Amazon, the Bezos Earth Fund and the Donald Trump presidency: Climate Change, Public Health and the State of the U.S.

Jeff Bezos is the biggest climate philanthropist out there and his swift embrace of Donald Trump was particularly cringeworthy due to his being the next US president.

Local climate action and philanthropy will be more important under another Trump presidency. Trump is expected to introduce a lot of new policies that will make it much harder to transition to cleaner energy needed to combat the effects of climate change.

One of the early companies to do so was Amazon, which set a goal in 2019 of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040. Fast-forward to 2023, and the company still produced 34 percent more carbon pollution than it did when it made its first climate pledge — although its emissions have started to come back down slightly, according to Amazon’s latest sustainability report.

The Bezos Earth Fund was launched in 2020 with a $10 billion commitment for action on climate change. The fund’s website describes it as “the largest philanthropic commitment ever to fight climate change and protect nature.”

Warming sea levels mean more ocean front property for the president-elect who claims climate change will make storms and flooding worse. On his campaign trail, he promoted misinformation like the myth that offshore wind farms are not responsible for killing whales along US shorelines. The US reels from disasters like Hurricane Helene that were triggered by greenhouse gas emissions but he downplays the risks.

Donald Trump has been re-elected as president of the United States. Many researchers have told Nature that they are in despair, seeing the election result as a step backwards for facts, reason, knowledge and civility.

A senior official in the US Environmental Protection Agency who declined to be named says that they will need people willing to fight, protect and do what’s right over what’s easy. We must remember what is right. And what’s right is protecting public health and the environment.”

Worries pouring in this morning align with those expressed by the majority of readers who responded last month to a survey conducted by Nature. Eighty-six per-cent of the more than 2,000 people who answered the poll said that they favoured Harris, owing to concerns including climate change, public health and the state of US democracy. If Trump were to win, some people would consider changing where they live or study.

The sad part of life: scientists globally react to Donald Trump’s election win via social-media comments on Nature’s blog [‘We need to be ready for a new world’]

Responses geared towards that sentiment have been coming fast and furious. Tulio de Oliveira, a prominent virologist at the Centre for Epidemic Response and Innovation at Stellenbosch University in South Africa, posted on X (the social-media platform formerly known as Twitter): “With the changes around the world, you may want to relocate to one of the best Universities in [South Africa] in one of the world’s most beautiful region!”, he said and linked to job ads for postgraduate and postdoctoral fellowships.

Not all researchers are against a Trump presidency, however. Of those who responded to Nature’s reader survey, 6% expressed a preference for Trump — usually citing concerns about security issues and the economy. The chief scientific officer at Seele Neuroscience in Mexico City told Nature that Trump is the lesser of the evils. The Mexican economy is strongly dependent on decisions made by the US government, Monroy-Fonseca says.

Another reader who agreed to be contacted but did not want their name to be used, worried about Trump’s hostility towards science and evidence. The nurse said they would vote for Trump because he would be safer and she would be able to take care of her family.

“In my long life of 82 years, I’ve never experienced a day when I’m more sad,” says Fraser Stoddart who left the US last year to become the chair of chemistry at the University of Hong Kong. I’ve seen something that is extremely bad for the United States, as well as for all of us in the world.

Source: ‘We need to be ready for a new world’: scientists globally react to Trump election win

What will we learn from the first Trump presidency if the US Senate and the House of Representatives decide against a candidate who respects evidence?

Votes are still being counted in many places, but Trump has already won enough US states to sail to a resounding victory over his opponent, vice-president and Democrat Kamala Harris. Trump addressed his supporters as the victor early today, declaring his coalition “the greatest political movement of all time”.

Republicans also look primed to win the upper chamber of the US Congress — the Senate — flipping at least three Democratic seats, although there are four more competitive races that have yet to be called for either party. The final results of the US House of Representatives may be days or weeks away, but it seems likely that Republicans will retain control. This would give Trump and his party full control of government in Washington DC.

Longevity researcher at Jagiellonian University in Poland, Grazyna Jasienska says that they need to be ready for a new world. If Republicans take over, it will be difficult to find positive aspects for global science and public health.

Despite many seeing the result as a step backwards, the research community should engage with the new administration with courage, tenacity, strength and unity.

Nature stated last week that the United States needs a leader who respects evidence. The incoming administration must embody this principle. On behalf of the research community, we will hold it to account if it falls short.

We hope that the administration will lead in the best interests of the country. That means holding on to the best of what the previous administration did, and not returning to some of the policies of the first Trump presidency.

The United States as a Global Leader: Climate Change, the World Health Organization and the World’s Low-Energy Experts

You should respect the scientific consensus with regards to making regulatory decisions in public health, environmental issues and other areas. This is a core part of modern government. Policymakers and politicians retain control over decision-making, but they cannot control the facts.

Climate change must also remain a crucial priority. The United States has taken important steps to understand that it is in its own interests to not stand still as the world warms. Policies to support industries and communities have been enacted. If those policies are repealed, people on the lowest incomes and those from marginalized communities will be among those most affected.

Both the United States and the world are at their best when the country engages internationally. The Paris climate accord, which US scientists helped to craft, is an accord aimed at protecting the world from the impacts of climate change. Continuing to support the World Health Organization and the United Nations is how it is.

Trump’s threat to defund the WHO in 2020 was especially dangerous for those low-income countries where the agency’s work is crucial for tackling diseases and maintaining standards of public-health infrastructure. Some WHO personnel are helping to treat diseases in countries such as Afghanistan, Ukraine, Sudan and Yemen. It’s in the best interests of the United States to cooperate with international institutions to fight diseases, because diseases don’t respect borders.

In addition, the United States accepts the world’s talent in science and other fields. That must continue if the country wants to maintain its strength in research and innovation, the bedrock of prosperity.