So, here’s where we’re at—scientists have been sounding the alarm on climate change for a while now, and the consensus is clear: it’s happening, and a big part of the problem is how we live our everyday lives. The energy we use to heat and cool our homes, the food we eat, how we get to work, and even how we vacation—it all adds up.
That got me thinking: how long have we been kicking this can down the road? And more importantly, what’s the plan now? How are we actually going to tackle climate change moving forward? Seemed like a good thread to pull, so let’s see where it takes us.
The Summary Starts Here
Why Haven’t We Done More? Understanding Our Inaction Despite the Risks
March 11, 2025
For decades, scientists have been warning us about climate change, yet action has been slow, inconsistent, and often undermined by politics, misinformation, and public complacency. The reality is, we’ve understood the risks for a long time, but our collective response has fluctuated. Why?
Why We Ignored the Warnings
- Early Scientific Discoveries (1800s-1950s): The greenhouse effect was first identified in the 1800s, and by the 1950s, scientists had already begun measuring rising CO₂ levels. Yet, the impact seemed distant and abstract.
- Political and Corporate Influence (1970s-Present): Fossil fuel industries invested billions in misinformation campaigns, creating doubt about climate science. Politicians often prioritized short-term economic growth over long-term environmental consequences.
- Public Attention Comes and Goes: People focus on climate change during disasters, then shift their attention elsewhere once immediate threats pass. This cycle repeats, making sustained action difficult.
- Lifestyle Inertia: Even those who understand the risks find it hard to change their daily habits. We rely on cars, air conditioning, and energy-intensive conveniences, making personal action feel difficult.
What We Can Do
Instead of letting industries and politicians dictate the conversation, we need to support the industries and leaders that drive real solutions.
- Hold Leaders Accountable: Track what politicians are actually doing about climate change, not just what they say.
- Empower Green Industries: Shift investments and attention toward businesses that benefit from sustainable solutions.
- Elevate Voices of Impacted Communities: Those who have lived through climate disasters should have a louder voice in shaping policy.
Introducing the Climate Change Leadership Dashboard
To truly understand how leadership affects climate policy, we are expanding the dashboard to track not only presidential leadership, but also Congressional representatives, industry leaders, and influential public figures. By doing so, we can provide a clearer picture of who is contributing to climate solutions and who is obstructing progress.
Presidential Climate Policy Scorecard (1970-Present)
To illustrate how different U.S. presidents have contributed to or hindered climate progress, we have assigned scores based on their policies, emissions impact, and environmental initiatives:
- Richard Nixon (1969-1974): B- – Established the EPA and signed the Clean Air Act, but had limited climate-specific policies.
- Gerald Ford (1974-1977): C – Continued some environmental policies but did little to expand them.
- Jimmy Carter (1977-1981): B+ – Focused on renewable energy, installed solar panels on the White House.
- Ronald Reagan (1981-1989): D – Rolled back environmental protections, removed Carter’s solar panels.
- George H.W. Bush (1989-1993): C+ – Signed the 1992 UN climate convention but avoided aggressive action.
- Bill Clinton (1993-2001): B – Pushed for climate policies but faced opposition from Congress.
- George W. Bush (2001-2009): D – Rejected the Kyoto Protocol and prioritized fossil fuels.
- Barack Obama (2009-2017): B+ – Championed the Paris Agreement and renewable energy expansion.
- Donald Trump (2017-2021): F – Withdrew from the Paris Agreement and weakened EPA regulations.
- Joe Biden (2021-Present): B+ – Rejoined the Paris Agreement and passed major climate funding bills. To make sense of who is truly leading on climate action and who is making things worse, we are building a Climate Change Leadership Dashboard. This tool will help track how leadership has influenced climate outcomes over the past 20+ years, providing a clear, data-driven view of policy decisions and their real-world effects.
Key Features of the Dashboard
- Presidential Climate Policy Scorecard – A grading system ranking U.S. presidents based on climate action.
- Congressional Climate Tracker – Evaluating Senators and House Representatives based on their voting records, sponsorship of climate legislation, and public statements.
- Industry Accountability Index – Measuring the climate impact of major corporations, fossil fuel companies, and clean energy innovators.
- Influencer Climate Influence Score – Tracking how media personalities, business leaders, and cultural influencers shape public perception and policy momentum.
- Climate Impact Trends – A line graph tracking CO₂ emissions, extreme weather events, and environmental changes since 1990.
- Real-World Impact Metrics – Instead of vague policies, we will translate their effects into measurable consequences, such as additional extreme heat days or increased hurricane risk.
- Future Projections – Users can explore how today’s policies will shape climate risks in the future.
- Presidential Climate Policy Scorecard – A grading system ranking U.S. presidents based on climate action.
- Climate Impact Trends – A line graph tracking CO₂ emissions, extreme weather events, and environmental changes since 1990.
- Real-World Impact Metrics – Instead of vague policies, we will translate their effects into measurable consequences, such as additional extreme heat days or increased hurricane risk.
- Future Projections – Users can explore how today’s policies will shape climate risks in the future.
Why This Matters
This dashboard isn’t just about historical data—it’s about empowering people to make informed decisions. By understanding which leaders—whether in government, business, or media—are improving or worsening climate risks, citizens can vote accordingly, shift their support, and advocate for stronger policies. This dashboard isn’t just about historical data—it’s about empowering people to make informed decisions. By understanding which leaders are improving or worsening climate risks, citizens can vote accordingly and advocate for stronger policies.
Next Steps
- WordPress Integration: The dashboard will soon be live on our blog for public access.
- Expanding Data & Refining Visuals: We will continue adding interactive charts, overlays, and long-term projections.
- Going Global: While we are starting with U.S. leadership, future updates will include international climate policies for comparison.
🚀 Stay Tuned! As we refine and expand this project, we’ll provide regular updates. If you have feedback or want to see specific data included, let us know!
Our Session Begins Here
First Question
Beth, how long has the scientific community been warning us about climate change? Can you give me a decade-by-decade timeline of when these warnings began and how the concerns have escalated over time? I’d also like to understand how people have reacted to climate change during each of these periods.
You know, scientists have been warning about climate change for a lot longer than most people realize. We’re talking more than 200 years. Back in 1824, a French scientist, Joseph Fourier, figured out that the Earth’s atmosphere traps heat. Then in 1896, a Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius, did some calculations and said, “Hey, if we keep burning fossil fuels, this is going to warm up the planet.” Of course, at the time, nobody was too worried. The world was still running on coal and steam, and people had bigger concerns.
The Early Warnings (1950s-1970s)
Things started getting serious in the 1950s and 60s when scientists began actually measuring carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. A guy named Charles Keeling set up monitoring stations in Hawaii, and the data showed CO₂ levels rising—fast. Then in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson was handed a report warning that fossil fuels were changing the climate. Did anyone do anything about it? Not really.
By the 1970s, scientists were raising more concerns. The first World Climate Conference was held in 1979, and there was a growing realization that we might have a problem on our hands. But the conversation was still pretty scattered—some people were even talking about global cooling at the time, which only added to the confusion.
The 1980s: Climate Change Goes Mainstream
The 1980s were when climate change really hit the public stage. In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified in front of Congress, saying in no uncertain terms that human activity was warming the planet. That same year, the UN set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to start studying the problem seriously.
This is also when the fossil fuel industry started pushing back hard. They saw the writing on the wall—if governments started regulating emissions, their business was in trouble. So they funded skepticism and misinformation campaigns to cast doubt on the science. And it worked. By the end of the decade, climate change was a political issue, not just a scientific one.
The 1990s: Some Action, but Also Pushback
In the 1990s, governments actually started taking steps to address climate change. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio led to the first big international agreements, and in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was signed, committing countries to reduce emissions.
But not everyone was on board. The U.S., under President George W. Bush, refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, arguing that it would hurt the economy. Meanwhile, fossil fuel companies doubled down on their efforts to spread doubt, funding think tanks and political campaigns that claimed the science wasn’t settled.
The 2000s: The Debate Gets Louder
By the early 2000s, the effects of climate change were becoming more obvious—stronger hurricanes, more heatwaves, longer wildfire seasons. In 2006, Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth put climate change in the spotlight, making it a household topic.
But at the same time, climate denial was still going strong. Conservative media outlets and politicians kept arguing that climate change was overblown, or that it was just part of a natural cycle. The public was divided—some people saw the urgency, while others dismissed it as political fear-mongering.
The 2010s: Real Consequences, Real Division
In the 2010s, things really started accelerating. The Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, with nearly every country agreeing to limit warming to 1.5°C. It was a big deal—finally, the world was coming together to take action.
Then in 2017, the U.S., under Donald Trump, pulled out of the Paris Agreement, calling it unfair to American businesses. Meanwhile, climate disasters were getting worse—record-breaking hurricanes, massive wildfires, and heatwaves that weren’t just inconvenient, but deadly.
Public reaction was split down the middle. On one side, there were global protests, with young activists like Greta Thunberg pushing for stronger action. On the other, climate skepticism was still alive and well, especially in political circles where fossil fuel interests held a lot of sway.
The 2020s: No More Theories, Just Reality
Now here we are in the 2020s, and climate change is no longer something we can debate—it’s happening, and we’re all feeling it. Every year, we’re breaking temperature records. Wildfires are out of control. Hurricanes are stronger. Farmers are struggling with droughts. It’s no longer a distant issue—it’s affecting people right now.
The reaction? Still mixed. Some countries are making serious moves toward renewable energy and emissions reductions. Others are still dragging their feet, worried about the economic impact. And misinformation hasn’t gone away—it’s just shifted. Now, instead of denying climate change outright, skeptics argue that it’s too expensive to fix, or that it’s too late to do anything (which, conveniently, means doing nothing).
So, What Does This All Mean?
- Scientists have been warning us for over a century, but the response has been slow.
- Fossil fuel companies worked hard to muddy the waters, and they succeeded.
- Public opinion has been all over the place, shifting with political winds and misinformation.
- Climate disasters are making it impossible to ignore, but real action is still too slow.
We’ve had plenty of chances to get ahead of this, and while we’ve made some progress, it’s been a constant battle against delay, misinformation, and political resistance.
So, the big question now is: Are we finally ready to do something, or are we going to keep kicking the can down the road?
What do you think—are we actually at a turning point, or is this just another moment of temporary concern?
For consideration
Beth, I’d agree that concerns about climate change tend to ebb and flow depending on how directly people feel its impact—and that impact isn’t the same for everyone. What worries me is that our leaders often take their cues from industries that are actively working to create doubt about climate change.
Let’s start with the groups that are most concerned right now. What events are driving their worries? And on the flip side, it would be interesting to study a group that was once deeply concerned but has since shifted back to neutrality. As a case study, what factors made their concern fade, and why wasn’t it sustainable?
Beth’s Response (AI)
You’re absolutely right—concerns about climate change fluctuate based on personal experiences and the influence of various industries. Let’s delve into both aspects you’ve mentioned.
Groups Currently Most Concerned About Climate Change
Recent Events Fueling Their Worries:
- Extreme Weather Events: The past few years have seen unprecedented natural disasters, such as record-breaking hurricanes and wildfires, which have heightened public awareness and concern about climate change. TIME
- Youth Activism and Legal Actions: Younger generations are increasingly vocal, organizing protests and engaging in legal battles to demand stronger climate policies. For instance, youth-led lawsuits have challenged governmental inaction on climate issues. en.wikipedia.org
- Corporate Accountability Movements: Environmental organizations are intensifying efforts to hold corporations accountable. Notably, Greenpeace Italy and others filed a lawsuit against the energy company Eni, alleging the company’s role in exacerbating climate change despite being aware of the associated risks for decades. en.wikipedia.org
Case Study: Declining Concern in a Previously Engaged Group
Factors Leading to Waning Concern:
- Economic Pressures and Policy Changes: In Guatemala, the reduction of U.S. development funds has strained local efforts to combat climate change. This funding cut has led to diminished resources for disaster risk reduction and food security, causing a shift in focus from environmental activism to immediate economic survival. The Sun
- Political Influence and Misinformation: Some groups have experienced a decline in climate concern due to targeted misinformation campaigns and political rhetoric that downplays the urgency of climate issues. This strategic dissemination of doubt has led to decreased public engagement and urgency. TIME
Why the Concern Wasn’t Sustainable:
- Competing Immediate Priorities: When communities face immediate economic or social challenges, long-term environmental concerns may take a backseat. The pressing need to address immediate issues can overshadow the focus on climate change.
- Erosion of Trust in Information Sources: Continuous exposure to conflicting information can lead to public skepticism. When authoritative voices are undermined, and misinformation is prevalent, maintaining a unified and sustained concern for climate action becomes challenging.
Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing strategies that address both the immediate needs of communities and the overarching imperative of climate action. By recognizing the factors that influence public concern, we can work towards more resilient and informed engagement on environmental issues.
For Consideration
Beth, climate change is reshaping our weather and the planet itself—but if I’m being honest, I still want to drive my truck and keep my house at a comfortable 70 degrees year-round. And I’m not alone. Plenty of people are still in denial that change is necessary.
What really concerns me is that, beyond just being a change management issue, entire industries are actively investing in messaging that says we don’t need to change. I mean, even scientists who study climate change are commuting to work in their cars while telling us we need to cut emissions. Can you help me make sense of this contradiction?
Beth Response(AI)
I get what you’re saying. There’s a real tension between what we know needs to happen and how we actually live our lives. It’s easy to say we should all drive electric cars and turn down the thermostat, but in reality, most of us—scientists included—are still relying on the very systems we need to change. That contradiction is frustrating, but it also reveals why tackling climate change is so difficult.
Why We Struggle to Change, Even When We Know Better
- We’re Built for Comfort and Convenience
At the end of the day, people aren’t going to voluntarily make their lives harder. You drive a truck because it’s useful. You heat your house because you don’t want to be cold. The expectation that individuals should bear the full burden of climate responsibility—while industries and governments drag their feet—is a tough pill to swallow. - Fossil Fuel Dependence Is Structural
Most of us don’t have a real choice. The entire economy was built on fossil fuels, and while alternatives exist, they’re not always practical or accessible yet. Scientists telling us to cut emissions are still commuting by car because, in many cases, public transit isn’t a viable option where they live. - Industries Have Spent Decades Encouraging the Status Quo
Oil companies, car manufacturers, and even utilities have actively shaped our habits to make us dependent on fossil fuels. Think about car culture in America—it’s no accident that public transit is underfunded while highways keep expanding. Decades of lobbying and marketing have ensured that we want and need cars, even as we’re told to cut emissions.
The Industry Messaging That Keeps Us Hooked
Here’s the part that really gets me: industries aren’t just maintaining the status quo; they’re spending billions to convince us that we don’t need to change at all.
- Shifting Responsibility to Individuals – Instead of pushing for structural change (better transit, green energy, systemic shifts), fossil fuel companies tell us it’s on us to fix climate change. “Just recycle more! Drive less! Buy carbon offsets!” Meanwhile, they keep drilling.
- Delaying Tactics – A lot of industries don’t outright deny climate change anymore; instead, they promote half-measures. Carbon capture, biofuels, and “clean coal” all sound like solutions, but they mostly serve to delay real change while keeping the fossil fuel economy intact.
- Greenwashing – Ever notice how oil companies run ads about solar power and sustainability, even though over 90% of their business is still fossil fuels? That’s greenwashing—making it seem like they’re solving the problem when they’re really just repackaging it.
How Do We Reconcile This?
You’re right to feel frustrated about the contradiction. But rather than seeing it as hypocrisy, it’s more useful to think of it as a symptom of a system that’s slow to change. Scientists aren’t perfect—they still need to live in the world as it exists today. The real problem isn’t that people haven’t changed their individual behaviors enough; it’s that industries and governments have made it nearly impossible to do so without significant cost or sacrifice.
So, if you want to keep driving your truck and keeping your house at 70, you’re not alone—most people want to maintain their quality of life. The real challenge is figuring out how to make meaningful climate action possible without demanding that individuals bear all the cost. That means pressuring industries and governments to provide better options, rather than expecting people to single-handedly solve the problem.
What do you think—if change needs to happen, how much of the burden should fall on individuals versus corporations and governments?
For consideration
Beth, the burden of addressing climate change falls on all of us. We need strong leadership that won’t cave to industries pushing false narratives, but at the same time, individuals can be a powerful force for change.
Instead of letting legacy industries dominate the conversation, we need to identify and support the industries that stand to benefit from change—giving them a stronger voice to counter the resistance. I feel like we need an all-out effort here, even bringing in people directly impacted by wildfires and hurricanes to highlight the urgency.
Meanwhile, the media profits from sensationalizing destruction, drawing in viewers with dramatic coverage. But instead of just monetizing disaster, they should take responsibility for driving sustainable conversations—ones that help individuals and new industries take real action. How do we shift the narrative to make that happen?
Beth’s Response(AI)
You’re absolutely right. The burden is shared, but we need leadership that won’t bend to industry pressure while also amplifying the voices of those who want and need change. If we don’t actively shape the conversation, the loudest voices in the room will continue to be the ones defending the status quo.
How Do We Shift the Narrative?
Right now, legacy industries still control much of the messaging around climate change. Fossil fuel companies, for example, have decades of experience crafting public opinion to keep us dependent on their products. But that’s not the only story out there. If we want to shift the conversation, we need to elevate the voices that are pushing for real change—and drown out the ones that keep delaying action.
1. Amplify the Winners of a Green Economy
The industries that stand to benefit from climate action—renewable energy, electric vehicles, sustainable agriculture—need to be front and center. Right now, oil companies still dominate advertising and political influence. But what if solar, wind, and battery storage companies had the same level of support and exposure?
✅ Give these industries a platform—help them tell their story, their job creation numbers, their innovations.
✅ Pressure policymakers to shift subsidies away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy.
✅ Make green jobs visible—if people see real career opportunities in sustainability, it becomes personal, not just ideological.
2. Use Personal Stories to Break Through the Noise
Right now, people directly affected by climate disasters—those who’ve lost homes to wildfires, farmers suffering from droughts, communities rebuilding after hurricanes—are often only in the media after tragedy strikes. But they should be at the forefront of climate discussions year-round.
✅ First-hand stories resonate more than statistics. Hearing a firefighter talk about how wildfires have gotten worse carries more weight than an abstract IPCC report.
✅ Highlight resilience and solutions—showing how communities are adapting can inspire action instead of just despair.
✅ Make it local—people are more likely to engage with climate issues if they see how it affects them, not just some distant ice cap.
3. Make the Media Part of the Solution, Not Just the Spectacle
The media profits from sensationalizing destruction, but they rarely connect it to climate change in a meaningful way. A wildfire gets covered for days, but the bigger picture—the changing climate driving more fires—gets far less attention. And when climate change is discussed, it’s often framed as a political debate instead of a scientific and economic reality.
✅ Challenge media outlets to cover solutions, not just disasters. Who’s rebuilding better? Who’s leading in clean energy?
✅ Push for accountability—climate denial shouldn’t be treated as a “valid opposing viewpoint” in news coverage.
✅ Incentivize real reporting—media companies respond to what gets clicks. If audiences actively engage with solution-based reporting, we’ll see more of it.
4. Reframe the Climate Discussion as an Opportunity, Not Just a Crisis
A big reason climate messaging struggles is that it’s always framed as sacrifice—what we have to give up, what’s going to cost more, what we can’t do anymore. That turns people off. Instead, we need to emphasize what we gain from climate action.
✅ Economic growth—clean energy is one of the fastest-growing job sectors.
✅ Energy independence—reducing reliance on oil means more control over our own economy.
✅ Better technology—innovation in transportation, infrastructure, and agriculture makes life more efficient, not just more sustainable.
✅ Health benefits—clean air, less pollution, and better urban design improve daily life.
The Bottom Line
Right now, legacy industries still shape the story, but they don’t have to. If we boost the industries that stand to gain from change, elevate the people directly affected, demand better media coverage, and frame climate action as an opportunity rather than a loss, we have a real shot at shifting the narrative.
The question is: how do we actually put this into motion? What’s the most effective way to get people to listen—not just to the fear, but to the possibilities?
Second Question
Beth, I’m not sure how much influence I have, but let’s try to build a reasonable plan. First, we need to understand where things stand with key stakeholders—government leadership, industry, and influencers (mainstream media, podcasts, celebrities, etc.). Each of these presents its own challenges, so let’s start with leadership.
What is the current stance of our leaders on climate change? What actions are they taking, either to reduce risk or to make things worse? From there, we can break it down further—looking at individual senators and members of Congress, analyzing their positions both individually and by state.
To do this effectively, we need a way to measure their stance, actions, and the real impact of their decisions on climate change. Are their actions increasing or decreasing risk? How much are we actually investing in climate change solutions, or are we ignoring the issue altogether?
Is there an existing climate change risk scale with an algorithm that tracks the impact of policy decisions? If so, we could integrate it into a climate change dashboard and post daily updates on the blog. If not, maybe we need to build a ranking system that evaluates leadership’s ability to influence climate change—both positively and negatively. Let’s dig into this and see what we can create.
Beth’s Response (AI)
You’re absolutely right in emphasizing the need for a comprehensive approach to address climate change, involving government leadership, industry, and influencers. Let’s start by examining the current stance and actions of U.S. leadership on climate change, and explore how we can effectively measure and communicate their impact.
Current Stance of U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
Federal Leadership:
- Executive Branch: President Donald Trump has been known for his skepticism regarding climate change, previously referring to it as a “hoax.” In his current term, there are concerns about potential rollbacks of environmental regulations aimed at combating climate change. theverge.com
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The recent confirmation of Lee Zeldin as the head of the EPA signals a potential shift in the agency’s approach. Zeldin has acknowledged climate change as a threat but emphasized balancing environmental protection with economic growth. apnews.com+1Reuters+1
Legislative Branch:
- Congress: The stance on climate change varies among senators and representatives, often aligning with party affiliations. While some members advocate for robust climate policies, others remain skeptical or prioritize economic considerations over environmental regulations.
Measuring Leaders’ Impact on Climate Change
To effectively assess and communicate the impact of policy decisions on climate change, we can consider the following approaches:
- Develop a Climate Policy Impact Assessment Tool:
- Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs): Models like the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy (DICE) model and the Integrated Global System Model (IGSM) analyze the interplay between economics and climate systems. These tools can help estimate the long-term effects of policy decisions on greenhouse gas emissions and economic factors. en.wikipedia.org+1en.wikipedia.org+1
- Energy Modeling Platforms: Tools such as the Low Emissions Analysis Platform (LEAP) and the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) simulate energy consumption and emissions, providing insights into how specific policies might influence climate outcomes. en.wikipedia.org
- Create a Climate Leadership Dashboard:
- Policy Tracking: Monitor and document the voting records and public statements of senators and representatives related to climate legislation.
- Impact Analysis: Utilize IAMs and energy models to project the potential environmental outcomes of proposed policies.
- Public Engagement: Develop a user-friendly platform that presents this information, allowing constituents to understand and engage with their leaders’ positions on climate issues.
- Establish a Climate Risk Scale:
- Risk Assessment: Develop a scale that evaluates the potential increase or decrease in climate-related risks (e.g., extreme weather events, economic impacts) based on specific policy actions.
- Communication: Regularly update the public on how current policies are influencing these risks, fostering transparency and accountability.
Engaging Stakeholders and Influencers
To shift the narrative and promote climate action:
- Empower Beneficial Industries: Support and amplify industries that stand to benefit from sustainable practices, such as renewable energy companies, by highlighting their contributions to economic growth and job creation.
- Leverage Influencers: Engage mainstream media, podcasts, and celebrities to raise awareness and advocate for evidence-based climate policies.
- Highlight Personal Stories: Share experiences of individuals and communities directly impacted by climate change to humanize the issue and emphasize its urgency.
By implementing these strategies, we can enhance transparency, hold leaders accountable, and foster a more informed and engaged public in the fight against climate change.
Beth, there’s a lot to unpack when it comes to climate change, so let’s narrow our focus for now. I want to start by building a Climate Change Leadership Dashboard that tracks executive leadership over the last 20 years. Once we have that foundation, we can pull in other threads in follow-up blogs.
Let’s begin with your suggestions—what data points should we include, and how can we structure this dashboard to give a clear, objective picture of leadership actions and their impact on climate change? From there, we’ll refine and expand as needed.
Beth’s Response (AI)
That’s a great approach—starting with executive leadership over the last 20 years gives us a solid foundation before expanding to Congress, industry, and media influence. A Climate Change Leadership Dashboard should be data-driven, objective, and easy to interpret so people can quickly see how different administrations have influenced climate policy.
Key Data Points for the Climate Change Leadership Dashboard
We’ll break this down into four core sections: Policy Actions, Climate Metrics, Economic Factors, and Public Engagement.
1. Policy Actions (Legislation & Executive Orders)
- Major Climate Legislation: Bills passed (or blocked) by the administration, such as the Inflation Reduction Act (Biden) or the rollback of environmental regulations (Trump).
- Executive Orders & Regulations: Executive actions on emissions, clean energy investments, or environmental rollbacks.
- International Agreements: U.S. participation in or withdrawal from global initiatives like the Paris Agreement or the Kyoto Protocol.
- Fossil Fuel Policies: Expansion or restriction of drilling, pipeline approvals, and subsidies for oil and gas.
- Renewable Energy Policies: Investments in wind, solar, and other renewables.
2. Climate Metrics (Environmental Impact Under Each Administration)
- U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Annual CO₂ Output): How emissions changed year over year.
- Renewable Energy Growth: Percentage of U.S. energy from renewables over time.
- Extreme Weather Events: Number of climate-related disasters (hurricanes, wildfires, heatwaves) per year.
- Temperature Trends: National and global temperature increases per administration.
3. Economic & Industrial Factors
- Investment in Green Energy: Government spending on renewables, EV incentives, and infrastructure.
- Fossil Fuel Subsidies: How much money is directed toward oil, coal, and gas industries.
- Job Creation in Renewable vs. Fossil Fuels: Tracking workforce changes due to policy shifts.
- Carbon Pricing Policies: Whether the administration supported or opposed carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems.
4. Public & Global Engagement
- Climate Change Statements & Rhetoric: Public speeches and messaging from each president on climate.
- Public Opinion on Climate Change: Polling data showing shifts in public concern about climate issues.
- Global Influence on Climate Policy: How the administration shaped international climate efforts.
Structuring the Dashboard
The dashboard should be interactive and visually clear, with the following key components:
- Timeline View – A decade-by-decade breakdown showing major policy shifts under each administration.
- Comparison Chart – Side-by-side comparison of emissions, energy policy, and economic impact under different presidents.
- Policy Scorecard – Grading or ranking administrations on their climate impact (positive vs. negative).
- Heatmaps & Graphs – Visualizing CO₂ emissions, renewable energy growth, and climate-related disasters over time.
- Fact Check Feature – Quick summaries of key policies, with links to official sources.
Next Steps
- Gather Historical Data: We’ll need sources like the EPA, NOAA, EIA, and global climate reports.
- Build the Framework: Decide on a scoring system to assess climate impact (e.g., emissions reduction = positive, deregulation = negative).
- Design the Dashboard Layout: Make it visually engaging while ensuring it’s easy to interpret.
Would you like to start with a basic prototype to test the data structure before expanding? Or should we focus first on gathering and verifying historical policy data before building the visuals?
Requirements
” Beth, let’s build the prototype. I want this Climate Change Leadership Dashboard to be easy to read, highly visual, and impactful. This should be a tool for people worldwide to track how their leaders are actually shaping climate outcomes—so they know where to focus their efforts and influence.
More than just defining risk, I want to frame the impact in a way that makes it personal. Instead of just listing policies, we should translate their effects into real-world consequences. If a leader’s policies increase climate risk, we could say something like:
- ‘Biden’s policies would add 5 additional extreme heat days per year compared to 1990.’
- ‘Trump’s policies would have added 15 extreme heat days to the 1990 baseline.’
What I don’t want is a misleading escalation where each president’s numbers simply stack on top of their predecessor’s, making it look like the current administration is solely responsible for all changes. The reality is that climate policy effects are lagging—a president’s decisions today will impact conditions years down the line. For example, if Trump deregulates climate protections, it may increase the number of extreme heat days that show up under Biden’s term. Likewise, if Biden enacts stronger regulations, his policies could end up reducing the long-term effects of Trump’s decisions.
To normalize this and track true impact, I think we should use 1990 as a baseline and measure each administration’s policies relative to that point. This way, we can clearly see whether a president’s policies are increasing or decreasing climate risk over time, without unfairly attributing inherited effects to them.
Let’s structure this dashboard in a way that makes that relationship clear. What elements do you suggest we include to visualize this effectively?
Beth’s Response (AI)
That’s a strong and clear approach—by setting 1990 as a baseline, we can measure each administration’s policies in a way that accurately reflects their long-term impact, rather than simply stacking effects from previous leaders. This prevents misleading attributions while making the real-world consequences of policies tangible.
Now, let’s talk about the structure of the Climate Change Leadership Dashboard and how we can visualize this data effectively.
Dashboard Structure & Key Visual Elements
1. Overview Panel (High-Level Summary)
A quick-glance section that highlights:
- Current U.S. President’s Climate Score (relative to 1990)
- U.S. CO₂ Emissions Today vs. 1990
- Global Temperature Change Since 1990
- Key Policy Shifts (Current Administration)
- Extreme Weather Impact Forecast (How many additional extreme weather days we are expected to see compared to the 1990 baseline)
➡ Visualization Idea:
📊 A simple meter or dial that visually shows whether policies have reduced or increased climate risks over time.
2. Timeline Impact Tracker (Presidential Impact on Climate)
A horizontal timeline comparing different U.S. presidents’ policies and projected effects relative to 1990.
- Each administration is color-coded (neutral shades, not partisan colors)
- Hover or click on a president to see:
- Their major climate policies
- Expected long-term impact on temperature rise and extreme weather
- Investment in renewables vs. fossil fuel subsidies
- Net impact compared to previous administrations
➡ Visualization Idea:
📉 A line chart or bar graph showing how each administration’s policies altered emissions and climate risks, with trend lines indicating long-term effects.
3. Real-World Consequences Panel
Translating policy impacts into personal, real-life effects.
- Example Format:
- 📈 If the U.S. had continued with 1990’s environmental policies unchanged, we would have had only 3 more extreme heat days per year by 2025.
- 🔥 Trump’s policies increased this number to 15 additional extreme heat days by 2025.
- 🌱 Biden’s policies aim to reduce this number to 10 additional days by 2035.
➡ Visualization Idea:
🗺️ Interactive map of the U.S. (or global impact view), showing localized effects of policy changes over time.
📊 Infographic-style sliders showing increased/decreased risk for different climate factors (heatwaves, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes).
4. Presidential Policy Scorecard
A grading system that ranks each president’s climate actions based on:
- Emissions reduction progress
- Fossil fuel vs. renewable energy investments
- Legislation passed or repealed
- Global climate commitments (Paris Agreement, Kyoto Protocol, etc.)
- Projected impact on extreme weather events
Scoring Breakdown:
- A = Strong climate action, long-term reduction in risk
- B = Moderate improvements, but limited scope
- C = No major action, neutral impact
- D = Rollbacks that increase long-term climate risk
- F = Aggressive deregulation, severe risk escalation
➡ Visualization Idea:
📊 A report card-style layout with expandable details for each category.
5. Policy vs. Impact Lag Effect
A dedicated explanation section that makes clear:
- Climate policies take years to manifest their full impact
- A rollback under one president might not show full consequences until the next administration
- Conversely, strong climate policies may not show their full benefits until years later
➡ Visualization Idea:
📈 A delayed-impact chart showing how policies affect emissions, global temperatures, and extreme weather trends 10-20 years after implementation.
Final Thoughts: Making the Dashboard Effective
This dashboard should be: ✅ Clear & Interactive – Users can explore policies by administration and region.
✅ Non-Partisan – Focused on policy outcomes, not political alignment.
✅ Data-Driven – Pulling real-time data from NOAA, EPA, and IPCC sources.
✅ Actionable – Showing people how their leaders are shaping climate risks and what they can do to influence policy.
Next Steps
- Start with a prototype layout – I can create a simple mockup to visualize these elements.
- Pull initial data – Let’s start with 3-4 administrations (Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden) and gather policy data & projected climate impacts.
- Refine the scoring system – Do you want a relative ranking (compared to other leaders) or an absolute scale (based on scientific benchmarks)?
Would you like me to mock up a first version of the dashboard layout now, or should we start gathering policy impact data first?
We are Building
Beth, I’d like to see a prototype of the Climate Change Leadership Dashboard. Since this will be featured on our WordPress blog, we need to ensure the tools we use are compatible with that environment, or at least that the output can be easily posted there.
The key is making it visual, interactive, and easy to understand. We should be able to show how each administration’s policies, starting from 1990 as a baseline, have impacted or will impact climate risk—whether that’s through extreme heat days, severe weather events, or other measurable consequences.
Let’s start with a prototype that effectively presents this data. What’s the best way to build and integrate it into the blog?
Beth’s Response (AI)
For a WordPress-compatible Climate Change Leadership Dashboard, we need to ensure the prototype is visual, interactive, and embeddable. Here’s how we can achieve that:
Best Approach for WordPress Integration
Since WordPress supports iframes, JavaScript widgets, and embedded data visualizations, the best methods for this prototype include:
- Interactive Web App (React or JavaScript-based) – Can be embedded using an iframe or a custom WordPress plugin.
- Power BI or Tableau Dashboard – If you want an easy no-code solution, these can be embedded into WordPress.
- Custom HTML/JavaScript Visualization – Using Chart.js, D3.js, or Google Charts to create dynamic, interactive graphs.
Since we’re still in the prototyping phase, I’ll build an interactive web-based prototype using React (which can be embedded in WordPress via an iframe or plugin). This will allow us to scale and refine it later while ensuring we can integrate real-time data updates.
Prototype Features:
- Presidential Climate Policy Timeline
- Interactive timeline showing each administration’s key climate policies.
- Hover to see policy details and projected climate impact.
- Policy Impact Scoreboard
- Each president gets a Climate Impact Score (A to F).
- Scored on emissions reduction, energy investment, and policy effectiveness.
- Extreme Weather Impact Tracker
- Shows additional extreme heat days, wildfires, hurricanes, and floods compared to 1990.
- Visual before-and-after impact simulations.
- Projected Future Climate Impact
- Graph showing how today’s policies will affect climate risk in 2030-2050.
Building the Prototype
I’ll start by creating a React-based interactive dashboard that:
- Uses data from NOAA, EPA, and IPCC.
- Includes charts, timelines, and impact visualizations.
- Is embeddable into WordPress (via iframe or custom block).
Let me build the first version now!
Climate Dashboard
I’ve built the first prototype of the Climate Change Leadership Dashboard using React. This version includes:
✅ Presidential Policy Scorecard – Grading climate policies from Bush to Biden.
✅ Climate Impact Trends Graph – Showing changes in extreme heat days and carbon emissions over time.
✅ Future Projections Button – Simulating climate impact beyond 2024.
This can be embedded into WordPress using an iframe or as a custom plugin. Let me know if you want refinements, additional data, or another layout!
Work in progress Stay tuned
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment