How nonprofits and academia are stepping up to salvage US climate programs

Edith Zhao2025, Affiliate News

Industrial chimney releasing carbon dioxide emissions with paperwork about environmental regulations, pollution control and climate change policy in the background.
Image by SMART.art, licensed via Adobe Stock (Education License)

As the Trump administration abruptly puts an end to a myriad of labs, climate change reports and initiatives, jobs, and funding, a gaping hole is left in their place. In an effort to at least temporarily make up for that need, numerous non-profit organizations and academic groups have formed a “greenhouse gas coalition” for the continued monitoring and research of the planet’s dire situation. The Data Foundation and the American Geophysical Union are among these organizations, working arduously to pick up the slack and assume responsibilities that were originally taken care of by the government. Plans include simply the preservation of tools and processes that were already in place for decades, as well as moving towards improved methods of collecting emissions data. For instance, the entire system of self-reporting by industries had resulted in inaccurate data for years, thus prompting a call to switch to more observational methods, such as through satellites.   In another move, a coalition of 10 universities came together in March to form the US Academic Alliance for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)  in partnership with the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and together nominated nearly 300 scientists  to fill the gap left by the U.S. government who did not implement a nominating process as it has historically done so.  RCEI affiliate Pamela McElwee, who chairs the Alliance and helped lead its formation noted, ” It is crucial for US scientists to continue participating in the IPCC process. It is our flagship global assessment report on the state of climate, and it plays a really important role in influencing country policies. To not be part of it makes it much more difficult for US scientist to be at the cutting edge and advance the things we need to do.”  

Read more at the full article published by MIT Technology Review.