

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

With a climate denier in the Oval Office, a "fossil fuel puppet" heading the Environmental Protection Agency, and Big Oil lobbyists filling the ranks of secretive deregulatory teams, a new report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed that 2016 was the hottest--and in some ways most alarming--year on record.
"Today's remarkably hot temperatures, caused by human carbon pollution, are a sign of what's to come. If we don't get global warming under control, the consequences will indeed be bad."
--Dana Nuccitelli, the GuardianThe report--based on contributions from over 450 scientists from nearly 60 countries--is the most detailed climate assessment that has emerged from a government agency since Donald Trump became president, a fact that raised questions about how it will be received by the White House.
Released annually, the NOAA's State of the Climate report (pdf) has contained consistently "frightening" results over the last several years.
But as The Atlantic's Robinson Meyer notes, 2016 appears to have been "altogether exceptional," and not in a good way.
The agency's executive summary alone--which contains seven bullet points detailing how 2016 was a particularly bad year for the climate--was sufficient to deeply concern many activists, scientists, and lawmakers.
In 2016, the report found:
The report also included a graphic (click image for version) that highlighted the impact such metrics had throughout the globe, from severe wildfires in Canada to sweltering heat in India.

Upon the report's release, commentators were quick to ask pointed questions about whether Trump--who has called climate change a "hoax"--or members of his administration would even so much as acknowledge the results, let alone do anything about them.
Trump's budget proposals from earlier this year provide some indication of how he feels about the agency that produced the analysis.
In March, the Washington Post obtained a budget memo showing that the Trump administration intended to slash NOAA funding by 17 percent, a cut that former NOAA chief scientist Rick Spinrad said would "jeopardiz[e] the safety of the American public."
This, along with the fact that the EPA is reportedly taking deregulatory directions from the fossil fuel industry, has many analysts seriously alarmed about the near future.
"Today's remarkably hot temperatures, caused by human carbon pollution, are a sign of what's to come," writes the Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli. "If we don't get global warming under control, the consequences will indeed be bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |

With a climate denier in the Oval Office, a "fossil fuel puppet" heading the Environmental Protection Agency, and Big Oil lobbyists filling the ranks of secretive deregulatory teams, a new report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed that 2016 was the hottest--and in some ways most alarming--year on record.
"Today's remarkably hot temperatures, caused by human carbon pollution, are a sign of what's to come. If we don't get global warming under control, the consequences will indeed be bad."
--Dana Nuccitelli, the GuardianThe report--based on contributions from over 450 scientists from nearly 60 countries--is the most detailed climate assessment that has emerged from a government agency since Donald Trump became president, a fact that raised questions about how it will be received by the White House.
Released annually, the NOAA's State of the Climate report (pdf) has contained consistently "frightening" results over the last several years.
But as The Atlantic's Robinson Meyer notes, 2016 appears to have been "altogether exceptional," and not in a good way.
The agency's executive summary alone--which contains seven bullet points detailing how 2016 was a particularly bad year for the climate--was sufficient to deeply concern many activists, scientists, and lawmakers.
In 2016, the report found:
The report also included a graphic (click image for version) that highlighted the impact such metrics had throughout the globe, from severe wildfires in Canada to sweltering heat in India.

Upon the report's release, commentators were quick to ask pointed questions about whether Trump--who has called climate change a "hoax"--or members of his administration would even so much as acknowledge the results, let alone do anything about them.
Trump's budget proposals from earlier this year provide some indication of how he feels about the agency that produced the analysis.
In March, the Washington Post obtained a budget memo showing that the Trump administration intended to slash NOAA funding by 17 percent, a cut that former NOAA chief scientist Rick Spinrad said would "jeopardiz[e] the safety of the American public."
This, along with the fact that the EPA is reportedly taking deregulatory directions from the fossil fuel industry, has many analysts seriously alarmed about the near future.
"Today's remarkably hot temperatures, caused by human carbon pollution, are a sign of what's to come," writes the Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli. "If we don't get global warming under control, the consequences will indeed be bad.

With a climate denier in the Oval Office, a "fossil fuel puppet" heading the Environmental Protection Agency, and Big Oil lobbyists filling the ranks of secretive deregulatory teams, a new report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed that 2016 was the hottest--and in some ways most alarming--year on record.
"Today's remarkably hot temperatures, caused by human carbon pollution, are a sign of what's to come. If we don't get global warming under control, the consequences will indeed be bad."
--Dana Nuccitelli, the GuardianThe report--based on contributions from over 450 scientists from nearly 60 countries--is the most detailed climate assessment that has emerged from a government agency since Donald Trump became president, a fact that raised questions about how it will be received by the White House.
Released annually, the NOAA's State of the Climate report (pdf) has contained consistently "frightening" results over the last several years.
But as The Atlantic's Robinson Meyer notes, 2016 appears to have been "altogether exceptional," and not in a good way.
The agency's executive summary alone--which contains seven bullet points detailing how 2016 was a particularly bad year for the climate--was sufficient to deeply concern many activists, scientists, and lawmakers.
In 2016, the report found:
The report also included a graphic (click image for version) that highlighted the impact such metrics had throughout the globe, from severe wildfires in Canada to sweltering heat in India.

Upon the report's release, commentators were quick to ask pointed questions about whether Trump--who has called climate change a "hoax"--or members of his administration would even so much as acknowledge the results, let alone do anything about them.
Trump's budget proposals from earlier this year provide some indication of how he feels about the agency that produced the analysis.
In March, the Washington Post obtained a budget memo showing that the Trump administration intended to slash NOAA funding by 17 percent, a cut that former NOAA chief scientist Rick Spinrad said would "jeopardiz[e] the safety of the American public."
This, along with the fact that the EPA is reportedly taking deregulatory directions from the fossil fuel industry, has many analysts seriously alarmed about the near future.
"Today's remarkably hot temperatures, caused by human carbon pollution, are a sign of what's to come," writes the Guardian's Dana Nuccitelli. "If we don't get global warming under control, the consequences will indeed be bad.