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.

The Bold Environmental Vision of President Jimmy Carter

News Feed
Sunday, December 29, 2024

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres of Alaskan wilderness as a national monument. He did so unilaterally, using a little known 1906 Antiquities Act that ostensibly gave the president the executive power to designate buildings or small plots of historical sites on federal land as national monuments. No previous president had ever used the obscure act to create a vast wilderness area. But Congress was refusing to pass the necessary legislation, so Carter, who passed away Sunday at the age of 100, decided to act alone. The Alaskan political establishment was flabbergasted. Despite the unpopularity of the unusual sequestration order, Carter announced that it would stand until Congress agreed to pass its own legislation. For the next two years Carter stubbornly held his ground, explaining that he wasn’t opposed to oil and gas development, but that he would not accept any bill that jeopardized the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—the calving grounds and migratory route for one of the world’s last great caribou herds. Finally, Alaska’s senior politician, Republican Senator Ted Stevens agreed in late 1980 to break the impasse. At one point in their wrangling over what became known as the Alaska Lands Act, Senator Stevens argued that one small region should be excluded from the proposed wilderness refuge. “Well, let’s check that,” Carter said. The president then rolled out an oversized map on the floor of the Oval Office. Stevens was astonished to see the president on his hands and knees, inspecting the area in question. “No, I don’t think you are right,” Carter observed. “You see, this little watershed here doesn’t actually go into that one. It comes over here.” The senator had to concede the point, and on the car ride back to Capitol Hill he turned to his aide and remarked, “He knows more about Alaska than I do.” Sen. Ted Stevens and President Carter discuss the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Anchorage Daily News/Tribune News Service/Getty That was vintage Carter, the president who always paid attention to details. But it also illustrates Carter’s legacy as a president devoted to protecting the environment. Carter was still negotiating with Senator Stevens weeks after his defeat in the November 1980 election. But on December 2, 1980, this now lame-duck president signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, creating more than 157 million acres of wilderness area, national wildlife refuges, and national parks—tripling the size of the nation’s Wilderness Preservation System and doubling the size of the National Park System. It was, and still is, the largest single expansion of protected lands in American history. More than four decades later, before he entered hospice care in his simple Plains, Georgia home in February, Carter signed an amicus brief, appealing to the courts and President Joe Biden, not to permit the building of a gravel road through one small portion of the designated wilderness area. It was his last act in the public arena. And it succeeded: On March 14, 2023, the Interior Department canceled a plan that would have allowed the road’s construction. Carter was always annoyed when pundits proclaimed him a “model” ex-president, but a failed president. And he was right to be annoyed because his was actually a quite consequential presidency, and no more so than on questions of conservation and the environment. Carter signs the Energy Bill on November 9, 1978. HUM Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Early in his presidency, in the spring of 1977, he famously vetoed a slew of water projects, mostly small dams and river diversion facilities, in dozens of congressional districts around the country. Federal funding of such projects was often a waste of taxpayer funds. And these boondoggles, always encouraged by the US Army Corps of Engineers, often harmed the rivers’ natural habitat. Carter knew he was doing the right thing—even though it eroded his support in a Democratic-controlled Congress. Carter’s instincts for conservation had been evident earlier when, as governor of Georgia, he had opposed unbridled commercial development, favored tough regulations to protect the state’s coastal wetlands, and endorsed the creation of two major seashores and river parks. But when Carter got to the White House, he shocked many observers by appointing James Gustave Speth, age 35, to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. Speth was regarded by the Washington establishment as a radical on environmental issues. A Yale-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, he had co-founded in 1970 the Natural Resources Defense Council, a tough advocacy group on environmental issues. Speth, who later served as dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, used his position in the administration to educate Carter about the dangers of acid rain, carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, and the likely extinction of 100,000 species during the next quarter century. Just before leaving office, Carter released a prophetic report, largely written by Speth, that predicted “widespread and pervasive changes in global climatic, economic, social and agricultural patterns” if humanity continued to rely on fossil fuels. The Global 2000 Report to the President became an early clarion call for scientists studying climate change. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Danielle Brigida/US Fish and Wildlife Service History will judge Carter as a president ahead of his time. He set a goal of producing 20 percent of the nation’s energy from renewable sources by 2000. In an age of soaring energy prices and stagflation, he famously wore a cardigan on national television during a fireside chat in which he urged Americans to lower their thermostats and conserve energy. He put solar water heating panels on the roof of the White House, telling reporters, “A generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.” Ironically, while Carter put federal money into solar energy research, a few years later his successor Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House roof—and a few are still displayed in museums. Carter spent much of his time in office trying to deal with energy issues. He proposed a 283-page National Energy Act (NEA) that included a tax on oversized, gas-guzzling cars, tax credits for home insulation, and investments in solar and wind technologies. Carter insisted that his energy bill was the “moral equivalent of war.” In response, The Wall Street Journal labeled it with the sarcastic acronym MEOW. Republican Party chairman Bill Brock charged that the president was “driving people out of their family cars.” Michigan Democratic Congressman John Dingell told Carter aides that it was an “asinine bill.” The legislation nevertheless passed the House, but then encountered much more opposition in the Senate. Carter complained in a private White House diary, “The influence of the oil and gas industry is unbelievable, and it’s impossible to arouse the public to protect themselves.” Carter announces his solar energy policy in front of PV panels installed on the West Wing roof. Warren Leffler/Library of Congress The final bill, passed in October 1978, was a complicated compromise—but it did impose penalties on gas-guzzling cars, required higher efficiency standards for home appliances, and provided tax incentives to develop wind and solar technologies. But environmentalists would criticize it for also providing incentives to mine domestic coal and produce corn-based gasohol. Carter’s goal here was to lessen the country’s dependence on imported Arab oil—and in this he was marginally successful, leading to a decline in oil imports during his term in office. But in an unintended consequence, environmentalists would complain that a part of the bill required that any new power plants be fired with fuels other than oil or natural gas. In practice, that meant coal received a major boost. In retrospect, the most consequential part of the energy bill was the phased decontrol of natural gas prices. This deregulation eventually stimulated exploration for natural gas in the United States and created the market conditions decades later for the innovative fracking technology that would make the country a major supplier of liquefied natural gas. Politically speaking, Carter’s energy policies were criticized by both sides. He was faulted by liberals for enacting too much deregulation, while conservatives perceived him as an enemy of the oil and gas industry. Former President Carter with grandson Jason Carter during a ribbon cutting for a solar project on family farmland in Plains, Georgia. David Goldman/AP If environmentalists should remember one thing about the Carter presidency it should be his so-called “malaise speech” in July 1979. It was an extraordinary sermon about America’s limits—a most un-American idea for a people constantly fed on the manna of manifest destiny. “We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own,” he said. “Our people are losing that faith…In a nation that was once proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.” Taking a page straight from Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (which Carter had recently read), Carter observed, “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.” This was the born-again Southern Baptist in Jimmy Carter speaking, the Southern populist, warning his people about the need to be aware of our environment’s fragility and limitations. It was not a message most Americans wanted to hear. But it remains a key part of his presidential legacy.

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres […]

This story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres of Alaskan wilderness as a national monument. He did so unilaterally, using a little known 1906 Antiquities Act that ostensibly gave the president the executive power to designate buildings or small plots of historical sites on federal land as national monuments. No previous president had ever used the obscure act to create a vast wilderness area. But Congress was refusing to pass the necessary legislation, so Carter, who passed away Sunday at the age of 100, decided to act alone.

The Alaskan political establishment was flabbergasted. Despite the unpopularity of the unusual sequestration order, Carter announced that it would stand until Congress agreed to pass its own legislation. For the next two years Carter stubbornly held his ground, explaining that he wasn’t opposed to oil and gas development, but that he would not accept any bill that jeopardized the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—the calving grounds and migratory route for one of the world’s last great caribou herds.

Finally, Alaska’s senior politician, Republican Senator Ted Stevens agreed in late 1980 to break the impasse. At one point in their wrangling over what became known as the Alaska Lands Act, Senator Stevens argued that one small region should be excluded from the proposed wilderness refuge. “Well, let’s check that,” Carter said. The president then rolled out an oversized map on the floor of the Oval Office. Stevens was astonished to see the president on his hands and knees, inspecting the area in question. “No, I don’t think you are right,” Carter observed. “You see, this little watershed here doesn’t actually go into that one. It comes over here.” The senator had to concede the point, and on the car ride back to Capitol Hill he turned to his aide and remarked, “He knows more about Alaska than I do.”

Sen. Ted Stevens and President Carter discuss the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Anchorage Daily News/Tribune News Service/Getty

That was vintage Carter, the president who always paid attention to details. But it also illustrates Carter’s legacy as a president devoted to protecting the environment. Carter was still negotiating with Senator Stevens weeks after his defeat in the November 1980 election. But on December 2, 1980, this now lame-duck president signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, creating more than 157 million acres of wilderness area, national wildlife refuges, and national parks—tripling the size of the nation’s Wilderness Preservation System and doubling the size of the National Park System. It was, and still is, the largest single expansion of protected lands in American history.

More than four decades later, before he entered hospice care in his simple Plains, Georgia home in February, Carter signed an amicus brief, appealing to the courts and President Joe Biden, not to permit the building of a gravel road through one small portion of the designated wilderness area. It was his last act in the public arena. And it succeeded: On March 14, 2023, the Interior Department canceled a plan that would have allowed the road’s construction.

Carter was always annoyed when pundits proclaimed him a “model” ex-president, but a failed president. And he was right to be annoyed because his was actually a quite consequential presidency, and no more so than on questions of conservation and the environment.

Carter signs the Energy Bill on November 9, 1978.

HUM Images/Universal Images Group/Getty

Early in his presidency, in the spring of 1977, he famously vetoed a slew of water projects, mostly small dams and river diversion facilities, in dozens of congressional districts around the country. Federal funding of such projects was often a waste of taxpayer funds. And these boondoggles, always encouraged by the US Army Corps of Engineers, often harmed the rivers’ natural habitat. Carter knew he was doing the right thing—even though it eroded his support in a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Carter’s instincts for conservation had been evident earlier when, as governor of Georgia, he had opposed unbridled commercial development, favored tough regulations to protect the state’s coastal wetlands, and endorsed the creation of two major seashores and river parks.

But when Carter got to the White House, he shocked many observers by appointing James Gustave Speth, age 35, to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. Speth was regarded by the Washington establishment as a radical on environmental issues. A Yale-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, he had co-founded in 1970 the Natural Resources Defense Council, a tough advocacy group on environmental issues. Speth, who later served as dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, used his position in the administration to educate Carter about the dangers of acid rain, carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, and the likely extinction of 100,000 species during the next quarter century.

Just before leaving office, Carter released a prophetic report, largely written by Speth, that predicted “widespread and pervasive changes in global climatic, economic, social and agricultural patterns” if humanity continued to rely on fossil fuels. The Global 2000 Report to the President became an early clarion call for scientists studying climate change.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Danielle Brigida/US Fish and Wildlife Service

History will judge Carter as a president ahead of his time. He set a goal of producing 20 percent of the nation’s energy from renewable sources by 2000. In an age of soaring energy prices and stagflation, he famously wore a cardigan on national television during a fireside chat in which he urged Americans to lower their thermostats and conserve energy. He put solar water heating panels on the roof of the White House, telling reporters, “A generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.” Ironically, while Carter put federal money into solar energy research, a few years later his successor Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House roof—and a few are still displayed in museums.

Carter spent much of his time in office trying to deal with energy issues. He proposed a 283-page National Energy Act (NEA) that included a tax on oversized, gas-guzzling cars, tax credits for home insulation, and investments in solar and wind technologies. Carter insisted that his energy bill was the “moral equivalent of war.” In response, The Wall Street Journal labeled it with the sarcastic acronym MEOW. Republican Party chairman Bill Brock charged that the president was “driving people out of their family cars.” Michigan Democratic Congressman John Dingell told Carter aides that it was an “asinine bill.” The legislation nevertheless passed the House, but then encountered much more opposition in the Senate. Carter complained in a private White House diary, “The influence of the oil and gas industry is unbelievable, and it’s impossible to arouse the public to protect themselves.”

Carter announces his solar energy policy in front of PV panels installed on the West Wing roof.

Warren Leffler/Library of Congress

The final bill, passed in October 1978, was a complicated compromise—but it did impose penalties on gas-guzzling cars, required higher efficiency standards for home appliances, and provided tax incentives to develop wind and solar technologies. But environmentalists would criticize it for also providing incentives to mine domestic coal and produce corn-based gasohol. Carter’s goal here was to lessen the country’s dependence on imported Arab oil—and in this he was marginally successful, leading to a decline in oil imports during his term in office. But in an unintended consequence, environmentalists would complain that a part of the bill required that any new power plants be fired with fuels other than oil or natural gas. In practice, that meant coal received a major boost.

In retrospect, the most consequential part of the energy bill was the phased decontrol of natural gas prices. This deregulation eventually stimulated exploration for natural gas in the United States and created the market conditions decades later for the innovative fracking technology that would make the country a major supplier of liquefied natural gas.

Politically speaking, Carter’s energy policies were criticized by both sides. He was faulted by liberals for enacting too much deregulation, while conservatives perceived him as an enemy of the oil and gas industry.

Former President Carter with grandson Jason Carter during a ribbon cutting for a solar project on family farmland in Plains, Georgia.

David Goldman/AP

If environmentalists should remember one thing about the Carter presidency it should be his so-called “malaise speech” in July 1979. It was an extraordinary sermon about America’s limits—a most un-American idea for a people constantly fed on the manna of manifest destiny. “We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own,” he said. “Our people are losing that faith…In a nation that was once proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.”

Taking a page straight from Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (which Carter had recently read), Carter observed, “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.”

This was the born-again Southern Baptist in Jimmy Carter speaking, the Southern populist, warning his people about the need to be aware of our environment’s fragility and limitations. It was not a message most Americans wanted to hear. But it remains a key part of his presidential legacy.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

US senators call on big oil to disclose lobbying that led Trump to axe key climate rule

Senate committee investigates suspected push that led administration to overturn EPA’s endangerment findingIn the wake of the Trump administration’s announcement that it will overturn the rule which underpins virtually all US climate regulations, a Senate committee has launched an investigation into a suspected lobbying push that led to the move.On Tuesday, the Senate environment and public works committee sent letters to two dozen corporations, including oil giants, thinktanks, law firms and trade associations. The missives request each company to turn over documents regarding the 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in July that it will unmake. Continue reading...

In the wake of the Trump administration’s announcement that it will overturn the rule which underpins virtually all US climate regulations, a Senate committee has launched an investigation into a suspected lobbying push that led to the move.On Tuesday, the Senate environment and public works committee sent letters to two dozen corporations, including oil giants, thinktanks, law firms and trade associations. The missives request each company to turn over documents regarding the 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said in July that it will unmake.The finding enshrined that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases harm the health of Americans.“Rescinding the endangerment finding at the behest of industry is irresponsible, legally dubious, and deeply out of step with the EPA’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment, and the American public deserves to understand your role in advancing EPA’s dangerous decision,” wrote Rhode Island senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the ranking member of the committee. “I am concerned about the role that fossil fuel companies, certain manufacturers, trade associations, polluter-backed groups, and others with much to benefit from the repeal of the endangerment finding – including your organization – played in drafting, preparing, promoting, and lobbying on the proposal.”Fossil fuel companies and their allies are threatened by the endangerment finding because it confirms in law that carbon dioxide, which their products produce, are dangerous, Whitehouse told the Guardian. It also gives the EPA the authority to regulate those emissions under the Clean Air Act.The letter, which asks for all relevant private communications between the day Trump was re-elected in November to the day the EPA announced plans to rescind the endangerment finding in July, was sent to oil giants Exxon, Chevron, Shell, and BP, as well as coal producers, a rail giant and two auto manufacturers, whose business plans rely on fossil fuels.“The only interests that benefit from undoing the endangerment finding are polluter interests, and specifically fossil fuel polluter interests,” Whitehouse said.It was also sent to trade associations and law firms representing big oil and auto companies. And it was sent to far-right, pro-fossil fuel thinktanks Competitive Enterprise Institute, New Civil Liberties Alliance, the Heartland Institute, America First Policy Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, each of which challenge the authority of federal agencies, and some of which have directly praised the proposed endangerment finding rollback.The Guardian has contacted each recipient for comment.Because Republicans control the Senate, Democrats on the environment and public works committee lack the power to subpoena the documents. But the Senate committee still expects the companies to comply with their request.The letter could send a signal to polluting sectors and rightwing firms that they are being watched, and could set the stage for continued investigation if Democrats win back a congressional chamber in next November’s midterm elections.Fossil fuel interests pushed back on the endangerment finding when it was first written, yet little is known about more recent advocacy to overturn it. Immediately following the EPA’s announcement of the rollback, the New York Times reported that groups have not “been clamoring in recent years for its reversal”. But Whitehouse believes that has changed since Trump was re-elected in November 2025.When Joe Biden was president and Democrats controlled at least one chamber of Congress, Whitehouse said “a request to rescind the endangerment finding would have just looked like useless, pointless, madness.“But now that they can actually do it in their desperation and with the mask of moderation pulled off, I think it’s very clear that they were directing this happen,” he said.Under Trump, former lobbyists and lawyers for polluting industries such as oil, gas and petrochemicals have entered leadership positions at the EPA.“The fossil fuel industry owns and controls the Trump administration on all matters that relate to their industry, and they have subservient Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate,” said Whitehouse. “The change in power has allowed a change in tactics and attitude.”Two environmental non-profits have sued the Trump administration for “secretly” convening a group of climate contrarians to bolster its effort to topple the endangerment finding.The EPA’s proposed undoing of the crucial legal conclusion comes as part of a larger war on the environment by the Trump administration, which has killed dozens of climate rules since re-entering the White House in January.“The motive is to help fossil fuels survive,” said Whitehouse.

How Climate Change Is Increasing Landslide Risk Worldwide

As warming temperatures bring more extreme rain to the mountains, debris flows are on the rise

The landslide behind my neighbor’s backyard doesn’t exist—not according to the New York State landslide map or Greene County’s hazard-mitigation plan or the federal inventory managed by the U.S. Geological Survey. But when you’re standing in the middle of the debris field, the violence of the event is still evident 14 years after it occurred. The fan of the landslide, where a surge of boulders and mud blasted the forest open after rushing down the steeper slopes of Arizona Mountain in the Catskills, is about 100 feet wide—an undulating plane of rocks, mangled tree trunks, and invasive plants such as Japanese stiltgrass that thrive in disturbed areas.On a hot July day the seasonal stream that runs through this ravine, named the Shingle Kill, is small enough to step over. When Tropical Storm Irene hovered over these mountains on August 28, 2011, the Shingle Kill swelled like all the otherwise unremarkable streams in the area, frothing downhill in a torrent the color of chocolate milk. This storm was a particularly bad one, dropping up to 18 inches of rain on the northeastern escarpment of the Catskills. Throughout the region explosive rivers eroded their banks, flooding towns and ripping away buildings.The first house the Shingle Kill passes as it emerges into our community belonged at the time to Diane and Ken Herchenroder, who had lived there for nearly three decades. In the past, when the Shingle Kill occasionally raged, they could hear rocks colliding in the streambed. But this time it was louder—and faster.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.From the screened-in front porch of their 1880s colonial, they saw the stream crest its banks. First it took out a 32-foot-long footbridge that connected one side of the property to the other. Then trees started coming downriver, crashing into a culvert at the bottom of the yard. The culvert clogged, washing out the road. Water got diverted across their lawn on one side of the stream, and in the other direction it blew out the garage side door, then the front doors. (Their lawn tractor was found downstream days later.) Diane watched her row of beloved lilac bushes, probably more than 100 years old and 15 feet tall, get ripped from their roots. “They just floated away. And we thought, that’s going to be it,” she recalls. “Then we heard a rumble like a train barreling down the mountain.”Less than 2,000 feet above, in a hollow high on Arizona Mountain, oversaturated soils released themselves into the headwaters of the Shingle Kill, picking up speed and whatever materials the flow encountered as it carved downhill.As the slope flattened out, the landslide blew open the channel and spread out, depositing a wall of uprooted trees just upstream of the house. A slurry of rocks and mud continued flowing, plugging the Shingle Kill streambed all the way to the road, where it was stopped by the debris dam at the culvert.Robert Titus, a retired geology professor, and his wife, Johanna Titus, explored the slide about a month later for their Kaatskill Geologist column in a local newspaper. “We don’t use the words ‘awe,’ ‘awesome’ or ‘awed’ very often; we save them for when they are truly appropriate,” they wrote. “This was one of those times.” They described scenes that were evidence of boulders “floating on the moving muds,” as well as hundreds of “twisted and broken trees” that had been thrown high above the stream bank and were now stranded on top of the ravine. The Tituses recently told me it was unlike anything they had seen before or since.In July 2025, days of heavy rain triggered multiple mudslides and rockslides in New York State's Adirondacks, including this one on Mount Colden. It blocked access to hiking trails in a popular recreation spot in the High Peaks Wilderness area.To this day, the scar where the landslide began is unmissable from miles away.That this landslide didn’t get recorded is somewhat a quirk of disaster recovery. Debris from the slide itself wasn’t the singular cause of damage to any buildings or roads, so there was no financial fingerprint. The slide didn’t injure or kill anyone. Landslides aren’t mapped in the same way that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for instance, tracks flood zones and inundation risk, and a rate of occurrence can’t be modeled like a flood. Because landslide insurance practically doesn’t exist in most of the country, no one needs the data to assess actuarial risk for homeowners. According to the New York Geological Survey, the vast majority of landslides in the state go unreported.But the Shingle Kill landslide did change the mountainside that day. Joel DuBois, director of the Greene County Department of Soil and Water, visited the site in the days after Irene and reviewed some recent photos of the stream corridor that was affected by the debris flow. “There appear to be a number of cycles of incision and aggradation,” DuBois wrote. “That is to say that channel incision, or down-cutting, results in steeper bank angles and higher bank heights, leaving the adjacent hillsides susceptible to landslide” both during and after flood events. The sediment then flows downstream and accumulates at existing debris dams, which tends to cause channels to migrate laterally, he explained. That too can trigger landslide activity.The area remains vulnerable at a time when landslide risk is expected to increase across much of the northeastern U.S.—as well as a lot of the world. That’s because climate change is causing concentrated bursts of rain that fall over a short period to occur more frequently. Such intense rainfall events are known to be the biggest trigger of landslides.It’s not quite right to say landslides aren’t common in the Catskills, because this superold plateau has been eroding for perhaps a few hundred million years. On a nongeological timescale, though, landslide susceptibility isn’t something many people think about in New York State, and the state geological survey can estimate only that between 100 and 400 occur every year.As warmer temperatures lead to more moisture in the air, climate change is quickly warping that math. In the Northeast, the heaviest rainstorms are now 60 percent heavier than they were in the 1950s, according to the Fifth National Climate Assessment. In a 2023 study, researchers at Dartmouth College found that extreme precipitation in the region will increase by 52 percent by the end of this century, mostly because of a higher number of such events each year. “Our landscape has pretty much been in equilibrium, for the most part, since the glaciers left,” Andrew Kozlowski, a New York State geologist, explained during a 2022 USGS presentation. “With climate change, we may be shifting that equilibrium and throwing all of this completely off balance, and there’s going to be a natural readjustment.”“Landslide” is the broad term for the movement of soils, rocks, and other debris down a slope. There are several different classifications for landslides. Some, like the Shingle Kill debris flow, move far too fast to be outrun. More than any other factor, they are set off by an intense storm. Others, such as rotational slides—backward-curving masses of material that can be hundreds of feet deep—are more sensitive to rainfall over the course of a season. They can move very slowly when a destabilized slope takes months to fail.Landslides can happen pretty much anywhere certain conditions exist but are most common in very steep mountain terrain where plenty of rain falls. In 2024 the U.S. Landslide Susceptibility Index was released and stated that 44 percent of the land in the U.S. could potentially experience landslide activity. Susceptibility is based partly on where landslides have occurred previously, and it wasn’t until the past decade that high-resolution lidar made it possible for states to survey vast swaths of land for evidence and clues. The extent to which states have done so is uneven.Benjamin DeJong, director of the Vermont Geological Survey, says you can think of landslide susceptibility as an inexact recipe. You’re going to need steeper slopes to achieve some kind of baseload that puts weight on the slope. Next, add loose, unconsolidated materials that can become saturated with water. If those saturated materials are overlying or underlying another kind of material that has very different permeability, meaning its ability to take in water, that contrast is a big factor.“By far the year that had the greatest total landslides that I’ve recorded was 2024. Last year was completely off the scale.” —David Petley University of HullThen you look at what’s on the base and on the top of the slope. If the base, or toe, is undercut—by a road, for instance, or a meandering stream—that’s going to make the slope more susceptible. Overloading the top, or head, of a slope with weight also drives it toward failure.The fourth ingredient is the loss of vegetation that helps to hold soils together. In California, for example, this loss happens on a regular cycle with wildfires. Vermont, DeJong says, went through an experiment in the 1800s where “the state tried to turn itself into Scotland by cutting down all the trees and bringing in sheep.” It was a bad idea that caused erosion and mass slope failure everywhere. The state gave up on that plan and allowed the forests to regrow. The last variable is how the slope handles stormwater. With more extreme precipitation events, it doesn’t take much mismanagement of a slope for the heavy weight of rain to concentrate in ways that cause the slope to fail.Geologist David Petley, who writes the Landslide Blog for the American Geophysical Union, has been maintaining a database of deadly landslides worldwide since 2004. He’s seen a clear long-term trend. “But by far—by far—the year that had the greatest total landslides that I’ve recorded was 2024,” he says. “Last year was completely off the scale.” Why? “The most simple hypothesis is that it was the year with the highest-ever global temperature. I do genuinely think it’s that simple.” There’s solid evidence that high atmospheric temperature, and possibly high sea-surface temperatures as well, drove high-precipitation events globally. “Last year I saw an extraordinary frequency of big storms that were triggering hundreds of thousands of landslides,” Petley says. They occurred at different locations all over the world.In the U.S., the remnants of Hurricane Helene, which came ashore in Florida in September 2024, dumped between 20 and 30 inches of water over the mountains of North Carolina. The storm ended up triggering more than 2,000 landslides across the Southeast. According to the USGS, in some cases several smaller mudslides converged into a single channel, burying entire communities in debris. The total number of people killed by landslides specifically, versus by flooding or a combination of the two, is hard to parse. But one storm-triggered mudslide in Craigtown, N.C., swept through a house, killing 11 members of the Craig family for whom the town is named. During the storm, four successive landslides in that valley wiped out the town.In the Appalachian Mountains of North Carolina, very old landslides might have been “brought back into activity” during Helene, Petley explains, reactivated by staggeringly intense rain. Scientists at World Weather Attribution pinned that extra intensity on climate change, reporting that it had made the storm’s rainfall throughout the Southeast about 10 percent heavier and the “unprecedented” rainfall totals over three days about 70 percent more likely than they would have been otherwise.In California, where dramatic debris flows have long been a concern, climate change is making matters worse in two ways. Bigger, more destructive wildfires wipe out more of the vegetation that was stabilizing the landscape. And then atmospheric rivers—a newer phenomenon consisting of long, narrow conveyer belts of moisture—arrive, bringing a series of intense rainfall events. Between December 2022 and January 2023 nine back-to-back atmospheric rivers struck California, leading to more than 600 landslides.Climate change is increasing landslide risk globally in other ways. In high mountain regions such as the European Alps and the Himalayas, melting permafrost and retreating glaciers are destabilizing steep slopes. A catastrophic glacier collapse in Switzerland this past summer destroyed an entire village; thankfully officials evacuated people just before it happened, but one person was killed.A section of the Shingle Kill streambed 14 years after a debris flow occurred on Arizona Mountain in New York State's Catskills during intense rain. The southern slope, shown on the left, continues to erode.Petley says the thing that’s surprised him most recently is the speed of change, especially during this past El Niño cycle. Strong rainfall events have always happened occasionally, but suddenly they are happening a lot. “I don’t think I fully understand why we’re seeing such a rapid shift to these events where a heavy rainfall will trigger 2,000 or 3,000 landslides in a relatively small area,” Petley says. In New Zealand in 2023, Cyclone Gabrielle triggered at least 100,000 landslides. Even in regions such as the Himalayas, where the monsoon season is becoming drier overall, the number of landslides is going up because the rainstorms that do arrive are more intense. “I worry a bit,” Petley says, “that the shift is happening so fast and becoming so extreme that in some places the risk is essentially unmanageable.”Vermont, like New York State, got clobbered by Tropical Storm Irene in 2011. DeJong, the Vermont state geologist, describes Irene as a wake-up call. “The mountains,” he says with a degree of irony, “are now where hurricanes come to die.”But it wasn’t until two freak July rainstorms—spaced exactly a year apart, one in 2023 and one in 2024—that the state’s geological survey became alarmed that landslides were going to be a much bigger problem than in the past. Given his experiences with Irene, DeJong expected the July 2023 storm to lead to maybe a handful of slides. Within a month of the storm his team had received more than 70 requests for landslide evaluations. Working on the ground in the aftermath of these two storms made DeJong realize that rainfall events at that scale “are fundamentally altering the landscape in ways that are not immediately recognizable,” he says.Now the four-person Vermont Geological Survey team is working on putting together a landslide-susceptibility map. The goal is to start with a more technical tool for scientists that can be overlaid with forecasts from the National Weather Service, which would create debris-flow forecasts like the ones already produced by the Los Angeles Department of Public Works. If that’s successful, the next step, DeJong says, would be creating a map that’s more accessible to the public, something that a person who’s looking to buy a parcel of land could reference to do some due diligence on landslide risk.But that gets tricky. The city of Juneau, Alaska, carried out a mapping project to evaluate levels of risk, with the aim of incorporating that risk into its land-use planning in 2024. The maps also would have highlighted concerns with existing buildings, though, meaning homeowners identified as living in high-risk areas might see their property values decline. Juneau’s susceptibility map was vehemently rejected by the community last year and was not adopted. In Vermont, as in many places, evidence of slope instability—and even past failures—hardly factors into development or the issuing of building permits.Rising landslide risk in mountainous places also creates a difficult tension about how to adapt to the effects of climate change. Recent disasters have made clear that mountain valleys in certain regions may not be great places to live. In Vermont “we’re losing a lot of housing in our flood corridors—which is a good thing,” DeJong says. “We’re getting people out of harm’s way.” But the state, like many others around the country, has a housing crunch with the need to build more. “When we’ve lost options down in the valleys, that puts a lot of building pressure up onto our slopes,” he explains. “And it’s really hard to make the argument not to do that.” Successfully adapting to one climate effect means running headlong into another.There are many climate-related problems to worry about in my Catskills community: the surging numbers of disease-carrying ticks, the choking out of native plants by invasive species, the hurricane-remnant floods, the decrease in winter snowfall that would replenish the aquifers, the summertime whiplash between deluge and drought. The Shingle Kill landslide wasn’t on my radar as a potential climate problem until a massive, ultraluxury resort and “branded residences” development was proposed for the hillside next to it. The plan calls for building more than 85 new structures totaling 275,593 square feet on a 102-acre site, 45 percent of which is classified as having steep slopes. To do so, developers will have to cut down about 11 acres of trees. The site, like the rest of our hamlet, has no access to municipal water or sewage. In addition to lining ponds for water storage and building a wastewater-treatment plant, a road network will be cut into the mountainside.The public documents for the project do not appear to show that a geologist evaluated whether the weight of all that development, plus the deforestation and excavation during construction, might further destabilize the slopes of the Shingle Kill. Our town planning board approved the project in May 2025 without requiring an environmental impact statement that would have identified and attempted to mitigate the biggest hazards. (I am a member of a community group that is suing our town planning board, arguing it didn’t take a hard look at potentially significant adverse effects to the environment from this project, including on groundwater availability, erosion, flooding and landslide risk.)Recent intense rain events “are fundamentally altering the landscape in ways that are not immediately recognizable.” —Benjamin DeJong Vermont Geological SurveyDiane and Ken Herchenroder’s house wasn’t damaged by the 2011 landslide, but the event did plenty of harm. Much of their property was rearranged by the acute displacement of raging water. The solid plug of rocks and mud, some 10 feet tall, had to be excavated from the streambed. Even once things were fixed, they didn’t want to stay. “We used to listen to the rain and the stream with the windows open, and it was very comforting,” Diane says from their house in New Hampshire, where they moved two years after the storm. “Honestly, after that slide occurred, Ken and I, I would have to say, have a little bit of post-traumatic stress from that.” Diane says her photographs of the landslide are on a CD somewhere; she hasn’t looked at them since. “I don’t really ever even talk about that day,” she says. “It was pretty devastating.”In 2018 Joe Merlino bought the Herchenroders’ former property, where he now lives with his daughter and his mother. A few years ago they had members of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers come assess ongoing erosion along the Shingle Kill. The streambed continues to widen, and a sharp curve just upstream of Merlino’s house means floodwaters could rush right at it. He recalls that in 2021, when Tropical Storm Henri came through the Catskills, boulders smashed against the bridge that provides access between his house and his mom’s trailer. “[The Army Corps] basically told us the erosion is not going to stop,” Merlino says.Merlino often walks along the edges of the fan with his dog, observing the changes to the old debris piles with each storm. The possibility of more landslide activity is never far from his mind, he says, especially with a major development approved for the hillside above his home.I asked him whether he gets scared every time there’s heavy rain. “I come home from work early,” he says, to keep an eye on things and intervene if necessary. A few years ago he moved his daughter’s bedroom to the front of the house, away from the steep pitch of his backyard. “My fear is about my living room, which is in the back and has a lot of glass,” he says. “I watch the water rip around that curve, and one day something is going to come through and take the side of my house right out.”Greene County, where the Merlino family and I both live, is one of the four counties identified by New York State as the most vulnerable to expected annual building loss from landslides in the future. The county has steep escarpments that slope into the Hudson River Valley, which is rich in clays and silts from Glacial Lake Albany, a prehistoric waterbody that drained some 10,500 years ago. “I think we’re going to see a lot more slope failures in some of these populated areas in the Hudson Valley,” Kozlowski, the New York State geologist, said in 2022.Greene County considered landslides a threat back in 2016. In 2023 the county revisited its hazard-mitigation plan; our town, Cairo, was the only municipality out of 19 that did not participate. In the updated plan, the county removed landslides as a hazard, reasoning that they are “unlikely to lead to a disaster.”It’s true that landslides don’t do the same economic harm to our county as flooding and ice storms. But when they do occur, rebuilding is rarely an option. When a family lost their house in the town of Catskill to a landslide after a heavy rain event in May 2024, there wasn’t much anyone could do but condemn the structure.With funding for emergency response and climate resilience endangered at the federal level, is it worth investing in susceptibility maps for landslides that may never occur? Should people hesitate to build on potentially unstable slopes when that’s perhaps less risky than living directly in a flood path?DeJong says these are valid questions, but after his experiences over the past few years, he sees things differently. “We in Vermont have, so far, been incredibly fortunate to not see any fatalities,” he says. He remembers an older couple who were sitting in their house in July 2023 when the slope behind it failed. The structure warped outward, bending absurdly into something “that looked like a fun house falling over on them,” he recalls. Emergency services extracted them relatively unharmed, but DeJong knows it could have been worse. It turned out a lot worse in western North Carolina during Helene, where for years many building codes dismissed the risk of construction on steep slopes.It might take only one bad slide to change people’s minds about the risk. Before 2014, DeJong says, Washington State, much like New England, did not pay much attention to landslides and had no landslide program in its state geological survey. But then a slope in Oso, about an hour outside Seattle, experienced a catastrophic failure, taking out a neighborhood and killing 43 people. The state now takes landslides very seriously.“The Oso slide of New England could be right around the corner,” DeJong says. “People will say, ‘Why didn’t we know about this hazard? X number of people just died.’” He hopes his team can get its landslide-susceptibility maps finished so that when big rainfall events are forecast for the Green Mountains, officials can warn people in especially risky areas. “We’re really trying to switch to being more proactive so that X never becomes a number.”

Sydney’s west on frontline for most extreme heat and biggest health risks – but inner city faces water threat

Western suburbs, where temperatures are often 5C warmer, need shaded bus stops, more green space and better environmental standards in rented homes, locals sayFollow our Australia news live blog for latest updatesFull Story: Rising sea levels and soaring heat deaths: will climate action match the risks?Sign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereBud Moses is all too aware of the longer, hotter summers impacting his community in Sydney’s west.As black summer bushfires raged on 4 January 2020, Penrith was sweltering in temperatures of 48.9C, making it the hottest place on the planet that day. It was just one of a growing number of above-40C days Moses has witnessed in recent years. Continue reading...

Bud Moses is all too aware of the longer, hotter summers impacting his community in Sydney’s west.As black summer bushfires raged on 4 January 2020, Penrith was sweltering in temperatures of 48.9C, making it the hottest place on the planet that day. It was just one of a growing number of above-40C days Moses has witnessed in recent years.“We’ve seen the heat get a lot worse – it’s one of the clear physical attributes of climate change that most people seem to understand,” Moses, the western Sydney organiser of the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, said.Landmark climate report shows 'every Australian has a lot at stake', minister says – video“People talk about what impacts them – and here, that’s heatwaves, flooding and bushfires,” he said of the locals he meets when running Tabiea, a joint Nature Conservation Council and Arab Council Australia climate change awareness campaign targeting western Sydney’s culturally diverse community.“It’s a lot for them to take physically and mentally.”It’s no surprise to him that Sydney’s west and south have emerged as “heat-health risk” hotspots in the federal government’s long-awaited national climate risk assessment. Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterWarming across the Australian continent has already reached 1.5C, Monday’s report by the Australian Climate Service (ACS) noted. Under a 3C scenario, the number of heat-related deaths in Sydney increases by 444%.With heatwaves causing more deaths in Australia than all other extreme events combined, the report found Blacktown and the outer west are some of Sydney’s most exposed suburbs when considering the health risks associated with ever-hotter summers.Extreme heat may lead to higher rates of heat-related illness which in turn will put additional strain on emergency services and hospital infrastructure, according to the assessment.Moses said many in his community live in rented or social housing and do not have access to air conditioning – and those who do limit its use because of cost-of-living pressures. The area needed shaded bus stops, more green space and better environmental standards in rented homes, he said.“If you talk to doctors in relation to heat stress, all the forecasts are showing that it’s going to have an impact, especially on old and vulnerable people,” Moses said.A temperature rise of 3C would, he said, “be dire”.Dr Judith Landberg, head of the ACS, told a Senate committee on Tuesday the number of heat-related deaths in Sydney was currently between 80 and 117 annually.Heat-health risk index map of Sydney, provided by the Australian Climate ServiceThe Blacktown mayor, Brad Bunting, said the report confirmed the experiences of and research undertaken by his council.“Blacktown is on the frontline of extreme heat, and the national report shows how serious the risks are for our community,” he said in a statement.The council is part of the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, which developed the 2021 Heat Smart Western Sydney plan to prepare for and respond to heatwaves. The Blue Mountains, Liverpool, Cumberland and Hawkesbury councils are also members.“Urban heat is not just an environmental challenge. It affects health, liveability and how we plan our city,” Bunting said.Heat-health risk is lowered by urban greening, according to the report, with the leafy, generally affluent suburbs of the northern beaches, north Sydney and Hornsby found to have lower heat-health risk. The city’s eastern suburbs have a moderate heat-health risk.Dr Milton Speer, a meteorologist and fellow with the University Technology Sydney, said his research comparing weather observations from 1962 to 2021 between Observatory Hill on Sydney harbour and Richmond revealed the west was often 5C warmer.In the west, one in 10 days exceeded 35.4C. On the coast, one in 10 days was above 30.4C. One in 20 days reached 37.8C or more in the west.Speer said western Sydney was further from sea breezes which can regulate the heat – “and the fact that there are fewer trees is very important”.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Elderly people especially can suffer heat stress if exposed outside for long enough or at night if there’s no air con during heatwaves,” he said.Suburbs exposed to sea level riseAlongside rising temperatures, Sydney faces the threat of rising sea levels.Sea level rise, storm surges and extreme weather events make coastal cities particularly vulnerable given their extensive infrastructure, dense populations and economic significance, the report states.Suburbs with increased exposure to sea level rise include the inner-city suburbs of Darlinghurst, Haymarket, Millers Point, Double Bay and Darling Point, according to the assessment.Kogarah, in Sydney’s south, was also named – despite, like Darlinghurst, not being situated on the shoreline. Darlinghurst is generally about 50 metres above sea level, while Kogarah’s elevation is about 30 metres.Aerial view of flooding at North Narrabeen, on Sydney’s northern beaches, in April. Photograph: AAPIt is understood the report’s analysis included areas within 10km of the coastline and that the effects of sea level rise were not constrained to the coastline.The Australian National University emeritus professor and chair of the assessment’s expert advisory committee, Mark Howden, said its authors had taken a conservative approach which did not reflect current expert assessments of future sea level rise.In a 3C scenario, the sea level would rise 54cm, according to the report.A separate research paper had put sea level rise at a median point of 111cm within a range of 62cm-238cm in a high emissions scenario, he said.Saltwater intrusions into freshwater suppliesThe City of Sydney lord mayor, Clover Moore, said her council, which covers some of the country’s most densely populated postcodes, was doing its “best to ensure the city remains climate-resilient and adapts to additional extreme heat, drought, storms, flash flooding and rising sea levels” – but that heat was its priority.“We are most concerned about the impact of hotter days, for longer periods,” she said in a statement.“We are currently in the process of updating our floodplain management plans to prepare the city for sea level rise, while also advocating for state government guidance to be updated to reflect recent climate modelling.”She said addressing sea level rise was a bigger issue than any one council could address alone and should be led by state and federal governments.The assessment suggests the effect of Sydney’s rising sea level may be more widespread, with saltwater intrusions threatening freshwater supplies and water security across the city.A spokesperson for the Georges River council, which covers Kogarah, said in a statement the council was “committed to the current and future resilience” of the LGA and was actively planning for a climate-resilient future.They said the council would “consider the insights” in the report.

Sweeping California climate bills heading to Newsom's desk

California state lawmakers gave their stamp of approval over the weekend to a slate of sweeping energy and climate-related bills, which will now head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) desk. The package's six bills — some of which passed with bipartisan support in an extended session on Saturday — marked a last-minute victory for Newsom, who...

California state lawmakers gave their stamp of approval over the weekend to a slate of sweeping energy and climate-related bills, which will now head to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) desk. The package's six bills — some of which passed with bipartisan support in an extended session on Saturday — marked a last-minute victory for Newsom, who negotiated the final terms of the legislation with State Senate and Assembly leaders over the past week. “We have agreed to historic reforms that will save money on your electric bills, stabilize gas supply, and slash toxic air pollution — all while fast-tracking California’s transition to a clean, green job-creating economy,” the governor said in a statement in the days leading up to the package’s passage. Within the package is a bill to increase the amount of climate credit appearing on utility bills, as well as another that would revive California’s ability to expand regional power markets via U.S. West clean energy. A third bill focused on improving utility wildfire safety by strengthening oversight and expanding a dedicated fund for wildfire readiness. The package also included an extension of the state’s cap-and-trade program, now to be known as “cap-and-invest.” This system, which sets emissions caps and distributes tradable credits within that framework, seeks to hold carbon polluters accountable by charging them for excessive emissions. Established by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, the program was set to expire in 2030 but would now be reauthorized until 2045, if signed into law. The fifth bill in the package centered on strengthening local air pollution reduction efforts and oversight by extending monitoring periods, redoubling the efforts of state and local air quality agencies to deploy effective strategies. A final piece of legislation, which received pushback from some progressive lawmakers, involved the stabilization of both in-state petroleum production and refinery supply, while also offering protections to communities located near wells. The Center for Biological Diversity slammed the passage of this bill, arguing that it was included “as a last minute ‘gut and amend’ measure at the end of the legislative session.” The bill, the organization warned, exempts oil drilling in California’s Kern County from state environmental quality requirements for the next decade, allowing for the approval of up to 20,000 new wells. “It’s senseless and horrifying that California just gave its seal of approval to this reckless ‘drill, baby, drill’ bill,” Hollin Kretzmann, an attorney for the center, said in a statement. Other environmental groups, however, voiced their support for the suite of climate-related bills, with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) commending the state for maintaining “its climate leadership.” NRDC staff members particularly praised the advancement of the cap-and-invest extension, as well as western grid regionalization and the wildfire protections. “While the Trump administration takes us backward, California will continue to address climate change, while improving affordability,” Victoria Rome, California government affairs director for the NRDC, said in a statement. “Our lives and prosperity depend on it.” In addition to the six-bill energy package, Newsom will also be receiving a selection of unrelated climate bills that received the legislature’s approval. Among those are first-in-the-nation legislation to require tests of prenatal vitamins for heavy metals, a public transportation funding bill and a plan to phase out toxic “forever chemicals” from cookware, food packaging and other consumer products. 

Shipping Companies Support a First-Ever Global Fee on Greenhouse Gases, Opposed by Trump Officials

Nearly 200 shipping companies said Monday they want the world’s largest maritime nations to adopt regulations that include the first-ever global fee on greenhouse gases to reduce their sector’s emissions

Nearly 200 shipping companies said Monday they want the world’s largest maritime nations to adopt regulations that include the first-ever global fee on greenhouse gases to reduce their sector’s emissions.The Getting to Zero Coalition, an alliance of companies, governments and intergovernmental organizations, is asking member states of the International Maritime Organization to support adopting regulations to transition to green shipping, including the fee, when they meet in London next month. The statement was shared exclusively with The Associated Press in advance. “Given the significance of the political decision being made, we think it is important that industry voices in favor of this adoption be heard,” Jesse Fahnestock, who leads decarbonization work at the Global Maritime Forum, said Monday. The forum manages the Getting to Zero Coalition.The Trump administration unequivocally rejects the proposal before the IMO and has threatened to retaliate if nations support it, setting the stage for a fight over the major climate deal. The U.S. considers the proposed regulatory framework “effectively a global carbon tax on Americans levied by an unaccountable U.N. organization,” the U.S. Secretaries of State, Commerce, Energy and Transportation said in a joint statement last month.U.S.-based shipping companies, however, have endorsed it. The Chamber of Shipping of America wants one global system, not multiple regional systems that could double charge vessels for their emissions depending on the route, said Kathy Metcalf, the chamber's president emeritus.In April, IMO member states agreed on the contents of a regulatory framework to impose a minimum fee for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by ships above certain thresholds and set a marine fuel standard to phase in cleaner fuels. The IMO aims for consensus in decision-making but, in this case, had to vote. The United States was notably absent.Now nations have to decide if the regulations will enter into force in 2027. If agreed upon, the regulations will become mandatory for large oceangoing ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, which emit 85% of the total carbon emissions from international shipping, according to the IMO.If nations don't agree, shipping’s decarbonization will be further delayed and “the chance of the sector playing a proper and fair part in the fight to keep global heating below dangerous levels will almost certainly be lost,” said Delaine McCullough, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition and Ocean Conservancy shipping program director.The U.S. secretaries said in their statement that “fellow IMO members should be on notice” the U.S. will “not hesitate to retaliate or explore remedies for our citizens” if they do not support the United States, against this action. They said ships will have to pay fees for failing to meet “unattainable fuel standards and emissions targets,” driving up costs, and the fuel standards would “conveniently benefit China.” China is a leader in developing and producing cleaner fuels for shipping. While U.S. opposition and pressure cannot be taken for granted, it still appears as though a majority of countries currently support the regulations, said Faig Abbasov from Transport and Environment, a Brussels-based environmental nongovernmental organization. Abbasov said the deal reached in April was not ambitious enough, but this is an opportunity to launch the sector’s decarbonization and it can be strengthened.Shipping companies want the regulations because it gives them the certainty needed to confidently make investments in cleaner technologies, such as fuels that are alternatives to fossil fuels and the ships that run on them. In addition to the Getting to Zero Coalition, the International Chamber of Shipping, which represents over 80% of the world’s merchant fleet, is advocating for adoption when nations meet at IMO Headquarters in London from Oct. 14 to 17. AP Writer Sibi Arasu 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 – Sept. 2025

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.