Herbs are delicious and they make our dishes come alive with flavor and variety. Throughout history, herbs have been used not only in recipes and teas, but also medical treatments. Today, most of us have entire cupboards full of dried herbs. We often drink them in the form of caffeine-free teas, cook with them and use them for zesty natural home fragrances. A few of us may even harken back to our ancestors’ beliefs in herbs as treatments for illnesses and maladies.
Herbs are delicious and they make our dishes come alive with flavor and variety.
These fragrant and delicious plants may be varied in their uses, but one thing is for sure: They’re really good for us! Here are just a few of the proven health benefits of herbs.
1. They’re Anti-Microbial
Herbs are anti-microbial, which means they help fight bacteria and harmful germs. The key to this property is herbs’ high concentration of polyphenols, a class of organic chemical micronutrients found in a variety of plants. We’ll hear about some of polyphenols’ other nutritional benefits later, but one of their well-known properties is their ability to fight bacteria. Oregano and dill are two herbs that are particularly chock-full of anti-microbial polyphenols.
2. They Help You Eat Better
This particular attribute isn’t related to a healthful nutrient within herbs, but rather the eating patterns that these plants help us adhere to. When we flavor our dishes with delicious and fragrant herbs, we make them more flavorful and appealing, encouraging us to eat healthy, whole foods. We are also able to reduce the amount of salt we add to our foods because we are adding so much flavor in the form of herbs. While salt isn’t necessarily a bad thing in moderation, herbs are a welcome substitute.
3. They’re Full of Antioxidants
Don’t think of berries and other fruits as the sole proprietors of antioxidants—these healthy foods get many of their antioxidant properties from polyphenols, just like herbs. Herbs provide a stunning number of antioxidants, making them a super nutritious addition to your dishes. Antioxidants bind to free radicals in the body, helping to fight their presence and potentially decrease your risk of certain cancers and chronic diseases.
4. They’re Low-Calorie
Just like vegetables and other leafy plants, herbs are extremely low in calories. Calories aren’t the only important thing to consider when you’re trying to eat healthy, of course, but the fact that using these plants as seasonings won’t impact the caloric count of your dish makes them far superior to dressings, sauces and rubs. If you’re watching your waistline or trying to balance your diet, herbs will be your best bet in terms of flavor additions.
5. They’re Anti-Inflammatory
Finally, just like many spices, herbs are anti-inflammatory. Chronic inflammation wreaks havoc in the body. In fact, according to the Washington Post, it’s suspected to be linked to arthritis, Alzheimer’s, cancer and heart disease. The anti-inflammatory properties of herbs are attributed to—you guessed it—polyphenols. Add some herbs to whole food dishes such as vegetables and fresh meats and you’ll be on your way toward reducing inflammation in your body.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
9 Steps to Detox Your Body and How it Can Help You Lose Weight
5 Powerful Skin Care Products Found Right in Your Kitchen
Contribute
A meteorologist monitors weather in NOAA's Center for Weather and Climate Prediction on July 2, 2013 in Riverdale, Maryland. Mark Wilson / Getty Images
The Trump White House is now set to appoint two climate deniers to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in one month.
<p>First, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/david-legates-noaa-2647660690.html" target="_self">David Legates</a>, a University of Delaware professor who has questioned the scientific consensus that human activity drives the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a> and has argued carbon dioxide emissions are actually beneficial, was named deputy assistant secretary of commerce for environmental observation. Now, the Trump administration is in the process of appointing meteorologist Ryan Maue to serve as the agency's chief scientist, two NOAA officials confirmed to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/09/21/noaa-chief-scientist-maue/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The Washington Post Monday</a>. Maue, who runs the site <a href="http://weathermodels.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">weathermodels.com</a>, does accept that the burning of greenhouse gases is impacting the global climate. However, he has spoken out against worst-case-scenario climate predictions and criticized activists for using <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/extreme-weather" target="_self">extreme weather</a> events to argue for reducing the burning of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a>.</p>
<p>"For the second time this month, a person who misrepresents, distorts, and disagrees with climate science is being placed in a science position at NOAA," professor <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/katharine-hayhoe-climate-change-2550366098.html" target="_self">Katharine Hayhoe</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/1308235952381362178" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tweeted</a> in response to the news.</p><p>Maue previously served as an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank that questioned mainstream climate science, The Washington Post pointed out. He co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal challenging the climate predictions of NASA scientist James Hansen, which have been supported by peer-reviewed studies. Most recently, he has lashed out against California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his supporters for linking the climate crisis to the state's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/wildfires-california-washington-oregon-photos-2647585008.html" target="_self">record-breaking wildfire season</a>.</p><p>"Seems the Democrats have coordinated their efforts to use the devastating California fires as an opportunity to score political points in the upcoming election by blaming them solely on climate change (and Trump)," he wrote in a deleted tweet recovered by The Washington Post.</p>
<p>However, a number of studies have shown that changes to the climate are making the state's fires more frequent and more intense.</p><p>As chief scientist, Maue would influence NOAA's research agenda for oceanic and atmospheric science, as well as its scientific integrity policy. He still has to pass ethics and security reviews, but would not require Senate confirmation.</p><p>Other scientists questioned whether Maue had the credentials for the role.</p><p>"Normally, when people are chosen for high-profile positions relating to climate change, I've heard of them. I have no idea who this person is, other than I've seen him saying things about climate that are wrong on social media and in op-eds. I suspect that he has the one and only necessary qualification for the job: a willingness to advance the agenda of climate deniers," Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler <a href="https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1308241184234631168" target="_blank">tweeted</a> in reaction to Maue's likely appointment. "To me, this emphasizes how thin the climate deniers' bench is. I'm sure they'd prefer to have someone with actual credentials take the job, but this shows that credentialized experts who dispute mainstream climate science simply don't exist."</p>
<p>Maue told <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/climate-science-critic-be-chief-scientist-key-us-climate-research-agency" target="_blank">E&E News</a> he believes in "lukewarming."</p><p>"Lukewarming is not climate denial," Maue said. "Most of us on this side of the issue believe in lower climate sensitivity. We don't believe there's going to be 5° of warming; we figure it's at the lower end of 1.5°."</p><p>However, most scientists think the world could hit 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels within the next two decades and then continue to heat up.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Trump Insider Embeds Climate Denial Into Agency Reports ... ›
- Climate Denier Is Named to Leadership Role at NOAA - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A plastic bag caught in a tree in New Jersey's Palisades Park. James Leynse / Stone / Getty Images
New Jersey is one step closer to passing what environmental advocates say is the strongest anti-plastic legislation in the nation.
<p>The state Legislature passed a sweeping measure Thursday that would ban <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-bags" target="_self">plastic bags</a> from stores and restaurants and single-use food and drink containers made from polystyrene foam, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/nyregion/nj-paper-plastic-bag-ban.html" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">The New York Times reported</a>. The ban is noteworthy for being the first in the country to include supermarket paper bags as well as plastic ones.</p>
<p>"This is the single most comprehensive plastics and paper reduction bill in the nation," former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator and <a href="https://beyondplastics.org/" target="_blank">Beyond Plastics</a> President Judith Enck said in a <a href="https://www.insidernj.com/press-release/environmental-leaders-cheer-nj-legislative-votes-pass-single-use-waste-ban-bill-legislation-now-strongest-country/" target="_blank">statement published by Insider NJ</a>. "Building on the success of local laws adopted throughout New Jersey to reduce plastic pollution, the NJ State Legislature listened to the people and not the polluters and embraced a sensible environmental strategy."</p><p>The bill now passes to Gov. Philip Murphy, who intends to sign it, a spokesperson told The New York Times. The bans on bags and containers will go into effect 18 months after he does so, <a href="https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/environment/2020/09/24/nj-plastic-bag-ban-2020-nj-one-step-away-nations-toughest-ban/3506419001/" target="_blank">NorthJersey.com reported</a>.</p>
<p>In addition to banning plastic and paper bags and plastic food containers, the bill will also limit <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-straws" target="_self">plastic straws</a> in restaurants so that they will only be available upon request. There are exemptions for newspaper bags; bags used for loose produce, fish or meat; dry-cleaning bags and prescription drug bags.</p><p>The measure effectively settles a long-running debate about whether plastic or paper bags are worse for the environment by banning both. Plastic bags account for about 12 percent of U.S. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastic-pollution" target="_self">plastic pollution</a>, according to The New York Times. But paper bags need more energy, and therefore more <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate</a> pollution, to make. <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/new-jersey" target="_blank">New Jersey Sierra Club</a> Director Jeff Tittle said the new legislation would encourage people to use more sustainable, reusable shopping bags.</p>
<p>However, the ban on paper bags was also the key to getting an important supermarket trade group to support the bill, NorthJersey.com reported. The organization argued that it would cost stores too much to supply customers with only paper bags.</p><p>"The ban on paper bags is critically important to the success of this legislation," New Jersey Food Council President Linda Doherty said ahead of Thursday's vote. "Without a ban, consumers will simply move to paper single-use bags and we will not address the underlying goal of reducing our reliance on single-use products."</p><p>However, the food council originally opposed any sort of statewide bag ban, <a href="https://www.njspotlight.com/2020/09/sweeping-nj-bag-ban-plastic-paper-restricting-polystyrene-foam-food-containers/" target="_blank">NJ Spotlight News reported</a>. It changed its position after as many as 57 communities passed their own separate bans and it decided it would be easier to deal with a single, statewide law than a patchwork of local ones.</p>
<p>Not everyone has been persuaded, however. American Forest and Paper Association President and Chief Executive Heidi Brock said the bill unfairly targeted her industry.</p><p>"The New Jersey Legislature has undermined an environmentally responsible option for consumers," she said in a statement reported by The New York Times. "Furthermore, the ban on paper bags sends an alarming message in devaluing family wage jobs, which are often union labor, in addition to the indirect jobs supported by the paper and wood products industry in the state."</p>
<p>Republican Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi, meanwhile, argued that the bill would put an additional burden on a restaurant industry already struggling because of the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a> pandemic.</p><p>"We're essentially kicking them in the head,'' she said, as NJ Spotlight News reported.</p><p>On the other hand, environmental advocates argued that plastic has long polluted New Jersey waterways. In recent years, more than 80 percent of the litter gathered on beaches by <a href="https://www.cleanoceanaction.org/index.php?id=334" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Clean Ocean Action</a> from Cape May to Sandy Hook has been plastic, NorthJersey.com reported. The material has even been found in some of the state's most pristine rivers and creeks.</p><p>"Now, we can all look forward to picking up less trash on our beaches," Clean Ocean Action executive director Cindy Zipf told NorthJersey.com. "There will be less plastics in the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/ocean" target="_self">ocean</a> to cause harm and death to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/marine-life" target="_self">marine life</a>."</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) talks to reporters during her weekly news conference at the U.S. Capitol Visitors Center on Sept. 18, 2020 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images
The House of Representatives passed a sweeping bill to boost clean energy while phasing out the use of coolants in air conditioners and refrigerators that are known pollutants and contribute to the climate crisis, as the AP reported.
<p>The 900-page Clean Energy and Jobs Innovation Act passed the House in a 220-185 vote. The bill, if it were approved by the Senate and signed by the president, would increase the energy efficiency standards for building and boost research and investment in the development of solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power, according to <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/518102-house-passes-sweeping-clean-energy-bill" target="_blank">The Hill</a>.</p><p>The Clean Energy and Jobs Innovation Act was crafted after negotiations with the Senate. It is full of agreed upon, "practical and achievable clean energy policies that are possible for us to achieve this year," said Frank Pallone, Democrat from New Jersey and chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, as <a href="https://www.utilitydive.com/news/trump-veto-of-house-clean-energy-bill-likely-as-ginsburg-replacement-fight/585625/" target="_blank">Utility Drive</a> reported.</p>
<p>Pallone added that the bill would "modernize our energy system, create jobs and take positive steps towards addressing the climate crisis," as the AP reported. He called it "one of the most impactful steps we can take now to create manufacturing jobs and boost our competitiveness, all while protecting our environment."</p><p>The effort to pass the bill, however, may have been in vain. Earlier in the week, The White House said the president's advisors would suggest he veto the bill. "With the news of Justice Ginsburg's passing, I cannot even venture a guess of how the next few weeks and months may play out," said Rep. Paul Tonko, a Democrat from New York in speaking to a National Clean Energy Week symposium, according to Utility Drive.</p><p>And yet, some in Congress were somewhat hopeful that the bill had a chance of becoming law. The Hill reported that a House Democratic aide believed that if the Senate passes their similar bill, then the respective committees can work together to settle the small discrepancies between the two bills.</p>
<p>The bills that are in the House and the Senate are modest in their ambition, which House Democrats acknowledged.</p><p>"I want to give a clear-eyed assessment: This bill is not going to stop climate change," said Tonko, as the AP reported. "But it is a good opportunity to make good and sometimes necessary changes to programs, which might make it easier to do a bigger, more ambitious bill in the near future."</p><p>The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC), an advocacy group, examined the bill and praised it in a <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/marc-boom/house-bill-would-deliver-needed-steps-toward-clean-economy" target="_blank">blog post</a> as "a needed step forward to ensure future climate action will be built from a solid foundation." It added that this bill is unique from past legislation because it "has opened the door for better ideas on how to spur progress in clean energy innovation."</p>
<p>And yet, the NRDC noted that the funding for clean energy fell behind the money spent for fossil fuels and nuclear energy. "This bill is very promising but it's obvious that it won't provide the transformative change we need to win the fight against climate change and protect our environment," the NRDC wrote.</p><p>House Speaker Nancy Pelosi praised the bill for taking a step to thwart the climate crisis and putting the wheels in motion to start legislation aimed at climate action.</p><p>"It takes actions that scientists, researchers and experts tell us is needed by launching the research and development needed to unleash a clean energy revolution and reduce pollution in our communities, making a bold down payment for future climate action by modernizing America's energy innovation infrastructure," she said, as The Hill reported.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Renewable Energy Could Power the World by 2050 - EcoWatch ›
- Net Zero U.S. by 2050? House Dems Unveil Sweeping Climate ... ›
- Delayed Senate Energy Bill Promotes LNG Exports, 'Clean Coal ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Gov. Jay Inslee on the Climate Crisis: ‘We Cannot Give in to Defeat and Pessimism’
2h
Insights + Opinion
Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington comforts Marsha Maus, 75, whose home was destroyed during California's deadly 2018 wildfires, on March 11, 2019 in Agoura Hills, California. Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times / Getty Images
By Governor Jay Inslee
Climate Week this year coincides with clear skies in Washington state for the first time in almost two weeks.
In just a few days in early September, Washington state saw enough acres burned – more than 600,000 – to reach our second-worst fire season on record. Our worst fire season came only five years ago. Wildfires aren't new to the west, but their scope and danger today is unlike anything firefighters have seen. People up and down the West Coast – young and old, in rural areas and in cities – were choking on smoke for days on end, trapped in their homes.
Fires like these are becoming the norm, not the exception.
<p>That's because as the climate changes, our fires change. Climate scientists tell us that if greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current path, later this century the <em>average </em>year in Washington will eventually be warmer than the single hottest year of the 20th century. The heat leaves our land and vegetation dry and primed for ignition, with blazes for which our landscapes are not evolved to cope. We're seeing more acres burned, and more days with our state swathed in hazardous smoke and ash.</p><p>Rain, cooler weather, and heroic firefighting efforts have finally tamped down the fires and poor air quality; but the burn scars remain, and they are most acutely felt by those who lost homes, businesses, and loved ones in fires this year.</p><p>I have seen the chaos firsthand in recent visits to burned areas both east and west of the Cascade Mountains. As communities in Malden, Bonney Lake, and Graham, Washington, recover from the damage done this month, it's not enough for us as leaders to help our towns recover from one devastating event after another. We need a plan to stop these increasingly ferocious natural disasters from becoming uncontrollable. The situation demands that <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/climate-change/" target="_blank">climate change</a> be front and center in this plan – because it is the root and stem of the new challenges we face in disaster response.</p>
<p>While wildfires are the most recent, and some of the most visceral images of climate change, they are unfortunately just one manifestation of a <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/t/climate-crisis/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">climate crisis</a> with far-reaching implications.</p><p>From the woods and prairies to the oceans, rivers and streams, we see the damaging effects of climate change. West Coast marine waters are acidifying at twice the global rate, our streams are becoming too warm to support salmon, and our agricultural productivity is falling as a result of record heat.</p><p>But we cannot give in to defeat and pessimism. This is not a lost cause.</p><p>There is broad consensus on what we need to do to slow and turn back the effects of human-driven climate change: all hands on deck for a global decarbonization that grows jobs and protects communities.</p>
<p>Every year, Climate Week gives us the opportunity to highlight this urgent need. But we need every week to be Climate Week. Given the science, knowledge and tools at our disposal, it is unacceptable that more has not been done to address the terrifying implications of climate change in the 21st century. We have no more time to waste.</p><p>We face a powerful oil and gas industry that has sunk its claws into Congress and numerous state governments, and a presidential administration backed by a major political party dedicated to protecting polluters and spreading lies and confusion about the science. On the flip side is the urgent and painfully clear scientific consensus, coupled with the fact that the majority of Americans support action now on climate change.</p><p>This is a battle that we can – and must – win, beginning with our votes in November.</p><p>And winning the fight won't just protect our communities from the dangerous effects of climate change. It will create enormous new economic opportunity.</p>
<p>The latest jobs report from E2, a national nonpartisan group of business leaders and investors focused on sustainable energy policies, shows there are already more than 3 million clean energy jobs in America today. If we can find the will to massively accelerate the development of renewable resources, we can create millions of more jobs.</p><p>If 2020 has taught us anything, it's that facts are stubborn things, and denial can be fatal. The federal government's failure to accept the reality of the Covid-19 crisis once again demonstrated why aloofness is no replacement for proactive leadership.</p><p>While we know this administration would be wise to change its destructive path – by bringing our country back into the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, by putting in place strong clean car standards, or by restoring key environmental protections razed by Trump's cronies – we know they won't. However, public opinion is clear even after years of misinformation and downright lies. There is not enough oil money in the world to stop the American people from rising up for what's right, and it's time to hit back.</p><p>Let this Climate Week be a reminder not merely of the long road ahead, but of our own power to make that journey together. Start now, so that in Climate Week 2021 we'll have a little less distance to cover.</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in</em><em> <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/" target="_blank">Rolling Stone </a></em><em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
Vote as if the Climate and the Future of Humanity Depend on It—Because They Do
3h
Insights + Opinion
Four more years will be enough to cement in place Trump's anti-environmental policies and to make sure it's too late to really change course. Enrique Meseguer / Pixabay
By Bill McKibben
To understand the planetary importance of this autumn's presidential election, check the calendar. Voting ends on November 3—and by a fluke of timing, on the morning of November 4 the United States is scheduled to pull out of the Paris Agreement.
President Trump announced that we would abrogate our Paris commitments during a Rose Garden speech in 2017. But under the terms of the accords, it takes three years to formalize the withdrawal. So on Election Day it won't be just Americans watching: The people of the world will see whether the country that has poured more carbon into the atmosphere than any other over the course of history will become the only country that refuses to cooperate in the one international effort to do something about the climate crisis.
<p>Trump's withdrawal benefited oil executives, who have donated millions of dollars to his reelection campaign, and the small, strange fringe of climate deniers who continue to insist that the planet is cooling. But most people living in the rational world were appalled. Polling showed widespread opposition, and by some measures, Trump is more out of line with the American populace on environmental issues than any other. In his withdrawal announcement he said he'd been elected "to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris"; before the day was out, Pittsburgh's mayor had pledged that his city would follow the guidelines set in the French capital. Young people, above all, have despised the president's climate moves: Poll after poll shows that climate change is a top-tier issue with them and often the most important one—mostly, I think, because they've come to understand how tightly linked it is not just to their future but to questions of justice, equity, and race. </p><p>Here's the truth: At this late date, meeting the promises set in Paris will be nowhere near enough. If you add up the various pledges that nations made at that conference, they plan on moving so timidly that the planet's temperature will still rise more than 3 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels. So far, we've raised the mercury 1 degree Celsius, and that's been enough to melt millions of square miles of ice in the Arctic, extend fire seasons for months, and dramatically alter the planet's rainfall patterns. Settling for 3 degrees is kind of like writing a global suicide note. </p>
<p>Happily, we could go much faster if we wanted. The price of solar and wind power has fallen so fast and so far in the last few years that they are now the cheapest power on earth. There are plenty of calculations to show it will soon be cheaper to build solar and wind farms than to operate the fossil fuel power stations we've already built. Climate-smart investments are also better for workers and economic equality. "We need to have climate justice, which means to invest in green energy, [which] creates three times more jobs than to invest in fossil fuel energy," United Nations Secretary General António Guterres said in an interview with Covering Climate Now in September. If we wanted to make it happen, in other words, an energy revolution is entirely possible. The best new study shows that the United States could cut its current power sector emissions 80 percent by 2035 and create 20 million jobs along the way. </p><p>Joe Biden and Kamala Harris haven't pledged to move that quickly, but their climate plan is the farthest-reaching of any presidential ticket in history. More to the point, we can pressure them to go farther and faster. Already, seeing the polling on the wall, they've adopted many of the proposals of climate stalwarts like Washington Governor Jay Inslee. A team of Biden and Bernie Sanders representatives worked out a pragmatic but powerful compromise in talks before the Democratic National Convention; the Biden-Harris ticket seems primed to use a transition to green energy as a crucial part of a push to rebuild the pandemic-devastated economy. </p>
<p>Perhaps most important, they've pledged to try to lead the rest of the world in the climate fight. The United States has never really done this. Our role as the single biggest producer of hydrocarbons has meant that our response to global warming has always been crippled by the political power of Big Oil. But that power has begun to slip. Once the biggest economic force on the planet, the oil industry is a shadow of its former self. (You could buy all the oil companies in America for less than the cost of Apple; Tesla is worth more than any other auto company on earth.) And so it's possible that the hammerlock on policy exercised by this reckless industry will loosen if Trump is beaten.</p><p>But only if he's beaten. Four more years will be enough to cement in place his anti-environmental policies and to make sure it's too late to really change course. The world's climate scientists declared in 2018 that if we had any chance of meeting sane climate targets, we had to cut emissions almost in half by 2030. That's less than 10 years away. We're at the last possible moment to turn the wheel of the supertanker that is our government. Captain Trump wants to steer us straight onto the rocks, mumbling all the while about hoaxes. If we let him do it, history won't forgive us. Nor will the rest of the world.</p>
<p><em>This story originally appeared in</em> <em><a href="https://www.thenation.com" target="_blank">The Nation</a></em> <em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less