Top Stories Daily Listen Now
RawStory
RawStory

All posts tagged "climate change"

This staggering move just made Trump a global supervillain

Last week, President Donald Trump cemented his standing as the greatest environmental criminal among world leaders, a mantle of which he couldn’t be prouder.

Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially became the Environmental Pollution Agency. The EPA was established in 1970 to protect human health and the environment. Under Trump stooge Lee Zeldin, its mission today is to endanger human health and devastate the environment.

The EPA has overturned its long-held position that greenhouse gas pollution poses a danger to human health and thus requires regulation.

Gosh. It turns out that since 2009, the EPA had it all wrong. Greenhouse gas emissions actually never hurt anyone and require no federal regulation.

In reality, for more than half a century, scientists have provided irrefutable evidence of man-made climate change caused by burning fossil fuels, and its adverse impact on humans. The EPA’s change in position is pure bunk, laying the treacherous groundwork for Trump to end all federal greenhouse gas regulation and increase oil and coal production.

As to the EPA’s claim that greenhouse gas pollution poses no danger to human health, perhaps it overlooked the 178,000 people who died worldwide in the 2023 heatwave, 54 percent – or 96,120 – such deaths attributable to human-induced climate change.

Perhaps it scrubbed the EPA files of the 4,000 Americans who died as a result of extreme heat from 2010 to 2020, a 53 percent increase in deaths from 2000 to 2009 due to ever-increasing temperatures caused by climate change.

In a recent speech at the White House, Trump proudly announced "the single largest deregulatory action in American history,” including repealing all federal greenhouse gas emission standards for gas-fueled vehicles and engines. Trump also ordered that the Pentagon purchase large amounts of “beautiful, clean coal” — a laughable oxymoron even by Trump's standards.

The US is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, behind China. China has significantly reduced its reliance on coal, using clean-energy sources for more than 50 percent of electricity generation.

Trump has gutted clean-energy programs and encouraged greater reliance on fossil fuels, shamelessly increasing the US carbon footprint at an incalculable human cost.

Greenhouse gases released in the next decade as a result of Trump’s policies are expected to lead to 1.3 million more temperature-related deaths worldwide by 2115. The Environmental Protection Network (EPN) concluded that Trump’s EPA rollback of environmental regulations will lead to nearly 200,000 deaths by 2050.

The Environmental Defense Fund estimates that the EPA repeal of the 2009 “endangerment finding” regarding climate change could cause up to 58,000 deaths and 37 million additional asthma attacks through 2055 due to increased pollution. The federal repeal of climate pollution controls on vehicles and power plants could lead to 184,000 deaths over time.

From these multiple studies on the impact of Trump’s deregulation policies, one thing is clear. The human cost of Trump doing everything possible to make climate change worse is staggering, his crime against humanity beyond reprehensible.

How could one man contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, present and future, and not be held accountable? How could Trump care more about enhancing his sordid relationship with Big Oil and burnishing his anti-climate-change credentials with the MAGA crowd than about the horrendous human suffering he is causing?

The answer is Trump doesn’t care how many people die. During his first presidency, Trump’s irresponsible, dismissive, anti-science response to the COVID-19 pandemic led to the unnecessary deaths of more than 100,000 people, with Americans dying at a much higher rate than in other countries.

Trump took no responsibility, shed no tears, and said callously of the huge death toll, “It is what it is.”

Trump also doesn’t care that his criminal response to climate change is completely at odds with the vast majority of Americans, 72 percent of whom believe climate change is a serious problem. Authoritarians have absolutely no interest in carrying out the will of the people unless it furthers their own destructive agenda.

Trump also doesn’t care what effect his climate change-worsening policies have on future generations of Americans or the environmental health of the planet. He could leave office in 2028 with the lasting legacy of creating an environmental Armageddon with an indifferent shrug of his shoulders.

If a Democratically controlled Congress is elected in November, it could help prevent Trump from doing even further harm. By using aggressive oversight, budgetary pressure, and litigation, Congress could test the legality of Trump’s “arbitrary and capricious” environmental regulatory rollbacks and block funding for any future deregulations or fossil fuel-friendly policies. Legislatively, it could send critical climate-change bills to the White House that Trump would surely veto, frustrating and angering a majority of Americans and mobilizing voters for the 2028 election.

States also must continue to take the lead by reducing greenhouse gas emissions through clean-energy policies, using every means possible to repulse Trump’s attempts to scuttle such plans.

Individually, Americans can reduce their carbon footprint by buying electric vehicles, installing solar panels, weatherizing homes, reducing food waste, replacing gas furnaces or water heaters with electric heat pumps, and practicing the 3 R’s: reduce, reuse, and recycle.

Trump’s assault on the environment is an assault on the welfare of every American present and future. On Nov. 3, Americans can send a clarion message that we will fight Trump tooth and nail, so that our children and grandchildren won’t be left with an increasingly unlivable environment.

For the 72 percent of Americans who consider climate change a serious problem, our actions must speak louder than our words.

  • Tom Tyner is a freelance editorialist, satirist, political analyst, blogger, author and retired English instructor.

Here's why Trump is dangerously wrong about how climate change threatens our health

By Jonathan Levy, Professor and Chair, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University; Howard Frumkin, Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington; Jonathan PatzProfessor of Environmental Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison; Vijay LimayeAdjunct Associate Professor of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The Trump administration took a major step in its efforts to unravel America’s climate policies on Thursday, when it moved to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding — a formal determination that six greenhouse gases that drive climate change, including carbon dioxide and methane from burning fossil fuels, endanger public health and welfare.

But the administration’s arguments in dismissing the health risks of climate change are not only factually wrong, they’re deeply dangerous to Americans’ health and safety.

As physicians, epidemiologists and environmental health scientists, we’ve seen growing evidence of the connections between climate change and harm to people’s health. Here’s a look at the health risks everyone face from climate change.

Extreme heat

Greenhouse gases from vehicles, power plants and other sources accumulate in the atmosphere, trapping heat and holding it close to Earth’s surface like a blanket. Too much of it causes global temperatures to rise, leaving more people exposed to dangerous heat more often.

Most people who get minor heat illnesses will recover, but more extreme exposure, especially without enough hydration and a way to cool off, can be fatal. People who work outside, are elderly or have underlying illnesses such as heart, lung or kidney diseases are often at the greatest risk.

Heat deaths have been rising globally, up 23 percent from the 1990s to the 2010s, when the average year saw more than half a million heat-related deaths. Here in the U.S., the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome killed hundreds of people.

Climate scientists predict that with advancing climate change, many areas of the world, including U.S. cities such as Miami, Houston, Phoenix and Las Vegas, will confront many more days each year hot enough to threaten human survival.

Extreme weather

Warmer air holds more moisture, so climate change brings increasing rainfall and storm intensity and worsening flooding, as many U.S. communities have experienced in recent years. Warmer ocean water also fuels more powerful hurricanes.

Increased flooding carries health risks, including drownings, injuries and water contamination from human pathogens and toxic chemicals. People cleaning out flooded homes also face risks from mold exposure, injuries and mental distress.

Climate change also worsens droughts, disrupting food supplies and causing respiratory illness from dust. Rising temperatures and aridity dry out forests and grasslands, making them a set-up for wildfires.

Air pollution

Wildfires, along with other climate effects, are worsening air quality around the country.

Wildfire smoke is a toxic soup of microscopic particles (known as fine particulate matter, or PM2.5) that can penetrate deep in the lungs and hazardous compounds such as lead, formaldehyde and dioxins generated when homes, cars and other materials burn at high temperatures. Smoke plumes can travel thousands of miles downwind and trigger heart attacks and elevate lung cancer risks, among other harms.

Meanwhile, warmer conditions favor the formation of ground-level ozone, a heart and lung irritant. Burning of fossil fuels also generates dangerous air pollutants that cause a long list of health problems, including heart attacks, strokes, asthma flare-ups and lung cancer.

Infectious diseases

Because they are cold-blooded organisms, insects are directly influenced by temperature. So with rising temperatures, mosquito biting rates rise as well. Warming also accelerates the development of disease agents that mosquitoes transmit.

Mosquito-borne dengue fever has turned up in Florida, Texas, Hawaii, Arizona and California. New York state just saw its first locally acquired case of chikungunya virus, also transmitted by mosquitoes.

And it’s not just insect-borne infections. Warmer temperatures increase diarrhea and foodborne illness from Vibrio cholerae and other bacteria and heavy rainfall increases sewage-contaminated stormwater overflows into lakes and streams. At the other water extreme, drought in the desert Southwest increases the risk of coccidioidomycosis, a fungal infection known as valley fever.

Other impacts

Climate change threatens health in numerous other ways. Longer pollen seasons increase allergen exposures. Lower crop yields reduce access to nutritious foods.

Mental health also suffers, with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress following disasters, and increased rates of violent crime and suicide tied to high-temperature days.

Young children, older adults, pregnant women and people with preexisting medical conditions are among the highest-risk groups. Lower-income people also face greater risk because of higher rates of chronic disease, higher exposures to climate hazards and fewer resources for protection, medical care and recovery from disasters.

Policy-based evidence-making

The evidence linking climate change with health has grown considerably since 2009. Today, it is incontrovertible.

Studies show that heat, air pollution, disease spread and food insecurity linked to climate change are worsening and costing millions of lives around the world each year. This evidence also aligns with Americans’ lived experiences. Anybody who has fallen ill during a heat wave, struggled while breathing wildfire smoke or been injured cleaning up from a hurricane knows that climate change can threaten human health.

Yet the Trump administration is willfully ignoring this evidence in proclaiming that climate change does not endanger health.

Its move to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, which underpins many climate regulations, fits with a broader set of policy measures, including cutting support for renewable energy and subsidizing fossil fuel industries that endanger public health. In addition to rescinding the endangerment finding, the Trump administration also moved to roll back emissions limits on vehicles – the leading source of U.S. carbon emissions and a major contributor to air pollutants such as PM2.5 and ozone.

It’s not just about endangerment

The evidence is clear: Climate change endangers human health. But there’s a flip side to the story.

When governments work to reduce the causes of climate change, they help tackle some of the world’s biggest health challenges. Cleaner vehicles and cleaner electricity mean cleaner air — and less heart and lung disease. More walking and cycling on safe sidewalks and bike paths mean more physical activity and lower chronic disease risks. The list goes on. By confronting climate change, we promote good health.

To really make America healthy, in our view, the nation should acknowledge the facts behind the endangerment finding and double down on our transition from fossil fuels to a healthy, clean energy future.

This Trump claim is so absurd it deserves only absurdity in reply

In his recent Davos speech to world leaders in Switzerland, President Donald Trump chastised European countries for falling for the climate-change hoax and wasting billions of dollars on green-energy scams.

Trump sees himself on a crusade to disabuse the world of the greatest environmental con in history, having singlehandedly uncovered the Chinese climate-change hoax intended to undermine democratic countries’ economies. Countries around the globe began developing green-energy sources, reduced their reliance on fossil fuels, and undermined their countries’ energy stability. Now, Trump claims to be wisely moving the US in the opposite direction and taking the world with him.

A very nervous, twitchy fly on the Oval Office wall provided the following plausibly reliable information on Trump’s fever-dream aspirations for the next 100 days:

Beginning his crusade in the US, Trump will sue any newspaper spreading misinformation harmful to Americans that climate change fuels terrible natural disasters. As a case in point, Trump will sue any newspaper that has falsely linked the deadly winter storm currently gripping the US to warming temperatures in the Arctic caused by climate change.

“So warmer Arctic weather is causing frigid temperatures in the US,” Trump allegedly guffawed. “What kind of fools do the newspapers and their pseudo scientists take us for?” All newspapers will be forced to publicly retract every word linking the deadly storms to climate change to avoid a $10 billion lawsuit. “Lying to the American people is one thing I won’t tolerate,” said Trump.

Trump is also scrubbing false climate-change propaganda from America’s educational system, where he believes an entire generation of young Americans are being fed lies that climate change is this huge existential threat to the planet.

A recently enacted executive order requires that all units on climate change be deleted from public-school science textbooks and replaced by an EPA-provided unit entitled, “The Anti-Science Climate-Change Hoax.” In addition, wherever the term “climate change” may appear in any textbook across the curriculum, it must be referred to as “natural climate change,” Mother Nature’s climate change,” or “God-given climate change.”

Any school district not complying with the executive order will lose all federal funding and not be allowed to name any school after President Trump. In addition, board members will be investigated by FBI director Kash Patel for possible ties to the Chinese government.

Evidence of such ties may include a board member’s abnormal frequenting of Chinese restaurants, an unusual preoccupation with karaoke singing, or large amounts of made-in-China toys and appliances discovered through FBI search-and-seizure operations of board members’ homes.

We will evaluate the evidence,” said Patel, “and never rush to judgment unless examples must be made.”

States will also feel the brunt of increasing green-energy production and/or reducing their reliance of fossil fuels. Executive orders will remove all federal funding for states’ green-energy programs, “cap” the amount of green energy-produced Kilowatt hours to 2025 levels, and cut off all green-energy heating in governors’ mansions.

In addition, oil-producing states will lose federal funding that don’t increase their oil production and refinement output by 15 percent annually. To ensure compliance, teams of federal agents may be sent to oil-drilling and refinement sites with the power to arrest protestors but without authority to shoot unless provoked by violence or unendurable humiliation.

Countries that continue to increase green-energy production will be slapped with additional US tariffs up to 50 percent. However, countries that increase fossil fuel-produced energy will be given “very generous terms” according to President Trump. For replacing green-energy sources with US-purchased oil, countries will receive a 15 percent reduction in established rates for US oil recently produced in Venezuela or confiscated by the US military from Venezuelan tankers.

President Trump is taking these critical steps for two reasons: to defeat China’s plan to weaken the democratic world through its climate-change hoax and to ensure the US’s energy independence through greater production and usage of fossil fuels.

According to Trump, “America and the rest of the world must dramatically increase our production and reliance on dependable, environmentally enriching fossil fuels or we’ll all be wearing Mao suits tomorrow, which doesn’t flatter my body type. It’s either ‘drill, baby, drill’ across the globe or Chow Mein and fortune cookies three meals a day.”

Trump’s crusade to expose man-made climate change as an abominable Chinese hoax is essential to changing worldwide public opinion and rescuing countries from self-inflicted destruction. If Trump is successful, he says, “The time will come when electric cars, wind turbines, solar panels, and hydroelectric plants are as popular universally as Crooked Joe Biden’s “Cup O’ Joe” coffee mugs.”

As Trump prophesizes, “The day will come when oil proudly rules the energy world once again, and no one’s in a better position to make a killing than the US. Take that to the bank.”

Trump admin to stop enforcing certain criminal Clean Air Act cases

The Trump administration Wednesday announced it would stop enforcing certain criminal violations of the Clean Air Act.

The move signals President Donald Trump and his administration's latest action to pull back previous environmental protections under the federal law that regulates air emissions and pollution.

"Today, @TheJusticeDept is exercising its enforcement discretion to no longer pursue criminal charges under the Clean Air Act based on allegations of tampering with onboard diagnostic devices in motor vehicles," the DOJ Environment and Natural Resources Division wrote in a statement on X.

"DOJ is committed to sound enforcement principles, efficient use of government resources, and avoiding overcriminalization of federal environmental law. In partnership with the @EPA, DOJ will still pursue civil enforcement for these violations when appropriate," the agency wrote.

The Clean Air Act is landmark federal legislation originally enacted in 1970 and substantially amended in 1990, designed to regulate air pollution and protect public health by establishing national air quality standards and emissions limits for various pollutants. The law created the framework for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set and enforce air pollution standards, required states to develop implementation plans to meet those standards and established regulations for stationary sources such as power plants and industrial facilities, as well as mobile sources like automobiles. It has been considered one of the most significant environmental protection laws in U.S. history.

This red state is sounding a warning we all need to heed

“Winter? What winter?” asked the email from an old friend and life-long Montanan.

Indeed, right now it’s still in the 50s here in Helena, in mid-January. At night, the temperatures are not even making it down to freezing, often remaining in the 40s. New high temperature records are being set across the state every week.

“Winter? What winter?” is a dang good question.

Now maybe those who are new in-migrants to Montana — and there are many — this may seem like “really nice weather.” And it is — for spring, not winter in Montana.

But for those of us who have lived here for all or most of our lives, seeing new high temperature records being set every week as the mountain ranges remain brown except for their summits, something like seasonal dislocation is occurring. And it is not comforting because we know what’s coming — and it isn’t going to be pretty.

The meteorologists say the Sno-Tel sites measuring snow depth at elevation are showing wide variation in accumulation — some say it’s good, some say they’re way low. As an email from another old friend this week reported: “Snowmobilers say there’s good snow at 9,000 feet in the Tobacco Root Mountains.” 9,000 feet?! That particular range tops out at 10,000 feet, so we basically have 1,000 feet of actual snowpack and then, well, it’s back to brown all the way down to the valleys below.

Bob Dylan famously sang “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” — and indeed, you don’t need a meteorologist to know there’s no snow in our mountains, you can trust your own eyes on that by just looking around.

What this proves — undeniably and more evident every day — is that the environmentalists were right. The predictions of the consequences of overloading the atmosphere with human-caused pollutants are now coming home to roost. Those predictions have been on-going for many decades, and for many decades they have been largely ignored, distorted, and contested by, of course, those with a profit motive in continuing “business as usual” in the fossil fuel industries.

Now, that position has been wholeheartedly adopted by a science-deficient president and the kow-towing toadies larding his administration. Despite his proclamations that climate change is a “hoax,” the reality is staring us in the face here in Montana — and no amount of propaganda is going to bring down the temperature or produce the snowpack necessary to sustain Montanans through the ever hotter and drier summers.

Tragically, not only has the fossil fuel industry been unleashed by removing what few regulatory sidebars once existed, the administration has adopted an absolutely insane policy of massive deforestation of what remains of our national forests.

While billions are being spent on quixotic quests to engineer huge machines to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, those forests and their green trees achieve that job by not only removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but safely sequestering it in the soil. And they do it for free — if we simply let them live.

Unfortunately, Montana’s governor is equally misdirected by trying to log as much of our state forests as possible, even kicking up the supposed “sustainable yield” by millions of board feet every year when there’s no guarantee that they will regrow in the changing climatic conditions.

The environmentalists were right and remain right, and many continue the struggle to try to save something for generations yet to come. The weather? Nice for April, not January, in Montana — where the old hands, who know better, are asking, “Winter? What Winter?”

  • George Ochenski is Montana's longest-running columnist and a longtime environmental activist, concerned with keeping Montana's natural beauty clean and safe. He writes from Helena and appears in the Daily Montanan weekly.

Trump's grotesque Greenland fantasy ignores very real crisis bubbling under the surface

When President Donald Trump first started fantasizing about seizing Greenland for the US, it sounded farcical — a little Gilbert and Sullivan, or maybe The Mouse that Roared. In the wake of America’s attack on Caracas, however, it now seems as likely as not that we’ll soon be landing troops in Nuuk, a truly hideous prospect that we should all try to head off. Here’s my small effort:

First off, I think it’s a very real possibility. Here’s Stephen Miller on Monday, talking with Jake Tapper:

TAPPER: Can you rule out the US is going to take Greenland by force?

MILLER: Greenland should be part of the US. By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? The US is the power of NATO.

TAPPER: So force is on the table?

MILLER: Nobody is gonna fight the US militarily over future of Greenland.

And here’s our leader himself, speaking to a press gaggle on Air Force One while a beaming Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-Obsequious) grinned by his side:

TRUMP: We need Greenland. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships.

REPORTER: What would the justification be for a claim to Greenland?

TRUMP: The EU needs us to have it.

None of this makes any actual sense — Greenland is not covered with Chinese and Russian ships, the EU does not want us to have it (European leaders united Tuesday to say, “Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland,” which seems pretty clear), and Denmark asserts control over Greenland in pretty much the same way Washington asserts control over, say, Alaska or Vermont.

In fact, though, Denmark has been slowly loosening that control over the decades — not because it wants to sell it to America, but because it recognizes that the people who live there, most of whom are Inuit, should have the greatest say in how it’s managed. Greenlanders have exercised that say in ways that would be uncongenial to the White House: for instance, civil partnerships for gay people have been standard since 1996, and gay marriage legal since 2016 when the island’s parliament approved it by a 28-0 vote. Under the Kinguaassiorsinnaajunnaarsagaaneq pillugu inatsit law, sex changes have been allowed since 1976.

In other words, Trump’s claim that Greenlanders “want to be with us” is palpable nonsense — a poll last January found that 85 percent of the population opposed the idea.

Discerning Trump’s “real” reason for wanting Greenland is a pointless exercise; he’s a sad, ancient baby, and babies just want.

He seems to think that the point of a ruler is to acquire more territory, and that he more or less owns by divine right the land masses adjacent to our country. (MAGA bloggers this week were busily talking about “vassal states” across the hemisphere). There are minerals there, but hard to get at. Oh, and there’s petroleum in and around Greenland as well, and that usually sings a siren song to this child of the oil-driven 20th century.

Really, however, there’s only one truly vital strategic asset in Greenland, one thing that could change the world. And that’s the ice that covers almost all its landmass.

I’ve been up on this ice sheet — I’ve hiked up glaciers from the tideline, climbing and climbing till the sea disappears behind you and all you can see in every direction is white. It is uncannily beautiful.

I helped organize a trip there in 2018 so that two very fine poets could record a piece from atop this ice sheet. Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner came from her home in the Marshall Islands, which is already slipping under a rising sea (and which has long known about US imperialism; part of the atoll is still radioactive and off limits, thanks to US bomb testing in the 1950s); Aka Niviana is a native Greenlander whose home has begun to melt, a melt that if it continues will guarantee the submersion of Polynesia, and much else.

They stood there on that ice, in a chill summer wind, and recited their long and majestic poem for a camera; my job was to stand just outside its range with a pair of sleeping bags that they could wrap themselves in between takes. “Rise: From One Island to Another,” as their work was called, has won both prizes and large audiences on YouTube; it will, I think, be one of the documents of this global warming era that someday people will look at in a kind of outraged awe, one more proof that we knew exactly what was coming and did nothing about it.

We were camped above the Eagle Glacier — Jason Box, the American-born climatologist now living in Denmark who helped lead the trip, had named it that because of its shape when he first visited five years earlier, “but now the head and the wings of the bird have melted away. I don’t know what we should call it now, but the eagle is dead.” And that’s true of so much of the island; we watched as one iceberg after another came crashing off the head of glaciers, each one raising the level of the ocean by some infinitesimal amount.

Greenland holds 23 feet of sea-level rise, should we eventually melt it all. That will take a while, but we’re doing our best. It’s been losing mass steadily for the last quarter-century — it lost 105 billion tons of ice (billion with a b) in 2025, and the ice was melting well into September, unusual in a place where winter usually descends in late August. The people of Greenland, by the way, recognize all this: They passed a law in 2021 banning all new oil exploration and drilling — the government described it as “a natural step” because Greenland “takes the climate crisis seriously.” (More than two-thirds of their power comes from renewables, mostly hydro).

I found those Greenlanders I met to be hardy, thrifty people very much in tune with their place. I spent a memorable afternoon with Box planting trees outside the former American air base in Narsarsuaq in an effort to, among other things, soak up some carbon dioxide. And I spent an equally pleasant afternoon drinking beer with him and the rest of our party at a microbrewery in Saqqannguaq (one of several in the country) which brews “with the purest drinking water on Earth, coming from the Greenlandic ice cap” and hence “free of toxins, chemicals, and microplastics.” Highly recommend the IPA, reminder of yet another imperial adventure.

Obviously seizing Greenland would be a terrible idea because it would break up NATO and put America at loggerheads with the liberal democracies of Europe (though that may be the single biggest incentive for the administration). Obviously, it would be a gross example of modern colonization, obliterating the rights of the people who live there. Obviously, it would raise tensions around the world even higher, and send the strongest possible signal that Beijing should just go grab Taiwan. Lots of people are talking about those things, though there’s not the slightest sign that anyone in power is listening. (Miller’s wife has tweeted out a map of Greenland decked out in red and white stripes).

But in a rational world what we’d mostly be talking about is all that ice. That’s what, for the other 8 billion people on the planet, actually matters about this island. It could easily add a foot or more to the level of the ocean before the century is out, all by itself (the Antarctic, much bigger but slower to melt, will eventually add much more). A foot is a lot — on a typical beach on, say, the Jersey shore, which slopes up at about 1°, that brings the ocean about 90 feet inland.

And the fresh water pouring off Greenland seems already to be disrupting the great conveyor belt currents that bring warm water north from the equator, maintaining the climates of the surrounding continents. That too could raise—by significant amounts—the level of the sea, especially along the coast of the southeast US (and also plunge Europe into the deep freeze even as the rest of the planet warms).

The stakes are so enormous that they make the Trumpian greed for this land seem all the punier and more puerile. Here’s how Jetnil-Kijiner and Niviana put it in their poem:

We demand that the world see beyond
SUVs, ACs, their pre-package convenience
Their oil-slicked dreams, beyond the belief
That tomorrow will never happen

And yet there’s a generosity to their witness — a recognition that whoever started the trouble, we’re now in it together.

Let me bring my home to yours
Let’s watch as Miami, New York,
Shanghai, Amsterdam, London
Rio de Janeiro and Osaka
Try to breathe underwater…
None of us is immune.
Life in all forms demands
The same respect we all give to money…
So each and every one of us
Has to decide
If we
Will
Rise

Senator flags 'underreported story' about Trump 'illegally' creating a shortage on purpose

Donald Trump is "illegally" creating a shortage in the U.S., and the media isn't noticing, a senator said on Saturday.

Brian Schatz, Dem of Hawaii, flagged the story the weekend after Christmas. Taking to social media, the senator said, "One of the most underreported stories of 2025 is that Trump is the first President ever to create electricity shortages on purpose."

"He is illegally canceling solar and wind, causing layoffs and price spikes, and the media is like 'wow what a showman that guy is!'" he added Saturday.

One widely followed user, journalist Lynn G. Henning, responded to Schatz's claim, saying, "No, the media isn't cheerleading for his bad energy policy, and that is most un-Senatorial (at least for you) to engage in that brand of irresponsible grandstanding."

The senator quipped back on Saturday on X, "Got it thanks will be more Senatorial going forward."

Responding to another user who said, "Hey man, please do something about it... rather than just tweeting about it. Maybe get on camera every single day or something. This twitter noise doesnt help anyone," the senator sarcastically replied, "Got it will do something - was thinking about just tweeting but now I will devote my professional life to climate action."

The GOP is taking away your health care. Here's how it's also working to make you sicker

Given how the Republicans who run Congress let health insurance premiums for over 24 million Americans explode by not acting last week before going on vacation, it appears former Congressman Alan Grayson was right. The GOP Healthcare Plan is simple and straightforward:

“Don’t get sick.

“If you do get sick, die quickly.”

And it appears Trump is handily helping us all along with that “die quickly” part, promoting both cancer-causing chemicals in our environment and food supply as well as pushing for more greenhouse gasses to kill more of us with droughts, floods, hurricanes, and wildfires via climate change.

The EPA requires the country’s largest industrial facilities to report their greenhouse gas emissions, which have been a major source of information for those tracking America’s progress toward mitigating climate change. Now, Trump’s proposing to gut that requirement, so we’ll no longer know how badly Big Industry is polluting our skies and wilding our weather.

Additionally, he wants to radically increase the amount of cancer-causing formaldehyde we can be exposed to, has already ended reporting requirements for heavily-polluting factory farms (ammonia and hydrogen sulfide), and is prioritizing polluters over our national parks.

Last year, you’ll recall, Trump told a group of fossil fuel executives that if they’d give him a billion dollars, he’d do whatever they wanted. Apparently he’s now following through, right down to killing off wind farms.

The long and winding story of how we got here is one every American should know.

While many trace the beginning of the modern rightwing fascist-friendly MAGA-type movement to the 1954 Brown v Board decision and the way Fred Koch put the John Birch Society on steroids, another interesting origin story for today’s GOP base is grounded in the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In the years immediately leading up to the 1970 creation of the EPA, pollution in America had gotten so bad it was impossible to ignore and was quickly becoming a political issue.

Rachel Carson had published Silent Spring in 1962, a book about how DDT was killing birds worldwide, that electrified Americans and launched the nation’s first real environmental movement. The following year, smog killed 400 New Yorkers, and Lake Erie had largely died because it was so polluted.

In 1969, a spark from a passing train lit the Cuyahoga river on fire, and that same year a massive oil spill off the California coast covered over 400 square miles of beach and coastline with oil, killing hundreds of thousands of birds and other wildlife.

Car exhaust, scientists reported in 1969, was so severe it was causing large numbers of birth defects and cancer. Major American cities like St. Louis smelled, as TIME magazine reported at the time, “like an old-fashioned drugstore on fire.”

Richard Nixon, a canny politician who’d always had a pretty good take on the pulse of America, stepped up in 1969, creating the Environmental Quality Council. That was well received but didn’t make a dent in the problem, so Nixon did what was probably the only good deed for America of his presidency and helped create the EPA in 1970.

The wealthy oligarchs of American industry — particularly fossil fuel and chemical industry oligarchs — hated the EPA from the get-go, but this was before five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court had legalized political bribery.

Environmental regulations cut into their profits, and they felt persecuted after generations of their predecessor fatcats had poured their poisons into our air and water without a peep from the government. It was almost as infuriating as having to pay a 74% income tax on everything they earned after their first million (in today’s dollars).

In response to public opinion, the sentiments of the morbidly rich back then went along the lines of, “So what if kids got cancer? We didn’t live in the neighborhoods of our refineries and manufacturing facilities: screw them! They should be happy we keep them employed and shut up about all this hippy-dippy environment stuff!”

Regulating polluting industries and fossil fuel emissions was all the rage in the 1970s, and average working people loved it. But the billionaires hated it. As the EPA historian noted, by the time Russell Train had become the EPA Administrator in 1973, they were starting to get organized and active:

“During Train’s tenure at EPA, clean air issues continued to cause contention between environmentalists and industry representatives.

“‘The entire environmental program was under siege by the energy crowd. It was a major accomplishment that we were able to keep environmental programs on track,’ said Train.

“Many efforts to trim EPA’s authority — to kill requirements for tall stacks, to curtail efforts to prevent significant deterioration of air cleaner than national air quality standards, and the like — were beaten back.”

That was also the year that America’s industrialists got serious about taking tobacco lawyer Lewis Powell’s Memo’s advice: the rich needed to step up and start buying off politicians and judges, seize control of the media, and use their endowments to stock universities with rightwing professors while pushing out the old-line liberals.

They got a big boost in 1976 (Buckley) and 1978 (Bellotti) when five Republicans on the Supreme Court ruled that billionaires and corporations buying off politicians was no longer considered criminal bribery: from those years forward it was, instead, “Constitutionally protected First Amendment free speech” and corporations were no longer legal fictions but fully “persons” who could claim protections under the Bill of (Human) Rights.

Lewis Powell himself, in fact, wrote the 1978 Bellotti decision giving corporate “persons” — including foreign corporations — the right to pour unlimited amounts of “dark money” into political campaigns. (Five corrupt Republicans on the Court would double down on this in 2010 with Citizens United.)

The fossil fuel billionaires, however, were still groaning under what they believed was an unending regulatory assault. The EPA was demanding that they clean up refineries that were spewing tons of cancer-causing benzene into the air, stop dumping radioactive and arsenic-containing coal tailings and drilling waste into rivers, and limit the exposure of workers. It was all too much.

So the fossil fuel billionaires and their fellow travelers got organized. They set up and funded policy think-tanks in every state in the union, each one devoted to the two main goals of the billionaires who birthed them: deregulation and tax cuts.

The challenge was convincing Americans that regulations were bad things, and that rich people should have their taxes cut from the 74 percent rate. That top tax bracket, after all, was the main thing preventing billionaires from grabbing all the money that was instead, then, going into the homes and pockets of unionized working-class people.

The think tanks got to work, backstopping the GOP at every opportunity. Money flowed to Republican politicians, both state and federal. A small army of commentators was organized, some of them scientists and economists willing to go on-the-take, to convince Americans that regulations weren’t something that would protect average people but were, instead, instruments of socialism or communism.

Their factotum, Jude Wanniski, even came up with a bizarre new economic theory and a “Two Santas” tax strategy that included techno-sounding phrases like “trickle down” and “supply side” to justify massive tax cuts for the morbidly rich.

The agencies like the EPA that were doing the regulating would, henceforth, be known as the “deep state,” a designation so creepy that few would choose to defend them.

After Reagan stopped enforcing antitrust laws in 1983 and Clinton deregulated the media in 1996, an army of radio and TV hosts were added to the mix, with over 1,500 local rightwing radio stations and Fox “News” rising into prominence. By 2000, Republicans were openly campaigning on platforms promising deregulation along with giant tax cuts for the “job creator” billionaires.

Now sufficiently indoctrinated to believe up is down, Republican voters became the nation’s useful idiots.

The think tanks told them climate change was a hoax, and they believed them. Trump told them the economy during his tenure was “the best in the history of the world” (it was only mediocre before the pandemic hit) and they believed him. He said he needed to cut taxes on the morbidly rich by around $5 trillion, and Republican voters nodded their heads in agreement.

Alexander Hamilton is often quoted as saying, “Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.” It’s become the motto of the brahmins of the GOP, who only stand for their own greed and that of their wealthy patrons.

The white Republican base has been so lied to and abused over the past forty or so years that they’ve become easy marks for the predators in both big business and the GOP.

They’ve ceased to stand for anything other than blind obedience to Republican politicians, who lie with impunity (The Washington Post has identified over 30,000 lies Trump told while in his first term in office, for example), and as a result they’re “falling for anything” right in front of God and the world:

  • Democrats running child sex rings out of a DC pizza parlor? Sure! Let me bring an assault weapon!
  • Teachers hate kids and are hell-bent on screwing up their lives. Of course: why else would they study for all those years for a job that pays squat?
  • Treating a deadly new virus with horse de-wormer or a drug that kills the malaria parasite? Why not? Better than having to wear one of those terrible masks! How about injecting bleach? Sounds reasonable!
  • There’s even been a recent explosion in the antisemitic claim that Jews run the world and are intent on “replacing” white Americans with Black and Brown people, justifying the brutality of ICE.
  • Even as never-before-seen violent weather is destroying Red state communities, they continue to vote for Republicans who refuse to do anything to slow down the ferocity of climate change.
  • Republicans who claim Christianity bind themselves to a man who committed adultery with all three of his wives, repeatedly ran fraudulent businesses and charities, quotes Hitler, and tore babies from their nursing mothers and then sold them into fake adoption charities that trafficked over 1,000 of them to nobody-knows-where to this day.

The indoctrination of the Republican voter is so complete that when Trump gutted over 100 environmental regulations during his last term — making it more toxic and dangerous to live or work in America and putting our children at risk of childhood cancers and birth defects — there wasn’t a peep. Most Republican voters don’t even know it happened, although the New York Times kept a list of the regulations he killed that you can read here.

And now, instead of gutting the regulations, he’s gutting the entire Environmental Protection Agency.

And it’s not like America’s wealthiest oligarchs are having second thoughts. The Ford Foundation sponsored an investigative report by The Guardian into the political funding policies of our 100 richest billionaires. While most people know about Koch, Soros, and Gates, few have ever heard most of the others’ names.

But the majority of America’s morbidly rich are totally down with the GOP’s poisonous and brutal agenda. As The Guardian reported:

“Our new, systematic study of the 100 wealthiest Americans indicates that Buffett, Gates, Bloomberg et al are not at all typical. Most of the wealthiest US billionaires — who are much less visible and less reported on — more closely resemble Charles Koch.

“They are extremely conservative on economic issues. Obsessed with cutting taxes, especially estate taxes — which apply only to the wealthiest Americans. Opposed to government regulation of the environment or big banks. Unenthusiastic about government programs to help with jobs, incomes, healthcare, or retirement pensions — programs supported by large majorities of Americans. Tempted to cut deficits and shrink government by cutting or privatizing guaranteed Social Security benefits.”

So why don’t Americans know who’s manipulating our political system and why? Again, from The Guardian:

“The answer is simple: billionaires who favor unpopular, ultraconservative economic policies, and work actively to advance them (that is, most politically active billionaires) stay almost entirely silent about those issues in public.

This is a deliberate choice. Billionaires have plenty of media access, but most of them choose not to say anything at all about the policy issues of the day. They deliberately pursue a strategy of what we call ‘stealth politics.’”

So, here we are.

America’s billionaires got the tax cuts they wanted: instead of paying 74 percent like before Reagan, or even the high 50 percent range like most European billionaires, the average American billionaire pays around 4 percent in income taxes, which is probably a hell of a lot less than the average Republican voter.

The fossil fuel billionaires also got much of the deregulation they wanted and the Supreme Court justices they’ve bought off with million-dollar vacations and parental homes have gutted the Chevron deference and thus ended the EPA’s ability to seriously regulate the fossil fuel industry altogether.

As a result, since Reagan over $50 trillion has been transferred from the paychecks and homes of working class people into the money bins of the top 1 percent while our environment continues to deteriorate. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress, relying on the largesse of the fossil fuel billionaires and their industry colleagues, fight every attempt by those concerned about our children’s environmental future.

This 50-year-long plot executed by some of the richest men (with few exceptions, they’re almost all men) in America to gut income taxes and environmental regulations has been a stunning success. Without the burden of income taxes, they’re now richer than any humans ever before in the history of the Earth. Richer than the pharaohs, richer than the Caesars, richer than any king in European, African, or Asian history.

Do they care that they’re leaving the rest of us a dying planet? That their actions have created a toxic brew of paranoia and distrust — along with an obese orange-faced monster — that’s on the verge of ending the American experiment? That Americans are dying every day from the pollution and climate change their products produce?

Apparently not, at least as long as they can keep their tax cuts and deregulation. Oxfam International, for example, “found that 125 billionaires create more emissions through their investments and lifestyle than all of France.”

Mission accomplished, America’s rightwing fossil fuel billionaires. And thanks for nothing.

This Trump vandalism is worse than tearing down the East Wing of the White House

It’s the end of the year, and so one should be compiling ten-best lists.

And I turned 65 last week, having spent almost my entire adult life in the climate fight, so it’s one of those moments when I wish I could look back with a certain amount of satisfaction.

But since I owe you honesty, not exuberance, just at the moment I can’t provide much celebration. I was hopeful this column might be about a big victory — on Wednesday the board that controls New York City’s pension funds was considering whether or not to pull tens of billions from Blackrock because of the investment giant’s climate waffling, which would have been a massive display of courage. Sadly, City Comptroller Brad Lander hadn’t gotten the measure on the agenda before the final meeting of his term, and he seems to have run out of time and political juice — the idea was tabled.

And so we’re left staring at a pile of recent defeats, at least in this country (which is an important qualification). I’ll try to end in a more hopeful place, but I fear you’re going to have to work through my angst with me for a few minutes.

The most traumatic item is the Trump administration’s decision to shut down the National Center for Atmospheric Research, born like me in 1960. It was a product of that era’s faith in science, a faith that paid off spectacularly. Take weather forecasting. As Nature reported Wednesday:

Work at NCAR played a key part in the rise of modern weather and climate forecasting. For instance, the lab pioneered the modern dropwindsonde, a weather instrument that can be released from an aircraft to measure conditions as it plummets through a storm. The technology reshaped the scientific understanding of hurricanes, says James Franklin, an atmospheric scientist and former branch chief of the hurricane specialist unit at the US National Hurricane Center in Miami, Florida.

But its most historically significant work has been in understanding the dimensions of the ongoing climate crisis. Nature again:

On the global scale, NCAR is known for its climate-modelling work, including the world-leading models that underpin international assessments such as those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Hundreds of scientists pass through NCAR’s doors each year to collaborate with its researchers. More than 800 people are employed at NCAR, most of whom work at the centre’s three campuses in Boulder, including the iconic Mesa Lab that sits at the base of jagged mountain peaks and was designed by architect I. M. Pei.

There’s no question about why the administration is doing what it’s doing. Project 2025 enforcer Russell Vought explained it quite succinctly — NCAR must go because it is “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country.” This is stupid — it’s like closing the fire department because it’s a source of “fire alarmism” — but it’s by now an entirely recognizable form of stupid. And it’s also sly: It’s like spraypainting over the surveillance cameras so you can rob the bank without anyone watching. But of course nothing changes with the underlying physics. Indeed, as the announcement came down, NCAR was closed for the day because:

the local electrical company planned to cut electricity preemptively to reduce wildfire risk as fierce winds were forecast around Boulder. In 2021, a wildfire ignited just kilometres from NCAR; fuelled by powerful winds, it ripped through suburban homes, killing two people. Many researchers say this is a new normal of increased fire risk in an era of climate change—a topic of study at NCAR.

I am glad people are rallying to fight — there was an emergency press conference Thursday at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, where many of the world’s Earth scientists are gathered. Third Act Colorado is working with Indivisible on a weekend rally. This is the scientific equivalent of tearing down the East Wing of the White House, and given the moment a lot more significant.

But I’m saddened to see how little our representatives in D.C. seem to really care, even the Democratic ones. Sixteen Democratic Senators voted Thursday to confirm President Donald Trump (and Elon Musk’s) nominee to head NASA, even though, as Brad Johnson pointed out in his Hill Heat newsletter, the administration is trying to slash science research at the agency in half.

The new head, Jared Isaacman, is clearly on board. As he wrote this spring, “Take NASA out of the taxpayer funded climate science business and leave it for academia to determine.” But of course the administration is wrecking that too — they cut off the funding for the gold standard climate research program at Princeton on the grounds that it was “contributing to a phenomenon known as ‘climate anxiety,’ which has increased significantly among America’s youth.”

Too many Democratic leaders are feeling comfortable waving off climate concerns, because of a feeling that it might be a political problem for them. That was exemplified Thursday morning in the New York Times when center-right pundit Matt Yglesias issued a strident call for liberals to “support America’s oil and gas industry.”

That he did it hours after that oil and gas industry won its fight to shutter climate research was probably coincidental, but the piece was a woebegone recycling of decades-old bad-faith arguments from a person who has insisted repeatedly that climate change is not an existential risk. Yglesias wants us to follow Obama-era “all of the above” energy policies even though they date from 15 years ago, when clean energy was more expensive than dirty, and long before we had the batteries that could make solar and wind fully useful. It’s no longer a good argument, but he has not changed his tune one iota — he keeps invoking Barack Obama, as if what was passable policy in 2008 still made sense.

The centerpiece of his argument is that we should support the gas industry because at least it produces less carbon than coal.

It is much cleaner than coal, consumption of which is still high and rising globally. Increased gas production, by displacing coal, has been the single largest driver of American emissions reductions over time. To the extent that foreign countries can be persuaded to rely on American gas exports rather than coal to fill the gaps left by the ongoing build-out of intermittent wind and solar that’s a climate win.

By now anyone following this debate knows that this is a mendacious point. That’s because the switch to gas has reduced American carbon emissions at the cost of increasing American methane emissions. Those who, like Yglesias, followed last year’s debate over pausing permitting for liquefied natural gas export terminals know that the crucial point was the science showing that in fact American LNG exports were worse than coal. The job is to get others to switch to solar, not coal — and that’s happening everywhere except the US, whose appetite for the stuff is apparently the thing still driving up global consumption even as demand drops in China and India.

Having written many many op-eds for the Times, I know that they fact-check things like the methane numbers; this should not have eluded them, but in fairness it’s eluded Democrats for decades, because gas has been such a convenient out for those unwilling to stand up to Big Oil. If I sound sore here, it’s because I’ve tried and failed to get this basic point of physics across; it’s just technical enough that senators often forget it, but ostensibly serious people like Yglesias should at least grapple with it.

All of this comes on the 10th anniversary of the Paris climate talks — and 10th anniversary of the Congress and (Democratic) president approving the resumption of US oil exports. I celebrated my 55th in Paris, and I remember being hunched over a laptop at a cafe writing what I think may have been the only op-ed opposing that resumption. As I said at the time:

It’s especially galling that Senate leaders — Republicans and Democrats — are apparently talking about trading this gift to Exxon and its ilk for tax breaks for wind and solar providers. It’s hard to imagine a better illustration of politicians who simply don’t understand the physics of climate change. We don’t need more of all kinds of energy—we need more of the clean stuff and way, way less of the dirty. Physics doesn’t do backroom deals.

And indeed the senators who said it was no big deal were wrong. America is, as Tony Dutzik pointed out this week, now the biggest oil exporter on Earth. He lays out the case nicely:

“There is currently little if any incentive for US oil producers to export crude oil even if the ban is lifted,” wrote Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations, for example, in December 2015.

A decade later, those breezy assessments have proven to be wildly off-base. “The United States produces more crude oil than any country, ever,” reads a 2024 headline from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), one of the agencies that got it wrong. Not only did lifting the crude export ban lead to a surge in oil production, but it also dramatically reshaped the global energy system, US politics, and greenhouse gas emissions.

So, anyway, feeling a little sad. But I do think this is a low point, because I think around the rest of the world, where Trump (and pundits like Yglesias) have marginally less sway, things are continuing to break the right way. In fact, this week the premier journal Science picked its scientific “Breakthrough of the Year” and it turned out to be not some fascinating if arcane new discovery, but instead the prosaic but powerful spread of renewable energy around the planet:

This year, renewables surpassed coal as a source of electricity worldwide, and solar and wind energy grew fast enough to cover the entire increase in global electricity use from January to June, according to energy think tank Ember. In September, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared at the United Nations that his country will cut its carbon emissions by as much as 10% in a decade, not by using less energy, but by doubling down on wind and solar. And solar panel imports in Africa and South Asia have soared, as people in those regions realized rooftop solar can cheaply power lights, cellphones, and fans. To many, the continued growth of renewables now seems unstoppable—a prospect that has led Science to name the renewable energy surge its 2025 Breakthrough of the Year.

The tsunami of tech spilling from China’s factories has changed the country’s energy landscape—and its physical one, too. For decades China’s development was synonymous with coal, which produced choking air pollution and massive carbon emissions, still greater than those of all other developed nations combined. Now, solar panels carpet deserts and the high, sunstruck plateau of Tibet, and wind turbines up to 300 meters tall guard coastlines and hilltops (see photo essay, below). China’s solar power generation grew more than 20-fold over the past decade, and its solar and wind farms now have enough capacity to power the entire United States.

China’s burgeoning exports of green tech are transforming the rest of the world, too. Europe is a longtime customer, but countries in the Global South are also rushing to buy China’s solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines, spurred by market forces and a desire for energy independence. In Pakistan, for example, imports of Chinese solar panels grew fivefold from 2022 to ‘24 as the Ukraine war pushed up natural gas prices and the cost of grid power. “For people who were asking, ‘How am I going to keep the lights on in my home,’ it was a very obvious choice,” says Lauri Myllyvirta, an analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. In South Africa, old and unreliable coal plants drove a similar dynamic. Ethiopia has embraced solar and wind amid worries that hydropower, the country’s mainstay, will decline as droughts become more frequent.

That’s the fight as we head into 2026. Trump and Big Oil have had the run of things this year, but their idiocy is pushing up against limits: Among other things, it turns out that permitting every data center imaginable while cutting off the supply of cheap sun and wind is sending energy prices through the roof, which may be a real issue as midterms loom.

I’m not retiring — I’m here for the fight, and you too I hope.

  • Bill McKibben is the Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College and co-founder of 350.org and ThirdAct.org. His most recent book is "Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?." He also authored "The End of Nature," "Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet," and "Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future."

Trump's lurch into naked piracy shows the danger of oil but we still have a way to beat it

I don’t know enough maritime law to tell you exactly why it’s wrong for America to be dropping troops onto tankers to seize them — just to say that, no matter what legalistic excuse the administration cooks up, it looks exactly like being a pirate. (It’s worth remembering that the US Navy was founded largely to take on piracy, and thanks to the Barbary corsairs, the early Americans had a lot to say about the subject. George Washington, for instance: Pirates are “enemies to mankind.”)

But I can tell you this. In the ever-shrinking mind of our current president, the reason why it’s good to seize a tanker is because it carries oil, and oil is the source of all strength, his contemporary equivalent to pieces of his eight. It’s “a large tanker, very large,” Mr. Trump explained, continuing (inevitably) to describe it as “the largest one ever seized actually.” When asked what would happen to the cargo, he said, “I assume we’re going to keep the oil.”

Oil is, and always has been, at the center of our concerns with Venezuela, which has the world’s largest proven reserves (though much of it is in the incredibly dirty and hard-to-recover form of tarsands). At the moment it’s a major supplier to China, and it claims sovereignty over a major oil field in Guyana which has attracted big investment from Exxon and Chevron.

So if you wonder why we’ve been attacking “drug boats” from Venezuela on the grounds that they’re carrying fentanyl, which Venezuela does not produce, that may give you some sense. Indeed the pressure has been so intense that the Maduro government in Caracas apparently offered to essentially turn over its oil and mineral resources to America in October negotiations. We’ve apparently decided we’d rather just take them.

This kind of coercion on behalf of the hydrocarbon industry is becoming old hat for the Trump administration. It’s used tariff policy, for instance, to force country after country to agree to buy huge quantities of American liquefied natural gas. As CNBC reported last spring regarding one deal with the EU:

“They’re going to have to buy our energy from us, because they need it,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “We can knock off $350 billion in one week,” the president said. The European Union faces a 20 percent tariff rate if it does not reach a deal with Trump.

(Justin Mikulka has a pointed take on why this strategy won’t work for the LNG industry, and new data emerged this week showing just how badly it is going to penalize Americans who depend on propane for heating, since they’re now competing with so many other places for our supply of natural gas).

And of course in another sense we’ve been pirating the atmosphere for more than a century, filling up what is a common property with our emissions — America got rich burning fossil fuels, and the main result for other countries will be an ever higher temperature.

But for the moment let’s just think about the flow of oil, because it’s been behind, in large part, so much of the geopolitical tension of the last hundred years. Japan’s quest for oil played some real role in the attacks on Pearl Harbor; Germany invaded the USSR in no small part to secure the oil fields of the Caucasus. The Suez crisis hinged on the transport of oil to Europe. OPEC seized on our thirst for oil as a powerful weapon in the 1980s, and America’s determination to keep oil flowing has determined much of our global stance in the postwar years — I’ll never forget a sign I saw at an early demonstration against the war in Iraq: “How did our oil end up under their sand?”

The point here is that conflict like this is probably inevitable as long as the world depends on an energy source that is available only in a few places. Control of those places becomes too important — you end up with oligarchs, and with people who want to topple them.

So how nice to imagine a world where location doesn’t matter — where instead we depend on energy from the sun and the wind, available everywhere. In the crudest terms, it’s going to be difficult to fight a war over sunshine. No one will ever seize a tanker to get at its supply of solar energy. Which is good news for everyone except those profiting from the current paradigm — Trumpism represents its dying twitches, but obviously those twitches can do great damage.

Yes, we need sun and wind power to take a bite out of the climate crisis. But we also need it to take a bite out of the authoritarianism crisis. Our job is to make this transition happen faster; every new solar panel erodes just a little bit the logic of oil imperialism. The push for clean energy is the push for peace.