Reckoning with the rewrite

Historical changes in the past year have affected all aspects of how we approach climate change in the U.S. Given both the large size and high quality of the federal climate enterprise, we can expect global consequences.

In reviewing the columns I have written since the 2024 presidential election, I was struck by the two that generated the most reader response: A hot take on propaganda and Climate science: No time for a stacked deck.

The durable message from A hot take on propaganda: We have arrived at a time defined by an organized and systematic effort to rewrite climate science so it aligns with the stated priorities of the government’s Executive Branch. If effective, the rewrite should convince people to support ideological, political, economic, and personal agendas advantageous to fossil fuel extraction and use.

Unfortunately, propaganda is effective, delivering broad consequences to both believers and nonbelievers alike. Some people are desensitized to the issues, and many others just try to accommodate the current reality and go on. The effort required for persistent and direct resistance is high. The cost of resistance is even higher.

Climate science: No time for a stacked deck introduces a long-standing feature of my classes on problem solving — on how to get things done. It was the first column I wrote after the 2024 election because I thought the arguments and conclusions regarding a new administration’s climate policy would be more important than ever.

The message of that column was that it has always been difficult, regardless of which political party controls the government, to maintain climate change as a top policy priority.

Vision and revision

The broad consequences of rewriting the climate narrative include undoing years of policy progress. Worse, it is misleading us toward expectations that technological fixes will be able to
manage warming, ocean acidification, and other aspects of carbon dioxide pollution.

At the November 2025 United Nations meeting on climate change, the Conference of the Parties (COP30), the world arrived at the point of stepping back from committing to a transition away from fossil fuels. This undid the slow progress of previous meetings, characterized by the struggle to even suggest a priority of reducing the use of coal.

The U.N.’s weakening commitment to transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables illustrates several attributes of a flawed process that makes it difficult to develop binding policies and treaties.

First, the U.N. requires consensus statements. But countries dependent on petroleum extraction for their economic well-being are unlikely to agree to apparent self-damage. And previous agreements, which were voluntary and self-determined, were not being met.

Second, from COP26 in 2021 to COP30 in 2025, the petroleum industry and its most supportive nations have exerted increasingly obvious influence over the proceedings. Notably, in many nations, the petroleum industry is nationalized; hence, there is little separation between industry and national policy.

With the U.S. stepping back from the Paris Agreement, other countries can justify their own weakening position on fossil fuels. The U.S. is the world’s largest producer of crude oil and a major exporter of petroleum products. Our government supports large fossil fuel subsidies, so it’s not surprising that U.S. policy on limiting fossil fuel use has always lacked clarity and definition. And now, by abandoning any pretense suggested by the Paris Agreement, U.S. policy flips to the promotion of fossil fuel extraction and use.

Technology’s promise?

Stepping back from a goal of reducing fossil fuel use is a step toward reliance on technology to solve global warming. In particular, it is a nod toward carbon capture and storage, including direct air capture. These are expensive technologies, with many unproven characteristics. To pursue them means admitting that warming is a problem. We are committed to letting it get worse before we patch it up.

The allure of the “technological fix” has been part of the politics of climate change for decades. It was a natural position of the fossil fuel industry, and in the U.S., part of the Republican agenda. In recent years, I saw my students grow increasingly comfortable with the concept of technological fixes.

In part, this is due to an evident conclusion that removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere will be a necessary part of limiting and reducing warming. My students’ comfort, however, extends beyond removing carbon dioxide to geoengineering fixes such as altering the atmosphere to increase the reflection of solar radiation back to space. This is called solar radiation management (SRM).

I have no doubt that the increasing comfort with technological fixes reduces feelings of urgency to reduce emissions. It makes it harder to keep a focus on slowing the warming. And it also relies on the emergence of benevolent technological fixes. This reliance can be profoundly dangerous.

Enter Bill Gates

Of our nation’s billionaires, Gates has been one to put some of his money toward solving environmental and health issues. He has, in fact, funded research in solar radiation management.

Just prior to COP30, Gates published Three tough truths about climate. His post was quickly embraced by President Trump who felt Gates had “seen the truth of the climate hoax.” This article, Why Bill Gates’ climate memo is being celebrated by skeptics while frustrating scientists, is the best I have seen objectively analyzing the memo. I also like Michael Mann’s analysis, Michael Mann to Bill Gates: You can’t reboot the planet if you crash it.

Gates did what many have done before and will continue to do. He put out a thought piece just prior to the U.N. climate meetings with the motive to influence the discourse. Gates, however, is actively trying to solve big problems; he has more resources than many of the nations in the U.N. In fact, he has the resources to experiment and even implement some forms of solar radiation management. Therefore, he is not just another academic or collection of scientists warning about climate change. When he sets priorities, money is involved.

Same as it ever was

If I consider Gates’ position in relation to my article, Climate science: No time for a stacked deck, it is as it has always been. Not only is it difficult to keep mitigation as an A-list priority, but it is also difficult to make it a spoken priority at all. It is, as if we do all of these other things right, climate change will take care of its self — a fatal flaw of management.

In Keeping our focus on climate change, I write that there is much more to addressing climate change than what goes on in the U.S. federal government. There are local governments. There are companies and nonprofits. Adaptation is important and more likely to command funding than mitigation.

Other countries continue to focus on climate change as they transition to renewable energy solutions. They take the lead in climate science, energy transition, and technology.

Like any great movement or societal change, addressing climate change is hard. There are setbacks. It is the job of climate leaders and champions in the U.S. to keep the real work moving forward amid shifting federal priorities and the diminishment of climate research capacity. We have to keep things going to be ready for the next moment of change.