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
greenhouse gas emissions
Why Is Taylor Swift's Engagement Bigger News Than the Risk of AMOC Collapse?
Media’s obsession with one story—and its ignoring of the other—highlights the gaps that remain in treating the climate crisis like the cataclysm it has become.
Sep 12, 2025
Chances are you’ve heard that Taylor Swift is getting married. When she and Travis Kelce announced their engagement last month, it was all over the news, all over the world.
Chances are equally good that you did not hear some other, literally Earth-shaping news that broke two days later. On August 28, some of the world’s foremost climate scientists dramatically revised their estimate of how soon one of the foundations of Earth’s climate system could collapse.
Media’s obsession with one story—and its ignoring of the other—highlights the gaps that remain in treating the climate crisis like the cataclysm it has become. While progress has been made in many newsrooms, old journalism habits linger, including sidelining important climate news out of misguided fears that it’s depressing or too complicated. As Covering Climate Now’s 89% Project has shown, that’s not how most readers or viewers see it.
The collapse of what is commonly called the Gulf Stream—the vast Atlantic ocean current that scientists refer to as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, AMOC—would deal a crushing blow to civilization as we know it. Sometimes known as Europe’s “central heating unit,” the AMOC is why Britain, France, The Netherlands, and their northern neighbors enjoy relatively mild winters, even though they sit as far north as Canada and Russia.
AMOC originates in the Caribbean, where sun-warmed sea water flows northeast across the Atlantic toward Greenland. The amount of heat AMOC transports is staggering: 50 times more heat than the entire world uses in a year. Without AMOC, the history and present day of Europe would look very different. Winters would be much colder and longer. Food production would be much less, as would the human population and infrastructure the region could support.
The scientific study released on August 28 concluded that AMOC’s collapse “can no longer be considered a low-likelihood event,” to quote The Guardian, one of the very few outlets to report the news. Indeed, such a collapse is more likely than not if humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions remain on their current trajectory. If emissions continue to rise, there is a 7 out of 10 chance that AMOC will collapse, the scientists calculated. If emissions fall to a moderate level, the odds are 37%—roughly 1 in 3. Even if emissions decline in line with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 to 2°C, there is a 1 in 4 chance of collapse.
“It’s like the saying that every disaster movie starts with scientists warning and being ignored.”
Although the collapse might not occur in this century, the scientists warned that the system could pass a “tipping point” in the next decade or two that makes its eventual collapse inevitable. As 44 scientists explained in an open letter to the Nordic Council of Ministers, AMOC might well collapse in this century, but there is an “even greater likelihood a collapse is triggered this century but only fully plays out in the next.”
The only hope, the scientists added, is a “global effort to reduce emissions as quickly as possible, in order to stay close to the 1.5 [°C] target set by the Paris Agreement.”
By no means is northern Europe the only region in peril. A collapse, or even significant slowdown, of AMOC would devastate agriculture in Africa and other parts of the Global South by massively disrupting rainfall patterns.
All of which helps explain why Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who coauthored the new study, was frustrated by how little attention he and his colleagues’ warnings got. “What more can we do to get heard?” he asked. “It’s like the saying that every disaster movie starts with scientists warning and being ignored.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Trump Admin's Climate Denial Proposal Contradicts Science, Law, and Public Opinion
The world’s highest court recently affirmed that climate action is a legal duty and that governments must regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Aug 24, 2025
When US Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last month his official proposal to rescind the agency’s foundational determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare, he insinuated that previous administrations (under former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden) had “twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science” in order to achieve their regulatory agendas. And the regulations of these planet-warming emissions, not the emissions themselves like carbon dioxide, are “the real threat to Americans’ livelihoods,” Zeldin suggested.
EPA’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding, established in 2009, serves as the basis of its legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from sources such as motor vehicles and power plants. The finding was based on an extensive review of the scientific record, which has gotten even more robust over the last 16 years, and has survived all legal challenges brought against it.
The Trump administration’s move to do away with the finding contradicts the overwhelming scientific evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are driving dangerous climate change impacts. There are also arguments to be made that it is unlawful. And, it goes against the pleas of the hundreds of Americans who have spoken out this week in opposition to Zeldin’s sweeping deregulatory proposal. In other words, contrary to Zeldin’s assertion, it is actually the Trump administration that is twisting or ignoring the law and public sentiment and warping science.
Let’s start with the science. The world’s premier body of climate scientists—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—has stated that it is “unequivocal” that human activities are warming the planet and causing rapid and widespread changes, such as more extreme weather, that are unprecedented over millennia. The US Fifth National Climate Assessment report observes that “harmful impacts from more frequent and severe extremes are increasing across the country” and notes that “climate changes are making it harder to maintain safe homes and healthy families; reliable public services; a sustainable economy; thriving ecosystems, cultures, and traditions; and strong communities.” These are authoritative statements from reports involving hundreds of scientists and extensive peer review.
What the Trump administration is doing with repealing the endangerment finding and all GHG regulations that flow from it, therefore, could be a violation of international law under the ICJ’s recent advisory opinion.
But to support its proposal to rescind the endangerment finding, Trump’s EPA relies instead on a new report issued by the Department of Energy (DOE) that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and claims that GHG emissions and climate impacts are not harmful. The report, hastily written by five climate skeptics over a period of just two months, recycles many climate denialist talking points and, according to one analysis, includes over 100 false or misleading statements. As science historian Naomi Oreskes puts it, “Climate denial is now the official policy of the US government.”
“What the Trump administration and the Department of Energy did is pull together this small hand-picked group of people to work in secret to write this report that questions that mountain of scientific evidence that climate change is harming people,” said Erin Murphy, a senior attorney at Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
“In and of itself, the conclusions of that report are inaccurate and inconsistent with the vast, vast majority of scientific findings and the consensus across the scientific community,” she added. “But also, the report is inconsistent with federal law.”
EDF and the Union of Concerned Scientists have filed a lawsuit against the DOE, the EPA, and the group of five climate skeptics arguing that the secretive manner in which the report was pulled together violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which mandates transparency and opportunities for public engagement in government advisory proceedings.
The report has not gone through formal peer review, and although it is currently open to public comment, the time window for commenting is limited to just 30 days (closing on September 2) during a month when many people take vacations or might otherwise be unavailable. And until this week, none of the hundreds of comments that have come in were publicly visible. That hiding of the comments, Murphy said, “further underscores the government’s efforts to do this in secret.”
The lawsuit aims to block the Trump administration from using this report in its efforts to rescind the endangerment finding.
It was clear to me that the speakers—from environmental groups, the medical community and scientists to municipal and state governments and private citizens—were overwhelmingly united in their disapproval of the nixing of EPA’s foundational finding that GHG emissions endanger our health and welfare.
Even if EPA plows ahead and finalizes its move to eliminate the finding, that action will certainly be challenged in court. It remains to be seen what legal arguments environmental groups and other challengers will put forth.
One thing that is clear is that climate action is no longer optional, but rather a legal obligation, as several international courts have affirmed in recent landmark climate change advisory opinions. The International Court of Justice, considered the world’s highest court, delivered its opinion on July 23. The ICJ clarified that states have obligations under multiple sources of international law to reduce emissions and that governments must regulate the emissions of private actors. The customary law duty to prevent significant environmental harm to the climate system, which applies to all countries regardless of whether they are parties to specific treaties, includes putting in place “regulatory mitigation mechanisms” to reduce GHG emissions, the court said. Such rules “must regulate the conduct of public and private operators.” According to the court, failure to act in good faith to regulate emissions could be considered an unlawful act.
What the Trump administration is doing with repealing the endangerment finding and all GHG regulations that flow from it, therefore, could be a violation of international law under the ICJ’s recent advisory opinion. And while the opinion itself is nonbinding, it may be invoked in domestic court proceedings around the world, including in the US.
Zeldin’s endangerment finding rescission also seems to be untenable in the court of public opinion. “In repealing the endangerment finding, the Trump administration is stepping far out of line with public opinion, as voters across partisanship are in strong agreement that greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to public health and should be regulated,” Data for Progress says in reference to new poll results it released last week.
EPA held virtual public hearings last week on its proposal, and almost everyone who testified spoke in opposition to eliminating the endangerment finding. Out of the roughly 200 people who spoke on Tuesday, fewer than 10 voiced support for EPA’s rollback, Inside Climate News reports. I tuned into some of the hearings on Wednesday and Thursday, and it was clear to me that the speakers—from environmental groups, the medical community and scientists to municipal and state governments and private citizens—were overwhelmingly united in their disapproval of the nixing of EPA’s foundational finding that GHG emissions endanger our health and welfare.
“The EPA has a responsibility to regulate greenhouse gases for what they are—a clear, present, and growing threat to the health and well-being of every American,” Kim Cobb, a climate scientist, told the EPA panel in concluding her testimony.
Tiffany Covarrubias Lyttle, a registered nurse and mother of seven children, said during her testimony that the father of her children recently passed away from cancer, specially an environmentally triggered adenocarcinoma.
“Repealing environmental protections and rescinding [the endangerment] finding will make stories like mine more common,” Lyttle said. “Clean air, clean water, and a stable climate aren’t just environmental issues. They are in fact a matter of life and death.”
This piece was originally published on Dana Drugmand’s Substack One Earth Now on August 21, 2025.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The EPA Is Abandoning the 10 Commandments of Climate Policy
By repealing the Endangerment Finding, Administrator Lee Zeldin is disabling the central moral and legal framework designed to keep us safe and healthy.
Aug 12, 2025
The Environmental Protection Agency’s decision last month to repeal the Endangerment Finding is like tossing out the 10 Commandments.
That might sound hyperbolic. But sadly, it isn’t. After months of relentless anti-environmental regulatory efforts at the EPA, Administrator Lee Zeldin is now tearing out the foundation of our country’s climate regulatory framework. Known as the “Endangerment Finding,” this 2009 document is the scientific basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. By abrogating that finding, Zeldin and the EPA are essentially stripping away our government’s ability to regulate the emissions that are heating our planet. It is not only a profoundly misguided decision, it is one aimed at destroying the legal framework our country has developed to drive a coherent climate policy.
Interestingly, back when he was a congressman, Administrator Zeldin supported some climate regulations. At Dayenu, the leading Jewish climate organization that I direct, we had actually hoped that the first Jewish head of the EPA might honor the most basic of Jewish values—like pikuach nefesh (saving a life)—and pursue environmental policies that support a more livable future in the face of a fast accelerating climate crisis.
Instead, Administrator Zeldin has embarked on an almost unconceivable path. Since taking office earlier this year, he’s overseen the wholesale dismantling of the environmental policy framework designed to keep Americans safe. Scores of regulations have been repealed, imploding the basic legal and regulatory structure of American environmental policy. The coup de grace, though, has been his decision last month to abandon the Endangerment Finding.
The Endangerment Finding translates the lived reality of the climate threat—namely, that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to our health and well-being—into a legal framework that has enabled us to begin mounting a substantive response.
Like the 10 Commandments, the Endangerment Finding is not only a legal framework, it is also a codification of basic truths. The commandment not to murder (lo tirzah), for example reflects a truth: that it is wrong to wantonly kill another human being. The commandment institutionalizes a basic moral precept. The same goes for the Endangerment Finding. By now, it should be blindingly obvious to us all that the threat to our climate is here and real. Whether or not we choose to accept that truth, we are all being impacted by climate change. From wildfire smoke in New York, to ravaging hurricanes in Florida, to the wildfires in Los Angeles, to floods in Texas, to summers that are each hotter than the last. We now know, at the most intrinsic level, that our world is not the same as it was five years ago. Or 50. The climate is changing, and we as humans are responsible.
The Endangerment Finding translates the lived reality of the climate threat—namely, that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to our health and well-being—into a legal framework that has enabled us to begin mounting a substantive response. True, climate regulations have oftentimes not gone far enough. The first Trump administration did terrific damage to crucial pieces of environmental policy passed under the Obama administration. But what is happening under Administrator Zeldin takes our nation to an infinitely more reckless place.
Administrator Zeldin claimed that the Endangerment Finding was “the holy grail of climate change religion.” This not only makes a mockery of religion, it distorts the objective science and obvious moral framework at hand. As people of faith, we are concerned with the fundamental principles and values of our society. Administrator Zeldin is weaponizing the very concept of religion to suggest that those of us confronting the climate crisis are fearmongers, that the lived realities of millions of Americans harmed by climate change can simply be ignored. But his language is a smokescreen. We know what the truth is here. The EPA is essentially taking the 10 Commandments out of the Bible—they are disabling the central moral and legal framework designed to keep us safe and healthy.
Administrator Zeldin is knowingly courting disaster. As an administrator, as an American, and as a Jew, he must do better. It is not too late to reverse course.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular