of budget reconciliation legislation include the Republican tax cuts in 2017 (the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), the Democratic economic stimulus plan in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 (the American Rescue Plan), and the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.

Where does budget reconciliation happen?

The budget reconciliation process starts in the House and/or Senate Budget Committees. As of today, each chamber is moving its own, vastly different, budget resolution, each proposing different spending levels across the federal government.

The Senate is considering a narrower resolution that purports to increase energy production and invest in border security, with a second resolution focused on tax policy to come later. The House is resisting the two-step approach in favor of one massive package containing all of President Trump’s planned spending, including permanent extension of the 2017 tax cuts.

How will budget reconciliation happen?

Eventually, the House and Senate will have to agree on a single budget resolution or reconciliation will not be triggered (the budget resolution only requires a simple majority for passage and does not require approval by the President). The final budget will include instructions to a wide variety of Congressional committees with jurisdiction over different areas of spending.

For example, the final budget resolution could instruct the House Energy and Commerce Committee to find budget savings within its jurisdiction totaling a specific amount, or the Senate Armed Services Committee to identify provisions in its purview that would increase spending by a certain amount.

Each committee receiving instructions in the budget resolution will then write provisions to comply with its instructions. Finally, the budget committees package all the provisions in one legislative vehicle, which must pass the House and Senate and then be signed into law by the President. It remains to be seen whether the House approach (one big bill) or Senate approach (two smaller bills) will win out.

Senate rules prohibit the inclusion of “extraneous” matters in a budget reconciliation bill. This is enforced through the “Byrd rule,” named for the late Senator Robert C. Byrd. The Byrd rule says the Senate Parliamentarian is required to review budget reconciliation legislation and identify provisions unrelated to the budget. This review is called the “Byrd bath.” Provisions found to violate the Byrd rule are subject to removal from the bill. In other words, anything unrelated to the budget can’t be added to a reconciliation bill. (For a deep dive on the Byrd rule, please see this excellent report from the Congressional Research Service.)

To be clear, budget reconciliation legislation is required to be related to federal spending and revenues, but it is not required to actually save any money, and it rarely does. The current House budget resolution would specifically raise the debt ceiling by $4 trillion, which is strong evidence that the House majority expects reconciliation legislation to increase the debt, not lower it.

When will budget reconciliation start and be completed?

Great question! Who knows?

The Congressional Budget Act includes deadlines for this process, and the final budget resolution will include dates by which the committees receiving reconciliation instructions should comply, but there are no enforcement mechanisms. The Congressional Research Service summarizes the timing this way (emphasis, mine):

The record of experience with reconciliation legislation over the period since 1980 indicates considerable variation in the time needed to process such measures from the date the reconciliation instructions take effect (upon final adoption of the budget resolution) until the resultant reconciliation legislation is approved or vetoed by the President. The interval for the 24 reconciliation measures ranged from a low of 27 days (for the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) to a high of 384 days (for the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005). On average, completing the process took about five months (155 days) . . .

Assuming the House and Senate can come to agreement on a budget resolution this spring, a budget reconciliation bill could be expected in the fall.

But don’t forget that this 10-year budget reconciliation process is unfolding while annual spending legislation for the current fiscal year expires March 14. That’s right: Congress and the Administration are focused on a long-term budget plan while they cannot agree on a plan to keep the government open past next month. Ironic, eh?

Why is Congress using the budget reconciliation process?

President Trump and Congressional Republicans hope to use the budget reconciliation process to enact a partisan spending plan that could not pass the Senate under normal rules. Just how extreme that plan will be remains to be seen.

The current Senate budget resolution would pump $150 billion into the already-bloated Pentagon, and another combined $350 billion into law enforcement agencies within the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, ostensibly to curb unauthorized migration.

Meanwhile, the Senate plan claims to defray a tiny percentage of that spending by expanding fossil fuel production from federal lands and waters. Senate Republicans have also indicated they intend to use reconciliation to repeal much of the Inflation Reduction Act’s investments in renewable energy and clean transportation, while overturning the Biden Administration’s fee on methane.

The House budget blueprint is even more destructive. It would extend the Trump tax cuts from 2017, which exploded the deficit and were severely skewed in favor of the wealthy. To mask a small percentage of the cost of such a move, the House budget plan would allow cuts to Medicaid, federal student assistance, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Both resolutions, and the reconciliation bill that will result, would redistribute trillions in taxpayer dollars to the already-wealthy, powerful, and politically connected, and away from poor and working-class families, while managing to grow the deficit and debt.

What can we do about this?

As this process unfolds, the Union of Concerned Scientists—working independently and in coalition with partners—will defend crucial spending priorities while highlighting the disastrous impacts of the current reconciliation plans. We will continue to provide policymakers who are willing to protect investments in a clean energy economy, respond to the climate crisis, protect programs vital to working families, pursue tax fairness, and right-size our defense spending with tools to engage in that defense using the best available science.

Enactment of a budget reconciliation plan is not a forgone conclusion. While the process does provide a crucial shortcut to Senate passage for the administration’s legislative priorities, it remains a heavy lift, made even harder by the historically narrow margin in the House and the tendency toward Congressional in-fighting.

Effective science advocacy can affect this outcome, and that is what we at UCS do. Please stay tuned.

There is an abundance of Native American imagery in the US imagination, and much of it is inaccurate: The Western films depicting cowboys winning against local Natives, Wild West TV shows, the classic tear rolling down the cheek of a man in a headdress as he looks at litter, or the picturesque images as Disney’s Pocahontas sang about all the colors the wind holds.

Some of the concepts about Native Americans that many non-Native people possess are rooted in stereotypical portrayals from the media. These concepts were crafted hundreds of years ago and codified in the Declaration of Independence, which calls us “merciless Indian savages.” Because of these propagandized portrayals routinely woven into the mainstream, the stereotypical imagery of Natives has been challenging and nearly impossible to correct.

This imagery has been exploited, propagandized, and weaponized regularly without responsibility or accountability, even as Native communities work tirelessly to continuously debunk falsehoods. These are not just old-school representations that don’t apply today. I was once asked by a judge in court how often I drank alcohol. When I responded that I don’t, he asked me, “Well, what kind of Indian ARE you?” I responded that I prefer to be outdoors, and be active. He replied, “Oh, so you’re that kind of Indian.”

It’s important to realize that there are no positive stereotypes; all stereotypes lead to a generalized assumption, and an unrealistic, erroneous expectation that leaves members of certain groups pressured and then villainized or persecuted for behaving unstereotypically—which is so harmful when the stereotypes were inaccurate in the first place. Stereotyping omits the possibility of variability and choice among the stereotyped group.  

The “Ecological Native” stereotype persists and harms

In my opinion, one of the worst and most exploited of all the stereotypes is that of the “Ecological Native”: This stereotype rests in the belief that Natives are connected to the land, inextricably and mysteriously—almost magically. To be fair, some of us are connected to our land, and it has nothing to do with magic. And others are not, which doesn’t mean they are any less a part of Native American communities. Each of us still make up the collective People; each of us contributes our talents, skills, and gifts.

Personally, I have been an outdoor-loving child ever since I can remember. I happened to understand and learn Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) without effort, and carry on sustainable practices that have been in our family since time immemorial. I also have family members who don’t like to go outside, who can’t tell what weather patterns are coming, when to gather, or when fishing season is. The danger of stereotyping resides when someone in a position of power, such as a government agent, business person, consultant, academic researcher, or nonprofit administrator, expects a Native person not skilled in environmental areas to offer information. Assuming that individuals are skilled in an area that they are not, based only on stereotypes, is dangerous. We don’t all know the same information, hold the same ideals, or have the skills and ability to produce information upon command. Situations like this become perilous when we are “asked” while expectation and pressure are embedded in the “request.”

Requests arrive from people or government agencies, and other places that want to validate information or prove inclusivity by incorporation of TEK, and by extension a Native individual. Even if someone who is contacted wishes to say no to such requests, our history of Native peoples across this land is rife with dangerous interactions and being punished to varying degrees for such refusals. Some people may even feel that if they refuse, or if they don’t live up to “Ecological Native” stereotypes, they could be fired or replaced.

Relying on false experts is dangerous

Increasingly, we’re seeing people who do not have specific TEK or Tribal knowledge—but claim to—promote themselves as “experts” to those who don’t have any information on how to carefully vet collaborators. These individuals then fall back onto tropes of land connection and meaningless verbiage while taking funding or influencing land management practices while excluding Tribal input. Often, we see non-vetted individuals be awarded contracts and funding over vetted TEK practitioners simply due to the reliance on a learned stereotype that has been exploited.

I receive emails weekly about someone who has contacted a colleague or Tribal member in search of any Native who is expected to then represent the community. This presents a difficult predicament, since some Natives are willing to give talks, but often don’t have the accurate information needed to address the topic at hand. That information is often recorded and presented as fact, and reused as being from a Native ‘expert.’ This leads to inaccurate data, unverifiable information when claiming the inclusion of TEK, and disbelief of and passing over of vetted Native researchers and specialists. This pattern also contributes to discounting Native scientists and scholars who have spent much lengthier periods of time than others specializing in TEK areas.

It is imperative that anyone who wants to include TEK or data from any discipline of Indigenous science be vetted within—and by—Tribal communities and their administrations, rather than by non-Native people who misunderstand who and what vetted Native scientists are and do.  

Additionally, the process of incorporation of Native data and select disciplines of Indigenous science must be carefully reviewed and include vetted Native scholars. Reliance on “someone who knows someone who works with a Native” or a Native who is self-proclaimed as a Native Indigenous scientist, is a dangerous, unethical practice.

Misusing TEK affects climate science

As scientists realized that Western science was failing to comprehensively address climate change, they began seeking out TEK as a method of combatting its effects. The Western science community began looking outside itself to alternative ways of knowing, and found that many Natives had been recognizing climate change in various ways while practicing their TEK. Some oral documentation of discussions of initial change goes back as far as the 1950s.

The new awareness of this perspective and our longstanding datasets offered new insight and filled the holes and gaps in the datasets based on siloed information that much Western science is based upon.

Ongoing TEK practices are carefully maintained and recognized through oral documentation by vetted practitioners. These practitioners are then at the mercy of belief systems that do not take into account the complexity of TEK, nor understand the phenology of the land and resources. 

Traditional burn systems provide a perfect example:

A common TEK practice along the West coast and other areas of the country was that of annual controlled burns to maintain vegetation, provide healthy systems, and encourage new growth. This encouraged game to return for the fresh shoots, and provided better basketry material. A detailed understanding of the forested areas, how the landscape moved and shifted, and how cool burn fires (with lower heat intensities than wildfires) would move, was common TEK knowledge.

My father can still recount a childhood memory of attending one of the last burns that was done in the Willamette Valley area of Oregon, stretching from just south of Portland through to Eugene. He recalls how those who started the fire had to then hide away for fear of being arrested for “arson.”

This kind of knowledge, and all its benefits, cannot be applied or used by Western science so long as false narratives about Native people, based on antiquated belief systems, are still the norm. This conflict remains, as Western scientists are interested in TEK but also want to cherry-pick topics to apply it to. This is problematic and ineffective because TEK is holistic in practice; understanding the system as a whole is an absolute necessity. Many non-Native scientists working on climate change don’t understand the premise of multi-generational understanding as it applies to scientific knowledge and consequently don’t take our TEK seriously .

And if at the same time they don’t understand TEK, climate scientists also subscribe to the stereotype of the Ecological Native, believing that all Natives hold the key to climate change, that faulty belief will perpetuate the issues of climate change that we all face. This is wasting time and when time is wasted it threatens our communities as well as verifiable science, both Western and Indigenous.

Painting the issue of climate change, or any other issue for that matter, as “solved by Indigenous science” is like calling John Wayne movies accurate.   

A cruel irony for TEK practitioners

On top of all of the intentional, irreparable, and ongoing harm done to Native peoples, for those of us who are blessed enough to retain and attempt to maintain our TEK, the cruel irony is that many of our homelands and natural resources—where we gained this knowledge— have been stolen, destroyed, and/or privatized. We are often barred from the areas where we hold U&A (usual and accustomed) rights to, and we are inundated with procedural blockades designed to keep us from access when we do seek to access homeland areas and resources. These obstructions come from federal, state, and local agents who gatekeep—often quite literally.

Left: a rock pile blockage on a road used for Tribal hunting. Right: a fence to keep people out and discourage hunting, with elk behind the fence. Photo credit: Samantha Chisholm Hatfield

Furthermore, the sustainability measures—like traditional burns, the ability to utilize sustainable methods of monitoring species health such as eels, salmon, or deer, or to ensure native plant species’ growth in traditional homeland areas—that we have fought for, reclaimed, and that have been left in our care to protect and be protected for at least seven generations into the future are often at risk of being blocked by some type of bias. As community members, we all know someone whose hunting, fishing, plant, medicinal, or other resource collections were confiscated, whose permit forms were “lost,” or who arrived to find the forest gates locked when they were assured they would be unlocked. This can result in missing the run, a failed hunt, or plants withering preventing harvest collections. This then throws off the sustainable TEK practices we work diligently to uphold and maintain.

Many of the follow-up conversations on situations like these and others that involve sustainability practices of TEK include responses from non-Natives in legal, agency, business, and community sectors who are clearly operating from stereotypical beliefs they hold against Natives. For example, my Tribal community members have told me they have heard inaccurate statements about themselves in these types of situations, such as that they only want to steal resources, or that Natives are “greedy,” that we don’t need natural resources since we have casinos, or that we don’t understand what it takes to manage the areas.

TEK and Western science can co-exist for the benefit of all

Indigenous and Western scientists can co-exist, but in order for this to happen, non-Natives must recognize and set aside their harmful stereotypes of Native peoples, including that we can magically solve climate change. Vetted Native practitioners of TEK must be given the freedom and trust to practice their resource management that contributes to climate change data, without the stereotyping that we will mismanage our lands, or that we don’t need our resources. Indigenous scientists, scholars, and practitioners of TEK cannot collaborate effectively with western science, when stereotypes of Natives persist and perpetuate a bias that interferes with TEK.

Non-natives in positions of power must stop viewing outreach to just one unvetted, non-expert Native person as a quick fix for their projects and initiatives, and instead seek input from Native communities, especially those that will be most affected by whatever policies or solutions they’re working on. And Native practitioners of TEK must be given the freedom and trust to practice their resource management, without the stereotypes that we will mismanage our lands, or that we don’t need our resources.