Monthly Summaries
Issue 100, April 2025 | "Real danger in this moment"
[PDF]
Thousands demonstrate for science and research funding in Washington DC on March 7, 2025. Photo: Allison Bailey/NurPhoto/REX/Shutterstock.
April media coverage of climate change or global warming in newspapers around the globe dipped 4% from March 2025. Furthermore, coverage in April 2025 dropped 16% from April 2024. Figure 1 shows trends in newspaper media coverage at the global scale – organized into seven geographical regions around the world – across 21 years, from January 2004 through April 2025. The politics of climate change – driven in the United States (US) context with reactions in Canada – fueled increased media coverage in North America and more specifically in US print media, with the number climate change or global warming stories growing in April from the previous month across all outlets we monitor except for in the Wall Street Journal (-33%): Washington Post (+33%), New York Times (+18), Los Angeles Times (+26%), and USA Today (more than tripling).
Figure 1. Newspaper media coverage of climate change or global warming in print sources in seven different regions around the world, from January 2004 through April 2025.
At the regional level, April 2025 coverage – compared to the previous month – decreased everywhere except in North America (increasing 25%) (see Figure 2), Latin America (rising 2%), and the Middle East (doubling): Africa (-7.5%), the European Union (EU) (-8%), Asia (-9%), and Oceania (-15%). Meanwhile, Comparing these April 2025 levels of coverage to a year previous (April 2024), counts increased only in the Middle East while numbers dropped in all other regions: North America (-1%), Africa (-5%), Oceania (-8%), Asia (-9%), the EU (-26%), and Latin America (-36%).
Figure 2. Coverage of climate change or global warming in North America from January 2005 through April 2025: Washington Post (US), Wall Street Journal (US), New York Times (US), USA Today (US), Los Angeles Times (US), Globe & Mail (Canada), Toronto Star (Canada), National Post (Canada).
Harmful bleaching of the world’s coral has grown to include 84% of the ocean’s reefs in the most intense event of its kind in recorded history. Credit: Associated Press. |
Moving to the content of coverage, April media representations covered various ecological and meteorological themes in accounts. To begin the month, warnings of upcoming heat waves in South Asia – with links to a changing climate – made news. For example, BBC (United Kingdom [UK]) journalist Meryl Sebastian reported, “Most parts of India will experience an intense heatwave this summer with above normal temperatures expected across most of the country, its weather department has said. Mrutyunjay Mohapatra, chief of the India Meteorological Department, said several states would experience more heatwave days than usual this year. Many states already reported weekly average minimum temperatures above normal by 1-3C in February. Hundreds die each year in India due to scorching heat. Sectors like agriculture also suffer as availability of water reduces. In 2024, India recorded its hottest day at 50.5C on 28 May in western Rajasthan state's Churu city. The country's health ministry attributed 143 deaths to heatwaves between 1 March and 20 June. Independent experts, however, believe the country is under counting the deaths caused by extreme heat. The Heat Watch 2024 report said 733 deaths due to heatstroke were reported across 17 states between March and June 2024. This year, states like Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Odisha could see as many as 10 to 11 heatwave days…” Meanwhile, reporter Gaurav Talwar at The Times of India noted, “the early arrival of the heatwave in April, scorching large parts of India and Pakistan with temperatures exceeding 40oC across North Indian and reaching 49oC in parts of Pakistan, was largely driven by human-induced climate change…the 2025 heatwave was not only unusually early but also alarmingly intense”.
Over in Europe, stories circulated about rising temperatures linked with climate change. For example, La Vanguardia journalist Antonio Cerrillo noted, “This is the warning issued by the 2004 State of the Climate report presented by the Copernicus climate service and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The document highlights that this trend was reinforced in 2024, which was the warmest year in Europe on record. The temperature in Europe in 2024 was around 1.5°C Celsius above the average for the past 30 years (i.e., between 1991 and 2020). This average temperature increase was 0.5°C per decade, while the global average was just over 0.2°C per decade, according to Samantha Burgess, climate strategy manager at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). As in the rest of the planet, temperatures are rising in the old continent due to gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas used in transportation or energy production); but Europe is the continent experiencing this warming most rapidly. And why is this? There are three main reasons. First, part of the continent includes territory within the Arctic Circle, which is the fastest warming region on Earth. And, since the poles are the area that warms the most on the planet, when temperatures are averaged across Europe, the result is higher temperatures. Changes in atmospheric circulation also play a role, favoring more frequent heat waves in summer. This oceanic circulation brings warm waters to European coasts, making them relatively warmer than those of other oceans, according to WMO spokespersons”.
It is estimated that global temperatures will rise by about 2.1°C in the coming years. Photo credit: Andrej Cubic/EFE. |
Elsewhere, alarms rang regarding coral bleaching as a result of rising ocean temperatures. For example, Associated Press correspondent Isabella O’Malley reported, “Harmful bleaching of the world’s coral has grown to include 84% of the ocean’s reefs in the most intense event of its kind in recorded history…It’s the fourth global bleaching event since 1998, and has now surpassed bleaching from 2014-17 that hit some two-thirds of reefs, said the ICRI, a mix of more than 100 governments, non-governmental organizations and others. And it’s not clear when the current crisis, which began in 2023 and is blamed on warming oceans, will end. “We may never see the heat stress that causes bleaching dropping below the threshold that triggers a global event,” said Mark Eakin, corresponding secretary for the International Coral Reef Society and retired chief of the Coral Reef Watch program of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “We’re looking at something that’s completely changing the face of our planet and the ability of our oceans to sustain lives and livelihoods,” Eakin said. Last year was Earth’s hottest year on record, and much of that is going into oceans. The average annual sea surface temperature of oceans away from the poles was a record 20.87 degrees Celsius (69.57 degrees Fahrenheit). That’s deadly to corals, which are key to seafood production, tourism and protecting coastlines from erosion and storms. Coral reefs are sometimes dubbed “rainforests of the sea” because they support high levels of biodiversity — approximately 25% of all marine species can be found in, on and around coral reefs. Corals get their bright colors from the colorful algae that live inside them and are a food source for the corals. Prolonged warmth causes the algae to release toxic compounds, and the coral ejects them. A stark white skeleton is left behind, and the weakened coral is at heightened risk of dying. The bleaching event has been so severe that NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch program has had to add levels to its bleaching alert scale to account for the growing risk of coral death”. As a second example of coverage, Washington Post (US) journalists Leo Sands and Amudalat Ajasa noted, “The massive blow to marine habitats reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — the highest share ever recorded — comes as the planet experiences its fourth global coral bleaching event, which occurs when bleaching is confirmed in all of the oceans’ basins at once. It raises new concerns about the precarious nature of a living network that sustains vibrant fisheries worldwide and helps protect coastal communities from flooding. NOAA says the latest global event began on Jan. 1, 2023, and mass bleaching has now been observed across at least 83 countries and territories, threatening marine life from Fiji to the Florida Keys to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef”.
Further exploring April media coverage, many news accounts drew on primarily scientific themes when reporting on climate change or global warming. For instance, a new study in Environmental Research Letters about underestimates of costs relating to climate change earned media attention. For example, the Editors at El Espectador (Colombia) commented, “The global economy will also undergo serious changes if global warming worsens in the coming years. A new study by Australian scientists detail that the outlook for 2100 would be quite worrisome if the Earth's temperature exceeds 4°C above pre-industrial levels. This, in simpler terms, would have a much greater impact on the economic capacity of people with limited resources, as the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would decline by 16%, much higher than the 1.4% estimate of previous research. This would cause the middle class to become 40% poorer, not the 11% previously believed”. Meanwhile, Guardian (UK) journalist Graham Readfearn wrote, “Economic models have systematically underestimated how global heating will affect people’s wealth, according to a new study that finds 4C warming will make the average person 40% poorer – an almost four-fold increase on some estimates. The study by Australian scientists suggests average per person GDP across the globe will be reduced by 16% even if warming is kept to 2C above pre-industrial levels. This is a much greater reduction than previous estimates, which found the reduction would be 1.4%. Scientists now estimate global temperatures will rise by 2.1C even if countries hit short-term and long-term climate targets. Criticisms have mounted in recent years that a set of economic tools known as integrated assessment models (IAM) – used to guide how much governments should invest in cutting greenhouse gas emissions – have failed to capture major risks from climate change, particularly extreme weather events”.
Flooding in Frankfort, Kentucky. The next National Climate Assessment is due in 2027 or 2028. Credit: Michael Swensen/Getty Images. |
Meanwhile, in the US there were several media reports about Trump Administration threats to cutting funding to produce the next National Climate Assessment (NCA) report (though ultimate funding decisions are in the jurisdiction of US Congress). For example, New York Times (US) journalist Brad Plumer noted, “The Trump administration has cut funding and staffing at the program that oversees the federal government’s premier report on how global warming is affecting the country, raising concerns among scientists that the assessment is now in jeopardy. Congress requires the federal government to produce the report, formally known as the National Climate Assessment, every four years. It analyzes the effects of rising temperatures on human health, agriculture, energy production, water resources, transportation and other aspects of the U.S. economy. The last assessment came out in 2023 and is used by state and city governments, as well as private companies, to prepare for global warming. The climate assessment is overseen by the Global Change Research Program, a federal group established by Congress in 1990 that is supported by NASA and coordinates efforts among 14 federal agencies, the Smithsonian Institution and hundreds of outside scientists to produce the report. On Tuesday, NASA issued stop-work orders on two separate contracts with ICF International, a consulting firm that had been supplying most of the technical support and staffing for the Global Change Research Program. ICF had originally signed a five-year contract in 2021 worth more than $33 million and provided around two dozen staff members who worked on the program with federal employees detailed from other agencies. Without ICF’s support, scientists said, it is unclear how the assessment can move forward…Many climate scientists were already expecting that the next National Climate Assessment, due in 2027 or 2028, was very likely in trouble”. Then in late April, New York Times (US) journalists Brad Plumer and Rebecca Dzombak followed up, writing, “The Trump administration has dismissed the hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government’s flagship report on how global warming is affecting the country. The move puts the future of the report, which is required by Congress and is known as the National Climate Assessment, into serious jeopardy, experts said. Since 2000, the federal government has published a comprehensive look every few years at how rising temperatures will affect human health, agriculture, fisheries, water supplies, transportation, energy production and other aspects of the U.S. economy. The last climate assessment came out in 2023 and is used by state and local governments as well as private companies to help prepare for the effects of heat waves, floods, droughts and other climate-related calamities. On Monday, researchers around the country who had begun work on the sixth national climate assessment, planned for early 2028, received an email informing them that the scope of the report “is currently being re-evaluated” and that all contributors were being dismissed… It remains to be seen what happens next with the assessment, which is still mandated by Congress. Some scientists feared that the administration might try to write an entirely new report from scratch that downplays the risks of rising temperatures or contradicts established climate science”.
Thousands gathered at the Lincoln Memorial on March 7 to defend science. Photo: Astrid Riecken/The Washington Post. |
Also relating to scientific-themed stories, in the US a collection of about 2,000 scientists wrote an urgent message for everyday people, condemning Trump Administration attacks on issues like climate change. This generated media attention in the US and around the world. For example, Guardian (UK) journalist Jessica Glenza reported, “More than 1,900 members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine signed an open letter warning Americans about the “danger” of the Trump administration’s attacks on science. The letter comes amid the administration’s relentless assault on US scientific institutions which has included threats to private universities, federal grant cancelations and ideological funding reviews, mass government layoffs, resignations and censorship. “We see real danger in this moment,” the letter states. “We hold diverse political beliefs, but we are united as researchers in wanting to protect independent scientific inquiry. We are sending this SOS to sound a clear warning: the nation’s scientific enterprise is being decimated.” The National Academies of Sciences was established by an act of Congress in 1863, during Abraham Lincoln’s administration. Today, the organization operates as a non-profit with two additional academies under its charter – the National Academies of Engineering and Medicine. The academies are seen as representing American scientific excellence and together claim more than 6,800 peer-elected members between the three branches. “The administration is slashing funding for scientific agencies, terminating grants to scientists, defunding their laboratories, and hampering international scientific collaboration,” the letter states. “The funding cuts are forcing institutions to pause research (including studies of new disease treatments), dismiss faculty, and stop enrolling graduate students – the pipeline for the next generation’s scientists.” The letter continued: “The quest for truth – the mission of science – requires that scientists freely explore new questions and report their findings honestly, independent of special interests. The administration is engaging in censorship, destroying this independence. It is using executive orders and financial threats to manipulate which studies are funded or published, how results are reported, and which data and research findings the public can access. The administration is blocking research on topics it finds objectionable, such as climate change, or that yields results it does not like, on topics ranging from vaccine safety to economic trends.” Scientific institutions have seen major upheaval since the beginning of this Trump administration and there are fears that the cuts are in preparation for privatization”.
An Amazon Web Services data center under construction in Stone Ridge, Virginia. Photo: Nathan Howard/Bloomberg/Getty Images. |
Next, there were many cultural-themed stories relating to climate change or global warming in April. For example, the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has put increasing demands on data centers and running those data centers requires more energy (often derived from carbon-emitting sources). These developments have sparked many conversations in the cultural sphere and have led to several reports and media stories in April. Among them, an International Energy Agency report earned media attention. For example, The Times (UK) journalist Emily Gosden wrote, “Data centres will use more than twice as much electricity by 2030 than they do today as artificial intelligence drives demand, the International Energy Agency predicts. The agency forecast that all data centres globally will use about 945 terawatt-hours of electricity each year by 2030, roughly three times as much as the UK’s total annual demand of 317 terawatt-hours in 2023. The IEA, based in Paris, said centres serving AI would be “the most significant driver of this increase, with electricity demand from AI-optimised data centres projected to more than quadruple by 2030”. However, it said data centres would still account for only 3 per cent of global electricity consumption by the end of the decade. The IEA was founded in 1974 as a forum for energy co-operation to try to ensure secure access to oil supplies. It provides analysis and policy recommendations across the energy sector and has 32 member countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan. Rapid advances in AI have raised concerns about the environmental footprint of the huge data centres needed to power it. Processing a request made to ChatGPT takes about ten times as much electricity as a typical Google search. Technology companies, including Amazon, Google and Microsoft, have agreed deals with nuclear power companies as they seek to secure energy supplies for data centres but there are fears that fossil fuel plants will power the centres in many parts of the world”. Elsewhere, Wall Street Journal (US) reporter Giulia Petroni noted, “The global push for artificial intelligence is poised to fuel a sharp rise in electricity demand, with consumption from data centers expected to more than double by the end of the decade, according to the International Energy Agency. By 2030, data centers will require slightly more energy than Japan consumes today, with demand for AI-optimized facilities alone set to quadruple, the Paris-based agency predicts”.
Inside a solar panel factory in Changzhou, China, last year. Photo: Alex Plavevski/EPA/Shutterstock. |
Later in the month, the passing of Pope Francis – who embraced scientific evidence on climate change and provided leadership for climate change action – generated news. For example, El País journalist Manuel Planelles wrote, “From the very first moment he made public the name he had chosen for his papacy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio linked his work as head of the Catholic Church to the environment and the defense of humanity's "common home," planet Earth. Pope Francis chose the name with Francis of Assisi in mind, patron saint of environmentalism for the Catholic Church, as well as a symbol of poverty. His first encyclical, in June 2015, was titled Laudato Si´-also taken from a hymn by the saint-. That text was entirely focused on the environment and the fight against global warming. The text cast aside any climate denialism and came in a key context: just months before the UN summit at which the Paris Agreement was to be finalized. In 2023, through an apostolic exhortation, he updated that encyclical to, among other things, scold governments for not replacing fossil fuels, responsible for the "climate crisis," with renewable energy at the necessary speed. In his autobiography, which came out in mid-January, he spoke again of the "climate emergency." He added: "Our common home asks us to pause our way of life, which pushes the planet beyond its limits and causes soil erosion, the disappearance of fields, the advance of deserts, the acidification of the seas, and the intensification of storms and other intense climate phenomena." That, point by point, is what science tells us: we are behind schedule, and extreme events are becoming more severe and frequent. Francis was, without a doubt, the pope who embraced scientific evidence on climate change and led the Catholic Church to take a stand on such a topical, strategic issue, one that ultraconservative and denialist populism has targeted with hoaxes and lies. Teresa Ribera, vice president of the European Commission and an international benchmark for climate diplomacy, recalls that Bergoglio "arrived in Rome enormously respected for his social commitment." But "he immediately understood and embraced environmental protection as a central axis of peace and justice among humanity." "His Laudato Si', perhaps the most important ecumenical product of his papacy, marked a turning point in global climate action.
A drone view shows coal being prepared for transport outside of Charleston, West Virginia. Photo: Reuters. |
Last, in April 2025 several political and economic-themed media stories circulated through news outlets. Arguably, the most prominent set of stories making news were connections between the US Trump Administration tariffs and climate change. For example, New York Times (US) reporter Claire Brown wrote, “The U.S. Department of Commerce has determined that solar cell imports from four countries in Southeast Asia should face tariffs of up to 3,521 percent. The decision is the result of an investigation started last year at the request of seven U.S. solar manufacturers, which argued that companies in Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Malaysia were exporting solar components at artificially low prices, made possible by support from China. The highest rates, 3,521 percent, landed on Cambodian companies that stopped cooperating with the investigation. The inquiry found that, on average, solar cells from the four Southeast Asian countries were being subsidized at effective rates of 34 percent to 652 percent, a calculation that included the combined impact of dumping and government support. Now, the International Trade Commission, which has been conducting its own review, will determine whether these solar imports have harmed U.S. manufacturers. The fees will go into place if it decides the answer is yes. China currently controls more than 80 percent of the supply chain for solar panels globally, according to the International Energy Agency. In theory, high import tariffs combined with manufacturing subsidies could shelter the U.S. solar industry as companies build factories and position themselves to better compete. But making up that ground is a tall order: Chinese companies make solar panels for 16 to 19 cents per watt, while American companies face costs of about 28 cents, according to an estimate last year. In practice, experts say that any benefits from the new fees will be distributed unevenly, and that increased U.S. isolation is not likely to result in a better, cheaper domestic supply chain for solar power. The end result? Some overseas factories might move from the targeted countries to nations with lower tariffs. A few solar suppliers will get a leg up. And buyers of U.S. solar power may have to pay more for energy. But, at least for now, the added costs are unlikely to slow the rollout of solar power in the United States, said Pol Lezcano, a solar analyst at BloombergNEF, a research group. Even if it becomes a little more expensive, solar remains one of the cheapest and quickest-to-build energy sources, he said”. Meanwhile, CNN (US) journalist John Towfighi added, “The lack of clarity about Trump’s trade policy has kept traders in the dark about how to best position their investments — and raised concerns about US economic growth. “While any delay of tariffs is beneficial on the margin, it is not the same as their removal,” analysts at Morgan Stanley said in a Friday note. “History suggests that elevated and prolonged uncertainty that weighs on business confidence can have detrimental effects on business spending and hiring.” Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon said in an earnings press release Monday that the climate is a “markedly different operating environment than earlier this year.” “The prospect of a recession has increased with growing indications that economic activity is slowing down,” Solomon said on a call with analysts. “Our clients, including corporate CEOs and institutional investors, are concerned by the significant near-term and longer-term uncertainty that has constrained their ability to make important decisions.” Billionaire Ray Dalio over the weekend said Trump’s tariffs have helped push the US close to a recession — or perhaps even “something worse.” “Right now, we are at a decision-making point and very close to a recession,” the hedge fund manager told NBC News Sunday. “And I’m worried about something worse than a recession if this isn’t handled well.” Analysts at Citi on Friday lowered their year-end target for the S&P 500 to 5,800 from 6,500, joining a group of Wall Street giants in cutting their forecasts for corporate earnings and growth this year amid an uncertain tariff environment”.
Tugboats assist a container ship as it prepares to dock at the Manila International Container Terminal. Photo: Aaron Favila/AP. |
Also, news of the US Trump Administration seeking to revive the coal industry earned news attention. For example, New York Times (US) journalists Brad Plumer and Mira Rojanasakul wrote, “President Trump signed a flurry of executive orders Tuesday aimed at expanding the mining and burning of coal in the United States, in an effort to revive the struggling industry. One order directs federal agencies to repeal any regulations that “discriminate” against coal production, to open new federal lands for coal mining and to explore whether coal-burning power plants could serve new A.I. data centers. Mr. Trump also said he would waive certain air-pollution restrictions adopted by the Biden administration for dozens of coal plants that were at risk of closing down. In a move that could face legal challenges, Mr. Trump directed the Energy Department to develop a process for using emergency powers to prevent unprofitable coal plants from shutting down in order to avert power outages. Mr. Trump proposed a similar action in his first term but eventually abandoned the idea after widespread opposition. Flanked by dozens of miners in white hard hats at the White House, Mr. Trump said he was also instructing the Justice Department to identify and fight state and local climate policies that were “putting our coal miners out of business.” He added that he would issue “guarantees” that future administrations could not adopt policies harmful to coal, but did not provide details”. Meanwhile, Guardian (UK) correspondent Oliver Milman noted, “Donald Trump signed four executive orders on Tuesday aimed at reviving coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel that has long been in decline, and which substantially contributes to planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. Environmentalists expressed dismay at the news, saying that Trump was stuck in the past and wanted to make utility customers “pay more for yesterday’s energy”. The US president is using emergency authority to allow some older coal-fired power plants scheduled for retirement to keep producing electricity. The move, announced at a White House event on Tuesday afternoon, was described by White House officials as being in response to increased US power demand from growth in datacenters, artificial intelligence and electric cars”.
Internationally, a new agreement brokered by the International Maritime Organization on shipping emissions reductions garnered media attention. For example, Associated Press journalists Jennifer McDermott and Sibi Arasu reported, “Many of the world’s largest shipping nations decided on Friday to impose a minimum fee of $100 for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by ships above certain thresholds, in what is effectively the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions. The International Maritime Organization estimates $11 billion to $13 billion in revenue annually from the fees, with the money to be put into its net zero fund to invest in fuels and technologies needed to transition to green shipping, reward low-emission ships and support developing countries so they aren’t left behind with dirty fuels and old ships. The thresholds set through the agreement will get stricter over time to try to reach the IMO’s goal of net zero across the industry by about 2050. The agreement, reached with the United States notably absent, is expected to be formally adopted at an October meeting to take effect in 2027. The IMO, which regulates international shipping, also set a marine fuel standard to phase in cleaner fuels. Shipping emissions have grown over the last decade to about 3% of the global total as vessels have gotten bigger, delivering more cargo per trip and using immense amounts of fuel”.
Figure 3. Examples of newspaper front pages with climate change stories in April 2025.
- report prepared by Max Boykoff, Rogelio Fernández-Reyes, Ami Nacu-Schmidt, Jeremiah Osborne-Gowey and Olivia Pearman
