3 min readFeb 16, 2026 12:21 PM IST
First published on: Feb 16, 2026 at 12:16 PM IST
In 1988, American climatologist James Hansen stepped before Congress and presented NASA’s climate data. He spoke about rising CO2 levels leading to rising temperatures and told Congress plainly: Global warming is here and is caused by human activities. Without Hansen’s models, the US and the world would have remained oblivious to the invisible killer.
Fast-forward to the 1990s, when the IPCC released its 1995 report predicting dire consequences if we delayed action. Bill Clinton, at least to some extent, listened. He signed the Kyoto Protocol, pushing for mandatory emissions reductions despite vigorous Senate opposition. Then came the Paris Agreement, when satellites and ARGO floats finally gave us solid numbers on the ocean’s heat uptake – turns out, the seas locked in 90 per cent of the extra warming. Trillions of dollars flooded into renewable energy because science handed industry a blueprint.
We have been driven to distraction by the bad faith with which much research is approached — reports ignored by lobbyists, findings used selectively by politicians. But it is the few instances when scientific information collides with courageous decision-making that we hold fast to. Science is not perfect, but it is the best compass we have in the gathering storm. Those who choose to rely on it are not just leaders — they are saviours of that which is under threat of loss.
As a climate scientist who has interfaced with policymakers for decades, I can hardly describe my anger at the EPA’s repeal of the 2009 “endangerment finding” on February 12. It is literally mind-boggling. Arsonists are burning down the fire station.
In 2009, the Obama administration issued an endangerment finding that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide and methane, presented a danger to public health, manifested in a plethora of detrimental impacts from heat waves to floods, wildfires, and poisoned air. This finding authorised the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and, by extension, stationary sources such as power plants and factories under the Clean Air Act.
Now, EPA chief Lee Zeldin axes it, touting $1.3 trillion in “savings”. Methane traps 80 times CO2’s heat in the short term, and emissions surge unchecked. Coal plants spew mercury-laced soot again. Vehicles guzzle without EV mandates. It’s not savings — it’s a time machine to the smoggy 1970s skies.
Supporters claim that gutting automobile emissions standards and eliminating power plant regulations controlling carbon dioxide and particulate pollution will save jobs and cheapen gas prices. That is incorrect. Clean-energy sources already employ triple the workforce of coal, and solar energy alone has seen a 90 per cent reduction in costs since 2010. Climate change has already caused insurers to dramatically increase flood insurance premiums, with rates tripling for homebuyers in, for example, much of Florida. The associated medical costs from rising rates of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and asthma are in the billions, too.
For our friends in the US, reversing this repeal would be a cause for celebration. Direct your anger towards the ballots, legal briefs, and feet on the street in non-violent protests. The statistics are horrendous, and the courts must intervene.
The writer is the Clinical Associate Professor (Research) and Research Director at Bharti Institute of Public Policy, Indian School of Business. He teaches sustainability at ISB and contributes to IPCC reports