according to the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, “the 10 warmest years in the historical record have all occurred in the past decade.”

from reporting on communities living through water scarcity in iraq to sea-level rise in egypt, author and climate security journalist peter schwartzstein has spent over a decade documenting how climate change fuels conflict, violence, and displacement. in this video interview, schwartzstein joins dre pedemonte to discuss his new book, the heat and the fury: on the frontlines of climate change, and explore the powerful link between ecological disruption and geopolitical instability.

amid this turmoil, schwartzstein and his book’s global anecdotes share how grassroots organizers and local communities are responding with growing strength and ingenuity. 

and together, we ask: is there hope — and how do we find it?

as co-chair of the house oceans caucus, bonamici dove into her work to introduce the blue carbon for our planet act, which was later strategically renamed to the coastal restoration act to further broaden support.

“blue carbon means the blue economy, the ocean economy, the water economy. but the word ‘carbon’ sometimes concerned people. and particularly some republicans who thought it was somehow a restriction on what they could do, rather than a positive step. so i don’t mind changing the title of the bill,” she said.

bonamici stresses the use of language that emphasizes voters’ financial concerns and everyday experiences, yet still supports broad environmental action. watch above!

setting a new standard

jack jordan, executive director of climate action evanston, says the ordinance is essentially a standard for building performance. 

“when we think about a building, how does a building perform? can you think about an athlete performing? a building performs for how much energy it’s using, where that energy is coming from, how energy efficient it is,” jordan said. 

buildings emit greenhouse gases a number of ways, depending on the type of building it is. residential buildings using natural gas appliances, such as stoves and furnaces, emit more than buildings that use electrical appliances. an example of a modification that could be implemented through the hbo is the electrification of natural gas appliances, such as water heaters, stoves and furnaces. 

jordan emphasizes that the transformation of these buildings will not only reduce emissions, but it will also improve indoor air quality as residents make the switch to electric appliances over natural-gas ones. 

connecting the community

the hbo also outlines a rulemaking process that creates two public bodies, the healthy buildings accountability board (hbab) and the healthy buildings technical committee (hbtc). 

the hbtc will focus on the technical aspects of transforming a building to use clean energy, while the hbab will be focused on equity concerns that arise as the buildings are modified. 

the two rulemaking bodies will take input from local community members and building owners over the course of the next year to design a plan for each building to begin to meet its net-zero goal. 

“the intent is not to raise rents, in particular, for folks that are in buildings that are either designated affordable housing or that we just want to maintain affordability,” said paula scholl, chair of the building electrification working group and member of the evanston environment board. “there will be a process by which at least 20% of the buildings will be considered equity prioritized. those would not only include affordable housing, but could also include our schools and houses of worship.”

most of the buildings included in the ordinance are located in evanston’s first, third, fourth and seventh wards. the seventh ward, home to northwestern university, has 91 buildings listed to be updated as part of the ordinance. other buildings included in the hbo are local schools, such as evanston township high school, apartment building complexes, the northshore evanston hospital, among others. 

councilwoman clare kelly, the only dissenting vote during the city council meeting that led to the passage of the hbo, argued that the ordinance was rushed, saying during the meeting that the city is “jumping to the end” of the process rather than laying out specific details and plans for each building before passing the ordinance. 

sustainable buildings of the future

the hbo will not only provide health benefits for evanston residents, but it will also create jobs, including for technicians to make upgrades, and lower energy costs for building owners in the long-term, jordan said. 

“this is a pathway to very well-paying sustainable employment, you know, technical employment that i think a lot of our young people would really appreciate, hands on work that is actively saving the planet,” he said. 

new york city and st. louis, among others, have established building codes focused on sustainability and energy efficiency. in st. louis, the building energy performance standard was passed in may 2020, and it targets municipal, commercial, institutional and residential properties 50,000 square feet and larger. 

“the more cities that do it, the more we get ideas, too. no ordinance is static. you can always change it and revise it and make it better over the years. so that’s the other thing is we want to encourage other folks to try something, and we’ll try to get the best ideas from everybody,” she said.

amonette, who lives in rural southwestern montana as a full time technical writer, has volunteered with the citizens climate lobby (ccl) since 2013, working to promote bipartisan climate policies to congress. her passion for climate change began during an internship in washington, d.c. where a conversation about climate change and listening to dr. james hansens’s warnings pushed her towards advocating for solutions.

read the interview with amonette below.

editor’s note: this interview has been edited for length and clarity.

maggie rhoads: how do you connect with farmers on climate change?

alex amonette: i help get columns written in local newspapers through the media. there are little rural towns across the state of montana, and they each have a newspaper. that’s a good place to tell stories about how climate impacts farmers and ranchers. my job is to make friends with many of the editors of these newspapers and submit our articles to them. 

mr: how do farmers feel about climate change? 

aa: it varies. some people don’t want to talk about it. you get a lot of farmers and ranchers who want to put solar panels up and nobody has talked to them about climate change. they are just trying to cut their electric bills in half.

mr: i’m assuming these farmers who put renewable energy sources such as solar panels and wind onto their properties just to save money are getting any benefits from the inflation reduction act or the bipartisan infrastructure law.

aa: the inflation reduction act helped fund a program administered by the usda called reap, or the rural energy for america program. until the trump administration, that program was going into full force. now it’s frozen, and many of these ranchers and farmers were counting on reap funding that was funded by the inflation reduction act to put solar panels on their barns and things like that. 

mr: what policies should be implemented to address climate change concerning farmers? 

aa: we’re advocating for preserving clean energy tax credits from the inflation reduction act. no republicans voted for the inflation reduction act. however, many states like texas took advantage of the clean energy tax credits and they’ve got many windmills. they’re not doing it for renewable energy because they believe in climate change. they’re doing it because it’s a great opportunity to have more of a diversified renewable energy source. 

mr: does your status as a rural citizen make it easier for you to connect with people like farmers about climate change?

aa: oh yeah, i’m surrounded by ranchers and farmers. i’m talking to ranchers and farmers all the time. there are some people, a dear friend passed away from covid-19 a few years ago, but she and her husband deliver eggs. he is a fox news listener and never wanted to discuss climate change with me, but i really enjoyed them. they were my good friends, and i could count on them as neighbors. the fact that we disagreed on climate change never came between us, not as an issue. 

mr: is he a believer in climate change? 

aa: no.

mr: no? he doesn’t believe in it. 

aa: no, he followed rush limbaugh for years. and, you know, climate change was a hoax, and you can’t talk to him about it. he says, oh, that’s for the birds. 

mr: so he shuts down the conversation.

aa: yeah. it’s like, you’re joking, alex, get out of here. however, i also want to tell you that it’s getting easier to talk to people who their whole life have voted republican. maybe they don’t believe in climate change. and that’s not to say that there aren’t a lot of republicans who know that climate change is happening. my senator knows that climate change is happening. he’s seen the data. he can tell it’s happening. he may not want to talk about it because he doesn’t want to lose a chance of getting re-elected, and a large part of his base doesn’t believe in climate change. it was a taboo topic to talk about, but that doesn’t matter anymore. 

mr: so people would rather talk about the economics behind climate change benefiting them. 

aa: some people don’t want to talk about it. i want to tell you a little anecdote. one time, i was at a farmer’s market. i had some leaflets, talking about the carbon fee and cash back policy. i handed one to these guys, and they looked a bit, and both of them just started ranting at me.

“you know, girly, carbon dioxide has been around forever. it’s part of the carbon cycle.” they went on for 20 minutes, talking at me instead of with me about climate change. and i relax. it was a hot day. i had lemonade. i just sipped my lemonade, listened to them, and nodded, just listened to them. and after a while, they got tired of talking to me and said, “well, thank you for listening.” i said it was my pleasure. i learned a lot talking to you guys. would you like me to explain why i’m standing here with this leaflet about this policy? and they said, well, ok.

and i think that part of the problem is that people don’t feel listened to. so listen to people, let them rant. give them the time of day. let them tell you what their concerns are, you know, and then, when it’s appropriate, talk with them. 

the biden administration passed the inflation reduction act in 2022, investing hundreds of billions into government expenditures focused on upscaling the us’ domestic energy production and manufacturing. in 2025, some of the major energy projects supported by the ira hang in uncertainty under the trump administration’s spending freeze.

the ira sparked a path for the united states to lower energy costs, increase clean energy production, and reduce carbon emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030 while supporting displaced fossil fuel workers, unionization in the green labor market, and incentivizing new clean energy projects with subsidies.

as the us diversifies its energy resources, this leaves fossil fuel workers in a unique situation where they are displaced from high-road, union protected jobs while in possession of vital skills and experience in trades that could support the labor force in the transition to a green economy. 

an integrated circuit: fossil fuel jobs and clean energy jobs

“if you commit to using higher-pay workers, the cost of the project is going to be higher. and so there’s this trade off between, do you do the transition more quickly? do you do things in a way that protects the workers?” said david popp, an environmental economist from syracuse university. 

one thing the fossil fuel industry has had that the green industry has not yet is time. over the course of history, tradesmen and blue-collar workers have fought and advocated for unionized protections. this has resulted in jobs that tend to have higher wages and better protections for workers against threats such as wage retaliation for workplace injuries.

fossil fuel jobs generate fossil-dependent communities. as fossil fuel jobs are phased out, fossil fuel workers are displaced. nearly 3,200 workers per year will be displaced in california between 2021 – 2030 and another 2,500 workers will voluntarily retire each year. 

“renewable energy tends to be placed closer to where it’s going to be used,” popp said. “so even if people have skills that might be appropriate, it’s not necessarily that the fossil fuel jobs are going to leave and a bunch of new green energy jobs are going to come in.”

the latest clean investment monitor report found that from 2022 through the end of 2024, $289 billion had been invested into facilities that manufacture or deploy clean technologies. many of these projects have been cited in districts, currently represented by republicans, which tend to be largely dependent upon the fossil fuel industry. these fossil-dependent areas benefited from $223 billion of this investment, representing 77% of the total share. 

despite remaining separated in the minds of many americans, fossil fuel jobs and green energy jobs are intertwined. one major thing fusing them together is skilled and experienced trade workers.

a voltage boost: the ira’s new approach

the ira is different in that it is essentially an all carrot and no sticks approach to getting the united states to diversify its sources of energy, said popp. the ira incentivizes green energy projects through things like subsidies, capital investment, and tax credits to companies looking to invest in a new project. this is different from the novel approach that focuses on “sticks” such as employing cap and trade policies or carbon tax regulations. 

to support fossil fuel workers in this transition, the ira focused on three major factors: domestic manufacturing, prevailing wages and unionization, and apprenticeship. in 2024, unionization rates in clean energy surpassed traditional energy employment rates for the first time.

“the ira supports the transfer of skills for displaced workers in the fossil fuel industry by providing incentives for developers to integrate apprenticeship training programs into renewable energy projects,” said gary labarbera, president of the new york city and new york state building trades.

it also funds grants for vocational training and community college programs. prioritizing apprenticeship opportunities ensures ongoing training and retraining, equipping workers with the essential skills needed for careers in the green economy.”

surging ahead

since the 2025 inauguration, the trump administration has already put through more than 50 actions to eliminate federal climate mitigation and adaptation. the ira was a historical piece of legislation that outlined incentives and approaches that were both enduring and politically palatable as the industry diversifies. it provided monumental investments into the climate and an existing workforce.

while companies and industry leaders have been incentivized by the ira to support fossil fuel workers and fossil-dependent republican communities, advocates say that it is important to recognize that green jobs need unionization for a just transition. 

labarbera said: “in the unionized construction industry, this has resulted in well-paying jobs with medical and retirement benefits, enabling workers and their families to achieve middle-class stability. the transition to green energy must not be exploited by employers seeking to cut wages and benefits, ensuring that workers continue to receive fair compensation and protections.”

when then-recent college graduate luke bolar stepped on capitol hill  working for sen. chuck grassley (r-iowa) then rep. steve scalise’s (r-la.) offices, never would he think the climate divide would spin out into what it is today. 

bolar now works as the chief external affairs officer for clearpath, a conservative organization focusing on solutions to produce more clean energy and lower emissions but with a focus on innovation over regulation. but bolar has said that since the cap and trade debate emerged from the american clean energy and security act in the late 2000s, division on the topic of climate change has only widened in american politics. 

read the interview with bolar below.

maggie rhoads: i mainly want to spend this interview talking about the american clean energy and security act. can you just talk a little bit more about what that means?

luke bolar: that was the big piece of legislation that would have created a cap and trade system that was probably started as a concept before 2009 and then really came to congress as something that was debated in 2009. it would have essentially created [a system] where you force certain technologies like more renewables onto the grid and cap emissions from others.

a cap and trade system allots a certain amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowances that companies must adhere to, given the amount of allowances they may purchase.  

lb: in some cases, it would have made it really hard to continue using [non-renewable energy technologies]. from our perspective at clearpath, that’s not the right system because we think the ability to scale up a new technology of any kind, if it’s low emission should be accelerated and supported.

mr: ok, so it was mentioned that 2008 and 2009 was a turning point in terms of how climate change has become so divisive. can you talk a little bit more about that? 

lb: i started my career on capitol hill, and climate change was not political. i was fresh out of college, writing press releases for a republican lawmaker about how we needed more wind energy to lower emissions. we need more renewable fuels because they would reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas and lower emissions. 

then, you start getting into the cap and trade legislation, which was a policy dispute because of how it was structured. most republicans opposed that policy, and as part of the political lexicon and the debate at the time, the republicans who opposed that piece of legislation were labeled as climate deniers or anti-climate solutions, which wasn’t really the case. and then it escalated from there. now, over the last five years, that’s starting to change back into depoliticizing climate and just the lexicon of climate change. 

mr: and just to confirm you’re saying that there’s an effort now to depoliticize climate action. how exactly have you seen that?

lb: a lot of republicans in congress talk about the concerns they have that climate impacts can have. you also saw that from president trump’s nominees for the energy-related agencies, the environment, the environmental protection agency, the department of energy, and the department of interior. administrator lee zeldin, secretary chris wright, and secretary doug burgum all got asked about climate change in their confirmation hearings, and they all addressed it in a way that, yes, climate change is real. we should focus on what they see as viable solutions. 

mr: and you would say that those who tend to be more left leaning said, ‘oh, because you’re not supporting this solution to climate change, that means you’re against the climate.’ 

lb: that’s very fair to say. that was pretty well documented, with plenty of news media and congressional testimony from democrats who would make that case at the time. and that continued for the next decade.

mr: do you think that climate change should be a controversial issue? or no?

lb: i don’t think it is. we actually do a lot of polling. i just ran a nationwide survey recently, and 6% of the american public doesn’t think climate change is happening. you don’t have many people in this country who believe climate change is not happening. based on that, it’s not controversial. the solutions can be controversial. and when you get into economic viability and technology, there will be policy disagreements, and that’s good. and if you think those are controversial, that’s okay, but i don’t. 

mr: but is it being covered in a controversial manner because of the solutions that people are proposing?

lb: [the controversy] may have started before a false narrative of fossil energy versus renewable energy. that gets covered as if you’re not all in on renewables, then you’re not for climate change. or if you support fossil energy, then you’re not for climate change. we think that’s a false choice. that’s a false narrative. 

we produce fossil energy in america cleaner than most of the rest of the world, and we think there are great technologies to continue to make those technologies produce even lower emissions. and that’s what i’m talking about with our innovation agenda, lowering those emissions from fossil fuels because fossil energy doesn’t cause climate change. it is the emissions from them. if you can find ways to lower emissions, you can ultimately see a world where we will continue to use fossil energy in a way similar to what we do today. 

mr: clearly you’re arguing for a deregulatory way to approach climate change, but where is the compromise? where are you willing to compromise on what you stand for? 

lb: yeah, i don’t call it a deregulatory agenda. we are thinking of modernizing the regulatory system. many of the environmental laws in place today were written in the 1970s. we needed strong environmental laws, and those were actually, in most cases, written and implemented by republicans. 

at the time, there were a lot of environmental concerns that we needed to address, and we put good, strict laws in place. but how we build and produce energy today is obviously different from the 1970s, so we look at regulatory policy as modernizing it and keeping pace with the newer technologies, not deregulating. having good environmental standards in the us is important, so it’s about modernizing that deregulation.

mr: yeah, but where’s the compromise?

lb: there’s going to be a great compromise when you look at permitting. regulatory policy has many different directions to go, but based on how you permit an energy project, if you ask a democrat or a republican, should we update and modernize how we permit an energy project? both of them will say yes, we should. 

there is a broad compromise on the need to improve how we permit projects, which would be regulatory policy. so there already is a general consensus, a general bipartisan consensus. now, you get into some of the nuances and some of the specific laws. how do you change those? that’s when you start to get into some of the disagreements, and, again, that’s part of the process, and that’s ok.

mr: do you think compromise and bipartisan support are the same thing? 

lb: they can be, but not necessarily. good policy needs to be politically durable, which means it needs to be bipartisan. and so oftentimes, that does mean compromise, but it doesn’t have to mean compromise. it may be a different approach, or we could get to some piece of what i would have wanted in a different vehicle, legislatively. they’re different, they’re similar, they can be the same in legislation, but not exactly the same.

can urbanization actually be good for the environment? this video explores this question through conversations with students, professionals and people with both positive and negative personal experience with urbanization and urban environments.

a majority of the human population lives in urban areas, or will soon. there are ways that this can be used as an opportunity to address some of the most pressing issues we face today as a global community.

when we discuss climate change, the focus is often on how human activities are affecting the environment. but have we considered how the climate is affecting us? climate influences nearly every aspect of our lives — from what we wear and eat to how we feel and function. but could it also shape our cultural norms surrounding work, rest, and leisure — and even how we approach environmental conservation?

want to listen to this story? hit play above!

mike barandiarán, a manager at the u.s. fish and wildlife vieques national wildlife refuge in puerto rico, believes it does. with a career spanning diverse climates and cultures, barandiarán has observed how geography and weather influence not only our perception of time but also our approach to preserving the natural world. he frames this contrast as the difference between “gringo time” and “island time.”

“gringo time” embodies the rigid, industrial expectations tied to american work culture. it’s a mindset rooted in punctuality, strict deadlines, and a highly structured approach to tasks. efficiency and productivity are paramount, driven by external pressures and a sense of urgency to succeed in a demanding capitalist system. as barandiarán notes, viequenses often use the term “gringo time” as a signal to “lock in” and get tasks done quickly when necessary.

on the other hand, “island time” reflects a more relaxed and fluid approach to work, common in puerto rico and the caribbean. here, tasks are completed with flexibility, guided by the belief that things will get done when they need to get done, rather than adhering to rigid schedules. this cultural understanding of time prioritizes balance over urgency, a rhythm shaped by the steady, tranquil climate of the island.

cultural norms clash, but resiliency efforts persevere

barandiarán’s work in vieques, a small island just eight miles off the coast of mainland puerto rico, has given him a front-row seat to these contrasting time cultures — and their implications for environmental conservation.

vieques is a natural treasure trove, home to crystalline waters, black sand beaches, and bioluminescent bays that glow under the night sky. yet, its idyllic present conceals a turbulent past. for decades, the u.s. navy used the island for military testing, sparking fierce protests and resistance from viequenses who fought tirelessly against the destruction of their homeland. the navy’s withdrawal in 2003 marked a turning point, but it left behind a legacy of undetonated bombs and chemical contaminants, posing ongoing risks to the island’s residents and its fragile ecosystems.

in the wake of the military retreat, conservation efforts began to restore the island to its original state. building on this foundation of resilience, barandiarán and his team have prioritized hiring local viequenses for conservation efforts: “when you hire local people, you know they’re going to stay. not many adapt to the rhythms of life here — not even people from san juan.”

the locals are intelligent, educated, and professionally equipped, but their work styles often clash with the rigid expectations of the u.s. federal government.

traditional practices intertwine with conservation

this disconnect became clear as barandiarán observed their fluid approach to punctuality and deadlines. it wasn’t laziness or a lack of preparedness, as some outsiders might assume, but a reflection of the caribbean rhythm of life.

“in the caribbean, people don’t live to work; they work to live. they’re not lazy — they simply don’t have the same need to work nonstop like in northern countries,” barandiarán said.

in the u.s., changing seasons create clear boundaries between work and rest. but in the caribbean, where seasons blur and the landscape remains perpetually lush, life moves to a different beat.

this cultural rhythm also shapes how viequenses interact with their environment. traditional practices like fishing and crabbing for “jueyes” (land crabs) are not just livelihoods but deeply ingrained traditions.

barandiarán and his team have integrated these practices into conservation efforts, allowing sustainable harvesting during designated seasons. “we’ve found a balance between conservation laws and the needs of the community,” he said. “it’s about cooperation and education, not imposition.”

however, challenges remain. the tight deadlines imposed by mainland funders often clashed with the viequense concept of time. for instance, assurances that work would be completed “ahorita” — or “right away” — marked a cultural divide. in vieques, “ahorita” doesn’t mean immediately, but rather “sometime soon,” a fluid timeframe that could stretch from now to an undetermined point in the future.

compounding these challenges is a deep-seated wariness of “gringos” and their demands, rooted in a history of outside intervention. the island’s residents, scarred by decades of military occupation and environmental exploitation, approach external expectations with suspicion. this cultural resistance, paired with the relaxed pace of “island time,” has added layers of complexity to conservation efforts.

“the concept of national parks is a european and anglo-saxon one,” barandiarán said. “in developed countries, parks don’t directly impact communities, but in developing countries, people depend on these resources for their livelihood.” in vieques, conservation must balance ecological preservation with the needs of those who call the island home.

discovering ways to cross the cultural divide

so, how do we bridge the gap between “gringo time” and “island time” in environmental conservation? barandiarán’s advice is simple: “patience, tolerance, communication.” these three elements are crucial for successful cross-cultural collaboration. by fostering open dialogue and mutual respect, it’s possible to navigate the nuances of differing work styles and time perceptions.

as conservation efforts worldwide become more interconnected—and as climate change reshapes our environment—adapting to diverse cultural norms is not just an asset, but a necessity. with shifting weather patterns potentially bringing more tropical conditions to parts of the u.s., we may even witness a gradual shift towards a more “island time” mindset in some regions.

ultimately, our climate shapes not only our environment but also our cultural identity, influencing everything from daily routines to our understanding of professionalism and deadlines. by acknowledging and embracing these differences, we can create a more harmonious and effective approach to conservation — one that values both ecological preservation and the well-being of the communities that depend on these resources.

it’s not about choosing one “time” over the other, but about finding a way to work together, respecting the diverse rhythms of life and work that each culture brings to the table. 

as barandiarán puts it, “you don’t have to agree on everything, but you have to respect each other’s perspectives. that’s how you find the middle ground.”

in 2022, a wilderness designation was proposed for the big cypress national preserve in south florida, a place the miccosukee tribe of florida has called home for generations. members of the tribe say the designation would have eliminated almost 200,000 acres from public access, including miccosukee neighborhoods and spiritual places.

despite this, the wilderness designation was proposed, which would have characterized the area as “untrammeled by man,” thereby enforcing preservation policies the tribe says are at odds with their way of life.

miccosukee tribal members betty osceola, michael frank, and deputy general council for the miccosukee tribe edward ornstein, discuss the community’s efforts to halt the proposed designation.