Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Brisbane 2032 is no longer legally bound to be ‘climate positive’. Will it still leave a green legacy?

News Feed
Sunday, March 30, 2025

When Brisbane was awarded the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it came with a widely publicised landmark promise: the world’s first “climate-positive” games. The International Olympic Committee had already announced all games would be climate-positive from 2030. It said this meant the games would be required to “go beyond” the previous obligation of reducing carbon emissions directly related to their operations and offsetting or otherwise “compensating” for the rest. In other words, achieving net-zero was no longer sufficient. Now each organising committee would be legally required to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than the games emit. This is in keeping with the most widely cited definition of climate-positive. Both Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028 made voluntary pledges. But Brisbane 2032 was the first contractually required to be climate-positive. This was enshrined in the original 2021 Olympic Host Contract, an agreement between the IOC, the State of Queensland, Brisbane City Council and the Australian Olympic Committee. But the host contract has quietly changed since. All references to “climate-positive” have been replaced with weaker terminology. The move was not publicly announced. This fits a broader pattern of Olympic Games promising big on sustainability before weakening or abandoning commitments over time. A quiet retreat from climate positive Research by my team has shown the climate-positive announcement sparked great hope for the future of Brisbane as a regenerative city. We saw Brisbane 2032 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically shift away from the ongoing systemic issues underlying urban development. This vision to embrace genuinely sustainable city design centred on fostering circular economies and net positive development. It would have aligned urban development with ecological stewardship. Beyond just mitigating environmental harm, the games could have set a new standard for sustainability by becoming a catalyst to actively regenerate the natural environment. Yet, on December 7 2023, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated an addendum to the host contract. It effectively downgraded the games’ sustainability obligations. It was signed by Brisbane City Council, the State of Queensland, the Australian Olympic Committee and the IOC between April and May 2024. The commitment for the 2032 Brisbane Games to be climate positive has been removed from the Olympic Host Contract. International Olympic Committee Asked about these amendments, the IOC replied it “took the decision to no longer use the term ‘climate-positive’ when referring to its climate commitments”. But the IOC maintains that: “The requirements underpinning this term, however, and our ambition to address the climate crisis, have not changed”. It said the terminology was changed to ensure that communications “are transparent and easily understood; that they focus on the actions implemented to reduce carbon emissions; and that they are aligned with best practice and current regulations, as well as the principle of continual improvement”. Similarly, a Brisbane 2032 spokesperson told The Conversation the language was changed: to ensure we are communicating in a transparent and easily understood manner, following advice from the International Olympic Committee and recommendations of the United Nations and European Union Green Claims Directive, made in 2023. Brisbane 2032 will continue to plan, as we always have, to deliver a Games that focus on specific measures to deliver a more sustainable Games. But the new wording commits Brisbane 2032 to merely “aiming at removing more carbon from the atmosphere than what the Games project emits”. Crucially, this is no longer binding. The new language makes carbon removal an optional goal rather than a contractual requirement. A stadium in Victoria Park violates the 2032 Olympic Host Contract location requirements. Save Victoria Park, CC BY Aiming high, yet falling short Olympic Games have adopted increasingly ambitious sustainability rhetoric. Yet, action in the real world typically falls short. In our ongoing research with the Politecnico di Torino, Italy, we analysed sustainability commitments since the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. We found they often change over time. Initial promises are either watered down or abandoned altogether due to political, financial, and logistical pressures. Construction activities for the Winter Olympic Games 2014 in Sochi, Russia, irreversibly damaged the Western Caucasus – a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Rio 2016 failed to clean up Guanabara Bay, despite its original pledge to reduce pollutants by 80%. Rio also caused large-scale deforestation and wetland destruction. Ancient forests were cleared for PyeongChang 2018 ski slopes. Our research found a persistent gap between sustainability rhetoric and reality. Brisbane 2032 fits this pattern as the original promise of hosting climate-positive games is at risk of reverting to business as usual. Victoria Park controversy In 2021, a KPMG report for the Queensland government analysed the potential economic, social and environmental benefits of the Brisbane 2032 games. It said the government was proposing to deliver the climate-positive commitment required to host the 2032 games through a range of initiatives. This included “repurposing and upgrading existing infrastructure with enhanced green star credentials”. But plans for the Olympic stadium have changed a great deal since then. Plans to upgrade the Brisbane Cricket Ground, commonly known as the Gabba, have been replaced by a new stadium to be built in Victoria Park. Victoria Park is Brisbane’s largest remaining inner-city green space. It is known to Indigenous peoples as Barrambin (the windy place). It is listed on the Queensland Heritage Register due to its great cultural significance. Page 90 of the Olympic Host Contract prohibits permanent construction “in statutory nature areas, cultural protected areas and World Heritage sites”. Local community groups and environmental advocates have vowed to fight plans for a Victoria Park stadium. This may include a legal challenge. The area of Victoria Park (64 hectares) compared with Central Park (341h), Regent’s Park (160h), Bois de Vicennes (995h). Save Victoria Park What next? The climate-positive commitment has been downgraded to an unenforceable aspiration. A new Olympic stadium has been announced in direct violation of the host contract. Will Brisbane 2032 still leave a green legacy? Greater transparency and public accountability are needed. Otherwise, the original plan may fall short of the positive legacy it aspired to, before the Olympics even begin. Marcus Foth receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a Senior Associate with Outside Opinion, a team of experienced academic and research consultants. He is chair of the Principal Body Corporate for the Kelvin Grove Urban Village, chair of Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance, and a member of the Queensland Greens.

Brisbane 2032 was supposed to be the first ‘climate-positive’ Olympic Games. But a quiet change to the host contract puts the commitment in doubt.

When Brisbane was awarded the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it came with a widely publicised landmark promise: the world’s first “climate-positive” games.

The International Olympic Committee had already announced all games would be climate-positive from 2030. It said this meant the games would be required to “go beyond” the previous obligation of reducing carbon emissions directly related to their operations and offsetting or otherwise “compensating” for the rest.

In other words, achieving net-zero was no longer sufficient. Now each organising committee would be legally required to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than the games emit. This is in keeping with the most widely cited definition of climate-positive.

Both Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028 made voluntary pledges. But Brisbane 2032 was the first contractually required to be climate-positive. This was enshrined in the original 2021 Olympic Host Contract, an agreement between the IOC, the State of Queensland, Brisbane City Council and the Australian Olympic Committee.

But the host contract has quietly changed since. All references to “climate-positive” have been replaced with weaker terminology. The move was not publicly announced. This fits a broader pattern of Olympic Games promising big on sustainability before weakening or abandoning commitments over time.

A quiet retreat from climate positive

Research by my team has shown the climate-positive announcement sparked great hope for the future of Brisbane as a regenerative city. We saw Brisbane 2032 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically shift away from the ongoing systemic issues underlying urban development.

This vision to embrace genuinely sustainable city design centred on fostering circular economies and net positive development. It would have aligned urban development with ecological stewardship. Beyond just mitigating environmental harm, the games could have set a new standard for sustainability by becoming a catalyst to actively regenerate the natural environment.

Yet, on December 7 2023, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated an addendum to the host contract. It effectively downgraded the games’ sustainability obligations.

It was signed by Brisbane City Council, the State of Queensland, the Australian Olympic Committee and the IOC between April and May 2024.

Screenshot providing detail of changes made in the addendum to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Host Contract
The commitment for the 2032 Brisbane Games to be climate positive has been removed from the Olympic Host Contract. International Olympic Committee

Asked about these amendments, the IOC replied it “took the decision to no longer use the term ‘climate-positive’ when referring to its climate commitments”.

But the IOC maintains that: “The requirements underpinning this term, however, and our ambition to address the climate crisis, have not changed”.

It said the terminology was changed to ensure that communications “are transparent and easily understood; that they focus on the actions implemented to reduce carbon emissions; and that they are aligned with best practice and current regulations, as well as the principle of continual improvement”.

Similarly, a Brisbane 2032 spokesperson told The Conversation the language was changed:

to ensure we are communicating in a transparent and easily understood manner, following advice from the International Olympic Committee and recommendations of the United Nations and European Union Green Claims Directive, made in 2023.

Brisbane 2032 will continue to plan, as we always have, to deliver a Games that focus on specific measures to deliver a more sustainable Games.

But the new wording commits Brisbane 2032 to merely “aiming at removing more carbon from the atmosphere than what the Games project emits”.

Crucially, this is no longer binding. The new language makes carbon removal an optional goal rather than a contractual requirement.

A large tree and picnic benches on a hill with views of green, leafy Victoria Park / Barrambin
A stadium in Victoria Park violates the 2032 Olympic Host Contract location requirements. Save Victoria Park, CC BY

Aiming high, yet falling short

Olympic Games have adopted increasingly ambitious sustainability rhetoric. Yet, action in the real world typically falls short.

In our ongoing research with the Politecnico di Torino, Italy, we analysed sustainability commitments since the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. We found they often change over time. Initial promises are either watered down or abandoned altogether due to political, financial, and logistical pressures.

Construction activities for the Winter Olympic Games 2014 in Sochi, Russia, irreversibly damaged the Western Caucasus – a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Rio 2016 failed to clean up Guanabara Bay, despite its original pledge to reduce pollutants by 80%. Rio also caused large-scale deforestation and wetland destruction. Ancient forests were cleared for PyeongChang 2018 ski slopes.

Our research found a persistent gap between sustainability rhetoric and reality. Brisbane 2032 fits this pattern as the original promise of hosting climate-positive games is at risk of reverting to business as usual.

Victoria Park controversy

In 2021, a KPMG report for the Queensland government analysed the potential economic, social and environmental benefits of the Brisbane 2032 games.

It said the government was proposing to deliver the climate-positive commitment required to host the 2032 games through a range of initiatives. This included “repurposing and upgrading existing infrastructure with enhanced green star credentials”.

But plans for the Olympic stadium have changed a great deal since then. Plans to upgrade the Brisbane Cricket Ground, commonly known as the Gabba, have been replaced by a new stadium to be built in Victoria Park.

Victoria Park is Brisbane’s largest remaining inner-city green space. It is known to Indigenous peoples as Barrambin (the windy place). It is listed on the Queensland Heritage Register due to its great cultural significance.

Page 90 of the Olympic Host Contract prohibits permanent construction “in statutory nature areas, cultural protected areas and World Heritage sites”.

Local community groups and environmental advocates have vowed to fight plans for a Victoria Park stadium. This may include a legal challenge.

Four satellite images marking out the area of Victoria Park (64 hectares) compared with Central Park (341h), Regent’s Park (160h), Bois de Vicennes (995h).
The area of Victoria Park (64 hectares) compared with Central Park (341h), Regent’s Park (160h), Bois de Vicennes (995h). Save Victoria Park

What next?

The climate-positive commitment has been downgraded to an unenforceable aspiration. A new Olympic stadium has been announced in direct violation of the host contract. Will Brisbane 2032 still leave a green legacy?

Greater transparency and public accountability are needed. Otherwise, the original plan may fall short of the positive legacy it aspired to, before the Olympics even begin.

The Conversation

Marcus Foth receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a Senior Associate with Outside Opinion, a team of experienced academic and research consultants. He is chair of the Principal Body Corporate for the Kelvin Grove Urban Village, chair of Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance, and a member of the Queensland Greens.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The New Tornado Alley Has Been Hyperactive this Year

More tornadoes than usual have already struck the U.S. in 2025—and many of them have been touching down farther east than they had in the past

The New Tornado Alley Has Been Hyperactive this YearMore tornadoes than usual have already struck the U.S. in 2025—and many of them have been touching down farther east than they had in the pastBy Mark Fischetti edited by Dean VisserEF2 tornado lofting debris from a home in Lockett, Texas. Jason Weingart/Getty ImagesBy last Saturday, the National Weather Service reported that 552 tornadoes had occurred in the U.S. this year—well above the average total of 337 for the period of January through April in 1991–2020. Then an outbreak struck Texas and Oklahoma on Saturday night, killing at least three people. Parts of those two states were at the center of the twister-prone “tornado alley” for most of the 1900s, but this well-known corridor has been shifting steadily eastward in the past three and a half decades. This year many of the touchdowns that caused deaths occurred in Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee, all east of the old alley.In 2023 Scientific American created a map, based on a then new extensive study to show the shift in large tornado outbreaks.Daniel P. Huffman (map); Source: “Examining the Changes in the Spatial Manifestation and the Rate of Arrival of Large Tornado Outbreaks,” by Niloufar Nouri and Naresh Devineni, in Environmental Research Communications, Vol. 4; February 2022 (data)On supporting science journalismIf 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.Why does the U.S. have so many tornadoes?Far more tornadoes strike the U.S. than any other country, and this is because of its geography. Wet, westerly winds from the Pacific Ocean become dry as they pass over the the Rocky Mountains, then become high and cool as they blow farther east. Meanwhile warm, humid air streams northward from the Gulf of Mexico, moving at a lower elevation. Flat terrain along these paths allows the two streams to run into each other. The angles at which they collide tend to create unstable air and wind shear—two big factors that favor tornado formation.Where has tornado alley moved?For decades, most of the largest outbreaks occurred across northeastern Texas, eastern Oklahoma, and western Arkansas and Missouri. But between 1989 and 2019, the focus shifted eastward by 400 to 500 miles, covering western Kentucky and Tennessee plus northern Mississippi and Alabama.Why is tornado alley sliding eastward?Most tornadoes are created by a supercell—a strong thunderstorm with a rotating updraft of air. Supercells tend to form when warm, humid, low-level air interacts with cool, dry, higher air. And climate change is now generating more of that warmer, moister air. Tornadoes also are more likely to develop when the local atmosphere is unstable, and warming increases instability. Climate change is warming the Gulf of Mexico as well, and this can send generous amounts of water vapor into the southeastern U.S.—farther east than it tended to travel decades ago. In addition, climate change has moved the rough north-south boundary between dry western U.S. air and moist, eastern U.S. air about 140 miles to the east.Why does the shift matter?Tornado shelters are common in Texas and Oklahoma but less so in other U.S. regions. The Southeast is more densely populated, and mobile homes (which often fare poorly in windstorms) are prevalent. Tornadoes in the Southeast also occur at night more often than those that strike farther west do, in part because winds can bring ample moisture from the Gulf after dark. And nighttime makes it much harder to see a storm coming.VIDEO

How Pope Francis Influenced Global Climate Change Action

The late Pope Francis supported global climate agreements, advocated for Indigenous people and inspired activism

Three Ways Pope Francis Influenced Global Climate ActionThe late Pope Francis supported global climate agreements, advocated for indigenous people and inspired activismBy Celia Deane-Drummond & The Conversation US Pope Francis receives a plant offered by an Amazon native as he celebrates the closing mass of the Synod on Amazonia on October 27, 2019 at the Saint Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. Andreas Solaro/AFP via Getty ImagesThe following essay is reprinted with permission from The Conversation, an online publication covering the latest research.The death of Pope Francis has been announced by the Vatican. I first met the late Pope Francis at the Vatican after a conference called Saving Our Common Home and the Future of Life on Earth in July 2018. My colleagues and I sensed something momentous was happening at the heart of the church.At that time, I was helping to set up the new Laudato Si’ research institute at the Jesuit Hall at the University of Oxford. This institute is named after the pope’s 2015 encyclical (a letter to bishops outlining church policy) on climate change.On supporting science journalismIf 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.Its mission is rooted in the pope’s religiously inspired vision of integral ecology– a multidisciplinary approach that addresses social and ecological issues of equality and climate breakdown.Originating from Argentina, Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope, witnessed firsthand the destruction of the Amazon and the plight of South America’s poorest communities. His concern for justice for vulnerable communities and protection of the planet go hand in hand with his religious leadership.In his first papal letter, Laudato Si’, he called for all people, not just Catholics, to pay more attention to the frailty of both our planet and its people. What we need is no less than a cultural revolution, he wrote. As a theologian, I recognise that he inspired significant change in three key ways.1. At global climate summitsIt’s no coincidence that Pope Francis released Laudato Si’ at a crucial moment in 2015 prior to the UN climate summit, Cop21, in Paris. A follow-up exhortation, or official statement, Laudate Deum, was released in October 2023, just before another UN climate summit, Cop28 in Dubai.Did the decisions at these global meetings shift because of the influence of Pope Francis? Potentially, yes. In Laudate Deum, Pope Francis showed both encouragement and some frustration about the achievements of international agreements so far.He berated the weakness of international politics and believes that Cop21 represented a “significant moment” because the agreement involved everyone.After Cop21, he pointed out how most nations had failed to implement the Paris agreement which called for limiting the global temperature rise in this century to below 2°C. He also called out the lack of monitoring of those commitments and subsequent political inertia. He tried his best to use his prominent position to hold power to account.Promoting a general moral awareness of the need to act in ecologically responsible ways, both in international politics and at the local level is something that previous popes, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI also did. But, Pope Francis’s efforts went beyond that, by connecting much more broadly with grassroots movements.2. By advocating for Indigenous peopleCop28 marked the first time that close to 200 countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. Pope Francis’s interventions potentially helped shift the needle just a little in the desired direction.His emphasis on listening to Indigenous people may have influenced these gatherings. Compared with previous global climate summits, Cop28 arguably opened up the opportunity to listen to the voices of Indigenous people.However, Indigenous people were still disappointed by the outcomes of Cop28. Pope Francis’s lesser-known exhortation Querida Amazonia, which means “beloved Amazonia,” was published in February 2020.Pope Francis meets with the indigenous community at Muskwa Park in Maskwacis, south of Edmonton, western Canada, on July 25, 2022.Vincenzo Pinto/AFP via Getty ImagesThis exhortation resulted from his conversations with Amazonian communities and helped put Indigenous perspectives on the map. Those perspectives helped shape Catholic social teaching in the encyclical Fratelli Tutti, which means “all brothers and sisters,” published on October 3 2020.For many people living in developing countries where extractive industries such as oil and gas or mining are rife, destruction of land coincides with direct threats to life. Pope Francis advocated for Indigenous environmental defenders, many of whom have been inspired to act by their strong faith.For example, Father Marcelo Pérez, an Indigenous priest living in Mexico, was murdered by drug dealers just after saying mass on October 23 2023 as part of the cost of defending the rights of his people and their land.While 196 environmental defenders were killed globally in 2023, Pope Francis continued to advocate on behalf of the most marginalised people as well as the environment.3. By inspiring activismI’ve been speaking to religious climate activists from different church backgrounds in the UK as part of a multidisciplinary research project on religion, theology and climate change based at the University of Manchester. Most notably, when we asked more than 300 activists representing six different activist groups who most influenced them to get involved in climate action, 61% named Pope Francis as a key influencer.On a larger scale, Laudato Si’ gave rise to the Laudato Si’ movement which coordinates climate activism across the globe. It has 900 Catholic organisations as well as 10,000 of what are known as Laudato Si’ “animators”, who are all ambassadors and leaders in their respective communities.Our institute’s ecclesial affiliate, Tomás Insua, based in Assisi, Italy, originally helped pioneer this global Laudato Si’ movement. We host a number of ecumenical gatherings which bring together people from different denominations and hopefully motivate churchgoers to think and act in a more climate-conscious way.Nobody knows who the next pope might be. Given the current turmoil in politics and shutting down of political will to address the climate emergency, we can only hope they will build on the legacy of Pope Francis and influence political change for the good, from the grassroots frontline right up to the highest global ambitions.This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Trump administration is sabotaging your scientific data | Jonathan Gilmour

Burying our heads in the sand won’t stop the climate crisis or pandemics. We’re taking action to preserve government toolsUnited States science has propelled the country into its current position as a powerhouse of biomedical advancements, technological innovation and scientific research. The data US government agencies produce is a crown jewel – it helps us track how the climate is changing, visualize air pollution in our communities, identify challenges to our health and provide a panoply of other essential uses. Climate change, pandemics and novel risks are coming for all of us – whether we bury our heads in the sand or not – and government data is critical to our understanding of the risks these challenges bring and how to address them.Many of thesedata remains out of sight to those who don’t use them, even though they benefit us all. Over the past few months, the Trump administration has brazenly attacked our scientific establishment through agency firings censorship and funding cuts, and it has explicitly targeted data the American taxpayers have paid for. They’re stealing from us and putting our health and wellbeing in danger – so now we must advocate for these federal resources. Continue reading...

United States science has propelled the country into its current position as a powerhouse of biomedical advancements, technological innovation and scientific research. The data US government agencies produce is a crown jewel – it helps us track how the climate is changing, visualize air pollution in our communities, identify challenges to our health and provide a panoply of other essential uses. Climate change, pandemics and novel risks are coming for all of us – whether we bury our heads in the sand or not – and government data is critical to our understanding of the risks these challenges bring and how to address them.Many of thesedata remains out of sight to those who don’t use them, even though they benefit us all. Over the past few months, the Trump administration has brazenly attacked our scientific establishment through agency firings censorship and funding cuts, and it has explicitly targeted data the American taxpayers have paid for. They’re stealing from us and putting our health and wellbeing in danger – so now we must advocate for these federal resources.That’s why we at the Public Environmental Data Partners are working to preserve critical environmental data. We are a coalition of non-profits, academic institutions, researchers and volunteers who work with federal data to support policy, research, advocacy and litigation work. We are one node in an expansive web of organizations fighting for the data American taxpayers have funded and that benefits us all. The first phase of our work has been to identify environmental justice tools and datasets at risk through conversations with environmental justice groups, current and former employees in local, state, and federal climate and environment offices, and researchers. To date, we have saved over a hundred priority datasets and have reproduced six tools.We’re not fighting for data for data’s sake; we’re fighting for data because it helps us make sense of the world.The utility of many of these datasets and tools comes from the fact that they are routinely updated. While our efforts ensure that we have snapshots of these critical data sources and tools, it will be a huge loss if these cease to be updated entirely. That’s why we are “life rafting” tools outside of government – standing up copies of them on publicly accessible, non-government pages – hoping that we can return them to a future administration that cares about human and environmental health and does not view science as a threat.The second phase is to develop these tools, advocate for better data infrastructure, and increase public engagement. There’s a question of scope – if the government stops sharing National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration data, we don’t have the resources to start monitoring and tracking hurricanes. For many of these critical data sources, the government is the only entity with the resources to collect and publish this data – think about the thousands of weather stations set up around the world or the global air pollution monitors or the spray of satellites orbiting the earth. On the other hand, we do have the expertise to build environmental justice tools that better serve the communities that have borne the brunt of environmental injustice, by co-creating with those communities and by building from what we have saved from the government – like the Council on Environmental Quality’s CEJST, the Environmental Protection Agency’s EJScreen, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability and Environmental Justice tools.A common refrain of the saboteurs is that if these functions that they are targeting are important enough, the states or the private sector will step in to fill the gap. While some of these functions of the federal government are replicable outside of government, privatization will render them less accessible, more expensive and subject to the whims of the markets. The states can also step in and fill some gaps – but many of the biggest challenges that we’re facing are best tackled by a strong federal government. Furthermore, many states are happily joining this anti-science crusade. The climate crisis and pandemics don’t stop politely at state borders. If data collection is left up to the states, the next pandemic will not leave a state untouched because it dismantled its public health department – but such actions will leave a gaping hole in our understanding of the risks to the residents of that state and its neighbors. What’s more, some states do not have the resources to stand up the infrastructure required to shoulder the burden of data collection. Coordination between federal and state governments is essential.Data is being stolen from us; our ability to understand the world is being stolen from us. Americans will die because the Trump administration is abdicating its responsibility to the people – this censorship regime will have dire consequences. That’s why we must stand up for science, we must be loud about the importance of federal data and we must put the brakes on Trump’s un-American agenda.

Zeldin says he can 'absolutely' assure public EPA deregulation efforts won’t harm environment

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said he can “absolutely” assure the public that the various deregulation efforts undergone by the agency will not harm the environment. Zeldin joined CBS News’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, where he was asked if he could ensure the deregulation wouldn’t have an adverse impact. “Absolutely,” he replied....

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin said he can “absolutely” assure the public that the various deregulation efforts undergone by the agency will not harm the environment. Zeldin joined CBS News’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday, where he was asked if he could ensure the deregulation wouldn’t have an adverse impact. “Absolutely,” he replied. “We have to both protect the environment and grow the economy.” Zeldin argued that it’s what the American people are demanding out of the Trump administration. He criticized Biden-era regulations that were “targeting entire industries.” “When the American public went to vote last November, they were talking about economic concerns, about struggling to make ends meet. That includes the cost of being able to heat their home,” he said. “The choice of whether or not to be able to heat their home or fill up their fridge with groceries or afford prescription medication.” Zeldin’s remarks come about a month after the Trump administration unveiled a list of climate and pollution regulations they were looking to dismantle. Under the reversed regulations are some of the Biden administration’s most championed measures, including increasing electric vehicles and quickly closing coal mines. The Trump administration said it was considering rolling back regulations on the neurotoxic mercury from power plans and general air pollution limits for soot. It will also reconsider that climate change poses a threat to the public, laying regulatory groundwork for future climate action. The agency also indicated that it would be closing offices dedicated to fighting pollution in underserved and minority communities. Zeldin said last month that the deregulation efforts would make it easier for Americans to buy a car and heat their homes. Environmentalists have sounded the alarm over the administration’s plans, but Zeldin remained confident that the public and environment would not be negatively impacted. Zeldin noted that there will be a process for public comment and he encourages the public to “weigh in” when they have that opportunity. “I have a zero tolerance for any waste and abuse. It is my duty to ensure that I’m an exceptional steward of tax dollars,” Zeldin later said.

Tackling Climate Change Must Be Job Number One

This Earth Day, on April 22, you can exercise your power. The wellbeing of our planet and its people is at stake.

Amid the historic and sweeping cuts to federal agencies and programs being carried out by the Trump Administration, one truth has been overlooked: If we’re serious about cutting waste and protecting public funds, we must confront climate change head-on. 2024 was a disaster for the planet and its people. According to NASA, it was the warmest year since temperatures began being recorded in 1880. In the United States alone there were twenty-seven climate and weather events that resulted in at least a billion dollars in damages—second only to 2023, with twenty-eight such events.  These events—wildfires, floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes—are becoming the norm, and they’re financially devastating.  In January, tens of thousands of acres and more than 16,000 structures burned in southern California. Last month, more than 150 tornadoes tore across the central and southeastern United States, and, this month, historic floods submerged parts of the Midwest and South. In the parts of the United States at higher risk for climate-related extreme weather events, insurance claims are increasing in cost and frequency. Not surprisingly, these high-risk areas are also now seeing the highest increase in cancellations for failure to pay premiums and nonrenewals by the insurance companies. Without insurance, homeowners may not be able to rebuild when disaster strikes. And climate change isn’t the only escalating crisis. The world is also drowning in plastic. On September 5, 2024—Plastic Overshoot Day—the world exceeded its capacity to manage plastic waste. An estimated 220 million tons of plastic are projected to be produced this year alone, and 66 percent of people live in areas where plastic waste exceeds waste management capacity. Meanwhile, new research shows just how dangerous plastics are to human health. Microplastics have been found in human brains, and the World Wildlife Fund estimates that we may be ingesting up to five grams of plastic each week—the weight of a credit card. Plastics are now linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, impaired fertility, and cognitive development issues. Wildlife, too, is suffering from entanglement, starvation, and habitat loss. Here’s the hopeful part: We already have the tools and the power to change this. EARTHDAY.ORG, the network created by the original organizers of the first Earth Day in 1970, is still leading the charge with our campaign, “Our Power, Our Planet.” The goal is to help individuals, cities, and communities act on the environmental challenges of today. The economic upside of environmental action is massive. New solutions to our current environmental crisis rest in the hands of the people. This Earth Day, on April 22, you can exercise your power. Demonstrate to our leaders in government and business that we are still here, we are a witness to their actions, and we will hold them accountable to do right by our planet and its people.  As consumers, we can choose plastic-free products and demand a reduction and transition in the use of plastics from businesses, while at the same time pressuring government leaders to reduce plastic production globally to end the use of toxic ingredients and to improve waste management systems. We have the collective power not only to protect our planet but also to improve lives and livelihoods. The link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change is now scientifically indisputable. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, 90 percent of global electricity can and should come from renewable sources by 2050. The transition also promises cleaner air, up to thirty million new jobs, and stronger energy independence. Transitioning to clean energy, reducing plastic waste, and increasing resilience to extreme weather are among the most fiscally responsible actions governments can take. This Earth Day, we must recognize that efficiency isn’t just about cutting—it’s about investing in solutions that protect people and our infrastructure. True government efficiency means reducing risk in order to cut costs—not paying billions each year to clean up after preventable disasters. This column was produced for Progressive Perspectives, a project of The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.