Latest news with #climatescience
Washington Post
4 hours ago
- Science
- Washington Post
How to feel about climate change? A scientist reflects on anger, hope and love.
Kate Marvel is a climate scientist. She spends her days working with climate models, watching temperatures climb, glaciers melt and seas rise — and she has some feelings about it. Marvel's new book is called 'Human Nature: Nine Ways to Feel About Our Changing Planet,' and it's organized around emotions. There is anger, grief and fear, of course — but there is also wonder, surprise, hope and love.
Fast Company
4 days ago
- Politics
- Fast Company
This renowned climate scientist says this is the most difficult time for climate science he's ever seen
In 1995, Benjamin Santer was the lead author on a chapter of the second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that would alter climate science forever. In a culmination of more than a year of meticulous research, the chapter came to a groundbreaking conclusion—confirming an international scientific consensus that humans were having a discernible impact on the climate. The pushback was immediate and immense. Lobbyist groups erroneously accused Santer of removing discussion of scientific uncertainty in the report. Frederick Seitz, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and a founding member of the environmental skeptic conservative think tank the George C. Marshall Institute, published an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal claiming, 'I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process.' Despite being backed up by the climate science community, Santer underwent congressional hearings, personal threats, and calls for his dismissal at his lab. Despite the pushback, Santer has continued to do groundbreaking research identifying human fingerprints in many different observed climate variables and received a number of awards for his work, including a MacArthur Fellowship in 1998. Santer recently spoke to Fast Company about the threats the second Trump administration poses to the future of climate science and shared advice for the next generation of scientists entering a contentious time. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.) How does the current state of climate research compare to other peaks and valleys you have seen over your career? I think this is the deepest valley that I've ever been in in my entire scientific career. It feels different from anything else that I've encountered, and I encountered some pretty deep valleys after publication of the discernible human influence finding in the 1995 IPCC report. But this is different because it's so targeted. The intent of the administration is to destroy, to tear down a capability to do basic science, to understand how and why the world around us is changing, to understand the inequities of climate change, to invest in low-carbon energy sources and support the development of low-carbon energy. All of these things have happened in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, and so much destruction has impacted not only our long-term futures—in academia, in research, the grants that will be available for us, the opportunities at university—but also the leadership of this country and science and technology. And of course, not only in climate science and green energy, but also increasingly in health, the development of novel vaccines, the development of cancer drugs, all of that is imperiled. To turn away from those challenges as this administration is doing makes no sense whatsoever. What are some of the concrete steps this administration is taking to reduce climate protections? It's been a full-court press, I would say: not only the illegal termination of probationary employees, tens of thousands of them across agencies like NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration], EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], and NASA, but the changing of language [around climate change]. This willful ignorance seems very reminiscent of COVID under the first Trump administration. You may recall that President Trump argued that COVID was no worse than the seasonal flu. He seemed intent on downplaying any danger to the U.S. public that might interfere with the economy. Why do I mention that? Because it's the same deal with climate change. If you pretend it doesn't exist, then you can go on with business as usual, 'Drill baby, drill,' all that kind of stuff. And that's what's happening. The administration is pretending that human-caused climate change isn't happening, and everything's fine, when it isn't. In addition to the firings, in addition to the censorship, again—as has been widely reported—access to data is reducing. [For example,] because of some of the firings at NOAA, there aren't scientists to launch weather balloons. At a number of locations, weather balloons are critically important. They make measurements of temperature and moisture, and those measurements are ingested by weather forecast models. They help the weather forecast models to know something about the current state of the atmosphere and the surface of the ocean, and that information is extremely important in making a reliable weather forecast. Because of the firings, we're losing some of the weather balloon information that flows into weather forecasts. So all of this taken together, when you take a step back and look at it, is an effort to keep the public ignorant about the reality and seriousness of climate change. Do you think that there's any possibility that other countries might be able to step in to fill the gaps the U.S. is creating? I hope that there are folks in space agencies like the European Space Agency, the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (German Aerospace Center), and in Japan and China, who understand the seriousness of the threat to the continuity of these records. These aren't records that just the U.S. uses. The entire world uses these estimates of global-scale changes in the atmosphere, the ocean, the land surface for evaluating climate models, for doing fingerprint research, for improving our basic understanding of the atmospheric and ocean general circulation. And the U.S. has been a leader in this Earth observation enterprise and in making these datasets available to the international community. Now all of that work is imperiled, so the hope is that there are indeed folks who are contingency-planning in other countries who are trying to figure out, well, what do we do? But if these satellites go away, the unfortunate thing is that it takes time, right? You can't just launch a satellite and do this gap-filling very quickly. The development of new satellites and the launching of new satellites is the stuff of years, not the stuff of months. It also would mean a huge financial investment in gap-filling, in the ocean, and in the satellite measurements of temperature, moisture, winds, you name it. So it is concerning. Hopefully there are those in Congress who will push back against the president's budget request for NASA and will recognize that if the U.S hands off the baton of leadership in Earth observation to other countries, it will be difficult to flip a switch and restart. In part because they will lose hundreds, perhaps thousands of good people who have no prospect of employment given what's happened with NSF [National Science Foundation] grants and firings and cuts to NOAA and NASA. If you lose that expertise, then even with a change of the administration, it's difficult to restart. This is why it's so critically important for folks to use their voices and speak publicly about the harms caused by this willful ignorance, and I'm going to try continuing to do that as long as I possibly can. Scientists don't have the hippocratic oath that doctors do, but we should. If you see that harm to the stability of climate and to present and future generations is being caused, then, in my opinion, you have a moral and ethical responsibility as a climate scientist to speak out against that. Do you have any advice for young people looking to get into the sustainability world in this tumultuous time? Keep plugging away. If you're passionate about the science, if it's part of your identity, find a way to do it. I can't imagine not doing research. It's part of who I am. It's part of what I think about when I get up in the morning. For anyone who is really concerned about the kind of world in which they and their loved ones will grow up, find a way of continuing to [work on climate research and advocacy], even if it's only in your spare time and you have to have a different day job. Science has to find a way of continuing. It's a harsh world out there now with a lot of powerful people wanting to fundamentally change the scientific enterprise in the United States and remove consideration of inequities in our society causing unequal impacts of climate change. Science has to find a way of continuing, of living, of tackling the big questions of the day, irrespective of whether the administration likes or does not like the answer.
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
A useful enemy? Why Tories and Reform are calling net zero policy into question
Just as Labour forges ahead with net zero policies, the chief energy spokespeople of the UK's two main rightwing opposition parties are openly questioning long-settled climate science, in what seems like a mission to discredit and confuse the whole issue. It is a development that would have been unthinkable just three years ago, when the four-decade-long cross-party consensus on the climate still held firm. Even up to last year's general election, every mainland party other than Reform UK campaigned on a commitment to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. But now the Conservative leadership has abandoned that target, and Reform – riding high in the opinion polls and celebrating a 30% vote share in the local elections – wants to make it the key battleground, after immigration, for the next general election. How on earth did we get here? In truth, Reform, which was founded in 2018, has long had climate-sceptic tendencies – despite Nigel Farage's short dalliance with pro-green politics in 2021, when he was paid to promote tree-growing by a carbon credit trading company. The party's doubt about climate science, however, appears to be worsening. Richard Tice, its energy spokesperson, told the Guardian: 'Scientists do not all have a consensus on this. Some view things slightly differently … Do I think that [the carbon dioxide that humans are putting into the atmosphere] will definitely change the climate? No. There is no evidence that it is.' This is not in accordance with the views of the vast majority of scientists. Tice suggested that rather than net zero, the answer to climate breakdown would be 'planting trees' and adapting. 'Temperatures were higher 3,000 years ago and humans adapted,' he said. More surprising is that the Conservatives' Andrew Bowie, the acting shadow energy secretary, who once declared he wanted Scotland to be 'one of the lead nations worldwide in achieving net zero', has taken a similar line. He told the Guardian that the world's leading authority on climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was 'biased' and that the net zero by 2050 target was 'arbitrary and not based on science'. This claim was rejected by climate scientists, who confirmed that the UK's legally binding target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 – put in place by Theresa May – sprang from the best global scientific advice. Emily Shuckburgh, the director of Cambridge Zero, the University of Cambridge's climate initiative, said: 'The 2050 target is not arbitrary but based on what science says is required globally and an assessment by the Climate Change Committee of what is appropriate for the UK to deliver in that context.' The breakdown of the climate consensus, which began after Boris Johnson left Downing Street in 2022, appears complete. The main difference on the issue now between Reform and the Conservatives is that the former would scrap net zero altogether and the latter may keep it, but for a later date. Why have both parties turned so decisively away from climate policy? Opinion polls show most people in the UK are concerned about the climate crisis and support policies to tackle it. Reform voters are no different, according to recent polling by More in Common commissioned by the campaign group Global Witness. It found that two-thirds of UK adults are worried about increasing damage from the climate crisis, and 71% of Reform-leaning voters support higher taxes on oil and gas companies. Luke Tryl, the UK director of More in Common, said net zero was not an important issue to most people who backed Reform. 'It's not what drives them,' he said. 'Seven out of 10 say they vote Reform because of immigration. Where there are concerns on net zero, it's generally over fairness – that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the burden.' But he is clear that despite widespread media coverage attacking net zero, and despite Reform's good showing in polls, 'any idea that Britain has turned into a nation of net zero sceptics is for the birds'. So is this positioning for the sake of business? Reform and the Conservatives frequently claim to be supporting business and jobs through their stance, but actually business voices have been clear in their support for net zero. Tania Kumar, the head of net zero policy at the Confederation of British Industry, said: 'Net zero and the new green economy are an economic growth opportunity for the UK. Businesses understand that.' A different reason was suggested by Nick Mabey, a founder director of E3G, a green thinktank, who suggested that opposing net zero was in line with the small-government, anti-statist approach of some on the right. 'They see it as state-intrusive, it doesn't fit with their deregulation instincts,' he said. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion But people tend to like regulation that keeps them and their environment safe – witness the sewage scandal, a clear demonstration of what companies do when lightly regulated. Mabey suggested pursuing deregulation was more in the interest of 'elite' backers of populists than their voters. Reform's environmental policy is extremely complex. Despite its strong stance against net zero, it does not see itself as anti-environment. It supports an amendment to the planning bill that would require swift bricks in all new houses, blocked by the government, and wants to take sewage out of British rivers, in part by banning foreign investors from owning water companies. Tice speaks enthusiastically of the need to plant more trees, recycle more and adapt to the impacts of the climate crisis, even though he casts doubt on the underlying science. Net zero seems to be some kind of 'useful enemy', argues Shaun Spiers, the executive director of Green Alliance, a thinktank. 'The cost of living crisis is biting and populist politicians are casting around for something to blame it on,' he said. 'Net zero, which sounds remote and technocratic, is a convenient target. It's replaced the EU as the thing on which all our ills can be blamed, often by the same people.' And there is good money in it too, he added. 'It's also worth noting that there is serious money behind the assault on net zero: it is not disinterested.' Reform and the Conservatives have prominent donors and supporters with a climate-denying outlook. For instance, Kemi Badenoch and her family recently spent a week as guests of the donor Neil Record, who chairs Net Zero Watch, an offshoot of the UK's main climate sceptic thinktank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Record also helped fund Badenoch's campaign for Tory leader, giving £10,000. He wrote in the Telegraph that it was 'debatable in detail' whether burning fossil fuels increased carbon dioxide and caused dangerous global heating. One of the biggest donors to Reform is the shipping magnate Terence Mordaunt, the head of First Corporate Shipping. His personal company, Corporate Consultants, has given hundreds of thousands of pounds to Reform. He was previously chair of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and is now a trustee. Despite the feelings of Reform voters, Tice is clear: the party will make net zero its second most important battleground, after immigration, and his party appears united on that. But among Tories in parliament there is still a strong green caucus – the Conservative Environment Network (CEN), which still has 50 MPs. Badenoch's review of policy, including net zero, is still ongoing, despite her public attacks on net zero. Sam Hall, the director of CEN, warned that Badenoch was putting her party on a collision course with not just Labour and the British public but the laws of physics. 'The net zero target is driven not by optimism but by scientific reality: without it, climate change impacts and costs will continue to worsen,' he said. 'Abandon the science and voters will start to doubt the Conservative party's seriousness on the clean energy transition, damaging both growth and the fight against climate change.'
BBC News
13-06-2025
- Sport
- BBC News
Wheelchair tennis star Andy Lapthorne appointed MBE
A Paralympian who has won 17 Grand Slam wheelchair tennis titles has been honoured in the King's Birthday Honours. Andy Lapthorne, from Maidenhead, told BBC Radio Berkshire it was "a massive shock" to be appointed an MBE for services to who has won three silver medals and a bronze at the Paralympics, said he hoped his achievement would show others that "anything's possible". "Tennis is known as a sport that is for more of the upper classes... and I'm someone from a working class background," he said. "I'm hoping that this will inspire people from similar backgrounds to me to pick up tennis," the 34-year-old said. In 2024 he played in front of a full crowd at the Paralympics in Paris, something he said showed "how far the sport has come"."I'm travelling the world, playing tournaments, being able to earn a living from a disability sport," he said."I'm hoping that I've left the sport in a better place than when I found it when I do finally [retire]." Also honoured was Prof Andrew Charlton-Perez, a meteorology professor at the University of Reading, who has been appointed an OBE for his services to climate science and professor said he felt the honour was recognising all of his colleagues' work as well as his own."To be recognised in this amazing place with so many different colleagues who do wonderful things... it feels unreal," he said."All of the work that we've done on climate education in particular has been done with huge teams of people... it really feels like it's recognising all of those contributions, all of those positive things that we're doing together." Another on the list was Peter Francis, chief of staff at the Maidenhead-based Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which maintains the graves of those who died in both World Francis, who was appointed OBE for his services to global commemoration, said getting the "official-looking letter" was "a massive surprise"."My initial reaction was 'is it a tax return?' or something like that," he said."It feels very, very strange but very, very humbling and I'm deeply honoured."He said it was a reflection on the work the Commission did as a whole."It's very difficult to put a price on the commemoration of those who served," he said."We owe them a debt of thanks that we can never truly repay and the work that I do, and my colleagues do... just goes some small way to saying thank you." Also recognised was Estelle Bailey, the chief executive of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxford Wildlife Trust (BBOWT), who was appointed MBE for her services to nature's Bailey started at the trust as a volunteer 27 years ago."It's been the most incredible journey, having loved nature as a child and been so connected to it, but also in that time watching its decline and worrying about the future and wondering what I could do to help," she said."It's been a journey of love and a journey of passion - and that will never leave me."She said receiving the letter saying she was being awarded an MBE "took my breath away"."I'm so, so delighted," she said."Charitable life is really hard... it's not well paid and you have to fight really hard to get money to do work."It was just that moment of recognition for me that was just really, super special." You can follow BBC Berkshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Fast Company
28-05-2025
- Climate
- Fast Company
How to watch: Scientists are hosting a 100-hour livestream to protest Trump cuts
The Trump administration has decimated climate science across the country, from the mass layoffs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to the shuttering of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Now, scientists are defending their work, and its value to the country, by speaking directly to Americans through a 100-hour livestream full of presentations on everything from air quality to extreme heat to weather stations. Beginning Wednesday, May 28 at 1 p.m. ET, the Weather and Climate Livestream will span five days, ending on Sunday, June 1 at 5:30 p.m. ET. It will feature climate scientists and meteorologists who will talk about their work and the impact of research cuts, and take audience questions. The event kicks off with Kate Marvel, a climate scientist who was formerly an associate researcher at GISS, who will be live streaming the last hours of the GISS lab. That 43,000-square-foot space near Columbia University has been crucial to climate science, but is closing because the Trump administration terminated its lease. The livestream will also include a panel discussion with terminated NOAA employees—in March, the Trump administration laid off more than 1,000 people—and another with the former directors of the National Weather Service, as well as 'primetime' talks from experts on topics like floods, drought, and hurricanes. Prominent climate scientist Daniel Swain —who often hosts his own virtual 'office hours' on climate news, heat waves, and wildfires—will be participating with an 'Ask Me Anything' session, open to audience questions, on Saturday, May 31 at 9:30 p.m. ET. The 100-hour Weather and Climate Livestream is available on YouTube at It's billed as a non-partisan event, organized in part by members of the Union of Concerned Scientists. To the participants, it's also an opportunity to try to save America's weather forecasts; the event website includes a link for Americans to contact their representatives and urge them to restore weather and climate funding. Trump's funding cuts Scientists, and everyday Americans are already feeling the cuts from the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE): The National Weather Service, for example, is already flying fewer weather balloons, which hampered forecasters' ability to get accurate and timely data to the public about recent hail storms and tornadoes. NWS field offices are short staffed and scrambling to have regular coverage. Hurricane season is also approaching, and is expected to be above-average, with 13 to 19 named storms. Trump's cuts would eliminate climate models that provide accurate forecasting, as well as FEMA services that would help Americans recover from climate disasters. The administration's cuts would also close multiple research institutions and labs, all six of NOAA's regional climate centers, and end $70 million in grants to research universities. That means thousands of scientists will lose their funding, which translates to less storm forecasting, no more climate monitoring for farmers, and coastal communities without information on things like tides and flood risk. 'For generations, the U.S. government has invested in the science that helps us do so, building one of the greatest meteorology and climate science communities in the world,' the Weather and Climate Livestream website reads. 'In recent months, this community has been thwarted in our mission of serving the public due to substantial cuts and firings.' But it's not too late to stop those cuts, the livestream organizers note. Already, the Trump administration has walked back some cuts in the face of public pressure—like by reopening shuttered weather data centers. The 100-hour livestream is a way to 'help keep this pressure building,' the site reads.
