CNN’s recent photo essay, “Striking images showing environmental destruction aim to ‘inspire action,’” claims that photographs of trash heaps, collapsing homes, and dust storms “show the devastating effects of climate change.” This is false. The images have nothing to do with climate change at all. They depict human-induced environmental degradation, poor land-use decisions, and poverty-related infrastructure collapse—none of which are climate-driven phenomena. Evidence suggests CNN is once again substituting emotive imagery for science in furtherance of the narrative that climate change causes everything bad.

CNN’s short report discusses a pictorial presentation given at the Global Climate Alliance’s (GCA) Right Here, Right Now Summit, hosted to coincide with the UN World Environment Day conference June 4^th through 7^th. Aside from images that have nothing to do with climate change, other pictures describe the aftermath of extreme weather events, the types of which have been common throughout history. Data show such weather patterns have not become more common or severe. In short, the series of pictures show human tragedy, not the impact of supposedly dangerous anthropogenic climate change.

Let’s start with the obvious: a photo of children collecting garbage from Myanmar’s Inle Lake is not a climate change story—it’s a waste management story. Piles of plastic floating in a lake indicate societal neglect, not a change in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. CNN attempts to pass this off as evidence of “climate injustice,” when in reality, it is the result of poor sanitation policy and insufficient waste infrastructure. No peer-reviewed science attributes plastic accumulation in lakes to anthropogenic climate change.

The second image CNN chose to highlight from the Right Here, Right Now exhibit shows a house toppling into the River Ganges in West Bengal, India, attributed to erosion. Erosion is a well-understood hydrological process that has been reshaping riverbanks for millennia. It is worsened by deforestation and unregulated building near dynamic river systems—not global temperature anomalies. The real issue here is irresponsible construction in flood-prone areas. Building on the banks of one of the world’s most active sediment transport systems is a risk entirely independent of “carbon pollution.”

Other pictures depict the shrinking Aral Sea, a decline caused by Soviet era policies that diverted water flowing into the sea for irrigation, and garbage heaps in Myanmar, for example, are, once again, problems created by public policies and human actions, but that do not represent impacts of climate change.

The CNN article, in typical fashion, makes sweeping claims without providing empirical backing. We’re told the images reflect the “slow violence” of climate change—a phrase that’s emotionally powerful, but scientifically hollow. Slow environmental degradation certainly exists, but conflating it with climate change is dishonest. CNN wants readers to feel something rather than think critically. This is emotional manipulation.

CNN also attempts to legitimize this narrative by invoking the support of the United Nations Human Rights Office (OHCHR), which calls climate change a “human rights crisis”. This kind of rhetorical overreach dilutes the credibility of both institutions. While climate has always had human consequences, turning it into a platform for political advocacy through photography and activism masquerading as journalism distorts public understanding. It frames all environmental problems, regardless of origin, as symptoms of global warming. It is both scientifically inaccurate and lazy.

Let’s return to facts. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), Chapter 12, while some regions are projected to experience more intense precipitation or drought, the report makes clear that attribution of individual events or regional environmental stressors to climate change remains deeply uncertain. The IPCC explicitly warns against oversimplified narratives that turn every weather or environmental anomaly into a climate crisis. CNN, however, ignores this caution entirely.

Unfortunately, for an organization that claims to be a “news” agency, CNN has long record of using images as argument. Whether it’s polar bears on floating ice or orange-tinted skies from wildfires, CNN has a habit of presenting visual anecdotes in place of analytical context. As pointed out by Climate Realism, wildfires, droughts, and floods have always occurred. When an outlet cherry-picks photos of destruction without providing evidence of some cause-and-effect supported by data, they are engaging in narrative-building—not science communication.

Also, CNN never discusses adaptation or resilience in its story. If the problem truly were climate change, wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on solutions like infrastructure investment, urban planning, and better resource management? Instead, they emphasize feelings of doom and helplessness. Emotional pressure, not informed consent, is their goal.

Contrast this with data-driven resources like Climate at a Glance, which document actual trends in extreme weather and climate metrics. For example, contrary to what CNN might imply through imagery, the frequency of U.S. droughts has not been increasing long-term. In fact, the 20th century saw some of the worst droughts on record, including the Dust Bowl—decades before modern CO₂ levels became significant.

Similarly, floods and sea level rise are routinely exaggerated in photo-driven stories. Sea levels have been rising at a rate of about 3 mm per year, as they have for over a century. That’s one foot per century—not exactly a Hollywood-style disaster. Human choices—like building on eroding coasts or floodplains—account for most of the visible damage.

In short, CNN’s article and the exhibit it promotes are nothing more than an elaborate photo-op dressed up as climate advocacy. The images shown may evoke sympathy, but they do not represent scientific causality. Plastic pollution, riverbank erosion, and urban poverty are real problems—but they’re not caused by climate change. Equating every instance of environmental stress with global warming does a disservice to genuine science, distracts from local accountability, and turns a complex issue into a clickbait spectacle.

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.

Originally posted at ClimateREALISM

By Diana Furchtgott-Roth

June 12, 2025

Yesterday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the proposed repeal of the Biden-era’s Clean Power Plan 2.0, which ruled that coal-fired and many new natural gas power plants must capture and store over 90% of their carbon emissions by the 2030s—or shut down by 2040. It’s a costly mandate, resting on shaky legal and technical foundations. Americans would be fortunate to have it repealed.

President Biden issued his Clean Power Plan 2.0 after the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency that President Obama’s Clean Power Plan 1.0 exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) statutory authority. The Court’s 2022 decision concluded that the EPA had overstepped by attempting to reshape the nation’s energy grid without clear congressional approval.

In a world where energy security and affordability are paramount, one might assume that when the Supreme Court strikes down a sweeping environmental regulation, the EPA would reconsider its approach. But in Washington, ideology often trumps reason, and undeterred, the Biden administration returned in 2024 with a sequel that EPA now proposes to end.

The Clean Power Plan 1.0 attempted to force states to overhaul their energy systems entirely, compelling them to adopt renewable energy and shutter fossil fuel plants, regardless of local needs or economic consequences.

Its successor, the Clean Power Plan 2.0, imposed an estimated $15 billion in regulatory costs over 20 years, and greater costs through increases in prices of electricity and slower economic growth. EPA argues “that GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution.”

Just as Chief Justice John Roberts warned in 2022 that the EPA had claimed “an unheralded power representing a transformative expansion of its regulatory authority,” the EPA was trying to do through regulation with the Clean Power Plan 2.0 what Congress had repeatedly declined to do through legislation.

Fifteen years ago similar legislative proposals—the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Lieberman bills—failed in the U.S. Congress even when Democrats held strong majorities. That should have signaled to regulators that such sweeping changes lacked democratic legitimacy.

Yet ideology brooks no dissent, and the Biden administration’s Clean Power Plan 2.0 pressed ahead, relying on technologies that are neither commercially viable nor widely demonstrated. Carbon capture and storage, the linchpin of the Biden plan, remains prohibitively expensive and technically uncertain. Hydrogen, another favored solution, is not cost-effective. The EPA’s cost-benefit analysis glossed over these realities, assuming generous tax subsidies and benefits from reduced CO2 emissions would bridge the gap.

The consequences of this regulatory ambition are stark. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation warned in 2024 that the Biden plan’s disincentives for baseload power would destabilize the electricity grid, increasing the risk of blackouts. Spain’s recent 12-hour blackout offers a cautionary tale: rapid transitions to solar without reliable baseload power can lead to lack of backup power, causing the grid to crash.

Moreover, the Biden plan was regressive. It would raise electricity prices, disproportionately affecting low-income households, farmers, and small businesses. It would also undermine a reliable electricity grid and economic growth. By constraining energy supply and inflating costs, it would drive economic activity and jobs offshore, where goods would be manufactured with coal-fired energy in China.

The dirty secret, which Mr. Zeldin forced into the open, is that the Biden plan would not have helped the climate. The greenhouse gases emitted by the power sector do not significantly affect human health, and moving energy intensive manufacturing overseas where it is made with coal-fired power using older technology would have raised emissions, not lowered them.

There is also a deeper constitutional issue at play. The EPA is misusing its authority under the Clean Air Act to pressure states into adopting policies that lie outside its jurisdiction. The plan’s emissions targets are so stringent that no state has voted them into law.

The Clean Power Plan 2.0 amounts to a form of federal commandeering. States are faced with a loss of a significant portion of their electricity generation capacity, and their manufacturing base, by restructuring their energy systems to align with the EPA’s vision. This is not cooperative federalism; it is coercion.

And it is unnecessary. America’s carbon emissions have declined by about a billion metric tons over the past 15 years without such mandates. This progress has been driven by technological innovation, not federal diktats. Cleaner air and efficient power generation are worthy goals, but they must be pursued within the bounds of the law and with respect for democratic processes.

The lesson from West Virginia v. EPA is clear: transformative policy changes require legislative backing. Agencies cannot conjure sweeping powers from ambiguous statutes. The rule of law demands clarity, accountability, and restraint.

As America grapples to ensure grid reliability, there is a cautionary tale here. The path to a reliable energy future lies not in top-down mandates, but in innovation, cooperation, and respect for the institutions that safeguard our freedoms. Administrator Zeldin should be congratulated.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth is director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.