The Current - Is there still hope for the climate?

Episode Date: December 23, 2025

It was another year of devastating floods, fires and other extreme weather events. The Trump Administration also levelled dramatic cuts to climate science and pledged to break up one of the world’s leading weather forecasting research centres. And here in Canada, the federal government reversed a series of climate policies. We speak to climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe and Rick Smith of the Canadian Climate Institute about where they are finding optimism as 2025 comes to a close

Do you suffer from television optionitis? Are you paralyzed by too much choice? You're not alone. One in three people spend up to 30 minutes choosing what to watch. Try one of CBC's shows, like Dragon's Den, small achievable goals and Murdoch mysteries. Side effects may include loss of boredom. Find all your favorite shows on CBC TV or stream anytime on CBC Gym.

This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast. There are structures burning in the hills. It's clear that it's just devastating, and the fire is ravaging. Whatever is vegetation, structures, anything in its path, and the winds are driving it. That massive fire in Los Angeles was just the beginning of a year of frequent and devastating extreme weather events. At the same time, the Trump administration took aim at climate research, cutting funding, eliminating regulations, most recently pledging to break up one of the most significant

weather forecasting research centers in the world. Donald Trump has long called climate change a hoax, and the head of the White House Budget Office described the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado as one of the biggest sources of climate alarmism. Catherine Hayho is a Canadian climate scientist, professor in the Department of Political Science at Texas Tech University, also the chief scientist for Nature United, a non-profit conservation organization. Catherine, good morning.

Good morning. It's good to talk to you again. This has felt like a whirlwind year for climate and for climate science. You and I spoke recently about what was going on. As the year comes to an end, how are you feeling? Well, you know, they say that you measure your time in number of new experiences, and unfortunately this year has seemed like a decade

in terms of the new experiences, both as climate change impacts have accelerated and the attack on science south of the border has, What do you make of this? I mean, it's a weather center, but it's more than that, the National Center for Atmospheric Research being called a source of climate alarmism. Well, this national center, although it is based in the United States in Boulder, Colorado, it is really the center where all atmospheric scientists in the world pretty much pass through its doors at one point or another. It hosts the largest community climate model in the world. It hosts all the research-grade weather forecasting models in North America. They are home to creating all kinds of data sets and hosting them, creating instruments. They even have the airplanes that atmospheric scientists need to run campaigns.

They are pretty much the resource hub for our field. And so if it's broken apart and sold for parts, what do we lose? Everyone loses from that. We lose everything from the research that determined how to prevent an account for dangerous down drafts when airplanes are taking off that could lead to fatalities to the later weather forecasts, to understanding the inherent dangers with experiments like solar radiation management where people want to interfere with the entire, you know, radiative balance of the planet to address climate change.

We need to understand all of these issues just to keep ourselves safe. And it doesn't matter where we live or how we vote. We're all at risk. And the more information we have, the better decisions we can make. And that's what this research center does. How do you understand why, given that somebody or an agency or a government would break it apart? Well, although for all of us, the more information we have, the better the decisions,

for some whose power and wealth is built on maintaining the status quo primarily funded by fossil fuels, that information does represent a threat, unfortunately. And that's what we're seeing play out today. This is a chapter in a longer story. There have been these cuts to funding and scientific research in the United States. You have the cancellation of large-scale solar projects, wind as well, apparently, the chopping block. When you take a look at research and the research that perhaps may not be done just in the United States, but also beyond, what is the impact of that going to be? Do we know yet

what that's going to look like? We don't, but we know it's likely to be greater than we think. And that research, as you pointed out, is not only what's being done in the U.S. So, for example, you know, I myself am Canadian. I do research in the U.S. funded by the National Science Foundation and the climate adaptation science centers, whose budget was also frozen in September. There's many graduate students and students who passed through the U.S., and there's many joint grants between Canadian scientists, American scientists, and others around the world.

All of this basic research, which is not just in climate, it is basic research in physics, chemistry, biology, health has been canceled. It is, I mean, it's almost impossible to imagine the scope of basically making a deliberate choice to move yourselves backwards in the development scale rather than forwards. You almost sounded a loss for words.

Yes. The repercussions of this destruction that we've seen in just a year so far, those repercussions we will see reverberate for years, possibly even decades to come in terms of lost careers, lost pipeline of people going into science, all of the incredible knowledge and resources

in people who have been forcibly let go or retired, that has not been passed on or carried on. It's like a generational wiping out almost of knowledge that we have seen in previous societies been called by a different name. How are you feeling, given all of that? I mean, this is the time of the year when we're trying to assess the impact of the last 12 months

on all of us. And it doesn't matter what we're talking about. But I mean, this is when we think about how we're doing at the end of this year. So how are you feeling about all of this? Well, it's hard not to live in a permanent state of outrage, I should say. And so because of that, I actually limit my news consumption as much as I can. But beneath that, it's really just sadness. Sadness for all the incredible dedicated people who are just sort of being tossed out as if their incredible knowledge has no value. Sadness for all the people who will be affected, especially the people whose health conditions would have had a cure if that research had continued. The people who would have made different decisions to become more resilient to climate change if they had had the information that now they will not have. It's really a tragedy. It's a human tragedy because we are

limiting our understanding of everything, like I said, from health to climate change to weather and everything in between, that keeps people safe and that is literally the building blocks to a better future. Is the United States still a good place for you to do your work? Well, I often feel like I live in the field in Texas because in Texas, it is the the most vulnerable state in the U.S. to climate and weather extremes. It is, of course, the home to oil and gas industry. Lubbock, Texas is politically one of the most conservative cities in the United States, where you have a Republican candidate, and then you have the conservative Republican candidate, talking about how liberal the Republican is. But Texas also has more

wind and solar energy and increasingly more storage options on the grid than any other state. And so I really feel like if you can change things in Texas, you can change them anywhere. And long term, the trajectory in Texas is moving in the right direction. But right now, there are active forces literally trying to move things backwards, not just in Texas, but around the whole country. I asked the question in part because we spoke with an astrophysicist at MIT. She's one of the top people in her field. She's moving back to Canada, to the University of Toronto, in part because of the atmosphere around scientific research in the U.S. I just wonder, I mean, you're a Canadian.

Would you ever consider moving back north? Oh, I definitely have. And if I did, if I did, U of T would be a wonderful home for me. It's my own alma mater. But right now, I feel like I want to stay here as long as I can. And I'm acknowledging that that may be out of my hands at some point, but I want to be doing everything I can. It's like, you know, if you're in the Titanic,

I want to be helping people off the ship as long as I can. Is that what it feels like you're on the Titanic? For many people in the scientific enterprise in the United States, especially if they were at all related to federal science, I think it does feel that way for many people. But again, it's not just a personal issue for people doing science in the science community. I think it is a much broader issue for people writ large and really for the world because how many of us benefit

from the knowledge, the research, the tools, the results that are being developed by U.S. funded science, that, like I said, now will not exist for much longer because of this move to cancellation and moving things backwards. You know what's interesting in the context of this, just in the last couple of minutes that we have. I spoke with Bill McKibben, climate activist, a long time writer on climate change just a few weeks ago. And he's somebody who, like you, has not approached what's happening right now with rose-colored glasses at all. But he said for the first time in his life, he almost feels optimistic that we have the tools at our disposal, if we want to use them

to try to tackle this. Talks about solar, for example, but also other technologies. China's leading the way he says in some ways when it comes to that, that we could deal with this if we wanted to and feels optimistic about that possibility in spite of everything. Do you see where he's coming from? Well, I do. And what a coincidence, because Bill just edited my talking climate newsletter this week. And so as you know, Matt, every week I share good news, not so good. news and something people can do. And so Bill was the good news and not so good news. And he highlighted, as his recent book does, here comes the sun as his recent book, how if we just take our eyes outside of the U.S., and I do this regularly and frequently, if we take our eyes outside the U.S.,

we see so much encouraging progress around the world. So, for example, year on year, China is installing more solar energy in a year than the U.S. has in its entire history. And in Canada, last year, Pakistan installed more solar energy in a single year than we have in our entire history. So when we look around the world and we see that clean energy is advancing, that climate resilience is advancing, that citizen awareness and advocacy for climate action is moving ahead, around the world, 89% of people around the world, and the numbers are a little bit lower in Canada and a little bit lower than that in the U.S., but it's still the majority. 89% of people around the world want their governments to do more about climate change.

They're worried about climate change. They care about it, especially because of the next generation, and they want something to be done. And so I'm with Bill. The tide is turning, and the fight is hardest just before that happens. And we'll leave it on that note, a hint of optimism. Catherine, it's always great to talk to you. Happy holidays, Merry Christmas, and thank you very much. Likewise, same to you.

Catherine Hayho is a Canadian climate scientist professor in the Department of Political Science at Texas Tech University, also the chief scientist for Nature United. If you want to hear daily news that doesn't hurt your soul and might even be good for your soul, check out As It Happens. I'm Chris Howden. And I'm Neil Kokesal. Every day we reach people at the center of the most extraordinary stories, like the doctor who restored a patient's eyesight with a tooth. Or a musician in an orchestra that plays instruments made out of vegetables. Take the scenic route through the day's news with As It Happens,

and you can find us wherever you get your podcasts. Rick Smith is president of the Canadian Climate Institute. been listening, and Rick, good morning to you. Good morning, Matt. If you take a look at what's happening in the United States right now, the list goes on and on. And again, there's, you know, this cancellation of a large solar project in the United States seems to be some of the most recent news, but you can go through that list of things that the U.S. President and others have done. What impact is what's having in the U.S. going to have on us here in Canada when it comes to climate action? Yeah, well, listen, you know, I agree with, with, with,

So what Catherine was saying, you know, Donald Trump clearly has terrible ideas. He has terrible ideas on Ukraine. He has terrible ideas on tariffs. And he has terrible ideas on climate change. And, you know, one of our main challenges as Canadians is how to how to make our own way in the world. I mean, living next to this crazy administration that's intent on, you know, going back to coal fire at power plants, going backwards, in terms of technology at a time when the rest of the world, you know, as Catherine mentions, you know, Europe, Asia,

all through Africa, South America, countries are looking at new technologies that are cheaper, that are better for consumers, new machines like electric vehicles and heat pumps that are both better for consumers and that pollute less. And, you know, the U.S. Federal Administration is trying to turn its back in all of this. So, you know, Matt, I'm one of those Canadians this year that put a flag on my house because I'm concerned about the future of our country.

I'm concerned about the future for my kids. And part of building a better future for our country is about taking advantage of what's really driving industry and investment across the planet. And that's a low-carbon future. That is not something that Donald Trump believes in. So we need to push back against that. So square that with what's happening in this country. Under Mark Carney, the liberals have moved away from several signature climate policies,

including a consumer carbon tax. What do you make of that in the context of what you've just said? Yeah, I've had my ups and downs in terms of Canadian climate policy this year. I think my overall takeaway is the year started with considerable uncertainty in terms of Canadian climate change approaches. because of, you know, an impending federal election because of very different approaches to climate change by various political parties that might have won that election.

Once the liberals won the election on a very clear platform of climate change leadership, I kind of expected that some of the murky waters around climate change would clear that there'd be some further certainty in terms of the direction of our country. And, you know, the year ends with me, still being uncertain. I think it's fair to say that the climate change approach of the

Kearney government remains a work in progress. There's been a variety of steps forward just this week on methane regulations, for instance, very, very important. The government's finally nailed down final methane regulations. The government has moved forward with a variety of things very recently. But I see in his year in interview with CBC that the prime minister is now talking about launching a new, more coherent climate plan early in the new year. He said there was too much regulation and not enough action when it came to the previous climate plan, and that that was going to mean that we would miss our climate targets for 2030. Yeah. Well, I mean, we, our organization actually a few months ago, released a study

confirming that. I mean, we ripped the Band-Aid off this notion that we were going to hit our climate targets by 2030. We're not. We're going to maybe come half-time. the way there. But, you know, that still matters. I mean, life is full of goals that if unachieved, don't cease to be important. What matters is the forward momentum. What matters is continuing to reduce climate-changing pollution. And so there are still many opportunities for our country to do that. Is resource development the way to meet those goals? You know, it depends. It depends. It depends on what kind of resource development. But we're talking about oil and gas, largely.

Yeah. Well, but let's just start with resource development more broadly. You know, we're very much in favor of increased mining of critical minerals because batteries demand those critical minerals and batteries are winning everywhere, whether it's electric vehicles or whether it's utility scale battery storage that's supplementing electricity production across the country. So, you know, there are types of resource development. that we actually want to accelerate if we want a greener future, other types of resource development, you know, we would question. There's, as you know, a memorandum of understanding with Alberta. It removes the emission cap. Potentially will remove the tanker ban off the BC coast. There's a lot of talk in Alberta, but beyond as well, about the possibility of a new pipeline.

And the prime minister was asked by the CBC's Rosemary Barton, what the country got in return for that, memorandum of understanding. Have a listen to his answer. We need the investment now. What the country, it's not about me, what the country is getting out of it, is action. The country is getting investment, investment in clean energy, investment in nuclear, investment in carbon capture. Investment in carbon capture. Most people will hear that and of course they think, well, what does that actually mean? It means the equivalent of taking 90% of the cars and trucks

off the road in Alberta. These are major investments. We have too much regulation, not enough action. So there's that line again. But Rick Smith, do you buy that argument from the prime minister that investment in clean energy, he believes, in some ways will outweigh the emissions growth that a pipeline and increased production of oil and gas could bring? Well, you know, when it comes to climate change,

there is no silver bullet. We need a variety of approaches. Both, I agree with the prime minister, increased investment is a must. But we also need efficient regulation that both brings down pollution levels and contributes to a more vibrant Canadian economy. So our organization was actually quite critical of that Alberta MOU

because it felt to us like a similar moment as last year when the federal government thought it could give a kind of carve out on carbon pricing to a few Atlantic provinces. And then, lo and behold, if you start giving special deals to some provinces, other provinces start lining up for their own special deals. So this MOU, we fear, risks starting a process of unraveling of Canadian climate change policy. That's actually working quite well. I mean, these clean electricity regulations that now exist across the country, we think are quite effective.

If there's one good news story in Canadian climate change news over the last decade, it's the decarbonization of our electricity system. About 85% of Canadian electricity is currently produced in non-polluting ways. We want to keep it that way. So the notion, you know, the MOU gave a special deal to Alberta on electricity. So it's, that doesn't feel to us like a kind of an even-handed approach. And we're hoping in these negotiations now over the next few months between the federal government and the province of Alberta,

that there can be some reassertion of an even-handed approach to electricity and other things across the country. I have to let you go, but I mean, Catherine ended with a hint of optimism. It's easy to be despondent by the news just broadly. Even she admits that she, you know, is avoiding a lot of the news. Can you see, just very briefly, can you see the cause for optimism when it comes to climate action? Absolutely. I mean, if you look around the world, Matt, you know, Europe just last week nailed down. its decarbonization objectives, 90% decarbonization by 2040.

As Catherine mentions, Pakistan, incredible example of the last couple of years of a country that's blown past its solar energy installation targets, not because the government's terribly virtuous on climate change, but because solar panels are the cheapest form of electricity generation going. So there's a technological momentum here behind solar panels. panels and windmills that even Donald Trump can't, can't impede. Rick, it's good to speak with you, as always. Happy holidays. Merry Christmas. And thank you very much. Same to you. Take care.

Rick Smith is president of Canadian Climate Institute. You've been listening to the current podcast. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. I'll talk to you soon. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.