SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
fossil fuel industry
What’s Driving the Republican Party to Climate Murder-Suicide?
Members of the Republican elite know that there is a problem, but rather than take action to lessen it, they do what they can to make it worse.
Jun 29, 2025
In the annals of national suicide, the present dismantling of the American state will surely rank high. It may not reach the apogee attained by Russia in its final Tsarist days or by Louis XVI in the run-up to the French Revolution, but Great Britain’s Brexit hardly smolders compared to the anti-democratic dumpster fire of the Trump regime. Countless governmental, scientific, educational, medical, and cultural institutions have been targeted for demolition. The problem for the rest of the world is that the behavior of Trumpian America is more than suicidal—it’s murderous.
The deaths are mounting. By one accounting, the disruption of overseas food and drug shipments from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), including life-saving HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria treatments, has already caused nearly 350,000 deaths (and they continue at an estimated rate of 103 per hour). Here at home, cuts to Medicaid, as contemplated in the absurdly named “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” would lead to more than 21,600 avoidable deaths annually. And those numbers pale next to the levels of mortality expected to arise from the effects of climate change—a worsening catastrophe that the Trump regime is dead set against doing anything about. Indeed, with an array of policies under the rubric “Drill, baby, drill,” President Donald Trump and his officials seem intent on worsening matters as quickly as possible.
Worrying about how future generations will cope with a savagely inhospitable climate is for losers.
If the World Economic Forum is to be believed, deaths from flood, famine, disease, and other nonmilitary consequences of a hotter, more violent global climate might reach 580,000 per year, or 14.5 million by 2050. And that may be a lowball estimate, according to the American Security Project. Its models assert that warming-induced fatalities are already running at 400,000 annually and are heading for 700,000.
Any way you cut it, that’s a lot of misery. Given that the Trump regime is opening new areas for drilling; aggressively curtailing funding for climate-related programs; purging mention of climate change from government websites and publications; and disassembling the government’s capacity to track, let alone predict climate-change impacts, it makes sense to wonder WHY?
It’s Not Denial
Trump has indeed claimed that climate change is a hoax. He has also said that solar cells should be installed on car roofs. He says a lot of things. His words may be a guide to his state of mind—or his state of con—but they don’t necessarily reflect his or his coterie’s actual beliefs. On the question of climate change, it’s become increasingly clear that the elite of the far-right tacitly accept the reality of climate change. More and more, outright denial is reserved for ramping up the fervor of the MAGA base, who appear willing to believe that a transvestite in the wrong bathroom is more dangerous than fires, floods, and hurricanes.
Project 2025, the much-discussed (and, by Trump, falsely disavowed) 885-page wish list for his administration, reflects the new Republican tone. That blueprint for reversing progressive policies asserted that “the Biden administration’s climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding.” Notably, however, the document doesn’t deny the existence of climate change. Indeed, in a relatively sober moment that one might wish Elon Musk and his minions at the Department of Government Efficiency had shared, the authors write, “USAID resources are best deployed to strengthen the resilience of countries that are most vulnerable to climatic shifts.” Other, non-lunatic parts of the Republican Party sail by the same tack: They argue more about the particulars of climate solutions than the reality of the underlying problem. Various outspoken and influential Republicans like Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk (all right, in Musk’s case, formerly influential) have taken a similar line.
Your House Is on Fire, So You Pour Gas on the Flames
Let’s get this right: Members of the Republican elite know that there is a problem, but rather than take action to lessen it, they do what they can to make it worse by calling for more oil and gas development, ordering inefficient coal-fired generating stations to stay in operation, and obstructing the growth of renewables. Their excuse for this irrationality, when they even bother to offer one, loosely follows Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s recent testimony before Congress that “the U.S. has ‘plenty of time’ to solve the climate crisis.” How to make sense of this? How do they make sense of this?
The reasons are varied and revealing. First, of course, there’s
• Money: It’s obvious. Contributions from oil and gas political action committees (PACs) to Republicans were more than five times greater than those to Democrats in the last election cycle. And that doesn’t include funds from individual donors connected to the fossil fuel industry or various forms of “educational” soft money, let alone “dark money” channeled through issue-oriented nonprofits that don’t report their sources. There can be no question that total expenditures by fossil fuel interests in the 2024 election far exceeded that sector’s $219 million in traceable investments.
Action to address climate change in a meaningful way would require enforceable restrictions on emissions and/or a heavy carbon tax, both of which are anathema to the right.
• Business Opportunities: One man’s loss is another man’s gain. The thawing of the Arctic and other regions will open new transportation routes and allow access to resources of every kind. Part of the allure of Greenland for Donald Trump, for instance, is the island’s wealth in rare earth metals, which are critical to advanced battery technology and therefore to an array of high-tech and national security applications. If Gaza, demolished and bleeding, can be repurposed as the “Riviera of the Middle East” (to quote President Trump), then imagine what might be done with real estate freed from the bondage of ice.
• Culture Wars: The lines have been drawn for a long time. Solidarity is the key. If you give up too much ground on the climate issue, your challengers will paint you as a RINO—a Republican in name only—and you’ll be suspected of being soft on bathrooms, too. Pretty soon you’ll lose the MAGA faithful, who don’t want to be bothered by talk about issues. They want stand-up, semi-comedic entertainment in which you spray spite and vituperation like an incontinent cat. So, you tell them that worrying about climate change is for sissies and they eat it up. That’s good because it also helps keep you from doubting yourself. You’ve gone down this road much too far to turn back now. The anthropologist Anthony F.C. Wallace offered his “Principle of the Conservation of Cognitive Structure” as a fancy way of saying that, if you pull one brick out of a wall of belief, the whole structure might topple. It’s a reason some people insist on fighting when they ought to switch. They sense the terrifying possibility that, if they dare accept something from outside the echo chamber in which they’ve been living (read: Fox News), they might collapse in a simpering heap.
Wait! There’s More!
• The Short View: There’s a lesson to be learned in how quickly the “best of friends” bromance between Donald Trump and Elon Musk was cancelled. Apart from the fact that two hyper-narcissistic men in a small transactional space will never last long, it turns out that obsessive self-concern is a prerequisite for thoroughly ignoring the well-being and needs of others. Such a lack of empathy applies to the future as well as the present. If Trump, Musk, Vice President JD Vance, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and crew ever happened to stumble across Robert Heilbroner’s essay “What Has Posterity Ever Done for Me?,” they would undoubtedly agree with the implication of the title, which is surely all they would bother to read. (Heilbroner actually argues the opposite: that care for posterity is a moral imperative.) Trump and his sycophants would say that, since posterity has done nothing for them, they owe it nothing. Bottom line: Worrying about how future generations will cope with a savagely inhospitable climate is for losers.
• Ideology: This is the absolute deal-breaker. An ideology that prioritizes individual freedom over all else—rights untethered from responsibilities—inevitably leads to a hatred of regulation of any sort. If you accept taxation as a kind of regulation that limits your ability to keep all the money that you can get your hands on, you have the full picture. Action to address climate change in a meaningful way would require enforceable restrictions on emissions and/or a heavy carbon tax, both of which are anathema to the right. Worse yet, as climate change is a global problem, international agreements like the Paris climate accord are also necessary and, for conservatives, that smacks of the worst kind of regulation, representing a step toward “extra-national” governance—decisions made by the United Nations or other foreign councils or sets of states, but mainly by people who are not like you.
Then There’s the Craziness of People Who Live on Crazy Street
• Psychopathy (or maybe just psycho): Being willfully unconcerned about an existential threat to civilization requires an exceptional personality, immune to the pangs of compassion and devoid of empathy for others. Such people exist. They have been identified among serial killers, remorseless business executives, and… well, you know, that guy in the White House. The horrific fires last January in greater Los Angeles, which destroyed more than 11,500 homes, presented the nation’s prospective Consoler-in-Chief with an opportunity to salve the region’s wounds with supportive and reassuring words. Instead, then-President-elect Trump, who has never been formally diagnosed with psychopathy but manifests many of its symptoms, opted to castigate California Gov. Gavin Newsom for his water policies. (After his inauguration, Trump ordered a massive release of federally controlled water into southern California, a grandstanding move that produced no benefits for LA’s fire victims, would have conferred no advantage on firefighters had the flames still been leaping, and uselessly depleted water reserves.) Nevertheless, it might be useful to consider the situation from the point of view of Trump and his wealthy right-wing peers: If you have plenty of money, you can live anywhere you want. If one of your houses burns down, you no doubt have another you can move to—or you just build a new one. What’s the big deal?
• Disconnection: This goes deeper than ideology and provides the soil from which conservative ideology grows. Tucker Carlson and other right-wing media stars revealed more than they knew when they accused “environmentalist wackos” and other progressives of drawing a connection between climate change and systemic racism. With customary paranoia they attributed the link between the two issues to liberals’ desire to “control you.” They were dead wrong about the motivation, but the linkage is there.
Climate change invites an ecological view of life on Earth in which human behavior is understood to affect the condition of the planet. If such a problem can be global and the responsibility for it shared, then the people of the world are connected by a common challenge and predicament. Ultimately everyone, like it or not, is in the same mess, and only collective effort is likely to provide a remedy. Once the web of connection is admitted, belief in a special tribe, a superior race, a chosen people, or any other kind of exceptionalism becomes difficult to sustain, and the basis for racism starts looking as hollow as it is. Charles Darwin expressed this understanding a century and a half ago when he wrote, “As… small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men [and of course women!] of all nations and races.”
For people whose sense of self depends on believing that they are separate and superior to others, the ecological view espoused by Darwin and his many successors is anathema. Resistance to it, even at the cost of self-destruction—to say nothing of the cost to others—becomes an endless and vain cry of “Don’t tread on me!” Because this attitude originates deep in the identity of its adherents, prospects for overcoming it may seem dim indeed. Politics, however, are fluid. The tide can shift. The right-wing dead-enders can be outnumbered. They’d better be. The climate clock is ticking.
Keep ReadingShow Less
International Survey Shows 81% Back Forcing Big Oil to Pay for Climate Destruction
"People are no longer buying the lies. They see the fingerprints of fossil fuel giants all over the storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires devastating their lives, and they want accountability," said the head of one green group.
Jun 19, 2025
Large majorities of people around the world support both taxing oil, gas, and coal companies for the environmental damage made worse by fossil fuels and using higher taxes on polluters to support communities most impacted by the climate crisis, according to the results of an international survey released Thursday.
The study, which was jointly commissioned by Greenpeace International and Oxfam International, surveyed roughly 1,200 people in each of these 13 countries: Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Philippines, South Africa, Spain, United Kingdom, and the United States. The research was conducted by the data company Dynata, and field work was done between May 9-28, 2025. Greenpeace noted that, taken together, the countries represent close to 50% of the globe's population.
The results of the survey showed a whopping 81% of those surveyed would support taxes fossil fuel companies to pay for damages wrought by "fossil-fuel driven climate disasters."
"These survey results send a clear message: people are no longer buying the lies. They see the fingerprints of fossil fuel giants all over the storms, floods, droughts, and wildfires devastating their lives, and they want accountability," said Mads Christensen, the executive director of Greenpeace International.
"It's only fair that those who caused the crisis should pay for the damage, not those suffering from it," he added.
The study findings come as individual states in the U.S. show a growing interest in passing legislation to force fossil fuel companies to help pay for the recovery cost of climate-related disasters. Vermont became the first state in the country to pass a climate "Superfund" law in 2024, and New York followed suit later that year. Several other states are considering such legislation, according to March reporting from Stateline.
The survey also found that 86% of respondents support channeling revenues "from higher taxes on oil and gas corporations towards communities most impacted by the climate crisis."
Climate campaigners have long sought international financial arrangement that would see rich countries transfer money to developing countries in order to help the latter cut their emissions and adapt to climate change. Last year's United Nations climate negotiations ended with a pledge by donor countries to set at least $300 billion annually for that purpose. That amount was criticized for being inadequate.
The study was launched Thursday at the UN Climate Meetings in Bonn, where government representatives are discussing climate policies, including ways to raise at least $ 1.3 trillion annually for climate mitigation, adaptation, and recovery by 2035 across the Global South.
According to Amitabh Behar, executive director of Oxfam International, "a new tax on polluting industries could provide immediate and significant support to climate-vulnerable countries, and finally incentivize investment in renewables and a just transition."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump and His Feral Crew of Wreckers Want to Kill America’s Future
The House budget is the Make America Immobile Act. Trump is doing his best to freeze things in place: on behalf of oil companies that want to keep pumping oil, on behalf of automakers that want to keep churning out SUVs.
May 23, 2025
Credit where due: I am ever impressed by the feral energy of U.S. President Donald Trump and his crew, who are able to do an extraordinary amount of damage every single damned day. And somehow their energetic cruelty seems to drain my own reserves: I want to stay in bed. But we fight as best we can, and so here’s my assessment of one dire day, and more importantly what we still might be able to do about it.
It began, early Thursday morning, with House passage of the budget bill, which somehow managed to get even worse in the wee hours. Among other things, a single sentence was amended in such a way as to potentially kill off most of the rooftop solar industry in the U.S. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin explains:
While the earlier language from the Ways and Means committee eliminated the 25D tax credit for those who purchased home solar systems after the end of this year (it was originally supposed to run through 2034), the new language says that no credit “shall be allowed under this section for any investment during the taxable year” (emphasis mine) if the entity claiming the tax credit “rents or leases such property to a third party during such taxable year” and “the lessee would qualify for a credit under section 25D with respect to such property if the lessee owned such property.”
That arcane piece of language was enough to knock 37% off the share price of SunRun today, the biggest rooftop installer in the country. And it was only a cherry on the top of this toxic sundae, which would essentially repeal all of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Nuclear power gets a little bit of a reprieve, and of course ethanol (Earth’s dumbest energy source) does great. But it’s a wipeout far greater than anyone expected even a few weeks ago. Here’s how Princeton’s Jesse Jenkins and his team at REPEAT (Rapid Energy Policy Evaluation and Toolkit) sum it up:
- Increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 0.5 billion metric tons per year in 2030 and more than 1 billion metric tons per year in 2035.
- Raise U.S. household and business energy expenditures by $25 billion annually in 2030 and over $50 billion in 2035.
- Increase average U.S. household energy costs by roughly $100-160 per household per year in 2030 and roughly $270-415 per household per year in 2035.
- Reduces cumulative capital investment in U.S. electricity and clean fuels production by $1 trillion from 2025-2035.
- Imperil a total of $522 billion in announced but pending investments in U.S. clean energy supply and manufacturing.
- Reduce annual sales of electric vehicles by roughly 40% in 2030 and end America’s battery manufacturing boom.
- Substantially slow electricity capacity additions, raising national average retail electricity rates and monthly household electricity bills by about 9% in 2030—and as much as 17% in some states (including Texas, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania).
In the midst of all this, the Senate—ignoring its parliamentarian—bowed to the wishes of the auto industry and told California (and the 11 states that had followed it) that it couldn’t demand the phaseout of internal combustion vehicles by the middle of the next decade. (This is among other things federalism in reverse).
“Attacking these waivers will devastate our ability to advance the use of electric vehicles in the state,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a press conference after the vote, flanked by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other officials. “We won’t let it happen, not when we’re facing an air pollution and climate crisis that’s getting worse by the day.”
The 1970 Clean Air Act permits California to receive waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency that enable the state to enact clean air regulations that go further than federal limits.
Oh, and then at day’s end the Department of Homeland Security told Harvard that 27% of its student body couldn’t study there beginning in the fall because they came from foreign countries.
If you add it up, this is all an effort to keep America precisely where it is now. It’s the Make America Immobile Act. Trump is doing his best to freeze things in place: on behalf of oil companies that want to keep pumping oil, on behalf of automakers that want to keep churning out SUVs. That depends, among other things, on shutting down research at universities, because they keep coming up with things that point us in a different direction, be it temperature readings demonstrating climate change or new batteries that enable entirely different technologies. If America lived alone on this planet that would be truly terrible; luckily for everyone else, there are other places (China, and the E.U.) that are not making the same set of stupid decisions. But if this stands it will kill the future for America.
It will also, of course, kill the present. I’m not bothering to talk about the deep cruelty of the Medicaid cuts (and the fact that they will destroy America’s rural hospital system). There’s also the not-small matter of the intense attacks on transgender people the bill contains. And I won’t bother gassing on about the utter grossness of handing over yet more money to the richest among us. (The top 0.1% of earners gain $390,000 a year on average, while Americans making less than $17,000 lose on average about $1,000. This is, among other things, Christianity in reverse).
So, our job is to do what we can to make it… less worse. The U.S. Senate still has to pass its own version of the bill. Given the GOP majority, they’ll pass something very bad. Perhaps, at Trump’s urging, they’ll rush it through in the next 24 hours; more likely it will take a little longer. We need to put as much pressure as we can on that process, in order to take out the most egregious parts of the bill. Here’s what Third Act sent out on Thursday, and here’s the link we want you to use to register your opposition with Senators. It comes from our very able partners at Solar United Neighbors, who have done as much as anyone in America to help people build clean energy. Fill it out so you can get a call script and the numbers to use. Again, here’s the link. If you want a little inspiration, check out Will Wiseman’s video of rural Americans talking about one particular part of the IRA that’s helping change their lives.
I’m not going to bother pretending that this is guaranteed to work. The bad guys here are riding hard and fast, and they’re trying to shock and cow us into submission. But—don’t go easy. If they can summon the feral energy to wreck the country, we can summon the humane energy to try and save it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular