Trouble in Doomsday?

I am not sure how many of you know about the Arctic Doomsday Vault but to briefly summarize it for you: The Arctic Doomsday Vault is a gigantic bunker sitting deep inside a mountain surrounded by snowy wastelands.



The facility stores close to 900,000 seed samples from around the world and acts as a sort of backup plan for agriculture should disaster render parts of the planet unlivable, or the world suffer a catastrophe such as extreme climate change. 

In Svalbard where the vault is located global warming has become a major problem. Between 2071 and 2100 it is estimated the average temperatures throughout the archipelago will increase by between 7-10 C. It is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. 

Svalbard Doomsday Vault exists to protect the world's most valuable natural resources from catastrophe. If we want to avoid making multiple withdraws for example of seeds of plants that can grow under hotter conditions that could help us tackle climate change. The Vault is a priority. 

Moreover, I don’t like the idea of this vault being mankind's "hope." A lot of articles are describing it as "hope." Articles such as Inside the Doomsday Vault looks to the vault as a possible solution to the problem of climate change, however I hate this idea. 

If climate change stays on the course the earth will not be able to support agriculture and life on the surface. Building this vault with the idea that the worst will come to pass and then, somehow, we'll be saved by these seeds is concerning.  Calling this vault a "hope" or a "solution to climate change" is false. What if the day we actually open this vault and need to use it, hope dies because it's too late. The damage to the land is done and irreversible. The earth will then never be the same again.

 

The Palisades Nuclear Plant

 In last week’s discussions, we delved into the different kinds of sustainable energy sources available and their limitations. We discussed the world of solar, wind, adn hydroelectric solutions, as well as nuclear. In talking about nuclear, it feels especially pertinent to dive into the major and historic nuclear events happening just an hour away with the Palisades Nuclear Plant. 

The Palisades plant, located in Covert, MI, just under 40 miles away from Kalamazoo, began operation on March 24th, 1971. Except for scheduled maintenance outages, the plant remained in service for more than 50 years. Palisades operated up until 2022 when its owners, Holtec International, decommissioned it. Holtec had purchased Palisades from its previous owner Entergy to decommission it, as the plant struggled to compete with natural gas and renewable energy. The push to recommission Palisades came from Michigan legislators, including Kalamazoo’s own State senator, Sean McCann. McCann and various other Michigan legislators sent letters of support to Governor Whitmer, to persuade her to endorse and help finance the reopening of Palisades. Governor Whitmer worked with the U.S. Department of Energy in September of 2024 to negotiate a $1.52 billion loan guarantee to Holtec Palisades in order to secure private investment. The initial ascertainment of this loan was seen as a great success, however, the plant is still not online. While nuclear engineers are hard at work to get the plant online, this project is not all sunshine and roses. 

Despite how starry this recommissioning may seem, there are several major drawbacks looming over any potential success. For one, nuclear energy has its own environmental implications, it is not a perfectly clean energy source. Operating a nuclear plant requires lots of natural resources, high carbon costs to start, and generates nuclear waste. A second major drawback is that recommissioning a nuclear plant in such a manner has never been achieved. It is unclear how successful this project may even ultimately be. Finally, not only is the process itself uncemented, but the funding itself if insecure. With Trump’s barrage of executive orders, it is unclear if the federal funding for Palisades will remain intact. Even if the federal funds themselves remain, the uncertainty alone is enough to dissuade foreign investors and make other entrepreneurs think twice. If anything it is most likely that in the wake of this new administration the Palisades project, despite any potential environmental benefits or detriments it may house, will come to a screeching halt. 

Photo Credit:

Palisades Nuclear Plant

Governor Whitmer

The Green Bank, Under Fire

 Remember that Inflation Reduction Act?

In 2022, a democratic-led effort in Congress managed to pass what could be argued to be their crown climate achievement: The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, included as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. The bill was put forth as a means to begin to meaningfully act upon the impending climate crisis, incentivizing green energy sources and climate-resistant infrastructure investments.

An important component of the Greenhouse Reduction Act was the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, dubbed the 'Green Bank'. It's a multibillion-dollar fund for initiatives meant to aid developers, nonprofits, and aid groups with their respective missions.

Oftentimes, these organizations used the money to fund projects meant to make communities more resilient to the effects of climate change and put forth climate justice for the disadvantaged. Where conventional banks and investors will overlook these underprivileged communities, the Green Bank would offer grants to them to cover the costs of adaptation.

It had handed out $20 billion in grants in the years prior to Trump's takeover, primarily to banks and coalitions who have a mission of providing aid, in the form of money and lending, to local and state initiatives for implementing green energy and climate resilience solutions. Such coalitions are important, since green initiatives might not otherwise have the funding to get off the ground.

Now, remember that Lee Zeldin guy, head of the EPA?

Yeah, the guy who didn't think that government money should be used for climate change initiatives? He intends to uphold his beliefs. He has recently declared that the EPA will attempt to retrieve the congressionally-allocated funding from the eight grant recipients. He claimed the nonprofits were "far-left activist groups" and that he considered the allocated funds to be wasteful. This comes amidst a federal obsession with 'efficiency' and cutting what they view to be 'wasteful' spending, which has already targeted many helpful, life-saving programs and administrations. 

It also comes at a time of unprecedented weather extremes, spurred by a worsening climate.

Kentucky, Missouri, Idaho, and a number of other states are all suffering under the flooding and snow brought about by a recent stream of winter storms- the sixth within two months according to the Weather Channel. The Los Angeles wildfires are still fresh in victim's minds.

Cutting costs in the present means they will skyrocket in the future

If the EPA were to retract the allocated grants, it could pull the rug out from under efforts to make communities more resistant to weather extremes that are only becoming more prevalent. Without such resistance, damage done by severe weather events is almost certain to be much worse, when it otherwise may have been preventable, or at least able to be mitigated. 

Zeldin and the larger Trump administration may be trying to be stingy about their government spending habits, but it's almost guaranteed that the cost of becoming climate-resilient and moving to renewables will be dwarfed by the costs of rebuilding and migrating in the face of unfettered climate change.

Luckily, Zeldin's vow to revoke the Green Bank grants is yet to happen. He will try to direct the coalitions to return the money, but it is yet to be seen if he has the authority to do so. The Green Bank funding is congressionally allocated, and with Congress' power of the purse protected under the constitution itself, Zeldin will face significant legal challenges the whole way down. After all, a single man in a position of federal authority is not meant to be able to withhold or change aspects of a Congressionally-authorized budget. Let's hope that holds true.

Indonesia Considers Exiting the Paris Agreement: What’s at Stake?

    Indonesia is now questioning its commitment to the Paris Agreement, following in the footsteps of the United States, which recently withdrew. This move has sparked intense debate about Indonesia’s role in global climate action and the potential consequences of stepping away from the landmark agreement (Financial Times).

Background: What is the Paris Agreement?

    Adopted in 2015, the Paris Agreement is a global effort to limit temperature rise to below 2°C, ideally to 1.5°C, above pre-industrial levels. Under this agreement, Indonesia pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 31.89% through domestic efforts and up to 43.2% with international support by 2030 (Antara News).

 However, meeting these targets requires significant investment in renewable energy and phasing out coal, which currently powers 66% of Indonesia’s electricity. Despite this, the country is still building new coal plants, making its climate goals more challenging (Financial Times).

The U.S. Withdrawal and Its Impact on Indonesia

    In January 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the second withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement—a decision that sent shockwaves through the global climate community (Financial Times).

    For Indonesia, this raises a serious dilemma. The country relies on international financial aid to transition to clean energy. Without U.S. participation, there are fears that funding for green projects may dry up, making it harder for Indonesia to meet its climate commitments.

    Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Bahlil Lahadalia has expressed concerns about whether Indonesia should remain in the agreement if a major polluter like the U.S. chooses to opt out (Antara News).

Reactions and Possible Consequences

    Many environmental groups have condemned Indonesia’s reconsideration of its climate commitments. Organizations like Trend Asia warn that weakening climate policies could leave Indonesia more vulnerable to environmental disasters such as floods, wildfires, and rising sea levels (AP News).

    Additionally, pulling out of the agreement could cut off Indonesia’s access to climate financing. For example, the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP)—a $20 billion initiative led by the U.S. and other wealthy nations—was set to support Indonesia’s transition away from coal. If Indonesia withdraws, it may lose crucial funds for sustainable energy projects (Financial Times).

Why Staying in the Agreement Matters

    Despite the challenges, many experts stress that Indonesia should remain committed to the Paris Agreement. As an archipelagic nation highly vulnerable to climate change, Indonesia has a lot to lose if global warming accelerates (Antara News). 

Photo Credit: Earth.org, Extreme Temperatures in Indonesia

    Remaining in the agreement would also help Indonesia maintain its international reputation and ensure continued investment in green energy. Moreover, experts argue that moving toward renewables is not just about climate—it’s also about securing long-term energy independence and economic stability (AP News).

Conclusion: What’s Next for Indonesia?

    The decision to stay or leave the Paris Agreement will have long-term consequences for Indonesia’s environment, economy, and global standing. In a time of increasing climate risks, experts urge Indonesia to strengthen its climate policies rather than weaken them.

    While the U.S. withdrawal creates uncertainty, this should not be a reason for Indonesia to abandon its responsibilities. Instead, it’s an opportunity for Indonesia to take climate leadership, push for fairer international funding, and secure a more sustainable future(AP News).

Philippines Storm Surviviors Protest outside Shell HQ in London

     On February 12th, 2025, there was a protest outside of Shell's HQ in the Philippines, where the Greenpeace activists want accountability from major polluters and justice for all the loss and damage that the oil companies had caused. Greenpeace is a global nonprofit organization that uses nonviolent protests and research to address environmental issues. Their goal is to protect the Earth's ability to support life.It was a record breaking typhoon seasons, where six storms battered the country for a month and drove more than 650,000 people from their homes, according to the experts. They said these storms were "supercharged" by climate change, effected 13 million people, changed lives and cost an estimated $500m. 

    During the protest, the protestors played sounds of children laughing, and people cooking or watching TV, which had been recorded in the Philippines. Then quickly those noises were replaced with sirens used to warn people of floods. Afterwords, they smashed the glass cases, allowing the "flood" waters to spill out in front of the building. During the protest they are blaming the oil and gas giants like Shell, who pocket tens of billions every year from burning fossil fuels which drive climate chaos. Those gas giants are the ones to blames and pay their climate debts. Many youth leaders had come to the protest and are tired of their weather climate impact after climate impact, while the big industries are profiting from fueling the climate crisis. The young people continue to demand accountability from the major polluters and justice.

    Now people living in the Philippines, are waiting for the next storm season to come in a few months. They are hoping that the world will take notice and the big oil companies take responsibility for what they are doing. Overall, it leaves the whole country confused about how they can get the oil companies to make amends. Since they are in the government, and are too powerful and rich, they hope the next typhoon will miss.

Overall Changes Of The Philippines Caused By Climate Change

    The Philippines has changed a lot due to Climate Change, and now the people of the Philippines will now have to suffer. Some of those affects are losses in GDP, changes in rainfall patterns, and distribution, droughts, threats to biodiversity and food security, sea level rise, public health risks, and endangerment of vulnerables groups such as women and indigenous people.

Climate Change and Soil Microbiomes - A Growing Field of Research

             Our understanding of climate change and the effects that it will have on our world is expansive. There has been considerable progress made in this field since it’s birth back in 1896 when Arrhenius first discovered what was to be known as the greenhouse effect. Since then, strides have been made exploring countless other facets of this phenomenon, as well as its negative effects. As broad as the scientific standing of this field is, there is still so much more work that needs to be done to fully understand the depth of the problem we’re dealing with. An example of the cutting edge of science is the potential effect that climate change may have on soil microbiomes.

               Everywhere on earth our soil is packed full of communities of microorganisms including bacteria, protozoa, fungi, and microscopic animals. These tiny microbes serve essential functions in every ecosystem including facilitating nutrient cycling, storing the carbon from organic matter, breaking down pollutants, as well as protecting soil stability and preventing erosion. Humans have relied on these services since the dawn of our species. An easy example of this usage is the practice of rotating crops in agriculture. Legumes such as peas, beans, and soybeans are planted periodically in fields due to their symbiotic relationship they have with soil bacteria called rhizobia. These rhizobia live at the roots of legumes and can actually pull nitrogen gas from the air and turn it back into usable ammonia compounds. These bacteria are only one of a few types that can actually carry out this process. Because of the essential services these organisms provide, it’s essential that they are accounted for in any sort of climate prediction model as well as any future rehabilitation or mitigation efforts that are to be carried out.

               At this point, the effects of climate change on microbiomes and soil quality aren’t fully understood yet. These tiny ecosystems are highly dynamic, and feature many moving parts that aren’t fully understood on their own, never mind how they’ll react to a changing climate. A recent study shows that soil microbiomes show consistent and predictable responses to extreme climactic events such as heat, freezing, drought, and flood. This exposure to extreme events impacted almost every natural process the microbiome carries out including the sequestering of carbon as well as nutrient availability in the soil weeks after the events occurred. In spite of these findings, it’s important to keep in mind that the negative impacts varied based on the event as well as the native conditions of the soil, so more investigation is still necessary to further our understanding.

               A different study also explores warming and it’s impact on soil microbiota, but in a different way. The effect that a warming temperature has on soil heterotrophic respiration, the breaking down organic matter and releasing carbon into the atmosphere, isn’t fully understood yet. Up to this point, climate models have assumed that this rate of carbon release was constant, but that may not be the case as the wildly varying soil conditions all over the world may respond differently to changing climates. It’s essential for future climate models to attempt to take these effects into account to provide more accurate predictions.

San Fransisco State University - The First University to Require a Climate Justice Course for All Students

 In an innovative and successful educational move, San Francisco State University (SFSU) has announced it will become the first major public university in America to require all undergraduate students to complete a climate justice course before graduating. The requirement will take effect in the fall of 2026.

This decision marks a significant step in combining environmental awareness into a higher education curriculum.  

Unlike traditional climate change courses offered within universities, which primarily focus on scientific and environmental aspects, climate justice courses will emphasize the social and economic disparities intensified by climate change. SFSU states climate justice courses will address “the unequal impacts of climate change on marginalized and underserved populations and how frontline communities are often leaders in developing climate solutions.” 

SFSU prepares for these courses to include climate justice from multiple disciplines, including STEM, Social Sciences, English, and Humanities. According to Autumn Thoyre, SFSU’s co-director of climate HQ, these initiatives acknowledge that climate justice is an interdisciplinary issue requiring a broad and varied approach.

Why is Climate Justice Important?

Climate change does not affect all populations equally. Historically, marginalized communities have felt the brute force of environmental diseases, economic instability, and health risks associated with climate change. Understanding its disproportionate effects on different demographics is crucial as climate change worsens in the upcoming years. 

SFSU’s initiative seeks to give students a deeper understanding of these issues and empower them to engage scientifically and socially equitably. By learning about systems of oppression and privilege that influence climate change policies and outcomes, students will be better educated to advocate and implement justice-orientated solutions in their future careers.

Change Amid National Climate Policy Challenges

The decision from SFSU could not come at a better time in a pivotal moment in American history. Among the shifting federal climate policies, including Trump’s administration's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement for the second time, SFSU’s move represents a localized effort to counter climate change inaction from federal levels.

Autumn Thoyre believes real change begins locally, where grassroots activism and education lay the foundation for more substantial policy changes. She says, “Local-scale change is a first step towards something bigger.” The university hopes to inspire the young adult generation to become the new activists, policymakers, and professionals who will tackle climate challenges head-on.

Student Reactions

Not surprisingly, students were enthusiastic about the new changes and appreciated the value of being educated about climate justice. A junior at SFSU studying industrial design expressed his support by saying, “This climate justice requirement will allow more students to be socially aware and more informed because there’s a lot of misinformation out there.”

Many students who are personally affected by climate change's impacts also see this course as a necessary requirement to prepare them for the environmental challenges ahead, which could lead to increased activism on campus and beyond graduation.

Model for Other Universities

SFSU’s initiative can be a model for other universities looking to integrate climate education into their curriculum. As the realities of climate change become more pressing, universities across America should follow SFSU’s lead. Climate literacy is no longer an option but a necessity for future generations.

With this bold move, SFSU is taking a stand in times of uncertain government action, ensuring that climate justice will become an essential part of the academic journey and equipping students with the education and tools to make a meaningful impact in our society's fight against climate change.

Increasing Sky Rivers

So far this year, several southern states that typically have mild winters in the U.S. have experienced rare snowstorms due to the unusual influence of the polar vortex in the region. This phenomenon led to record-breaking snow accumulation in Alabama, Louisiana and the Florida Panhandle. The warm, moist air from the Gulf coast combined with the polar vortex created a deadly situation for people living in an area that rarely expects a snowstorm. Because of the heavy snowfall and extremely cold temperatures from this storm, 11 people died. Arctic blasts are becoming more expected in the U.S. if the polar vortex is weakened like it is now.
More recently, another rare snow event occurred in San Francisco on February 12, 2025, when an atmospheric river approached the continent. The accumulation of snow is rarer to see in San Francisco than in New Orleans or the Florida Panhandle. The reason this event was so rare is because this region is influenced by the California current which creates one of the most stable climates in the world where temperature inversions are highly common, and air pollution becomes trapped almost constantly. This is important to note because in the middle of February, just two days ago, even the world’s most stable climate showed vulnerability to modern climate change.

Atmospheric rivers are a natural phenomenon that existed in the atmosphere before anthropogenic climate change became a real problem, but we can expect AR events to be more common and extreme as the global temperature continues to rise. Satellites operated by NOAA track the movement of water vapor in the AR’s and results show that 30 – 50% of annual rainfall for west coast states comes from AR precipitation. Presently there are 4-5 atmospheric rivers on Earth. According to NOAA, a category 5 AR is estimated to contain 7-15 times the amount of water that flows from the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico in one day.

The atmospheric river that hit San Francisco this month was a level 3 AR event with no fatalities reported. A lead author scientist from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duane Waliser has projected that by the end of the 21st century, there will be 10% less global AR event but are also projected to become 25% wider and longer on average with global AR conditions also increasing by about 50%. It is helpful that AR events occur for recharging aquifers and river systems, but it is the unpredictability and dangerous amount of water that also occurs with this growing phenomenon that could lead to deadly floods and ruin crop yields. 

In an aerial view, floodwaters surround homes and farms on November 20, 2021 in Abbotsford, British Columbia.

 

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images