Extreme weather is by definition rare on our planet. Ferocious storms, searing heatwaves and biting cold snaps illustrate what the climate is capable of at its worst. However, since Earth’s climate is rapidly warming, predominantly due to fossil fuel burning, the range of possible weather conditions, including extremes, is changing.
Scientists define “climate” as the distribution of possible weather events observed over a length of time, such as the range of temperatures, rainfall totals or hours of sunshine. From this they construct statistical measures, such as the average (or normal) temperature. Weather varies on several timescales – from seconds to decades – so the longer the period over which the climate is analysed, the more accurately these analyses capture the infinite range of possible configurations of the atmosphere.
Typically, meteorologists and climate scientists use a 30-year period to represent the climate, which is updated every ten years. The most recent climate period is 1991-2020. The difference between each successive 30-year climate period serves as a very literal record of climate change.
This way of thinking about the climate falls short when the climate itself is rapidly changing. Global average temperatures have increased at around 0.2°C per decade over the past 30 years, meaning that the global climate of 1991 was around 0.6°C cooler than that in 2020 (when accounting for other year-to-year fluctuations), and even more so than the present day.
A moving target for climate modellers
If the climate is a range of possible weather events, then this rapid change has two implications. First, it means that part of the distribution of weather events comprising a 30-year climate period occurred in a very different background global climate: for example, northerly winds in the 1990s were much colder than those in the 2020s in north-west Europe, thanks to the Arctic warming nearly four times faster than the global average. Statistics from three decades ago no longer represent what is possible in the present day.
Second, the rapidly changing climate means we have not necessarily experienced the extremes that modern-day atmospheric and oceanic warmth can produce. In a stable climate, scientists would have multiple decades for the atmosphere to get into its various configurations and drive extreme events, such as heatwaves, floods or droughts. We could then use these observations to build up an understanding of what the climate is capable of. But in our rapidly changing climate, we effectively have only a few years – not enough to experience everything the climate has to offer.
Extreme weather events require what meteorologists might call a “perfect storm”. For example, extreme heat in the UK typically requires the northward movement of an air mass from Africa combined with clear skies, dry soils and a stable atmosphere to prevent thunderstorms forming which tend to dissipate heat.
Such “perfect” conditions are intrinsically unlikely, and many years can pass without them occurring – all while the climate continues to change in the background. Based on an understanding of observations alone, this can leave us woefully underprepared for what the climate can now do, should the right weather conditions all come together at once.
Startling recent examples include the extreme heatwave in the Pacific north-west of North America in 2021, in which temperatures exceeded the previous Canadian record maximum by 4.6°C. Another is the occurrence of 40°C in the UK in summer 2022, which exceeded the previous UK record maximum set only three years earlier by 1.6°C. This is part of the reason why the true impact of a fixed amount of global warming is only evident after several decades, but of course – since the climate is changing rapidly – we cannot use this method anymore.
Playing with fire
To better understand these extremes, scientists can use ensembles: many runs of the same weather or climate model that each slightly differ to show a range of plausible outcomes. Ensembles are routinely used in weather prediction, but can also be used to assess extreme events which could happen even if they do not actually happen at the time.
When 40°C first appeared in ensemble forecasts for the UK before the July 2022 heatwave, it revealed the kind of extreme weather that is possible in the current climate. Even if it had not come to fruition, its mere appearance in the models showed that the previously unthinkable was now possible. In the event, several naturally occurring atmospheric factors combined with background climate warming to generate the record-shattering heat on July 19 that year.
The highest observed temperature each year in the UK, from 1900 to 2023
Later in summer 2022, after the first occurrence of 40°C, some ensemble weather forecasts for the UK showed a situation in which 40°C could be reached on multiple consecutive days. This would have posed an unprecedented threat to public health and infrastructure in the UK. Unlike the previous month, this event did not come to pass, and was quickly forgotten – but it shouldn’t have been.
It is not certain whether these model simulations correctly represent the processes involved in producing extreme heat. Even so, we must heed the warning signs.
Despite a record-warm planet, summer 2024 in the UK has been relatively cool so far. The past two years have seen global temperatures far above anything previously observed, and so potential extremes have probably shifted even further from what we have so far experienced.
Just as was the case in August 2022, we’ve got away with it for now – but we might not be so lucky next time.
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.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Lee Zeldin, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, talks with reporters in Washington, D.C. on February 18, 2025. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)
“Lee Zeldin is willing to go so far as to break established law to pay back the corporate executives and polluters who spent millions to get Donald Trump elected,” said one climate leader.
Climate advocates said Wednesday that the Trump administration will be abdicating its “clear legal duty to curb climate-changing pollution” if it moves forward with repealing the 16-year-old scientific finding that has underpinned the federal government’s actions to protect people and the planet from fossil fuel emissions.
As The Washington Post reported, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin is pushing the White House to repeal the endangerment finding, an official determination announced in 2009 that affirmed what the fossil fuel industry had known for decades: that emissions of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane cause planetary heating and threaten public health.
The finding gave the government the authority to regulate such pollution.
For several days, the White House and EPA refused to release the results of a 30-day review of the endangerment finding, which President Donald Trump called for under an executive order he issued on his first day in office.
Three people with knowledge of the issue, who remained anonymous, told the Post that former EPA Chief of Staff Mandy Gunasekara—who wrote the chapter on the agency in the right-wing policy agenda Project 2025—has been advising the administration on the potential repeal of the endangerment finding.
Another former official from Trump’s first term, attorney Jonathan Brightbill, is also providing legal advice on repealing the scientific finding, which has provided the basis for federal regulations on automobile, aircraft, and power plant emissions.
By repealing the endangerment finding in place, the administration would throw out thousands of scientific studies showing how fossil fuel emissions heat the planet and are linked to heart disease, lung cancer, asthma, and other life-threatening health problems—and clear the way to overturn climate policies introduced by former President Joe Biden.
Denying the science underpinning the finding, said Green New Deal co-sponsor Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), makes the administration “a danger to our country.”
I challenged Lee Zeldin to his face on the endangerment finding. I knew he wouldn’t stand up to Trump's fossil fuel donors. If this admin wants to say that climate-fueled hurricanes, wildfires & droughts aren't a danger to our country, the admin itself is a danger to our country.…
Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate and Energy Program, said that any attempt by the Trump administration to gut the endangerment finding would be “fully challenged in court.”
“Eliminating the endangerment finding would be a giveaway to the fossil fuel industry, which has spent decades lying to the public about the harms of their product,” said Cleetus. “The science backing the EPA’s finding is rigorous and unequivocal—heat-trapping emissions pose serious threats to public health and well-being. EPA has the authority and legal obligation under the Clean Air Act to regulate sources of these pollutants, including vehicles, power plants, and oil and gas operations.”
Ben Jealous, executive director of the Sierra Club, also warned that the organization “will meet [the EPA] in court” if it moves forward with the repeal.
“Lee Zeldin is willing to go so far as to break established law to pay back the corporate executives and polluters who spent millions to get Donald Trump elected,” said Jealous. “This breathtakingly illegal power grab defies both the Supreme Court and Congress, and if Trump agrees to this plan, the Sierra Club will meet them in court. We will never allow any administration to sell out the climate, our health, our clean air, and our future.”
Zeldin is reportedly recommending that the finding be repealed weeks after wildfires destroyed more than 12,000 homes and other buildings in the Los Angeles area and after meteorologists reported a record 143 days last year of 100°F heat or higher last year. More than 100 people were killed last year by Hurricane Helene, which damaged about 74,000 homes.
“If the Trump EPA proceeds down this path and jettisons the obvious finding that climate change is a threat to our health and welfare, it will mean more polluted air and more catastrophic extreme weather for Americans.”
Experts found that the fires that devastated Los Angeles were made 35% more likely by dry, hot weather conditions and that planetary heating made Helene more dangerous and destructive.
“Any recommendation to strike the finding would be a bad-faith attempt to circumvent the law and best available science with the sole aim of boosting fossil fuel use and the profits of polluting companies,” said Cleetus. “Meanwhile, people around the nation, especially in communities acutely exposed to climate impacts or pollution, will pay the price.”
Dominique Browning, director and co-founder of Moms Clean Air Force, said the new reporting revealed that Zeldin “is contaminating EPA with a virulent strain of climate denial that has seized hold of many of the Trump administration’s Cabinet members.”
Browning noted that the EPA issued its determination in 2009 in response to the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case Massachusetts v. EPA, which established that the agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
“EPA’s action respected the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Browning. “It respected the bedrock science and respected what we all know to be true: Families across the country are experiencing the extreme weather fueled by climate emissions. With every new supercharged wildfire, hurricane, flood, and heatwave, the danger takes on a terrifying intimacy: Think of the summers that have become too hot for children to play outside, of the lifetime trauma of losing a home in a flood or fire.”
“Administrator Zeldin’s recommendation to strike down the endangerment finding will only bolster the billions of dollars of profit being made by the oil and gas industry—while ransacking our children’s safety,” Browning said.
David Doniger, senior strategist and attorney for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Zeldin’s reported plan “only makes sense if you consider who would benefit: the oil, coal, and gas magnates who handed the president millions of dollars in campaign contributions.”
The fossil fuel industry poured nearly $450 million into Trump’s campaign, and the president promised to roll back climate regulations if oil and gas companies donated heavily to him in what critics called a quid pro quo.
“This decision ignores science and the law,” said Doniger. “Fifteen years ago, the EPA determined that climate pollution endangers our health and well-being. The Denali-sized mountain of scientific evidence behind that decision has only grown to Mount Everest–size since then. The courts have repeatedly upheld the EPA’s legal authority and its scientific conclusions.”
“This is the clearest example of the Trump administration putting polluters over people, and that’s saying a lot,” Doniger added. “If the Trump EPA proceeds down this path and jettisons the obvious finding that climate change is a threat to our health and welfare, it will mean more polluted air and more catastrophic extreme weather for Americans. We will see them in court.”
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.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage at the 2025 Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference. Credit: ARC / YouTube
The Reform UK leader reiterated false climate claims at Jordan Peterson’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship event in London.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has admitted that he doesn’t know about climate science, despite claiming that politicians shouldn’t worry about man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Farage was speaking at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London today. ARC claims that it wants to help “save civilisation”, yet several of the event’s speakers have spread climate science denial.
In an interview with Canadian psychologist and ARC co-founder Jordan Peterson, Farage said claimed that sunspots and volcanoes have more impact on the climate than human-caused CO2 emissions – an opinion longdebunked by climate experts.
He added: “I’m not a scientist. I can’t tell you whether CO2 is leading to warming or not, but there are so many other massive factors.”
Despite admitting that he is not a climate expert, Farage claimed it was “absolutely nuts” that CO2 is considered to be a pollutant.
Reform UK campaigns to entirely scrap the UK’s policies to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It also proposes increased fossil fuel extraction, including the opening of new coal mines, and received at least £2.3 million (92 percent of its funding) from fossil fuel interests, polluters and climate deniers prior to the 2024 general election campaign.
As DeSmog revealed on Monday, a leaked guest list for the ARC event includes executives from oil and gas giants including BP, Koch Inc., Valero Energy, and Energy Transfer.
ARC received £1 million in 2023 from its director Paul Marshall, a hedge fund manager who owns GB News and recently bought The Spectator magazine. As revealed by DeSmog, Marshall’s hedge fund had £1.8 billion invested in fossil fuels – including in oil and gas giants Chevron, Shell, and Equinor – as of June 2023.
On 17 February, during the first day of the ARC conference, Donald Trump’s Energy Secretary Chris Wright called the UK’s 2050 net zero target “sinister”, and suggested climate action was a plot to “shrink human freedom”.
Nigel Farage and Climate Denial
Farage was a star speaker on the second day of the ARC conference at the ExCel centre in east London, during which he took part in a one-on-one interview with ARC frontman Peterson, who is a major promoter of climate science denial.
After declaring that “net zero is a complete disaster”, Farage called for dozens of “small modular nuclear reactors” across the UK. Peterson responded with a question about the science of climate change, suggesting: “Maybe it’s time to stop our obsession with carbon altogether.”
Peterson said: “I also think conceivably that the environmentalist climate scam was an offshoot of the Club of Rome Malthusian stupidity that is predicated on the presumption that resources are finite and that there’s far too many people on the planet, and there’s a terrible anti-human motivation lurking underneath all of that’s pessimistic and brutal and genocidal in its fundamental ethos.”
Farage replied: “The one thing I hear that drives me absolutely potty is that carbon dioxide is a pollutant! That’s what they tell us! That clearly is absolutely nuts. Now, there are times in our past when CO2 in the atmosphere has been much, much higher than it is today, and that’s before people drove 4×4 Chelsea tractors.”
In fact, 2024 was the hottest year on record, according to experts at the World Health Organization.
As climate scientist Dr Philipp Breul from Imperial College London has stated: “We are causing the climate to change significantly faster than it has, to the best of our knowledge, in the last million years.
“This incredibly fast rate of change is the real problem, as it leaves neither society nor the ecosystem time to adapt.”
Farage went on to say that Sir Patrick Moore, a TV astronomer, told him 20 years ago that “when it comes to carbon dioxide levels, and when it comes to warming and cooling, let me assure you that sunspot activity and underwater volcanic activity will always have a bigger impact on the environment than man himself ever can”.
“I’ve very much stuck to that view,” Farage added.
Climate scientists at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading climate science body, have stressed that “it is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet”.
Farage went on to repeat the misleading claim that only three percent of CO2 emissions are produced by humans. In fact, human activity has raised the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content by 50 percent in less than 200 years, according to NASA.
The Reform UK described himself as an “environmentalist in the old school sense and definition of that term”, complaining that “climate hysteria has blinded us to other environmental disasters such as the rape of our oceans”.
Later in the interview, Farage agreed with Peterson that “family” is of central importance for a happy society. He also said he believed in “Judeo-Christen values”, and asserted that the Conservative Party is “not remotely right-wing”.
Nigel Farage explains the politics of Reform UK: Racism, Fake anti-establishmentism, Deregulation, Corporatism, Climate Change Denial, Mysogyny and Transphobia.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
As 2024 closes, Donald Trump (left) is taking over in the U.S., Keir Starmer (center) in the UK, and Canada’s Justin Trudeau (right) ends the year on shaky ground. Credit: DeSmog/Wikimedia Commons
Our editors and reporters weigh in on a year of seismic political events, and what they’re paying close attention to in 2025.
It’s no exaggeration to say that the global political terrain fundamentally shifted this year.
Donald Trump is heading to the White House, Keir Starmer helped end 14 years of Conservative rule in the U.K. and Justin Trudeau is ending the year on shaky ground in Canada.
It was one of the most volatile and consequential years for climate action we’ve ever tracked at DeSmog. To help you make sense of it, we’ve asked our editors and contributors to weigh in on what they see as the year’s biggest takeaways – and the trends they’re paying attention to heading into 2025.
‘We discovered a lot of new documents’
Brendan DeMelle, executive director: Whenever someone on the DeSmog team finds a new document demonstrating what the fossil fuel industry knew long ago, and we reflect on the fact that humans possessed clear knowledge of climate risks and yet made decisions to deny the science and delay action, it gives us great pause to consider the power of corporate interests over basic self-preservation of our species.
In 2024, we discovered a lot of new documents and evidence demonstrating industry’s early knowledge of climate science dating to the 1950s, and a subsequent pivot to denial and delay strategies that seem unfathomable now. They knew better, they ignored responsible actions for decades, and here we are witnessing the devastating consequences which are in line with Exxon’s own models. People are suffering and dying. And what are the oil majors doing? Doubling down on production.
Publishing this evidence of denial and deception always gives me hope that we can make an impact far greater than our size. Climate justice has the wind in its sails, and every document and data point we can add only quickens the velocity of accountability.
I’m also excited that documents that we found and published years ago continue to have great impact, both in climate liability lawsuits and in civil society. We’re thrilled about the news that Geoff Dembicki’s book ‘The Petroleum Papers’ — which was based on Imperial Oil documents DeSmog found — has been optioned for a TV series.
What I’m paying attention to in 2025: With our recent appointment of Geoff Dembicki as global managing editor, our team will be increasingly connecting the dots between international themes and actors in our global work to expose false solutions and shine light on the reach of climate denial and extreme right-wing attacks on the public interest across the world.
We’ll be tracking the international spread of MAGA and the ongoing work of what we call the architecture of denial — networks like Jordan Peterson’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), Atlas Network, Koch Network, Tim Dunn’s America First Policy Institute (AFPI), Project 2025 and other players. We’ll expose their coordinated efforts to undermine environmental protections and criminalize dissent to crush the public interest. We will not stop fighting for the future. And the way we do that at DeSmog is through hard-hitting investigative journalism that centers accountability for climate delay and denial.
‘A resurgence of old-school climate denial’
Geoff Dembicki, global managing editor: I spent a lot of 2024 reporting on a single person – the Canadian conservative influencer Jordan Peterson, who’s evolved over the past few years into one of the world’s most consequential deniers of the climate crisis. In the spring, I went to sold-out Peterson performances in New York City and Fort Worth, where I learned that he’s using religious appeals to undermine public faith in science. My key takeaway: that anti-climate messages are becoming increasingly central to the worldview of the religious right, complicating political efforts to enlist the public in climate action with appeals to economic self-interest.
What I’m paying attention to in 2025: It’s impossible to ignore the most turbulent political event of 2024 – the reelection of Donald Trump. As we move into 2025, I’ll be paying special attention to the ways that a second Trump administration alters the global landscape of climate disinformation and fossil fuel expansion.
I fear that with Trump’s selection of Chris Wright as Energy Secretary – a fracking executive who’s been eagerly endorsed by the CO2 Coalition and other anti-science organizations – we are set to see an aggressive resurgence of old-school climate denial. And I will be closely looking at the influence Trump’s win has on Canada, where the Conservative Party leader – and fossil fuel populist – Pierre Poilievre is campaigning to unseat Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a federal election scheduled for 2025.
The COP29 entrance in Baku, Azerbaijan. Credit: Michal Busko / Alamy
Polluting industries’ new front against nature protection
Hazel Healy, UK editor-in-chief: In 2024 I travelled to the UN biodiversity talks in Colombia, with DeSmog reporter Rachel Sherrington. It was DeSmog’s first-ever nature-protection summit, and we’d heard mixed reports about whether there was any business lobbying going on at all. In Cali, along with tropical birds and old-school salsa, we were shocked to find oil and gas majors present, showcasing their biodiversity credentials with no hint of irony, with other usual suspects who used their participation to block regulations, such as the pesticide lobby.
We did what DeSmog did best – mapped, analysed, and counted the delegates, learning that business lobbyists had doubled since the last summit. We applied the same lens, for the third year running to shine a light on ag lobbying at the climate COP less than a month later. My takeaway? That anti-climate agribusiness lobbying is not only here to stay, it’s taking aim at both nature and climate – and both must be tackled together.
What I’m paying attention to in 2025: I will be keeping an eye on how the big ag lobby is organising ahead of the COP30 climate summit in Brazil – seen as a beacon of hope by many in the movement for sustainable food and farming, but subject to powerful meat interests. We will be listening carefully to big ag’s talking points and challenging disinformation when we hear it. It’s also going to be really interesting to see the evolution of fledgling EU laws against greenwashing by corporations, and see whether any more cities follow the lead of Dutch city the Hague in banning fossil fuel ads altogether.
‘Far-right parties gaining a new foothold’
Sam Bright, UK deputy editor: The UK general election dominated my coverage in 2024 – a six-week blitz of stories about the parties and politicians vying for our votes. We followed the money and found that, between the last election and the beginning of the 2024, the ruling Conservative Party had accepted £8.4 million from fossil fuel interests, climate science deniers, and polluting industries. We applied the same methodology to Reform UK, the radical right-wing party led by Trump fanatic Nigel Farage, and found that 92 percent of its funding during the period had come from dirty donors. This was somewhat ironic, given that Farage and his deputy Richard Tice now represent two of the constituencies most exposed to climate change.
What I’m paying attention to in 2025: I will be closely following the tentacles of the Trump administration in 2025 – tracking the ways in which his climate denial agenda is being exported to the UK and Europe. For years, DeSmog has been mapping the connections between dark money libertarian groups on both sides of the Atlantic. With Trump in the White House, Farage climbing in the polls, and far-right parties gaining a new foothold in Europe, these political connections are likely to intensify – posing a major threat to global climate action.
‘Astroturfing and disinformation campaign’
TJ Jordan, investigative reporter (PR/Advertising, False Solutions): I worked for a global PR agency for four years, so I have a headstart in knowing where to look when investigating how these companies quietly protect the fossil fuel industry. In 2024 I analysed agency board directors’ ties to polluting companies; challenged the sustainability award shows rewarding agencies that work for oil producers; and went inside the elite PR firm fostering oil-reliant Azerbaijan’s image as a climate innovator ahead of hosting COP29. But my most challenging (and rewarding) project was a six-month investigation into the dirty tactics of a British-owned PR agency called MetropolitanRepublic.
Protestors from student human rights group Justice Movement Uganda opposing the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline. Credit: Bruce Nahabwe
The agency “squashed” (their word, not mine) the voices of Ugandan environmental land defenders on behalf of French oil giant TotalEnergies — which is building the world’s longest heated crude oil pipeline across Uganda and Tanzania — with a carefully constructed astroturfing and disinformation campaign called “Action for Sustainability.”
What I’m paying attention to in 2025: U.S.-based ad and PR holding company Omnicom is about to become the biggest provider of marketing, advertising, public relations, and lobbying services to the fossil fuel industry, after it bought fellow industry giant IPG. Outside pressure from the UN and campaign groups like Clean Creatives is increasing on big holding companies to reassess their work protecting the reputations of oil and gas producers. I’ll be keeping a close eye on how the Omnicom-IPG consolidation affects the individual agencies in these holding company networks and their ability to make decisions on who they work for.
‘The fallout of Canada’s new anti-greenwashing law’
Sarah Berman, Canada editor: Our reporters closely followed misleading fossil fuel ads and the fallout of Canada’s new anti-greenwashing law, which targets environmental claims that can’t be backed with evidence. The new legislation pushed the fossil fuel lobbyist group Pathways Alliance to immediately scrub its website of all content. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers followed suit, removing a section of its website devoted to carbon capture and storage.
Canada Action, a third-party advertiser that claimed Canadian liquified natural gas (LNG) would help cut global carbon emissions on transit shelter ads, cut references to the environmental benefits of LNG on its website. Canadian oil sands companies even blamed the new law for delayed sustainability reports. Now, major cities like Toronto are looking to ban misleading fossil fuel ads on transit.
What I’m paying attention to in 2025: We’ve seen fewer greenwashing claims on transit in the second half of 2024, but the fight over Canada’s anti-greenwashing legislation is not over and DeSmog will continue to follow the latest developments. Our reporters expect oil sands companies and their allies to fight any effort to hold them accountable for spreading misinformation. Will this new legislation further push emitters to distance themselves from false solutions? Or will a Canadian election bring in a new government that is more favourable to polluters?
Our series revealed links between hard-right farming groups and the Viktor Orbán-funded MCC Brussels think tank, dissected the false claims made ahead of the elections as well as the political candidates spreading them, and shone a light on the diverse stances between farming groups on protests. In Ireland, our work mapping the connections of the powerful farming lobby was cited in the parliament (Oireachtas) and became a major talking point ahead of a critical decision by the EU on whether to extend the country’s nitrates derogation.
What I’m paying attention to in 2025: This will be a crucial year for the newly elected European Commission to transform its agriculture and food sectors and to beef up its climate targets. As 720 MEPs get to work, we’ll investigate the populist politicians looking for ways to weaken key legislation, and continue to scrutinise the lobbying tactics of powerful corporations. With elections on the horizon in Germany and Poland, we’ll look to work in partnership with European journalists to enhance our cross-border coverage at this pivotal time.
‘Trump-oriented politics within Canada’
Mitchell Anderson, Canada contributor: I spent much of 2024 focusing on the evolving situation in Alberta, which produces almost 40 percent of Canada’s emissions with only 12 percent of the population. This work included itemizing unfunded environmental liabilities associated with fossil fuel extraction, particularly expanding oil sands operations. Alberta is also pushing the Pathways carbon capture scheme, a twice-rejected coal mine expansion in the foothills of the Rockies, and funded a $7 million “scrap the cap” ad campaign that would likely violate new federal competition regulations if the province was a company.
All of these issues have been fertile ground for Desmog commentary that seeks to highlight cracks and contradictions within populist Alberta politics.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith speaks at the UCP annual meeting, where delegates voted for an erroneous resolution claiming atmospheric CO2 is at a 1,000-year low. Credit: Danielle Smith / YouTube
What I’m paying attention to in 2025: The second Trump administration promises to upend many norms within society, politics, and the energy sector. DeSmog is well positioned to highlight how this chaotic political period will impact renewable technology, the fossil fuel industry, and our climate future. I will continue to focus on stories about the evolving situation in Alberta, which in many ways has become a cultural beachhead for Trump-oriented politics within Canada.
Neighbouring British Columbia has become a political counterweight by aggressively scaling up renewable energy, creating numerous opportunities for contrasting case studies that highlight these diverging trajectories. A Canadian election in 2025 will add additional interest to a turbulent year as Pierre Poilievre seeks to centre his campaign against carbon pricing – often in the absence of facts.
‘The DeSmog team will be very busy’
Taylor C. Noakes, Canada contributor: My focus areas in 2024 were principally industry and political reactions to new anti-greenwashing legislation; debunking industry-friendly (and often politically expedient) false solutions to the climate crisis (like LNG, hydrogen, and carbon capture); and Canada’s ongoing culture war against renewables, which has resulted in nonsensical political decisions (like instituting a solar and wind power moratorium in Canada’s sunniest and windiest province).
As in years past, I covered a number of major industry conferences in Canada and the United States (including annual carbon capture, hydrogen, LNG, and oil/gas industry conferences, mostly in Alberta). Highlights from these events include a ten minute one-on-one scrum with the Premier of Alberta on the failures of carbon capture, and reporting on Jane Fonda leading an anti-LNG protest (whose turnout was larger than the number of conference attendees).
What I’m paying attention to in 2025: I anticipate the new American president’s energy policies will have profound effects on Canada – whether it’s tariffs that sink what’s left of Canada’s oil and gas sector, American resource nationalism that prioritizes local resource exploitation over Canadian imports (or some combination thereof), or a Canadian reaction to U.S. trade war sabre rattling that emphasizes either an accelerated transition or the subsidized development of new markets for old technology.
Whatever course it takes, I suspect the DeSmog team will be very busy. I’m looking forward to how this shakes out at the series of annual conferences I typically attend. In addition, I plan on keeping a close eye on hydrogen and carbon capture projects, as well as the growing grassroots resistance to fossil fuels, pipelines, and the industry in general. Successful Indigenous resistance to fossil fuel projects offers exciting opportunities for optimistic climate-change related reporting. Similar efforts by cities to ban fossil fuel advertising, and the use of gas for cooking, as well as rural communities banning CO2 pipelines, indicate real momentum and tangible results from the ground up.
The immovable object that is the fossil fuel sector is meeting the unstoppable force that is people’s innate desire to live on a healthy planet. 2025 is going to be a thrilling year for environmental reporting.
‘Focusing on the financial’
Sharon Kelly, U.S. reporter: One of the oldest adages in investigative reporting is to follow the money. In seeking to understand what’s driving fossil fuel companies to double down on greenwashing and environmentally damaging projects, it helps to have a clear picture of what their incentives are and how those incentives are created. My work for DeSmog in 2024 focused on the financial: examining federal subsidies for carbon capture, created in the name of combatting climate change but with the effect of making it worse; reporting on evidence shale drillers attempted price-fixing to inflate oil prices, and on price-gouging by corporations when climate-fueled disasters strike; and seeking to understand oil and gas industry liabilities like abandoned wells – and what happens on the ground when companies fail to pay to clean up.
What I’m paying attention to in 2025: The risks and uncertainties surrounding fossil fuels are, if anything, amplified by the incoming administration. Despite the Trump administration’s ties to the oil and gas industry, Trump’s first term was marked by upheaval and disruptions for fossil fuel companies (and the rest of us). Autocratic impulses are often, at their core, a telling sign of fragility.
Whatever 2025 brings, we intend at DeSmog to keep the heat on the industry by examining the financial side of the climate crisis and the companies that have fueled it – whether that’s investigating the role false solutions play in oil and gas companies’ plans for the future, scrutinizing how over-hyped investments can cause outsized environmental damage while falling short for communities and investors alike, or staying watchful for fossil fuel companies seeking to benefit from the political power of the far-right (and vice versa).
‘Mapping the big money and political connections’
Adam Barnett, UK reporter
2024 was a target rich environment for anyone looking to cover climate denial, with a mountain of smog descending on the UK. So much, in fact, that I had to compile a map of the donors, media, think tanks, and fossil fuel companies pushing the Conservative government to turn against net zero. I also debunked the big climate myths peddled during the UK general election campaign, since the British media wasn’t going to.
I gave the post-election Tory leadership contest the same treatment, exposing the climate record of the candidates and the dirty money pumped into the campaign – along with the Tories’ growing ties to Donald Trump’s Project 2025.
What I’m paying attention to in 2025: With Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch flying to Washington to build ties with the incoming Trump team, a U.S. ambassador to the UK with oil and gas interests (both also covered in 2024), and Reform’s Nigel Farage curling up at the feet of Elon Musk, I expect to be covering the growing influence of Trumpian climate denial on the UK — along with transatlantic groups like Jordan Peterson’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), which is headed by a Tory peer.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage speaking at the Heartland Institute’s 40th anniversary fundraiser in September 2024. Credit: Heartland Institute / YouTube
The Heartland Institute, which questions human-made climate change, has established a new branch in London.
The Heartland Institute – one of the organisations involved in the radical Project 2025 agenda for a second Donald Trump term – has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change, and received at least $676,000 between 1998 and 2007 from U.S. oil major ExxonMobil.
Heartland is known “for its persistent questioning of climate science”, according to Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway, and it has received tens of thousands in donations from foundations linked to the owners of Koch Industries – a fossil fuel behemoth and a leading sponsor of climate science denial.
A Union of Concerned Scientists report in 2007 alleged that nearly 40 percent of the total funds received by Heartland Institute from ExxonMobil since 1998 were designated for climate change projects.
In a press release announcing its new UK-EU branch, based in London, Heartland boasted that it is “the world’s most prominent think tank supporting skepticism about man-made climate change”.
Heartland Institute president James Taylor added that, “During recent years, a growing number of policymakers in the UK and continental Europe have requested Heartland establish a satellite office to provide resources to conservative policymakers throughout Europe”.
This has included Farage, who spoke at the Heartland Institute’s 40th anniversary fundraising event in September and called for the group to open an offshoot in Europe. “Give us your wisdom, give us your guidance, give us your discipline. I’d love to see Heartland on the other side of the pond,” he said.
Reform UK has called for the UK’s 2050 net zero emissions target to be scrapped, and Farage’s Heartland speech urged the U.S. to re-elect Trump and “drill baby drill” for more oil and gas.
DeSmog revealed in June that – between the 2019 election and the beginning of the 2024 campaign – Reform UK received 92 percent of its funding (£2.3 million) from oil and gas interests, highly polluting industries, and climate science deniers.
Heartland’s European branch will be run by Lois Perry, a climate science denier who has said it’s her “personal belief” that climate change “is happening” but “is not man made”. Perry followed in Farage’s footsteps earlier this year by becoming the leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), though stood down after just 34 days.
Perry formerly ran the anti-net zero pressure group CAR26, which has claimed that carbon dioxide is “essential to all life” and that its “welcome growth has greened our planet saving countless human and other lives”.
She told DeSmog that Heartland is “advocating for a balanced, evidence-based approach to climate policy, not the one-size-fits-all alarmism that seems to make headlines.”
Perry added: “As for my past with UKIP and CAR26, I wear those roles with pride. I’ve always been upfront about my views: climate change happens, but the hysteria around human causation is, frankly, a bit of a stretch. CO2 is indeed vital for life, turning our planet into a blooming, green paradise rather than a barren wasteland.”
In reality, authors working for the world’s foremost climate science body, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have said that “it is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet”.
The IPCC has also stated that carbon dioxide “is responsible for most of global warming” since the late 19th century, which has increased the “severity and frequency of weather and climate extremes, like heat waves, heavy rains, and drought” – all of which “will put a disproportionate burden on low-income households and thus increase poverty levels.”
Farage and Project 2025
Farage’s views on climate change appear to reflect those of Perry and the Heartland Institute.
Although two thirds of his constituents are concerned about climate change, Farage stated in an interview with climate science denier Jordan Peterson in July that: “I do find it extraordinary that people call carbon dioxide a pollutant, because as I understand it, plants don’t grow without carbon dioxide.”
In his speech to the Heartland Institute in September, Farage also claimed that the UK’s efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions doesn’t “make any bloody difference at all”, due to the emissions produced by larger countries like China.
He also repeated the misleading claim that “man-made carbon dioxide is only about 3 percent of global, annual production of carbon dioxide”. In fact, human activity has raised the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide content by 50 percent in less than 200 years, according to NASA.
Farage has been attempting to cultivate ties between Reform UK and senior figures associated with Donald Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” and is expected to once again pull the U.S. out of the flagship 2015 Paris Agreement.
Farage this week met with key Trump ally and donor Elon Musk, who invested at least $277 million in the Republican’s re-election campaign, and said that he would seek to “negotiate” a donation from Musk to Reform UK.
“The threat of U.S. interference in our democracy isn’t just contained to Elon Musk’s touted $100 million donation to Reform,” said Hannah Greer, Good Law Project campaigns manager. “Farage has now helped a fossil-fuel-funded American climate science denial think tank to set up shop in the UK.
During the recent presidential campaign, Democrats highlighted that Trump’s second term agenda was being drafted by another radical right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation, under the banner Project 2025.
The document proposes a range of radical anti-climate policies, including slashing restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, scrapping investment in renewable energy, and gutting the Environmental Protection Agency.
Project 2025 – heavily funded by just six family fortunes – has been accused of being “extreme” and “authoritarian” for setting out a plan to rapidly “reform” the U.S. government by shuttering bureaus and offices, overturning regulations, and replacing thousands of public sector employees with hand-picked political allies of Trump. The agenda also proposes radical tax cuts, and a crackdown on reproductive rights.
Farage has been heavily criticised for venturing regularly to the U.S. since his election in July, rather than spending time in his constituency of Clacton. The Reform UK leader has made six trips to the U.S. as an MP, often meeting with avowed climate deniers, despite his coastal constituency being at risk of flooding due to global warming.
Reform UK and the Heartland Institute were approached for comment.
