Tag: Climate Change

My CCL Adventure in Washington DC

It is a long post. Just read the parts that seem interesting to you.

I am a member of a non-partisan volunteer organization called the Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) which seeks to create political will for a livable future. At one point I was quite skeptical and doubtful of global warming or climate change or climate disruption whatever you like to call it. The reason was that I almost exclusively read and watched rightwing news media such as world-net-daily (tended to push conspiracy theories), Newsmax and Fox News.

I believed in the concept of global warming / greenhouse effect, it is basic science after all, but I thought that it was exaggerated and politicized and that it was promoted and distorted by left-wing agendas. I incorrectly believed that there was no scientific consensus on the issue. I also bought into the false narrative that this was about environmentalist ideology, politics, or even a sort of environmentalist religion, and not a real and serious problem. My disdain for environmentalists, my ideology, and my gut feelings certainly aided the propaganda in misleading me. In addition, I read a lot by Björn Lomborg and Patrick J. Michaels and I believed them.

After noticing a few red flags indicating that I was wrong I decided to take a deep dive into the topic, and I learned quite a bit. I learned that global warming / climate change, as well as ocean acidification is real and that it is caused by us, primarily because of our burning of fossil fuels. It helped that I had a background in physics. You can read more about my journey here.

I joined CCL because I had been so wrong, at the same time as I felt that I had finally learned something substantial about the subject, that the topic is important, and I also liked that CCL is non-partisan.

As the name Citizens Climate Lobby suggests we do a lot of lobbying. It is not the kind of paid lobbying that is done by professionals and that is often associated with money. We are average constituents, average voters, with no money, who are visiting our legislators to give them information and opinions on legislation we support or don’t support. Since we are non-partisan, we visit both Democrats and Republican offices. We just had a CCL conference in Washington DC on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday. We were 800+ volunteers who visited 400+ Congressional offices in Washington DC on Tuesday July 22nd. That is why I have not been online much for about a week.

The photo shows about 400-500 well-dressed people standing in front of the Capitol in Washington DC. The people in the front row are holding a big American flag | My CCL Adventure in Washington DC
Roughly half of the CCL volunteers at 8:00AM on Tuesday July 22nd. The others were sleeping in but joined us later. In the background you see the Capitol.

On Tuesday I visited three Texas Congressmen, including Senator Ted Cruz (R, TXJR), Congresswoman Beth Van Duyne (R, TX24), and Congressman Marc Veasey (D, TX33). We also had a zoom call with Congressman John Carter’s (R, TX31) office (the fourth meeting). I am the CCL liaison for Senator Cruz’ office and I was the one who organized our visit, from our side. It was a brief visit with Senator Cruz and a substantial discussion with a couple of his staff. Ted Cruz does not always agree with us, but we had a friendly and interesting meeting, and he and his staff appreciated us being there. Below I have included three photos from my three Tuesday meetings.

My CCL Adventure in Washington DC
Senator Cruz hosts a Texas Tuesday Coffee for Constituents in Washington, DC on July 22, 2025. (Official U.S. Senate photo by Rebecca Hammel)
Ted Cruz is standing in the back between the flags. I am in the front row, second from the right wearing a blue suit. We are twelve people.
A photo of six people standing in front of Representative Beth Van Duyne’s Office. The legislative aide, Isabel de Antonio, is standing in the middle. There is also an American flag and a Texas flag.
CCL volunteers meeting with a legislative aide, Isabel de Antonio, working for congresswoman Beth Van Duyne, Republican, Texas district 24 (that’s where I live). Isabel de Antonio is the one wearing a white shirt. I am standing on the far left. Eric, a CCL volunteer, is taking the photo and is not in the picture.
A photo of seven people standing in front of Representative Marc Veasey’s Office. The legislative aide, Mike Burnside, is standing in the middle. There is also a Texas flag.
CCL volunteers meeting with a legislative aide, Mike Burnside, working for congressman Mark Veasey, Democrat, Texas district 33. We also had a constituent and liaison representing 192 CCL volunteers in TX33 call into the meeting. Mike Burnside is the one wearing a white shirt. I am standing second from the left.

Overview of the Five Asks

With this post I wanted to show our Asks, so that readers know what we ask from our politicians. I do not expect anyone to read the CCL handouts below. I am including them to illustrate how we approach legislation. Don’t worry about the details. Trust me, the actual bills are even longer (the poor staffers of the politicians must read it). I can add that our Vice President of Government Affairs (CCL employee), Jennifer Tyler, was the Deputy Chief of Staff and Legislative Director for the Republican Congressman John Katko (NY-24). Having been a prominent leader in the Republican Party she is able to craft legislative Asks that not only appeal to Democrats but to Republicans as well.

I can add that CCL has a small staff consisting of highly educated people including climate scientists and policy experts. The CCL board features prominent climate scientists and prominent politicians and economists. George W. Schulz, Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State, was (well is as an honorary member) on the CCL board but he passed away. I also think that CCL volunteers tend to be more nerdy than average. A lot of our volunteers are scientists, physicians, brain surgeons, engineers, PhDs, psychologists, authors, artists, businessmen, business owners, oil executives, etc., but naturally everyone is welcome. We are a well-informed volunteer organization and as a result both Democratic and Republican offices see us as a great resource for information and ideas.

These were our six Asks. As you can see, not all of them apply to both parties. One Ask is only for Republicans because Democrats are already fully onboard. One Ask is only for Democrats because the Republicans are already fully onboard. Another Ask is only for Republicans because there’s no chance Democrats will support it (but Republicans have more votes). In other words, an emissions and pollution reducing mix of Asks that overall is bipartisan.

  • Support the Clean Energy Transition – Fund Key Clean Energy Programs in FY26 Appropriations – Democrats + Republicans.
  • Support the Clean Energy Transition – Fix Clean Energy Tax Credit Implementation – Republicans only, because Democrats are already full onboard.
  • Support the Clean Energy Transition – Advance Smart Permitting Reform for Energy Projects – Democrats + Republicans but different handouts.
  • Support H.R. 471, the Bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act – Democrats only because Republicans already fully onboard.
  • Support S. 1462, the Bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act – Democrats + Republicans.
  • Support Foreign Pollution Tariff Legislation – Republicans only, because we know Democrats are against it.

Funding Clean Energy Research

Fund Key Clean Energy Programs in FY26 Appropriations was the first part of three parts for our primary Ask : Support the Clean Energy Transition. The 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill (One Big Beautiful Bill) cuts funding from two research organizations, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E). ARPA by the way is a prominent research organization, it is, for example, responsible for the creation of the internet. The reason we are asking to restore some of the funding for these organizations is because the world is moving towards clean energy and recently China has aggressively invested in clean energy. Cutting research in this area is a recipe for getting behind.

Clean Energy Tax Credits

The Clean Energy Tax Credits were significantly cut in the Budget Reconciliation Bill. It was specifically provision 48E, investment credits for wind and solar, 45Y, tax credits for wind and solar, 25C, tax credits for home efficiency improvements, such as insulation, energy efficient doors and windows, etc., that were cut. I should say that the 48E and 45Y for other types of clean energy, such as Nuclear, Geothermal, Hydro, and Biofuels, stayed, which we are grateful for.

The reason we are asking to restore some of the tax credits for wind and solar, is not that they need the tax credits to survive. Wind and solar energy are very cheap, and they are doing very well. However, they are prominent sources of clean energy and removal of the tax credits will significantly increase the energy cost for consumers, as you can see in the graph below. The loss of the credits will also result in the loss of jobs and investments in projects already underway. A list of the effected investments and projects in the US listed per congressional district can be seen in this link. Since virtually all Democrats already support the restoration of the clean energy tax/investment credits, we are only asking this from Republicans. Admittedly this is a tough one for them.

Smart Permitting Reform for Energy Projects

The third part of the Primary Ask is Smart Permitting Reform for Energy Projects. What many people don’t realize is that what is holding clean energy back the most is not the cost or time for building wind and solar. That is relatively easy. The big obstacle is getting permits to build the energy plants and permits to build transmission lines needed to bring the electricity to our homes. In both cases the process is typically at least ten years. However, by cutting red tape and streamlining the process it could be reduced to around a year.

This applies not only to wind and solar but to all types of energy, which is why Republicans tend to support permitting reform. Since most of the new energy coming online is wind and solar, and they often replace dirty coal, thus reducing emissions, we strongly support permitting reform. We have done the research, so we know that this is a very good way to reduce emissions. In this case we formulated the Ask differently for Republicans and Democrats.

Primary Asks Sheets

Portion of text - Support the Clean Energy Transition for Affordable and Reliable Power. With household energy costs forecast to rise, we urge Congress to support targeted, pragmatic policies that enable clean energy to compete, scale, and deliver dependable and affordable power to Americans. Our Policy Recommendations: 1. Fund Key Clean Energy Program in FY26 Appropriations 2. Fix Clean Energy Tax Credit Implementation 3. Advance Smart Permitting Reform for Energy Projects As energy demand grows and extreme weather events strain the grid, clean energy can strengthen our domestic energy independence, enhance grid reliability, and reduce emissions—all while lowering costs, creating jobs, and spurring private-sector investment.
Our primary Asks for Republicans. We are asking the same thing from Democrats and Republicans, but the presentation is different. Notice that in both cases we are pointing out that the removal of the Clean Energy Tax Credits for Wind and Solar in the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill (One Big Beautiful Bill) will increase costs for consumers. In the Republican version we are pointing out that not funding research into clean energy will put us behind the rest of the world, especially China, which is aggressively pursuing development in clean energy.
Portion of text - Fund Key Department of Energy Clean Energy Prog. No Competing with China—or Cutting Costs—Without Investment in Innovation. Our global edge is at risk. Fix Clean Energy Tax Credit Implementation. Tax Credit Cuts Threaten Energy Security and Raise Costs. Advance Smart Permitting Reform for Energy Projects. Permitting Bottlenecks Are Holding Back American Energy | My CCL Adventure in Washington DC
Second page of primary Asks for Republicans.
Portion of text - Advancing Clean Energy for a Safer Climate and Affordable Power. Our Policy Recommendations: 1. Advance Smart Permitting Reform for Energy Projects 2. Fund Key Clean Energy Programs in FY26 Appropriations The rollback of key Inflation Reduction Act provisions was a setback for both emissions reductions and affordable energy. These cuts make it harder to meet climate goals and will raise costs for American families | My CCL Adventure in Washington DC
Our primary Asks for Democrats. Notice that in this case we are not asking them to fix the Clean Energy Tax Credit Implementation. The reason being that they are already 100% behind it.
Portion of text - Fund Key Department of Energy Clean Energy Programs. Clean Energy Innovation Depends on Strong Federal Investment. We urge Congress to reject proposed cuts and fully fund the following programs: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E).
Second page of primary Asks for Democrats

Fix Our Forest Act

Our first Secondary Ask is Support H.R. 471, the Bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act, when it Comes Back to the House. To explain, it was voted on in the house, sent to the Senate where they made some changes, so it needs to be voted on again in the house. This is an Ask that we reserved for Democrats. It was not because we thought Republicans wouldn’t like it but because they had already voted Yes for it unanimously. We know the Republicans like it. However, we needed to make sure the Democrats who were less favorable of it would not turn against it, which is why we are asking them to vote yes on it.

To explain what the bill is about, scientists have concluded that climate change and poor forest management are both making wildfires worse, at least in the United States. Out of control wildfires in turn make climate change worse. Climate change will take several decades to fix and requires the whole world to act. However, improving forest management we can do today for ourselves. To read the full text of the original house bill click here. To read the full text of the Senate version of the bill (S.1462) click here.

Portion of text - Support H.R. 471, the Bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act, when it Comes Back to the House. Reduce wildfire risk, improve forest health, and protect local communities. Wildfires are a growing crisis, impacting nearly every state. Wildfire smoke crosses borders, harming air quality and public health across broad regions. The increasing severity of wildfires poses unprecedented threats to our public safety, health, and economy. However, with better forest management, we can reduce the severity of such fires and better protect communities. The House passed its version (H.R. 471) in March. In April, the Senate introduced an improved version (S. 1462), led by Senators Curtis (R-UT), Hickenlooper (D-CO), Sheehy (R-MT), and Padilla (D-CA). We believe the Senate version strengthens the bill and we urge you to support it when it returns to the House.
This is the house version H.R.471 of the Fix Our Forest Act. It already has full Republican support in the house, so we are only asking Democrats to support it.
Portion of text - Support S. 1462, the Bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act. Mitigate wildfires, improve forest health, and protect local communities. The Fix Our Forests Act incentivizes and streamlines the active management of our forests, while preserving and strengthening important environmental and community protections. The bill will make our forests and communities more resilient to wildfires.
This is the Senate version S.1462 of the Fix Our Forest Act. We are asking both Republican and Democratic Senators to support it.

Foreign Pollution Fee

The Foreign Pollution Fee Act S.1325 (full text in link) was introduced in the Senate by Senator Lindsey Graham (R). This is a resolution that if it becomes law would greatly reduce carbon emissions around the world, and yet it is pretty much only supported by Republicans. It might come as a surprise that there is a pro-climate resolution that’s almost entirely Republican, but it happens sometimes. Our goal is to get close to unanimous Republican support and with the help of a few moderate Democrats get it passed.

Some background, China emits more carbon pollution than any country on earth. On the other hand, there are 1.4 billion people in China and per capita they emit only half that of the United States, which comes in at number two with respect to total emissions. In addition, the United States is the country that has emitted the most carbon emissions over time. On the other hand, the US emissions are going down, unlike China’s, and more importantly in this context, certain products such as steel, aluminum, fossil fuels, etc., are produced creating a lot more emissions in China than in the US, which has cleaner manufacturing. For example, one ton of steel produced in China or Russia result in four times as much carbon emissions as the same ton of steel produced in the US. It is not fair to cleaner US manufacturers to import products from dirty manufacturers without taking into account the cost of pollution to all of us.

Portion of text - Make “Filthy Pollution Havens” Pay at the Border. Support Foreign Pollution Tariff Legislation. Through hard work and innovation, the United States is one of the cleanest and least-polluting countries in manufacturing. As President Trump has noted, other countries have “created filthy pollution havens,*” and their exports should not have a free ride in the US market | My CCL Adventure in Washington DC
Make “Filthy Pollution Havens” Pay at the Border. Support Foreign Pollution Tariff Legislation.

Washington DC Congressional Buildings

The congressional buildings are the three buildings that are part of the house of representatives, Rayburn, Longworth, and Cannon, and the three Senate buildings, Russel, Dirksen and Hart. I encircled them in red in the map below. If you are visiting several offices, there is going to be a lot of walking. Therefore, women should bring a comfortable pair of shoes in a backpack in addition to nice shoes for inside the buildings.

I can add that the offices in Rayburn are bigger and nicer than the offices in Longworth and Cannon, and Rayburn has the main nice cafeteria. Longtime congressman tends to have their offices in Rayburn. The same is true for the Senate. Russel has the nicest offices and the best cafeteria, and the long-time Senators tend to be in Russel. Ted Cruz is in Russel 167. He has a great office.

The map shows the Capitol, congressional buildings, part of the mall, US Supreme court, and library of congress.
This is a map of the Congressional buildings. The three houses of representatives’ buildings, Rayburn, Longworth and Cannon, are towards the bottom encircled by a red line. The three Senate buildings, Russel, Dirksen and Hart are towards the top left encircled by a red line.

In case you are interested, this is the full text of the 2025 Reconciliation Budget Bill H.R.1. The nickname for the bill is One Big Beautiful Bill. Warning, it is very big. Beautiful is a matter of opinion.

My Super Fact List

This is not a super fact post. Just an informational post. If you want to see my list of super facts, click the link below.

To see the Super Facts click here

Review of Glacial by Chelsea Henderson

I recently read a very interesting book on the history of climate change politics; Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson. Chelsea Henderson is a leader in the EcoRight movement, basically Republicans who care about the environment and climate change. She is a former senior advisor to Senator John Warner (Republican) and have held other positions in the US Congress. Her book is non-partisan. However, naturally she is accepting the reality of human caused global warming.

I should mention that the second last sentence of the seventh paragraph of my rather long review says this “As of very recently, a few days ago, those Tax Credits have been reversed.” Those few days ago have not yet happened. I thought Amazon would take longer to publish my review and I was predicting that the vote today/tomorrow on the Senate version of the Budget Reconciliation Bill (the Big Beautiful Bill) would allow it to pass. So those few days ago have not yet happened because Amazon was faster than I thought. Basically, the Budget Reconciliation Bill will roll back or phase out the clean energy tax credits enacted in 2022. For those who don’t know what a Budget Reconciliation Bill is, it is a bill that allows you to bypass the filibuster, and it is therefore typically a highly partisan bill.

Glacial The Book Formats

Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson comes in four formats. I bought the hardback format.

  • Hardcover –  Publisher : Turner (August 6, 2024), ISBN-10 : 1684429579, ISBN-13 : 978-1684429578, 432 pages, item weight : 1.45 pounds, dimensions : ‎ 6.25 x 1.25 x 9.25 inches, it costs $ 23.11 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
  • Paperback –  Publisher : Turner (August 6, 2024), ISBN-10 : 1684429587, ISBN-13 : 978-1684429585, 432 pages, item weight : 1.34 pounds, dimensions : ‎ 6 x 0.96 x 9 inches, it costs $13.10 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
  • Kindle –  Publisher : Turner (August 6, 2024), ASIN : B0CBQKTM46, ISBN-13 : 978-1684429592, 460 pages, it costs $12.44 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
  • Audio–  Publisher : Tantor Audio (August 13, 2024), Listening Length : 9 hours and 50 minutes, ASIN : B0DCCWRMJS, it costs $0.00 with membership on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Front cover of hardback format of the book Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson | Review of Glacial
Front cover of hardback format of the book Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the hardcover version of the book.

Amazon’s Description of Glacial

It took nearly sixty years for a meaningful climate change bill to run the political gauntlet from Capitol Hill to the Oval Office. Why?

From mavericks to party standard-bearers, U.S. Senators, members of the House of Representatives, and presidential candidates have campaigned for four decades espousing their intentions to address the impacts of climate change.

Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics is the first Inside-the-Beltway account to lay bare the machinations of what went wrong in Washington—how and why our leaders failed to act on climate change as mounting scientific evidence underscored the urgency to do so. Glacial tells a story of behind-the-scenes infighting and power struggles that blocked or derailed federal legislative progress on climate change, even in times of bipartisanship and with polls showing most Americans favored action.

The good news today is that public opinion is at its highest level of support for climate action, from corporate boardrooms embracing sustainability for business reasons to movements led by passionate younger generations who can’t afford to stand mute because it is they who will inherit the worst environmental catastrophes. If the missed opportunities in Washington are instructive, the path to doing so is clear. Our elected officials must use their offices not solely for the power and prestige it bestows upon them personally, but for the public good—and they must do so while there is still time.

My five-star review for Glacial

The Glacial Pace of Climate Policy

This book recounts the history of the politics around climate change starting with the LBJ administration and ending with the Biden administration. LBJ was the first commander in chief to warn his fellow Americans of a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

The author, Chelsea Henderson is a leader in the Eco-Right movement, basically Republicans for the Environment. Some well-known names in this movement are former secretary of state James Baker (under H.W. Bush), and the former secretary of state under Ronald Reagan, the late George Shultz, Bob Ingliss former Republican Congressman from South Carolina, the founders of RepublicEN, the Republican congressman Carlos Curbelo who founded the Climate Solutions Caucus in Congress together with Ted Deutch, Republican Utah Senator John Curtis, and George Mankiw a notable conservative economist.

It may come as a surprise to some that once upon a time the environment was not a divisive left versus right issue. Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act, and founded the Environmental Protection Agency. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher led the ratification of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 – 1989 to phase out the global use of CFCs due to their detrimental effect on the ozone layer. As a result, emissions of ozone-depleting gases have fallen by 99 percent, and it saves an estimated 2 million lives from skin cancer every year. This was one of Ronald Reagans greatest successes and yet it has been mocked by some subsequent Republican Presidents.

The book also talks about the history of acid rain and our fight against that. Margaret Thatcher, a chemist, was very concerned about the greenhouse effect, or global warming, and so was George H.W. Bush and Reagan to some degree. Unfortunately, the words climate change has grown to be deeply polarizing due to decades long disinformation campaigns funded by fossil fuel companies and far right think tanks and talk show hosts.

Another factoid that might surprise readers is that in 1957, scientists working for Humble Oil, later known as ExxonMobil, sounded the alarm on the greenhouse effect / global warming caused by burning fossil fuels. However, the executive leadership decided to deride the type of work its own scientists had done. The same thing happened on later occasions and Exxon funneled a lot of money into anti-climate change think tanks.

As the evidence that carbon dioxide was causing the greenhouse effect (or global warming or climate change) became increasingly indisputable in the 1990’s the fossil fuel industry and far right think tanks, and conservative talk show hosts, started to push back on the science very hard, by spreading misinformation, insulting and attacking scientists, environmentalists, and politicians taking a stand they did not like. Koch industries, the American Petroleum Institute and the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which contrary to what the name seems to imply, opposed climate action, teamed up to fight climate action.

However, it was not only people on the right doing this. Democrat politicians from coal districts also opposed measures on global warming. Clinton and Gore tried make progress on the issue, but it became politically unworkable. The book explains what happened during the Contract with America episode, the Kyoto protocol, etc.

However, the issue of climate change was not purely a right versus left. Some Republican leaders such as Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney championed climate action (perhaps on and off and on again) and the George W. Bush administration contained both pro-fossil advocates such as Dick Cheney and those favoring action on climate change such as Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Condoleezza Rice, Christine Todd Whitman, and Colin Powell.

Later during the Obama administration there was a climate change bill that was very close to passing, the Waxman-Markey bill. The bill passed the house but when it was going to be voted on in the Senate, Barbara Boxer (democrat) used her role as a committee chairman to change it and take it so far left that it became unpassable. She wasn’t against climate action, on the contrary, but she thought it would work.

I can add that the Tea Party, which had started out to oppose the national debt, but later focused on the culture war and opposed climate action made climate action more difficult. Well, it did not help that the oil and gas industry spent 175 million dollars lobbying against the bill in less than a year whilst environmental advocates spent only 22.4 million dollars lobbying for it, despite that being a record effort for environmental advocates.

The end of the book focuses on the Biden administration and the Clean Energy Tax Credits in the Inflation Reduction Act. This part of the book reads like a thriller because it was held up by one man, Joe Manchin, the Democrat Senator from West Virginia, who was pressured from all sides and kept changing his mind, until he finally decided to support it. As of very recently, a few days ago, those Tax Credits have been reversed. The history of action on climate change marches on.

By reading this book you will learn about a lot of people and their stories, politicians and scientists, who became embroiled in the climate change issue, for or against, George E. Brown, Dr. Roger Revelle, Dr. James Hansen, Katherine Hayhoe, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Rafe Pomerance, Speth, Shimberg, Senator John Chafee, John McCain, Mathew Stembridge, Rick Boucher, John Warner, Alex Bozmoski, Bob Ingliss, Lindsey Graham, John Sununu, Rahm Emmanuel, Congressman Joe Barton, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Scott Pruitt, Lee Iacocca, Senator Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Myron Ebell, and many others. You will also learn about terms that relates to the American form of Democracy, the filibuster, budget reconciliation, appropriation, the parliamentarian, the various senate and house committees and caucuses, how bills are created and passed, an Omnibus bill, etc.

If you are interested in political history, the history of climate change politics, and the stories of the people involved, then this book is for you. The author explains all the terms used and it is not a complicated book. The book reads like a journey through political history, and you will learn thousands of facts and anecdotes. If you are a somewhat older reader, like me, you will be reminded of the events from the past and you will recognize people, and what they said, and the chaos, and the complexities, and all the hoopla, and you will think to yourself, what a crazy world politics is.

I also think that the book gives you a perspective of where the politics have been and where it might be going. Despite the many setbacks in the past, this book will give you reason for optimism. The younger generation both on the left and the right are more willing to accept the science and are more willing to embrace action on climate. Well, I guess it is their future. The world is moving forward, and it is decarbonizing, no matter what we do. Overall, I think the book is entertaining and fascinating and I highly recommend it.

Advance Praise for Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson on a blue and red background. The praise for the book is by former South Carolina Congressman Bob Ingliss and environmentalist and author C.K. Westbrook.
Back cover of hardback format of the book Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the paperback version of the book.

Other Posts Related to Climate Change, Environment or Clean Energy

An update : The Senate version of the Budget Reconciliation Bill passed today (7/1 – 2025). The phase out of the clean energy tax credits stayed, as I predicted, but the excise tax on renewables that the Senate previously added to the bill was removed in the last minute, which is good news for those who care about the environment.

To see the Super Facts click here

There are many environmental success stories

Super fact 46 : There are many serious threats to the environment that we need to take seriously. However, there are also many environmental success stories that we tend to forget about.

It is important to remember the environmental success stories because if we forget about them, it breeds despair, which in turn discourages people from acting and doing the right thing. Denial and Despair are two seemingly opposite emotional reactions that both hinder action on problems. I consider the existence of the many important environmental success stories a super fact because even though it is undeniably true that there are many environmental success stories, some truly amazing, it comes as a surprise to many.

Below I am listing six environmental success stories that I previously chose to be super facts. Super facts are important and true facts that are surprising and perhaps even shocking to many, or widely misunderstood, or disputed amongst the public, but not seriously disputed amongst the experts/scientists. Super facts are facts that are very special and that I think we should be aware of these facts. I should add that this is just a sample of environmental success stories. There are many more.

Super Fact 29:

EV Cars Indeed Emit Less Carbon Pollution

EV Cars emit less pollution than Internal Combustion Engine Cars, even considering manufacturing, disposal and many EV Cars being charged by dirty grids. The basic reason for this is the much higher efficiency of EV cars. EV cars emit significantly less greenhouse gases than internal combustion engines even considering construction of fuel production facilities, production of the car, the battery, and the fuel, vehicle operation and disposal. For more information click here.

The histogram graph shows that if you consider construction of facilities, manufacturing of vehicle and battery, production of fuel, vehicle operation as well as disposal the total average greenhouse gas emissions from EV cars is 52% less | There are many environmental success stories
Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions comparison of average gasoline car and average EV. This graph is taken from the US Department of Energy.

Super Fact 35:

Natural Disasters Kill Less People Now Than 100 Years Ago

Natural disasters kill a lot less people now compared to 100 years ago. That is despite a larger population and despite the fact that climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of many types of natural disasters. Surveys by Gap Minder show that this fact is quite surprising to people and therefore it is a super fact. To read more about this super fact click here.

The reason for the fewer deaths from natural disasters is not that there are fewer natural disasters. It is because we are now much better at predicting, handling and recovering from natural disasters. Our warnings systems, rescue systems and healthcare have improved significantly. The graph below from Gap Minder illustrates the decline in deaths from natural disasters.

The graph shows 300 to 400 thousand annual deaths at the beginning of the 20th century, then 971 thousand annual deaths in the 1930’s, then it continuously gets lower until the annual deaths in the 2010 to 2016 period is 72 thousand deaths per year.
This graph from the Gap Minder article shows the annual deaths from natural disasters.

Super Fact 41:

Emissions of ozone-depleting gases have fallen by 99 Percent

Largely thanks to the Montreal Protocol in 1987 the emissions of ozone-depleting gases have fallen by more than 99%, 99.7% to be exact, according to Our World in Data. This has resulted in the halt of the expansion of the ozone holes. The reduction in emissions of  ozone-depleting gases is saving millions of lives every year. To read more about this astounding success click here.

The NIH estimate that the Montreal Protocol has prevented 443 million cases of skin cancer worldwide, 2.3 million skin cancer deaths, and 63 million cases of cataracts in the United States alone. Globally, it is estimated that the Protocol has saved an estimated 2 million people from dying from skin cancer each year. The graph below is taken from Our World in Data.

Gases visualized in the diagram are CFCs, Halons, HCFCs, Carbon Tetrachloride, Methyl Bromide, Methyl Chloroform. The diagram shows a peak around the end of 1980’s | There are many environmental success stories
The phase out of six ozone depleting gases. Data source UN Environment Program (2023).

Super Fact 42:

Developed nations have successfully reduced carbon emissions

The developed nations (rich countries) have reduced their carbon emissions since the 1990’s despite continued GDP growth, even if we take offshore production into account. In addition, many developing countries have succeeded in reducing their emissions as well. Other fast-growing developing countries have flattened or at least slowed their increase in carbon emissions. Many countries have decoupled economic growth from CO2 emissions.

In other words, we do not need to increase carbon emissions or burn more fossil fuels to grow the economy. To read more about this promising development click here.

The graph shows three plotted graphs, a dark blue one showing GDP per capita, a light blue one showing UK carbon emissions per capita and a red one showing trade adjusted carbon emissions per capita. The GDP graph is increasing by more than 50% over 33 years and the CO2 emissions per capita graph is decreasing by almost 60% and the trade adjusted carbon emissions decline by almost 40%.
Data source: Data compiled from multiple sources by World Bank (2025); Global Carbon Budget (2024); Population based on various sources (2024). Note: GDP per capita is expressed in international dollars at 2021 prices. Graph taken from Our World in Data.

Super Fact 44:

Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by 95 percent in the US

Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by approximately 95 percent in the US since the 1970s. This significant reduction is primarily due to regulations like the Clean Air Act. Global sulfur dioxide pollution has also fallen but not as much. To read more about this success story click here. If you visit the aforementioned link you will also see that there are many other pollutants that we have successfully curtailed.

The graph shows a steep increase towards the end of the 19th century with a peak in 1973, followed by a steep decline |There are many environmental success stories
US sulfur dioxide pollution since 1800. US Emissions peaked in 1973. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken from this page in Our World In Data.

Super Fact 45:

Deforestation has peaked

Deforestation peaked back in the 1980s, meaning that is when it was worst. Deforestation has not stopped but the rate of deforestation has slowed as a result of government policies, corporate initiatives, and international agreements.

Overall, we are still losing forests. We had a 47-million-hectare loss of forest in the last decade, which is very bad, but that is better than the 151-million-hectare loss of forest in the 1980s. For temperate forests we have succeeded in reversing deforestation, which means that temperate forests are now gaining forest. To read more about this topic and how government policies, corporate initiatives, and international agreements have slowed the rate of deforestation you can click here. This change in deforestation rate is illustrated by the graph below, which is taken from Our World in Data.

The graphs show that during the 1700’s and the first half of the 1800’s the loss of forests was 19 million acres per decade. From the mid-1800’s to 1920 it was roughly 30 million acres per decade and from the 1920 and on it was 115 million acres per decade until the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s when it was 151 million acres per decade. Since then, it has fallen and in the last decade forest loss was 47 million acres | There are many environmental success stories
Decadal losses in global forest over the last three centuries. Decadal forest loss is measured as the average net loss every ten years, in hectares. This deforestation minus increases in forest area through afforestation. There is no single dataset that applies consistent or transparent methodology for deforestation over centuries. Two different datasets are therefore shown: these still shown the overall development and transition of forestation from temperate to tropical areas, but magnitudes should not be combined at the crossover point. Data sources: Pre-1995 data from Williams (2006). The second series is based on data from UN FAO Global Forest Resources.

Note : I am going on a trip with family and will return next Tuesday (5/27). During this time will not do any blogging. I love comments but I will respond to comments when I come back.

To see the other Super Facts click here

The US is the largest cumulative emitter of carbon

Super fact 43 : The United States has emitted more CO2 than any other country to date, around 400 billion tons since 1751. It is responsible for 25% of historical emissions. Click here.

But what about China? That is 12.7%, or around half. This is surprising information to many Americans, yet it is true, and therefore a super fact. In the US it is very common to blame China for our carbon emissions. In China they blame the US. In Europe they blame the US and China. Who is right? It turns out that the blame game is complicated and futile.

Carbon Emissions Around the World

Who should we blame the most for our carbon emissions?

In other words, if you want to blame another country for the carbon emissions, take your pick, well your cherry pick. Why should we do something about our carbon emissions when X is worse? Those who want no action on the global warming / climate change problem love the blame game. Like denial or despair, which are both irrational positions, the blame game hinders action. The blame game can also get very complicated and contentious.

The nine graphs are complex but show that among the nine countries/regions the United States currently has the highest emissions, followed by Canada, and the China, then South Africa, then the European Union, then comes the United Kingdom, and the World, and finally India and Kenya | The US is the largest cumulative emitter of carbon
The graph shows the fossil fuel emissions (in carbon dioxide equivalents) per capita from 1750 to 2023 for the World, the United States, Canada, China, European Union, India, South Africa, United Kingdom, and Kenya. Notice that the United Kingdom dominated the emissions in the 1700’s and 1800’s. Data source: Global Carbon Budget (2024); Population based on various sources (2024). The graph is from Our World in Data .

Note regarding the graph above: By clicking here you can find this graph and then select to display any set of countries or regions. Have fun experimenting.

Note regarding Fossil emissions: Fossil emissions measure the quantity of carbon emissions (CO2) emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, and directly from industrial processes such as cement and steel production. Fossil CO2 includes emissions from coal, oil, gas, flaring, cement, steel, and other industrial processes. Fossil emissions do not include land use change, deforestation, soils, or vegetation.

Overview of Cumulative Carbon Emissions

As you can see in the graph below the cumulative carbon emissions from 1751 to 2017 are 25% for the United States, 22% for the EU (28 countries), 12.7% for China, 6% for Russia, 4% for Japan, and 3% for India. If you count the entire continent of Europe, you get 33% for Europe.

The graph shows differently colored rectangles with the area of the rectangle corresponding to the cumulative carbon emissions. Each rectangle corresponds to a country or a region.
Figures for the 28 countries in the European Union have been grouped as the EU-28 since international targets and negotiations are typically set as a collaborative target between EU countries. Values may not sum up to 100% due to rounding. Data Source: Calculated by Our World in Data from the Global Carbon Project (GCP) and Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center (CDIAC). This is a visualization from Our World in Data, where you can find data and research on how the world is changing.
To see the other Super Facts click here

Developed nations have successfully reduced carbon emissions

Super fact 42 : The developed nations (rich countries) have reduced their carbon emissions since the 1990’s despite continued GDP growth, even if we take offshore production into account. In addition, many developing countries have succeeded in reducing their emissions as well. Other fast-growing developing countries have flattened or at least slowed their increase in carbon emissions. Many countries have decoupled economic growth from CO2 emissions. In other words, we do not need to increase carbon emissions or burn more fossil fuels to grow the economy.

This is good news as well as a surprise to many people who falsely believe that to grow the economy (grow GDP) you need to burn more fossil fuels and an increase in carbon emissions is inevitable if you want to grow the economy. The data shows otherwise. This is important news that is difficult to believe in for many people. It is a super fact.

Carbon Emissions and GDP

In the past carbon emissions were strongly correlated with national wealth. The wealthier a nation was the higher its carbon emissions were and as the economy grew so did the carbon emissions. This has not been true since the 1990’s. The developed nations of the world have continued growing their GDP whilst reducing their carbon emissions.

You may think that the reason is that we shipped much of our manufacturing overseas and that if you consider the consumers in the importing country responsible for the overseas emissions this decoupling of GDP and emissions would disappear. But you would be wrong. Even if you make the consumers in the importing country responsible for the emissions during production in the exporting country the emissions have gone down. One example taken from this article in Our World in Data is the United Kingdom.

In the graph below for the UK the GDP (adjusted for inflation) grew by 53.26% between 1990 and 2023 and the emissions were reduced by 57.66%. If make UK consumers 100% responsible for the emissions in China and India, etc., caused by the production of goods imported to the UK the reduction until 2022 was 38.59%. That is not as much but it is still impressive and demonstrates the decoupling between GDP growth and carbon emissions.

The graph shows three plotted graphs, a dark blue one showing GDP per capita, a light blue one showing UK carbon emissions per capita and a red one showing trade adjusted carbon emissions per capita. The GDP graph is increasing by more than 50% over 33 years and the CO2 emissions per capita graph is decreasing by almost 60% and the trade adjusted carbon emissions decline by almost 40% | Developed nations have successfully reduced carbon emissions
Data source: Data compiled from multiple sources by World Bank (2025); Global Carbon Budget (2024); Population based on various sources (2024). Note: GDP per capita is expressed in international dollars at 2021 prices. Graph taken from Our World in Data.

The text in the graph above is difficult to read so I’ve copied it below in larger text:

  • Consumption-based emissions: Consumption-based emissions are national or regional emissions that have been adjusted for trade. They are calculated as domestic (or ‘production-based’ emissions) emissions minus the emissions generated in the production of goods and services that are exported to other countries or regions, plus emissions from the production of goods and services that are imported. Consumption-based emissions = Production-based – Exported + Imported emissions.
  • Fossil emissions: Fossil emissions measure the quantity of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, and directly from industrial processes such as cement and steel production. Fossil CO2 includes emissions from coal, oil, gas, flaring, cement, steel, and other industrial processes. Fossil emissions do not include land use change, deforestation, soils, or vegetation.
  • International dollars: International dollars are a hypothetical currency that is used to make meaningful comparisons of monetary indicators of living standards. Figures expressed in constant international dollars are adjusted for inflation within countries over time, and for differences in the cost of living between countries. The goal of such adjustments is to provide a unit whose purchasing power is held fixed over time and across countries, such that one international dollar can buy the same quantity and quality of goods and service no matter where or when it is spent. Read more in our article: What are Purchasing Power Parity adjustments and why do we need them?

Below is the same type of graphs for the United Kingdom as well as France, Germany, Sweden, United States and Finland. The numbers for these countries are as follows:

  • United Kingdom: GDP growth 53.26%, CO2 emissions reduction 57.66%, trade adjusted CO2 emissions reduction 38.59%.
  • France: GDP growth 39.74%, CO2 emissions reduction 40.64%, trade adjusted CO2 emissions reduction 28.82%.
  • Germany: GDP growth 49.04%, CO2 emissions reduction 46.72%, trade adjusted CO2 emissions reduction 33.95%.
  • Sweden: GDP growth 56.00%, CO2 emissions reduction 48.45%, trade adjusted CO2 emissions reduction 34.75%.
  • United States: GDP growth 68.05%, CO2 emissions reduction 29.25%, trade adjusted CO2 emissions reduction 17.04%.
  • Finland: GDP growth 45.69%, CO2 emissions reduction 50.54%, trade adjusted CO2 emissions reduction 42.79%.

Note these are emissions reduction numbers per capita (growth for GDP) not carbon emissions per capita. For example, the United States has three to four times larger carbon emissions per capita as, for example, Sweden or France.

All these graphs show the same trends as the UK graph.
Data source: Data compiled from multiple sources by World Bank (2025); Global Carbon Budget (2024); Population based on various sources (2024). Note: GDP per capita is expressed in international dollars at 2021 prices. Graph taken from Our World in Data.

Many Countries Have Reduced Their Carbon Emissions

However, the story does not end with these six countries or even with the developed world. The 30 graphs below all demonstrate significant reductions in carbon emissions as GDP is growing, demonstrating a decoupling between GDP growth and carbon emissions. Note that Azerbaijan’s GDP grew by 93% as its carbon emissions was reduced by 7% (all carbon emissions below are adjusted for trade).

This is 30 small graphs featuring a blue and red line. The blue line shows GDP growth since 1990 and the red line carbon emissions since 1990. All blue lines point up and all red lines point down | Developed nations have successfully reduced carbon emissions
Data sources: Global Carbon Project & World Bank. There are more countries that achieved the same, but only those countries for which data is available and for which each exceeded 5% are shown. The graphs are from Our World in Data <<Link-1>>. All carbon emissions in the graphs above are adjusted for trade.

The World’s Carbon Emissions Per Capita Has Flattened

World GDP per capita has increased by 83.54% since 1990 while carbon emissions per capita have grown by 9.48%. That may not be as impressive but note two things. That is still a decoupling between economic growth and if you look in the graph, you’ll see that carbon emissions were higher in 2008 to 2019. The curve has flattened and gone down a bit. Global Warming caused by our burning of fossil fuels may be the greatest environmental challenge in recorded history, but we are slowly and steadily turning things around. We are not doing it fast enough to avoid major damage to our eco systems and perhaps civilization, but we are still turning things around. If you have any doubts about global warming / climate change or that we are causing it click here for a summary of the evidence.

The graph shows two graphs. The dark blue one shows GDP growth per capita and the light blue the carbon emissions per capita.
Data source: Data compiled from multiple sources by World Bank (2025); Global Carbon Budget (2024); Population based on various sources (2024). The graph is taken from Our World in Data <<Link-1>>.

China’s Carbon Emissions

One reason the world’s carbon emissions per capita have not been reduced much despite the fact that so many countries have reduced their emissions is that the world’s largest emitter China, has grown their carbon emissions steadily since 1990. Between 1990 and 2023 China’s GDP per capita (and adjusted for inflation) grew by 1,245.28% and their emissions grew by 288.43% per capita. Remember that China has 1.4 billion people so that is a big carbon blast for the world.

However, before you blame China too much remember that China’s carbon emissions per capita is less than that of the United States and that of many other developed countries, and the country with the largest cumulative carbon emissions is the United States. China’s economic growth has been immense, and its immense population of 1.4 billion people explains its huge impact on the world’s carbon emissions.

Fortunately, it now appears that China’s emissions have finally peaked.

To see the other Super Facts click here