News
Researchers have begun plugging US president Donald Trump’s energy and climate policies into their models, and the early results suggest far-reaching environmental, health and economic consequences. Among these estimates for the effect on the United States, by 2030, of Trump administration’s policies:
• 2 billion–4 billion tonnes more carbon dioxide emissions than what would otherwise occur
• 4 million net jobs lost as a result of a broad repeal of current energy and climate policies
• Several thousand premature deaths a year because of increased air pollution
• Energy prices rise for most people because of a lack of investment in renewables, which have lower operating costs
• At worst, Trump’s policies and abandonment of the Paris agreement could erode the global appetite for climate action
It’s not clear whether Trump will be able to accomplish his goals. Market forces are turning the tide towards green energy, and US businesses and local governments might push back against the loss of climate investments that Congress approved in 2022 as part of the Inflation Reduction Act.
News
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has mandated that all of its researchers’ under-review papers be withdrawn so they can be checked for compliance with a controversial executive order signed by President Trump. Manuscripts must not include any mention of terms including ‘gender’, ‘transgender’ and ‘non-binary’, among others. It is uncertain whether journals, which have their own rules for discussing gender and sex, will go along with the directive. “Unfortunately, I see two things happening: a lot of these withdrawn papers will never be published” because collaborators outside the CDC aren’t going to agree to omit data, says social epidemiologist Ayden Scheim, “and in the long term, a lot of research that focuses on health inequities for women or LGBTQ+ people will disappear”.
Opinion
The decision by US President Donald Trump to withdraw the country from the World Health Organization (WHO) is a heavy blow, says a Nature editorial — but one that can be recovered from. “The organization cannot allow itself to become so reliant on a single donor again,” it argues. Instead, the WHO’s remaining 193 members — particularly the high-income and upper-middle-income nations — and philanthropic foundations should step up to fill the gap left by the United States.
