GoGreenNation news

Trump’s Election Is a Disaster for the Climate—and an Opportunity

News Feed

Wednesday, November 13, 2024

It was 3 a.m. on Nov. 6. The baby growing inside me kicked hard as yet another set of electoral college votes flashed red on the TV screen for Trump. I couldn’t help but wonder if the kicking was her own act of protest in the waning hours of the 2024 election. After all, this child is the progeny of two environmental activists who have spent decades fighting the climate emergency, particularly federal fossil fuel production. It’s difficult to describe how grim that work looks right now. But this is also the moment to radically reimagine and rebuild our political system into one more responsive to people’s needs. That’s the potential of the next four years. It’s the transformation we need to meet the climate catastrophes ahead, far more powerful than Trump himself. Today’s reality is harsh: The U.S. is the world’s largest oil and gas producer and liquified natural gas exporter, and fossil fuels are the dominant cause of climate chaos. Both the Trump and Biden administrations reached record oil and gas production during their successive terms. The Biden administration had a complex relationship with the climate crisis, embracing both clean and dirty energy as part of an all-of-the-above approach that contradicts scientists’ recommendations to safeguard the planet. Biden passed historic clean energy investments with his signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act. But that act also included additional oil and gas leasing on our public lands and waters. The administration then approved ConocoPhillips’ devastating Willow Project in Alaska, the nation’s largest oil drilling operation. In response to pressure from environmental justice communities and climate advocates, Biden also imposed a moratorium on new federal oil and gas leases in 2021 and paused approvals for new liquified natural gas terminals in 2024—bold moves that were eventually blocked by federal judges. Now we face the unfettered Trump 2.0 era, led by a man who shamelessly cheered “drill, baby, drill” and called climate change a “hoax” at his political rallies and appointed an ExxonMobil CEO to his first cabinet. All signs suggest this administration will focus on gutting environmental protections and padding the bloated pockets of fossil fuel corporations and their billionaire executives and shareholders. For climate activists, Trump’s ascent means federal avenues to fight fossil fuels will be mostly blocked. Our three branches of government, designed to check one another and thwart abusive power, are now at risk of being monopolized by a climate-denying fascist. Trump has vowed to ditch virtually all Biden administration regulations intended to cut carbon emissions and move away from fossil fuels. He will seek to slash positions of federal employees who have spent their careers trying to protect our air, water and wildlife. While the House of Representatives election results aren’t yet final, it’s clear that a Republican Senate will block any climate-fighting legislation. And the Supreme Court is severely compromised by its radical right wing. Trump has promised to replace Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas with younger judges who could secure a radical right majority at the highest court until my unborn daughter is in her 30s. Without material reform to expand the court, this doesn’t bode well for multiple generations of women, as well as the working class, communities of color, migrant families, transgender people and our imperiled ecosystems. As many in the environmental movement have said this past week, we will resist as we did the first time. Biden has committed to filling the nearly 50 open judicial vacancies before leaving office. This move, if he can accomplish it, will be a vital lifeline to ensuring integrity of the judiciary at district and appeals court levels. As a lawyer who was part of the record onslaught of lawsuits against Trump during his first term, I think it’s important to note that 90 percent of our lawsuits were successful. They acted as a crucial bulwark against Trump’s attacks on our climate, health and safety. But resistance alone, which maintains the status quo, is no longer enough. The election rebuked that notion and the world’s environmental chaos confirms it. Our current system has driven the planet to break 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming this year. The Paris Agreement set this threshold as a dangerous tipping point for the world’s poorest communities, who disproportionately bear the brunt of climate change’s horrific consequences while the wealthiest disproportionately pollute. We need to only look at the last year to see that when climate chaos tested the country, the current system failed. The cataclysmic Hurricane Helene, record heat waves, and relentless wildfires stole lives, demolished homes, wiped out jobs, and left survivors in profound social, economic, and emotional instability.To survive and thrive during the next four years and beyond, we have to build our political system anew. We need to reimagine how our politics can be genuinely responsive to what people need—not under the hateful rhetoric of the Republicans or the willful ignorance of the Democrats. Building a responsive political system starts on the ground, driving intersectional solutions to climate chaos that are both community-focused and deeply resourced. The climate movement has to fully break out of its silo and build real political power with youth, labor, working families, migrants, the LGBTQ+ community, and other rights-based groups to grow a broad-based movement that centers justice at every step. Climate activists within the movement have already made important inroads on this intersectional organizing—including last year when hundreds of thousands around the world marched in the first mass mobilization to end fossil fuels—and we have many miles to go.Faced with an intractable federal government, activists can also take their battle to the states, for example fighting the detonation of carbon bombs like the Permian Basin. My colleagues at the Center for Biological Diversity, together with Indigenous, frontline and youth groups, recently filed a landmark case challenging the state of New Mexico for failing to uphold its constitutional duty to control oil and gas pollution and protect the health of its residents. Responding to pressure from local groups, the state also has created health buffers aimed at preventing school children from being poisoned by the oil industry as they sit in their classes.The byzantine world of state public utility commissions is also ground zero for bucking the racist, fossil fuel-dependent electricity system and designing democratic and affordable energy systems that serve the public’s interest. These black-box commissions—long dominated by regulators captured by fossil utilities and drowned in technical jargon to confuse the public—are the frontline of deciding state energy policy.Mass organizing of communities harmed by predatory utility rates, shutoffs and fossil fuel pollution can force these commissions to respond to people, not monopoly utility providers that have stifled alternative distributed energy to protect their profits. State utility commissions can ramp up rooftop and community solar systems and other renewable energy sources that displace polluting fossil fuels, loosen the death grip of corporate utilities, and make electricity affordable, clean and democratic. This isn’t just a fight against the climate emergency—which can feel abstract to some people. It’s a fight against entrenched power that threatens people’s pocketbooks, their health and their livelihoods. While we are all trying to make sense of what happened and why, our next steps are clear. The status quo needs to change, and it’s up to us to organize a new, intersectional mass people’s movement that can create the momentum for and help design the systems that will get us there. It may be that my daughter’s strong kicks are her way of signaling that she’s rearing to go. Fighting for a safe climate means fighting on every front for a chance of something that looks like justice.

But this is also the moment to radically reimagine and rebuild our political system into one more responsive to people’s needs. That’s the potential of the next four years. It’s the transformation we need to meet the climate catastrophes ahead, far more powerful than Trump himself.

Today’s reality is harsh: The U.S. is the world’s largest oil and gas producer and liquified natural gas exporter, and fossil fuels are the dominant cause of climate chaos. Both the Trump and Biden administrations reached record oil and gas production during their successive terms.

The Biden administration had a complex relationship with the climate crisis, embracing both clean and dirty energy as part of an all-of-the-above approach that contradicts scientists’ recommendations to safeguard the planet. Biden passed historic clean energy investments with his signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act. But that act also included additional oil and gas leasing on our public lands and waters. The administration then approved ConocoPhillips’ devastating Willow Project in Alaska, the nation’s largest oil drilling operation. In response to pressure from environmental justice communities and climate advocates, Biden also imposed a moratorium on new federal oil and gas leases in 2021 and paused approvals for new liquified natural gas terminals in 2024—bold moves that were eventually blocked by federal judges.

Now we face the unfettered Trump 2.0 era, led by a man who shamelessly cheered “drill, baby, drill” and called climate change a “hoax” at his political rallies and appointed an ExxonMobil CEO to his first cabinet. All signs suggest this administration will focus on gutting environmental protections and padding the bloated pockets of fossil fuel corporations and their billionaire executives and shareholders.

For climate activists, Trump’s ascent means federal avenues to fight fossil fuels will be mostly blocked. Our three branches of government, designed to check one another and thwart abusive power, are now at risk of being monopolized by a climate-denying fascist.

Trump has vowed to ditch virtually all Biden administration regulations intended to cut carbon emissions and move away from fossil fuels. He will seek to slash positions of federal employees who have spent their careers trying to protect our air, water and wildlife.

While the House of Representatives election results aren’t yet final, it’s clear that a Republican Senate will block any climate-fighting legislation. And the Supreme Court is severely compromised by its radical right wing. Trump has promised to replace Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas with younger judges who could secure a radical right majority at the highest court until my unborn daughter is in her 30s. Without material reform to expand the court, this doesn’t bode well for multiple generations of women, as well as the working class, communities of color, migrant families, transgender people and our imperiled ecosystems.

As many in the environmental movement have said this past week, we will resist as we did the first time. Biden has committed to filling the nearly 50 open judicial vacancies before leaving office. This move, if he can accomplish it, will be a vital lifeline to ensuring integrity of the judiciary at district and appeals court levels.

As a lawyer who was part of the record onslaught of lawsuits against Trump during his first term, I think it’s important to note that 90 percent of our lawsuits were successful. They acted as a crucial bulwark against Trump’s attacks on our climate, health and safety.

But resistance alone, which maintains the status quo, is no longer enough. The election rebuked that notion and the world’s environmental chaos confirms it. Our current system has driven the planet to break 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming this year. The Paris Agreement set this threshold as a dangerous tipping point for the world’s poorest communities, who disproportionately bear the brunt of climate change’s horrific consequences while the wealthiest disproportionately pollute.

We need to only look at the last year to see that when climate chaos tested the country, the current system failed. The cataclysmic Hurricane Helene, record heat waves, and relentless wildfires stole lives, demolished homes, wiped out jobs, and left survivors in profound social, economic, and emotional instability.

To survive and thrive during the next four years and beyond, we have to build our political system anew. We need to reimagine how our politics can be genuinely responsive to what people need—not under the hateful rhetoric of the Republicans or the willful ignorance of the Democrats.

Building a responsive political system starts on the ground, driving intersectional solutions to climate chaos that are both community-focused and deeply resourced. The climate movement has to fully break out of its silo and build real political power with youth, labor, working families, migrants, the LGBTQ+ community, and other rights-based groups to grow a broad-based movement that centers justice at every step. Climate activists within the movement have already made important inroads on this intersectional organizing—including last year when hundreds of thousands around the world marched in the first mass mobilization to end fossil fuels—and we have many miles to go.

Faced with an intractable federal government, activists can also take their battle to the states, for example fighting the detonation of carbon bombs like the Permian Basin. My colleagues at the Center for Biological Diversity, together with Indigenous, frontline and youth groups, recently filed a landmark case challenging the state of New Mexico for failing to uphold its constitutional duty to control oil and gas pollution and protect the health of its residents. Responding to pressure from local groups, the state also has created health buffers aimed at preventing school children from being poisoned by the oil industry as they sit in their classes.

The byzantine world of state public utility commissions is also ground zero for bucking the racist, fossil fuel-dependent electricity system and designing democratic and affordable energy systems that serve the public’s interest. These black-box commissions—long dominated by regulators captured by fossil utilities and drowned in technical jargon to confuse the public—are the frontline of deciding state energy policy.

Mass organizing of communities harmed by predatory utility rates, shutoffs and fossil fuel pollution can force these commissions to respond to people, not monopoly utility providers that have stifled alternative distributed energy to protect their profits. State utility commissions can ramp up rooftop and community solar systems and other renewable energy sources that displace polluting fossil fuels, loosen the death grip of corporate utilities, and make electricity affordable, clean and democratic. This isn’t just a fight against the climate emergency—which can feel abstract to some people. It’s a fight against entrenched power that threatens people’s pocketbooks, their health and their livelihoods.

While we are all trying to make sense of what happened and why, our next steps are clear. The status quo needs to change, and it’s up to us to organize a new, intersectional mass people’s movement that can create the momentum for and help design the systems that will get us there. It may be that my daughter’s strong kicks are her way of signaling that she’s rearing to go. Fighting for a safe climate means fighting on every front for a chance of something that looks like justice.

Read the full story here.

Photos courtesy of

Related News

What makes middle school even worse? Climate anxiety.

Students have big feelings about climate change. Most teachers don’t know how to help.

When the Marshall Fire swept through the grassy plains and foothills outside Boulder, Colorado, in late December 2021, it burned down more than 1,000 homes — and left many young people shaken. “It can just be pure anxiety — you’re literally watching a fire march its way across, and it’s really, really close,” said David Thesenga, an 8th grade science teacher. Some of his students at Alexander Dawson School in the small town of Lafayette lost their homes to the fire. As more students come to school traumatized by living through fires, floods, and other extreme weather, teachers are being asked to do more than educate — they’re also acting as untrained therapists. While Thesenga’s private school has psychologists on staff, they don’t provide mental health resources dedicated to helping students work through distress related to the changing climate, whether it’s trauma from a real event or more general anxiety about an overheated future. “Sometimes you don’t need a generic [tool],” he said. “What you need is something very specific to the trauma or to the thing that is causing you stress, and that is climate change.” Middle school teachers around the country say they feel unprepared to help their students cope with the stress of living on a warming planet, according to a new survey of 63 middle school teachers across the United States by the Climate Mental Health Network and the National Environmental Education Foundation. Nearly all of the teachers surveyed reported seeing emotional reactions from their students when the subject of climate change came up, but many of them lacked the resources to respond. “Students are showing up in the classroom with a range of climate emotions that can be debilitating,” said Sarah Newman, the founder and executive director of the Climate Mental Health Network. “This is impacting students’ ability to learn and how they’re engaging in the classroom.” One of the biggest concerns Thesenga hears from his students is that climate change feels out of their control and thinking about it seems overwhelming. “They just feel powerless, and that’s probably the scariest thing for them,” he said. Katie Larsen, who teaches 6th and 9th grade biology at The Foote School in New Haven, Connecticut, says that her students have grown up knowing that climate change is a problem, but learning about the extent of environmental damage — like how many species go extinct every year — often surprises them. She tries to shift the conversation away from doom and gloom and toward something more hopeful, such as what people can do to save ecosystems. “I think the more positive you can make it, and action-oriented, the better,” she said. A growing body of research shows that young people’s anxieties about climate change can affect their relationships and their ability to think and function. Last November, a study in The Lancet Planetary Health found that 16- to 25-year-olds were struggling with their worries about climate change. Of the more than 15,000 young Americans surveyed, 43 percent reported that it hurt their mental health, and 38 percent said that it made their daily life worse. Then there’s the matter that surviving a specific disaster can be traumatizing for people of any age. Living through a hurricane or flood can lead to an increased risk of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, while wildfires have been connected with anxiety, substance abuse, and sleeping problems, according to a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2022. These problems are especially acute for children and adolescents. An 8-year-old walks through what remains of her grandfather’s house in a neighborhood decimated by the Marshall Fire in Louisville, Colorado. Michael Ciaglo / Getty Images To address the lack of resources for dealing with distress related to climate change, the Climate Mental Health Network and the National Environmental Education Foundation developed a new toolkit that teachers can use in their middle school classrooms. One handout, called the “climate emotions wheel,” helps students identify their emotions, arranging them into four main categories — anger, sadness, fear, and positivity — and then breaking those down to more specific feelings, such as betrayal, grief, anxiety, and empowerment. While science classrooms are a natural fit for these resources, Megan Willig, who helped create the activities with the National Environmental Education Foundation, says she hopes that teachers can use them in English, social studies, and art classes, among other subjects. They’re designed to be quick and ready to use. “Teachers shared that they’re busy, and they have a lot on their plates,” said Willig, who’s a former teacher herself. The exercises prompt students to reflect on how other young people are processing distress over climate change and explore how to turn their anxiety into action. One activity in the toolkit introduces “negativity bias,” referring to how the brain often latches onto negative thoughts, and asks students to counter that tendency by brainstorming happier emotions related to the Earth. Another prompts students to consider their “spheres of influence” and think about what they can do to contribute to solving climate change in their inner circle, their community, and in the wider world. Read Next How climate disasters hurt adolescents’ mental health Zoya Teirstein The toolkit was piloted last fall by 40 teachers who volunteered in 25 states. Afterward, all of the teachers who participated said they’d recommend it to a colleague, and a majority reported feeling more confident addressing students’ emotions — as well as their own. The tools were successful in red states like Utah, Texas, Mississippi, Florida, West Virginia, and Indiana, as well as blue ones like New York and Washington. Newman thinks it’s a sign that the need for these kinds of resources isn’t a partisan issue. She views middle school as a crucial moment to offer mental health support. “Kids are really becoming more aware of climate change and what’s actually happening,” she said. “It’s often the first time that they’re going to be learning about it in school. They have more access to social media and online news, which is amplifying their awareness and knowledge about climate change, and they’re going through really formative times.” Asked if he would try the exercises, Thesenga said he would give them a shot. “Absolutely, why the hell not?” he said. In his Facebook groups, he’s seen fellow teachers say they avoid the subject altogether in class. “That is not the answer — your students want to know,” Thesenga said. “You’re the frontline person. You have to buck it up, and you have to do this.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline What makes middle school even worse? Climate anxiety. on Apr 3, 2025.

Climate

Education

Government

States lead on landfill methane emissions as federal action stalls

Landfills are a major problem for the climate: They’re the United States’ third-largest source of methane, a greenhouse gas that traps 80 times as much heat as carbon dioxide in the short term. Last year, the federal government was poised to start reining in these emissions: In July, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would release new regulations to better detect and prevent methane leaks from landfills. The Trump administration, which has announced its intention to cut the EPA’s budget by 65% or more, seems unlikely to follow through on these plans or any other policy limiting landfill emissions. But in the absence of federal leadership, states like Michigan, Oregon, Colorado, and California are moving forward with their own plans. Regulatory efforts are underway among these climate leaders to implement stricter rules for landfill operators and require the use of novel technology, like drones and satellites that monitor leaks. “These state regulations could be hugely impactful,” said Elizabeth Schroeder, the senior communications strategist at Industrious Labs, a nonprofit working to transform heavy industry. They not only have the potential to make a real dent on greenhouse gas emissions, Schroeder said, but could also set a national example for other states looking to curtail methane pollution. How states can step up regulation on landfills Currently, the EPA requires landfill operators to cover trash to minimize odor, disease risk, and fire — a practice that also minimizes methane leaks. This usually looks like a layer of dirt or ash, followed by tarps. Operators of large landfills must also install extraction systems, networks of pipes that collect methane and other gases from inside the landfill. The extraction systems then pump these emissions to burn off at flares or, increasingly, to biogas energy projects. However, landfills are dynamic systems — over time, as waste breaks down and shifts, cover develops holes and pipes crack. Maintenance is often imperfect. An analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund found that between 2021 and 2023, more than one-third of landfills had at least one violation of EPA standards. Operators of landfills that exceed a specific emissions threshold are supposed to conduct quarterly “walking” surveys for leaks. But experts say that these surveys are infrequent and often miss large portions of the landfill. States have an opportunity to step up those standards — not only by lowering emissions limits but by improving the maintenance and monitoring of landfills, said Tom Frankiewicz, the waste-sector methane expert at climate-focused think tank RMI. “While we would love to see all this done comprehensively in one national-level regulation, it’s states that are taking the lead on deployment of advanced technology and setting new best practices for landfills.” In 2010, California became the first state to develop standards for landfills that were stricter than federal rules. Those included a lower emissions threshold at which landfills had to install gas collection systems and a requirement that operators enclose flares so that the methane burns more efficiently. Other states, including Oregon and Washington, followed suit and in some respects even surpassed California, said Katherine Blauvelt, the circular-economy director for Industrious Labs. But despite this early progress, landfills in these states and elsewhere continue to spew methane and undermine climate goals. Now, though, Colorado has taken the lead on a new generation of landfill emissions regulations. The state is developing what some experts are calling a first-of-a-kind program for monitoring and responding to methane leaks from landfills. As part of the initiative, Colorado plans to implement remote-sensing technologies, including fly-overs and satellites, to detect methane leaks, which operators would then be required to address. “Colorado would be the first state to incorporate that into a rule where, instead of relying on voluntary follow-up, there would actually be requirements around mitigating emissions that are detected,” said Ellie Garland, a senior associate focusing on methane policy at RMI. A draft rule will be publicly available in April, with a final vote expected in August. In addition, Colorado’s Department of Public Health and Environment is considering additional requirements for landfills that include stricter rules for the maintenance of cover and a lower threshold at which landfills are required to report and control emissions, Garland said. Currently only 15 of the state’s about 50 active landfills do this, although Colorado began requiring 35 more landfills to begin reporting emissions starting on March 31, said Clay Clarke, the manager of the climate change program at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Not all landfills are required to control emissions. That’s because smaller landfills don’t generate enough gas to collect and flare. Under proposed regulations, many of these landfills would need to pipe gas to biofilters — a system that uses microorganisms to digest methane.

Climate

CO2

Government

Federal Judge Questions Whether EPA Move to Rapidly Cancel 'Green Bank' Grants Was Legal

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Wednesday questioned a Department of Justice attorney over whether the Environmental Protection Agency violated the law when it terminated $20 billion in green bank grants allegedly without following the proper process

A federal judge on Wednesday pressed an attorney for the Environmental Protection Agency about whether the agency broke the law when it swiftly terminated $20 billion worth of grants awarded to nonprofits for a green bank by allegedly bulldozing past proper rules and raising flimsy accusations of waste and fraud.In a nearly three-hour hearing, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said the government had provided no substantial new evidence of wrongdoing by the nonprofits and considered technical arguments that could decide whether she is even the right person to hear the case.Climate United Fund and other groups had sued the EPA, its Administrator Lee Zeldin and Citibank, which held the grant money, saying they had illegally denied the groups access to funds awarded last year to help finance clean energy and climate-friendly projects. They want Chutkan to give them access to those funds again, saying the freeze had paralyzed their work and jeopardized their basic operations.“What plaintiffs are saying is if you wanted to stop that money from going out, you should have gone through the procedures under the” law, Chutkan said, adding that instead of doing that, the EPA appears to have demanded the bank simply freeze the funds and then quickly terminated the grants.The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, commonly referred to as a “green bank,” was authorized by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. However, its goals run counter to the Trump administration’s opposition to climate-friendly policies and its embrace of fossil fuels. Zeldin quickly made the bank a target, characterizing the grants as a “gold bar” scheme marred by conflicts of interest and potential fraud.“Twenty billion of your tax dollars were parked at an outside financial institution, in a deliberate effort to limit government oversight — doling out your money through just eight pass-through, politically connected, unqualified and in some cases brand-new” nonprofit institutions, Zeldin said in a previously posted video.The nonprofits say Zeldin and the EPA led an evidence-free scheme to end the grants, in violation of the law and their contracts, which only allowed termination in limited circumstances like fraud or major performance failures – not ideological opposition.Chutkan noted that EPA allegedly demanded Citibank stop providing funds that had already been awarded without letting the nonprofits know or responding to their questions. “Is that lawful?” she asked.“It certainly is lawful, your honor. I don't know if it is the best course of action or the one that in retrospect that we all wish the agency would have followed,” responded Department of Justice Attorney Marcus Sacks for the EPA. The EPA said it does not comment on pending litigation.The Trump administration says that it was allowed to terminate the contracts based on oversight concerns and shifting priorities. The nonprofits are trying to make grand constitutional and statutory arguments that simply don’t apply, the government said.“At bottom, this is just a run-of-the-mill (albeit large) contract dispute,” federal officials said in a court filing. That argument is important. If the government successfully argues the case is a contract dispute, then they say it should be heard by a different court that can only award a lump sum – not force the government to keep the grants in place. Federal officials argue there is no law or provision in the Constitution that compels EPA to make these grants to these groups.The nonprofits, which also include the Coalition for Green Capital and Power Forward Communities, argue the EPA was focused on ending the grants quickly, even if their methods violated the law. They said the agency appeared to have pressured a high-ranking prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Washington office to pressure Citibank to freeze the funds. That prosecutor resigned rather than follow through. Then the Trump administration pushed Citibank to freeze the money, which the bank did, according to the nonprofits.“The purported terminations are the fruit of EPA’s clandestine, weekslong effort to freeze plaintiffs’ money without ever giving plaintiff notice of what was happening or an opportunity to correct it,” according to the nonprofits.The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environmentCopyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Climate

Energy

Government

The climate movement needs lawyers. This ‘pro bono bootcamp’ helps connect the dots.

It's not just high-profile lawsuits — climate solutions need contracts, corporate advice, and IP filings.

The vision “Every lawyer has skills that can help the climate. We’ve just gotta make the connections.” — Environmental lawyer and advocate Matthew Karmel The spotlight “How many lawyers does it take to break a Guinness World Record?” Matthew Karmel posed this question on LinkedIn in February, adding, “No, this isn’t a bad lawyer joke; it’s a reason for climate optimism.” Karmel, a principal at the law firm Offit Kurman and the chair of its environmental and sustainability law practice group, is one of the organizers of the Climate Pro Bono Bootcamp, a two-day virtual conference dedicated to helping more lawyers and legal professionals figure out how to donate their time and skills to advance climate work. When people — including lawyers themselves — think of the intersection between climate and law, their minds may go straight to high-profile climate lawsuits or other legal action aimed at holding big polluters and inactive governments accountable. But there are many other forms of legal support that climate causes might need, from simple contracts to forming a new business or nonprofit to legal defense. “There are so many attorneys working at large law firms, small law firms — attorneys everywhere who just don’t do litigation, but are still very passionate about climate change and want to apply their skills in that way,” said Stephanie Demetry, the executive director of Green Pro Bono, an organization that matches attorneys with companies, nonprofits, grassroots leaders, and others who need legal assistance to advance climate solutions. Karmel had the idea for the conference in late 2023, after he had been working with Green Pro Bono for a few years. “I was sitting there thinking, Why isn’t everyone doing this?” he recalled. “The things I’m doing aren’t unique. It doesn’t require specialized legal skills. It requires passion, and the general legal knowledge that every lawyer has.” He approached Demetry with the idea of hosting a training to help demystify what climate-related pro bono work can entail and build up the network of attorneys interested in offering it. They held the first bootcamp in January of 2024 and had around 700 attendees — far exceeding their expectations. After the event, Demetry said, Green Pro Bono more than doubled the number of attorneys in its network and also saw a 53 percent increase in the number of projects that got picked up. But for this year’s bootcamp, planned for late April, they’re aiming to increase that attendance — and setting the ambitious goal of growing it a hundredfold. That’s the number that would break a Guinness World Record for the largest attendance at a virtual law conference in one week (yes, this entry truly does exist). It might be a longer-term goal, but it’s one they’re serious about. Breaking the record, Karmel said, would be a powerful way to demonstrate the growing interest in climate action among the legal community, and also an opportunity to reach thousands more attorneys, students, and others with the event’s key message: that you don’t have to choose between your day job and working for the causes you care about. I spoke with Karmel and Demetry about the goals of the conference, the wide array of skills and expertise that legal professionals have to offer to climate solutions, and the value of having pro bono work built into a career. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. Q. Would you say that there is a growing appetite among legal professionals to volunteer their time and skills for the climate cause? Demetry: From our organizational perspective, absolutely. I joined [Green Pro Bono] three years ago, and every year since I’ve been there, there has been huge percentage growth in our network of attorneys who want to take on cases — but there’s also a huge increase in the amount of clients and work that we actually have. So it’s growing in a proportional rate, which is great. We’re seeing a lot of interest from younger people, from students, too. Even within the last couple of months, I would say we’ve gotten a lot of attorney volunteer requests, but also organizational volunteer requests — people who are just trying to get involved in this space in some way, at a time where it’s quite pivotal. Karmel: The legal industry has a tremendous history of pro bono. That volunteerism is something that’s baked into the legal industry. When I started as a junior lawyer, my firm encouraged it. I got credit at the firm for doing pro bono. This is something that the legal community recognizes as something we have a responsibility to do, and that benefits the rule of law. Lawyers see themselves in this white-knight sort of way, and I do, too. The access to justice — we facilitate the movings of policy and of everything through law. That gives a tremendous opportunity for lawyers. Q. Like you mentioned, this isn’t just about environmental law or high-profile climate lawsuits. What are some of the other ways that lawyers might help facilitate climate solutions? Karmel: I’m an environmental lawyer. That’s what I do. But the pro bono work I do isn’t even limited to environment — it’s oftentimes even the reverse of what people think. There is some, but the majority of the climate pro bono requests are not environmental requests. That first thing is almost a misnomer. I’ve done a software licensing agreement for a software-as-a-service sustainability platform for art galleries. The idea was, art galleries don’t have enough of their own resources to hire sustainability coordinators, so let’s have this software that takes in inputs of what you’re doing at the gallery and outputs sustainability recommendations. They needed a simple agreement — that was just a very simple licensing and funding agreement, and had nothing to do with environmental law. Just a basic contract. And anyone with basic contracting skills and access to a couple of CLE [Continuing Legal Education] online videos could have done this. There’s lots of things like that. Basic corporate contracts, basic corporate formation, that’s a huge part of it. There’s also lots of policy-based things which aren’t purely environmental. Demetry: I see a lot of intellectual property requests that are very, very pivotal to these organizations. Recently, we helped a medical organization that was developing a compactable syringe to get a patent on that technology. And their projected environmental impact was a 40 percent reduction in the carbon emissions from shipping syringes to rural and remote medical settings around the world. We try at Green Pro Bono to be as expansive and as non-gatekeeping as possible with the clients that we accept. We also get a lot of nonprofits that are looking for advice on, “Hey, we wanna start maybe some sort of community thrift store to bring in additional income to the nonprofit. Is that appropriate? Can a nonprofit do that?” The simple questions that can make a big difference to those organizations, and help them to reinvest the money they would be spending on legal services into their actual innovations and the services they’re providing in their communities — it’s kind of a backdoor way to use the lawyering skills that you have to expedite those innovations and make sure those organizations can continue to carry out their mission. So you’re maybe not directly involved in anything that looks climate-like at all on the backend, but the impact of what you’re doing is actually moving that needle forward a lot. Q. How does all of that inform your curriculum for the bootcamp? What are you planning to cover this year? Karmel: This second year, we’ve really grouped around two topics. One is the master topic of litigation and advocacy, and two is the master topic of corporate work or transactional work. We have one day devoted to each of those pillars. So in the first day, we’re gonna focus on litigation and advocacy and talk about creating policy, advocating for policy, what those skills look like, how that gets done. Then also: What litigation is happening right now? How is litigation that’s happening, matters before the Supreme Court, how do those things impact pro bono that is getting done, and how is it going to continue to impact it? On day two, we’re going to dive deeper than we did last year on specific transactional-related issues and give people skills and give them perspectives on using those. Q. I know that you all are going for a Guinness World Record. Can you tell me a little bit more about that? Karmel: We’re thinking about transformation constantly. That’s why we created this. We’re looking at the world, seeing how it can be different — seeing this untapped resource and saying, What can we do to crack this thing open? What can we do that is going to excite people, energize them? And honestly, I was just randomly brainstorming and someone posted online about a Guinness World Record they had seen and how weird it was. So I just went online, and they have a Guinness World Record for the largest online virtual law conference, and I did not know that such a world record existed. It was [in 2020], about 66,000 people on legal impacts relating to COVID and pandemic-time issues — which were huge, hot issues. And we thought, Geez, how impactful would it be to break that record? For climate, for lawyers, for the country where it is now — it would be such a statement to break that record this year, to say no matter what is going on, we did that. We know that people are coming to this to be part of a community, to be part of a movement that’s trying to do this work. And so it was a way to try to make it even more meaningful, to take it up to the next level. It is partially a cheeky idea: 700 was beyond our concept last year — 66,000, frankly, we haven’t even figured out how we’re gonna pay for the Zoom if we get 66,000 people on there. But we will! If we can do that, we will. Stephanie, what did you think when I came to you with this idea? Demetry: Yeah, I thought it was wild. And exciting, though. I think it’s good to shoot for the moon in these situations. It’s what the moment demands, so why not try? Last year we only had a month or two to prepare, and we really weren’t even sure if we’d get a hundred people. So we were very invigorated coming off of that. Karmel: We’re gonna break it one year. My goal is to have this conference be something that happens every year until forever. I was going to say until it’s not needed anymore, but the fact is, this will always be needed because this is about showing people that they can craft careers that matter to them. You don’t have to choose between a soulless job and a soulful job. Any job can be something that you bring your heart and soul to. — Claire Elise Thompson More exposure Read: an opinion piece by Karmel about the importance of pro bono work (Grist) Read: about the end of the youth climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States — and the movement it ignited (Grist) Read: an interview with legal scholar Carol Liao about how climate change will impact different areas of law, and why “all lawyers will need to be climate lawyers” (Canadian Lawyer) Read: a profile of Julian Aguon, an attorney from Guam fighting for climate justice on a global stage (Grist) A parting shot Another example of a group of professionals with special skills and resources, who have often rallied to support causes and communities, is chefs. In the aftermath of the L.A. fires earlier this year, a number of chefs and restauranteurs offered free meals to those affected by the fires and to first responders. Here, a taco truck contracted by the food-aid organization World Central Kitchen set up shop to feed emergency and utility workers. IMAGE CREDITS Vision: Mia Torres / Grist Parting shot: Robyn Beck / AFP via Getty Images This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The climate movement needs lawyers. This ‘pro bono bootcamp’ helps connect the dots. on Apr 2, 2025.

Climate

Business

Food

Under a Coalition government, the fate of Australia’s central climate policy hangs in the balance

Both major parties agree Australia must reach net-zero emissions. That’s why winding back the safeguard mechanism would be reckless policy.

RobynCharnley/ShutterstockThe future of Australia’s key climate policy is uncertain after Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said a Coalition government would review the measure, known as the “safeguard mechanism”, which is designed to limit emissions from Australia’s largest industrial polluters. According to the Australian Financial Review, if the Coalition wins office it will consider relaxing the policy, as part of its plan to increase domestic gas supplies. Evidence suggests weakening the mechanism would be a mistake. In fact, it could be argued the policy does not go far enough to force polluting companies to curb their emissions. Both major parties now accept Australia must reach net-zero emissions by 2050. This bipartisan agreement should make one thing clear: winding back the safeguard mechanism would be reckless policy. What’s the safeguard mechanism again? The safeguard mechanism began under the Coalition government in 2016. It now applies to 219 large polluting facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year. These facilities are in sectors such as electricity, mining, gas, manufacturing, waste and transport. Together, they produce just under one-third of Australia’s emissions. Under the policy’s original design, companies were purportedly required to keep their emissions below a certain cap, and buy carbon credits to offset any emissions over the cap. However, loopholes meant the cap was weakly enforced. This meant greenhouse gas pollution from the facilities actually increased – rising from 131.3 million tonnes to 138.7 million tonnes in the first six years of the policy. Labor strengthened the safeguard mechanism after it won office, by setting a hard cap for industrial emissions. The Coalition voted against the reforms. Dutton has since labelled the safeguard mechanism a “carbon tax” – a claim that has been debunked. Some members of the Coalition reportedly believe the policy makes manufacturers globally uncompetitive. Now, according to media reports, a Coalition government would review the safeguard mechanism with a view to weakening it, in a bid to bolster business and increase gas supply. Why the safeguard mechanism should be left alone Weakening the safeguard mechanism would lead to several problems. First, it would mean large facilities, including new coal and gas projects, would be permitted to operate without meaningful limits on their pollution. This threatens Australia’s international climate obligations. Second, if polluters were no longer required to buy carbon offsets, this would disrupt Australia’s carbon market. As the Clean Energy Regulator notes, the safeguard mechanism is the “dominant source” of demand for Australian carbon credits. In the first quarter of 2024, about 1.2 million carbon-credit units were purchased by parties wanting to offset their emissions. The vast majority were purchased by companies meeting compliance obligations under the safeguard mechanism or similar state rules. If companies are no longer required to buy offsets, or they buy fewer offsets, this would hurt those who sell carbon credits. Carbon credits are earned by organisations and individuals who abate carbon – through measures such as tree planting or retaining vegetation. The activities are often carried out by farmers and other landholders, including Indigenous organisations. Indigenous-led carbon projects have delivered jobs, cultural renewal and environmental benefits. The safeguard mechanism, together with the government pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, also provides certainty for the operators of polluting facilities. Many in the business sector have called for the policy to remain unchanged. And finally, winding back the safeguard mechanism would send a troubling signal to the world: that Australia is stepping back from climate action. Now is not the time to abdicate our responsibilities on climate change. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen dramatically since 1960. This increase is driving global warming and climate change, leading to extreme weather events which will only worsen. A hard-won policy The safeguard mechanism has not had time to deliver meaningful outcomes. And it is far from perfect – but it is hard-won, and Australia needs it. The 2023 reforms to the mechanism were designed to support trade-exposed industries, while encouraging companies to invest in emissions reduction. Undoing this mechanism would risk our climate goals. It would leave the government limited means to curb pollution from Australia’s largest emitters, and muddy the roadmap to net-zero. It would also create uncertainty for all carbon market participants, including the polluting facilities themselves. Felicity Deane does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Climate

Government

CO2

Suggested Viewing

The Wisdom To Survive: Climate Change, Capitalism & Community

This film reveals how diverse environmental problems, from climate change to species extinction to ruined ecosystems, are all ultimately rooted in the “growth at all costs” attitude that pervades modern industrial society. Through beautiful and disturbing images and interviews with ecological scholars, spiritual leaders and activists, The Wisdom to Survive argues that the survival of humanity and most living beings on the planet will not come from technology, but from a profound raising of consciousness and deep spiritual transformation of humans who finally realize that we must live differently on planet earth.

Climate

Business

Extinction

A Whale's Worth

The Canary Islands are a whale Paradise. Their waters hold more than a third of the world’s species, making it the most important enclave in the European Union, and one of the most relevant globally.Today, this paradise is being threatened by different human pressures, such as boat collisions, plastic consumption and climate change. This struggle aggravates their mortality each year and makes us face ourselves as the ones responsible for their survival, forcing us to rethink how much we value these animals currently.How much is a whale worth? Can you put a price on the life of such a majestic animal? How can we estimate that value? How has the value that human beings give to whales changed throughout history? What are whales used and needed for?To answer all these questions, Natacha Aguilar, an eminent Canarian scientist and whale expert, backed up by a group of scientists and non-profit organizations, will guide us in a spectacular journey through time and space to discover the never-told stories of the lives of these animals.

Animals

Culture

Climate

Living with Landslides

This film documents the devastating costs of landslides to both private property owners and taxpayers, and offers solutions. Climate change means landslides will only get worse.

Land Use

Education

Climate

The Invisible Mammal - The Bat Rescuer

Bats are struggling to survive, specifically in North America, where white nose syndrome is causing a sharp decline of certain species. Pertinent issues: climate change, habitat destruction, what can humans must do to prevent extinction.

Animals

Climate

Extinction

Can Hydroponic Farming Help Reduce the Effects of Climate Change?

"Can Hydroponic Farming Help Reduce the Effects of Climate Change?" is an entertaining and educational short film. Rachel and her remarkable robot companion, Rex, witness the dire consequences of climate change through news reports of devastating natural disasters. When Rex encounters an alien emissary, he embarks on a journey to a ruined world where pollution and climate change led to the collapse of an entire civilization. Returning to Earth the three main causes of global warming are reveal—electricity production, transportation, and wasteful agriculture—and stress the importance of transitioning to clean energy sources, electric transport, and hydroponic farming. Rex takes on the mission of educating robots and humans alike about combating climate change. The film ends with a global commitment to address the crisis and a poignant celebration of Rex's role in this vital endeavor, reminding us of the urgency to protect our planet from climate catastrophe.

Conservation

Education

Climate

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

GoGreenNation news

Trump’s Election Is a Disaster for the Climate—and an Opportunity

Related News

What makes middle school even worse? Climate anxiety.

States lead on landfill methane emissions as federal action stalls

Federal Judge Questions Whether EPA Move to Rapidly Cancel 'Green Bank' Grants Was Legal

The climate movement needs lawyers. This ‘pro bono bootcamp’ helps connect the dots.

Under a Coalition government, the fate of Australia’s central climate policy hangs in the balance

Suggested Viewing

The Wisdom To Survive: Climate Change, Capitalism & Community

A Whale's Worth

Living with Landslides

The Invisible Mammal - The Bat Rescuer

Can Hydroponic Farming Help Reduce the Effects of Climate Change?

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

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

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

Trump’s Election Is a Disaster for the Climate—and an Opportunity

Related News

What makes middle school even worse? Climate anxiety.

States lead on landfill methane emissions as federal action stalls

Federal Judge Questions Whether EPA Move to Rapidly Cancel 'Green Bank' Grants Was Legal

The climate movement needs lawyers. This ‘pro bono bootcamp’ helps connect the dots.

Under a Coalition government, the fate of Australia’s central climate policy hangs in the balance

Suggested Viewing

The Wisdom To Survive: Climate Change, Capitalism & Community

A Whale's Worth

Living with Landslides

The Invisible Mammal - The Bat Rescuer

Can Hydroponic Farming Help Reduce the Effects of Climate Change?

Join us to forgea sustainable future

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

Join us to forge
a sustainable future