logo
CT officials issue urgent plea for help stopping ‘a plague' in state waterways. Here's why and how.

CT officials issue urgent plea for help stopping ‘a plague' in state waterways. Here's why and how.

Yahoo23-05-2025
One of the state's most invasive aquatic plants is causing massive damage to the Connecticut River and officials don't want boaters and others to continue the spread of the environmental and economic scourge.
That message was loud and clear as Connecticut heads into Memorial Day weekend, both a time to honor the nation's fallen and the traditional beginning of the summer season, which includes many boats in the state's waters. Boats must be cleared of the plant to stop its spread, officials said.
Boats can spread hydrilla, the aquatic invasive species from Asia called the 'most noxious, invasive' plant ever, and it is well-known for its ability to quickly propagate and take over aquatic ecosystems. Officials fear it will damage the state's $5.5 billion recreational economy.
The plant significantly reduces water quality where it lives and spreads. By blocking sunlight, it encourages the growth of harmful algae, which can further reduce oxygen levels and produce toxins harmful to fish, wildlife, and even humans. It has caused massive damage to parts of the Connecticut River already and has been seen in other waterways.
The plant also is one of Connecticut's most costly and destructive invasive plants, and is projected to continue its spread across the Connecticut River, with the loss of federal funding to combat the highly invasive plant, officials said.
'It's an ugly and hideous looking plant,' U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal said Friday at Riverside Park in Hartford. 'This is probably the most invasive aquatic plant in the world and it has invaded Connecticut. It is a plague on the Connecticut River but also on our lakes, streams, coves, and tidal basins. It can survive and thrive almost anywhere because it multiplies hideously fast.'
For nearly a decade, state and federal scientists have studied the aquatic weed, looking for its vulnerabilities and why it has spread so successfully across 200 miles of the river and its tributaries in Connecticut. Hydrilla was first spotted in Connecticut in 2016 in Glastonbury, officials said.
Last year, the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began limited spraying of a herbicide that showed enormous potential for rooting out the invasive plant. Several areas of the Connecticut River that have been choked for years with hydrilla were cleared within days, according to officials.
But efforts to continue clearing out the river of hydrilla are now in jeopardy, officials said. Nearly $5 million in federal funds that were allocated for ongoing hydrilla removal in the Connecticut River this year have been cut by Congress, according to Blumenthal's office.
Based on last summer's successful herbicide application trials, the Army Corps planned to expand testing and increase the number of herbicide applications to about 16 locations in coming months, officials said. But the funding was removed by a continuing congressional budget resolution earlier this spring and much of what remained is impounded by the White House budget office, according to previous reporting.
'The problem is that this year for the first time the Army Corps of Engineers budget is down 44%,' Blumenthal said. 'But the good news is, I believe, we have bipartisan support for a $5.5 million dollar fund in 2026 to combat hydrilla. Because it is such a threat to not just the Connecticut River, but to all the lakes and streams where boaters may go.'
Blumenthal was flanked by several state officials at Friday, including Michael Zaleski, president and CEO of Riverfront Recapture; Rhea Drozdenko, River Steward, Connecticut River Conservancy; Dr. Jason White, director of the Connecticut Agriculture Experiment Station; Margot Burns, Senior Environmental Planner at RiverCOG; and Justin Davis, Acting Deputy Director of the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.
'We're at the start of Memorial Day weekend and that also starts the unofficial beginning of boating season in Connecticut,' Davis said. 'We here at CT DEEP encourage anyone fortunate enough to have a boat, to get out and have fun this summer, on the beautiful waterways of Connecticut. But to also do so in a safe and responsible manner and part of that is making sure you're not contributing to the spread of invasive species like hydrilla.'
Davis said that boaters should follow state protocols and always inspect their boats for any vegetation before entering the water. Upon leaving the water, boaters should drain all the water out of their boat and let it fully dry. DEEP officials said they recommend letting a boat dry for five days before re-entering a body of water.
'This is a hugely important issue as there is a major economic impact,' Davis said.
'We have a $5.5 billion dollar recreation economy in Connecticut and fishing and boating is the biggest part of that economy. Hydrilla is a major threat to our waterways and Connecticut's recreation economy.'
Scientists for years have studied hydrilla; until very recently believed to be confined to southern states, where it has clogged ponds and blocked rivers for decades. In 2016, amateur botanists found what they considered an odd weed growing in a river spur called Keeney Cove in Glastonbury.
Not only was the weed found to be hydrilla, but DNA testing revealed it to be a genetically unique strain not known elsewhere. In the years since, hydrilla has spread explosively to cover more than 1,000 acres of river and tributaries and jump, carried by the boats and trailers of anglers, to many of the state's lakes and ponds.
Edmund H. Mahony contributed to this story. Stephen Underwood can be reached at sunderwood@courant.com
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Travelers Are Unknowingly Smuggling Invasive Ticks Into the U.S.
Travelers Are Unknowingly Smuggling Invasive Ticks Into the U.S.

Gizmodo

time3 days ago

  • Gizmodo

Travelers Are Unknowingly Smuggling Invasive Ticks Into the U.S.

Here's an important tip for international travelers coming back home: Be sure to check for any blood-sucking creepy-crawlies attached to you. In a study out today, health experts warn that exotic, potentially disease-carrying ticks are regularly entering the U.S. by hitching a ride onto returning Americans. Tick scientists in Connecticut conducted the research, published Friday in the journal iScience. They detailed seven separate cases of non-native ticks entering the state via travelers in recent years, some of which carried possible germs. These introductions are likely happening all across the country, not just Connecticut, and are a serious public health concern, the researchers say. 'Each one of these ticks could potentially pose substantial health risk to the travelers as well as to the country,' study author Goudarz Molaei, a scientist at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station's Center for Vector Biology & Zoonotic Diseases, told Gizmodo. 'If any one of them ends up released into the environment unintentionally, there is a potential they could start establishing populations and expanding.' Hot Tick Summer Is Here. Here's What You Need to Know and How to Stay Safe As part of their job, Molaei and his colleagues help identify ticks brought to them by the public, particularly human-biting and disease-causing ticks. And while most of these cases are caused by native species, they've occasionally come across nonnative ticks, too. Ticks and the diseases they spread have become a growing issue in the U.S., thanks partly to a warmer climate. These same conditions might also make it easier for invasive species to gain a foothold here, so the researchers wanted to highlight some of the exotic cases they've documented over the years. They describe seven nonnative tick introductions into Connecticut between 2019 and 2023. The ticks originated from Central America, Africa, and Europe. Two of the ticks, both members of the species Amblyomma mixtum, carried the bacteria Rickettsia amblyommatis. R. amblyommatis is related to known tickborne germs, including those responsible for Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and it's suspected to possibly cause disease in people as well. Outside of its human impact, A. mixtum ticks are dangerous to livestock, too, capable of causing massive infestations and spreading other diseases. Some of the other ticks they identified, such as Ixodes ricinus, also carry human diseases in their native environment, such as Lyme-causing bacteria. And just this month, Molaei and his team helped out on a new case of a nonnative tick within the state. The person carrying the tick became sick, and their doctors were at first perplexed on how to even deal with the situation, according to Molaei. Fortunately, the team directed them to a lab that could perform the proper testing, and the patient ultimately recovered. Molaei notes that since Connecticut isn't a huge travel hub, it's likely the risk of nonnative tick introductions is higher in other areas of the U.S. There are many places in the country where these and other exotic ticks could make a new home if given the opportunity, he added. Many states are also much less equipped to even detect these potential cases, according to Molaei, further raising the odds of new species and diseases sneakily establishing themselves in the U.S. This isn't a hypothetical risk either—it's already happened. In 2017, researchers in New Jersey discovered the arrival of the Asian longhorned tick (Haemaphysalis longicornis) to the area. Despite efforts to curtail its presence, the tick has since spread to nearly half of the country and has become a serious threat to livestock (though they can carry and spread human diseases as well). It's unknown how the Asian longhorned tick found its way here, though it may have ridden along with a human or animal traveler. Woman's 'Severe' Hearing Loss Caused by a Tick Stuck in Her Ear The researchers argue that more resources are needed to surveil and mitigate these invasive tick threats. These efforts should include increased monitoring of agricultural goods being brought into the U.S., along with improved education on identifying potentially exotic ticks. People in general should also be more aware of how to prevent and detect tick bites, especially when they're traveling. 'Travelers should remain alert. And they have to realize that apart from themselves being at risk of contracting tick-borne diseases when they are traveling, there are the unintentional consequences of these things that are arriving here,' Molaei said. 'A proper tick check is of importance, particularly before people get on a plane. And they have to carefully inspect their luggage and their clothing before they get on board.' For their part, Molaei and his team will continue to keep a close eye out for ticks, both native and exotic, in their state.

A Meteorologist in Congress Fights for Climate Science
A Meteorologist in Congress Fights for Climate Science

Scientific American

time3 days ago

  • Scientific American

A Meteorologist in Congress Fights for Climate Science

Representative Eric Sorensen of Illinois shares how his meteorology roots drive his fight to protect climate science and push back against political interference. By , Fonda Mwangi, Jeffery DelViscio & Alex Sugiura Rachel Feltman: For Scientific American 's Science Quickly, I'm Rachel Feltman. Representative Eric Sorensen of Illinois spent 22 years forecasting the weather on television before winning his congressional seat in 2022. He now finds himself defending scientific agencies from unprecedented attacks at a time when climate change is pushing weather patterns into uncharted territory. Today we're talking to Eric about how his scientific background shapes his approach to politics, what he'd change about the country's approach to catastrophic weather events and why he thinks more scientists should consider running for office. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Thanks so much for coming on to chat with us today. Eric Sorensen: Oh, it's great to be with you. Feltman: I'd love to start with a little bit about your background as a meteorologist. How did you get interested in the field, and what was your career like? Sorensen: Yeah, I grew up in Rockford, Illinois, and I grew up afraid of storms; I grew up afraid of, of tornadoes, right? And I just had this intense reaction every time they occurred, and I wanted to learn more. I'll never forget—I thought it was a punishment when my mom and dad took me to the library. They were like, 'All right, we need to get Eric to learn more about weather.' [Laughs] Right? And so I'm just, like—as I started learning about it, I was hooked on it as a kid, and so all I wanted to be was the meteorologist on TV, and you know what? I got to do that for 22 years, and it was, like, it was awesome. Feltman: Yeah, so then what got you into politics? Sorensen: So, you know, I'll tell you: a lot of different things. I was somebody who worked in my hometown of Rockford, Illinois, and aside from working in the district that I now serve in the Congress, I worked for a couple of years in Texas, and I am a believer and a lover of science. Everything that I do, I'm, I'm thinking about, 'What is a scientific angle?' to whatever we do. And I'm sitting in the weather center, I'm forecasting the weather, at WQAD-TV in the Quad Cities of Illinois and Iowa. [CLIP: Eric Sorensen delivering a weather forecast on WQAD-TV: 'Hi there, everybody, meteorologist Eric Sorensen of the Storm Track 8 Weather Center ...'] Sorensen: And the top story was: our congresswoman Cheri Bustos announced that she was retiring. And the news anchors across the studio from me, they pointed at me, and they're like, 'You need to do that.' I'm like, 'I don't wanna be a politician. That's stupid. That is the dumbest idea I've ever heard,' right? I honestly was watching the ceiling fan go around, trying to go to sleep that night, and I thought to myself, 'Why wouldn't I do that?' Right? Feltman: Mm. Sorensen: We were going through a pandemic, where we didn't have enough communicators of science. As we were understanding it, as we were learning it, we needed to communicate it. We only had one Anthony Fauci; we needed 10,000 of him. Feltman: Yeah. Sorensen: And so I realized that it wasn't so much just meteorology but just by being there for people every day and really being trusted, it was the recipe for being elected to Congress. Because I'm gonna tell you, I was a total nerd in school—I would not have been elected the treasurer of my high school class—but the first time I ran for Congress, I won. Feltman: And how has your background informed how you operate as a politician, and I'm also curious, you know, how has your introduction to politics influenced you as a science communicator? Sorensen: Well, look, I thought I was just going to go to the Congress and be the communicator of climate. Feltman: Mm-hmm. Sorensen: I thought that that's going to be the lane that I need to travel as a meteorologist, okay? And, and for—in many instances that's what I do. But then, to be an outsider elected to Congress, it's a unique perspective, right, because nobody communicates well there at all; we don't communicate any of the s— that people need to know about. And so, like, I get there, and I realize, 'Oh, wait a minute, Congress has an approval rating of what, like, 20 percent'—something like that—'for good reason,' right? Because nobody there is doing a good job of communicating back home that they're doing their jobs or that they're connecting with people or creating these solutions. And then, for me, I will tell you, one of the things that has helped is: I don't have a background in politics, right? Feltman: Mm. Sorensen: If my background is in science and communicating science, I have to challenge people on the other side of the aisle a lot, but ... Feltman: Sure. Sorensen: They're not afraid to work with me, you know ... Feltman: Mm. Sorensen: When we need to do some important things. Feltman: And what have some of your biggest accomplishments been since you were elected? Sorensen: I'll tell you, in the first Congress one of the things that—it's not necessarily related to science—but it was making sure that we passed the All-American Flag Act. It sounds really minuscule, but I'm like, the federal government spends a lot of money on flags, and they should be made in America, by American fibers ... Feltman: Mm. Sorensen: And making sure that the grommets are made in America. It is something simple- sounding, but it was really hard to get through the Congress, and people had been trying to do that, and I was able to do that. Now, I'll tell you, things have changed in this Congress, you know, as you have President Trump that decides that he's gonna go after and DOGE go—goes after the National Weather Service and how important these things are and how important the science of understanding climate is. As he goes after it I am the pushback, right? Feltman: Right. Sorensen: I'm leading that pushback to make sure that we're going to stand up for science and stand up for meteorology and climatology. Feltman: Yeah, well, and I would love to talk a little bit more about that—you know, what, what have you and your colleagues been doing in response to these attacks on the National Weather Service? Sorensen: I didn't think that I was gonna have to argue the importance of the weather service, but, you know, I'm so glad that I'm here, right? And then it was finding members on the other side of the aisle that understand the importance of it. So Congressman ... Feltman: Mm. Sorensen: Mike Flood, he's a Republican out in eastern Nebraska—also, I wanna say, as a meteorologist, I have to work with a guy named Mike Flood [laughs]. I'm just like—I have to. Feltman: [Laughs] Sure, yeah. Sorensen: Right? And so he—like, in eastern Nebraska they get a lot of tornadoes ... Feltman: Yeah. Sorensen: And so we put forth a bill and we're championing a bill through the Congress that says that National Weather Service employees are essential and that we need to hire them back. And we're seeing success: we're seeing that the Trump administration is turning, and now NOAA is able to hire these people back. I'm working with Congressman Nathaniel Moran. This congressman is in the reddest part of Texas, but also it's Tyler, Texas—it's the only place that I worked outside of Illinois—so we have this, like, common bond ... Feltman: Mm-hmm. Sorensen: 'Cause I worked at KLTV. And so it's: 'How are we getting the important weather information to rural America?' Feltman: Right. Sorensen: And we started working on that before the tragedy happened in Texas. And so it's: 'How can we make better policy that is not just going to be reactionary when we have these climate-fueled disasters?' It's: 'How are we going to be up front, before they occur?' Feltman: Yeah, and do you think that your colleagues in Washington in general and the administration specifically, do you think most of them understand the breadth of what the National Weather Service does and how important it is? Sorensen: The tragedy that occurred in Texas, that's in Chip Roy's district ... Feltman: Mm. Sorensen: He is one of the most conservative Republican members. So he understands the value of it. He's not coming out against this now ... Feltman: Right. Sorsensen: Because it happened to him. Tornado Alley: Oklahoma and Kansas and Texas and Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama—these are all red states. Or if you look at these hurricane-prone states, much the same: Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida—they're red states, right? So we can't politicize the science of meteorology. Feltman: Right ... Sorensen: And I, I would even go even farther than that: to say we should never politicize climatology either. Feltman: Yeah, and speaking of the politicization of climatology we were just talking on the show recently about the push to pull back the endangerment finding and the report that doesn't just seem to attack the endangerment finding specifically but does a lot of undermining the basic, accepted science of climate change. What are your thoughts on that? You know, what do you think that Congress and other elected reps can do about that situation? Sorensen: Well, I think, it's fascinating to me—the far right, they're trying to make it more mainstream, that they want people to believe that somehow there's climate modification going on, or that there's some sinister—like, airplanes are spraying chemicals into the air and there are all of these nefarious reasons for what you're seeing, as opposed to understanding the basic climate science that says that humans are causing it but in a different way. Why is it that some people are so susceptible to believing conspiracy theory, yet they won't believe the actual science? The science is pretty easy: that we can identify the carbon in the atmosphere to know that carbon occurred because we were burning fossil fuels. We understand these are basic principles of atmospheric science. We know that CO 2 is the number one driver of global warming. Yet we don't do anything about it. And I will even say, as we are recording this, I've got an air-quality alert in ... Feltman: Right. Sorensen: My part of northwestern Illinois. And we had—forgive me; I use hand gestures when I talk about the weather—we had a cold front come through the area, and now we're seeing a northerly wind, and that northerly wind is coming off of wildfires in northern Ontario. Feltman: Mm-hmm. Sorensen: Let's understand why this is occurring now versus before ... Feltman: Mm-hmm. Sorensen: Because now we've pushed the jet stream so far to the north that the thunderstorms that are producing the cloud-to-ground lightning, okay, they used to happen in the Prairie provinces, right? They used to happen where Canada had fire departments because there's highways, right? We can go ... Feltman: Mm-hmm. Sorensen: And fight them. But now the jet stream is so far to the north that the cloud-to-ground lightning is hitting in forests that are hundreds of miles away from civilization. And so there's no way for those to go out. And as a meteorologist, but also as a congressman, I'm communicating to the people here that what you're seeing with these air-quality alerts—we had the worst air quality in the world the other day—this is the new norm. This is the new norm ... Feltman: Yeah. Sorensen: Because we have changed the climate so much, and I don't know—no one knows—what are the health ramifications for how we've changed it? That's something that we're gonna know, unfortunately, decades from now. Feltman: Yeah. What issues are you most concerned about right now when it comes to weather and the climate, and what sort of projects and enterprises are you excited about? Sorensen: So, look, I worry that we may have people become apathetic ... Feltman: Mm. Sorensen: When it comes to the climate crisis. I wish that we would've done more. I wish that we had curbed our emissions, that we had done that in the past 10, 20 years, when we understood it, as opposed to just arguing over it. One of my motivations is to be the science guy, the meteorologist that's not afraid to work in the middle of the aisle to be able to get people to understand that we need to move this forward; we need to make sure that we're innovating, that we're sustaining the next generation— also, that it's smart to do right by the next generation. Feltman: Mm-hmm. Sorensen: Let's talk about those things. So I do worry that as I am finding movement to move forward in the center of the aisle—even in a Trump administration it is occurring, right ... Feltman: Mm-hmm. Sorensen: I worry that as I move people forward we're gonna lose the people that are maybe to the left that will say, 'It's too late of a cause. Why did I try so much?' And so we do need to make sure that we don't give up on this. It's not worth ... Feltman: Yep. Sorensen: Giving up, and we can't do it. Feltman: Yeah, absolutely. And what are you feeling optimistic about right now? Sorensen: I'm really excited because I've been working kind of day in, day out right now—after the tragedy that we saw on the Guadalupe River in Texas, when I started seeing politicians just pointing fingers at each other and I'm like, 'That's not gonna solve a problem.' Or: Do we argue how fast FEMA is going to get there afterwards? Why aren't we looking at what happened before? Feltman: Mm-hmm. Sorensen: In the same respect, when we have an air disaster in this country, we have the [National Transportation Safety Board]. The NTSB goes and looks through every piece of data before the disaster occurred, everything that led up to it, so that we can change the policy, that we can change design. I looked back: 1985, there was a horrific plane crash in North Texas—it was Delta 191. That hit wind shear, it hit a microburst from a storm, and it crashed and killed a lot of people. I was nine years old. It was the first thing that I really thought about when I was like, 'Oh, meteorology played a role here.' Feltman: Mm-hmm. Sorensen: But we don't have this type of air disaster happening because we implemented Doppler radar at the biggest airports in the country now, so we can identify it so that airplanes don't go into it. But that finding needs to happen every time there's a weather disaster. And so I'm proposing an N W SB of sorts. Why can't we go back and look, before the tragedy occurred, every piece that went wrong? 'Cause I think you're probably gonna realize that it isn't necessarily [going to be] in our lack of understanding of science. It's gonna be in social science. It's going to be ... Feltman: Mm-hmm. Sorensen: 'How do people perceive risk? Do people understand what is at stake? Do people understand that every time your phone goes off, it isn't gonna kill you, but you need to pay attention for that one time where there is something that could?' And then develop the policy that's gonna save people in the future. And I'm like, that's a pretty good legacy to have, if we could do that in a bipartisan way. Feltman: Yeah, absolutely. Is there anything we haven't touched on that you think is important for us to talk about before I let you go? Sorensen: A lot of people, they said, 'There's no way that a meteorologist could be elected to Congress.' And one of the things that I wanna be able to say is—it was really hard to blaze a trail through the jungle, right? I feel like I was trying to chop down all of these branches [laughs] to, to fight to find this path. And I wanna be able to look back on this path and see the next person coming up. I wanna be able to see other people say, 'I wanna take part in this; I feel like I can make a difference,' and that, actually, science is one of those things that can bring us together when politics wants to break us apart. And so my hope is, even though I'm just one meteorologist in Congress, that it will inspire other people and other people in science to say, 'You know what? We do need to communicate these other things, too.' Or maybe if there's a meteorologist somewhere out there that has worked in television for 25 years, earning the trust, that they're gonna start to think, 'Wait a minute, I might be that person.' Feltman: Mm. Sorensen: Or if it's somebody listening to this podcast that says, 'Oh my gosh, I really trust this person. They have really helped me. Maybe I need to reach out to them and say, 'Did you know there's a meteorologist in Congress? I want you ...'' Feltman: Mm. Sorensen: ''To do this because you've helped me.'' That's what public service has to be about. Feltman: Well, thank you so much for coming on to chat with us today. I really appreciate it. Sorensen: Oh, it was great, and I hope to be on again in the future, if you'll have me. Feltman: Absolutely. That's all for today's episode. We'll be back on Monday with our weekly science news roundup. Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news. For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. Have a great weekend!

Energy secretary says Trump administration may alter past National Climate Assessments
Energy secretary says Trump administration may alter past National Climate Assessments

Los Angeles Times

time4 days ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Energy secretary says Trump administration may alter past National Climate Assessments

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said this week the Trump administration plans to review and potentially alter the nation's climate science reports. In a Tuesday appearance on CNN's The Source, Wright told CNN host Kaitlan Collins the National Climate Assessments have been removed from government websites 'because we're reviewing them.' 'We will come out with updated reports on those and with comments on those,' Wright said. The National Climate Assessments are mandated by Congress and have been released five times since 2000. The federal reports, prepared by hundreds of volunteer scientists, are subject to extensive peer review and provide detail on how climate change is affecting each region of the United States so far, plus the latest scientific forecasts. Wright accused the previous reports of being politically biased, stating that they 'are not fair assessments of the data.' 'When you get into departments and look at stuff that's there and you find stuff that's objectionable, you want to fix it,' he said. His statements came after the Trump administration in April dismissed more than 400 experts who had already started work on the sixth National Climate Assessment, due for publication in late 2027 or early 2028. The administration in July also removed the website of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which housed the reports. The move marks the latest escalation in the Trump administration's efforts to downplay climate science. The president and Department of Energy in recent months have championed fossil fuel production and slashed funding and incentives for renewable energy projects. This week, the DOE posted an image of coal on the social media site X alongside the words, 'She's an icon, she's a legend, and she is the moment.' Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed looser regulations for polluting sectors such as power plants and vehicles. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin in March proclaimed the administration was 'driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.' In his CNN appearance, Wright said the previous climate change assessments — including the 2018 report prepared during Trump's first term — were not 'a reasonable representation of broad climate science.' 'They have been more politically driven to hype up a real issue, but an issue that's just nowhere near the world's greatest challenge,' he said of climate change. 'Nobody's who's a credible economist or scientist believes that it is, except a few activists and alarmists.' Environmental experts were concerned by Wright's comments. 'Secretary Wright just confirmed our worst fears — that this administration plans to not just bury the scientific evidence but replace it with outright lies to downplay the worsening climate crisis and evade responsibility for addressing it,' said Rachel Cleetus, policy director for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who was among the authors dismissed by the administration. 'This is one more alarming example of the Trump administration's ongoing and highly-politicized effort to obfuscate scientific truth to further its dangerous and deadly pro-fossil fuel agenda,' Cleetus said. The DOE last week also released its own climate report, commissioned by Wright, that questions the severity of climate change. 'Both models and experience suggest that [carbon dioxide]-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and excessively aggressive mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial,' the report says. Daniel Swain, a climate scientist with the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, noted in a post on X that the previous National Climate Assessments were authored by hundreds of scientists who were leading domain experts in their fields. 'This would mark an extraordinary, unprecedented, and alarming level of interference in what has historically been a fair and systematic process,' Swain said of the possibility that previous reports could be altered. The Department of Energy did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store