logo
Opinion - Trump gutted the National Climate Assessment. America will suffer as a result.

Opinion - Trump gutted the National Climate Assessment. America will suffer as a result.

Yahooa day ago

The National Climate Assessment is more than just a report. Aside from its unique status as the authoritative statement on the state of climate change in America, it is also an expression of service and passion from the national climate community to our fellow citizens.
The National Climate Assessment is developed through an incredibly rigorous process, which includes exacting deadlines and multiple rounds of scientific, technical and public review. This is all followed by closely monitored and recorded revisions and thoughtful consideration given by the author teams of each chapter.
By law, an updated report is delivered to Congress and released to the public every four years.
The Fifth National Climate Assessment, published in 2023, was late getting started. Authors — all of whom volunteer their time to contribute to the report — faced truncated draft deadlines that challenged even seasoned academic writers. For someone like me, it meant long nights pouring over reports and academic papers, seeking to bolster my understanding and expert perspective of climate change in the Midwest, and then pour out that expertise into a brief, unbiased, well-cited sentences. I cried — some nights, I cried a lot.
Despite the challenging timeline, the director of the Fifth National Climate Assessment didn't choose the easy path of doing what's always been done before. Instead, she further challenged us to seek out lived expertise, traditional ecological knowledge and credible, non-peer reviewed sources of information that would explain the changes that are occurring, what the risks are if we do not adapt and what options or strategies are there for taking action. We were, in my opinion, asked to write the closest thing the U.S. has ever had to a national climate adaptation report.
The Fifth National Climate Assessment didn't stop there. Authors of the report and the team at the U.S. Global Change Research Program recognized that sharing the story of climate change needed to happen through many mediums. Dedicated, insightful colleagues launched the Art x Climate project, soliciting art from across the country, showcasing what climate means to people — young and old, rural and urban, from all races and genders. The results of the competition were integrated into the report and have made the report itself a beautiful work of art.
Finally, a poetry anthology titled 'Dear Human at the Edge of Time' was published ahead of the report. It features the voices of many authors of the assessment and gave an opportunity for these scholars, activists and practitioners to transform their climate passion into climate poetry.
Contributing to the National Climate Assessment and attending the in-person meeting of over 400 authors, technical reviewers and editors was the most meaningful thing I have done in my climate career. I remember standing in the room and feeling overwhelmed at the magnitude of the effort and selflessness of people who were volunteering their time, expertise, knowledge and passion to this national resource.
But on April 29 of this year, the authors of the Sixth National Climate Assessment, due out in 2027, received a brief and unexpected message: 'Thank you for your participation in the 6th National Climate Assessment. At this time, the scope of the NCA6 is currently being reevaluated in accordance with the Global Change Research Act of 1990. We are now releasing all current assessment participants from their roles.'
The dismissal of the 400 authors followed closely on the heels of the firing of the majority of the Global Change Research Program staff and contractors who provided the leadership, coordination and technical support for the report and other direction across 15 federal agencies. The Trump administration is already acting to seed any future version of the assessment with climate denialism. These actions ignore decades of science and, more importantly, they put American communities at increasing risk in a rapidly changing climate.
I am beside myself at losing this resource. I don't want to become immune to feeling pain, shame, loss, sadness just because this awful administration continues committing unlawful, unethical and despicable acts. I don't want the erasure of my work — and the work of my colleagues and friends — to be normalized, when it is not normal and not acceptable. I am tired of trying to be okay when I am not okay. And I'm not okay because these are not remotely okay times.
The National Climate Assessment is more than a report. It is a selfless contribution that the climate community painstakingly compiles, expertly reviews and earnestly delivers to the American people. It is only one of the many meaningful, necessary and useful acts of human creation that are being erased by a small group of lawless ideologues who are undermining what truly makes this country great.
Beth Gibbons is the inaugural director of the Resiliency Office in Washtenaw County, Mich. She is a former executive director of the American Society of Adaptation Professionals. She served on the Federal Advisory Council on Climate Change Adaptation under President Biden and was a contributing author to the Fifth National Climate Assessment.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Johnson, heckled by Democrats, backs censure for Padilla
Johnson, heckled by Democrats, backs censure for Padilla

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Johnson, heckled by Democrats, backs censure for Padilla

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Thursday said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) should be censured after he tried to approach and question Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a press conference in Los Angeles, prompting federal agents to forcibly remove him from the room and handcuff him. Video of the altercation — captured by reporters on the scene — sent shock waves through the Capitol, with Democrats slamming the way law enforcement personnel handled Padilla, and Republicans condemning the senator's conduct at the media availability. Pressed on whether Padilla should face consequences, Johnson initially demurred — 'it's not my decision to make, I'm not in that chamber' — before endorsing censure for the California Democrat. 'I think that that behavior at a minimum rises to the level of a censure,' Johnson told reporters. 'I think there needs to be a message sent by the body as a whole that that is not what we're going to do, that's not what we're going to act.' 'We're not going to have branches fighting physically and having senators charging Cabinet secretaries,' he added. 'We got to do better and I hope that we will.' Just eight senators have been censured in history, the most recent being former Sen. David Durenberger (R-Minn.), who was penalized for financial wrongdoing. The punishment requires a simple majority in the Senate. The comments came during a press availability in the Capitol after House Republicans narrowly passed a bill to claw back $9.4 billion in federal spending for public broadcasting and foreign aid. Johnson staged the gaggle to discuss the legislation but was swarmed with questions about the altercation in Los Angeles. 'I saw the same video, a very brief video, that I think many people did — I think the senator's actions, my view, is it was wildly inappropriate,' he said. 'You don't charge a sitting Cabinet secretary, and everybody can draw their own conclusions, you can see it's a heated debate here.' As he delivered those remarks, a long line of House Democrats — including many in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and from the California delegation — walked behind the Speaker and heckled him as he spoke. Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif), who represents the San Francisco Bay area, shouted 'Mike, that's absurd.' Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) yelled 'why don't you stand up for Congress?' Another House Democrat exclaimed 'that's a lie.' Asked if he would respond to some of the comments, Johnson declined. 'I'm not going to respond to that,' the Speaker said. 'I think the American people can draw their own conclusions. They saw a senator acting like a, wildly inappropriate, I'll leave it at that.' 'What I saw was agents asking him to quiet down so that the secretary could continue her press conference. He refused to do so. What were they supposed to do? They have to restrain someone who is engaging in that kind of behavior. They moved him out of the room,' Johnson later added. 'A sitting member of Congress should not act like that, it is beneath a member of Congress, it is beneath a U.S. senator. They are supposed to lead by example, and that is not a good example.' Earlier on Thursday, Padilla interrupted a press conference Noem was holding in Los Angeles amid widespread protests against the Trump administration's deportation efforts and against President Trump's mobilizing the National Guard and Marines to protect agents. Multiple men forcibly removed him from the room and handcuffed him. 'I'm Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary,' Padilla is heard saying as he struggled with officers holding him back. As he was aggressively moved out two double doors the senator can be heard saying 'Hands off!' 'Senator Padilla is currently in Los Angeles exercising his duty to perform Congressional oversight of the federal government's operations in Los Angeles and across California,' Padilla's office said in a statement immediately after the altercation. 'He was in the federal building to receive a briefing with General Guillot and was listening to Secretary Noem's press conference. He tried to ask the Secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information. Updated at 6:21 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Opinion: Utah's child safety laws are safe from Congress
Opinion: Utah's child safety laws are safe from Congress

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion: Utah's child safety laws are safe from Congress

Tech-policy alarmists are sounding false alarms. They claim Congress's proposed AI funding rules will gut state laws protecting children online. They're wrong. And Utah proves it. Here's what's actually happening: The Senate wants to attach strings to $42 billion in state broadband and AI infrastructure grants. States that heavily regulate AI won't get the money. But there's a crucial exception: laws that apply equally to all technology, AI or otherwise, remain untouched. Utah's new social media law, SB 194, falls squarely in this safe zone. The law requires platforms to turn off certain interface features for kids: autoplay videos, infinite scroll, late-night notifications. These rules apply whether TikTok feed uses sophisticated AI, a simple randomizer, or human curation. The technology behind the curtain doesn't matter, only what appears on the screen. This distinction matters. Utah isn't regulating AI; it's regulating interface design features. A platform using 1990s technology faces the same requirements as one using cutting-edge neural networks. That's exactly the kind of technology-neutral law Congress explicitly protects. The Senate's approach, championed by Sen. Ted Cruz, cleverly sidesteps procedural concerns while preserving state flexibility. Instead of banning state AI laws outright, it simply directs federal infrastructure dollars elsewhere. States remain free to choose: keep restrictive AI regulations and forgo federal funds, or create an innovation-friendly environment and receive billions in investment. Given the spending condition's broad language, critics understandably worry about overreach. 'AI' and 'automated decisionmaking' are vague concepts and it is possible, with semantic gymnastics, to imagine any computer system being implicated. That's exactly why so much state AI regulation creates regulatory uncertainty. But the Senate funding condition is quite different in practical effect. Unlike state laws, federal spending authority is highly discretionary. The federal Commerce Department can choose how to apply this standard when it doles out this funding. Ask yourself: would any Republican Commerce Department twist these rules to attack state child safety laws? The political cost would be enormous, the legal basis dubious. Congress's real target is clear: vague, sweeping AI regulations like those in Colorado that threaten to strangle innovation. These laws create uncertainty for businesses and slow the development of beneficial AI applications — including those that could help protect children online. Congress wants to prevent a patchwork of conflicting state AI rules that would cripple America's competitive edge. But lawmakers explicitly carved out room for technology-neutral consumer protections. Utah's approach meets this exemption because it regulates visible features rather than invisible algorithms. The bottom line: Congress's spending choices on AI infrastructure don't change how states can protect kids online. The alarmists should take note.

Trump's former lawyer wants to make an example of Rep. LaMonica McIver
Trump's former lawyer wants to make an example of Rep. LaMonica McIver

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's former lawyer wants to make an example of Rep. LaMonica McIver

Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has brought many of the lawyers who defended him between terms along for the ride. His former personal attorneys now litter the top ranks of the Justice Department. Alina Habba was a later addition to that group, with Trump naming her as the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey in March, but she's trying to make up for lost time in an audacious attempt to use her office against a sitting lawmaker. Last month, Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., got into a confrontation with officials at an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement detention center she was attempting to visit. This week, Habba announced that a federal grand jury handed up charges accusing the congresswoman of assaulting two law enforcement officers during that standoff. In a post on X, Habba framed the charges as part of her job 'to ensure that our federal partners are protected when executing their duties.' McIver said in a statement that the indictment was 'a brazen attempt at political intimidation' and that she will plead not guilty. Habba's statement added that though 'people are free to express their views for or against particular policies, they must not do so in a manner that endangers law enforcement and the communities those officers serve.' Let's leave aside for a moment whether McIver's actions, which were partially captured on video, truly 'endangered' the officers in question. Instead, let's focus on the message that the charges Habba sought telegraph about how the Trump administration will handle lawmakers' attempts at aggressive oversight. As the administration's mass deportation efforts have ramped up, so have demands from Democratic lawmakers that detainees be treated humanely. Here we hit upon the least controversial part of McIver's case: As a member of Congress, she had every right to be at the Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility in Newark last month. In 2020, Congress passed an appropriations bill that funded DHS (among other agencies) and stipulates that none of its funding 'may be used to prevent ... a Member of Congress ... from entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens.' The bill, which was reaffirmed last year, also blocks DHS from making any changes to ICE facilities that would give visiting members a false impression of conditions there and stipulates that members don't have to give notification before they visit. DHS' own internal guidance around congressional visits to ICE facilities makes it clear that it's well aware of the law on this front. There are some limitations, including a requirement that detainees sign privacy releases before meeting with visitors from Capitol Hill. But while congressional staffers must provide 24 hours' notice before visits, the same isn't true for members themselves. Even the initial complaint filed against McIver acknowledged as much, as one of the law enforcement officers told her, ''Congress people are different,' indicating members of Congress had lawful authority to be there.' Yet we've seen numerous cases around the country in which ICE officials, not members of Congress, are breaking the law. Over the last week, at least five lawmakers have been turned away from ICE facilities during attempted visits. According to The New York Times, Reps. Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velázquez of New York, attempting 'to investigate reports of overcrowding, stifling heat and migrants sleeping on bathroom floors' at a detention facility in Manhattan, were denied access 'because it was a 'sensitive facility.'' A spokesperson for DHS said in a statement that the denial was because lawmakers had showed up unannounced and that ICE 'would be happy to give them a tour with a little more notice, when it would not disrupt ongoing law enforcement activities and sensitive law enforcement items could be put away.' Again, the language in the law providing DHS', funding specifically provides for snap visits from House members and the department's guidance has no 'sensitive facilities' exemption to allowing access. A complicating factor in McIver's case, though, is that the altercation itself actually wasn't over her presence at the facility. Instead, it was because she was intervening on behalf of Newark Mayor Ras Bakara, who attempted to enter the facility, as well, at the same time. It was when DHS attempted to remove Bakara that the alleged assault occurred. Habba briefly charged Bakara with misdemeanor trespassing but dropped the charges against him at the same time she opted to move forward with charging McIver. (Bakara is now suing Habba, alleging she 'violated his Fourth Amendment right against false arrest and malicious prosecution.') The ambiguities involved mean that the Justice Department doesn't have a particularly strong case against McIver. But Habba is no stranger to putting her name on even dubious legal efforts. She first entered Trump's orbit in 2021, representing him in a lawsuit against the Times seeking $100 million in damages for alleged defamation. A judge tossed out the case entirely and later ordered Trump to pay the Times nearly $400,000 in legal fees. Nor did the results go her way in the next few civil cases she argued for him, including the E. Jean Carroll defamation case and New York's fraud case against Trump and his businesses. If anything, Habba's reputation with Trump then wasn't for winning cases but for outspokenly defending him on television. During the New York criminal election interference case, which resulted in a guilty verdict against Trump on 31 counts, she was representing the former president not in court but on the airwaves and the steps outside the court. It's as a legal spokesperson that she arguably had the greatest success, enough that she was reportedly under consideration to become White House press secretary. It's fitting, then, that Habba might not even stick around to complete the case against McIver. Because she is an interim U.S. attorney without Senate confirmation, her position expires 120 days after her appointment. But faithfully arguing the law was never her top priority. It's attacking Trump's enemies in the court of public opinion. And as far as her boss is concerned, an indictment against a sitting congresswoman is sure to be a feather in her cap. Even if the charges against McIver are dropped, she'll have proved her willingness to go for the jugular in the name of crafting a political narrative. But Democratic lawmakers should be suitably unimpressed — and undeterred — by Habba and her ilk's legal bullying. This article was originally published on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store