Scilencing

The Trump Administration would just as soon we didn't know stuff, especially about our planet

An indelible image from the March for Science in 2017, during Trump 1.

There are moments when it feels like the president’s attention (as occasionally happens when we age) just keeps getting narrower and narrower—the things he really cares about (arch, reflecting pool, Kennedy Center, gilded horse statues) are all within a few miles of his home. He can barely be bothered to stay interested in the war he started in Iran; he’s more concerned with giving pretend tours of his imaginary ballroom. (“You come in, you have cocktails,” he explained to his daughter in law, interviewing him for Fox in true dear-leader fashion. “They they go through the door, in for dinner.”)

But the momentum behind the truly dangerous Project 2025 reordering of our society continues apace, even if—without Elon Musk to give it a face—we aren’t noticing. Late last week the White House announced plans for a major tightening of political control over research grants. Instead of relying on the advice of expert panels as to which research should be funded, as Kevin Bogardus explains

One or more senior political appointees designated by their agency head must conduct “a pre-issuance review” of all discretionary grants, making sure they follow several principles, including to “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

Since I enjoy making up new words (though surely someone has beaten me to this?) I’m going to call it “scilencing.”

The danger inherent in this should be entirely obvious. Jeff Mervis at Science interviewed a number of observers:

“What OMB is proposing is not a reform of grants management,” Elizabeth Ginexi, a former program officer at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), writes in a Substack post. “It is a vehicle for complete political control of science … over every stage of the federal science funding lifecycle.” Representative Zoe Lofgren (D—CA), a leading critic of the Trump administration’s research policies, calls the proposal “a dystopian move that would destroy what remains of merit-based review.”

This would be a bad idea in a reason-based administration. In one that believes medieval nonsense about public health and that is eager to deregulate chemicals and end efforts to clean the air, it’s downright lethal.

And there is no doubt where the impulse really originated. The science the Trump administration really hates is climate science, because it threatens the “energy dominance” that the White House has made its basic foreign and economic policy, not to mention the profits of the fossil fuel industry that has been such an attentive donor. It’s not the first time that GOP administrations have tried to stymie climate science. Everyone remembers James Hansen’s crucial 1988 congressional testimony that global warming was underway; fewer recall that when he returned to Congress the next year the White House tried to rewrite and soften the conclusions in his testimony. That was under George H.W. Bush; under his son, in 2006, the White House tried again to rein him in. As he told Andy Revkin, NASA officials

ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. “They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public,” he said.

Hansen was crucial enough—the Paul Revere of climate change—and senior enough that he was able to keep working and speaking. And the scientific research money kept more or less flowing. But now, in this new bureaucratic play, the Office of Management and Budget is trying to make sure that such independence (the single most obvious requirement for scientific advance) is a thing of the past. As John Timmer wrote at Ars Technica

The result is a horror show for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn’t in the “national interest.” The document would also ban any grants on a number of culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.

It is, in short, a recipe for how the government can finish the job of crippling American science.

This is not yet a done deal. There is a 45-day comment period for letting the government know what you think of their plan, and 42 of those days remain. Here’s the place to have your say.

I’m not, I must say, convinced they’ll pay great attention to the comments, so it’s also crucial to be letting your congress people know what you think about this attack on science. The congress has so far been able to save at least some of the things Russell Vought has sought to kill: indeed, word came this week that the NOAA budget will include money to keep the carbon dioxide observatory at Mauna Loa (aka the world’s most important scientific instrument) up and running. That’s a direct result of Congress hearing outcry, so let’s keep it up.

Remind them that real leaders actually want to know what science can tell them—case in point, the remarkable new movie, Pressure, which tells the story of how General Eisenhower listened to the new and unorthodox science of meteorology to guide his D-Day decision making. (95 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, for those of you who like numbers).

The good news, I suppose, is that on climate and energy the cat has largely escaped the bag. We do know what the problem is, even if the ramifications become more dire with each passing week. (Here’s a somewhat terrifying update on the prospects for this year’s wildfire season; meanwhile, Tom Harris has the new numbers on Antarctic melt.). And we know where the solution lies. Indeed, it too comes into clearer focus with each passing week. As I wrote earlier this year, the action in the next few years is going to be about batteries, and boy is that proving true. Bloomberg confirmed this week that 2025 was the first year the world installed more than a hundred gigawatts of battery storage, up 48 percent from the year before, and expected to grow another 46 percent this year.

South Australia held a big auction last week for “firm supply” across the territory’s electric grid. This is supposed to be the last place where fossil fuel is superior: always-on power. But all the low bids came from companies that wanted to (and now will) install big batteries. As Giles Parkinson reported

It is yet another sign of the growing dominance of battery storage technology in Australia’s main grids (and off grid).

Big batteries have dominated other long duration storage tenders, particularly in NSW, were it has sidelined pumped hydro projects, and battery storage has been steadily sending gas peakers to the sidelines, particularly in the demand peaks they used to dominate.

Indeed, Australia is emerging as the test case for just how fast and furiously you can switch a grid to clean renewables. Even as its government continues to mine huge amounts of coal to send abroad, it’s providing a generous domestic subsidy for Aussies who want to put smaller batteries in their homes. And that, in turn, is underwriting a revolution on the grid. As Adam Morton and Petra Stock wrote this past week

Nearly 60% of the household-scale battery capacity installed across almost 200 other countries this financial year will be in the southern continent, according to a recent analysis. Since July, about 415,000 have been connected – roughly one unit for every 25 Australian homes.

Previously, power prices would rocket in the evenings as gas-fired power – the most expensive form of energy generation on the Australian grid – was turned on to meet peak demand. With solar and wind now providing nearly half the electricity, and coal-fired power plants gradually closing, gas has been used to fill gaps after the sun sets.

But batteries are increasingly taking over that role. Total gas-fired generation was 24% lower across three months this summer compared with the year before. Tennant Reed, the climate change and energy director with the Australian Industry Group, representing more than 60,000 businesses, says it has “completely changed how electricity prices are formed”.

I hope you’ll go back and read the sentence I italicized in the last paragraph: the use of gas to create electricity dropped 23 percent in a year. This is much like what’s happened in California, where Mark Jacobson reports that the world’s fourth largest economy is using 60% less gas to produce electricity than it did three years ago. That changes on this scale are possible is precisely what terrifies the fossil fuel industry, and in turn the Trump administration.

And the possibilities are everywhere. Canary Media’s Julian Spector wrote last week, a new global report shows that these so-called “firm renewables” (wind and sun coupled with batteries)

“has crossed the threshold of cost competitiveness with new fossil fuel generation,” in areas with plenty of sun or wind. ​“The central question is no longer whether firm renewables can compete on cost, but how quickly the structural conditions needed to realise their potential can be put in place across the diversity of markets and institutional contexts prevailing globally.”

China sets the bar with its shockingly low cost of firm renewables today.

IRENA looked at 252 solar projects that went online there in 2024 and found that many of them could be augmented with extra solar capacity and batteries to deliver power cheaper than the $100-per-megawatt-hour benchmark for new gas-fired plants. Almost all the modeled solar-battery plants could beat that cost for firm clean power 90% of the time; even at the higher reliability threshold of 99%, nearly half the projects remained competitive, and the lowest cost was $46 per megawatt-hour.

And would any of this be, I don’t know, politically popular?

Beginning one month from tomorrow, Australians, whether they have solar panels or batteries or none of the above will get three free hours of electricity every afternoon from noon to three. If you want to know why our government needs to shut up scientists and ward off engineers, that’s why.

Oh, they’re also trying to shut down the world’s central archive of disasters, which lets us learn from the past. I predict that will not slow the pace of trouble.

In other energy and climate news:

+Science is constantly self-correcting, and now the big climate assessments will drop the RCP 8.5 “high emissions” scenario, because…we’re moving quickly towards lower emissions (see above). But that’s not “good news”—the current trajectory still has the planet warming 3.5 degrees Celsius before the century is out, which is more than enough to turn our civilizations upside down. In fact—as recent data about the great Atlantic currents has made clear—it’s becoming clear that we can do far more systemic damage to the earth at lower temperatures than we once thought; the earth is finely balance.

From the remarkable Stefan Rahmstorf and colleagues, a new paper on the situation in the north Atlantic:

A region of the northern Atlantic–sometimes called the “cold blob”–has cooled since the 19th Century while the rest of the world has warmed. It is particularly the ocean which has cooled there. Scientists have been discussing whether this is because ocean currents bring less heat into this region, or because more heat is being lost through the sea surface there. An analysis of temperature data sets based on measurements show it is the former–changing ocean heat transport–which dominates heat content changes in the “cold blob.”

This is a sign that those great currents are slowing—not good news.

+Great reporting from Amy Westervelt and Geoff Dembicki about the “shadowy global network of right wing think tanks” that, among other things, works to make climate protest illegal

With more than 500 member think tanks globally, the network remains robust. Atlas members are in regular contact with each other, sharing ideas, tips, and strategies. (The network has even bragged about being an early adopter of the internet.) Representatives from member think tanks meet up at annual right-wing events in the U.S. and elsewhere. Ideas are shared between member think tanks via various publications, including the quarterly Freedom’s Champion magazine, a Latin America podcast, and various books in both English and Spanish (even a cookbook!).

Alejandro Chafuen, an Argentine American businessman who took over the Atlas Network presidency in 1991 and remained in charge until 2018, once described the network’s audience in one word: elites.

“To answer the question ‘Who is the real customer of a think tank?’” he said,” I will refer to the often ignored passage of Ludwig von Mises, in his book Bureaucracy. In it he describes a type of person—elite—who I believe is not only the real customer of Atlas and many think tanks, but also our ideal customer, who benefits us and is served by us.”

+A new study published this week estimates mortality from the growing number of savage heatwaves in India, and the news is… not good

We estimate that a single day of extreme heat causes approximately 3,400 excess deaths nationally; a five-day heatwave causes nearly 30,000.

These findings have implications not only for India but also for other countries in South Asia and Sub Saharan Africa facing similar heat vulnerabilities, highlighting the global urgency of heat adaptation measures. With respect to heatwave frequency and temperature thresholds, these estimates are conservative lower bounds.

+Jan Rosenow offers a cheery update on just how fast we’re learning to use electricity to power industrial processes—that’s about a third of emissions, and even a couple of years ago we were thinking of those as “hard to abate.” No longer

Today, electricity meets only about a fifth of industry’s final energy. Across the full set of scenarios, the median rises to 35% by 2050. But that average hides the more interesting story. In the scenarios built around strong climate ambition, fast power-sector decarbonisation and supportive industrial policy, electrification reaches a median of 51% by 2050, with the upper tail going as high as 85%.

Electrification is a structural fossil fuel phase-out and decarbonisation lever, not a marginal one. Swapping an industrial gas boiler for a heat pump cuts emissions on day one, and then keeps cutting them automatically as the grid gets cleaner. Industrial heat pumps, electric boilers, electro-thermal storage and resistance heating can already replace large shares of low and medium-temperature heat.

A case in point: Carly Leonida, writing from this year’s Electric Mine conference in Lisbon, Portugal, has a compelling account of the way that electricity is coming to the world’s mines.

Miners presenting in Lisbon weren’t discussing pilot vehicles in isolated trial environments. Instead, they were talking about ventilation bottlenecks, charging strategies, battery swap logistics, productivity metrics and operational redesign.

At Eldorado Gold’s Lamaque Complex in Québec, for example, battery-electric equipment is no longer viewed primarily as a decarbonisation initiative. Instead, it has become a practical solution to a mine-planning challenge.

Speaking during the underground mining stream, Eldorado Gold’s Martin Pichette explained that the company’s electrification strategy was driven initially by the realities of deeper mining. As haul distances increase and mines extend further underground, ventilation infrastructure becomes increasingly difficult and expensive to expand.

+A delegation of Texas community leaders has gone to Japan to ask them to stop financing a big new LNG terminal in Freeport. From Oil Change International:

This is the first time a community harmed by a Japanese-funded LNG project has filed a series of coordinated complaints against the whole chain of project financiers —targeting both Japanese public institutions JBIC and NEXI, private megabanks MUFG, Mizuho, and SMBC, and the Japanese power company JERA.

The complaints come as Japan faces mounting scrutiny of its fossil fuel dependency, with the soaring oil and gas prices due to the Hormuz crisis exposing the vulnerability of Japan’s long-term LNG strategy. In October 2025, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi signed a $550 billion US investment commitment in a desperate attempt to mitigate tariffs and appease President Trump. Prime Minister Takaichi announced the first tranche with a $36 billion commitment to US oil and gas investments.

+Here’s a shocker. That good neighbor Elon Musk is adding a bunch more gas turbines to his AI factory in Mississippi.

Meanwhile, just in case you’re wondering if renewable energy is really cheaper, new data shows that the cost of natural gas power plants has gone up 68% in this country since 2023, largely thanks to the data center rush. As Josh Saul writes, this is

adding to customer and political concerns about rising power bills.

The average project expense for a gas power plant with combined-cycle turbines, the more efficient type, rose to $2,157 per kilowatt last year from less than $1,500 in 2023, according to a report from BloombergNEF.

+Florida is spending a lot of money on “beach renourishment”—but not enough to keep up with rising sea levels and growing storms. As Jack Randall reports:

On the Treasure Coast, renourishments have cost about $75.6 million in St. Lucie County, $40.5 million in Indian River County and $39.3 million in Martin County, according to TCPalm’s analysis of data that ends in 2025.

Dumping new sand on diminishing beaches is the prominent method federal, state and local governing authorities use to shore up erosion. It’s a strategy that has been criticized by researchers and environmentalists, who question its long-term efficacy as sea levels continue to rise.

Harold Wanless, a professor and researcher at the University of Miami, called the continued use of beach renourishment “ridiculous.”

“They never last,” Wanless said. “They don’t protect well, partly because of sea level rise.”

+Much of Europe just suffered through its greatest May heatwave ever. Among the casualties, competitors at the French Open tennis tournament. From Tumaini Carayol:

The 26th seed, Jakub Mensik, described the conditions as “insane to play in” after collapsing with cramps and having to be escorted towards the locker room in a wheelchair after his five-set second-round win over Mariano Navone on Wednesday.

Despite being well known for his durability, the two-time French Open finalist Casper Ruud completely overheated in the first round and looked on his way out before recovering in the fifth set to defeat Roman Safiullin. “I felt at times really dizzy and just really tired and walking around like a zombie almost,” Ruud said.

As Bob Henson reports, there’s nothing natural about the heat

“This is an unprecedented event with a one in 1,000 chance of happening at this time of year in the climate of 1979 to 2025,” climate scientist Christophe Cassou told Le Monde, referring to the heat wave in France. “It would have been virtually impossible in the preindustrial era.”

Many European schools were built in a much cooler era, and are paying the price. As Chico Harlan and Leontine Gallois write

Traditionally in Europe, schools were built to withstand cold, not heat, and air-conditioning was rarely necessary. But now the temperature extremes once associated with summer vacation are pushing into the academic year, creating stifling conditions and leading to criticism that Europe’s schools have been slow to contend with the shifting patterns of climate change.

This week, as May heat records tumbled across England and parts of France, a French teachers union shared an internal survey showing that temperatures had eclipsed 82 degrees Fahrenheit in 90 percent of middle and high schools. They accused some administrative districts of putting off investments to reduce heat exposure.

Meanwhile, as Joe Lo writes from the UK

In my neighbourhood, people are struggling to cope. The fish and chip shop has shut. My child’s teachers are battling to keep them in front of the air conditioner. And my evening football match was conducted at walking pace, with red-faced players hogging the shady side of the pitch.

And remember: this is May.

Meanwhile, a new report from the World Meteorological Organization on what to expect globally in the next five years. Not just that we’ll shatter global temperature records but also that

an overheating Arctic will warm nearly 3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.66 degrees Celsius) between now and 2030 and a dangerous drought with potential wildfires for the Amazon, a crucial part of Earth’s natural defenses to lessen human-caused climate change.

+Not surprising, but nonetheless grim: a new study finds that air pollution devastates young lungs. Gary Fuller describes the research:

They found that breathing more air pollution during pregnancy, infancy and early childhood can slow lung development all the way up to early adulthood. The greatest impact was during adolescence, which is the time when lung growth accelerates.

An earlier study found that air pollution was reducing the growth of children’s lungs in east London. Here, the average nine-year-old’s lungs were between 90 and 100 millilitres smaller than they should be. This is approximately the volume of two hen’s eggs.

+Interesting data from UMass Amherst finds that most big solar projects in the U.S. don’t meet much opposition at all

The study, published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science, looked at 686 utility-scale solar projects that came online between January 2022 and November 2023. Researchers found that 56% of the projects fell into “no” or “low” conflict categories, while just 19% experienced high levels of conflict.

Larger solar projects were more likely to generate opposition, but one finding stood out: The political makeup of the surrounding community didn’t appear to make much difference. The study found no statistically significant link between the share of Democratic voters near projects and levels of opposition.

+And finally, good news from China about the return of bike culture.

When I first visited China many decades ago, it was predominartly a bike country. Even in Beijing, great waves of bicyclists silently crossed the city. In subsequent visits, it was painful to watch the rise of car traffic, and with it great traffic jams, not to mention crazy quantities of air pollution. When I’d meet with mayors, I’d say: don’t copy Houston. Copy Copenhagen. I think I had exactly zero influence, but now officials are making a concerted effort to push cycling. As the folks at the Dutch Cycle Network report

When the master plan for the brand new District of Tongzhou was being developed, the directive from the Beijing Mayor—who had just returned from a trip to the Netherlands—was clear: it must put cycling front and centre. At its spine: a 2.7 km corridor connecting its commercial and residential hubs.

In order to fulfil this vision of a world-class sustainable infrastructure project, they went to the Dutch Cycling Embassy; selecting the engineers at Haskoning (including Jasper Homrighausen and Wim van der Wijk) for their extensive experience with regional doorfiets (“non-stop cycling”) routes, to partner with a Beijing-based consultant.

Designed using best practice and principles straight out of the CROW Manual for Bicycle Traffic, the route features a five-metre width for safety, underpasses for directness, shade trees for comfort, and a series of bespoke light fixtures (inscribed with the words “all roads are connected”) for attractiveness.”

I’ll leave you with a picture of the new Beijing “cycle highway,” and a reminder to write your public comments to the Trump administration about the folly of scilencing, especially if we even want to compete with the Chinese…