Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Federal court orders regulators to fix process, reconsider gas export projects in South Texas

News Feed
Friday, August 9, 2024

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state. McALLEN — A federal court struck down a regulatory agency’s authorization of two controversial, multi-billion-dollar gas export projects in far South Texas, one of which is already under construction. The ruling orders federal regulators to correct procedural deficiencies before reconsidering authorization of the projects for a third. It is the latest ruling since a coalition of South Texas cities and groups sued to block the projects in 2021. In an Aug. 6 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington cited “the nature and severity of the flaws” in reviews by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, of the two proposed gas liquefaction and export complexes, Rio Grande LNG and Texas LNG. “Although we do not take this step lightly, the circumstances here require it,” the ruling said. “We appreciate the significant disruption vacatur may cause the projects. But that does not outweigh the seriousness of the Commission’s procedural defects.” The court wrote that FERC failed in its analyses of environmental justice and climate impacts, air pollution modeling and procedural obligations. FERC and the developers now have 45 days to seek a re-hearing. The two complexes in question plan to pipe in Texas shale gas, condense it and load millions of tons per year onto tanker ships for sale overseas as liquified natural gas, or LNG. Each complex costs billions of dollars, spans hundreds of acres and makes up part of an ongoing boom in gas export projects along the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana. Rio Grande LNG parent company NextDecade said in a statement it was “disappointed in the Court’s decision and disagrees with its conclusions.” The company added that construction continues on the first three liquefaction trains and related infrastructure at Rio Grande LNG near Brownsville and it will examine what impact the court’s order will have on future plans for added infrastructure. The company announced last July it had secured investor funding to begin construction on its 750-acre, $18 billion facility. A spokesperson for Texas LNG, a smaller, adjacent project on the Brownsville Ship Channel that is yet to secure sufficient funding, said the ruling was a procedural decision to correct a technical deficiency, which they were still studying. “We have full confidence FERC will address this matter judiciously and efficiently and look forward to working with them on this important issue,” the spokesperson said in a statement. Three small surrounding cities and the local water district have passed resolutions opposing the projects, situated between national wildlife refuges and atop wetlands. “Port Isabel and the other communities of the Laguna Madre area are located in one of the most unique, pristine and scenic ecosystems in the world,” said a 2023 resolution by the City of Port Isabel, a party in the lawsuit against FERC. “The proposed project area is located in a delicate and partially undisturbed salt flat.” The Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, also a party in the lawsuit, has led a yearslong campaign against the destruction of archaeological sites on land that it considers sacred. Juan Mancias, tribal chair of the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, holds a sign in front of the gates leading to the site where NextDecade's Rio Grande LNG has begun preparing land for a LNG terminal near Port Isabel, on April 1, 2023. Credit: Michael Gonzalez for The Texas Tribune “The issue is what they’re doing to continually try to decimate who we are as a people,” said Juan Mancias, chairman of the tribe. Mancias said Tuesday’s ruling made him proud to be Carrizo/Comecrudo and felt it gave the tribe a say in what happened to the land. “I’m glad they made the decision that they made, because that decision says a lot about what is lacking in this process of permitting,” he said. But the projects have unanimous support from the Cameron County commissioners, based in nearby Brownsville, and from most local politicians. Neither Cameron County Judge Eddie Treviño Jr. nor any of the four county commissioners responded to requests for comment. A FERC spokesperson said the agency does not comment on court issues. “FERC is a regulator that historically has relied upon industry assurances when making its decisions,” said Tyson Slocum, energy program director at Public Citizen in Washington. “Unfortunately, industry often is wrong, and frequently minimizes potential hazards and risks posed to the community.” Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, said, “Delaying approvals and treating natural gas as a liability rather than an asset squanders our nation’s global energy leadership and forces our allies to look to other nations—some of which are hostile to America—to meet their energy needs.” Years of Litigation Tuesday’s ruling was the second time the court struck down FERC’s authorization of these projects in response to petitions from local groups supported by nonprofit environmental lawyers at the Sierra Club. The first time, in August 2021, the court ruled FERC failed to assess impacts of the projects’ enormous greenhouse gas emissions and had picked an arbitrary two-mile radius within which to conduct its environmental justice analysis. The court also said the projects modeled their air pollution using data from a faraway air monitor in Brownsville instead of the closer Isla Blanca monitor, and asked the commission to reconsider its finding that the projects were in the public interest. In subsequent analysis, FERC calculated the “social cost of carbon,” a measure of the estimated future financial impacts created by releasing greenhouse gases today, from Rio Grande LNG and the Rio Bravo Pipeline at $20 billion. The two projects would create 3.6 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent during construction and 7.3 million tons every year thereafter. After the court’s 2021 order, Rio Grande LNG opted to add a carbon capture system to its design that would inject greenhouse gases underground instead of releasing them into the air. FERC also increased its environmental justice review area from two to 31 miles, then re-authorized both projects in April 2023. “It was clear FERC was just rushing through this to give these LNG companies what they wanted at the expense of our community,” said Bekah Hinojosa, founder of the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, who has been fighting the projects since 2015. “It’s a broken process.” The groups sued again, alleging FERC sloppily rushed through the requirements in the court’s original order without following proper procedure. In its latest ruling, the federal appeals court in Washington agreed. It wrote that FERC failed to issue written statements of its updated environmental justice analysis, to conduct a review of Rio Grande LNG’s carbon capture project or to make those documents available for a public comment period as required by law. It did, however, submit them for comment to the LNG companies. “Because the comment period was limited to the developers’ responses, the public was not able to comment on the Commission’s analysis of those responses,” the ruling said. “We do not see how the Commission could justify its decision to skip those fundamental procedural steps.” According to Nathan Matthews, senior attorney for the Sierra Club, FERC and the developers have 45 days to seek a re-hearing. Seven days after that, the court mandate takes effect and construction at the facilities must stop. “But FERC doesn’t need to wait for the court,” Matthews said, citing the Mountain Valley Pipeline in 2018, when FERC stopped work without waiting for a court mandate. “FERC should do the same here.” Reporting in the Rio Grande Valley is supported in part by the Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas, Inc. The full program is now LIVE for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 5–7 in downtown Austin. Explore the program featuring more than 100 unforgettable conversations on topics covering education, the economy, Texas and national politics, criminal justice, the border, the 2024 elections and so much more. See the full program.

This week’s ruling was the latest twist since cities and groups in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley sued to block the projects.

Subscribe to The Y’all — a weekly dispatch about the people, places and policies defining Texas, produced by Texas Tribune journalists living in communities across the state.


McALLEN — A federal court struck down a regulatory agency’s authorization of two controversial, multi-billion-dollar gas export projects in far South Texas, one of which is already under construction.

The ruling orders federal regulators to correct procedural deficiencies before reconsidering authorization of the projects for a third. It is the latest ruling since a coalition of South Texas cities and groups sued to block the projects in 2021.

In an Aug. 6 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington cited “the nature and severity of the flaws” in reviews by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, of the two proposed gas liquefaction and export complexes, Rio Grande LNG and Texas LNG.

“Although we do not take this step lightly, the circumstances here require it,” the ruling said. “We appreciate the significant disruption vacatur may cause the projects. But that does not outweigh the seriousness of the Commission’s procedural defects.”

The court wrote that FERC failed in its analyses of environmental justice and climate impacts, air pollution modeling and procedural obligations. FERC and the developers now have 45 days to seek a re-hearing.

The two complexes in question plan to pipe in Texas shale gas, condense it and load millions of tons per year onto tanker ships for sale overseas as liquified natural gas, or LNG. Each complex costs billions of dollars, spans hundreds of acres and makes up part of an ongoing boom in gas export projects along the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana.

Rio Grande LNG parent company NextDecade said in a statement it was “disappointed in the Court’s decision and disagrees with its conclusions.”

The company added that construction continues on the first three liquefaction trains and related infrastructure at Rio Grande LNG near Brownsville and it will examine what impact the court’s order will have on future plans for added infrastructure.

The company announced last July it had secured investor funding to begin construction on its 750-acre, $18 billion facility.

A spokesperson for Texas LNG, a smaller, adjacent project on the Brownsville Ship Channel that is yet to secure sufficient funding, said the ruling was a procedural decision to correct a technical deficiency, which they were still studying.

“We have full confidence FERC will address this matter judiciously and efficiently and look forward to working with them on this important issue,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Three small surrounding cities and the local water district have passed resolutions opposing the projects, situated between national wildlife refuges and atop wetlands.

“Port Isabel and the other communities of the Laguna Madre area are located in one of the most unique, pristine and scenic ecosystems in the world,” said a 2023 resolution by the City of Port Isabel, a party in the lawsuit against FERC. “The proposed project area is located in a delicate and partially undisturbed salt flat.”

The Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, also a party in the lawsuit, has led a yearslong campaign against the destruction of archaeological sites on land that it considers sacred.

Juan Mancias, tribal chair of the Carrizo Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, holds a sign in front of the gates leading to the site where NextDecade's Rio Grande LNG has begun preparing land for a LNG terminal near Port Isabel, on April 1, 2023. Credit: Michael Gonzalez for The Texas Tribune

“The issue is what they’re doing to continually try to decimate who we are as a people,” said Juan Mancias, chairman of the tribe.

Mancias said Tuesday’s ruling made him proud to be Carrizo/Comecrudo and felt it gave the tribe a say in what happened to the land.

“I’m glad they made the decision that they made, because that decision says a lot about what is lacking in this process of permitting,” he said.

But the projects have unanimous support from the Cameron County commissioners, based in nearby Brownsville, and from most local politicians. Neither Cameron County Judge Eddie Treviño Jr. nor any of the four county commissioners responded to requests for comment.

A FERC spokesperson said the agency does not comment on court issues.

“FERC is a regulator that historically has relied upon industry assurances when making its decisions,” said Tyson Slocum, energy program director at Public Citizen in Washington. “Unfortunately, industry often is wrong, and frequently minimizes potential hazards and risks posed to the community.”

Todd Staples, president of the Texas Oil and Gas Association, said, “Delaying approvals and treating natural gas as a liability rather than an asset squanders our nation’s global energy leadership and forces our allies to look to other nations—some of which are hostile to America—to meet their energy needs.”

Years of Litigation

Tuesday’s ruling was the second time the court struck down FERC’s authorization of these projects in response to petitions from local groups supported by nonprofit environmental lawyers at the Sierra Club.

The first time, in August 2021, the court ruled FERC failed to assess impacts of the projects’ enormous greenhouse gas emissions and had picked an arbitrary two-mile radius within which to conduct its environmental justice analysis. The court also said the projects modeled their air pollution using data from a faraway air monitor in Brownsville instead of the closer Isla Blanca monitor, and asked the commission to reconsider its finding that the projects were in the public interest.

In subsequent analysis, FERC calculated the “social cost of carbon,” a measure of the estimated future financial impacts created by releasing greenhouse gases today, from Rio Grande LNG and the Rio Bravo Pipeline at $20 billion. The two projects would create 3.6 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent during construction and 7.3 million tons every year thereafter.

After the court’s 2021 order, Rio Grande LNG opted to add a carbon capture system to its design that would inject greenhouse gases underground instead of releasing them into the air.

FERC also increased its environmental justice review area from two to 31 miles, then re-authorized both projects in April 2023.

“It was clear FERC was just rushing through this to give these LNG companies what they wanted at the expense of our community,” said Bekah Hinojosa, founder of the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, who has been fighting the projects since 2015. “It’s a broken process.”

The groups sued again, alleging FERC sloppily rushed through the requirements in the court’s original order without following proper procedure. In its latest ruling, the federal appeals court in Washington agreed.

It wrote that FERC failed to issue written statements of its updated environmental justice analysis, to conduct a review of Rio Grande LNG’s carbon capture project or to make those documents available for a public comment period as required by law. It did, however, submit them for comment to the LNG companies.

“Because the comment period was limited to the developers’ responses, the public was not able to comment on the Commission’s analysis of those responses,” the ruling said. “We do not see how the Commission could justify its decision to skip those fundamental procedural steps.”

According to Nathan Matthews, senior attorney for the Sierra Club, FERC and the developers have 45 days to seek a re-hearing. Seven days after that, the court mandate takes effect and construction at the facilities must stop.

“But FERC doesn’t need to wait for the court,” Matthews said, citing the Mountain Valley Pipeline in 2018, when FERC stopped work without waiting for a court mandate. “FERC should do the same here.”

Reporting in the Rio Grande Valley is supported in part by the Methodist Healthcare Ministries of South Texas, Inc.


The full program is now LIVE for the 2024 Texas Tribune Festival, happening Sept. 5–7 in downtown Austin. Explore the program featuring more than 100 unforgettable conversations on topics covering education, the economy, Texas and national politics, criminal justice, the border, the 2024 elections and so much more. See the full program.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Rising Temperatures Disturbing Americans' Slumber, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Dec. 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Climate change is costing people some shut-eye, and a new study...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Dec. 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Climate change is costing people some shut-eye, and a new study says it’s only going to get worse.Higher daytime or nighttime temperatures slightly lower the amount of sleep a person gets, researchers reported in the December issue of the journal Environment International.By 2099, people could be losing up to 24 hours of sleep each year due to rising heat, researchers projected.“This work is an important step toward understanding how sleep is affected by environmental stressors like heat, which can increase the risk of disease and even death,” said lead researcher Jiawen Liao, a postdoctoral research associate in population and public health sciences at the Keck School of Medicine of USC.“If we can help people sleep better, we may be able to reduce illness and save lives,” Liao said in a news release.Hot weather can disturb sleep in several ways, researchers said in background notes. Heat prevents the body from cooling down, can trigger a stress response and reduces the time a person spends in deep sleep and REM sleep.In turn, poor sleep increases the risk of many different health problems, including heart disease, breathing issues and mental health disorders, researchers said.“We already know that when there are extreme heat events, more people die from cardiovascular disease and pulmonary disease,” Liao said. “What will this mean for population health as global temperatures continue to rise?”For the new study, researchers analyzed sleep data collected for more than 14,000 adults, amounting to more than 12 million nights of sleep. The team compared people’s sleep against weather data for their area to see how temperature affects sleep.Results showed that an 18-degree Fahrenheit difference in daytime temperature was associated with about 2.2 minutes of lost sleep, while the same increase at night was linked to more than 2.6 lost minutes of sleep.“This may seem like a small amount, but when it adds up across millions of people, the total impact is enormous,” Liao said.As one might expect, sleep loss is highest during the hot summer days from June to September, researchers said.There also are geographic differences, with folks on the West Coast losing nearly three times as much sleep as people in other regions.All told, U.S. adults could lose between 9 and 24 hours of sleep each year by 2099, depending on where they live, researchers projected.Rising temperatures also were associated with more disrupted sleep throughout the night, and more time spent awake in bed, researchers said.Researchers next plan to investigate whether indoor cooling, green roofs or better sleep hygiene can counter the effects of heat and help people get a good night’s sleep. They also plan to see whether improving sleep can reduce heat-related health problems.SOURCE: Keck School of Medicine of USC, news release, Dec. 5, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

EPA Eliminates Mention of Fossil Fuels in Website on Warming's Causes. Scientists Call It Misleading

The Environmental Protection Agency has removed references to fossil fuels from its online page about climate change causes

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency has removed any mention of fossil fuels — the main driver of global warming — from its popular online page explaining the causes of climate change. Now it only mentions natural phenomena, even though scientists calculate that nearly all of the warming is due to human activity.Sometime in the past few days or weeks, EPA altered some but not all of its climate change webpages, de-emphasizing and even deleting references to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, which scientists say is the overwhelming cause of climate change. The website's causes of climate page mentions changes in Earth’s orbit, solar activity, Earth's reflectivity, volcanoes and natural carbon dioxide changes, but not the burning of fossil fuels. Seven scientists and three former EPA officials tell The Associated Press that this is misleading and harmful.“Now it is completely wrong,” said University of California climate scientist Daniel Swain, who also noted that impacts, risks and indicators of climate change on the EPA site are now broken links. “This was a tool that I know for a fact that a lot of educators used and a lot of people. It was actually one of the best designed easy access climate change information websites for the U.S.”“It is outrageous that our government is hiding information and lying,” said former Obama National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief and Oregon State oceanographer Jane Lubchenco. “People have a right to know the truth about the things that affect their health and safety, and the government has a responsibility to tell the truth.”An October version of the same EPA page, saved by the internet Wayback Machine, said: “Since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has changed the earth’s climate. Natural processes, such as changes in the sun’s energy and volcanic eruptions, also affect the Earth’s climate. However, they do not explain the warming that we have observed over the last century.”That now reads: “Natural processes are always influencing the earth’s climate and can explain climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s. However, recent climate changes cannot be explained by natural causes alone.”“Unlike the previous administration, the Trump EPA is focused on protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback, not left-wing political agendas,” said Brigit Hirsch, EPA spokesperson, in an email. “As such, this agency no longer takes marching orders from the climate cult. Plus, for all the pearl-clutchers out there, the website is archived and available to the public.” Clicking on “explore climate change resources” on the EPA archived website leads to an error message that says: “This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it.”Former Republican Governor Christie Todd Whitman, who was EPA administrator under George W. Bush, said, “You can refuse to talk about it, but it doesn't make it go away. And we're seeing it. Everybody's seeing it.”“We look ridiculous, quite frankly,” Whitman told The Associated Press in an interview. “The rest of the world understands this is happening and they're taking steps... And we're just going backwards. We're knocking ourselves back into the Stone Age.”Democratic EPA chief Gina McCarthy blasted current EPA chief Lee Zeldin, calling him “a wolf in sheep's clothing, actively spiking any attempt to protect our health, well-being and precious natural resources.”Nearly 100% of the warming the world is now experiencing is from human activity, and without that, the Earth would be cooling and dropping in temperatures until the Industrial Revolution, Swain and other scientists said. The EPA listed natural causes “might be causing a very tiny amount of warming or cooling at the moment,” he said.Marcia McNutt, a geophysicist and president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that there is consensus among experts from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, or NASEM, on the causes of climate change. “Numerous NASEM reports from the nation’s leading scientists confirm that the climate is changing as a result of human activities,” McNutt said. “Even the EPA acknowledges that natural causes cannot explain the current changes in climate. It is important that the public be presented with all of the facts.”Former EPA climate advisor Jeremy Symons, now a senior advisor for Environmental Protection Network of former EPA officials, said: “Ignoring fossil fuel pollution as the driving force behind the climate changes we have seen in our lifetime is like pretending cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.”Michael Phillis contributed to this report.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Contributor: The left's climate panic is finally calming down

Millions of Americans may still believe warming exists, but far fewer view it as an imminent existential threat.

Is the American left finally waking up from its decades-long climate catastrophism stupor? For years, climate alarmism has reigned as political catechism: The planet is burning and only drastic action — deindustrialization, draconian regulation, even ceasing childbearing — could forestall certain apocalypse. Now, at least some signs are emerging that both the broader public and leading liberal voices may be recoiling from the doom and gloom.First, recent polling shows that the intensity of climate dread is weakening. According to a July report from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, while a majority (69%) of Americans still say global warming is happening, only 60% say it’s “mostly human-caused”; 28% attribute it mostly to natural environmental changes. A similar October study from the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found that “belief in human-driven climate change declined overall” since 2017. Interestingly, Democrats and political independents, not Republicans, were primarily responsible for the decline.Moreover, public willingness to countenance personal sacrifice in the name of saving the planet seems to be plummeting: An October 2024 poll from the Pew Research Center found that only 45% said human activity contributed “a great deal” to climate change. An additional 29% said it contributed “some” — while a quarter said human influence was minimal or nonexistent.The moral panic is slowly evaporating. Millions of Americans may still believe warming exists, but far fewer view it as an imminent existential threat — let alone embrace sweeping upheavals in energy policy and personal lifestyle.The fading consensus among ordinary Americans matches a more dramatic signal from ruling-class elites. On Oct. 28, no less an erstwhile ardent climate change evangelist than Bill Gates published a remarkable blog post addressing climate leaders at the then-upcoming COP30 summit. Gates unloaded a blistering critique of what he called “the doomsday view of climate change,” which he said is simply “wrong.” While acknowledging the serious risks for the poorest countries, Gates insisted that humanity will continue to “live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.” He added that “using more energy is a good thing, because it’s so closely correlated with economic growth.” One might be forgiven for suffering a bit of whiplash.The unraveling of climate catastrophism got another jolt recently with the formal retraction of a high-profile 2024 study published in the journal Nature. That study — which had predicted a calamitous 62% decline in global economic output by 2100 if carbon emissions were not sufficiently reduced — was widely cited by transnational bodies and progressive political activists alike as justification for the pursuit of aggressive decarbonization. But the authors withdrew the paper after peer reviewers discovered that flawed data had skewed the result. Without that data, the projected decline in output collapses to around 23%. Oops.The climate alarm machine — powered by the twin engines of moral panic and groupthink homogeneity — is sputtering. When the public grows skeptical, when billionaire techno-philanthropists question the prevailing consensus and when supposedly mainstream scientific projections reverse course, that’s a sign that the days of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda documentary and John Kerry’s “special presidential envoy for climate” globe-trotting vanity gig are officially over.Ultimately, no one stands to benefit more from this incipient trend toward climate sanity than the American people themselves. In an era when optimism can be hard to come by, the professed certitude of imminent environmental apocalypse is pretty much the least helpful thing imaginable. If one is seeking to plant the seeds of hope, nothing could be worse than lecturing to the masses that one is a climate change-“denying” misanthrope if he has the temerity to take his family on an airplane for a nice vacation or — egad! — entertain thoughts of having more children. Even more to the point, given the overwhelming evidence that Americans are now primarily concerned about affordability and the cost of living, more — not less — hydrocarbon extraction has never been more necessary.There are green shoots that liberals and elites may be slowly — perhaps grudgingly — giving up on the climate catastrophism hoax to which they have long stubbornly clung. In America’s gladiatorial two-party system, that could well deprive Republicans of a winning political issue with which to batter out-of-touch, climate-change-besotted Democrats. But for the sake of good governance, sound public policy and the prosperity of the median American citizen, it would be the best thing to happen in a decade.Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer This article generally aligns with a Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the pieceThe author contends that climate catastrophism has dominated progressive political discourse for decades but is now experiencing a notable decline in public support and credibility. Recent polling demonstrates weakening consensus on climate risks, with only 60% of Americans attributing warming primarily to human causes compared to 28% citing natural environmental changes, while belief in human-caused climate change has declined particularly among Democrats and independents since 2017. The author notes that public willingness to accept personal sacrifices for climate goals has diminished substantially, with only 45% of Americans saying human activity contributed “a great deal” to warming. The author highlights prominent figures like Bill Gates questioning the “doomsday view of climate change” and emphasizing that humanity will continue to thrive, arguing that increased energy consumption correlates with economic growth. The retraction of a 2024 Nature study that had predicted a 62% decline in global economic output by 2100—which peer reviewers found used flawed data—serves as evidence, according to the author, that catastrophic projections lack credibility. The author maintains that climate alarmism has been counterproductive to American well-being, fostering pessimism about the future and discouraging people from having children or pursuing economic development, and that moving away from this narrative will allow policymakers to address concerns Americans prioritize, particularly affordability and cost of living, through expanded hydrocarbon extraction.Different views on the topicScientific researchers have documented substantive health consequences from climate-related extreme events that suggest legitimate grounds for public concern rather than baseless alarmism. A comprehensive peer-reviewed literature review identified extensive evidence linking climate change to measurable increases in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation following extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods, hurricanes, and droughts[1]. The research demonstrates that approximately 80% of the global population experiences water and food insecurity resulting from climate impacts, with particularly acute effects in rural areas facing drought and agricultural disruption[1]. Scientific studies indicate that anthropogenic warming has contributed to increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, with vulnerable populations—including elderly individuals, low-income communities, women, and disabled persons—facing disproportionate risks due to limited access to resources and protection[1]. Rather than representing unfounded catastrophism, documented mental and physical health outcomes following extreme weather suggest that public concern about climate impacts reflects genuine public health challenges warranting policy attention and resource allocation for adaptation and mitigation strategies.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.