Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Beyond Thoughts and Prayers: Climate Catastrophes As Teachable Moments

Opinion

Beyond Thoughts and Prayers: Climate Catastrophes As Teachable Moments
File:Flooding of the Guadalupe River near Kerrville, Texas in 2025 ...

The deadly Texas floods have receded, leaving lost and shattered lives. Donald Trump tells us not to politicize the moment, with spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt calling the floods “an act of God,” meaning no one is responsible. However, because the floods and the climate disasters that follow them make the costs heart-wrenchingly visible, they give us the chance to discuss root causes and the choices we face. If we don’t have these conversations, these teachable moments will quickly fade.

Democratic pushback has focused primarily on cutbacks to the National Weather Service and FEMA, leaving critical offices understaffed and undermining the ability to plan effectively. But the pushback has focused less on climate change, even as, the day before the floods, the Republicans paid for massive tax breaks for the wealthiest in part by slashing federal support for wind, solar, battery, and electric vehicles, energy efficiency, and other investments that gave us a chance to join China and Europe in leading the technologies of the future. So we need to discuss the choices presented to us by this tragedy — and all the others that will come.


When Democrats have held power, they’ve raised these issues far too little. No American legislation did more to fight climate change than Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, but the new Republican bill mostly gutted it. And Biden was largely quiet in the face of a succession of epic climate disasters, from the fires that destroyed the Maui town of Lahaina and the Colorado town of Superior, to the North Carolina floods on the eve of the election. He did say Hurricane Ida highlighted the “climate crisis.” But the administration never created a sustained conversation. Kamala Harris also stayed mostly silent, and when climate change was raised late in her single Presidential debate, she discussed it for only a minute and then moved on. So, although the administration addressed the issue in groundbreaking ways, it did far too little to bring it to greater public salience. That led to it receding further in perceived urgency for a public that knows climate change is real but hasn’t made it a priority.

Imagine if Biden, Harris, or other key Democrats had visited the sites of these disasters and not just offered compassion and government aid, but also an honest discussion of our choices. At the least this would have underscored the stakes --and given voters a sense that the Democrats were fighting to address it.

Consider the campaigns to prevent gun violence. For years, those who wanted common-sense gun rules resisted “politicizing tragedy.” Mass shootings kept happening, but other than those most engaged, not enough people spoke out in their wake, because it felt unseemly. Finally, more started to, including political leaders. They told the stories and drew the connections. As the public began to hear them, support for addressing gun violence increased enough to pass the 2022 bipartisan gun safety bill in the wake of the Uvalde shootings.

Those who recognize that climate change is real and urgent no longer have the bully pulpit of the Presidency. Instead, climate information is scrubbed from government sites, including guidance on how to prepare for climate disasters, and scientists are fired for even daring to address the issue. But, local and national Democratic leaders, as well as engaged citizen groups, can still speak out when disasters hit. We can mourn the lives lost and communities destroyed, while highlighting both the human costs and the technologies that offer an alternative, with 96% of new global electricity demand being met last year by renewables, as they become more affordable than fossil fuels, complemented by batteries whose cost has dropped 95% in 15 years. We can demand accountability for all the recent cuts and demand that the investments be restored.

We can also use those moments to highlight fossil fuel companies that have bankrolled climate denial. This could mean nonviolent protests at their corporate offices that highlight the recent catastrophes. Or targeting banks that fuel fossil fuel investment. Or the gas stations of companies like Exxon/Mobil, whose scientists warned of climate change risk nearly 50 years ago, then saw the company bury their warnings and promote denial instead. It also means pressuring the media to cover the crisis more robustly, including engaging conservative-leaning podcasters and influencers who shape so much of America’s current understanding, and who have started to question Trump’s immigration raids.

Drawing the links at the times when climate change’s invisible march becomes most manifest isn’t politicizing tragedy. It’s making clear that if we care about the lives that are lost, we need to prevent the future tragedies.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While, with nearly 300,000 in print between them.


Read More

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less