Author: Ryan Jacob

Extremely high temperatures, over 120 degrees Fahrenheit, were experienced in the Pacific Northwest in 2021. While this may be interpreted by some as a sign of the times, is the frequency of such events truly increasing because of climate change? The startling conclusion of a new study is that they are not.

According to a UCLA research group, global warming may be affecting annual summer temperatures, but it is not leading to an increase in extreme weather events like the 2021 heat wave. As a matter of fact, scientists have estimated that heat waves like the one in the Pacific Northwest only happen once every 10,000 years.

“It was unbelievable how harsh and terrible that heat wave was,” says Karen McKinnon, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at UCLA’s Institute for the Environment and Sustainability, in a press release from the institution. Extreme weather is difficult to predict with climate models, and preliminary studies have found almost no possibility of such events occurring.

The study was conducted by McKinnon and co-author Isla Simpson of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who looked at climate model simulations and historical weather trends in the states of Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia. According to their analysis, climate models can reproduce intense heat waves like the one in 2021, which only occur once every several thousand years. Moreover, the models predict that this will only happen once per 100,000 years in the cities where temperatures peaked at roughly 121 degrees.

Won’t Climate Change Speed This Timetable Up?

The research found that the frequency and intensity of heat waves are both rising as a result of climate change. This tendency, however, by no means ensures a prosperous future. McKinnon claims that there is no evidence from the past to support the claim that early summer heatwave temperatures rose more quickly than usual. In 2021, a heat wave swept the Pacific Northwest, and experts say it was caused by a combination of climate change and extremely unlucky natural variability.

Researchers examined whether or whether other regions of the world are becoming more vulnerable to extreme climate events by analyzing data from similar places such as coastal Alaska, British Columbia, Canada, and the Nordic countries. These places are all in the same general latitude as the Pacific Northwest and have many of the same characteristics. Heat waves are caused by high-pressure systems that remain stationary and do not move, as is the case in this region.

Even with the doubling of greenhouse gases over the next century, the findings of 50 climate model simulations looking at weather from 1850 to 2100 reveal that a heat wave like the one in the Pacific Northwest will only happen once every 10,000 years.

On the bright side, “we don’t see indications that occurrences this dramatic should start happening routinely,” as McKinnon puts it. The summer of 2022 was marked by extreme heat in several parts of the world, including the United Kingdom, China, and the state of California. It’s important to keep analyzing whether or not these catastrophic events are supporting or contradicting our most recent discoveries concerning the state of the climate.

 Related Articles:

• The New Uk Government’s Climate Comments Have Environmental Groups Worried
• We Miscalculated Our Climate Tipping Points!
• Jane Goodall, a Primatologist, Warns that Climate Change Is “approaching a Point of No Return”

Could the Models Be Wrong?

More historic heat waves will require scientists to review their models, even if McKinnon does not think that extreme occurrences are warming faster than normal temperatures are right now.

If instances with a 10,000-year return frequency persist, the researcher concedes, “there may be something missing in the climate model we utilized.” Though it’s encouraging that extreme weather isn’t becoming more often, the authors of this study stress that global warming is still a persistent issue.

McKinnon says, “If everything is moving with mean climate change, it can sound like it’s not so awful,” but then he points out the catastrophic repercussions of climate change we’re already experiencing.

Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego used her city as an example Thursday during a discussion on how local governments can help guard against the impacts of climate change. The discussion took place online and focused on how local governments can help protect their communities from the effects of climate change.

Gallego referred to the current time as “an exciting time for Phoenix,” despite the many issues that are plaguing the city, such as a severe drought, falling water levels, and rising temperatures that are predicted to treble the frequency of days above 105 degrees in the coming decades. Despite these issues, Gallego referred to the current time as “an exciting time for Phoenix.”

She made this remark while participating in a roundtable discussion on the topic of the effects of climate change on cities that was organized and hosted by Route Fifty, a journalistic organization that focuses on the management of state and local governments.

The meeting drew attention to the reality that many cities are already suffering from the repercussions of climate change, including droughts, heat waves, floods, and hurricanes. These are only some of the effects. It was planned that St. Petersburg Mayor Ken Welch would accompany Gallego, but he ended up being preoccupied on Thursday with the clean-up activities following Hurricane Ian, a Category 4 hurricane that wreaked havoc on Florida earlier this week.

According to Gallego, the city of Phoenix has challenges in the form of wildfires, drought, and high temperatures. According to her, the city of Phoenix is rising to the challenge by engaging in activities such as the planting of trees and legislating that all newly constructed buildings be more energy efficient. Because of the city’s dedication to environmentally friendly technologies and the broad availability of electric vehicles, she referred to Phoenix as “Electric Valley.”

Sandy Bahr, the director of the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, believes that the investments that the city is making right now are a significant start in the right direction, despite the fact that the city might be doing more to prepare for the effects of climate change.

Speaking in a general sense because she was not present for Gallego’s address, Bahr remarked that Phoenix’s climate action plan is “a substantial improvement over past plans” and that it includes a variety of programs that can assist the city in meeting its climate goals. Bahr did not attend Gallego’s speech.

The city of Phoenix, as well as the rest of the state, are at risk for a number of climate-related issues, some of which include the continuation of a drought that has lasted for 22 years, rising temperatures, and a deteriorating water shortage in the Colorado River and its reservoirs.

Cynthia Campbell, who works as a consultant for the city of Phoenix on matters pertaining to the management of its water resources, has asserted that the city can act as an example for other municipalities due to the length of time that it has been affected by droughts.

When Campbell made the observation that “Because we are in a desert, we look at drought not as something that is very remarkable but more of a given,” he expressed it the best.

 Related Articles:

• The New Uk Government’s Climate Comments Have Environmental Groups Worried
• We Miscalculated Our Climate Tipping Points!
• Jane Goodall, a Primatologist, Warns that Climate Change Is “approaching a Point of No Return”

Michael C. Morgan, Assistant Secretary of Commerce at NOAA, issued a stern warning that the Valley has a great deal more to prepare for in the years to come. Morgan, who was also present at the event with Gallego, made a reference to a federal climate tool that makes projections that the city will become even hotter as the amount of carbon emissions increases.

At the moment, “you have roughly 46 days a year that it’s above 105,” Morgan said. “That’s a lot of days.” “By the middle of the century, you can anticipate that 80–90 days out of the year will have temperatures of 105 degrees or more.” Morgan issued a warning that when the city warms up, the heat will have an especially harmful impact on communities of color, individuals who are old, and people who are facing homelessness.

A total of 67,600 cases have been reported worldwide, with roughly 25,500 of those occurring in the United States. Even if the number of COVID-19 cases has decreased, a global pandemic still exists.

Scientists predict that as factors including the destruction of animal habitats and human expansion into previously deserted places accelerate, zoonotic diseases—viruses that may be transmitted between animals and humans—will become increasingly widespread.

Humans and Animals Are Interacting More

The earliest documented case of monkeypox in a human was in 1970, and the earliest in a monkey was in 1958, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As a result of factors including deforestation, population increase, and animal breeding, once-isolated populations of humans and wild animals are now frequently in close proximity to one another.

Nearly a billion acres of forest have been cleared since 1990. A United Nations analysis found that annual deforestation rates have been declining, with an average of 25 million acres being removed each year from 2015 to 2020, down from roughly 40 million per year in the 1990s.

When forests are cut down, not only does it have an effect on the climate, but it also causes animals to seek out new homes in increasingly close proximity to humans. According to Lanre Williams-Ayedun, senior vice president of international programs at World Relief, a sustainability nonprofit organization, “you’re just seeing the effects of the change in the environment, the change in animal behavior, the change in human behavior, bringing wild animals and humans more into contact where they can have more contamination.”

According to Dr. Carl Fichtenbaum, vice chair for clinical research in internal medicine at the University of Cincinnati, these shifting patterns in animal migration and reproduction can affect how diseases behave in their natural host, perhaps making them more contagious.

He explained that “the germ adapts to the new species when it gets the opportunity to do this several times, depending on the particular germ.”

According to research conducted by the United Nations, roughly sixty percent of all human infectious diseases and seventy-five percent of all developing infectious diseases are zoonotic or transmitted from animals to humans. Ebola, Zika, and COVID-19 are just a few that researchers think may have spread through bats.

Could the Current Monkeypox Outbreak Have Been Predicted?

Some African nations regularly experience outbreaks of monkeypox. However, unlike several other viruses, monkeypox has the potential to “self-limit,” meaning that it is not as contagious. Williams-Ayedun remarked, “It wasn’t anything you would have expected would become such a major pandemic.”

In some areas, the smallpox vaccination was used to practically wipe out the monkeypox virus. Williams-Ayedun noted a significant decline in vaccination rates among adults younger than 40.

These days, people also travel further and more frequently. “We’ve seen that something that happens in what we think is a faraway region of the world somewhere can very simply become a concern where we live,” she said, referencing the ease with which viruses can move throughout the world.

Assistant professor of Virginia Tech’s fish and wildlife Luis Escobar said that while researchers have been able to predict where small outbreaks of monkeypox are more likely to occur – poorer regions, areas with war or social conflict, or remote places – it is in those places where data is less accessible.

The data may be insufficient, in his opinion. We may not have had enough information to foresee a pandemic of this scale. He continued by saying that researchers need to look for zoonotic diseases “everywhere” since “we don’t know which [area] is going to trigger the next pandemic.”

As Fichtenbaum points out, there are hundreds of microbes in the ecosphere, making it difficult to predict which ones may cause a global pandemic. To claim, “Well, I can predict that this germ is going to be the next great germ,” he continued, “would be really fraudulent.” Like our ability to forecast earthquakes, I don’t think we’re particularly good at predicting whether or not a certain event will occur.

The Spread of Zoonotic Diseases Will Likely Become More Frequent

According to Escobar, researchers working to stop the spread of the disease have ignored historical facts in favor of focusing on the future.

He explained his studies by saying, “I do it in part to anticipate the future.” “But we’re making serious attempts to piece together what happened in the past. By looking at the history of wildlife diseases, climate, and forest legislation throughout the past century, we can better comprehend current events.”

As a group, he and his colleagues have utilized these simulations to make predictions about future trends, looking out 50 to 100 years. However, zoonotic illnesses may not require so much time.

According to Escobar’s findings, bat-transmitted diseases could see a dramatic uptick in the next 12–20 years. As Latin America warms, bat populations will shift and fewer bats will live in the northern parts of the continent, he added, which might have repercussions for the southern United States.

In addition, animal-only diseases may provide insight into the future of human civilization. A widespread fish virus, for instance, may wreak havoc on aquaculture as the effects of climate change become more severe, threatening both food security and economic growth, as explained by Escobar.

What Can Be Done About It?

Fichtenbaum argues that government policy must eventually deal with the problem of zoonotic disease transmission. “The most common reactions to climate change are, “Well, this is horrible for the environment, and we’re going to see floods and we’re going to have heat waves, and this may threaten economic survival,” and I think that’s where the conversation has to be right now.

 Related Articles:

• The New Uk Government’s Climate Comments Have Environmental Groups Worried
• We Miscalculated Our Climate Tipping Points!
• Jane Goodall, a Primatologist, Warns that Climate Change Is “approaching a Point of No Return”

The costs of human illness and poor health are often overlooked.” Ayedun-Williams noted that in recent years several zoonoses researchers have been advocating for a “one health” strategy, which would involve the integration of public health, veterinary health, and environmental health.

Scarcity can lead to hunting wild animals or cutting down trees for housing, which in turn drives zoonotic infections, so it’s crucial to help people get jobs, safe shelter, and food, she said.

PORTLAND, the largest city in Oregon — As the typically mild Pacific Northwest region experiences longer heat waves and more ferocious wildfires, Oregon is preparing to become the first state in the nation to cover the costs of climate change for certain low-income patients through its Medicaid program. This will be done in response to Oregon’s preparations to become the first state to do so.

According to the Oregon Health Authority, beginning in 2024, Medicaid enrollees who have health problems and who live in areas that have been declared a federal or state disaster due to extreme weather will have access to funding for the purchase of devices such as air conditioners and air filters. These enrollees will also be required to live in areas that have been declared a federal or state disaster.

The director of the OHA, Patrick Allen, stated that the organization’s mission is to assist those who are “struggling to cope with the repercussions of extreme heat, wildfires, and other disasters caused by climate change.” This move is connected to what the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the United States Department of Health and Human Services have referred to as “groundbreaking Medicaid programs” in both the state of Oregon and the state of Massachusetts.

On Wednesday, the federal government said that it would continue to exempt certain Medicaid requirements for both states. In an effort to address the socioeconomic aspects that frequently lead to poor health, these waivers will extend beyond the provision of medical care to include assistance with items such as the provision of food and shelter for those who have clinical requirements.

New Medicaid initiatives in Oregon that address climate change, nutrition, and housing will receive $1.1 billion in additional federal funding. These initiatives fall under the category of “health-related social needs,” which was developed by Oregon health officials. In the course of the subsequent five years, the state will serve as a testing ground for the newly formulated policies.

“Health care does not occur in a vacuum; it’s evident that we must look beyond a traditional, segmented approach to effectively serve the needs of individuals, particularly those who are battling complex difficulties,” Governor Kate Brown of Oregon said in a statement.

The Governor of Massachusetts, Charlie Baker, has promised to “continue to welcome creative changes” in order to “provide quality treatment, better health outcomes, and equity.” There are two reasons why the new Medicaid plan in Oregon is noteworthy: the first is that it is the first in the country to include coverage of climate change, and the second is that it will automatically enroll children in the program up to the age of six without requiring their families to re-enroll them every year. Both of these aspects make the new Medicaid plan in Oregon noteworthy.

After the “hot dome” weather phenomenon in the summer of 2021, which caused record temperatures and deaths, officials in the Pacific Northwest have been attempting to acclimate themselves to the foreseen reality of more extreme heat spells. This is because more extreme heat spells are likely to occur. In Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, over 800 people passed away as a result of the extreme heat that caused temperatures to exceed 116 degrees Fahrenheit (46.7 degrees Celsius) in Portland and break heat records in cities and towns throughout the region. A significant number of the dead were older folks who had been residing on their own.

The new Medicaid program in Oregon provides protection against financial hardship by covering the cost of backup generators in the event that there is a loss of power. Additionally, the program covers the cost of devices that keep the home at a suitable temperature and free of pollutants. To put it another way, according to Allen’s explanation, “it is premised on the medical indication that you are more prone to heat episodes.”

You may be qualified to get such equipment if you are a member of Medicaid in the state of Oregon and you live in an area where an emergency has been declared due to extreme weather conditions. One example of how people’s health could be negatively impacted by climate change is the increased risk of heat-related illnesses during heat waves. Extreme weather events such as storms and floods, which can also disrupt food supply networks, can have a considerable negative influence on people’s health, both physically and mentally.

These threats disproportionately affect areas with poor incomes, populations that are getting older, and those who already have health problems.

Medicaid was established by the federal government and the various states as a way to assist low-income persons of any age in affording medical treatment. Each state determines its own eligibility requirements as well as the scope of the services it offers. The federal government is responsible for paying a portion of the expenses that are spent by the state. “there is a lot of talk in climate change about making sure that when we address the health hazards of a changing climate, that we do so in a way that decreases inequities,” said Kristie Ebi, a professor in the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the University of Washington.

Ebi is quoted as saying that “there is a lot of talk in climate change about making sure that when we address the health hazards of a changing climate.”

According to Ebi, the proposal for Oregon’s Medicaid “offers an opportunity to minimize some of those inequities” for individuals who, for instance, are unable to pay for a generator to keep life-saving equipment running during heat waves because they are unable to afford it. Both the state of Oregon and the state of Massachusetts are working to broaden the pool of individuals who are qualified to receive benefits from Medicaid, such as financial assistance for housing and food.

 Related Articles:

• The New Uk Government’s Climate Comments Have Environmental Groups Worried
• We Miscalculated Our Climate Tipping Points
• Frozen Planet: Documenting the Effects of Climate Change on An Arctic Glacier

A few examples of the several kinds of assistance with wholesome food that are offered include customized meal plans based on an individual’s dietary requirements as well as Medicaid-funded prescriptions for fresh produce. Examples of the several sorts of housing services that may be provided include assisting in finding a rental, packing, and preventing evictions from taking place.

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Medicaid enrollees in the state of Massachusetts who are children or pregnant women with specific clinical needs will be eligible for supplemental meal support if they are enrolled in the program.

In the state of Oregon, a person who is experiencing a significant change in their life, such as being homeless or at risk of becoming homeless, may be eligible for short-term rental assistance for a period of up to six months.

In a nation that is increasingly confronting the effects of global warming while experiencing a historic energy crisis, initial comments by the conservative administration of British Prime Minister Liz Truss have sparked questions about her climate policy. The United Kingdom is currently experiencing a historic energy crisis.

When the new prime minister assumed office at the beginning of September, he immediately suggested a set of measures that were designed to slow the alarmingly quick increase in the country’s energy prices. They included the lifting of a moratorium on controversial gas fracking and the acceleration of offshore oil and gas development in the North Sea. Both of these measures were taken in the region.

In 2019, the United Kingdom put an end to the practice of fracking due to worries that it could trigger earthquakes. Fracking is a method that is used to retrieve hydrocarbons from extremely deep within the earth. In spite of the record-breaking profits that oil companies have been bringing in over the past several months, Truss has rebuffed the requests to impose a windfall tax on the industry.

The announcement that hundreds of environmental protection laws that were inherited from the European Union could be changed or repealed by the year 2023 was the last straw for environmental campaigners last week. “Nature is under attack from a spate of hazardous choices by the Government,” said Craig Bennett, CEO of The Wildlife Trusts. “We know people are outraged about the rising threats,” he said.

Laws protecting wildlife are in jeopardy, the extraction of fossil fuels is being given higher priority than the development of renewable energy sources, and the federal government is backing out of its promise to financially reward farmers who manage their land in a way that is beneficial to wildlife. Due to the prolonged drought that has affected parts of the United Kingdom (UK) for the past several months, record high temperatures that were achieved this summer, and heat-induced fires, many people in the UK have had their eyes opened to the potential future repercussions of global warming.

The country is one of the pioneers in Europe when it comes to the fight against the effects of climate change. It wasn’t until 2008 that Britain became the first nation on the planet to approve a law specifically addressing climate change. Rapid shifts have also taken place in the structure of the nation’s energy supply, with coal expected to account for only 3% of the country’s total energy consumption by the year 2020, down from 20% in 2013.

During the COP26 climate meeting that took place in Scotland the previous year, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson established tough climate targets. One of these aims included the eventual elimination of the usage of gasoline and diesel automobiles. Truss, the person who took over after him, was never regarded as someone who had a significant concern for the environment.

But even some on her own side are confused by the rash decisions she’s been making. “The incoming administration must not heed to siren calls to row back on environmental pledges when the answers to the numerous crises we confront, from climate to the cost of living, are complementary,” Chris Skidmore, a conservative lawmaker, and former energy minister said. “The solutions to the numerous crises we confront are complementary.”

Early in the month of September, a group of environmentally conscious parliamentarians representing a variety of political parties sent Truss a letter in which they urged her to reconfirm her support for the goal of achieving carbon neutrality. During her first address to parliament as Prime Minister, Trudeau stated her “complete commitment to reaching carbon neutrality by 2050.” However, she also stated that she would “re-examine” that target to ensure that it could be achieved in a manner that would be positive for the economy and growth.

The choice of Jacob Rees-Mogg as Truss’ secretary of… for business, energy, and industrial strategy has also added gasoline to the fire of skepticism regarding the trajectory of future climate policy in the United Kingdom. Rees-Mogg, a member of the Conservative Party who is opposed to onshore wind power, has stated that he wants affordable electricity for his voters “far more than I would like them to have windmills.”

In addition to this, he has warned against “climate alarmism” and has lately accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of backing opponents of shale gas in the United Kingdom. Ed Miliband, the key spokesperson for the opposition Labour Party on climate change and net zero, has referred to him as “a dangerous climate denial” after hearing his views.

 Related Articles:

• We Miscalculated Our Climate Tipping Points
• Jane Goodall, a Primatologist, Warns that Climate Change Is “approaching a Point of No Return”
• Jane Goodall, a Primatologist, Warns that Climate Change Is “approaching a Point of No Return”

Friends of the Earth is an organization that campaigns for environmental protection, and they have voiced their concern over the recent nomination of someone to lead energy policy who has previously campaigned for the extraction of “every last drop” of oil from the North Sea. “Increasing the exploitation of fossil fuels is a flawed approach to solving the problem of inadequate energy supply. The incapacity of our society to wean itself off of fossil fuels has resulted in the skyrocketing of energy prices, and it now appears that a climatic catastrophe of catastrophic proportions is approaching “…the last part of the study.

Rebecca Newsom, a representative for Greenpeace, stated that the appointment of Rees-Mogg “suggests that the Tories have learned nothing after years of failure in energy policy.” The next national election is not anticipated to take place before the year 2025, and the subject of climate change has emerged as one of the most important campaign topics for the Labour Party.

Knowing that the globe is warming rapidly has not sped up attempts to address the situation. A developing worry is that projections of when the worst effects of climate change will take place may be too optimistic. From the salinization of the Amazon to the thawing of permafrost methane in Siberia, natural phenomena can have domino effects that can hasten forecasts.

In some policy and scientific circles, there is a growing sense of arrogance that the human race can avoid the worst impacts of the climate catastrophe by gambling on carbon-capture technologies or taking the unknowable risks associated with geoengineering. Politicians need to start discussing the present, with measurable annual reductions in emissions.

The reversal of progress toward eliminating the use of fossil fuels poses a threat to humanity and the planet’s very survival. We are leaving an incomprehensible legacy if we do not act with greater ambition and make real bipartisan attempts to confront the most crucial issue of the century. It is imperative that we prevent the Earth from becoming uninhabitable in the near future.

Due to the huge shift in economics in favor of renewable energy, the problem’s root lies in both the technological and political realms. While the field of climate science is far from perfect, it does help highlight concerning tendencies that should inform and steer domestic and foreign policy in the United States. For over 30 years, scientists have worked to develop ways to apply their knowledge and experience to policymaking, but we may soon reach a point of no return.

Some researchers are changing tactics and are contemplating civil disobedience and political action in an attempt to spur more rapid change. Why should scientists compromise their objectivity by trying to address a problem traditionally left to economists and city planners? Because the window of opportunity for making real progress this decade is so narrow. If the most recent United in Science assessment is accurate, the average annual temperature will exceed the Paris Agreement’s targets (at least temporarily) over the next five years.

Potentially more common usage of the term “tipping point,” which describes a situation at which a critical threshold is crossed, could increase the prevalence of references to sudden shifts in climate. Scientists’ predictions of gradual warming starting around mid-century have been shattered by the rapidity with which the trend is developing.

There have been huge heat waves, droughts, and wildfires in Europe, and a third of the population in Pakistan has been displaced due to massive flooding. Recent research has also demonstrated that ice melt and other physical phenomena in the Arctic and Antarctic are occurring at a considerably faster rate than was previously thought.

To scientists accustomed to thinking in terms of gradual, linear progress, this comes as a rude awakening. All too likely, we will not react quickly enough, both in terms of mitigation and adaptation, unless we place a higher priority on civic engagement and educate the public on the potential outcomes facing our planet. On the other hand, one should not give up hope.

Even if climate change poses a number of threats to our economy and reflects divisive opinions on how to address the issue, the international aspects of the problem may give the United States unexpected opportunities. Long-term patterns related to displacement and migration frequently overshadow the significance of Latin American countries and the Western hemisphere more generally.

Devastating heat and drought have forced many people to leave their homes and livelihoods in the Central American countries that make up the Dry Corridor, which stretches from southern Mexico to northern Panama. To make matters worse, Mexico is putting a lot of effort into becoming energy independent through fossil fuels.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has derailed global efforts to reduce carbon emissions because policymakers are too focused on the near term to address the longer-term effects of the conflict on the economy. However, numerous nations in the hemisphere have lofty goals, are rapidly expanding their renewable energy and green hydrogen infrastructure, and are making major contributions to conservation. Many of the essential minerals and inputs for industries that can aid in the United States’ energy transition are held in numerous Latin American countries.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has been heralded as a positive development. More than a quarter of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from the automobile industry; the bill’s approximately $370 billion in investment and tax credits will help lead future action, particularly in this sector.

The legislation’s international aspects are encouraging since it has the potential to improve trade links and economic prospects in the Western hemisphere by establishing more resilient supply networks headquartered in the Americas.

In the coming years, the IRA will mandate that critical minerals like lithium, which is required for energy storage and electrification, come from either domestic sources, recycled components, or countries that have a free-trade agreement with the United States. These countries include Australia, Chile, Peru, Mexico, and Canada.

However, the IRA law is not as ambitious as it should be if the United States is serious about moving toward a more environmentally friendly economic model. Despite some consensus among voters of both parties in recent years, addressing the climate crisis will continue to be cast as a partisan issue without a clear, politically viable pathway forward.

This is true even though targeted investments and subsidies, the creation of carbon border taxes, and federal job training can all help. Whether the current demands on American democracy further polarize us and our reaction to this crucial task or reflect a new feeling of togetherness to bring the country together, there is a growing political risk.

Related Articles:

• Jane Goodall, a Primatologist, Warns that Climate Change Is “approaching a Point of No Return”
• Frozen Planet: Documenting the Effects of Climate Change on An Arctic Glacier
• What Progressives Should Know About Combating Climate Change

There is still a chance of reaching the second scenario. The first step is for regular folks to prioritize a set of policies and problems. The state of our environment and the long-term consequences of “business as usual” should be at the forefront of voters’ minds when elections are held around the country in the coming months.

Voters should be aware of the risks of inaction, which include the failure to address domestic issues and the threat posed by a warming planet, as well as the failure to restore confidence in U.S. leadership abroad.

In the absence of immediate and substantial action to reduce emissions, the future may look catastrophically worse, with little hope of recovery; this would be disastrous for the earth and our legacy as its stewards.