Trump officials axed an online portal for its key climate report. Read it in full here
Five national climate assessments have been compiled since 2000 by researchers across a dozen US government agencies and outside scientists, providing a gold standard report to city and state officials, as well as the general public, of global heating and its impacts upon human health, agriculture, water supplies, air pollution and other aspects of American life.
But although the assessments are mandated to occur every four years under legislation passed by Congress in 1990, the Trump administration has axed the online portal holding the reports, which went dark last week. A contract to support this work has also been torn up and researchers who were working on the next report, due around 2027, have been dismissed.
A copy of the latest assessment, conducted in 2023, can be found deep on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's website. The Guardian is replicating the report here in full in a more visible way for the public to access.
The 2023 assessment, which is more than 1,800 pages long, warns that the 'effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States'. It adds that 'without rapid and deep reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, the risks of accelerating sea level rise, intensifying extreme weather and other harmful climate impacts will continue to grow.'
Read in full the fifth national climate assessment here (it can take a few seconds for the document to load)
Nasa said it is in the process of uploading the voluminous reports on to its servers, although the administration did not respond to questions over how, or in what form, future climate assessments will be conducted after the shuttering of the research effort.
'The USCGRP website is no longer active,' a Nasa spokesperson said, in reference to the US Global Change Research Program, a federally funded program to coordinate climate research. 'All preexisting reports will be hosted on the Nasa website, ensuring continuity of reporting.'
Researchers who have worked, for free, to produce the reports expressed concern about the future direction of the assessments under Trump, who has called the climate crisis 'a giant scam' and 'bullshit' in the past.
As president, Trump has removed mentions of climate from federal websites, scrapped research work on environmental issues, and cut staff and funding for weather forecasting and climate agencies, and has just signed a major Republican spending bill that stymies clean energy while providing greater support for the fossil fuels that are causing dangerous global heating.
'This was a labor of love from scientists to the people; these assessments were written for the public and policymakers to make decisions to keep people safe and ensure the food and water and infrastructure we need,' said Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at the Nature Conservancy and Texas Tech University.
'I felt very sad to see the website was taken down, because so many people rely on this information. I'm also worried that what will come next might meet the letter of the law without its spirit. It could be something full of misinformation, it could ask a large language AI model why Americans shouldn't worry about climate change. We just don't know.'
Sign up to Down to Earth
The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential
after newsletter promotion
The synthesis of information in the national climate assessments is only rivaled in its authoritative and comprehensive nature by the UN's own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, Hayhoe said, and its loss may compound the impact of removing other sources of climate information and the forecasting of worsening extreme weather events, such as the deadly flood that hit Texas last week.
'It's alarmed me to see this gradual attrition of ability as climate change is happening faster than any time in human history,' said Hayhoe, who has been an author or lead author on assessments stretching back to the George W Bush administration.
'We are getting supersized extreme weather and that means we need more information, not less – we need more expertise, more data collection. Unfortunately we are seeing resources being pulled back just as our vulnerability increases.'
Environmental groups have vowed to launch legal action to fully resurrect the climate assessments while Trump's political opponents have also attacked the removal.
'Burying the legally mandated climate assessment won't change the fact that climate change is already destroying lives and livelihoods, but Trump's war against the truth will impede state and local governments' ability to prepare for and protect families from climate change-fueled disasters,' said Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Nasa astronaut Butch Wilmore retires after nine months in space
Nasa astronaut Butch Wilmore, who spent nine months in space with fellow crew member Suni Williams after their spacecraft experienced technical problems, has retired after a 25-year US space agency paid tribute to Mr Wilmore's service and praised his commitment as "truly exemplary", Nasa said in a Wilmore is a decorated US Navy captain who has flown in four different spacecrafts and accumulated 464 days in space during his saga captivated the world after what was meant to be an eight-day mission to the International Space Station (ISS) in June 2024 was dramatically extended, with the pair finally returning to Earth in March this year. Stephen Koerner, Acting Director of Nasa's Johnson Space Center, thanked Mr Wilmore for his dedication to space exploration."His lasting legacy of fortitude will continue to impact and inspire the Johnson workforce, future explorers, and the nation for generations," he Wilmore served as a test pilot before being selected by Nasa to become an astronaut in last mission was taking part in the first crewed test flight of the Starliner spacecraft with Ms Williams last year before the capsule suffered technical problems as it approached the ISS."Docking was imperative," Mr Wilmore told BBC News in May. "If we weren't able to dock, would we be able to make it back? We didn't know." They finally managed to dock after Mission Control on the ground helped them restart the craft's the spacecraft was deemed too risky to transport the astronauts home and the pair had to wait for a new ride to take them back to several delays over the next nine months, Mr Wilmore and Ms Williams finally made their homecoming aboard a SpaceX capsule. In his parting remarks, Mr Wilmore cited an "insatiable curiosity" that propelled him into space while always maintaining a connection to his home."Even as I ventured beyond Earth's limits, I remained attuned to the beauty and significance of the world below," he after retirement, astronauts often participate in studies to monitor their physical and mental health for the long-term effects of space travel on their Mr Wilmore and Ms Williams were given an extensive exercise regime after returning home as their bodies re-adapted to living with gravity.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Hold the fries! How your favorite salty side can increase your risk of type 2 diabetes
A new study has found eating a certain amount of French fries a week can increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Nothing beats salt-coated fries straight out of the fryer, but next time you order a burger, you may want to tell the restaurant, 'Hold the fries!' A study published in The BMJ journal Wednesday found eating three servings of fries a week could increase your risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 20 percent. Those who eat fries five times a week have a 27 percent increased risk of the chronic disease, according to the study. But potato lovers should not fear, as researchers found those who eat similar amounts of boiled, baked, or mashed potatoes do not face an elevated risk of the disease. An international team, including an expert from the University of Cambridge, analyzed health data from more than 205,000 U.S. health workers, with repeated surveys about their diets, tracking their well-being over nearly four decades. During this extensive follow-up period, some 22,000 cases of type 2 diabetes were documented. 'The risks associated with potato intake varied by cooking method,' the researchers wrote. 'The association between higher potato intake and increased T2D risk is primarily driven by intake of French fries.' The research team also found that replacing three servings of potatoes each week with whole grains was found to lower the risk of type 2 diabetes by 8 percent. 'Replacing any form of potatoes, particularly French fries, with whole grains is estimated to lower the risk of T2D, reinforcing the importance of promoting whole grains as an essential part of a healthy diet,' researchers wrote. But replacing potatoes with white rice was associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, they found. In a linked editorial, also published in The BMJ, experts from the U.S. and Denmark wrote: 'This finding also corresponds to the observed associations between high intake of ultra-processed foods and high risk of type 2 diabetes – French fries are often ultra-processed, whereas baked, boiled, or mashed potatoes are often minimally processed.' They added: 'With their relatively low environmental impact and their health impact, potatoes can be part of a healthy and sustainable diet, though whole grains should remain a priority.'
