Elon Musk

State of the climate: 2025 close behind 2024 as the hottest start to a year

Spread the love

Original article by Zeke Hausfather republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license. 

People brave heat wave conditions during a hot summer day in Uttar Pradesh, India. Credit: Anil Shakya / Alamy Stock Photo

Global temperatures in the first quarter of 2025 were the second warmest on record, extending a remarkable run of exceptional warmth that began in July 2023. 

This is despite weak La Niña conditions during the first two months of the year – which typically result in cooler temperatures.

With temperature data for the first three months of the year now available, Carbon Brief finds that 2025 is very likely to be one of the three warmest years on record.

However, it currently remains unlikely that temperatures in 2025 will set a new annual record. 

In addition to near-record warmth, the start of 2025 has seen record-low sea ice cover in the Arctic between January and March – and the second-lowest minimum sea ice extent on record for Antarctica. 

Second-warmest start to the year

In this quarterly state of the climate assessment, Carbon Brief analyses records from five different research groups that report global surface temperature records: NASA, NOAA, Met Office Hadley Centre/UEA, Berkeley Earth and Copernicus/ECMWF. 

The figure below shows the annual temperatures from each of these groups since 1970, along with the average over the first three months of 2025. 

(It is worth noting that the first three months may not be representative of the year as a whole, as greater historical warming rates mean that temperatures relative to pre-industrial levels tend to be larger in the northern hemispheric winter months of December, January and February.)https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate/2025-04/records-with-2024-to-date.htmlAnnual global average surface temperatures from NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, Hadley/UEA HadCRUT5, Berkeley Earth and Copernicus/ECMWF (lines), along with 2025 temperatures so far (January-March, coloured dots). Anomalies plotted with respect to the 1981-2010 period, and shown relative to pre-industrial based on the average pre-industrial temperatures in the Hadley/UEA, NOAA and Berkeley datasets that extend back to 1850. Chart by Carbon Brief.

Starting with this state of the climate update, Carbon Brief will be showing a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) aggregate of the five surface temperature records, rather than highlighting any particular one, reflecting a single best-estimate across the different groups.

The WMO aggregate is calculated by averaging the different records using a common 1981-2010 baseline period, before adding in the average warming since the pre-industrial period (1850-1900) across the datasets  – NOAA, Hadley, and Berkeley – that extend back to 1850. 

The figure below shows how global temperature so far in 2025 (black line) compares to each month in different years since 1940 (with lines coloured by the decade in which they occurred) in the WMO aggregate of surface temperature dataset.https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate/2025-04/monthly-global-temp-anomalies.htmlTemperatures for each month from 1940 to 2025 from the WMO aggregate of temperature records. Anomalies plotted with respect to a 1850-1900 baseline. Chart by Carbon Brief.

The first three months of 2025 have been unusually warm, coming in in the top-three warmest on record across all the different scientific groups that report on global surface temperatures. This is despite the presence of moderate La Niña conditions in the tropical Pacific, which typically suppress global temperatures.

January 2025 was the warmest January on record in the WMO aggregate, February was the third warmest and March was tied with 2016 as the second warmest.

When combined, the first three months of the year in 2025 were the second-warmest Q1 period in the historical record, just 0.035C below the record set in 2024 after the peak of a strong El Niño event, as shown in the figure below.https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate/2025-04/Q1-temp-plot.htmlQ1 temperature anomalies from 1850 through 2025 from the WMO aggregate of temperature records. Anomalies plotted with respect to a 1850-1900 baseline. Chart by Carbon Brief.

The persistence of warmth after the end of the 2023-24 El Niño event – and through a weak La Niña – has been highly unusual by historical standards. In most prior cases, global temperatures returned closer to the long-term temperature trend following the return to neutral El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) conditions in the tropical Pacific.

Weak La Niña conditions have faded over the past month, with ENSO-neutral conditions returning and expected to persist for most models through the remainder of the year. However, predictions of ENSO status are particularly uncertain at this time of year due to a phenomenon known as the “spring predictability barrier”.

The figure below shows a range of different forecast models for the ENSO for the rest of this year, produced by different scientific groups. The values shown are sea surface temperature variations in the tropical Pacific – known as the El Niño 3.4 region – for overlapping three-month periods.

ENSO forecast models for overlapping three-month periods in the Niño3.4 region (January, February, March – JFM – and so on) for the remainder of 2025.

ENSO forecast models for overlapping three-month periods in the Niño3.4 region (January, February, March – JFM – and so on) for the remainder of 2025. Credit: Image provided by the International Research Institute for Climate and Society at Columbia Climate School.

On track to be a top-three warmest year

By looking at the relationship between the first three months and the annual temperatures for every year since 1970 – as well as ENSO conditions for the first three months of the year and the projected development of El Niño conditions for the remaining nine months – Carbon Brief has created a projection of what the final global average temperature for 2025 will likely be. 

The analysis includes the estimated uncertainty in 2025 outcomes, given that temperatures from only the first quarter of the year are available so far. 

The chart below shows the expected range of 2025 temperatures using the WMO aggregate – including a best-estimate (red) and year-to-date value (yellow). Temperatures are shown with respect to the pre-industrial baseline period (1850-1900).https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate/2025-04/Q1-2025-estimate.htmlAnnual global average surface temperature anomalies from the WMO aggregate plotted with respect to a 1850-1900 baseline. To-date 2025 values include January-March. The estimated 2025 annual value is based on the relationship between the January-March temperatures and annual temperatures between 1970 and 2024. Chart by Carbon Brief.

Carbon Brief’s projection suggests that 2025 is virtually certain to be one of the top-three warmest years, with a best-estimate approximately equal to global temperatures in 2023. 

However, this model assumes that 2025 follows the type of climate patterns seen in the past – patterns that were notably broken in 2023 – and to a lesser extent in 2024. Other recent estimates – such as one published by Berkeley Earth – give a higher probability of around 34% that  2025 will set a new temperature record.

The figure below shows Carbon Brief’s estimate of 2025 temperatures using the WMO aggregate, both at the beginning of the year and once each month’s data has come in. The estimate jumped notably after t2025 saw the  warmest January on record, but has been relatively stable over the past three months.

Carbon Brief’s projection of global temperatures based on the WMO aggregate at the start of the year, and after January, February, and March global surface temperature data became available.
Carbon Brief’s projection of global temperatures based on the WMO aggregate at the start of the year, and after January, February, and March global surface temperature data became available. Chart by Carbon Brief.

Record-low Antarctic and Arctic sea ice

Both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent spent much of early 2025 at record, or near-record, lows. 

The figure below shows both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent in 2025 (solid red and blue lines), the historical range in the record between 1979 and 2010 (shaded areas) and the record lows (dotted black line). 

(Unlike global temperature records, which only report monthly averages, sea ice data is collected and updated on a daily basis, allowing sea ice extent to be viewed up to the present.)https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate/2025-04/sea-ice-graph.htmlArctic and Antarctic daily sea ice extent from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). The bold lines show daily 2025 values, the shaded area indicates the two standard deviation range in historical values between 1979 and 2010. The dotted black lines show the record lows for each pole. Chart by Carbon Brief.

Arctic sea ice saw a new record low nearly each day between January and March, recording a record-low winter peak extent in late March. Ice extent subsequently moved out of record-low territory in April. 

It is worth noting that, as northern hemisphere winter conditions remain cold enough to refreeze sea ice, there tends to be less variability in extent year-to-year in the winter than in the summer, as the chart below illustrates.

Weekly Arctic sea ice extent from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Weekly Arctic sea ice extent from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center. Chart by Carbon Brief.

Antarctic sea ice started the year within the historical range (1979-2010), before plunging to tie for the second-lowest minimum on record in late February. It has since recovered in April, and is currently on the low end of the historical range.

Weekly Antarctic sea ice extent from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Weekly Antarctic sea ice extent from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center. Chart by Carbon Brief.


Original article by Zeke Hausfather republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license. 

dizzy: Trump is attempting to censor research and information like this.

Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes' concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country's economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Continue ReadingState of the climate: 2025 close behind 2024 as the hottest start to a year

Trump’s MAGA Wants To Kill US Public Broadcasting Because It Symbolizes a Better World

Spread the love

Original article by Christian Christensen republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

People participate in a rally to call on Congress to protect funding for US public broadcasters, Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), outside the NPR headquarters in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2025. (Photo by Saul Loeb / AFP via Getty Images)

Anything representing the idea that the state could in any way contribute to the greater good is horrific and must be crushed.

The Trump Administration has announced its intention to withdraw over $1 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the organization that supports public broadcasting in the United States in the form of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).

Although federal funding makes up only a small portion of the overall budgets for these organizations—a combination of private donations, corporate sponsorship, state financing makes up a larger part—the funding is vital for public television and radio in smaller local markets where public or corporate support is difficult to obtain. The cuts would likely kill off those smaller stations and weaken those in larger markets.

In effect, the last traces of public media would disappear from large sections of the United States, leaving them entirely in the hands of corporate media.

This attack on U.S. public media is perhaps the least surprising news imaginable. When I was interviewed last month here in Sweden after Trump effectively shut down Voice of America (VOA), I was asked what could be next on the Republican media agenda. I didn’t hesitate in my response: next would be the de-funding of the nation’s public broadcasting system. To me, it wasn’t a question of if…but when.

In its classic form, public service broadcasting of the type we have here in Europe treats the inhabitants of the country not as potential consumers, but as actual citizens.

The threat to kill public broadcasting in the U.S. is not the same as the killing of Voice of America. Through stations such as Radio Free Europe, VOA had always had been the mouthpiece of the U.S. state. It was part of global U.S. soft power, promoting the nation’s foreign policy and economic interests. It was anything but objective, independent journalism.

PBS and NPR, on the other hand, are something entirely different. They represent an alternative model for how media in the U.S. could be…or, at least, could have been. Created in 1967 under President Lyndon Johnson, and decades after private media giants ABC, NBC, and CBS had been allowed to take near-complete control over U.S. broadcasting, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was meant to provide U.S. citizens with a non-commercial media alternative.

Unlike their European counterparts, however, which began as well-financed monopolies in the 1920s and 1930s, U.S. public media were born weak. They were never meant to challenge the power of U.S. corporate media.

For the past half century, U.S. public broadcasting has existed at the margins of the national media ecosystem, producing high-quality educational programming and decent news that attracted a predominantly well-educated, urban audience. Low levels of federal funding meant that U.S. public broadcasting, again unlike European counterparts such as Sweden’s SVT or the UK’s BBC, was forced to take money from corporations in order to survive. When I lived in the U.S., PBS took so much “sponsorship” money from oil companies such as ExxonMobil that it was jokingly referred to as the “Petroleum Broadcasting System.”

So, why kill off the last remnants of a media system that attracts only a tiny fraction of the U.S. audience and gets the majority of its financing from non-government sources?

Simple. Because of what it represents.

The Trump administration and its oligarchy of advisors have as their central goal to destroy or undermine any and all institutions in U.S. society that either suggest an alternative to private, corporate control or provide a counter-argument to the myth that the “free market” is the best option for structuring U.S. society: from education to health care to media. The very idea that the state could in any way contribute to the greater good is horrific and must be crushed.

In its classic form, public service broadcasting of the type we have here in Europe treats the inhabitants of the country not as potential consumers, but as actual citizens. In modern societies, absolutely soaked in the logic of consumption, there needs to be at least a few spaces where your value is seen as inherent and not related to how much disposable income you have.

Here in Sweden, for example, that includes not just public broadcasting, but things like universal healthcare and university education. The logic is simple: being informed, being healthy and being educated should not be privileges restricted to those who can afford it. And, a well-informed, healthy and well-educated society benefits everyone.

Public broadcasting in the U.S. is in need of serious reform. And, public broadcasting in Europe isn’t perfect. But, despite their various flaws, their value can be found not only in what they produce in terms of content, but in what they tell people about how society can be structured. That working alternatives exist and can co-exist. That it’s possible to have a free market, but at the same time recognize there are some elements of society too important to be left to the mercies of corporations, billionaires, and profit margins.

For people like Trump and Musk, these non-commercial spaces of citizenship are viruses eating away at profits. But they aren’t the virus.

They are the vaccine.

Original article by Christian Christensen republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Continue ReadingTrump’s MAGA Wants To Kill US Public Broadcasting Because It Symbolizes a Better World

How a Professional Bully Is Winning Control of the Media

Spread the love

Original article by Steven Harper republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Guests including Mark Zuckerberg, Lauren Sanchez, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai and Elon Musk attend the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Julia Demaree Nikhinson – Pool/Getty Images)

Major media outlets from CBS to The Washington Post have “bent the knee” to President Trump’s specious demands.

U.S. President Donald Trump is following the authoritarian’s handbook that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán used to consolidate power in Hungary. He is attacking the independent institutions that comprise the infrastructure supporting democracy—universities, law firms, culture, and the media.

And he is winning.

Major media outlets have “bent the knee” his press secretary’s preferred phrase for capitulation to Trump’s specious demands. His latest conquest is CBS.

CBS

Days before the 2024 election, Trump filed a frivolous lawsuit accusing the network of bias in broadcasting a “60 Minutes” interview of then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Seeking $10 billion in damages, the complaint claimed that the edited interview and associated programming were “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference” intended to “mislead the public and attempt to tip the scales” in Harris’ favor.

Prominent First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said that “the First Amendment was drafted to protect the press from just such litigation.” Harvard Law School Professor Rebecca Tushnet called it “ridiculous junk and should be mocked.” Attorney Charles Tobin warned, “This is a frivolous and dangerous attempt by a politician to control the news media.”

A few days later, Trump won the election. And now CBS’ parent company, Paramount, wants to settle the case.

Whatever money CBS pays Trump to settle his frivolous lawsuit is extortion.

Through her family’s holding company, Shari Redstone who is “friendly with Trump” is Paramount’s controlling shareholder. If the Federal Communications Commission approves its pending merger with Skydance Media, Redstone will reap millions.

On February 6, Redstone told the Paramount board that she wanted to settle Trump’s lawsuit. The next day, Trump doubled his damages claim to $20 billion. As the media reported Redstone’s desire to resolve the case, Trump pounced. On April 13, he asserted on social media that the FCC should impose “the maximum fine and punishment” on CBS and the network “should lose its license.”

The parties have agreed on a mediator, but whatever money CBS pays Trump to settle his frivolous lawsuit is extortion. The more profound cost is the loss of CBS’ journalistic independence, which became apparent on April 22 when the producer of “60 Minutes” resigned.

In the program’s 57-year history, Bill Owens—who became the “60 Minutes” executive producer in 2019 after 30 years at CBS—was only the third person to run it. Owens’s memo to his staff should be a warning to all of us:

“[O]ver the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for ‘60 Minutes,’ right for the audience.”

CBS wasn’t Trump’s first media victim.

The Washington Post

In early November 2024, The Washington Post editorial board had signed off on an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for president. But it never ran. Owner Jeff Bezos personally killed it and, for the first time in decades, the paper did not endorse a U.S. presidential candidate.

A few hours after Bezos’s “no endorsement” decision became public, officials from his Blue Origin aerospace company, which has a multi-billion dollar contract with NASA, met with Trump.

After Trump won the election, Bezos flew to Mar-a-Lago where he and his fiancée dined with the president-elect. Shortly thereafter, Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund. And another Bezos company—Amazon—paid $40 million to license a documentary about Melania Trump, who personally will receive $28 million.

On February 26, Bezos announced a new rightward shift for the Post: It would now advocate for “personal liberties and free markets” and not publish opposing viewpoints on those topics.

The paper’s opinion section editor, David Shipley, resigned in response to the change. Prominent columnists followed him out the door, and more than 250,000 readers canceled their subscriptions.

The Los Angeles Times

The Los Angeles Times had an established record of presidential endorsements too—until 2024. Its 2020 endorsement of Joe Biden blasted Trump. But in 2024, billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong quashed an editorial that would have endorsed Vice President Harris. As at the Post, columnists and editorial board members resigned in protest, and the paper lost thousands of subscribers.

After the election, Soon-Shiong killed another editorial set to run with this headline: “Donald Trump’s cabinet choices are not normal. The Senate’s confirmation process should be.”

Self-censorship is the most effective, enduring, and dangerous method of abridging free speech.

Facebook

More than one-half of Americans “often” or “sometimes” get their news from social media. One-third of all adults in the U.S. get their news from Facebook (operated by Meta). Meta’s president Mark Zuckerberg was among the billionaires who traveled to Mar-a-Lago after the election, met with Trump, and donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund. (With the help of corporate and billionaire megadonors like Zuckerberg and Bezos, Trump raised a record $239 million for the fund.)

Then Zuckerberg gave Trump a bigger gift: Meta abandoned third-party fact-checking of Facebook posts. As his rationale, Zuckerberg repeated Trump’s false talking points that fact-checking was “censorship” and reflected an “anti-Trump bias.”

Asked if he thought Zuckerberg was “directly responding to the threats” that Trump had made to him in the past, Trump answered: “Probably.”

Meanwhile, Meta invited Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White, a longtime Trump supporter, to join its board of directors.

PBS and NPR

On April 26, Trump will send Congress his request to halt all funding for public media—including NPR and PBS.

Viktor Orbán’s Playbook—The Trump Sequel

Since his return to power, Hungary’s prime minister has used “muscular state policy to achieve conservative ends,” according to conservative activist Christopher Rufo. Orbán is “attempting to rebuild its culture and institutions, from schools to universities to media.”

Orbán began “working with friendly oligarchs to purchase and transform media companies into conservative stalwarts; directing government advertising budgets to politically-aligned outlets;… and pressuring the holdover state media… to provide more favorable coverage.”

Rufo insists that Hungary “has a media environment at least as competitive as that of many Western nations.” Experienced observers disagree:

Human Rights Watch found that the government is using its near media monopoly to strengthen its hold on democratic institutions… The government’s increased control over the media market is linked to its broader assault on rule of law in Hungary, including undermining judicial independence and state capture of public institutions…

Trump’s attacks on universities, law firms, culture, and the media are all of a piece. Viktor Orbán’s Hungary provides a roadmap of his battle plan and a preview of his end game.

Original article by Steven Harper republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes' concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country's economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Continue ReadingHow a Professional Bully Is Winning Control of the Media

Donald Trump’s Fossil Fuel Executive UK Ambassador Donated $4 Million to President’s Inauguration Fund

Spread the love

Original article by Adam Barnett and Sam Bright republished from DeSmog.

U.S. ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens. Credit: Arkansas Inc / YouTube

Warren Stephens made the donation alongside big tech firms and oil giants.

Donald Trump’s ambassador to the UK donated $4 million to the new U.S. president’s inauguration on the same day he was nominated for the diplomatic position, DeSmog can report.

Billionaire Warren Stephens gave $4 million (just under £3 million today) to the Trump Vance Inaugural Committee on 2 December, according to the official record of donations. The committee is appointed by the president-elect to arrange the inauguration ceremony, when a U.S. president is formally sworn into office.

“It’s not so surprising that a transactional president hands out favours to people who give him money, but that doesn’t make it any less outrageous,” said Agustina Oliveri, head of campaigns and communications at the Good Law Project.

There is no direct evidence that Warren secured the position due to this donation. However, U.S. presidents have a long history of handing out diplomatic roles to major donors, while the Trump administration has bestowed his patrons with a number of senior positions. Of the 37 people who gave $1 million or more to the inauguration committee, six have either been given a role in the administration or have been nominated for a role.

Tom Brake, a former Liberal Democrat MP and the director of the transparency campaign group Unlock Democracy, urged the UK government not to follow Trump’s lead.

“Whatever approach the U.S. administration adopts towards the appointment of its ambassadors, the UK government should make it clear that when it comes to appointing UK ambassadors or high commissioners, donating substantial sums of money directly or indirectly to the party of government will block an appointment not facilitate it,” he said. “There must never be a question mark over whether UK appointments are made on merit, or driven by a donor’s deep pockets.”

As DeSmog revealed on 5 December, Warren Stephens holds significant oil and gas interests. Prior to his appointment as Trump’s UK ambassador, he ran Stephens Inc. – one of the largest privately-owned investment banks in the United States. Stephens has since stood down as CEO, but remains its chairman.

The firm’s portfolio includes a number of companies that make their money from oil and gas exploration and production — including one, Stephens Natural Resources, which “has a rich history of drilling and producing both oil and natural gas”, according to its website.

The UK’s ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson also co-founded a public affairs agency with major fossil fuel clients.

Trump’s inauguration committee – which raised almost $240 million – received donations from fossil fuel giants Chevron ($2 million), ExxonMobil ($1 million), the U.S. branches of BP and Shell ($500,000 each), and Valero ($250,000).

It also accepted donations from major tech platforms including Amazon and Meta, whose founders Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg received a front row seat to the event.

Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and others at Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration. Credit: WSJ / YouTube

The inauguration committee received a further $1 million from the Heritage Foundation, a hard-right U.S. research and lobby group which drafted the “autocratic” Project 2025 blueprint for Trump’s second term.

Trump denied knowledge of Project 2025 during the election campaign but has subsequently appointed Russell Vought, one of its advisory board members and co-authors, as director of the Office for Management and Budget (OMB), a key department within the president’s office that helps to oversee and co-ordinate policy.

Project 2025 urged Trump to “dismantle the administrative state”, slash restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, scrap state investment in renewable energy, and gut the Environmental Protection Agency.

Since his inauguration on 20 January, Trump has announced a series of policies that have mirrored these demands.

The new president, who received more than $75 million from oil and gas interests for his re-election campaign, has pledged to once again withdraw the U.S. from the flagship 2015 Paris Agreement, which set an international target for limiting global warming. He has also declared a “national energy emergency” to allow the U.S. to “drill, baby, drill” for new fossil fuels.

“When we look at the dumpster fire of U.S. government policy – from trashing the planet to attacking basic human rights – there’s no point in asking ‘What are they up to?’. The question we need to focus on is ‘Who paid for that?,’” said Oliveri.

The U.S. embassy in London referred DeSmog’s enquiry to the U.S. State Department. The Heritage Foundation was approached for comment.

Original article by Adam Barnett and Sam Bright republished from DeSmog.

Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Continue ReadingDonald Trump’s Fossil Fuel Executive UK Ambassador Donated $4 Million to President’s Inauguration Fund

‘Keir Starmer must not bow down to the fossil fuel lobby’

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-must-not-bow-down-fossil-fuel-lobby

 Protesters rally outside the summit. Photo: Angela Christofilou

Hundreds of protesters rally outside global energy summit in London

HUNDREDS of protesters rallied outside a global energy security summit in London yesterday, urging Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer “not bow down to the fossil fuel lobby or give in to ridiculous far-right rhetoric.”

Demonstrators demanded that the government deliver a “credible plan” for a just transition for North Sea oil and gas workers as it bans new drilling in British waters.

This includes “grasping the huge opportunity to build out a domestic wind manufacturing sector” alongside investment in ports and setting up a dedicated training fund for offshore oil and gas workers. Stop Rosebank’s Lauren MacDonald said the demonstration was called to ensure “people’s voices are heard above the noise coming from the oil and gas companies and their cheerleaders in the US government.” “The public have made their feelings clear with a million people signing a petition to end drilling and we urge the UK government to listen,” she added.

…

Article continues at https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-must-not-bow-down-fossil-fuel-lobby

Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes' concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country's economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Continue Reading‘Keir Starmer must not bow down to the fossil fuel lobby’