Environment

As Hurricane Erin batters the East Coast, North Carolina has been left in the lurch by a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) badly battered by the Trump administration.

WRAL reported Tuesday that the Tar Heel State is still waiting on $13 million in federal disaster preparedness grants from FEMA.

This is on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars in recovery funds for last year's devastating Hurricane Helene, which the agency has promised but not yet delivered.

North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein told reporters Tuesday that $85 million would begin flowing from FEMA to the state to fund recovery from Helene.

That announcement came after Stein sent US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem a letter in July asking why she had not signed off on the disbursal of the desperately needed funds.

"Applications submitted as far back as February 2025 remain without a final decision," Stein wrote in the letter, which laid out $209 million worth of Helene recovery projects still awaiting her sign-off. "Further delay of these funds keeps communities and families in limbo, all while we are in another dangerous hurricane season."

Even though some funds are reportedly flowing, Stein says the government has yet to reimburse North Carolina for over $100 million.

"It creates real financial strain, especially on local governments, but also the state," Stein said in a press conference.

Noem's leadership of FEMA came under severe scrutiny earlier this summer after it was reported that her policies hampered the agency's ability to respond to the devastating flooding that killed at least 138 people in Texas.

In June, Noem introduced a new policy requiring all FEMA expenditures over $100,000 to be personally approved by her, which officials within the agency said led to the deployment of search and rescue teams being delayed for days.

Two-thirds of the phone calls from desperate Texans to FEMA also went unanswered after Noem allowed hundreds of contractors to be laid off just a day after the storm hit.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has implemented massive staff cuts to the agencies responsible for hurricane preparedness.

It laid off hundreds of employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) storm laboratory, including hurricane hunters and researchers.

Nearly half of the National Weather Service (NWS)'s forecasting offices have been left critically understaffed, with around a quarter lacking a meteorologist-in-charge.

On the ground, there are about 20% fewer permanent FEMA staff responsible for responding to hurricanes and other disasters. Emergency training for those who remained on the job was also rolled back.

Sarah Galvez, Climate Power's senior adviser for climate urgency, says that communities in the path of Hurricane Erin "are being put at risk thanks to the Trump Administration gutting the forecasting that people rely on during extreme weather."

Since 1980, as the planet has warmed, the number of significant hurricanes (classified as Category 3 or greater) has doubled. In recent years, they have also begun to intensify more rapidly as they approach landfall, giving forecasters less time to catch them and residents less time to respond.

But as part of a multi-pronged assault on climate science, Trump has also made it harder to track these and other disasters. In May, NOAA announced that it would no longer track the number of disasters resulting in over $1 billion in damage.

"Fueled by the climate crisis," Galvez says, "major hurricanes are only becoming more frequent and severe, but Trump's reckless actions have left Americans vulnerable and unprepared."

On Tuesday, Reps. Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) introduced legislation aimed at rolling back Trump's cuts to these agencies.

"As we continue to face increasing numbers of natural disasters across our country—wildfires, floods, hurricanes—it's critically important that we equip our communities with the resources they need," Neguse said. "Whether it's the preparedness programs run by NOAA and NWS, or the response and recovery initiatives managed by FEMA, our federal agencies play a crucial role in addressing the increasing frequency of disasters."

President Donald Trump is a relentless defender of fossil fuels, including coal, and rails against what he calls the "Green New Deal scam." Trump claims, without evidence, that windmills cause cancer — a claim that quite a few scientists and environmentalists say is nonsense.

Critics of Trump's energy policy argue that not only is coal terrible for the environment and a contributor to climate change — it is also inefficient compared to green energy.

In Michigan, a coal-fired power station, the JH Campbell plant, is struggling. But the Trump Administration, according to The Guardian's Oliver Milman, is determined to keep it open despite the expense and pollution concerns.

READ MORE: Trump just crossed a line no other president ever dared to

"Donald Trump has made several unusual moves to elongate the era of coal, such as giving the industry exemptions from pollution rules," Milman reports in an article published on August 21. "But the gambit to keep one Michigan coal-fired power station running has been extraordinary — by forcing it to remain open even against the wishes of its operator. The hulking JH Campbell power plant, which, since 1962, has sat a few hundred yards from the sand dunes at the edge of Lake Michigan, was just eight days away from a long-planned closure in May when Trump's Department of Energy issued an emergency order that it remain open for a further 90 days."

Milman adds, "On Wednesday, (August 20), the (Trump) Administration intervened again to extend this order even further, prolonging the lifetime of the coal plant another 90 days, meaning it will keep running until November — six months after it was due to close."

One Michigan resident who is highly critical of the JH Campbell plant is Mark Oppenhuizen, who lives nearby and fears that pollution from the plant has made his wife's lung disease worse.

Oppenhuizen told The Guardian, "My family had a countdown for it closing. We couldn't wait. I was flabbergasted when the administration said they had stopped it shutting down. Why are they inserting themselves into a decision a company has made? Just because politically, you don't like it? It's all so dumb."

READ MORE: 'Nothing short of remarkable': Fox News hosts blasts Trump press secretary

According to Milman, keeping JH Campbell from closing down will cost a fortune.

"In Michigan, the cost of keeping JH Campbell open is set to be steep," Milman reports. "Consumers Energy initially estimated its closure would save ratepayers $600m by 2040 as it shifts to cheaper, cleaner energy sources such as solar and wind. Reversing this decision costs $1m a day in operating costs, an imposition that Midwest residents will have to meet through their bills. It is understood the company privately told outside groups it fears the administration could keep adding 90-day emergency orders for the entire remainder of Trump's term."

READ MORE: Trump's new Ministry of Truth is straight out of George Orwell

Read Oliver Milman's full article for The Guardian at this link.

Scientists and environmentalists all over the world view wind power as one of the green-energy vehicles for fighting back against the destruction of climate change. But U.S. President Donald Trump, an unwavering proponent of fossil fuels, often promotes the conspiracy theory that wind turbines cause cancer. And he reiterated his disdain for wind power during a late July visit to Scotland.

Meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Trump declared “And the other thing I say to Europe: We will not allow a windmill to be built in the United States. They’re killing us."

The U.S. president went on to say, "They’re killing the beauty of our scenery, our valleys, our beautiful plains ― and I’m not talking about airplanes. I’m talking about beautiful plains, beautiful areas in the United States, and you look up and you see windmills all over the place. It's a horrible thing. It's the most expensive form of energy. It's no good. They're made in China, almost all of them."

READ MORE: Trump just revealed his total contempt for the rule of law

HuffPost's Ed Mazza was quick to debunk Trump's claims, noting, "Much of what the president said was wildly inaccurate. Germany gets more than a quarter of its energy from wind. Turbines last about 30 years, not eight. According to the U.S Department of Energy, it’s not the most expensive form of energy, and they’re not 'almost all' made in China."

Trump's claims about wind energy are generating a lot of discussion on X, formerly Twitter—much of it negative.

Progressive firebrand and former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan tweeted, "His insane obsessions - windmills, toilet flushes, shower pressure - get not even 1% of the coverage, or mental health discussions, as Joe Biden’s verbal gaffes and frailty did."

PoliticusUSA's Sarah Reese Jones posted, "This is a total mental collapse by Trump, who shows that at 80 years old, he can't travel as he goes off on a babbling, lie-filled rant about windmills and whales while meeting with the president of the European Commission.

READ MORE: The hidden insight that changes everything you know about Donald Trump: analysis

Self-described "proud Democrat" Ron Smith wrote, "Two minutes of Trump rambling about windmills and whales: 'Wind doesn't work. It ruins the landscape, it kills the birds. They are noisy. Whales... it's driving em' crazy... They are environmentally unsound. It's the worst form of energy.' Trump is a global embarrassment."

Journalist John Nicolson commented, "Incoherent gibberish from #Trump in #Scotland."

The American Saga's Zaid Jilani tweeted, "Five city-owned grocery stores is communism but the president saying you can’t build a windmill anywhere in America is what?

Jilani also posted, "Trump has always hated windmills. Why does he hate them so much?

READ MORE: Will America call Trump's bluff — or fall for the con?

Watch the video below or at this link.

According to the Washington Post, the death count from the flash floods that ravaged Central Texas over the 4th of July Weekend has reached 109. But 161 people are missing, which, the Post reports, is "raising the possibility that the death toll could surpass 200."

During the flooding, Texans in the area were warned to "move to higher ground." But The Atlantic's Zoë Schlanger, in an article published on July 8, stressed that the flooding came so rapidly that many people didn't have time to heed that warning.

Scientists and environmentalists are stressing that the tragedy in Texas not only underscores the dangers of climate change, but also, the need for aggressively funding the National Weather Service (NWS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — both of which the Trump Administration is defunding. But according to journalist Oliver Milman, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pushed for defunding weather forecasting in the days before part of his state suffered deadly flooding.

READ MORE: Why Americans haven’t reached the Trump tipping point yet — and what it will take

In an article originally published by The Guardian and republished by Mother Jones on July 9, Milman "ensured" that President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful" spending bill "slashed funding for weather forecasting, only to then go on vacation to Greece while his state was hit by deadly flooding — a disaster critics say was worsened by cuts to forecasting."

"Cruz, who infamously fled Texas for Cancun when a crippling winter storm ravaged his state in 2021, was seen visiting the Parthenon in Athens with his wife, Heidi, on Saturday, (July 5) — a day after a flash flood along the Guadalupe River in Central Texas killed more than 100 people, including dozens of children and counselors at a camp," Milman explains. "The Greece trip, first reported by the Daily Beast, ended in time for Cruz to appear at the site of the disaster on Monday morning, (July 7) to decry the tragedy and promise a response from lawmakers."

The NWS, Milman notes, is facing "scrutiny in the wake of the disaster after underestimating the amount of rainfall that was dumped upon Central Texas."

"Before his Grecian holiday," Milman reports, "Cruz ensured a reduction in funding to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) efforts to improve future weather forecasting of events that cause the sort of extreme floods that are being worsened by the human-caused climate crisis. Cruz inserted language into the Republicans' 'big beautiful' reconciliation bill, prior to its signing by Donald Trump on Friday, (July 4), that eliminates a $150 million fund to 'accelerate advances and improvements in research, observation systems, modeling, forecasting, assessments, and dissemination of information to the public' around weather forecasting."

READ MORE: Bloodthirsty Republicans need to stop their praying

Milman adds, "A further $50 million in NOAA grants to study climate-related impacts on oceans, weather systems, and coastal ecosystems was also removed.

According to Cassidy DiPaola, communications director of Fossil Free Media, Cruz "has spent years doing Big Oil's bidding, gutting climate research, defunding NOAA, and weakening the very systems meant to warn and protect the public."

DiPaola told The Guardian, "That's made disasters like this weekend's flood in Texas even more deadly. Now, he's doubling down, pushing through even more cuts in the so-called big beautiful bill. Texans are dead and grieving, and Cruz is protecting Big Oil instead of the people he's supposed to represent. It's disgraceful."

READ MORE: 'What kind of dummies are you?' How one comedian is 'getting under' Trump press secretary’s 'skin'

Read Oliver Milman's full article at this Guardian link or on Mother Jones' website.

In Central Texas, the death toll from flash floods has passed 100. Far-right Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, are accusing Democrats of politicizing the tragedy. But a combination of Democrats, scientists and environmentalists are saying that they have legitimate questions about the Trump Administration's major cutbacks to the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the effect they are having on disaster preparedness.

In an article published by Politico on July 8, reporters Zack Colman, Annie Snider and James Bikales stress that the questions scientists are asking aren't going away.

"Kerr County, Texas, wasn't prepared for the deluge that killed more than 100 people this weekend, despite more than a century and a half of flash flooding along the Guadalupe River," the journalists explain. "Other communities around the country may find themselves just as exposed for the next catastrophe, emergency managers and scientists warned — pointing to the soaring toll of climate change and the Trump Administration's steep cuts to weather and disaster spending."

READ MORE: 'Truly frightening': MAGA candidate ripped for posting conspiracy theory about Texas floods

The NWS and its parent organization, according to Colman, Snider and Bikales, "are reeling from mass layoffs and early retirements pushed by President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency."

Moreover, the "big, beautiful bill" that Trump signed into law over the 4th of July Weekend " canceled more than $200 million in spending that was supposed to improve weather forecasting and make communities more resilient to disasters," the reporters note. And Trump is proposing eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) entirely.

Michael Coen, who served as FEMA's chief of staff under former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, believes that some of the deaths in Kerr County, Texas were preventable — and told Politico that "many people did not need to die."

"(Coen) said Kerr County should have invested in better flood defenses or, at the very least, relocated camping cabins away from the river," Colman, Snider and Bikales report. "The gutting of the national infrastructure around weather emergencies comes at the same time that climate change is making severe disasters more common and more dangerous, according to studies and past warnings from the U.S. government — including during the first Trump Administration."

READ MORE: Photos: After Texas Hill Country flood, grief and recovery take hold

Former FEMA official David Maurstad warns that extreme weather events, including floods, are growing increasingly common.

Maurstad told Politico, "The frequency and the severity associated with these types of events all across the country have been substantiated over and over again. I don't know how anybody can ignore that."

The Trump Administration, Colman, Snider and Bikales note, "proposed cutting $2.2 billion from the (National) Weather Service's parent organization, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in its fiscal 2026 budget request, affecting virtually every program at the agency."

"It would eliminate the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research — NOAA's main research arm, which Republicans say has been too focused on climate change — and shift much of its responsibilities to the NWS and National Ocean Service," the Politico journalists explain. "Many local governments' efforts to prepare for and respond to extreme weather are already strapped by limited resources…. Kerr County's decision to forgo an early warning system is an example of how many communities are ill-equipped to protect themselves from once-unfathomable extremes, experts said."

Colman, Snider and Bikales add, "They warned Trump Administration cuts will undermine flood and other disaster preparation as climate-fueled events reset expectations for worst-imagined outcomes."

READ MORE: 'Call a thing what it is’: Trump biographer says president caused Texas flood deaths

Read the full Politico article at this link.

Many of the heated debates over President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" are focused on its draconian cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), but another controversial proposal in the U.S. Senate would privatize public lands in western states.

The proposal was introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) in early June. According to Newsweek's Hugh Cameron, the provision "would require the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to make between 0.5 and 0.75 percent of their land holdings in 11 western states available for purchase."

"While this would amount to between two and three million acres," Cameron reports in an article published on June 24, "The Wilderness Society estimates that the language of the provision could make over 250 million acres eligible for sale. The idea has long been a pet interest of Lee, who, last week, defended it against what he called 'falsehoods being circulated by the left.' Lee stated that national parks and monuments would be exempt, and that auctioning off land with 'zero recreational value' was a 'common-sense solution' to the nation's housing shortage."

READ MORE: 'Ridiculous': Critics give Karoline Leavitt a history lesson

Cameron continues, "But criticism has been far-reaching, with opponents arguing that selling off public land could have irreparable environmental consequences, and that any resulting housing developments are unlikely to serve the needs of ordinary Americans."

Some of the criticism of Lee's proposal is coming from the right, including Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Montana) — who told The New York Times that he remains "a hard no on any bill that includes the large-scale sale of public lands." And according to Punchbowl News' Andrew Desiderio, Lee's proposal is also running into problems in the U.S. Senate.

In a June 23 post on X, formerly Twitter, Desiderio reported, "SCOOP: Huge news for western states. The Senate parliamentarian has ruled that Sen. Mike Lee’s proposal to allow the sale of millions of acres of federal land fails to comply with the Byrd Rule. Montana/Idaho GOP senators have said they oppose it as well. I'm told this decision will be included in the batch of Byrd rulings slated to be released overnight tonight."

Journalist Jamie Dupree, on June 23, tweeted that Lee is "desperately trying to save his plan to sell off big chunks of federal lands in 11 western states."

READ MORE: Former Ohio senator just can’t stop trolling, gaslighting and flip-flopping

Dupree cited a June 23 tweet by Lee as an example of how aggressively he is promoting his proposal.

Lee tweeted, "Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that. Thanks to YOU — the AMERICAN PEOPLE — here’s what I plan to do: 1. REMOVE ALL Forest Service land. We are NOT selling off our forests. 2. SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE the amount of BLM land in the bill. Only land WITHIN 5 MILES of population centers is eligible. 3. Establish FREEDOM ZONES to ensure these lands benefit AMERICAN FAMILIES. 4. PROTECT our farmers, ranchers, and recreational users. They come first."

Lee added, "Yes, the Byrd Rule limits what can go in the reconciliation bill, but I’m doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward. Stay tuned. We’re just getting started."

READ MORE: 'Stable genius': Critics blast Trump’s profane tirade on White House lawn

Read the full Newsweek article at this link.

The 1973 dystopian sci-fi movie "Soylent Green "— which starred Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson and took place in 2022 — depicted a hellish world in which widespread pollution and global warming had led to severe food and water shortages as well as widespread hunger and desperation. Now, in 2025, a newly released study finds that severe weather is threatening crops in a major way — and that the production of some key crops in the United States could decrease by as much as 50 percent by the end of the 21st Century.

The study was published by Nature.com on Wednesday, June 19 and was, according to CNN's Laura Paddison, "eight years in the making." It was conducted by a group of scientists, including Solomon Hsiang of the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, and illustrates the link between food supply and climate change.

"Of the many impacts of the fossil fuel-driven climate crisis," Paddison reports in an article published by CNN that day, "damage to the global food system is one of the most terrifying. But the overall impact of climate change on crops — and how much it can be offset by farmers' adaptations — has been hard to establish and hotly debated…. The scientists analyzed six crops — maize, soybeans, rice, wheat, cassava and sorghum — in more than 12,000 regions across 54 countries. Together, these crops provide more than two thirds of humanity's calories."

READ MORE: Trump's new greed deal the ultimate act of destruction the prophets have predicted

The CNN reporter continues, "They also measured how real-world farmers are adapting to climate change, from changing crop varieties to adjusting irrigation, to calculate the overall impact of global warming. Their findings are stark."

Paddison notes that according to the study, "every 1 degree Celsius the world warms above pre-industrial levels will drag down global food production by an average of 120 calories per person per day." Hsiang warns that this will increase food prices.

Hsiang told CNN, "If the climate warms by 3 degrees, that's basically like everyone on the planet giving up breakfast…. This is a major problem. It's incredibly expensive. As a species, we have never confronted anything like this."

Paddison reports, "Wheat, soy and maize — high value crops for a lot of the world — will be especially badly affected, the study found. If humans keep burning large amounts of fossil fuels, maize production could fall by 40 percent in the grain belt of the U.S., eastern China, central Asia, southern Africa and the Middle East; wheat production could fall by 40 percent in the U.S., China, Russia and Canada; and soybean yields could fall 50 percent in the U.S."

READ MORE: 'Catastrophe': Trump uses 'phony energy emergency' to 'illegally' destroy state laws

The CNN journalist adds, "The only staple crop that might be able to avoid substantial losses is rice, which can benefit from warmer nighttime temperatures…. Global warming will be particularly devastating for the U.S., where it's projected to reduce yields by 40 percent to 50 percent for all staple crops except rice, Hsiang said."

READ MORE: How climate change could upend the American Dream

Read the study at Nature.com and find CNN's coverage here.

Long known for his aggressive support of environmentalism, former Vice President Al Gore was vehemently critical of the Trump Administration's environmental record during a Monday, April 21 speech in San Francisco.

The speech came at the beginning of the city's Climate Week, and Gore compared the Trump Administration's use of disinformation to the disinformation tactics used by Adolf Hitler's far-right government in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and early 1940s.

Gore, according to Politico's Debra Khan, told the crowd, "I understand very well why it is wrong to compare Adolf Hitler's Third Reich to any other movement. It was uniquely evil, full stop. I get it. But there are important lessons from the history of that emergent evil."

READ MORE: Right-wing Christians are the real winners in Kansas

Recalling what Germany philosophers had to say about the Third Reich, Gore explained, "It was (Jürgen) Habermas' mentor, Theodore Adorno, who wrote that the first step in that nation’s descent into hell was — and I quote — 'the conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power.' He described how the Nazis, and I quote again, 'attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false.' End quote. The Trump Administration is insisting on trying to create their own preferred version of reality.'"

During the speech, Gore noted some of President Donald Trump's debunked claims about the environment.

The former vice president and 2000 Democratic presidential nominee told attendees, "They say the climate crisis is a hoax invented by the Chinese to destroy American manufacturing. They say coal is clean. They say wind turbines cause cancer. They say sea-level rise just creates more beachfront property."

Gore, according to Khan, also accused Trump of scapegoating immigrants.

READ MORE: 'Mafia Boss': Legal experts sound alarm as Trump White House 'sabotages itself with unbridled hostility'

Gore told the San Francisco crowd, "We've already seen, by the way, how populist authoritarian leaders have used migrants as scapegoats and have fanned the fires of xenophobia to fuel their own rise of power. And power-seeking is what this is all about. Our Constitution, written by our founders, is intended to protect us against a threat identical to Donald Trump."

READ MORE: 'There will be blood': JPMorgan hikes odds of Trump-triggered recession to 60 percent

CNN climate reporter Ella Nilsen on Sunday delivered a stunning report on President Donald Trump’s January effort to “turn on the water” in southern California as the state battled historic wildfires in the region.

As Nilsen noted, “in the first weeks of the Trump administration, the president falsely claimed there were major water shortages during the Los Angeles wildfires.”

“Trump was laser focused on releasing more California water, but the water he directed to be released never made it to L.A.,” Nilsen added.

READ MORE: 'Ominous signs': Legal expert says John Roberts showed he'll 'reverse precedent' for Trump

Indeed, on January 28, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) congratulated the Trump administration and the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation “for more than doubling the Federally pumped water flowing toward Southern California in [less than] 72 hours.”

Accompanying that tweet is a photo of at least one member of the DOGE team — Tyler Hassen.

Nilsen on Sunday detailed the backstory of that DOGE photo.

“We now know that two representatives from DOGE repeatedly pressured the acting head of a federal agency that manages dams to open water pumps at a federal facility in central California — even though that facility couldn't physically do so because of planned maintenance,” Nilsen reported.

READ MORE: Vance slammed for using his child as a 'human shield' after claiming protesters 'chased' his daughter

“The two DOGE agents said they had an order from the president to do this, even though one of them was not actually a government employee at the time,” she continued.

According to the reporter, “when the acting head of the Bureau of Reclamation did not relent, the DOGE agents flew to California with the goal of turning the pumps on themselves in what people familiar with the incident characterized as a stunt for a photo op.”

Nilsen said the DOGE agents “seemed fixated on getting a photograph of themselves turning these pumps on,” according to “people familiar with the incident.”

The reporter added, "One person familiar told me, quote, ‘They didn't get their photo op.'"

READ MORE: Congressman can't name specific 'waste, fraud and abuse' and admits DOGE is making 'mistakes'

As Nilsen noted, questions posed to the White House and DOGE — “including who paid for flights for the two DOGE agents to go to California” — went unanswered.

Watch the report below or at this link.

READ MORE: 'Monopoly money': US housing agency considers launching crypto experiment

Although oil production soared under former President Joe Biden, his administration also promoted green energy aggressively and acknowledged the dangers of climate change. Biden favored a combination of fossil fuels and green energy; President Donald Trump, in contrast, is a climate change denier who repeatedly voices his preference for fossil fuels. Moreover, Trump claims, without evidence, that wind turbines cause cancer.

In the 2024 election, Trump enjoyed his strongest support in deep red states like Alabama, Mississippi and Idaho. But according to journalist Stephen Starr, Trump's defunding of solar energy will have a negative impact in red states and is "causing panic."

In an article published by The Guardian on February 17, Starr reports, "On 20 January, Donald Trump paused billions of dollars of federal grant funding for clean energy and other projects around the country initiated by the Biden Administration's Green New Deal…. The funding is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's $7 billion Solar for All program, which is meant to help low-income families save money on electricity costs. About $117 million was set for solar projects and initiatives in Indiana."

READ MORE: Played for suckers: Kansas farmer blasts Trump voters in scathing editorial

Starr adds, "Communities across Indiana, a solidly Republican midwestern state, were set to benefit more than most from the Biden Administration's ambitious clean energy push in what was an ultimately failed effort to win votes in Rust belt states whose voters have abandoned Democratic Party politicians in recent decades."

Trump, Starr notes, "followed through on his election campaign promise to roll back clean energy initiative."

"Indiana isn't alone in its drive for solar energy," Starr reports. "Solar projects ranging from utility scale to single housing efforts have proved hugely popular in red states. Texas has the second-highest number of installed solar power units, after California, enough to power more than 4.5m homes. Florida follows close behind."

Starr adds, "A quarter of a trillion dollars — 80 percent of the total funding for green energy manufacturing and other initiatives — was to go to projects in Republican-leaning congressional districts across the U.S.

READ MORE: 'Real life impacts': How Trump's mass firings of federal workers worsen wildfire response

Read The Guardian's full article at this link.

In Los Angeles County, countless residents have lost their homes because of historically destructive wildfires.

Southern California, with its arid climate, has long been vulnerable to wildfires and droughts. But according to many scientists, climate change is making natural disasters both more intense and more common — from wildfires in Los Angeles County to hurricanes in Florida to tornados in Kansas and Oklahoma.

Many Los Angeles County residents whose homes burned to the ground are paying off mortgages. And according to CNN Business' Jeanne Sahadi, the fact that those homes "no longer exist" doesn't automatically mean that the mortgage agreements will be discontinued.

READ MORE: 'Politicized crap': Ex-RNC chair shreds MAGA 'misinformation, disinformation' on LA wildfires

"Wildfires, raging floods, tornadoes and hurricanes can obliterate your home, but not your mortgage," Sahadi explains in an article published on January 27. "The hard reality is that even when you live in a federally declared disaster area — like those ravaged by wildfires in Los Angeles County or battered by hurricanes in North Carolina and other states — you still will owe the bank whatever is left on your loan, even though your house no longer exists or is uninhabitable."

Sahadi adds, "There are, however, some disaster-related relief programs that can temporarily reduce or suspend your mortgage payment for up to a year and sometimes beyond, depending on your circumstance."

The CNN business reporter urges homeowners who have suffered a major disaster to contact their mortgage services immediately.

"The types of mortgage relief a servicer can provide will be governed in part by the entity that backs your mortgage or holds it in its portfolio," Sahadi notes. "Usually, that's an individual bank or a government agency: e.g., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Federal Housing Administration, the Veterans' Administration, etc…. In the case of Fannie Mae, for instance, servicers are expected to offer relief to borrowers in cases of financial hardship, even if they'd been delinquent prior to the disaster, said Jenise Hight, vice president of the agency's single-family credit risk policy."

READ MORE: 'Radical' GOP trying to disenfranchise NC voters who 'overcame the destruction of Hurricane Helene'

Sahadi continues, "Typically, with a federally backed loan, you're likely to be offered forbearance of between three to 12 months, during which your mortgage payments will be suspended or reduced."

READ MORE: Russia 'amplified' Trump’s lies about hurricane relief to 'sow distrust in US institutions'

Read Jeanne Sahadi's full CNN Business article at this link.

Many far-right MAGA Republicans have been highly critical of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its environmental policies.

However, the EPA was launched in 1970 following an executive order from conservative Republican President Richard Nixon. And Republicans sometimes make requests from the EPA, including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana).

According to Kelsey Brugger — a reporter for Politico's E&E News — Johnson sent the EPA a letter on November 15, 2024. And he encouraged the agency to award a grant to a city in his congressional district.

READ MORE: 'Lies and disinformation': Critics say Trump got 'nothing right' about LA wildfires

The grant Johnson requests, Brugger reports in an article published on January 10, would be "focused on the environment and disadvantaged communities" and include "funding from the Democrats' climate law that Republicans have vowed to gut."

The EPA had received an application for the grant from the City of Minden and Louisiana Tech University. And Johnson, in his letter, wrote, "I understand the funds will be used to support their 'Empowering Communities with Innovative Solutions to Reduce Pollution, Build Climate Resilience and Improve Public Health Project.'"

Johnson went on to note, "The three-year initiative will test cutting-edge water treatment processes to monitor and reduce pollutants in drinking water and wastewater that will benefit the people of this community."

Brugger points out that Johnson's letter to the EPA "comes as the GOP and President-elect Donald Trump vow to repeal the climate law known as the Inflation Reduction Act."

READ MORE: SD congressman drafts bill to authorize Trump’s potential purchase of Panama Canal

"It also comes as Johnson will have to contend with warring factions in his conference who are at odds over exactly how much of the IRA subsidies and grants to strike through the budget reconciliation process to pay for extending the 2017 tax cuts, which expire at the end of the year," Brugger observes. "The IRA, worth hundreds of billions of dollars for clean energy incentives, contains $2 billion in environmental justice grants designed to curb pollution in neighborhoods throughout the country."

Brugger adds, "So far, $1.6 billion in grants have been awarded — but not necessarily obligated — to 105 organizations."

READ MORE: 'Fascist ideology': Veteran actor slams 'orange idiot' Trump for 'nonsense' claims about LA wildfires

Read the full E&E News article at this link.

Outgoing President Joe Biden on Monday moved to permanently ban offshore oil and gas drilling across more than 625 million acres of U.S. coastal territory, protecting swaths of the East Coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific, and Alaska's Northern Bering Sea from fossil fuel exploitation just before President-elect Donald Trump is set to retake power.

Biden said in a statement that his decision "reflects what coastal communities, businesses, and beachgoers have known for a long time: that drilling off these coasts could cause irreversible damage to places we hold dear and is unnecessary to meet our nation's energy needs."

Invoking the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill—the largest in U.S. history—Biden said future drilling off the coasts he's seeking to protect "is not worth the risks." Recent polling indicates that a majority of the American public agrees: 64% support action to shield U.S. coastlines from new offshore drilling, according to a 2024 survey conducted by Ipsos on behalf of the advocacy group Oceana.

"As the climate crisis continues to threaten communities across the country and we are transitioning to a clean energy economy," the president said Monday, "now is the time to protect these coasts for our children and grandchildren."

Biden's move comes just two weeks before Trump, a fervent champion of fossil fuel drilling, is set to be sworn in as the nation's 47th president. During his first term in office, Trump moved to expand offshore drilling to nearly all U.S. coastal waters before temporarily banning drilling off the coasts of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina in 2020.

The far-right Project 2025 agenda crafted by members of Trump's first administration calls for a major increase in offshore fossil fuel drilling.

While Trump and his proposed Cabinet—which is stacked with allies of the oil and gas industry—are expected to aggressively roll back climate protections put in place by the Biden administration, the outgoing president's new executive action could have staying power.

In a fact sheet, the White House said Biden is using his authority under Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to "protect all U.S. Outer Continental Shelf areas off the East and West coasts, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and additional portions of the Northern Bering Sea in Alaska from future oil and natural gas leasing." The withdrawals, according to the White House, "have no expiration date, and prohibit all future oil and natural gas leasing in the areas withdrawn."

As The Washington Postobserved, "A federal judge ruled in 2019 that such withdrawals cannot be undone without an act of Congress."

"Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), the new chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, suggested that he would seek to overturn the decision using the Congressional Review Act, which allows lawmakers to nullify an executive action within 60 days of enactment with a simple majority vote," the Post added.

A spokesperson for Trump's transition team called Biden's action "disgraceful," adding, "Rest assured, Joe Biden will fail, and we will drill, baby, drill."

Predictably, the fossil fuel lobby also denounced Biden's executive action and implored lawmakers to "use every tool at their disposal to reverse this politically motivated decision."

While Biden has faced criticism from environmentalists throughout his four-year term for approving drilling permits in the face of intensifying climate chaos in the U.S. and around the world, advocates celebrated the president's latest executive action as a critical win.

"This is an epic ocean victory!" said Joseph Gordon, campaign director at Oceana. "Thank you, President Biden, for listening to the voices from coastal communities and contributing to the bipartisan tradition of protecting our coasts."

"Our coastlines are home to millions of Americans and support billions of dollars of economic activity that depend on a clean coast, abundant wildlife, and thriving fisheries," Gordon added. "Our treasured coastal communities are now safeguarded for future generations."

During President Joe Biden's four years in the White House, the United States, according to Politico, has produced record amounts of oil and natural gas. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, in March 2024, reported that the U.S., under Biden, was producing "more crude oil than any nation at any time."

But President-elect Donald Trump is promising an even greater emphasis on fossil fuels after he returns to the White House.

Biden, as president, has favored a combination of green energy and fossil fuels. Biden acknowledges climate change as a dangerous and perilous reality and has supported ramping up green energy use without abandoning fossil fuels.

READ MORE: Putin praises 'real man' Donald Trump but warns 'even now he’s not safe': reports

Trump, in contrast, doesn't consider climate change a problem and wants to make fossil fuels an even higher priority for the U.S. The president-elect has vowed to "drill, drill, drill," and he has proposed North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum — Trump's nominee for secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior — to head a new National Energy Council.

Trump has promised to establish American "energy dominance." But according to Associated Press (AP) reporter Matthew Daly, his energy goals "are likely to run into real-world limits."

"Trump's bid to boost oil supplies — and lower U.S. prices — is complicated by his threat this week to impose 25 percent import tariffs on Canada and Mexico, two of the largest sources of U.S. oil imports," Daly explains in an article published on November 29. "The U.S. oil industry warned the tariffs could raise prices and even harm national security."

Scott Lauermann of the American Petroleum Institute is among the fossil fuels promoters who are speaking out.

READ MORE: How Don Jr. is making sure Trump picks 'absolute warriors for the movement' to his Cabinet

Lauermann told AP, "Canada and Mexico are our top energy trading partners, and maintaining the free flow of energy products across our borders is critical for North American energy security and U.S. consumers."

Meanwhile, Jonathan Elkind — senior research scholar at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy in New York City and a former assistant energy secretary under President Barack Obama — is highly critical of Trump's emphasis on fossil fuels and his refusal to acknowledge climate change as an "existential" danger.

Elkind told AP, "Failure to focus on climate change as an existential threat to our planet is a huge concern and translates to a very significant loss of American property and American lives."

READ MORE: 'Up to us to stop him': Petition to block Trump Cabinet picks gets 44K signatures in 5 days

Read the Associated Press' full article at this link.

Climate change activists and scientists were horrified when Florida and other southeastern states — not long after being ravaged by Hurricane Helene — suffered an even more destructive threat when Hurricane Milton arrived in October.

The fact that they were horrified doesn't mean they were surprised. Suffering Helene and Milton back to back, they warned, underscores the enormous threat that climate change poses. Climate change, scientists warn, will mean destructive weather events occurring not only more frequently, but with greater intensity.

But Veterans on Patrol (VOP), a far-right militia group, isn't blaming climate change for the damage Helene inflict.

READ MORE: MAGA superintendent’s mandatory Trump prayer video is against the law: report

Rather, VOP, according to The Guardian's Jason Wilson, is pushing a conspiracy theory that Helene was "deliberately caused" by U.S. government officials using a "government energy weapon."

VOP, Wilson reports, has been making this claim in "private and public Telegram chats."

"Veterans on Patrol's (VOP's) conversations reveal that members believe the outlandish conspiracy theory that the U.S. government caused the hurricane with weather manipulation technology, that the U.S. military is spraying the American people with poisons, and that members should be willing to destroy government facilities in order to stop these activities," Wilson explains in an article published on November 19. "The chats, provided to the Guardian by the Global Project on Hate and Extremism (GPAHE), raise the prospect of the conspiracy-fueled militia group engaging in renewed violence under the incoming Trump Administration."

According to Wilson, VOP's founder, Michael "Lewis Arthur" Meyer, has described Helene as an "act of war perpetuated by the United States military."

READ MORE: House Ethics chair dismisses Johnson’s request to keep Gaetz report under wrap

Heidi Beirich, co-founder of GPAHE, warns that VOP are quite capable of violence.

Beirich told The Guardian, "VOP is one of the most dangerous militia groups out there now.…With their recent targeting of military efforts to help with hurricane relief efforts in North Carolina, and their insane conspiracy theories, this is a recipe for disaster."

READ MORE: 'Full-circle moment': 'Constitutional clash' in Congress mirrors 'epic rivalry' between 2 Republicans

Read The Guardian's full report at this link.

Editor's Note: This headline has been updated.

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) as secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior, CNN reports.

Trump made the announcement at the America First Policy Institute gala held Thursday at Mar-A-Lago, after previously “indicat[ing]” he’d make the appointment Friday, New York Post reports.

"We have a big announcement, and I won’t tell you, it’s — I won’t tell you the name of his, the exact name," Trump said Thursday, according to NBC News. "I think he’s an incredible person, got an unbelievably wonderful wife named Kathryn. So, I won’t tell you — his name might be something like 'Bur-gum.' Burgum.”

"He’s from North Dakota,” Trump added. “He’s going to be announced tomorrow for a very big position.”

As The Hill notes, “The department has control over energy development both on public lands and offshore."

Just over a month away from the next United Nations climate summit, a study out Wednesday warns that heating the planet beyond a key temperature threshold of the Paris agreement—even temporarily—could cause "irreversible impacts."

The 2015 agreement aims to limit global temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC, relative to preindustrial levels.

"For years, scientists and world leaders have pinned their hopes for the future on a hazy promise—that, even if temperatures soar far above global targets, the planet can eventually be cooled back down," The Washington Postdetailed Wednesday. "This phenomenon, known as a temperature 'overshoot,' has been baked into most climate models and plans for the future."

"The earlier we can get to net-zero, the lower peak warming will be, and the smaller the risks of irreversible impacts."

As lead author Carl-Friedrich Schleussner said in a statement, "This paper does away with any notion that overshoot would deliver a similar climate outcome to a future in which we had done more, earlier, to ensure to limit peak warming to 1.5°C."

"Only by doing much more in this critical decade to bring emissions down and peak temperatures as low as possible, can we effectively limit damages," stressed Schleussner, an expert from Climate Analytics and the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis who partnered with 29 other scientists for the study.

The paper, published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, states that "for a range of climate impacts, there is no expectation of immediate reversibility after an overshoot. This includes changes in the deep ocean, marine biogeochemistry and species abundance, land-based biomes, carbon stocks, and crop yields, but also biodiversity on land. An overshoot will also increase the probability of triggering potential Earth system tipping elements."

"Sea levels will continue to rise for centuries to millennia even if long-term temperatures decline," the study adds, projecting that every 100 years of overshoot could lead seas to rise nearly 16 inches by 2300, on top of more than 31 inches without overshoot.

The scientists found that "a similar pattern emerges" for the thawing of permafrost—ground that is frozen for two or more years—and northern peatland warming, which would lead to the release of planet-heating carbon dioxide and methane. They wrote that "the effect of permafrost and peatland emissions on 2300 temperatures increases by 0.02ºC per 100 years of overshoot."

"To hedge and protect against high-risk outcomes, we identify the geophysical need for a preventive carbon dioxide removal capacity of several hundred gigatonnes," the authors noted. "Yet, technical, economic, and sustainability considerations may limit the realization of carbon dioxide removal deployment at such scales. Therefore, we cannot be confident that temperature decline after overshoot is achievable within the timescales expected today. Only rapid near-term emission reductions are effective in reducing climate risks."

In other words, as co-author and Climate Analytics research analyst Gaurav Ganti, put it, "there's no way to rule out the need for large amounts of net negative emissions capabilities, so we really need to minimize our residual emissions."

"We cannot squander carbon dioxide removal on offsetting emissions we have the ability to avoid," Ganti added. "Our work reinforces the urgency of governments acting to reduce our emissions now, and not later down the line. The race to net-zero needs to be seen for what it is—a sprint."

While the paper comes ahead of COP29, the U.N. conference in Azerbaijan next month, co-author Joeri Rogelj looked toward COP30, for which governments that have signed the Paris agreement will present their updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to meet the climate deal's goals.

"Until we get to net-zero, warming will continue. The earlier we can get to net-zero, the lower peak warming will be, and the smaller the risks of irreversible impacts," said Rogelj, a professor and director of research for the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London. "This underscores the importance of countries submitting ambitious new reduction pledges, or so-called 'NDCs,' well ahead of next year's climate summit in Brazil."

The U.N. said last November that countries' current emissions plans would put the world on track for 2.9°C of warming by 2100, nearly double the Paris target. Since then, scientists have confirmed that 2023 was the hottest year in human history and warned that 2024 is expected to set a new record.

The study in Nature was published as Hurricane Milton—fueled by hot waters in the Gulf of Mexico—barreled toward Florida and just a day after another group of scientists wrote in BioScience that "we are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled."