Welcome to Meteorology Matters. So yesterday
was quite a day, wasn't it? It was, Earth Day,
the 55th anniversary. Yeah, 55 years. It's amazing
to think back to 1970, 20 million Americans out
demonstrating. Right. And this was before the
big environmental protections we kind of take
for granted now. Exactly. No environmental protection
agency, no Clean Air Act, no Clean Water Act,
not in the way we know them. And that massive
public movement, that first Earth Day, it actually
led directly to the EPA being created later that
very year. It really shows the power of collective
voice, I think, which kind of sets the stage
for what we want to talk about today on Meteorology
Matters. Right. Looking at the current environmental
policy landscape, specifically under the Trump
administration. Yeah, and contrasting it with
those original Earth Day principles and, well...
the direction things have been heading for decades.
It's quite a shift. It is. The focus seems very
much on energy production now, perhaps, over
those protections. Let's dig into that. The administration's
goal, stated as unleashing American energy, seems
central. And that's involved actively dismantling
regulations that they see as well. burdensome
for fuel producers. Which, not surprisingly,
has led to lawsuits from conservation groups
trying to keep those regulations in place. Absolutely.
And part of that regulatory picture, there are
reports the EPA is preparing to possibly eliminate
the need for polluters to report their greenhouse
gas emissions. Wow. Eliminate reporting. That
seems fundamental to tracking progress, or lack
thereof. It does. How do you manage what you're
not measuring, right? Then there was the proclamation
giving coal plants a break. Oh, yeah, the two
-year exemption exactly from tougher air pollution
standards the administration framed it as necessary
for energy reliability and National security
reliability is often the argument used isn't
it? But you have to weigh that against the air
quality impact definitely and it goes beyond
just exemptions reports suggest a much wider
Dismantling is happening. You mean federal offices.
Yeah Offices overseeing clean air, drinking water,
our national parks, forests, conservation efforts.
Climate smart farming, environmental justice.
It sounds like a pretty broad sweep. It really
does. And if these reports are accurate, it raises
big questions about the government's ability
to actually oversee these areas effectively.
And tied into that are the reported mass layoffs.
We're hearing about agencies like the National
Weather Service, FEMA. the EPA itself, the Forest
Service. Losing experienced staff like that,
I mean, the institutional knowledge is huge.
It could really impact how these agencies function
day to day and in emergencies. So organizational
changes, staff cuts. What about the rules themselves?
Well, reports also point to slashing regulatory
standards for fossil fuels, petrochemical plants,
mining. Basically, polluting industry is potentially
facing fewer hurdles. Which could mean, well,
more pollution. Potentially. That's the concern,
certainly. And then there's talk about going
after the nonprofits, too. How so? There was
a rumor, at least, a potential executive order
to remove the tax -exempt status for some climate
advocacy groups. That would hit their funding
hard. It could seriously hinder their ability
to operate. And alongside that, a push for a
budget reconciliation bill. To do what? To cancel
billions in grants from the previous administration.
Funds meant for clean energy and environmental
protection projects. OK, so that's a lot of action
on the administration side. What's the response
been like? You mentioned lawsuits earlier. Right.
That seems to be a major avenue for pushback,
challenging the legality of the layoffs, the
funding suspensions, even things like removing
climate change information from government websites.
Has there been much street protest like that
original Earth Day? You know, observers noted
that maybe initially the large scale street resistance
seemed a bit underwhelming. Any idea why? Well,
speculation includes maybe just the sheer scale
and speed of the changes, people feeling overwhelmed,
perhaps some groups trying to remain apolitical,
and maybe just general protest fatigue after
several intense years. That makes sense. But
is that changing? It seems so. We saw reports
of increased mobilization recently, these all
out on Earth Day actions. What do those involve?
Environmental groups joining up with pro -democracy
groups, their message seems to be about the fundamental
right to live free and healthy lives, connecting
those two ideas. Interesting link. Any specific
examples? Yeah, in New York, there was a hands
-off migrants march. They explicitly linked migrant
justice issues with concerns about fossil fuels,
arguing both relate to displacement and hardship.
OK, so drawing connections between different
issues. Exactly. And in Milwaukee, a stop the
cuts march protested reductions not just in environmental
and climate funding, but also health care, education,
seeing it all as interconnected. Right. And I
saw something about a planned protest targeting
James Murdoch. Yeah. Yeah, the Planet Overprofit
and Hashtag Tesla Takedown Coalition. They're
reportedly focusing on pollution allegations
against Tesla and framing the Trump -Musk relationship
as a threat. Speaking of New York, the city controller
Brad Lander seemed pretty vocal on Earth Day.
He was. He directly condemned the rollbacks and
pointed to specific impacts on the city. reported
cuts to climate infrastructure funding, specifically
mentioning FEMA apparently canceling the BRIC
program that's building resilient infrastructure
and communities. And BRIC funding was important
for New York City. Hugely important. It was earmarked
for critical flood protection projects, which,
for a coastal city like New York, is vital with
rising sea levels. Wow. What else did he mention?
He also highlighted the reported halt of a major
offshore wind farm project that was supposed
to power hundreds of thousands of homes with
clean energy. So hitting renewable energy goals,
too. And impacting related port development jobs.
Plus, he mentioned layoffs at the Department
of General Services impacting lye heat. Lye heat.
That's the energy assistance program for low
-income households, right? Exactly. Helps people
afford heating and cooling, so cuts there could
really hurt vulnerable New Yorkers, especially
with more extreme weather. So Landers highlighting
local impacts. Is he doing anything proactively?
Yes. He announced he's pushing the asset managers
who handle the city's retirement funds harder
on climate, demanding credible net zero plans.
And he actually threatened to put their contracts
out to bid if their plans aren't good enough,
using the city's financial clout. That's significant.
And didn't he also bring up Tesla again? He did.
He reportedly renewed his call for litigation
against Tesla, expressing concern that Elon Musk's
focus on other ventures like DOGE could negatively
impact Tesla's performance and, by extension,
the city's climate goals, given their pension
fund investments. OK, so pressure from multiple
angles there. Yeah. Stepping back to the bigger
picture, how are observers framing this overall
direction? Many are calling it a war on the planet,
essentially. An attempt to undo much of the environmental
progress made since that first Earth Day, potentially
leading to, well, more pollution and ecological
damage. And we heard reports about the EPA administrator's
plans. Right. Pledging to dissolve the agency's
scientific research office, cut staff significantly,
undo numerous regulations. It's quite a list.
Which really undermines the science -based approach
to policy, doesn't it? Correctly so. And of course,
there was the withdrawal from the Paris Climate
Accord. A huge international step. And efforts
reported to get around the Supreme Court decision
that allows the EPA to limit carbon dioxide emissions,
plus canceling clean energy incentives and, as
we mentioned, that reported desire to let polluters
skip emissions reporting. It paints a picture
of really trying to remove climate considerations
from policy. That seems to be the direction.
We even heard about a leading climate scientist
who actually moved to New Zealand because of
the administration's stance. Really? Left the
country? Yeah. And warned that other researchers
might follow. He stressed how serious exiting
the Paris agreement was, saying the U .S. can't
just opt out without major consequences, and
that there's an ethical responsibility to lead.
What does the public think about all this? Any
sense of that? Well, one survey reportedly found
that over half of Americans actually oppose this
reversal on climate leadership, including Republicans.
Apparently, younger Republicans showed notable
concern. The perception seems to be growing that
these rollbacks could threaten jobs, especially
in clean energy, plus public health and the environment
generally, and U .S. leadership. OK, so potentially
a gap between policy direction and public opinion
there. Now, there was one more area of concern
mentioned. International aid. Yes, very concerning
reports about the cancellation of USAID and its
international conservation programs. What kind
of programs are we talking about? Things like
protecting endangered species, fighting poaching,
illegal fishing, providing clean water and sanitation
in developing countries. Really vital work. And
the impact of cutting that. Potentially devastating
for those efforts. Yeah. But it gets even more
immediate and tragic. How so? There are alarming
reports about cuts to emergency food aid, specifically
aid for starving children in countries like Bangladesh
and Somalia. Emergency food aid. You mean like
therapeutic food. Exactly. Life -saving stuff
like that special peanut based. Apparently, despite
some initial focus on the issue, the administration's
actions have disrupted the entire delivery pipeline.
So the food isn't getting there. Reports say
shipments of this critical aid are literally
stuck here in the U .S. And for children suffering
severe malnutrition, delays like that. While
the consequences can be fatal very quickly. That's
incredibly grim. It puts a very human face on
these policy decisions. It really does. It shows
how decisions made in Washington can have life
or death consequences thousands of miles away.
So wrapping this up, reflecting on that 55th
anniversary of Earth Day yesterday, the contrast
is just unavoidable, isn't it? Stark, you had
this moment that sparked major environmental
protections and now a very different direction
being reported. With serious concerns being raised
about the long -term impact on, well, everything,
our environment, public health, our international
standing, and as we just heard, even the most
vulnerable populations globally. It's a pivotal
moment, it feels like, forcing a hard look at
the kind of future these choices might lead to.
Absolutely. Which brings us to a final thought
for you, our listeners. Thinking out the history
that first Earth Day and everything we've discussed
today on meteorology matters What role do you
see for individual action? For collective mobilization
in shaping where we go from here on environmental
policy. It's definitely something worth pondering.
How does change happen now indeed? Keep thinking.
Keep engaging. And for more discussions like
this, remember you can follow meteorologist Rob
Jones on Instagram, that's meteorologist. On
TikTok, it's TV meteorologist. And on YouTube,
follow Rob Jones Hurricane. You'll also find
the Meteorology Matters podcast playlist there
on YouTube.