• Private home insurers are dropping a growing number of customers in most states, a Senate report found.
• That leaves homeowners at risk, turning to more expensive last-resort options or going uninsured.
• While Florida has managed to reverse the trend somewhat, the risk to homeowners is set to intensify.

As Americans flock to places in the US vulnerable to natural disasters, private home insurance companies are running the other way.

The problem has left a rising number of homeowners with just one option to cover property damage: insurers of last resort.

The scale of homeowners losing their plans became clearer on Wednesday after a Senate Budget Committee investigation found that private insurers' nonrenewals spiked threefold in more than 200 counties between 2018 and 2023.

"What our new data reveal is that the failure to deal with climate change is also affecting whether families can even get homeowners insurance, which threatens their ability to get a mortgage, which spells trouble for property values in climate-exposed communities across the country," Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse said in releasing the report.

A recent study by Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies found that between 2018 and 2023, the number of properties enrolled in California and Florida's insurers of last resort more than doubled. A similar trend is playing out in Louisiana. While Florida has reduced participation this year, it still has the highest enrollment in the country.

The problem isn't isolated to the most predictable states. The Senate Budget Committee found that the rate of homeowners losing their private insurance also rose in Hawaii, North Carolina, and Massachusetts.

Policymakers and insurers are trying to stabilize the private market, by enacting new laws and overhauling regulations. However, with scientists predicting that climate-fueled disasters will become more frequent and severe for the foreseeable future, the risk to America's homeowners is mounting.

Growing insurance risk has some states looking for solutions

In nearly three dozen states, insurers of last resort, known as Fair Access to Insurance Requirements, or FAIR, are available to homeowners and businesses who struggle to find insurance on the private market.

The numbers are rising because private insurers are pulling back coverage and hiking premiums in areas at risk of wildfires, hurricanes, flooding, and other disasters often made worse by climate change.

While state-mandated FAIR plans are designed to be a backstop, insurance regulators and private insurance companies are alarmed by how many homeowners and businesses are enrolling, especially in California and Florida. The plans are often more expensive and provide less coverage. Plus, saddling one insurer with the riskiest policies increases the chances of one major disaster sinking the system and leaving taxpayers and insurance companies with the bill.

Florida and California are trying to reverse the trend, and Florida has seen some progress. The state's insurer of last resort, Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, said on December 4 that its policy count dropped below 1 million for the first time in two years.

Mark Friedlander, a spokesperson for the Insurance Information Institute, said the drop reflects a series of changes in recent years to stabilize the state's private insurance market after more than a dozen companies left the state or stopped writing new policies.

The Florida legislature passed laws to curb rampant litigation and claim fraud that drove up legal costs for private insurers. Friedlander said insurance lawsuits in the first three quarters of 2024 are down 56%, compared with the first three quarters of 2021 — the year before the new laws were enacted. Citizens also started a "depopulation" program that shifts customers to the private market. State regulators in October said they had approved at least nine new property companies to enter the market, and premiums weren't rising nearly as much as last year.

In California, many of the deadliest and most destructive wildfires have occurred within the last five years. As a result, some private insurers are hiking premiums and limiting coverage in risky areas, pushing more homeowners to the insurer of last resort. The Harvard study found that policies in the state's FAIR plan doubled between 2018 and 2023 to more than 300,000. As of September, the California Insurance Commission said policies totaled nearly 452,000.

The commission is working to overhaul regulations to slow the trend, including requiring private insurers to sell in risky areas. In exchange, it should be easier for companies to raise premiums that factor in reinsurance costs and the risks of future disasters. That should help stabilize rates, said Michael Sollen, a spokesman for the commission.

Sollen added that in the past, private insurers could seek approval for higher premiums but weren't required to offer coverage in wildfire-prone areas.

"In a year from now, what's happening with the FAIR plan will be a key measure for us," he said. "We expect to see those numbers start to stabilize and go down."

A mounting home insurance crisis

Still, a reduction in state-backed plans isn't necessarily a sign of progress, Steve Koller, a postdoctoral fellow in climate and housing and author of the Harvard report, told Business Insider.

A growing number of homeowners in places like Florida, Louisiana, and California are purchasing private insurance from nontraditional providers barely regulated by state governments. These so-called "non-admitted" insurers don't contribute to a state fund that guarantees homeowners will have their claims paid even if the insurance provider fails, leaving their customers without access to this backup coverage.

"Someone could be moving to a private insurer from Citizens, and that insurer might have higher insolvency risk," Koller said.

He added that more homeowners are opting out of insurance altogether. The number of US homeowners going without insurance has soared from 5% in 2019 to 12% in 2022, the Insurance Information Institute reported.

Plus, Americans are increasingly moving into parts of the country most vulnerable to extreme weather. Tens of thousands more people moved into the most flood—and fire-prone areas of the US last year rather than out of them, the real estate company Redfin reported earlier this year.

As insurers of last resort try to shift more risk to the private market, home insurance premiums are expected to keep rising. That's especially true in the areas hardest hit by climate-fueled disasters.

If private insurers exit hard-hit regions en masse in the future, Koller said states might need to become the predominant insurance provider in the same way the National Flood Insurance Program took over after the private market for flood insurance collapsed in the 1960s. Most flood insurance plans are still issued by the federal government.

"My guess is states are going to work very, very hard to avoid that and ensure the existence of a robust private market, but that's a parallel that I can't personally unthink about," he said.

Have you struggled to get home insurance, moved to an insurer of last resort, or gone uninsured? Contact these reporters at [email protected] or [email protected].

• Startups like Equatic and Climeworks develop ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
• Carbon removal helps businesses meet ESG goals and offset emissions through a carbon credits system.
• This article is part of "Transforming Business," a series on the must-know leaders and trends impacting industries.

Out on a barge in Los Angeles, a team of engineers is hard at work tweaking the designs of a collection of machines with multiple tubes attached to tanks filled with air and different minerals.

The team works for a startup called Equatic, which uses a process called sea electrolysis to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Seawater runs through an electrolyzer, which separates the water into an acid and a base. Rock minerals neutralize the acid, and the base mixes with CO2 from the atmosphere. This results in carbonates that can safely return to the ocean.

Carbon removal technologies, like those developed by Equatic, can transform businesses by helping them reduce their legacy carbon footprint. For many companies with environmental, social, and governance goals, investing in carbon removal through the purchase of carbon credits helps them offset their emissions and get closer to their goal of being "net zero." For rapidly developing industries like artificial intelligence that massively consume energy, implementing carbon removal could help offset emissions in the long term.

The idea of Equatic emerged in the research labs at the University of California, Los Angeles, with a team led by its cofounder Gaurav Sant, a sustainability professor at the school.

Sant said that his team began thinking about how to activate and expand the capacity of oceans, which already naturally absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Processes such as sea electrolysis have been used for decades, though scaling ocean carbon removal technology has started only in the past few years. Sant said his experience as a cement chemist helped him consider ways to reduce carbon emissions.

"There was very little attention that was being paid truthfully to reducing the carbon intensity of cement production and concrete construction," Sant said. "The journey started with low-carbon cement and low-carbon concrete, and from there, it sort of went into a bunch of other things."

For startups that want to break into the industry and market their product's integrity, they must make carbon removal measurable. At the development plant in Los Angeles, Equatic engineers measure the machinery's ability to remove carbon and produce hydrogen. They then quantify carbon removal results. They also publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific research papers.

Equatic is developing the world's largest ocean-based carbon removal plant in Singapore, a demonstration project in partnership with the country's National Water Agency. The plan for the new plant is to remove 4,000 tons of CO2 annually and create 300 kg of carbon-negative hydrogen a day, according to its website. If these projects succeed, Equatic intends to take its idea to a commercial scale.

For Climeworks, a Zurich carbon removal startup, scaling has taken place gradually over the past fifteen years. The company uses direct air capture technology at its plants to suck CO2 out of the air and then later mineralize it into a solid rock form and store it underground.

"What carbon removal can offer to businesses is making sure that CO2 in the atmosphere, or climate in general, is not a barrier to growth," Jan Wurzbacher, the CEO of Climeworks, said.

The carbon credits market has shortcomings

While these companies plan to scale commercially, startups like Equatic sell carbon credits to businesses and individuals who want to reduce their carbon footprint. Two of Equatic's customers are Boeing and Stripe. Climeworks counts Microsoft, Boston Consulting Group, and Shopify as clients.

The carbon credits market is highly unregulated, dotted with stories of credits sold but followed by incomplete actions and scams. An investigation by The Washington Post found that some carbon credit ventures reaped profits from protected public lands in the Brazilian Amazon forests and failed to share profits with locals. Essentially, these ventures gave the impression that they would reduce emissions but used lands they had no rights to, possibly invalidating the credits they said they would offset for companies such as Netflix, Salesforce, and Boeing.

"Some 'cheaper' carbon credits that you can buy are not easily verifiable," said Indroneil Ganguly, an environmental and forests sciences professor at the University of Washington.

Critics of carbon credits argue that this system allows businesses to continue polluting. Some businesses, such as Occidental Petroleum, invest in carbon removal and use the process to extract more fossil fuels. While telling businesses to cut emissions would be ideal, Wurzbacher said that cutting them entirely or converting to more sustainable practices could be costly and not immediate.

Carbon removal can be expensive

Even at the rapid scaling rate of these carbon removal startups, their emissions removal is only a small drop in the sea. In 2022 alone, the global aviation industry emitted 800 megatons of CO2. In comparison, Climework's first commercial plant in Iceland, called Orca, can remove 4,000 tons a year, the company says. Climeworks said its larger Mammoth plant would be able to remove 36,000 tons.

The biggest hurdle for carbon removal startups like Equatic and Climeworks is cost. A plus side of Equatic's sea electrolysis process is that it creates hydrogen, which can be used as a clean energy source and lower the technology's costs.

"So you push the price down, right, and that's what stimulates the market," Edward Sanders, the CEO of Equatic, said.

What's more, carbon removal is a voluntary purchase and an elastic good, meaning that it depends on the desire of individuals or businesses to participate, and the demand can shift significantly with price.

"The way in which we are going to get the necessary volumes is going to be at a price point they can accept and still manufacture the goods they are making and clear the services they do," Sanders said.

The cost to permanently remove 1 ton of CO2 right now is between $600-$1,000. Scaling up existing technology requires more laborers and building very specific machinery, Wurzbacher said. Both Climeworks and Equatic have received grants from the US Department of Energy, including a grant for Climeworks to subsidize its expansions in Louisiana and Texas.

This year, Climeworks expanded beyond permanent carbon removal and began offering a new solutions branch of its business. If the direct air capture method is too expensive for customers, Climeworks finds a portfolio of other options they can use, such as reforestation and biomass storage.

The incoming Trump administration raises questions about the future of carbon removal and whether companies will be motivated to cut emissions. 

Both Climeworks' and Equatic's respective CEOs said that while timelines and execution could change, these solutions still had bipartisan support and political momentum. Also, carbon removal itself is inherently adaptive.

"The nice thing about direct air capture," Wurzbacher said, "is that you can basically do it anywhere in the world and have your customers at a very different place."

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved California’s plan to phase out and ban the sale of new gas-powered cars and light trucks by 2035. ABC News reported the EPA gave California the waivers it needed to enact the Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations (ACC II) devised and approved by the California Air Resources Board in 2022.

The EPA also approved California’s plan to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in order to reduce the amount of smog in the air. The state will require an initial 75 percent reduction in NOx pollution followed by a 90 percent reduction a few years later.

The ACC II provides a year-to-year blueprint for phasing out the selling of combustion-engine vehicles. The plan sets a 2026 deadline by which 35 percent of the state’s car sales must be electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids or models with hydrogen fuel cells. Then by 2030, the electric vehicle sale threshold rises to 68 percent before reaching its ultimate 100 percent sale requirement by 2035. Consumers and dealerships will still be able to buy, sell and drive used ICE and hybrid cards until the ACC II. California Air Resources Board chair Liane Randolph estimated the ACC II could lead to a 50 percent drop in pollution by 2040.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom hailed the decision and ACC II in a statement as evidence that “California can rise to the challenge of protecting our people by cleaning our air and cutting pollution.”

The Biden administration has officially granted California permission to ban new gas car sales in the state by 2035. 

California set a strict emissions standard that would ban new gas cars in the state by 2035, but officials needed to obtain a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to proceed with the mandate.

The EPA on Wednesday announced that it would be approving two waivers, under the Clean Air Act, that grants California permission to phase out gas cars in the state — one of President Biden's final acts pushing the auto industry into the green energy sector. 

One waiver grants California's near future request to mandate that 35% of new cars and light-duty trucks sales be zero emissions by 2026 and achieve 90% below current emissions by 2027.

BIDEN EPA MAKES FIRST-EVER CLIMATE CHANGE ARREST

The other EPA waiver allows California officials to mandate that all new car sales be zero-emission within the decade — the most strict EV mandate in the country.

However, the waivers could soon be revoked by President-elect Trump, who is reportedly planning to rescind both federal EV requirements and any waiver issued for California by the Biden administration.

"Fresh off imposing his insane, job-killing electric vehicle mandate at the federal level, Crooked Joe Biden is preparing to slaughter the remnants of the U.S. auto-industry by approving California’s waiver request outlawing the sale of all gasoline-powered automobiles," incoming White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital during the campaign.

FIVE WAYS TRUMP COULD DISMANTLE BIDEN'S CLIMATE AGENDA

EPA Administrator Michael Regan said that the waivers will "protect its [California] residents from dangerous air pollution coming from mobile sources like cars and trucks."

However, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers CEO and President Chet Thompson described the mandate as "unlawful."

"Contrary to claims on the campaign trail that they would never tell Americans what kinds of cars we have to drive, the Biden-Harris EPA just did exactly that by greenlighting California’s ban on sales of all new gas and traditional hybrid vehicles," Thompson said in a statement. "These policies will harm consumers — millions of whom don’t even live in California — by taking away their ability to buy new gas cars in their home states and raising vehicle and transportation costs."

Honda and Nissan are reportedly set to discuss a merger. The Japanese publication Nikkei said the two automakers plan to sign a memorandum of understanding to sort out shared equity stakes in a new holding company for the consolidated rivals.

The potential merger would combine the assets of Japan’s second- and third-biggest automakers, giving them a better shot of competing with the nation’s market leader, Toyota. Bloomberg adds that it would also put them in a better position against Tesla and Chinese EV makers. Nikkei says Mitsubishi could join the talks later.

Earlier this year, Honda and Nissan said they would work together on software development, batteries and other EV components. That “combine-and-compete” alliance followed Toyota’s acquisition of stakes in Subaru, Suzuki and Mazda. With today’s news that the pair are ready to take the next step, the landscape is clearly heading toward fewer (but bigger) legacy automakers competing for customers.

The companies confirmed that they're in talks to The New York Times. "As announced in March of this year, Honda and Nissan are exploring various possibilities for future collaboration, leveraging each other’s strengths," they told the publication. 'We will inform our stakeholders of any updates at an appropriate time."

Bloomberg also reported on Tuesday that Honda is stepping up production of hybrid vehicles as demand for electric / gas vehicles remains high outside of China. The automaker is aiming to double its annual hybrid sales by 2030. “The goal is still to become carbon neutral by 2050, but demand for hybrids will remain high for the foreseeable future,” Honda Chief Officer Katsuto Hayashi said on Sunday. “We see most of that growth happening in North America.”

Speaking of North America, US President-elect Donald Trump reportedly plans to reverse President Biden’s EV policies. His transition team is said to have recommended ending government support for EVs and charging stations and focusing instead on blocking cars, components and battery materials sourced from China. Climate scientists have warned that transitioning from gas-powered to electric vehicles is necessary to reduce carbon emissions and head off the most catastrophic projections for our planet.

Update, December 17, 2024, 8:46PM ET: This story has been updated to add a statement the companies had provided to The New York Times. 

FIRST ON FOX: Republican lawmakers are calling for political appointees who have already announced roles in outside environmental organizations next year to recuse themselves from pending business, citing "conflicts of interest" concerns. 

In a letter to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on Tuesday, shared first with Fox News Digital, the Congressional Western Caucus demanded the agency identify people who are planning to join an environmental non-governmental organization (ENGO) and that they recuse themselves from pending business in their current government role. The caucus, made up almost exclusively of Republicans, seeks to be a "voice for rural America," according to its website. 

The letter specifically named President Biden's BLM director, Tracey Stone-Manning, who recently announced that after the administration ends, she will assume the role of president of The Wilderness Society, an environmental group working against development, such as mining and drilling, on public lands.

"While we are not surprised to learn of this career move, we are strongly concerned about the conflict of interest that has arisen given the competing missions of her current job and her future job," the letter read.

CLIMATE JUSTICE GROUP HAS DEEP TIES TO JUDGES, EXPERTS INVOLVED IN LITIGATION AMID CLAIMS OF IMPARTIALITY

The letter argued that given the "objectives and practices" of The Wilderness Society, her new position poses a conflict as Stone-Manning leads the government agency.

"Over the last four years, the American West has suffered greatly as the BLM has imposed policies straight from the playbook of the BLM Director’s future employer," the lawmakers wrote of The Wilderness Society. "Across the west, those who live near and rely on public lands for their economic livelihood have suffered from new resource management plans that choose preservation over multiple use."

SCOTUS HEARS ARGUMENTS IN CASE THAT COULD RESHAPE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, who led Tuesday's letter alongside Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., told Fox News Digital in a statement that BLM should not conflict with the interests of the public.

"The role of BLM is to fairly administer the multiple-use mandate for America’s public lands, a mission at odds with the agenda of extreme environmental groups who want to lock up our lands," Newhouse said in a statement shared with Fox. "For this reason, I have joined my colleagues in demanding any political appointees at the agency recuse themselves from pending official business if they have accepted future positions at ENGOs as this presents a conflict of interest."

Other Republicans cosigning the letter included Sens. John Barrasso of Wyoming, Steve Daines of Montana, and Mike Lee of Utah, along with Reps. Doug LaMalfa of California, Western Caucus executive vice chair, and Ryan Zinke of Montana.

Fox News Digital reached out to BLM for comment but did not receive a response by press time. 

An environmental group is calling out Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's climate leadership in a six-figure battleground state ad buy which claims his policies in California have "significantly undermined climate progress."

While running for governor in 2018, Newsom said he would shut down the Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility in California – the location of the largest methane leak in U.S. history. "I'm fully committed to doing that," Newsom told a reporter when asked if he would shut down the facility. "The question is how quickly can we do that, but my commitment is to make that happen. We need to be more aggressive than we have been."

Newsom added that he was "unequivocally" committed to shutting it down, but environmental groups are calling out the governor after allowing the facility to remain open six years later. 

Food & Water Action, the political and lobbying arm of Food & Water Watch advocating against climate change, announced on Monday a $100,000 ad buy against Newsom across four battleground states – Nevada, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Michigan.

GAVIN NEWSOM GRILLED OVER HEFTY PRICE TAG TO HELP ‘TRUMP-PROOF’ CALIFORNIA: ‘TOTAL WASTE’

The ad buy specifically targets Newsom's leadership on the climate, specifically for not following through on his campaign promise regarding the Aliso Canyon facility.

CALIFORNIA REPARATIONS BILLS KILLED AS NEWSOM SOUGHT TO AVOID APPEARING ‘TOO PROGRESSIVE'

"Americans are looking for leadership to resist Trump’s assault on our climate. Someone who follows through and won’t back down," the ad says. "Gov. Newsom promised to shut down Aliso Canyon, the site of the largest gas blowout in U.S. history. A public health disaster. But his public utilities commission is considering keeping it open indefinitely – just like the oil and gas industry wants. Climate leadership? We’re looking for it." 

However, in a statement shared with Fox News Digital, Daniel Villaseñor, spokesperson for Newsom, said that "the Governor’s energy policy is ambitious, not reckless." 

"We are committed to safely closing Aliso Canyon without harming working families with skyrocketing utility bills," the spokesperson said. "No governor has done more to accelerate our transition to clean and renewable energy, but it would be irresponsible to close Aliso Canyon before demand for natural gas declines. That’s a recipe for precisely the same price spikes we've seen in the gasoline market."

Villaseñor added that Newsom "wants to see Aliso Canyon phased out, but not at the cost of enormous price increases for working families and our ability to keep the lights on." The California Public Utilities Commission is planning to meet on Dec. 19 to discuss the future of the facility.

The environmental group claims that Newsom is trying to appear as a climate change champion, but that his record in California suggests otherwise.

"Governor Newsom wants to position himself as a national leader on climate and in opposing Trump, but he can’t be a credible national leader if his own house is not in order," Mitch Jones, deputy director of Food & Water Action, said in a press release. 

"While Newsom has taken some important steps on oil drilling, other policies have significantly undermined climate progress. These include undermining rooftop solar, embracing industry-backed plans like dirty biogas and carbon capture, and failing so far to keep his promise to close Aliso Canyon," Jones added.

While there is still a push from environmental groups to shut down the facility, it remains California’s largest underground natural gas storage facility and its operation has helped the state avoid potential energy price increases, according to the Energy Information Administration.

The ads were notably launched in battleground states amid months of speculation that Newsom could potentially launch a presidential bid in 2028.

Newsom was a top surrogate for President Biden during his re-election bid, and was floated as a leading candidate to replace him at the top of the Democratic ticket before the president dropped out of the race. 

The governor's second term in Sacramento will finish at the end of next year, right around the time the 2028 presidential election will start to heat up.

President-elect Donald Trump has indicated that he would withdraw the U.S. from a global climate change agreement when he assumes office — but a second withdrawal could look different from the first.

The Paris Climate Agreement was established at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in 2015 as a legally binding treaty between nearly 195 parties who are committed to international cooperation on climate change. The U.S. officially entered into the agreement under former President Barack Obama in 2016.

Under Article 28 of the treaty, parties are allowed to withdraw from the agreement, but no earlier than three years after they officially entered. Therefore, Trump was barred from immediately leaving the treaty when he first took office and the U.S. was not officially withdrawn until the end of 2020.

President Joe Biden, in one of his first orders as president, reinstated the U.S. to the climate agreement in 2021. Ahead of the presidential election, Trump told Politico that he would be in favor of withdrawing from the treaty a second time, and given that Biden withdrew at the beginning of his term, this could be accomplished at a much quicker pace. 

WHITE HOUSE SAYS TO ‘EXPECT MORE’ CLIMATE FUNDING BEFORE PRESIDENT BIDEN LEAVES OFFICE

"It would be a very different timeline now," David Waskow, director of the international climate initiative at the World Resources Institute, told Scientific American.

Max Boykoff, professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and a fellow in the Cooperative Institute for Research and Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at CU Boulder, told the university's paper that re-exiting from the agreement could cause "a loss of trust" among world leaders. 

CLIMATE JUSTICE GROUP HAS DEEP TIES TO JUDGES, EXPERTS INVOLVED IN LITIGATION AMID CLAIMS OF IMPARTIALITY

Boykoff also suggested that a U.S. withdrawal could encourage other countries to also exit the treaty, as it was recently reported that Argentina's Libertarian President Javier Milei is considering it.

"The withdrawal may also cause other leaders, who have also expressed resistance to addressing climate policy as a priority in their own countries, to leave the agreement," Boykoff told CU Boulder Today.

However, those in favor of Trump releasing the U.S. from the agreement tell Fox News Digital that there would be many benefits to a second withdrawal. 

"The benefits of exiting the Paris climate agreement are many, first and foremost reclaiming U.S. sovereignty while respecting the rule of law," said H. Sterling Burnett, Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at the Heartland Institute.

"Paris encourages the U.S. to agree to emission reductions that are both unnecessary from a climate perspective, since we don't control the climate, but which do place substantial costs on Americans while putting the nation at a competitive and geopolitical disadvantage to China, which emits more than double the U.S. with no firm reduction commitments," he added.

Burnett also suggested that Trump submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent, which would require a two-thirds vote for the U.S. to rejoin the climate agreement — creating a potential hurdle for future administrations seeking to reenter the accord.

Also under consideration is whether the incoming president will withdraw from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a treaty established in 1992 to prevent "dangerous human interference with the climate system."

Mandy Gunasekara, former EPA chief of staff during Trump's first term, suggested that the incoming president should not only withdraw from the treaty, but also exit UNFCCC, POLITICO E&E Reported.

Gunasekara said that the administration should get out of UNFCCC "if they’re looking for a more permanent response to getting out of bad deals for the American economy that do little to actually improve the environment."

Other leaders have suggested that the Paris Agreement itself could suffer in the future if the U.S. is not involved.

"The Paris Agreement can survive, but people sometimes can lose important organs or lose the legs and survive. But we don’t want a crippled Paris agreement. We want a real Paris agreement," Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, told the Guardian. "It’s very important that the United States remain in the Paris Agreement, and more than remain in the Paris agreement, that the United States adopts the kind of policies that are necessary to make the 1.5 degrees still a realistic objective."

In perhaps the least surprising news of the past six weeks, President-elect Donald Trump reportedly plans to roll back President Biden’s electric vehicle and emissions policies. Reuters reports that the incoming president’s transition team has recommended cutting off support for EVs and charging stations while boosting measures to block cars, components and battery materials from China.

The transition team’s other reported plans include new tariffs on all battery materials globally, boosting US production of battery materials and negotiations with allies for exemptions. They’re also said to plan on taking money allocated for building charging stations and making EVs more affordable and redirecting them to sourcing batteries and their required minerals from places other than China. In addition, they reportedly want to axe the Biden administration’s $7,500 tax credit for consumer EV purchases.

The plans would let automakers produce more gas-powered vehicles by reversing emissions and fuel economy standards, pushing them back to 2019 levels. Reuters says that would lead to around 25 percent more emissions per vehicle mile than the current limits. It would also lower the average car fuel economy by about 15 percent.

Climate scientists have stressed the importance of transitioning from gas-powered cars to EVs in reducing carbon emissions and fending off the most ravaging scenarios for the planet. Greenhouse gases, including those from vehicle emissions, build up in the atmosphere and warm the climate. That leads to a cascade of effects in the atmosphere, on land and in oceans — some of which we’re already seeing.

As for tariffs, economists have said Trump’s plans would likely spur multiple trade wars as countries retaliate with tariffs on American goods, disrupt supply chains and pierce the heart of America’s post-World War II alliances. “If we go down the tariff war path, we’re going down a very dark path for the economy,” Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, told The New York Times in October.

The Biden administration has championed climate legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act, which allocated $369 billion for green initiatives, and EPA rules that require automakers to ramp up EV sales.

Meanwhile, Trump has called climate change a “hoax.” In May, he reportedly told a group of oil executives that he would immediately reverse dozens of Biden’s environmental rules while blocking new ones from being enacted. His asking price for such deregulation was that they raise $1 billion for his campaign. (Thanks, Citizens United!) So, while the reports about his transition team’s plans are still a gut punch to those who care about leaving the planet in a habitable state for future generations (and slowing the effects we’re already seeing), they aren’t exactly shocking to anyone paying attention.

FIRST ON FOX: A controversial judicial advocacy organization funded by left-wing nonprofits continues to work with judges and experts involved in climate change litigation despite publicly downplaying the extent of those connections.

"CJP doesn’t participate in litigation, support or coordinate with any parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule in any case," the Environmental Law Institute Climate Judiciary Project President Jordan Diamond wrote in a recent letter to The Wall Street Journal in response to criticism of the project. 

The Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Law Institute (ELI) created the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP) in 2018, establishing a first-of-its-kind resource to provide "reliable, up-to-date information" about climate change litigation, according to the group. The project's reach has extended to various state and federal courts, including powerful appellate courts, and comes as various cities and states pursue high-profile litigation against the oil industry.

A Fox News Digital review shows that several CJP expert lawyers and judges have close ties to the curriculum and are deeply involved in climate litigation.

DARK MONEY FUND POURED MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO ECO ACTIVIST GROUPS BLOCKING HIGHWAYS, DESTROYING FAMOUS ART

Princeton University professor Michael Oppenheimer contributed to the CJP curriculum and presented "Evidence of Change: Judging Climate Litigation" with CJP’s Sandra Nichols Thiam at the 2022 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference July 20, 2022. 

Oppenheimer has a long history of filing climate-related amicus briefs from 2019-2022 in litigation across several states.

Robin Kundis Craig, a professor at the University of Utah's Law School, wrote a module for CJP in 2022 and has also filed several amicus briefs showing she is active in court cases. 

One example occurred in 2023, when Craig is listed on an order granting legal scholars' request to file amicus, which was signed by Justice Mark Recktenwald, who, Fox News Digital previously reported, quietly disclosed last year that he presented for an April course in collaboration with the Environmental Law Institute Climate Judiciary Project. 

Recktenwald co-presented at a December 2022 National Judicial College webinar sponsored by CJP, "Hurricanes in a Changing Climate and Related Litigation." In 2023, he co-presented with Professor Robert DeConto at a National Judicial College seminar, "Rising Seas and Litigation: What Judges Need to Know about Warming-Driven Sea-Level Rise."

RADICAL CLIMATE ACTIVIST ENDORSES BLOWING UP PIPELINES IN STARTLING INTERVIEW, ADMITS PEOPLE COULD BE KILLED

In October 2023, Recktenwald’s Hawaii Supreme Court denied an appeal from oil companies to toss a Honolulu climate misinformation suit.

Craig also filed an amicus in Hawaii state court in July 2022, where an order was signed by Judge Jeffrey Crabtree allowing the brief to be filed. Crabtree is a member of the National Judicial College Curriculum Development Committee, which creates curricula for "Environmental Law Essential for the Judiciary."

"Don’t underestimate the importance of the role of state court judges in environmental law," the curriculum's website states.

Ann Carlson, who joined the Biden administration in 2021, served on ELI's board of directors for years while also "providing pro bono consulting" for Sher Edling, an eco law firm representing a number of jurisdictions, on litigation against oil companies, financial disclosures showed. Sher Edling counsel Michael Burger has also participated in multiple ELI events, and former Sher Edling lawyer Meredith Wilensky was previously an ELI Public Interest Law Fellow.

BIDEN ADMIN REPORT COULD SLOW TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO UNLEASH DOMESTIC NATURAL GAS, EXPERTS SAY

Burger is the executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and an ELI presenter who has filed amicus briefs in support of plaintiffs in climate cases across the United States. 

UCLA’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment hosted a talk in October 2017 with Sher Edling’s Vic Sher, "Suing Over Climate Change Damages: The First Wave of Climate Lawsuits." Ann Carlson was the moderator for that discussion.

John Dernbach, listed as an expert on CJP’s website, filed an amicus brief in 2019 as part of a brief of legal scholars in support of plaintiffs in City of Oakland v BP. 

"Judges attending Climate Judiciary Project events are advised that they are walking into a left-wing lobbying shop," American Energy Institute President Jason Isaac told Fox News Digital. "Under the guise of ‘judicial education,’ CJP uses activist academics to give a pro-plaintiff sneak peek at climate change lawsuits. This kind of politicking underlines that the climate change lawsuits themselves are a left-wing attack on our quality of life.

"The Supreme Court will have an opportunity early next year to hear a case asking whether blue states and far-left mayors like Brandon Johnson can sue energy providers for climate change. Let us hope the court takes the case and ends Green New Deal lawfare."

Fox News Digital previously reported that since it was founded more than five years ago, the project has crafted 13 curriculum modules and hosted 42 events, and more than 1,700 judges have participated in its activities. And multiple judges serve as advisers at CJP, potentially having an impact on its curriculum and modules.

"So-called ‘climate change lawsuits,' lawsuits claiming that private companies should be monetarily liable for damage to public infrastructure allegedly caused by climate change, have exploded in the past five years," GOP Sen. Ted Cruz wrote in a letter to Environmental Law Institute earlier this year.

"In tandem with this unprecedented litigation, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) launched a ‘first-of-its-kind effort’ to provide judges with ‘education on climate science, the impacts of climate change, and the ways climate science is arising in the law.’ It appears that ELI’s goal in providing this ‘education,’ however, may be to influence judges to side with plaintiffs in climate change cases."

The letter went on to label Carlson as "one of the program’s architects" and requested "information to allow the Committee to evaluate the efforts of both Ms. Carlson and ELI to influence the federal judiciary in its adjudication of climate litigation."

Cruz alleged that "ELI intends to accomplish via the courts what it cannot get enacted into law: a radical environmental agenda."

"To help judges reach those ‘appropriate’ decisions, the Project developed the ‘Climate Science and Law for Judges Curriculum’ (the Curriculum). While ELI claims the Project is ‘neutral' and ‘objective,’ the Curriculum reads like a playbook for judges to find in favor of plaintiffs in artificial climate change cases against traditional energy companies: it includes courses that ‘show how climate science is built on long-established scientific disciplines' and 'explore the human-caused component of [global] warming,’ such as the ‘causal connections between emissions’ and ‘changes in the climate.’"

An American Energy Institute report earlier this year alleges CJP "hides its partnership with the plaintiffs because they know these ties create judicial ethics problems."

AEI says Sandra Nichols Thiam, an ELI vice president and director of judicial education, acknowledged as much in a 2023 press statement, saying, "If we even appeared biased or if there was a whiff of bias, we wouldn’t be able to do what we’re doing."

"Taken together, it appears CJP made the thinnest possible disclosures to create the appearance of rectitude," AEI states. "But their admissions confirm that CJP exists to facilitate informal, ex parte contacts between judges and climate activists under the guise of judicial education. And secrecy remains essential to their operation, whose goal, as Thiam has said, is to develop ‘a body of law that supports climate action.'" 

AEI, a group self-described as "dedicated to promoting policies that ensure America’s energy security and economic prosperity," says CJP’s work is "an attack on the rule of law."

"In America, the powerful aren’t allowed to coax and manipulate judges before their cases are heard," the report states.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, an ELI spokesperson said, "CJP doesn’t participate in litigation, support or coordinate with any parties in litigation, or advise judges on how they should rule in any case. Our courses provide judges with access to evidence-based information about climate science and trends in the law.

"Of course, experts in the field are welcome to provide their expertise to CJP programs while separately and independently providing that same expertise in another setting that is unrelated to the CJP program. It is routine and encouraged for judges to participate in continuing education that exposes them to expertise in a wide variety of disciplines."

Fox News Digital’s Thomas Catenacci contributed to this report

The premier of a key region in Canada is threatening to cut off energy and critical mineral exports to the U.S. if President-elect Trump implements a sweeping tariff on all Canadian products. 

Trump recently threatened a 25% tariff on all Canadian and Mexican exports in an effort to stop the flow of illegal immigration and illicit drugs coming into the U.S.

Just days after Trump's announcement, Doug Ford, the premier of Ontario, said that he would consider retaliatory measures against the U.S. if the incoming president acted on his promise.

"We will go to the extent of cutting off their energy — going down to Michigan, going down to New York State and over to Wisconsin," Ford told reporters. 

TRUMP TAUNTS TRUDEAU WITH NEW TITLE AS HE CONTINUES TARIFFS PUSH: ‘GREAT STATE OF CANADA’

Although Ontario produces on a very small portion of Canada's oil, it is known for hydro electric and nuclear power.

The premier added that other officials in the country are reportedly identifying ways they can hurt U.S. exports if Trump enacts a tariff.

TRUMP SAYS HE WILL ISSUE EXECUTIVE ORDER TO CHARGE CANADA, MEXICO 25% TARIFF ON GOODS UPON TAKING OFFICE

"Some premiers proactively identified products that their provinces produce and export to the United States and which the U.S. relies on, and which should be considered as part of the Canadian response. This included some critical minerals and metals," Ford said.

Canada was reportedly the largest source of U.S. energy imports in 2019, according to the Energy Information Administration. 

"Canadians get hurt, but I can assure you one thing: the Americans are going to feel the pain as well, and isn’t that unfortunate?" Ford said.

Ford is also reportedly considering barring American-made alcohol from being sold in Ontario. 

Ford, however, might not be able to unilaterally cut off the province's energy supply to the U.S., according to a Canadian political science professor.

"I do not believe Ontario could unilaterally stop electricity exports to the U.S. without Ottawa’s approval. Similarly, Michigan cannot unilaterally stop the flow of western Canadian natural gas to eastern Canada without Washington’s approval," University of Toronto political science Professor Nelson Wiseman told Now Toronto in response to Ford's retaliatory threat.

Trump responded to the threats, saying "that's okay if he does that."

"The United States is subsidizing Canada, and we shouldn't have to do that," Trump told CNBC at the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday. "And we have a great relationship. I have so many friends in Canada, but we shouldn't have to subsidize a country."

After Trump threatened a tariff on the country, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to West Palm Beach, Florida, to meet with the incoming president at Mar-a-Lago. Trump called it a "very productive meeting." 

The Biden administration is seeking to rapidly disperse climate funds to cement the president's green energy agenda before President-elect Trump assumes the Oval Office in January.

In a memo released by the White House, Jeff Zients, White House chief of staff, said that the administration is going to "sprint to the finish line and get as much done as possible for the American people" in the remaining weeks of President Biden's term.

The top Biden official said that they plan to "obligate as much funding as possible before the end of the term," including dishing out unspent funds from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to support climate-related projects.

The White House also said that Americans can "expect more action" on funding from the IRA — the Democrats' climate legislation.

BIDEN ADMIN REPORT COULD SLOW TRUMP'S EFFORTS TO UNLEASH DOMESTIC NATURAL GAS, EXPERTS SAY

Trump has suggested that he would "undo" the IRA when he becomes president, legislation he has described as the "greatest scam in history."

Though some House Republicans, who secured a majority in the chamber in the next Congress, have also signaled support for reworking the climate bill, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told CNBC that "you've got to use a scalpel and not a sledgehammer" on the legislation.

It's unlikely, however, that the IRA would be completely overturned, given that nearly all the funds have already been awarded.

TRUMP TO INSTALL ‘ENERGY CZAR’ TO DISMANTLE BIDEN CLIMATE RULES: REPORT

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates warned against Republicans and the incoming administration attempting to undo Biden's agenda. 

"Repealing President Biden’s signature laws would be an historic redistribution of wealth from working Americans to Big Pharma and China," Bates said in a memo first obtained by NBC News, adding that despite potential pushback, projects under the IRA "have been locked-in."

Bates also suggested that Republican districts are benefiting from the IRA.

"That includes the creation of over 330,000 clean energy jobs — disproportionately in House districts represented by Republicans," he wrote. "Because of the Inflation Reduction Act, we’ve already saved more than 3.4 million Americans $8.4 million on clean energy upgrades to their homes, and more than 300,000 Americans have saved over $2 billion upfront on [electric vehicle] purchases."

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on a case that could reshape a key environmental law and determine the future of an oil railway project in the west.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to conduct a review of environmental impacts before making any decisions and then issue a "detailed statement" of the review.

SCOTUS heard arguments in the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County case, to decide whether an agency is required to study environmental impacts beyond the "proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority." Justices appeared open to reconsidering the scope of NEPA, but did not specify how they would adjust the law. 

The Seven Country Infrastructure Coalition (SCIC) petitioned the Surface Transportation Board (STB), a federal agency, to build an over 80-mile transportation system to connect crude oil from Utah's Uinta Basin to a national railway.

FEDERAL COURT UPENDS DECADES OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

The STB released an Environmental Impact Statement on the railway, but opponents of the project in Eagle County, Colorado, argued that the federal agency did not consider all of its environmental effects – therefore, violating NEPA.

SUPREME COURT APPEARS DIVIDED OVER STATE BANS ON GENDER TRANSITION ‘TREATEMENTS’ FOR MINORS

The case was brought to a D.C. Circuit Court, which ruled that STB had violated environmental law and that a new, more thorough review be conducted before the project moves forward. In March 2024, SCIC petitioned SCOTUS in the case.

Paul Clement, the attorney backing the SCIC project, argued that it is a "straightforward case" and requested NEPA be limited to "proximate cause" principles. 

"NEPA is a self-described procedural statute. It is designed to inform government decision-making, not paralyze it," Clement argued on Tuesday.

Clement called the D.C. court's request to conduct further environmental review "a recipe for turning a procedural statute into a substantive roadblock." 

"All of that is not just remote in time and space but falls well outside the STB's limited remand – remit, and it falls within the jurisdiction of other agencies that can address those issues comprehensively and concretely if and when they arise," he said during the oral arguments.

Several justices appeared to agree that the D.C. court's issuing of an entirely new environmental review of the project may have been unnecessary.

"It's not a question of did it fail to look at something," Justice Sonia Sotomayer said. "So the question before us was, was it arbitrary and capricious for it not to consider something more?"

The judges questioned Clement on how his request would impact the scope of environmental reviews, such as on smaller or larger projects.

Clement replied, "If the environmental impact statement is focused on the project, it will inform – you can pick one route versus another, or the agency itself can impose mitigation measures. But, if you have to look at everything under the sun, that's outside the ambit of the agency."

"This case is bigger than the Uinta Basin Railway," Sam Sankar, Earthjustice vice president of programs, said in a statement. "The fossil fuel industry and its allies are making radical arguments that would blind the public to obvious health consequences of government decisions. The court should stick with settled law instead. If it doesn’t, communities will pay the price."

Justice Neil Gorsuch, on Dec. 4, dismissed himself from the case ahead of arguments.