Earth Day began as an act of collective belief — a conviction that ordinary people, organized and determined, could force a reckoning with the most powerful industrial interests in the world. That belief was shared, from the very beginning, by the labor movement. The first Earth Day was supported by the United Auto Workers, an expression of the belief that the fate of working people and the fate of the planet are intertwined.

As Executive Director of the BlueGreen Alliance, Jason Walsh leads the only national organization dedicated to uniting the labor and environmental movements — a coalition that collectively represents roughly 50 million members. Under his leadership, BGA played a central role in getting the Inflation Reduction Act passed, the largest investment in clean energy and domestic manufacturing in American history. Additionally, he served as the Director of the Office of Strategic Programs in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and as a Senior Policy Advisor in the White House Domestic Policy Council during the Obama administration. Named one of Washington D.C.’s 500 Most Influential People by the Washingtonian, Walsh brings more than 25 years of experience in climate, clean energy, and workforce policy. 

EARTHDAY.ORG President Kathleen Rogers sat down with Walsh to talk about the origins of the BlueGreen Alliance, what a just transition actually looks like for workers on the ground, and what’s at stake as rollbacks to the Inflation Reduction Act threaten the clean energy economy of the future.

Jason Walsh is the Executive Director of the BlueGreen Alliance, a national coalition uniting labor and environmental organizations representing roughly 50 million members. He has spent more than 25 years working at the intersection of climate, clean energy, and workers’ rights, previously serving in the Obama administration and playing a central role in getting the Inflation Reduction Act passed.

Earth Day 2026 and its theme, Our Power, Our Planet, highlights how people everywhere — from classrooms and local neighborhoods to national institutions — can drive environmental progress through education, advocacy, and community engagement.

Q: Jason, welcome. To start, can you tell us a bit about your background — what brought you into this work, and what keeps you committed to it today?

I’ll go back to the summer of 1990, when I was living in Seattle, Washington, and just starting to cut my teeth as an activist. In the Pacific Northwest at the time — this was the time of the Timber Wars, which are still ongoing but were really hot in 1990 — environmental activists were trying to protect the remaining old growth forests, using laws like the Endangered Species Act and other tactics, from being cut down.

One of those forests was on the coast of northern California in Humboldt County, where a Houston-based corporation had gained ownership through a hostile takeover of a family-run lumber company. They were planning to clearcut these redwoods to make some quick cash — one of the last, biggest remaining stands of old growth redwoods on private lands. A group of activists organized something they called Redwood Summer — named deliberately to evoke Freedom Summer from the civil rights movement — to defend the forest using direct action tactics. They put out a call for people outside of California to come join them, and I was one of the people who responded.

I hitchhiked down to Fort Bragg, California, where a big demonstration and rally was literally just starting as I was dropped off by my final ride, which, of course, was an old Volkswagen bus. What I walked into was a rally in the middle of a small logging town: the townspeople, most of whom were loggers and logging families, on one side of the street, and activists on the other side, separated by a line of riot cops yelling at each other. On the one hand, this was exciting to me because I wanted to be in the middle of the action and I just got dropped right into it. But even at the time, I was thinking that there was something was just wrong about the fact that these two groups of people were yelling at each other when the decision makers behind the whole situation were sitting in Houston, Texas.

After that demonstration, I hooked up with a small affinity group that was planning an action. To make a longer story shorter, I ended up a few days later chained to a logging road gate. By happenstance, I was the only person the cops couldn’t quickly cut off, and I was directly in the way of a line of trucks carrying workers to the logging site. All the loggers driving to work basically had to drive around me. I shouted to one of them something like, “We’re not protesting you brother,” because I was already trying to fix the dynamic I had noticed just a couple of days earlier. And this logger leaned out of his truck cab and said, and I still remember this word for word: “I’m not your brother, mothereffer.”

That interaction stayed with me — kind of haunted me, actually — because it crystallized all of the reservations I had about the strategy and tactics of Redwood Summer, in which working people and environmentalists were squaring off against each other in defense of something they each valued for legitimate reasons, while a small group of people far away were getting very rich.

I went back to Seattle after that summer and got into the University of Washington. I got involved in some antiwar activism — this was the time of the Persian Gulf War — and once that awful dress rehearsal for the Iraq and now Iran wars was done, I got involved in local organizing in opposition to a free trade agreement being negotiated between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, which became the North American Free Trade Agreement. I went to meetings at a labor temple in downtown Seattle where labor activists and environmentalists sat at the same table, talking with and learning from each other why, from their very different backgrounds, they opposed a trade regime that exploited both workers and the environment.

Fast-forwarding roughly two decades: I’ve had the opportunity to work on public policy at the intersection of environmental, climate, jobs, and justice issues. I’ve spent most of that time on the non-governmental advocacy side, but I had the privilege of working for five years in the Obama administration at the Department of Energy and in the White House. What brought me to this work, and what keeps me in it, is a belief that in some ways was first formed in that experience from my young adulthood: that working people and environmentalists should work together to create an economy and society in which good jobs and a clean environment go hand in hand. I’ve had the good fortune of leading the BlueGreen Alliance since 2019, an organization that places that vision at the center of everything we do.

Q: Labor and environmental movements have had moments of alignment going back to the first Earth Day. What brought them together in a lasting way with the BlueGreen Alliance launch in 2006? And what did the response to that first Good Jobs, Green Jobs Conference in 2008 tell you about the appetite for that kind of coalition?

The early history matters here. The United Auto Workers (UAW) were the biggest financial backer of the first Earth Day, which started life as a mass student walkout. UAW president Walter Reuther — one of the great unsung heroes of American history and a critical early backer of the civil rights movement — was famously quoted as saying that the fight against pollution is a fight for the survival of the human race. That represented the lived experience of industrial unions like the UAW and the United Steelworkers, whose own members and communities bore the brunt of industrial pollution because that’s where they worked and lived. These unions were some of the earliest and most important backers of environmental laws. In fact, both were instrumental in passing the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970.

That history certainly mattered in the formation of the BlueGreen Alliance, particularly the throughline to the steel workers. But the later spark for our creation in 2006 was lit in the 1990s, when unions and environmental groups found common cause in opposition to NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. Workers and their unions were watching manufacturing jobs go overseas to countries with little to no environmental protections. Environmental organizations and their activists were learning that the environmental protections in those same countries were minimal or unenforced. Both movements shared a growing sense of injustice over the course of that decade, rooted in a shared analysis that the new global trade regime enriched multinational corporations at the expense of people and the planet. In many ways, the culmination was the Battle of Seattle in 1999.

Fast forward to 2006, when two of the folks who were in the streets of Seattle in 1999 — Leo Gerard, a hard rock miner from Canada and president of the Steelworkers, the nation’s largest industrial union, and Carl Pope, an environmental lawyer from San Francisco who was executive director of the Sierra Club — decided that if they could find common ground around trade, there were other issues they could unify around. In particular, the climate crisis — which at that time was Al Gore, an inconvenient truth — was starting to hit as a real and urgent concern, clean technologies were emerging, and attacks on workers’ rights were ongoing. They signed a joint resolution establishing the BlueGreen Alliance, premised on the shared belief that we don’t have to choose between good jobs and a clean environment — that we can and must have both.

BGA held its first Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference in 2008. A lot of energy, a lot of turnout, which was certainly an affirmation of that founding vision. Over the last 20 years, through thick and thin, through good times and bad, we have grown into a coalition of labor and environmental organizations that collectively represent roughly 50 million members.

Q: The BlueGreen Alliance began with a simple but powerful goal: bridging the perceived divide between good jobs and environmental protection. How has that mission evolved since 2006 as the climate and economic landscapes have changed? 

The climate crisis has worsened since 2006, as has the crisis of economic inequality. BGA’s mission has evolved with those deepening crises, reflecting our belief that we need to advance policy solutions to both that are as intersecting and mutually reinforcing as their causes.

The other change to acknowledge is that we have gone from what was a very aspirational energy transition 20 years ago to a very real one in 2026, which has caused both enormous economic opportunity and enormous economic disruption. Our mission and our work has changed in response to how that has played out, particularly for working people and the communities they live in.

Q: The phrase “just transition” is used a lot by both labor and environmental groups. From your perspective, what does a just transition actually look like in practice for workers on the ground?

The term “just transition” was first coined by Tony Misaki, president of the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers Union, back in the 1980s before his union merged with the Steelworkers. At the time, because some manufacturing was leaving or manufacturing jobs were being lost — this was also a decade of a lot of environmental litigation — he and his union were calling for something they called a superfund for workers. It was premised on the idea that: there’s going to be a lot of economic change as we move from really polluting technologies to more sustainable ones, and the workers need to be kept whole.

That was before the time of the 1980s and BGA, but the policy issues — again, there’s this throughline through the steelworkers and other industrial unions — involved in just transition have been among BGA’s highest priorities. We have a whole policy platform. We actually don’t call it just transition. We call it simply a policy. Fairness for workers and communities, straight up. I want to emphasize three kinds of threads or points that come out of that platform and that really animate our work.

Number one, a transition that is truly fair or just for workers is not going to happen organically. It will only result from deliberate policy choices that directly support workers who are impacted. Every major economic shift in the last 50-plus years in the U.S. has been manifestly unjust for American workers, because policymakers have not crafted a response that is fair and effective.

The second point is very much related to the first. In the U.S., we don’t have policies and programs in place that adequately support workers who lose their jobs, in any sector. In the energy sector, this has created a lot of economic hardship among workers who have experienced layoffs from the energy transition, which has been ongoing now, pretty intensively, for the last, say, 15 years. These are coal miners, workers in coal-fired power plants, oil refinery workers. What these workers have in common is that their jobs were often the best-paying blue collar and union jobs in the communities where they lived and worked.

The third and final point for the energy transition to be just for workers is that we need to create and support those dislocated workers, as well as enact policies that ensure that the new jobs that are created in clean energy sectors are high quality, family-sustaining, and ones where workers have the ability for form unions without being harassed, intimidated, or fired. And we need policies that target public investment, in particular to the communities that have been most reliant on fossil fuel economies — the places that have largely suffered and experienced more economic pain than economic gain from this transition.

We were starting to make progress on all of those fronts during the Biden administration, and in particular with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act. But then 2024 happened.

Q: Manufacturing has long been the backbone of the American middle class, and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) aimed to strengthen that through clean energy investment. With recent rollbacks and funding cuts, where do things stand now?

Manufacturing is still the backbone of the blue collar middle class in this country, and it is central to U.S. competitiveness, economic security, and our innovation ecosystem. BGA and our labor and environmental partners did a ton of work with the Biden administration, particularly with the 117th Congress, to include substantial investments in clean manufacturing in the Inflation Reduction Act. We wanted to ensure, from an equity standpoint, that manufacturing workers and the communities they live in would share in the economic benefits of the clean energy transition. Federal policymaking was mostly focused on deployment of those technologies and not on producing them, building domestic supply chains, and decarbonizing our existing manufacturing base. We got a lot of those investments into the IRA. 

I think it’s important, for the historical record and as we think to the future, that these policies, these investments, were working right after the enactment of the IRA. U.S. investments in the manufacturing of batteries, fueling equipment, and critical minerals processing each grew about 45% relative to the pre-IRA period. 2022/2023 saw the greatest acceleration of manufacturing facility construction in a generation in this country, with hundreds of thousands of jobs already being created or committed to. The IRA was not only the biggest investment in clean energy in history anywhere in the world, but it was also an industrial policy that targeted sectors critical to the economic future of this country and the fate of the planet. Those investments were bearing fruit and then Donald Trump got elected.

One of the most painful ironies of the Trump presidency, among many, is that this guy who claims to be a champion of American manufacturing, to love American manufacturing, has led a whole-of-government assault on clean energy and clean manufacturing — through legislation, permitting illegal systems, executive action, and canceled grants and loans, including a loan program office that Jigar used to run. Through those actions, they have killed thousands of jobs and put thousands more at risk, many of them union jobs. They have literally tried to stop construction of offshore wind turbines that were 80 to 90% complete, barely even pretending to justify it. They’ve thrown all of these industries into a state of uncertainty, or they have literally arm-twisted individual companies, like the French-based company Total Energy who had to abandon offshore wind that they had already sunk so much money into. They are making a series of investments in fossil fuels in an attempt to embed the U.S. as this petrostate. And then they started a war with the only country that actually has the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil and gas prices skyrocketing.

All of that is effectively surrendering the production of technologies that are the future of the global economy — probably the most important economic race of this century to China and other countries.

Q: We’ve seen some tension lately — around tariffs, EV adoption, and broader shifts in the green economy. What are the main friction points today between unions and environmental advocates? And are we still seeing some of those political divides that surfaced during the last election?

Dealing with friction and tensions between unions and environmental groups is part of BGA’s reason for being. We have always dealt with it, we always will. We have hard conversations. But we and our partners always come back to a recognition that there is far more that unites us than divides us. One of the things that united us was the IRA — defending it and holding this administration accountable. We didn’t lose everything, so that’s home for some optimism that is a part of what we’re doing right now.

But also what unites us is a president who is trying to gut every federal program protecting workers and the environment. He is already the biggest union buster in American history, stripping roughly a million federal workers of their collective bargaining rights. At the same time, he’s a climate denier trying to kill virtually every form of climate action. That’s very unifying for our coalition, but it won’t be sufficient for our partners and our movements to be united only in defense. We also need to be united on offense. We work not only at the federal level but in nine states across the country where the political landscape is different and where we’re moving the ball forward. And ahead of the 2028 elections, BGA is committed to developing and releasing a new consensus platform of policy recommendations, supported by all of our partners, to build the worker- and community-centered clean economy that is our mission. We will present it to every policymaker and candidate who is interested in learning what our priorities are. That has yet to be written, but I already have a sense of what some of the things that’ll be in it are, and it will be very forward looking — because this is still the direction we’re headed in, and this country and our workers and our communities will either take center stage or they’ll be off stage.

Q: Finally, what’s the BlueGreen Alliance’s top priority for the next five years to ensure that the clean economy we build also strengthens union jobs and protects workers’ health and safety? 

One of our very top priorities as an organization over the next few years is to really deepen our coalition work and lean into our unique role as a unifier of the labor and environmental movements. We’re the only national organization that does that anywhere in the world. That unifier role has always been central to our theory of change, but we think it’s more important than ever now in response to an authoritarian president who is always looking for ways to divide people and social movements.

We know from research, scholarship, and examples from around the world that the most effective resistance to authoritarians is broad-based, big-tent coalitions of people and stakeholders coming together — linking arms to defend democracy and work toward a better world for everyone, in defiance of men who only care about their power, privilege, and the enrichment of themselves and their cronies. BGA has always been that kind of organization, and we are doubling down on that role now and in the years ahead.

In this Earth Week, it’s worth reminding ourselves that Earth Day was created by leaders who believed in the power of people and social movements to make a better world. That vision is more important this week, this year, than it probably ever has been since the inception of Earth Day.

The post Good Jobs, Clean Future, and Earth Day’s Union Roots: 22 Minutes with Jason Walsh appeared first on Earth Day.

Earth Day has long been a moment of bipartisan agreement in America — a reminder that clean air, clean water, and the protection of the natural world are not partisan concerns. But in today’s political climate, that shared purpose can feel distant.

Few people have thought harder about how to rebuild it than Bob Inglis. A Republican who represented South Carolina’s Fourth Congressional District for twelve years, Inglis became one of the most visible conservative voices calling for serious climate action — a stance that ultimately cost him his seat in Congress. In 2015, he received the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. He now leads RepublicEn.org, a nonprofit dedicated to engaging conservatives in the climate conversation through the language of free enterprise and accountability.

EARTHDAY.ORG Global Director of Advocacy and Partnerships James Banks sat down with Inglis to talk about bipartisanship, the economics of clean energy, and why he believes the country is closer to a turning point than most people think.

Bob Inglis is the founder and executive director of RepublicEn.org, a nonprofit that builds the conservative clean energy base. He represented South Carolina’s Fourth Congressional District from 1993 to 1999 and from 2005 to 2011, and received the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award in 2015.

Earth Day 2026 and its theme, Our Power, Our Planet, highlights how people everywhere — from classrooms and local neighborhoods to national institutions — can drive environmental progress through education, advocacy, and community engagement.

Q: The first Earth Day sparked an extraordinary moment of bipartisan agreement. Are Americans capable of rediscovering that kind of shared purpose?

I think we’re on the cusp of rediscovering it. Maybe I’m the eternal optimist — and that’s maybe true — but I think we’re getting to the point where we’ve just had enough of the basic trash talk. There’s going to come a time when we realize: all these folks are doing is telling us we’re going to “own the libs” or “defeat the conservatives” — bury the other side. And that just isn’t getting us anywhere.

This current moment really is pretty low rhetoric, pretty low expectations — about even the ability to formulate a sentence, let’s say. But I really think the next moment will be different. The whole style of politics could change, and it’s up to us as consumers of that style to demand it.

Bellbottoms, I think, are back in — aren’t they? When consumers demand more bellbottoms, Levi’s and everybody else makes more bellbottoms. When consumers of politics say, “we’re tired of the trash talk, and we really want somebody who can talk to us about solutions” — that’s what we’ll get. We’ve got to get ready for that and drive toward that end.

Q: Does the climate conversation need to start with everyday concerns — clean air, clean water — if it’s going to resonate with people?

People really do want to live in fresh air and clean water and would like to have a healthier environment. When it comes to climate, that’s a little harder, because the main culprit is CO2 — and you can’t smell it, you can’t taste it. You sort of wish there were a foul odor as a proxy. But you can taste and smell the things that come along with it; they burn your eyes and your throat.

In places like China, there’s a greater demand for action because people can feel it. It’s like when the Cuyahoga River caught fire — repeatedly caught fire — and we realized, “wait a minute, rivers aren’t supposed to catch on fire.” You might wish, in the case of climate, that there were more things we could feel about this odorless, tasteless gas. That’s a real challenge. But generally speaking, people want clean air and clean water, and that’s a place to start.

Q: Why is it so important that good-faith conservative voices are part of the climate conversation?

We learn from people who are like us, and especially from people who like us. We really need the affirmation of the tribe — to feel that it’s okay to engage on a topic. What we’ve got to do at RepublicEn.org is show conservatives that this is very much their topic. You’re really good at this thing of solving climate change. This is a problem of economics. It has an environmental consequence. Fix the economics. Bring accountability for the side effects of burning fossil fuels and dumping into the trash dump of the sky for free.

We know that if you let people dump for free, there’ll be a lot of dumping — at the city dump or in the atmosphere. Charge for the space you take, and you get less dumping. That’s rock-solid conservative economics, and it’s actually acceptable to a lot of people left of center too. We could bring America together and lead the world to solutions. It’s just a matter of making sure people hear it in their own language.

And when they hear it from someone within their own tribe, it makes them feel like, “okay, I’m not Benedict Arnold here. I’m not going to be cut off from my community.” As human beings, we really can’t live on our own — we need a whole community of support. People don’t want to be cut off. We want to show them: you’ve got a home here. This is what we talk about as conservatives.

Q: Do conservative leaders have a unique ability to reach people who might otherwise tune the issue out?

If you’re going to start a Latino outreach church, you probably want to speak Spanish from the pulpit. If you’re going to reach conservatives on climate, you probably want to use the language of conservatism.

My friend Dan Kahan at Yale — joint appointment in law and psychology — has research showing that left-of-center people tend to be communitarian and egalitarian. They focus on the whole community doing well and key in on fairness. Right-of-center people tend to be hierarchical and individualistic — they believe in working through a chain of command, in individual effort and reward. The language is completely different in those two communities. And most of the climate conversation has been conducted in communitarian, egalitarian language.

What we have to do at RepublicEn — what we call the “eco-right,” a balance to the environmental left — is make that same case in hierarchical, individualistic terms. A great deal of money is spent on the environmental left every year; a very small amount is spent right of center. We’re trying to change that. Left of center, you might get away with saying “let’s repent of the capitalistic system.” On the right, you don’t want to say that. You want to say: “accountable free enterprise.” That may sound like an oxymoron to some people, but what I mean is a free enterprise system with all the costs in, all the subsidies removed, and a level playing field.

The language that works right of center is: “what we’re after here is more energy, more mobility, more freedom — we just want it cleaner, better, faster, and cheaper.” And there’s a real way to do that — to create wealth in America, create jobs, create opportunities, by selling products around the world that meet people’s needs.

The problem with the “shine your halo” approach is what it actually does: it makes the other person a sinner and you the saint. That’s a bad setup if you’re trying to convince people. But if you say “we can all win at this, and by the way, we can make money at it” — that’s a different conversation. As Steve Forbes said when he ran for president: in a capitalistic system, you make money by serving customers, and if you serve them well, you make lots of money. We can serve the world very well by creating better batteries, better solar cells, hopefully small modular reactors that are more affordable than the gargantuan ones — and sell those around the world, cleaning up the air the whole time.

Q: When you look at today’s energy economy — solar, batteries, new grid technologies — do you feel the market is already moving forward, regardless of the politics?

Yes, definitely. There was a time when human beings used whale oil to light their homes. Then coal oil. Then petroleum. The next is pretty clearly electricity — for data centers, for cars, for drones, for just about everything. And we’ll either enter that competition — with Ford Motor Company trying to meet the mark of BYD, the Chinese company that can make a car go 300 miles on a five-minute charge for around $20,000 — or we’ll double down on burning rocks and fouling the air. The world is going to move on, whether we’re part of it or not.

I was walking down a particularly choked street in New York City during Climate Week — closed in, full of fumes from trucks and buses and cars — and it occurred to me that my seven grandchildren are going to someday say, “Can you believe Mimi and Papa used to breathe that stuff?” The same way I might say to my grandmother, who grew up in South Georgia: “What was it like at the south end of a northbound horse?” We are headed to that day.

And here’s the thing: economic realities eventually overtake shaky ideologies. You can talk about saving the horse-drawn cart and protecting the buggy whip manufacturers. You can point out that Henry Ford’s cars were catching fire, that the tires were blowing out, that horses were rearing up and people were getting hurt. All true. But people figured out it was a pretty great deal to ride at 25 or 30 miles an hour rather than deal with that horse. That’s what’s going to happen with the electrification of everything.

You can have a religion of climate change — that’s not me. You can have acceptance of the data — that’s me; I apply my faith to that data. Or you can reject both. It doesn’t matter. You’re going to end up in the same place, because BYD is threatening to take over the entire world car market, and Ford is betting the farm on an EV platform it can sell for $30,000. That’s the economic reality, and it’s driving us there regardless of anyone’s view on climate science.

When I get discouraged in this business, I go watch JFK at Rice University in September 1962 — the Moonshot Speech. He admits in that speech that some of the materials needed for the spacecraft hadn’t been invented yet. “No matter. We’re going to the moon before the decade is out.” That’s really where we are. We need to admit we’re behind — behind BYD, behind China. And then, as Kennedy said: “We intend to catch up.” If we can get that kind of focused policy commitment, it would accelerate everything dramatically.

Q: What role should policy play? Is a carbon tax really the answer?

I think we do need policy, and the policy that would help most — this isn’t just conservative intuition, this is based on serious modeling by En-ROADS, from MIT Sloan School of Business — is a carbon tax. A simple price on dumping into the trash dump of the sky.

When I explain this to fellow conservatives, I use an example from my hometown of Bluffton, South Carolina. In the 1960s, the dump was a little dirt road loop off Highway 46 where you drove in and threw your trash on the ground. We eventually figured out that stuff was leaching into the saltwater estuary where we planned on eating the crabs and the shrimp and the fish and the oysters. And nationwide, we started lining dumps so they wouldn’t leach into the waterways. Most everybody agrees with that now.

But go back to the 1960s. If I’d been Inglis Trash Hauling back then, I could have gone to the County Council and railed against it: “Communism! They want to make me pay a tipping fee? I’m a taxpayer!” Fast forward to today — I’m certain there is nobody on the Beaufort County Council who would hear that argument. They’d say: “Inglis, you’re taking up space in the dump. Pay for the space you take. Back that cost up to your customers, because it’s their trash filling up the dump.”

Same thing applies to the trash dump of the sky. Right now we have free dumping. Charge for it, and there’ll be less of it, because people will substitute away from the sources. That’s what Milton Friedman would tell us to do — Reagan’s own economics advisor.

And because we’re conservatives, that carbon tax needs to be paired with a reduction in other taxes — specifically the payroll tax, which by itself hurts poor people. A carbon tax by itself would also hurt poor people. But if you shift the tax from payroll to carbon, the Congressional Budget Office says the bottom 70% of Americans end up better off.

Then you apply it to imports. Goods coming from a country without the same carbon tax get charged at our border. That makes it in their interest to do the same — why would China want to fork over money to the United States that they could have collected themselves? So the world follows the American lead. No international agreement. No bowing and scraping at the UN. No protracted negotiations. Just a bold move by the United States.

And lest this sound like purely right-wing stuff — if someone out there is thinking, “why does this sound familiar? I’m left of center” — it might be because it’s essentially what Al Gore has been for for the last 30 years. I asked him several years ago if I could keep saying that. He said, “Hold up, Bob — if you’re talking about a low carbon tax…” I said, “No sir, I’m talking about a substantial carbon tax, steadily rising, paired with a reduction in payroll taxes, applied at our borders.” He said: “Yeah, fine. What you’re for at RepublicEn.org is the same thing I’ve been for for about 30 years.”

That’s what we hope for: after conservatives have heard it in their own language, they can see they’re actually pretty good at this — and we can come together and bring America together and lead the world to solutions.

Q: Several prominent figures in the MAGA movement have recently started talking about solar as a way to strengthen American energy independence. What do you make of that shift?

I think what it shows is they’ve looked at the numbers. The rap against solar and wind has always been that they’re “intermittent” and “unreliable.” But when you’re paired with battery backup, they’re very reliable. The price of batteries has come down dramatically. The price of solar cells has come down. People have started to get the memo, and they see the numbers pencil out.

That’s what I mean by economic realities driving us to a point of convergence. The rhetoric on various outlets says solar is intermittent and you can’t count on it — meanwhile, the people actually doing it are saying, “Hush the rhetoric. We know how to do this. We get the batteries, we back them up, and it works.” It’s just facts coming into play.

Q: The Trump administration has rolled back climate policies and slowed approvals for renewable projects, yet solar and battery storage keep growing. What does that tension tell us about where America’s energy system is actually headed?

Economic realities overcome shaky ideologies — that’s the point of convergence I keep coming back to. You can rail against climate religion, call it a “false religion.” You can try to introduce doubt about the data. But meanwhile, the economic realities are headed toward this energy revolution, this real transition in the way we power our lives. That’s what’s going to win. Policy could speed it up — get us to that point of convergence sooner — but the direction is set.

It’s like smoking. Every physician will tell you: stop smoking. Doesn’t matter how long you’ve been at it — you could be 80 years old and have smoked all your life. Stop. There may be some damage already baked in, but you can avoid the worst of it if you stop now. We’ve been smoking a lot. We can either keep going, or we can accelerate the point at which we say: there’s a new way to power our lives.

And from a guy who was five times in Iraq and four times in Afghanistan — I’m reminded right now, in the midst of this Iranian conflict, that it would sure be nice to say to the Middle East: “See if you can drink that stuff. We just don’t need you like we used to. Here’s a copy of our Constitution in your language — you might want to study it. But you will not see us panicking over the Straits of Hormuz.” Even though we’re the world’s biggest oil producer, it’s a worldwide market. If you constrain 20% of the supply through the Straits of Hormuz, you’re going to affect prices and risk a worldwide recession. Would I like to defund petro-dictators like Vladimir Putin? You bet. I’d like to say to him: “Your economy looks like it’s pretty much crumbling. You can’t prop it up anymore with oil, because we just don’t need it like we used to.” That’s when we get to real freedom — not just cleaner air, but national security.

Q: When people talk about energy, they rarely talk about policy. They talk about their power bill and whether the lights stay on. Does the climate conversation need to start with those everyday concerns?

It definitely helps to make it applicable to daily life. Affordability is a key concept right now. Data centers are sucking up a lot of power, and the question of whether the grid is going to supply that — or whether very wealthy companies are going to do it themselves — is a potent issue that brings all of this into the present.

But I also think that once people actually experience the technology, it changes things. I watched this unfold at a Chevrolet dealership once. A 70-something hunter walks in — orange vest, obviously just been out hunting — and goes over to look at the Chevy Bolt. You can tell he’s scoffing. He walks up to the 24-year-old salesman, who tells him: “This car can beat a Corvette off the light.” “No way,” says the hunter. “Yes way — I’ve got a Corvette, and this car beats me.”

Once people check these things out, they start deciding, “Hey, I think I’d like one of those.” Particularly once we can meet BYD’s range and charge time at a competitive price — at that point, people won’t even remember what gasoline costs. All of that makes it real. The affordability, the thrill of a car that gives you pickup when you need it. Pretty cool gadgets. And that’s how minds change.

Q: Your willingness to speak honestly about climate change cost you your seat in Congress but earned you the Profile in Courage Award. What does courage on this issue look like for leaders today?

What I’d say to my former colleagues — I guess I’m their former colleague now — is this: if you’re not willing to lose your seat in Congress, there’s really very little reason to be there. The whole point is to lead.

If all you’re doing is following people where they’re already going, amplifying their fears, mirroring their fears back to them except louder — what are you doing? If you hold on to that seat for dear life like it’s the best thing you could ever possibly have, you’ll end a long career and wonder: “What happened? I stood for nothing. I took no risk. All I did was tell people what they were already telling me. I didn’t lead.” I can’t imagine anything worse than that.

So yes, I lost an election. But I didn’t lose my soul. There’s a big difference. We ask service members to die on literal hills in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Couldn’t we ask for a politician or two to die a figurative death on Capitol Hill? It’s not the worst thing that can happen to you. You led. You got shot in the back — that’s typically where it comes from, when you step up and start leading. But you were leading. You did what you were supposed to do. Go ahead and risk your seat. Lead. Just don’t end up with that terrible thing: a long career, and nothing to show for it.

Q: Standing here in 2026, do you feel the United States is beginning to choose the path of meeting this challenge?

I think we are going to choose the path of meeting this competition and leading this energy revolution. There are forces arrayed against that — vested interests that would like us to double down on burning rocks. But I think we’re going to figure out that it just isn’t working for us anymore.

The buggy whip manufacturers organized against Henry Ford and the Model T, and they had good points — his cars were catching fire, the tires were blowing out, the horses were rearing up. People were getting hurt. But the car got better. Now here we are: “Oh, EVs don’t go far enough.” Well, the battery’s better now. The range is better. The charge time is faster. The price is coming down. Go check it out. That’s what’s going to happen to the people with the burning rocks: there’s a new competitor on the scene with a much better product, and consumers are going to choose it.

Hopefully we can accelerate that point of convergence, because while I believe it’s inevitable, getting there sooner means cleaner air sooner and healthier lives sooner.

Q: If you could speak directly to conservative voters who care about economic strength, national security, and the future their children will inherit — what would you want them to understand?

If I could expand that question slightly — I’ve got something to say to both my right-of-center friends and to left-of-center people who might be listening.

To the right-of-center folks: this is an incredible opportunity, and we don’t want to miss out on it. If you had invested in Ford Motor Company when Henry Ford rolled out that first Model T, you would have done very well. If we can invest early in this new energy system and win this competition for the future, we’re going to do really well. That’s the case I’d make.

To the left-of-center folks, I’d say this: don’t treat this as too good a crisis to waste. The instinct to load the wagon — to attach every cause to climate legislation — is understandable, but that wagon is sinking in the muck. If you could just take some weight off, and pull it across the finish line with a simple price on carbon, paired with a reduction in other taxes, applied to imports at our borders — we might actually get there. But if you load it with everything else, it’s not happening.

Just implore left-of-center folks to reach out and find a way to make this work right of center. If we do, we can bring America together and lead the world. That’s the ultimate objective. That’s what’s possible.

The post The Conservative Case For Climate Action: 22 Minutes With Bob Inglis appeared first on Earth Day.

It’s hard to believe this is still up for debate, but let’s talk about clean, affordable energy that creates jobs, will power data centers and keep our energy costs down.

Renewable energy is no longer a fringe idea; it’s a booming, unstoppable force in the global economy. In the U.S. alone, electricity from solar, wind, and hydropower provided over 22% of total electricity generation in 2024, and globally the generation from renewables just surpassed that of coal for the first time the same year. These renewable energy sources are not some pipe dream, they’re here and growing. 

Jobs? The clean energy industry employs more than 3.56 million Americans; for every million dollars invested in renewable energy, solar alone provides 2.7 times the number of jobs than fossil fuels. Over the next decade, wind turbine technicians and solar photovoltaic installers are projected to be among the fastest-growing occupations in the U.S. economy, offering competitive pay and improved safety compared to many other jobs.

And these benefits don’t even factor in how renewable energy significantly reduces air pollution, which in turn will help to lower the estimated  $820 billion spent in annual health costs, caused by  fossil fuel use (as of 2021). From a financial standpoint alone, adopting renewables is a no-brainer.

But instead of leaning into the prospect of the U.S. becoming a world leader in this new energy technology, the Trump administration is digging in its heels, and doing everything it can to sabotage this progress and back 19th century fossil fuels. Not just with incorrect statements that influence public perception (like Trump’s claim that wind turbine noise causes cancer), but with actual policy that blocks and delays clean energy projects.

Given that Great Britain invented the steam engine – the key to the Industrial Revolution, the locomotive, the World Wide Web, the telephone, television, the concept of vaccinations, the jet engine, the Hovercraft, antibiotics, discovered the structure of DNA, and invented radar – amongst many other things – we can be pretty assured that Britain is a ‘smart county’. And what is this smart country doing now? Rapidly embracing renewables, which accounts for 50%of its electricity generation. 

Here are five ways the Trump administration is trying to kill renewable energy and set the United States backwards in the energy industry:

1. The One Big Beautiful Bill – Spending Billions to Fall Behind

Subsidizing fossil fuels in 2025 is like investing in Blockbuster while Netflix takes off…but that’s exactly what this administration is doing. 

The 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill” significantly increased federal subsidies for fossil fuels. According to a report by Oil Change International, the bill added nearly $40 billion in new subsidies over the next decade, raising the annual total to at least $34.8 billion. This includes $4 billion in additional subsidies each year, marking the largest single-year increase in fossil fuel subsidies in recent years.

At the state level, fossil fuels rack up more public money. Texas handed out approximately $1.4 billion in 2023 alone. In Wyoming, taxpayers could be on the hook for up to $900 million to clean up abandoned oil and gas wells, because fossil fuel companies aren’t required to set aside nearly enough money to cover the cost of plugging them. In Jefferson City, Wyoming alone, taxpayers are looking at a $35,000 clean up. A report from Public Citizen estimates that cleaning up over 89,000 wells on federal lands could cost between $2.9 billion and $17.7 billion, with the highest costs concentrated in states like New Mexico and Wyoming. Across the board, the public is footing the bill so that wealthy oil companies can keep drilling.

What are we getting for all this public spending? Not energy security. Not price stability. While subsidies could be justified politically as tools for energy affordability and security, they are failing on both fronts. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) notes that fossil fuel subsidies distort markets and undermine energy diversification, leaving countries more vulnerable to global supply shocks.

Recent global oil and gas volatility, compounded by geopolitical tensions around the world, shows that fossil fuel price swings persist even when producers receive large publicly funded subsidies. In other words, subsidies stabilize corporate margins, not consumer prices we all pay. One of the reasons U.S. oil and gas production is still considered profitable is because of these vast subsidies. Over 60% percent of fossil fuel companies are still dependent on government support that we all pay for. That’s not a healthy market.

Our oil-based society depends on non-renewable resources. It requires relentless probing into vast reaches of pristine land, sacrificing vital bioregions, and irreplaceable cultures… We must all move shoulder to shoulder in a unified front to show this administration that the true majority of people are willing to vote for a cleaner environment and won’t back down.

Leonardo Dicaprio, Founder, The Leonardo DiCaprio FoundationRenewables are the answer to our energy independence and have historically received less federal support than fossil fuels. We have still seen renewable energy projects and generation capacity increasing exponentially. Imagine how much progress we could make if even a fraction spent on fossil fuel subsidies were redirected to renewables; lower electricity cost, creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, and true energy independence.

2. Trying to Kick Wind and Solar Off Public Lands

In August 2025, the Department of the Interior (DOI) issued Secretarial Order No. 3438, instructing agencies to reevaluate whether federal lands should be used for solar and wind projects. The new criteria prioritize “capacity density”, or how much energy you can get per area.

 It sounds logical to want to limit our use of resources, until you realize it’s a smokescreen. According to a 2017 report, wind and solar need more space per megawatt, but they come with no risk of oil spills and virtually no risk of other pollutants.  

Fossil fuel drilling, on the other hand, leaves behind polluted air, poisoned water, and soil erosion. Because of this once the fossil fuel companies leave the land they leave behind  is often left unusable for decades or even centuries. In contrast, renewable energy projects stay confined to the same pieces of  land  decades without depleting or contaminating it. 

3. They’re Undermining Offshore Wind

On August 8, 2025, the Trump administration launched a full review of all offshore wind regulations, including projects already underway. Officials claim  they want to ensure compliance with Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda and eliminate “preferential treatment” for offshore wind.

Offshore wind is a massive opportunity for the U.S. It could generate more than 2,000 GW of power by 2050, nearly double the current U.S. electricity demand. And it’s not some distant dream. As of 2024, there was an increase of over 27 GW of offshore wind projects in the pipeline, representing tens of thousands of jobs and billions in investment.

Killing these projects doesn’t just waste potential, it hands the future to other countries. The UK, Germany, and China are all aggressively expanding offshore wind projects, while the U.S. stalls. In fact, China already leads the world in installed offshore wind capacity. If we keep dragging our feet, we lose our shot at global leadership and homegrown clean energy jobs.

4. They Eliminated the Renewable Leasing Schedule, So Developers Are Left Guessing

On August 5, 2025, the Department of the Interior (DOI) axed a rule that required the government to publish a 5-year renewable energy leasing schedule. This schedule kept things clear and predictable for companies investing money into clean energy projects on federal land – information that is  essential to any investor.

Renewable energy projects have a lot of moving parts and so take time and dedication to plan, finance, and build. Without a leasing schedule, developers face costly delays and regulatory uncertainty that can derail entire projects. 

For perspective, the permitting process for building a large solar project on federal land usually takes about 3 to 5 years; that includes picking a  location, environmental reviews, and hooking it up to the power grid. But without a clear and predictable process, a lot of that time gets wasted just waiting for approvals or decisions that might never happen. 

5. They’re Burying Every Wind and Solar Project in Red Tape

In July 2025, DOI leadership mandated that all wind and solar decisions be subjected to multi-agency review, including sign-off by the Secretary of the Interior. Again they claim it’s about ending “preferential treatment” for renewables while fossil fuels still get faster reviews and much larger subsidies.

This new red tape seems designed to specifically delay clean energy development, while fossil fuel projects continue to sail through the system, under Trump’s “energy dominance” policy. Meanwhile, the world is heating up and energy prices for U.S consumers are rising fast. 

An Unstoppable Movement

100 percent renewable energy is 100 percent American.Mark Ruffalo

Despite renewable energy’s numerous benefits, the Trump administration is doing everything it can to put the brakes on progress; rigging the rules, rewriting policies, and pushing red tape, all in the name of protecting outdated, polluting industries.This isn’t just short-sighted. It’s dangerous.

The fossil fuel industry has poured $96 million in donations, lobbying and advertisements that directly supported Trump’s re-election campaign and affiliated PACs. Some administration officials even hold personal financial stakes in fossil fuel operations, like Interior Secretary Doug Burgum (whose approval is needed for all wind and solar projects), and profits from oil leases on his own land. 

But here’s the good news: we don’t have to accept it.

If you believe in clean air, good jobs, and a future that runs on common sense, sign the Our Power, Our Planet petition to demand renewable energy now. Send a message to your state lawmakers asking them to stand up against the rollbacks and invest in renewable energy.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post 5 Ways the Trump Administration Is Trying to Kill Renewable Energy (And Why It’s a Terrible Idea) appeared first on Earth Day.

In 1970, 20 million Americans took to the streets on the very first Earth Day. They demanded these three things: clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and a healthy future for their families. Just a few months later, Republican President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A) to deliver on that vision – the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts soon followed.

Now, over 50 years later, the E.P.A is under attack. Let’s meet some of the groups and people, who seem to be working to undermine our fundamental right to clean air and clean water. These are our nominees for the alternative E.P.A – the Environmental Pollution Agency. 

1) E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D. of the Cornwall Alliance of the Stewardship of Creation, (CASC)

This group, led by Calvin Beisner, who holds a Ph.D. in Scottish history,believes “…that by God’s design Earth and its physical and biological systems are robust, resilient, and self-correcting. We deny that they are fragile,” as noted in point 9 of their 30 point ‘affirmation’ page. 

Climate science is often disputed to be a ‘false religion’ by groups that deny climate change. 

Mr.Besiner has testified as an expert witness on the ethics and economics of climate and energy policy before congressional committees and argues that environmental action is a deception which can potentially harm impoverished people more than others. The people living in “Cancer Alley,” who cannot afford to move away from petrochemical plants, might beg to differ. The cancer rates in “Cancer Alley” have been documented as being 12-16% higher than the rest of the US.  

Plus, if Administrator Zeldin eliminates E.P.A enforcement efforts that focus on prioritizing the protection of ‘poor communities’ – will Mr. Beisner actively campaign against these measures? Given that he feels that impoverished people should not be harmed more than others? You can find out more about how our rights to clean water and clean air are under attack HERE

2) “Big Oil” 

ExxonMobil, with a market capitalization of over $492 Billion as of September 25, 2025, i.e. the total value of all its outstanding shares, has, according to research first published in the journal Science,  been accused of spending decades misleading the public about climate change.

A 2017 Harvard study comparing ExxonMobil’s internal documents and peer-reviewed papers vs. its advertorials found that 80% of internal documents/peer‑reviewed work acknowledged human-caused climate change, while 81% of Exxon’s public advertorials expressed doubt. Their own internal documents show that their scientists understood the science of climate change and the role of greenhouse gases back as far back as the 1970s. 

Exxon has consistently denied the accusations that it misled the public.

Chevron, with a market cap of over $321 billion as of September 2025, inadvertently helped to create the legal doctrine that became known as, “the Chevron Deference”. This 1984 ruling gave the EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) the broad authority to interpret and enforce ambiguous laws, including those regulating pollution. But in 2024, the Supreme Court overturned this doctrine significantly reducing the EPA’s regulatory power. 

Chevron, like most major fossil fuel companies, is a member of the American Petroleum Institute, (API), a powerful lobbying group for the oil and gas industry. The API has criticised the Endangerment Finding and hopes the new Trump administration will loosen emission regulations.

Chevron contributes to the ​​Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), which is aligned with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.), and the Senate Leadership Fund (SLF).  

Shell, with a market cap of around $212 billion, as of September 2025, publicly supports the Paris Climate Agreement and pledges to reach “net zero” emission by 2050. Howevert Shell spends tens of millions on lobbying groups that oppose clean energy policies. 

As of 2019 lobbying disclosures, Shell spent $49 million on lobbying in the U.S. — nearly more than any other oil company that year.

3) U.S Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright

Chris Wright, is President Trump’s U.S Secretary of Energy, and Wright has built a career on downplaying climate change, this year he said that “climate change isn’t a crisis”.

A self proclaimed “outdoor enthusiast” he doesn’t seem that keen on protecting the outdoors.  He used data to argue that reducing greenhouse gas emissions could hurt the economy more than rising global temperatures would. 

In March, 2025, Secretary Wright spoke at CERA Week, one of the world’s premier annual energy conferences, in Houston, Texas. Sadly just a few weeks later, some 200 miles southeast in the Central Texas Hill Country – tragedy struck when devastating floods killed at least 135 people.  While it is almost certainly true that natural weather patterns and geography caused the immediate flooding, it is also most likely to be true that climate change made these floods more extreme and therefore more deadly. Both things can unfortunately be true at the same time.

Wright champions fossil fuels as he believes they help to drive the U.S economy, but the real cost of his unbridled support are potentially, likely to be more extreme weather events across the U.S, with the homes and lives of Americans destroyed by climate change. 

4) Senator Ron Johnson (R‑WI)

Senator Ron Johnson ran a plastics manufacturing company (PACUR) before entering politics. He has called climate change “bullsh*t” and stated that carbon dioxide “helps trees grow.” It does. It also powers climate change when too much of it is released into the atmosphere. Again, two things can be true at the same time.

The science is proven. There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and more than 99.9% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activities—chiefly the burning of fossil fuels—are the main cause.

This consensus is supported by evidence ranging from the rapid rise in global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide, to melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, and shifting weather patterns measured across the globe by NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As well as pretty much every major national science academy worldwide. 

The League of Conservation Voters, revealed in 2022, that Senator Johnson’s office accepted over $700,000 in donations from the fossil fuel industry and voted to deregulate domestic oil drilling. 

5) Alan Carlin Ph.D.

Alan Carlin, has a PhD in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and earned an undergraduate degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology (CIT). 

In 2009, while a senior operations research analyst at the E.P.A’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), he wrote a 98-page report attacking the science behind greenhouse gas regulation. It was largely discredited by climate change experts but widely cited in the conservative media.

This is not true. In fact global temperatures have risen dramatically since the mid-20th century. According to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the global average surface temperature has increased by at least 1.1°C (1.9°F) since 1880. With most of that occurring after 1975. In fact the five hottest years on record (as of 2023) have all occurred since 2015. 2024 was either the hottest or second-hottest year ever recorded, depending on the data set. In 2010 Carlin resigned from the EPA.

How to Take Action to Protect Clean Air and Clean Water For Us ALL

At EARTHDAY.ORG we just do not think that belief systems should determine the quality of the air we breathe or the water we drink. 

Only facts, science and strong government regulation should do that. Right now your family’s health is on the line.  The time to act is now. Nobody, no matter how rich or powerful lives in a bubble. We all breathe the same air in the end. 

Want to make a difference? On a related issue, you can speak out by writing to strongly oppose Section 453 of the Interior Appropriations Bill, which would grant pesticide manufacturers broad legal immunity, even when their products cause harm.

The post Do These 5 People Care If We Breathe Dirty Air? appeared first on Earth Day.

On July 28, 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin made a big announcement: the agency plans to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding. That might sound like something out of a Marvel movie, but it’s actually the cornerstone of U.S. climate policy. The Finding legally establishes that greenhouse gas emissions, from new motor vehicles, threaten public health and welfare.  It gives the EPA the power to regulate these emissions not just from cars, but from power plants, factories, and other major pollution sources.

Without it? The EPA’s hands are tied when it comes to regulating emissions. This move raises eyebrows and questions, and the agency released a one-pager explaining their decision. We read it. We checked it. Here’s our fact check of their one pager HERE and here’s the highlights: 

1) Making it Easy… or Not?

EPA Claim: “Through this reconsideration, EPA will give the public a chance to weigh in on the science, law, and policy choices at issue in the Finding”. 

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: While the EPA says it’s opening the floor to debate, the federal government is cutting off the tools that make public comment more accessible; specifically, the API (Application Programming Interface) that allows people to submit comments through third-party platforms instead of directly through their Regulations.gov website.

In other words, yes, you can weigh in, but only if you go through the official portal, which many grassroots campaigns and advocacy orgs can’t easily access anymore. So it’s like being told you can speak… but only if you do it exactly the way they want. 

2) Driving an Unbiased Dagger into our Hearts

Claim: “EPA cannot prejudge the outcome of this reconsideration process.”

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: Okay, sure. But if the EPA isn’t prejudiced, why did Administrator Zeldin recently declare: “”We are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion…” That’s not exactly a “wait and see” kind of comment. That is clearly a judgment. Also, let’s be clear: climate change isn’t a religion. It’s science. Hard science. As in, 99.9% of peer-reviewed studies agree that climate change is real and caused by human activity. 

3) What is the Endangerment Finding & Why Does it Matter?

Claim: “The 2009 Endangerment Finding was the first step in the Obama-Biden Administration’s overreaching climate agenda… That evasion ends today.”

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: Let’s unpack this one, because it’s doing a lot of heavy lifting.The claim here is that the Endangerment Finding kicked off, “trillions of dollars of cost on Americans” and by rescinding it we will save $54 billion in costs annually. Funny how Zeldin doesn’t mention the real price tag Americans are paying: climate change-linked illnesses, death, and pollution-related diseases have been know for over a decade and some studies estimate they will cost the U.S. over $820 billion annually. 

Also, those 2027 vehicle emissions standards the EPA now wants to reverse? They were projected to prevent 7.2 billion tons of CO₂ through 2055; that’s four times what the entire U.S. transportation sector emitted in 2021. 

4) Duty to Regulate 

Claim: “Massachusetts vs. EPA, held that the Clean Air Act’s general, Act-wide definition of “air pollutant” was broad enough to include carbon dioxide. Massachusetts explicitly did not hold that EPA was required to regulate these emissions from these sources.”

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: The 2007 Supreme Court ruling was very clear: greenhouse gases, such as excess carbon dioxide, are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. That means the EPA has a duty to regulate them unless it can show they DO NOT endanger public health or welfare. So unless Zeldin has some groundbreaking scientific discovery to share (spoiler: he doesn’t), the law still stands. The EPA still has a legal obligation to act.

5) By the Books

Claim: “The Endangerment Finding took an unorthodox approach… It never makes a straight-line conclusion that carbon dioxide from new motor vehicles is causing endangerment. It looked at this mix of six gases, from all sources over the world, … to determine that this mix contributed … an unknown amount above zero to climate change, and that climate change contributed … an unknown amount above zero of endangerment to public health. The Finding looked at U.S. vehicle emissions … and said that they were a big enough piece of the pie (some 4 percent of global emissions) to be “causing or contributing” to the mix of six gases—not to the endangerment itself.”

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: This one reads like a climate denialist word salad, but let’s chop it up. The EPA’s original Finding didn’t go rogue. It followed the law, the science, and the courts. It reviewed research from the International Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, and U.S. agencies to conclude, based on overwhelming scientific evidence, six key greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane, nitrous oxide, HFCs, PFCs, SF₆) collectively contribute to climate change.

Cars emit several of these, the most significant being carbon dioxide. That’s enough under the Clean Air Act. The law doesn’t require proof of direct causation by U.S. cars alone, just a finding that their emissions contribute to the problem. Which they very much do; in 2022, 29% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. came from the transportation sector, the vast majority of which were from cars and truck emissions.

This whole “unorthodox” claim of government overreach is like saying a seatbelt is illegal because it wasn’t designed to stop every car accident. It’s just not how the law, or logic, works.

6) Massachusetts Still Stands

Claim: “These legal issues require fresh scrutiny, particularly in light of major Supreme Court cases… and new developments in science and technology.”

EARTHDAY.ORG’s Position: Here’s where the EPA throws some legal spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. They cite recent Supreme Court cases, none of which overturn Massachusetts v. EPA.

Loper Bright Enterprises et al. (Loper) overturned the Chevron deference, which used to let agencies like the EPA interpret unclear laws, but not Massachusetts as the case clearly gives the EPA authority to regulate emissions. 

West Virginia v. EPA didn’t question whether the EPA can regulate emissions; instead, it said the EPA went too far by trying to shift the entire power industry from coal to cleaner energy without clear permission from Congress. So while the majority in West Virginia may have been skeptical of Massachusetts they did not overrule it.

Also, is Administrator Zeldin seriously claiming that “new science” or “new technology” means we have to reconsider whether greenhouse gases are dangerous? That’s like arguing a better thermometer means we should rethink whether fire is hot.

In fact, the latest science only makes the case for greenhouse gases being the cause of climate change stronger. We’ve seen the impacts firsthand. The climate crisis is no longer hypothetical, it’s happening in real time. So using “technological progress” as an excuse to scrap foundational climate protections isn’t just misleading – it’s backward.

This so-called “reconsideration” of the Endangerment Finding isn’t about science. The Finding has been upheld, reaffirmed, and scientifically validated. What’s changed isn’t the evidence – it’s the EPA’s leadership. Want to make a difference? On a related issue, you can speak out by writing to strongly oppose Section 453 of the Interior Appropriations Bill, which would grant pesticide manufacturers broad legal immunity, even when their products cause harm.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Let’s Fact Check the Environmental Protection Agency appeared first on Earth Day.

Climate change is not an opinion. It is not political. It is not a belief. Whether or not we want to believe that it is happening, it is happening. Over 99.9% of active climate scientists agree that human activity, such as burning fossil fuels, are the main contributors to the rise in global temperature. And yes there is overwhelming scientific evidence dictating that the average global temperature is increasing. 

Despite this overwhelming consensus, the current administration in the U.S. has been very outspoken about their skepticism towards the reality of climate change and have decided to call it a ‘con’ , a hoax or a ‘lie’.  

Since the 1970s, and the passing of the  Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments,  air quality in the U.S. has improved, with air toxins declining 78%. It has been the actions of  the Environmental Protection Agency in regulating air pollutants that’s driven these declines in major pollutants including lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter.

Even with these gains, health issues caused by burning fossil fuels has been estimated to cost $820 billion annually in the US alone. Yet, President Trump currently aims to roll back more than 125 environmental rules and policies. 

As New York Climate Week takes off, we should look at the things we stand to lose if we do not acknowledge climate change and take efforts to mitigate it. 

1) US Department of Agriculture and the Roadless Rule

The current administration is moving to axe the 2001 Roadless Rule, which currently protects nearly 45 million acres of national forest land, owned effectively by every American citizen both now and in the future,  from deforestation by road-building and logging. 

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins called it “too rigid” and wants to open up areas like Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, where 92% of the land is protected from  logging. That’s nearly 9.3 million acres of wild forest now vulnerable to chainsaws.

Supporters claim it would reduce wildfire risk, but scientists argue that logging can actually increase wildfire risk. Removal of the large, older trees might give lots of young trees room to grow, but many of them end up dying and then drying out. Without the canopy, the sun and wind dry the entire area more, making it easier for fires to start and to spread. 

Not to mention, logging forests seriously impacts climate change. Trees absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere as they grow and store it in their trunks, branches, leaves, and roots in a process known as carbon sequestration. This carbon can be stored for centuries in healthy, living forests.

But when trees are cut down, much of that carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Once the tree is logged, its organic material starts to decompose, releasing carbon as carbon dioxide. Some carbon is also released immediately when wood is burned. Logging equipment and transport trucks run on fossil fuels, adding even more emissions. 

In total, America’s national forests offset about 10-15% of all U.S. carbon emissions each year; so losing this environmental safeguard will have a massive impact on climate change. 

This is not all, trees also catch air particulates through their plant pores or when particles stick to their “skin.” Which means trees are actually good for our health too. In fact, people who live around trees are healthier overall.  Less trees means a decline in air quality which is linked to  asthma, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses. Water pollution caused by deforestation contaminates drinking sources, contributing to the spreading of diseases like cholera and dysentery. Plus, forest loss may increase outbreaks of malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases.

Bottom line: Fewer protections = more logging = more carbon = worse health. 

2) Climate Change Satellite

NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) is like the Google Maps of greenhouse gases,  tracking how carbon dioxide moves through our atmosphere with pinpoint accuracy. It has revolutionized climate science, helping scientists, farmers, and even oil companies understand how CO2 is absorbed or released by forests, crops, and oceans.

But the Trump administration are not fans? They want to burn it up in the atmosphere. Literally.

Despite glowing reviews from NASA,  calling OCO-2 the “flagship mission for spaceborne measurements” of carbon dioxide, the Trump White House asked the agency to draft plans to end the mission by incinerating the satellite. Never mind that it cost tax payer’s money $750 million to design, build and launch it, and only costs about $15 million a year to keep running (that’s less than the cost of one F-35 fighter jet tire.)

Even worse, they’re eyeing both OCO satellites, including one still operating from the International Space Station. Losing them would destroy one-of-a-kind data that’s used for tracking droughts, managing crops, and even forest health. Scientists are stunned. One called the satellite a “national asset”, another warning that destroying it would cripple science.

And here’s the kicker: These satellites have enough fuel to keep running for decades, but instead of letting them do their job, President Trump  is pushing to kill them off, possibly illegally, by trying to cancel programs already funded by Congress.

3) Soft Banning of Climate Research

Fulbright was once the gold standard of academic exchange.

But in 2025, the U.S. State Department quietly added a political ‘review’ to the Fulbright selection process. Projects that mention climate change or anything deemed “woke” are now flagged and often rejected, even if they had already been approved by international panels.

This is not just a U.S. issue; it is a global one. In Norway, seven out of seventeen Fulbright  finalists were suddenly cut. Applicants weren’t told why they were rejected. Many only found out later, through leaks and whispers, that their projects were likely caught by a keyword filter run by a Trump appointee – the key words being ‘climate change’.  In one case, a proposal about science education was thrown out because it mentioned that boys and girls see climate change differently.

Even current Fulbright participants are being hurt; many Fulbright scholars woke up this year not to their usual stipend payments, but to emails saying their funding had been frozen indefinitely. The Trump administration quietly paused payments for thousands of U.S. and international students in State Department–funded programs, leaving them scrambling to cover rent, food, and basic expenses. 

Some are now stranded without the ability to work due to visa restrictions, while others fear going home means giving up their studies. Officially, the freeze was supposed to last 15 days, but that was back in February, 2025. Students have been told not to speak to the media, but behind the scenes, many say they feel abandoned, stuck in academic limbo while the administration conducts vague “reviews” tied to Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.

Is this an ill-time academic review process or  ideological screening? Trump’s State Department isn’t banning climate research outright. But they are quietly burying it, one proposal at a time.

4) Signs in National Parks

National parks are supposed to tell the story of America’s landscapes, but under Trump, that story is being rewritten with a red pen.

In 2025, the Trump administration directed the National Park Service to flag or remove any signs, exhibits, or books that might “disparage Americans”, including signs about climate change, pollution, sea-level rise, and environmental destruction.

At North Carolina’s Cape Hatteras National Seashore, a “The Air We Breathe” sign warning about how humans have caused climate change was flagged for possibly not focusing enough on the “beauty and grandeur” of the landscape.  Given humans have caused climate change, by pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere faster than ever before, this seems like an extremely petty move.

The Interior Department says it’s just “reviewing” signs, but internal docs show a plan to remove or cover signage. A project called “Save Our Signs,” has seen the public snapping photos of the original signs before they disappear, in the hope they can be reinstalled by future administrations.

5) The Endangerment Finding 

In July 2025, Trump’s EPA Administrator, Lee Zeldin, announced plans to “reconsider” one of the most important climate safeguards in U.S. history: the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which gives the EPA the power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Take it away, and the EPA can’t regulate climate pollution.

Zeldin declared proudly – “We are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion.” 

He claims that the Finding was “unorthodox”(despite being by the book), claims U.S. vehicle emissions weren’t a big enough contributor to matter (in 2022, 29% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. came from the transportation sectors, the vast majority of which were from cars and truck emissions), and points to recent Supreme Court decisions, none of which actually overturn the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

Massachusetts v. EPA, the landmark 2007 case that required the EPA to regulate pollution that endangers public health, still stands. Zeldin’s EPA just doesn’t want to follow it.

They also say “new science” justifies reopening the case; but in reality, that science makes climate action more urgent. Not less. 

When the real toll of climate change runs into the hundreds of billions and includes countless human lives, a claim that this proposal will save $54 billion in costs annually is not only insufficient, but morally shortsighted.

The reality is you can deny anything but that doesn’t make it go away – if it is real. Climate change is real … .and we need a grown up government that accepts that and stops pandering to the greed of a few fossil fuel CEOs.

Make your voice heard and Vote Earth. You can register to vote here.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post 5 Ways President Trump is Trying to Deny the Reality of Climate Change appeared first on Earth Day.

As world leaders gather in New York for Climate Week, the urgency of their task has never been greater. This year’s summit arrives on the heels of the third-hottest summer ever recorded in the northern hemisphere (surpassed only by 2023 and 2024) and a season defined by extreme weather disasters that made the climate crisis impossible to ignore.

The Palisades Fire tore through Los Angeles, leveling homes in affluent communities where the impacts of climate change had typically felt more abstract and remote. More people died from wildfire smoke in the US last year than from car crashes. Across the country, unprecedented flooding devastated towns from Asheville, North Carolina, where entire communities lost their homes and businesses, to Camp Mystic in Hunt, Texas, where 20 young campers and seven adults tragically perished.

Despite mounting human suffering and the nation’s top scientists sounding the alarm on the health impacts of climate change with new studies, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin, is now moving to dismantle the very foundation of U.S. climate policy. He proposes eliminating the EPA’s Endangerment Finding — a cornerstone ruling that recognizes greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and gives the agency the authority to limit pollution from vehicles and power plants. Zeldin’s move flies in the face of science, law, and basic morality

United in Action

This is why EARTHDAY.ORG joined with the Climate Action Campaign (CAC), and dozens of allied organizations to deliver over 225,000 public comments to the EPA, in person, urging them to uphold the Endangerment Finding. On September 17, we gathered at the U.S. Capitol for a press conference that underscored just how high the stakes are.

In a room filled with journalists and climate advocates, eight members of Congress—from Maine to Texas—spoke candidly about how climate change is already harming Americans of every background, through rising seas, collapsing fisheries, emerging diseases, and worsening wildfires.

Senator Ed Markey, of Massachusetts, warned that repealing the Endangerment Finding would eliminate regulations that “will kill jobs, cause families to shell out more for gasoline, and hurt our kids with asthma attacks.” 

Representative Chellie Pingree, of Maine, spoke to the collapse of her state’s fishing economy and the spread of climate-driven diseases: “It impacts our lives every single day. It’s impacting our economy and our livelihood.” 

Rejecting the influence of corporate profiteers, Senator Alex Padilla, of California, reaffirmed his commitment to constituents: “We refuse to allow corporations to speak louder than our kids and our neighbors. We’re seeing industry profits rise while communities burn down. And we’ll keep speaking out. We’ll keep standing up to what we know is wrong, because too many lives and future generations depend on it.“

The most powerful testimony, however, came from children. One girl declared, “Kids want the EPA to protect our health and future. Our generation is expected to live through three times as many climate disasters as our grandparents, and we’re already living through them.” 

An impassioned boy pleaded, “To every adult listening today who cares about children now and our lives in the future, we are asking you to please protect the Endangerment Finding and our future.” Their words were a reminder that climate change is not an abstract threat. It is impacting the lives of real people, in real time.

Delivering Public Outcry

After the press conference, we carried box after box of public comments to the EPA headquarters. Though the agency has recently weakened many avenues for public input, we refuse to let these voices go unheard, even if we have to deliver their comments by hand. 

As we set the boxes down in the EPA’s lobby, recently adorned with an austere presidential portrait, it was a good moment to reflect on everything we had heard at the Capitol from both seasoned elected leaders and young activists alike. Every person who spoke did so because they or their communities had already suffered loss because of climate change. Their message was clear: denying the causes, reality and dangers of climate change is not just a policy failure, it is an act of harm that results in destroyed homes, lost livelihoods, and shattered futures. If the Endangerment Finding is repealed, lives will be lost.

All of this unfolds on the eve of Climate Week NYC, beginning September 21. These global summits have often been criticized as inaccessible and toothless, more about speeches than solutions. But with the Endangerment Finding under direct attack, it is no longer enough for leaders to merely acknowledge the climate crisis.

The EPA is doing everything it can to deny the terrible costs of climate change, and we need the participants of Climate Week to help set the record straight. They must speak up and act, and they must do so with the same urgency that millions of families already feel in their lungs, their wallets, and their communities.

Want to make a difference? On a related issue, you can speak out by writing to strongly oppose Section 453 of the Interior Appropriations Bill, which would grant pesticide manufacturers broad legal immunity, even when their products cause harm.

The post Smoke on the Hill: Saving Climate Protections appeared first on Earth Day.

Senator Mark Hanna said, “There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can’t remember what the second one is.” His words, spoken more than a century ago, reign true in today’s political sphere as they did back then.

Money fuels American politics. It lets people share ideas, run campaigns, and amplify voices in government. Yet, when left unchecked, money can buy influence, reshape priorities, and hand control to the wealthiest players and corporations at the table. Lobbying is a central aspect of this dynamic.

In theory, it is a way for citizens, organizations and businesses to petition their government. In practice, lobbying has been shaped by moneyed interests, often down right corruption and scandal, and shifting laws meant to keep it in check. The history of lobbying in America is a constant battle of influence and regulation, and it is ongoing.  

What is Lobbying? What makes a Lobbyist?

Lobbying refers to the art of trying to influence government actions through written or spoken communication. However, not everyone who talks to a politician is a lobbyist. A regular citizen calling their representative to hear their point of view, or lawmakers rallying support for their bills, or staffers working behind the scenes are not lobbyists. 

Today, lobbyists are defined as those who spend more than 20% of their time lobbying others for pay. Though states differ in how exactly they define lobbying and lobbyists, all require registration and transparency. 

Origins of Lobbying

Lobbying has been woven into the American political system since the very beginning. The First Amendment promises the “right of the people to petition their government”. 

At the time it was not about professional lobbyists but a simple promise that citizens could bring their concerns directly to their leaders. After independence, Congress regularly considered bills born from citizen petitions, giving early Americans faith that their voices could shape law. 

While the Founding Fathers possessed remarkable foresight, they could not have fully anticipated the trajectory of the United States centuries later and how the wording of the Constitution could be twisted. Over time, lobbying has stretched far beyond this idea of handwritten petitions, becoming a professional industry that can amplify voices, open doors, and sometimes bend power toward those with the most resources.

The First “Lobbyist”

The first recorded lobbyist, William Hull, was hired by Virginia veterans of the Continental Army to persuade Congress to grant them additional compensation. His efforts were completely legal under the First Amendment and set a precedent that citizens and groups could directly push for changes in public policy. 

By the mid-1800s, lobbying was far from subtle. Samuel Colt, inventor of the famous Colt revolver, handed out firearms to lawmakers – even to a 12-year-old son of one Congressman — to push for a patent extension. 

During the Gilded Age money and politics became inseparable. Sam Ward, nicknamed the “King of the Lobby,”, charmed legislators with lavish dinners, fine wines, and witty conversation. He openly admitted to bribery when questioned by Congress. 

“I do not say I am proud — but I am not ashamed — of the occupation,” Ward declared.

First Attempts at Regulation

As lobbying gained influence, concerns over transparency grew. In 1938, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) required anyone lobbying on behalf of foreign governments to disclose their activities. This was passed partly out of fear that Nazi propaganda might seep into American politics.

Eight years later, Congress turned its attention to domestic lobbying with the 1946 Lobbying Registration Act. This law required anyone spending 50% their paid time directly lobbying the federal government to register and file quarterly reports. While groundbreaking for its time, the act left loopholes that lobbyists quickly learned to exploit, particularly by avoiding direct, in-person lobbying that the law explicitly targeted.

In 1954, the Supreme Court narrowed the law further in United States v. Harriss, ruling that only lobbyists who met lawmakers in person and tried to influence a specific bill had to register. This opened the door for many to quietly operate off the radar. 

Scandals & Crackdowns

For decades, lobbying largely escaped serious reform. That changed in the 1990s, when scandals exposed just how little oversight existed. 

In 1995, President Bill Clinton signed the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). This legislation redefined a lobbyist as anyone spending at least 20 percent of their time lobbying and introduced new restrictions on former government officials entering the industry. It also imposed significant penalties, including fines up to $200,000 and prison sentences up to five years for violations. The LDA attempted to close the “revolving door” that allowed public officials to transition seamlessly into lucrative lobbying roles.

Old habits die hard. In the early 2000s, lobbyist Jack Abramoff became the face of corruption in Washington by defrauding Native American tribes and bribing politicians to secure favorable legislation. His scandal exposed widespread unethical lobbying practices, leading to his 2006 guilty plea and prison sentence.

His conviction shook public confidence and prompted Congress to pass the 2007 Honest Leadership and Open Government Act,, which tightened gift rules and doubled reporting requirements.

The Birth of The “Unlobbyist”

Even with new rules, lobbying didn’t disappear, but it adapted. The late 2000s and early 2010s saw a rise in “unlobbyists” who acted like lobbyists but avoided registration by calling themselves consultants, advisers, or strategists.

Former members of Congress and high-ranking officials often moved into these roles, influencing policy without triggering disclosure requirements. This cycle is coined the “revolving door”.  Some, like former Senator Chris Dodd, became high-profile advocates for industries while remaining officially unregistered.

Chris Dodd avoided registering as a lobbyist by exploiting loopholes in the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), which requires registration only if an individual spends at least 20% of their time making lobbying contacts, earns certain fees from lobbying, and has multiple lobbying contacts. 

By framing his role as a “government affairs” or “policy adviser” position rather than direct lobbying, and by spending less than the threshold time on explicit lobbying activities, Dodd avoided the legal requirement to register as a lobbyist while still influencing policy as head of the Motion Picture Association of America. This practice, known as “shadow lobbying,” is common among former lawmakers who use their influence without triggering disclosure rules. Chris Dodd was never convicted of any lobbying-related crimes. He received the Presidential Citizens Medal from President Joe Biden in 2025. 

A Quieter, But Still Powerful Force

Reported lobbying spending peaked in 2010 at $3.6 billion, and has begun a slow decline ever since. Stricter rules, a sluggish economy, and a less active Congress pushed firms to shift resources to grassroots organizing, social media campaigns, and public relations efforts, which often fall outside disclosure laws.

On paper, lobbying may be shrinking. In reality, it’s simply changing form. The players are still there, the money still flows, and the influence remains. 

Increasingly Super PACs, formally known as “independent expenditure-only committees,” which emerged prominently after the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United decision, allow unlimited fundraising and spending by corporations, unions, and individuals for political campaigns independent of candidate coordination. 

This has substantially amplified the role of money in politics and represents another powerful force influencing elections and policymaking outside traditional lobbying structures. Super PACs now play a worrying role as a parallel channel for political influence worth mentioning in any discussion of modern lobbying and political spending

Lobbying has worn many faces, some noble, some notorious, but it is a form of politician posturing and persuasion that has survived every attempt to rein it in.  When money flows without accountability, it can bend priorities away from the public good toward those with the deepest pockets. 

The question today isn’t whether lobbying will disappear. It’s whether the balance between influence and transparency will tilt toward a healthier democracy or a system where the loudest voices are still the ones with the deepest pockets.

Join us at EARTHDAY.ORG in standing up for the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA faces attacks that could weaken protections for clean air and safe drinking water, putting our communities and future generations at risk. If you are in the U.S., we need your voice. Add your name to our public comments on the EPA’s intentions to gut the agency’s ability to regulate pollution due to climate change, also known as the Endangerment Finding.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Money Talks: A History of Lobbying in American Politics appeared first on Earth Day.

On July 29th, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s 17th administrator Lee Zeldin proposed removing the agency’s power to regulate fossil fuels. 

Zeldin proposes rescinding the Endangerment Finding  – the E.P.A’s 2009 scientific determination that greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, pose a threat to public health. It gives the E.P.A legal authority (under the Clean Air Act) to regulate emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other sources contributing to climate change.   Repealing it would remove the foundation for most federal climate regulations, allowing increased greenhouse gas pollution with severe consequences for public health. Administrator Zeldin seems delighted by this reckless move and appears motivated by his politics not about his duty to protect the public.

Administrator Zeldin’s actions would remove dozens of protections against air and water pollution – including losing limits on soot from smokestacks and pushing restrictions on emissions of mercury back to levels allowed over ten years ago. Mercury is ranked as one of the most hazardous substances on the planet and has no beneficial function in the human body. 

Lee Zeldin is effectively the one leading the charge to undermine ‘his’ own Agency making him the perfect person to lead what should be called the Environmental Pollution Agency. 

Qualified or Not? 

Lee Zeldin holds a bachelor’s degree in political science as well as a juris doctorate. Neither of these degrees are scientific or environmental in their scope. While holding science degrees is not universal or a prerequisite for the role in recent years it has become more customary. Of the six most recent administrators, five of them — Michael Regan, Andrew Wheeler, Gina McCarthy, Lisa P. Jackson, and Stephen L. Johnson, dating back to the Bush era — all had some scientific qualifications. Only Scott Pruitt, a 2017 President Trump pick, had no science background.

So, how did Zeldin end up at the E.P.A? Here’s his trajectory: he served in the U.S military for over two decades, which we honor. He was elected to the New York State Senate in 2010, serving in the 3rd Senate District, before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2014, where he served till 2023.

While the EPA’s website emphasizes his ‘contributions’ to environmental legislation, made as a Congressman, a closer look at his policies reveals a worrying trend: As a Long Island congressman, Lee Zeldin voted repeatedly to weaken the Clean Air Act, and he has supported fracking, ​​NPR reported he prefers to describe it as, ‘the safe extraction of natural gas’.  

Thanks to the rising sea levels, brought on by climate change, areas of the Long Island South Shore flood at least monthly with the tides. This issue prompted the creation of the Fire Island Inlet to Montauk Point Project, federally funded by U.S taxpayers to the tune of 2.4 billion dollars. Which Zeldin supported. Perhaps that is because in this specific case the consequences of climate change were literally impossible to ignore?

In fact of the 94 pieces of legislation he sponsored throughout his time in office, only 7 were under the category of “public lands and natural resources.”  It seems that his work to dismantle and establish clean air and clean water protections is just more of the same – his  March 12th, announcement of the “biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history” is not surprising. Nor is it triggering, it’s just what he does. 

Zeldin’s Not Alone In Undermining the Work of the EPA 

We know Administrator Zeldin has ardent supporters across industry for his actions, he also has an army of non-industry supporters too. 

For example, Mandy Gunasekara, a former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A), in the first Trump Administration. Gunasekara is not a climate change scientist but she helped to write the environmental section of the conservative policy agenda known as Project 2025. Her chapter appears to be the unofficial playbook outlining how the E.P.A should roll back the ‘Endangerment Finding’. 

Which seems very much at odds with this sentiment from her from 2019.

Ms Gunasekara is acknowledging how the E.P.A has kept our air and water clean. But how can our water and air stay clean if the Endangerment Finding is rescinded? 

Her thinking, and Zeldin’s, is very much at odds with US voters: 76% of Trump voters and 86% of all voters oppose weakening the E.P.A, 72% of Trump voters and 80% of all voters support increasing federal funding to communities harmed by air and water pollution.  Over 90% of Americans across party lines support strong clean water protection.

Another potential Zeldin ally is John Christy. He is a Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He was awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991, after his team developed a global temperature data set. Yet, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus, 99% of actively published climate scientists agree that human activities are causing climate change, Professor Christy claims fossil fuels are more helpful than harmful. 

In 2019, he was appointed to key EPA science advisory boards under the first Trump administration, and in 2025 the U.S. The Department of Energy funded and released a 150-page report co-authored by Professor.Christy, called “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” It claims human-caused climate change “appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed,” and states that mitigating against climate change might be more harmful than beneficial. 

Internationally recognized climate scientists have described this report as “deceptive,” “cherry-picked,” and “antiscientific.”

What motivates Prof Christy to be a contrarian? While not funded by the fossil fuel industry, his stance aligns with libertarian, and anti-regulatory values, and he frames his motivation as a desire for scientific independence and skepticism of consensus. It is as if he is invoking historical analogies like Galileo versus the establishment.

We fully anticipate that Prof. Christy’s deceptive/cherry-picked/antiscientific report will be presented as credible evidence by Lee Zeldin, to the Supreme Court, when the battle to protect the Endangerment Finding reaches it. 

We The People – Demand Clean Air and Clean Water

In 1970, 20 million Americans took to the streets on the very first Earth Day. They demanded these three things: clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and a healthy future for their families. Out of that movement Republican President Richard Nixon was inspired to create the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A) to deliver on the public’s vision –  clean air and clean water for us all.

Now, over 50 years later, the E.P.A is under attack. But we are not helpless. At EARTHDAY.ORG we don’t believe that ‘belief’ systems should determine the quality of the air we breathe or the water we drink. Only strong government regulation can.  Your family’s health is on the line and we urge you to join the thousands of other citizens who have made their feelings known by speaking up. 

If you are in the U.S., use your voice; add your name to our public comments on the EPA’s intentions to gut the agency’s ability to regulate pollution due to climate change. 

The time to act is now. Do it for your children’s health. For all of our children’s health. Nobody, no matter how rich or how powerful lives in a bubble. We all breathe the same air- in the end. Even if Lee Zeldin seems to have forgotten.

The post From Politics to Pollution: Administrator Lee Zeldin’s Path to Leading the Environmental Protection Agency appeared first on Earth Day.

Plastic pollution has escalated into a full-blown global crisis. It chokes and contaminates our oceans, infiltrates our food and our water supplies, threatens human health with toxic chemicals, indiscriminately kills wildlife, and places a heavy burden on future generations.

What is more, the United States produces more plastic waste than any other country on Earth. Which is why there is an urgent need for the U.S. to demonstrate true leadership on this serious issue by enacting comprehensive domestic laws, regulations, and policies that address the full lifecycle of plastics. This includes reducing, if not eliminating, our use of single-use plastics, holding plastic producers, many of them oil companies, truly accountable through extended producer responsibility, and investing in affordable and sustainable alternatives. 

A significant majority of Americans also support measures to reduce plastic waste, with 85% agreeing that plastic pollution is a serious issue requiring immediate action.

But this urgency has not been reflected in current federal action.

Current Snapshot of Federal Environmental Policy

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin seems to be ignoring public opinion and instead, in March 2025,   launched a sweeping deregulation effort that has reversed  31 environmental protections in what Zeldin has termed “the most consequential day of deregulation in American history”. 

His actions include rescinding emissions limits on coal and gas power plants, weakening vehicle pollution standards, challenging the foundational 2009 “endangerment finding” that classifies greenhouse gases as threats, and altering Clean Water Act definitions. The latter is especially egregious as it narrows the definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) and excludes many wetlands and streams from pollution protection, despite scientific evidence that these waters are crucial not just for the health of vital ecosystems but also for drinking water safety.

In February 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14208, ending the federal procurement and “forced use” of paper straws and reinstating the use of plastic straws  across federal operations. That executive order also rescinded apolicy that aimed to phase out single-use plastics on federal lands by 2032.

Beyond straws, the administration has shifted to a pro-petrochemical stance for broader plastic policy. The EPA is easing regulations on chemical recycling to reduce oversight of pollution. This approach aligns with the plastics and oil industries, which increasingly support expanding production while relying on so-called downstream waste solutions.

Fortunately, across the United States, lawmakers are proposing a wave of bills designed to reduce plastic pollution and protect our health. But to turn these proposals into laws, they need more public support! 

Here’s a breakdown of the key federal bills we support and how they work together to move us toward a plastic-free future. Let’s hope they all pass and are voted into law.

1. Tackling Single-Use Plastics

Single-use plastics are one of the biggest contributors to pollution, and several Bills aim to reduce or eliminate them. Almost two-thirds of plastic waste comes from plastics’ short lifetimes of plastics, and 40% of waste comes from packaging. Polystyrene (aka Styrofoam), Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), and black plastics are among the most toxic plastics. 

The Farewell to Foam Act would ban the sale of harmful polystyrene foam in federal facilities, which would reduce non-recyclable waste. The Reducing Waste in National Parks Act would phase out single-use plastic products in our most cherished natural places. The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act (BFFPPA) is a comprehensive Bill to reduce single-use plastics and would establish nationwide waste reduction targets and require extended producer responsibility (EPR).

Extended Producer Responsibility is essentially a way to hold plastic producing manufacturers and companies accountable for the waste their products go onto create. By making producers responsible for the full lifecycle of their products, EPR aims to not only reduce pollution but also encourage better product design and, perhaps most importantly, shift the burden and cost of waste management away from the public and onto those who profit from the products. That means plastic producers would have to clean up the trash, and pay for it, not all of us. 

2. Keeping Microplastics Out of Our Water!

Microfibers, microplastics, and nanoplastics are invisible threats polluting our water, entering our food chain, and even ending up in our bodies. These tiny plastic fragments are either intentionally produced, like microbeads in cosmetic products used to exfoliate, or are created when larger plastic materials break down and degrade over time. 

A lot of plastic microfibers are shed from clothes and textiles made from synthetic materials like nylon and polyesters, both of which are types of plastics. 18 million microfibers may be released from a single load of laundry alone.  The Fighting Fibers Act would tackle this wave of microfiber pollution by requiring a special filtration system to be used on all new washing machines that would capture these microfibers before they reach our waterways and oceans.. 

That’s not the only way plastic is getting into our water system. The basic building blocks used to make a lot of plastic products are small pellets called nurdles, and unfortunately they are often discharged into our rivers, wetlands and the ocean by the plastic industry. 

The Plastic Pellet Free Waters Act bans the discharge of these pre-production plastic pellets or nurdles into all waterways and would go a long way to keeping our waters plastic free. 

Finally, the WIPPES ACT would require clear “Do Not Flush” labeling on non-flushable wet wipes, with the aim of preventing costly sewage clogs. Utilities across the U.S. spend millions clearing sewers,for example, Vancouver, Washington spent over $1 million in just five years to replace pumps damaged by wipes, and Maryland’s WSSC Water removed 700 tons of wipes from a single facility in one year alone! Clear “Do Not Flush” labeling, as proposed in the WIPPES Act, will hopefully prevent these problems and protect both important  infrastructure and the environment. 

All of these policies address pollution at the source, before it reaches our ecosystems or gets into our bloodstreams.  

3. Protecting Health and Frontline Communities

While the plastic public health crisis is only just starting to be fully understood and investigated, the evidence of harm is already overwhelming.  The brunt of plastic pollution, and the knock on health issues connected with it, falls hardest on low-income and communities of color, as they are significantly more likely to live near plastic production and waste sites. 

African-Americans for example are a staggering 75% more likely than other Americans to live in frontline communities—areas that face the most severe impacts from pollution, climate change, and environmental hazards. Which means that these communities are  disproportionately exposed to health risks from toxic plastic industries and yet frequently excluded from the decision-making processes that impact their lives.

The Save Our Seas 2.0 Amendments Act strengthens environmental protections for communities living near plastic and petrochemical facilities. Specifically, it supports stronger partnerships across state, local, and tribal governments to prevent, reduce, and remove plastic pollution. It also increases funding and resources for projects that address the adverse impacts of plastic pollution on both the environment and public health and perhaps most importantly empowers the communities most affected by plastic to be part of the solution by inviting them into the decision-making process and cleanup efforts.

One piece of legislation that would make that a reality is the Protecting Communities from Plastics Act which calls for a moratorium on new or expanding plastic production facilities. It  also requires comprehensive cumulative impact assessments and mandates community engagement, with public comment periods and meetings hard-wired into the system. Ensuring that residents have a greater voice and access to real-time data about local pollution and risks.

The Not So Good News We Should All Know

Unfortunately, while many bills are trying to solve all of the issues, there are others doing the opposite: federal bills that would do a lot of harm to the environment, and ultimately our health.  We must defend the  Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate toxic chemicals and water and air pollution. Regulatory agencies like the EPA must be empowered, not weakened, if we are to address the full scope of our plastic crisis.

Bills like the Accelerating a Circular Economy for Plastics Act is supported by the industry because it focuses on advanced recycling, which we know is not a solution the the plastic crisis but a way to deflect from our massive over production of plastics. It incentivizes the idea that old plastic can just be recycled over and over again in an imaginary circular economy by investing in ‘chemical’ recycling. This is not a reality.

Here’s why: chemical recycling, namely pyrolysis and gasification, are energy-intensive, inefficient, and often result in the plastic being burned, releasing toxic pollutants and greenhouse gases. Typically only 1% to 14% of plastic sent to these sorts of ‘chemical recycling’ plants is actually recycled into new products.  Even at full capacity, existing chemical recycling facilities in the U.S. could handle less than 1.3% of the nation’s annual plastic trash.

The Clean Air Act CRA would overturn EPA rules limiting pollution from petrochemical facilities.The No IRIS Act threatens the EPAs scientific ability to assess chemical health risk under its Integrated Risk Information System. 

Perhaps even more worryingly, as international negotiations advance toward a  UN Global Plastics Treaty, the U.S. has stepped back from supporting binding caps on plastic production.. However, States and municipalities are increasingly stepping in as federal momentum stalls. 

What Can We All Do To Push Back On Plastics?

Visit EARTHDAY.ORG to educate yourself on the impacts of plastic pollution, join grassroots movements, and take part in cleanups in your community. Together, we can push for a more sustainable future but you need to make sure our elected officials KNOW this issue is important to you.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Turning the Tide: 3 Types of Federal Bills Targeting The Menace of Plastic Pollution appeared first on Earth Day.