Liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.

A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.

"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."

"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."

The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.

Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.

"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.

Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.

The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:

1. Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
2. JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
3. Mizuho (Japan)
4. Gazprombank (Russia)
5. SMBC Group (Japan)
6. Bank of America (U.S.)
7. Citigroup (U.S.)
8. Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
9. Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
10. RBC (Canada)

While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.

All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.

"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."

The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.

The top 10 LNG investors are:

1. BlackRock
2. Vanguard
3. State Street
4. Fidelity Investments
5. Capital Group
6. GPFG
7. JP Morgan Chase
8. Brookfield Asset Management
9. Blackstone
10. MSBI

Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.

Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.

"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."

To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.

"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."

More than a decade after it sparked massive protests in the state capital, a Wisconsin judge on Monday struck down a controversial law that effectively ended public sector collective bargaining in the state.

In his final judgement, Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost crossed out 85 sections of the 2011 law known as Act 10, which was championed by then-Republican Gov. Scott Walker. Frost's ruling restored the union rights of teachers, sanitation workers, nurses, and other public sector employees.

"After 14 years of battling for our collective bargaining rights, we are thrilled to take this step forward," Rocco DeMark, a building service worker and SEIU Wisconsin worksite leader, said in a statement. "This victory brings us immense joy. Our fight has been long, but we are excited to continue building a Wisconsin where we can all thrive."

"We realize there may still be a fight ahead of us in the courts, but make no mistake, we're ready to keep fighting until we all have a seat at the table again."

Act 10 severely weakened the power of public sector unions in Wisconsin by only permitting them to bargain for wage increases that did not surpass inflation. It also raised what public employees paid for healthcare and retirement, ended the automatic withdrawal of union dues, and required workers to recertify their union votes every year.

The law has had a major impact on the Wisconsin workforce. Between 2000 and 2022, no state saw a steeper decline in its proportion of unionized employees, a drop that the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum partly attributed to Law 10. Unions say that the law has caused a "crisis" for the state's education workforce, as 40% of new teachers leave within six years due to low pay and an unequal wage system. There is also a 32% vacancy rate for state correction officers.

Act 10 had one exception, however: Certain "public safety" employees such as police and firefighters were exempt from the collective bargaining restrictions imposed on "general" employees. It was this division that unions used to challenge the law in November 2023, arguing that it violated the equal protection clause of the Wisconsin Constitution. In July, Frost affirmed that the law was unconstitutional when he struck down an attempt to dismiss the suit. Then, on Monday, he specified exactly which parts of the law would be struck down.

"Judge Frost's ruling is a monumental victory for Wisconsin's working class," Democratic Wisconsin State Assembly Member Darrion Madison toldCourthouse News Service. "All Wisconsinites deserve the opportunity to live in a state that treats all workers with respect and dignity."

The lawsuit was brought by Ben Gruber, Matthew Ziebarth, the Abbotsford Education Association (WEAC/NEA), AFSCME Local 47, AFSCME Local 1215, Beaver Dam Education Association (WEAC/NEA), SEIU Wisconsin, Teaching Assistants Association (TAA/AFT) Local 3220, and Teamsters Local 695.

"Today's decision is personal for me and my coworkers," said Gruber, who serves as president of AFSCME Local 1215. "As a conservation warden, having full collective bargaining rights means we will again have a voice on the job to improve our workplace and make sure that Wisconsin is a safe place for everyone."

The news was also celebrated by state›wide advocacy groups and national leaders.

"We applaud today's ruling as a win for workers' rights and as proof that when we come together to ensure our courts and elected leaders are working on behalf of our rights and freedoms instead of partisan antics, we can accomplish great things," said A Better Wisconsin Together deputy director Mike Browne.

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said: "This decision is a big deal. Act 10 stripped workers of the freedom and power to have a voice on the job to bargain wages, benefits, and working conditions. It's about the dignity of work. And when workers have a voice, they have a vehicle to improve the quality of the services they provide to students, patients, and communities."

"Former Gov. Scott Walker tried to eliminate all of that, and it hurt Wisconsin," she continued. "Now, many years later, the courts have found his actions unconstitutional."

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) wrote on social media, "I voted against Act 10 more than 13 years ago, and am thrilled our public servants are able to once again organize and make their voices heard."

This is not the first time that Act 10 has been challenged in court, but it is the first time since the state's Supreme Court switched from a conservative to a liberal majority in 2023. Since Republican lawmakers have promised to appeal Frost's ruling, the law's ultimate fate could depend on elections in April 2025, which will determine whether the court maintains its liberal majority, according toThe Associated Press.

As they celebrated, the plaintiffs acknowledged the legal fight was not yet over.

"We realize there may still be a fight ahead of us in the courts, but make no mistake, we're ready to keep fighting until we all have a seat at the table again," Gruber said.

WEAC President Peggy Wirtz-Olsen said: "Today's news is a win and, while there will likely be more legal legwork coming, WEAC and our allies will not stop until free, fair, and full collective bargaining rights are restored."

Betsy Ramsdale, a union leader who teaches in the Beaver Dam Unified School District, said that public sector collective bargaining rights ultimately helped the state.

"We're confident that, in the end, the rghts of all Wisconsin public sector employees will be restored," she said. "Educators' working conditions are students' learning conditions, and everyone benefits when we have a say in the workplace."

Since richest-man-alive and X-owner Elon Musk endorsed former Donald Trump for president in July, he has emerged as the No. 1. financial backer of Republican candidate's campaign. But his support hasn't only come in outright donations. His tweets in support of the former president, according to a new analysis ,are worth a total of $24 million.

In a report published Monday, the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) found that Musk's political posts between July 13 and October 25 received over twice as many views as U.S. "political campaigning ads" run on X during that time. If any of those advertisers had wanted to reach the same number of people as Musk, they would have had to pay $24 million.

"X has long dropped its pretense to be anything but a loudspeaker for its owner's opinions, personal vendettas, and conspiracies," CCDH wrote on the platform as it shared the report.

Since he endorsed Trump, Musk made a total of 746 posts that mentioned key terms such as "Donald Trump," "Kamala Harris," "voting," or "ballots." These posts were viewed a total of 17.1 billion times compared with 7.7 billion times for all paid political ads.

What's more, at least 87 of Musk's election-themed posts between January 1 and October 23 contained "false or misleading about the presidential election."

These were seen 2 billion times, and none of them was appended by a "community note," a mechanism by which X users can fact-check or provide context to inaccurate posts.

CCDH pointed to two main genres of misleading tweet shared by Musk: those claiming that the Democratic Party was importing immigrant voters and those claiming that U.S. voting systems are not reliable.

For example, on September 18, Musk wrote: "The Dem administrative state is flying millions of future voters directly into swing states. They are being sent to cities and towns throughout Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Arizona. Given that this is a sure path to permanent one-party rule, it is a very smart strategy."

Musk made more than 66 posts along these lines that were seen nearly 1.3 billion times.

Fact-checkers say these claims are false because it takes years for an immigrant to become a U.S. citizen and to be able to vote, and there would be no guarantee that such a person would vote for the Democrats. Existing laws already penalize noncitizens who vote with either deportation or incarceration.

In an example of the second category of lie, Musk wrote on September 4 that "not requiring ID, combined with mail in voting, makes it completely impossible to prove fraud (obviously)."

Musk has made 19 of these types of posts targeting either mail-in or electronic voting, which were viewed almost 532 million times. However, research has shown that voter fraud related to either mail-in voting or drop boxes is exceedingly rare. A full 36 states mandate that voters show an ID before voting, while 14 others have other ways of confirming identity, such as checking a signature against one on file. In all states, voter fraud is against the law.

"Given the sheer frequency of Elon Musk's posting of disinformation and partisan rhetoric, it is almost inevitable that he will be one of the top spreaders of election-related disinformation in this cycle," CCDH founder Imran Ahmed toldCNN.

"He is using the platform to persuade people that elections are rigged," Ahmed continued, adding "it is such a tragic waste of a phenomenally powerful tool."

As the Midwestern and Eastern U.S. braced for what could be the longest heatwave in decades for some locations, a wildfire near Los Angeles forced more than 1,000 people to evacuate over Father's Day weekend.

The climate crisis caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels is making both heatwaves and wildfires more frequent and extreme, and politicians and environmental advocates pointed out the role that state and national policy can play in fueling extreme weather.

"Each of the last 12 months have been the hottest on record," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on social media on Sunday. "This week, cities across the country will see record-high temperatures. A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to surrender the fight against the devastation of climate change. We cannot let that happen."

"Politicians making bad policy decisions (like killing congestion pricing) is the number one cause of climate change, which makes heatwaves like this one worse."

Former U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly told oil and gas executives this spring that donating $1 billion to his campaign would be a "deal" for them because he would dismantle the Biden administration's climate regulations.

Sanders' remarks came as the National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Prediction Center forecast that "record-breaking heat" would "expand from the Midwest and Great Lakes to the Northeast this week, potentially lingering through early next week."

NWS said the heatwave would be the "first significant" heatwave of the season and could break daily temperature records and some monthly June temperature records for the portion of the country stretching from the Ohio Valley to the Northeast between Monday and next Saturday.

"The longevity of dangerous heat forecasted for some locations has not been experienced in decades," NWS said.

The heat index could come close to 105°F in many places, and nighttime temperatures of around 75°F mean that those without cooling infrastructure will see "little to no relief."

The high temperatures could impact millions of people from Michigan to Maine. As of Saturday, 22.6 million people were under extreme heat warnings, watches, or advisories, according toThe New York Times.

University of California, Los Angeles, climate scientist Daniel Swain told the Times that the heat would "affect a bunch of highly populated areas where there hasn't been quite as many stories about extreme heat recently," adding, "Now, it's New England's turn."

The NWS warned, "With the intense heat and high humidity it is important to take precautions to protect one's health, particularly those without effective cooling and/or adequate hydration."

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul issued a warning on social media on Saturday, pointing out that extreme heat is the leading weather-related cause of death in the U.S.

However, climate advocates criticized Hochul for exacerbating the root cause of more extreme heatwaves with her last-minute cancellation of a New York City congestion pricing plan earlier this month.

"Politicians making bad policy decisions (like killing congestion pricing) is the number one cause of climate change, which makes heatwaves like this one worse," the Sunrise Movement wrote in response to Hochul's post.

Long-time climate advocate and author Bill McKibben said: "This governor just blocked congestion pricing, one of the most important climate policy advances possible. She's redefining trolling."

Climate Central noted that, "while heatwaves are common in summer, this early season excessive, likely record-breaking heat is made as much as two times to five times MORE likely to occur in mid-June due to human-caused climate change (particularly overnight warmth)."

Meanwhile, on the West Coast, the Post Fire ignited at around 1:45 pm on Saturday local time in Los Angeles County, California, about 65 miles from downtown Los Angeles, The Washington Post reported.

As of Sunday afternoon, it had spread 12,265 acres and was 2% contained, according to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). Fire officials said the blaze was fanned by heat, low humidity, and wind and had damaged two structures.

"Currently crews are working to construct perimeter fire lines around the flakes of the fire. Aircraft are working to stop forward progress but have limited visibility," Cal Fire wrote on Sunday, adding that "the fire is pushing up into Hungry Valley Park. California State Park Services have evacuated 1,200 people from Hungry Valley Park. Pyramid Lake is closed because of the threat of the Post Fire."

One of those evacuated was 33-year-old Oscar Flores, who was visiting Hungry Valley Park with his 12-year-old son on Saturday.

"It looked like it was the last day of the world," Flores told the Los Angeles Times. "People were loading quickly and merging out, driving fast. The ranger said you have 10 minutes [to get] whatever you can pack."

Forida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Wednesday signed a bill that erases most references to climate change in state law, deprioritizes it in policy decisions, and eases regulations for natural gas pipelines while banning offshore wind installations in state waters.

DeSantis signed the bill despite the fact that Florida is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to the climate crisis—both from sea-level rise and extreme weather such as heatwaves and hurricanes. Indeed, on the day of the signing, Key West tied for its highest heat index on record at 115°C, heat that was made at least five times more likely because of the burning of fossil fuels.

"This purposeful act of cognitive dissonance is proof that the governor and state Legislature are not acting in the best interests of Floridians, but rather to protect profits for the fossil fuel industry," Yoca Arditi-Rocha, executive director of climate education nonprofit the Cleo Institute, toldThe Associated Press.

The bill's opponents told AP that it exes out nine references to climate currently on the books. It also takes steps to promote fossil gas—which already provides nearly three-quarters of Florida's electricity—and makes it harder to ban gas stoves and other appliances.

Further, AP reported:

The legislation also eliminates requirements that government agencies hold conferences and meetings in hotels certified by the state's environmental agency as "green lodging" and that government agencies make fuel efficiency the top priority in buying new vehicles. It also ends a requirement that Florida state agencies look at a list of "climate-friendly" products before making purchases.

The law, which goes into effect July 1, "is very much out of line with public opinion," Greg Knecht, director of the Nature Conservancy in Florida, toldThe Washington Post. A full 90% of Floridians believe climate change is occurring, 69% of them want the state government to act on it, a Florida Atlantic University survey found.

Florida is already seeing the impacts of the climate crisis from Wednesday's high heat and humidity in the Keys to last year's Hurricane Idalia. Moving forward, Florida was ranked 10th in a list of states or provinces with the most physical infrastructure at risk from climate impacts by 2050.

"This feels like Act 1 of a Greek tragedy," the Environmental Voter Project wrote on social media in response to the signing.

Knecht told the Post that DeSantis and Florida's Republican-controlled Legislature were willing to address the effects of the climate crisis—the governor earmarked more than $28 million to study flooding vulnerability in each county last year—but would not acknowledge the cause of the problem or discuss solutions that involved reducing emissions.

"On one hand, we recognize that we're seeing flooding and we're seeing property damage and we're seeing hurricanes, and we're conveying to the public that we can build our way out of these problems," Knecht said. "And then on the other hand, we're turning around and saying, 'Yeah, but climate change isn't really real, and we don't need to do anything about it.'"

This may partly be because, as green advocates told Post, the climate crisis has become a culture war issue that DeSantis can use to attract media attention and right-wing voters, as he has done with high-profile attacks on abortion rights and LGBTQ+ rights.

Others blamed the influence of the fossil fuel industry.

"Fossil fuel companies don't like competing with clean energy," Democratic Florida Senate candidate Carlos Guillermo Smith wrote on social media. "So they donated to Ron DeSantis who signed a law that bans offshore wind, eliminates energy efficiency grant programs, and deletes any reference to 'climate change' from state statute."

"GOP = Profits over people always," Smith said.

Progress Florida wrote: "While Gov. Ron DeSantis does the dirty work of corporate polluters, Floridians are left to suffer as the state becomes more unaffordable and the natural treasures of the people who have farmed, hunted, and worshipped here for generations are destroyed."

Major cable news networks Fox News Channel, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBCall failed to cover former President Donald Trump's promise to Big Oil executives that he would reverse President Joe Biden's climate regulations if they donated $1 billion to his campaign, according to an analysis published by Media Matters for America late Tuesday.

When the news first broke, Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch wrote, "You won't read a more important story today." Yet, in the four days after the story broke, it only received 48 minutes of cable airtime—all on MSNBC.

"The most under-covered Trump story is his complete selling-out of the American people on issues they care about most," Jesse Lee, a former Biden communications adviser, posted on social media in response to the report. "If gas prices go up soon, these same networks that ignored Trump's $1 billion oil bribe will cover it constantly—and crucify Biden."

"He is basically saying he's going to destroy the planet that our children... are growing up on just if these guys will write him a check."

The story of Trump's quid pro quo offer to fossil fuel executives was first reported by The Washington Post on May 9. It detailed a dinner the former president hosted at Mar-a-Lago in April attended by leaders of oil and gas firms including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum. During the dinner, Trump told the executives that a $1 billion donation would be a "deal" for the industry "because of the taxation and regulation they would avoid thanks to him."

To assess how cable covered—or didn't cover—the story, Media Matters for America looked at the transcripts from May 9 to May 12 for CNN; Fox News Channel; MSNBC; ABC's "Good Morning America," "World News Tonight," and "This Week;" CBS' "Mornings," "Evening News," and "Face the Nation;" and NBC's "Today," "Nightly News," and "Meet the Press." They searched the transcripts for the words "Trump," "former president," or "Mar-a-Lago" close to the words "oil," "donor," "executive," "billion," "industry," "fossil," or "fuel," as well as any version of the words "environment" or "CEO."

Only the MSNBC transcripts turned up any results. These included:

1. Just over 18 minutes—or nearly 40% of the total—on "Velshi" on May 11, featuring interviews with climate activist Bill McKibben, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington president Noah Bookbinder, and The Atlantic's David A. Graham.
2. A discussion on the May 9 edition of "Alex Wagner Tonight" between host Wagner and guests former Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki.
3. An interview on the May 10 edition of "All in With Chris Hayes" withNew York Times climate reporter Lisa Friedman.
4. An exchange on the May 11 edition of "Alex Witt Reports" between host Witt and New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker.
5. An interview on the May 12 edition of "Ayman" with Princeton University sociology professor Kim Lane Scheppele and New York Times columnist and analyst Michelle Goldberg.
6. Mentions on "The ReidOut" and "The Weekend."

Several of the MSNBC interviews did highlight the importance of the story—which has prompted an investigation by a top House Democrat.

McKibben told Ali Velshi that "in a very real sense this is the most important climate election ever."

Others focused on the blatant corruption of the exchange. Graham noted that it was particularly brazen.

"He is making it clear what the quid pro quo is without any kind of pretense. It's just right here, 'You give me money; I'll do what you want me to do,'" Graham told Velshi.

Rhodes called it "basic pay-to-play corruption," adding, "He is basically saying he's going to destroy the planet that our children... are growing up on just if these guys will write him a check."

There were also comments on what the news said about the fossil fuel executives themselves.

"These are the same executives who, in the wake of January 6, said, 'We're not going to support people who undermined our democracy,'" Bookbinder pointed out. "And there they are, these couple of years later, meeting with Donald Trump, courting his support, hearing his offer—his demands—that they give a billion dollars to his campaign."

Baker told Witt: "I think it's going to confirm for a lot of people who are already suspicious of the fossil fuel industry that they have, over the years, bought off Washington writ large. That's been a longtime conviction on the part of people who think that the energy industry has too much power."

"It's going to cause a lot of cynicism, obviously, especially if Donald Trump were to win and then to try to roll back some of these climate initiatives," Baker continued. "People will make the assumption—and it will have some obvious evidence to back it up—that he is doing so in exchange for large contributions from an industry that's affected by it."

They will, that is, if they caught the 48 minutes of reporting the story received.

The fossil fuel and automotive industries knew that their products could destabilize the climate as early as 1954, new research published by DeSmog on Monday reveals.

The Southern California Air Pollution Foundation, whose contributors included major oil and car companies, helped to fund the early climate research of Charles David Keeling, who went on to create the famous Keeling curve tracking the rise in global concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, DeSmog reported. The foundation was also informed of the potential implications of Keeling's research.

"This pushes back the fossil fuel industry's knowledge of the climate crisis a full two decades," Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media posted on social media in response to the news. "Think of the damage and lives that could have been saved if we started researching and moving to clean energy back then."

"These findings are a startling confirmation that Big Oil has had its finger on the pulse of academic climate science for 70 years—for twice my lifetime—and a reminder that it continues to do so to this day."

The revelations were based on documents found in the California Institute of Technology Archives, the U.S. National Archives, the Charles David Keeling papers at the University of California, San Diego, and Los Angeles newspapers, which established that the foundation helped finance Keeling's early measurements of carbon dioxide levels in the U.S. West from 1954-56.

The Southern California Air Pollution Foundation was established in 1953 to help address the problem of smog in Los Angeles. Its members included 18 car companies such as American Motors, Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors. It also received funds from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Western Oil and Gas Association, now the Western States Petroleum Association. What's more, representatives from the Southern California Gas Company, the Southern California Edison Co., Chrysler, General Motors, and Union Oil—now Chevron—sat on its board of trustees, and beginning in 1955, that board was updated on findings by a "technical advisory committee" staffed with one API member and Richfield Oil Corporation—now BP—and Chrysler scientists.

In a November 1954 research proposal from Keeling's research director Samuel Epstein, the foundation was informed of the potential implications of Keeling's measurements of carbon dioxide levels.

"The possible consequences of a changing concentration of the CO2 in the atmosphere with reference to climate, rates of photosynthesis, and rates of equilibration with carbonate of the oceans may ultimately prove of considerable significance to civilization," Epstein wrote.

DeSmog noted that this makes 1954 the earliest known date at which the fossil fuel industry both funded climate research and was informed of the possible consequences of its products. It comes five years before physicist Edward Teller spoke to API about global heating and around 25 years before ExxonMobil's research into climate change in the 1970s and '80s. In total, the foundation funded Keeling's early work for a total of $13,814, which would be around $158,000 today.

In reporting the news, Rebecca John pointed out that many of the same companies and industry associations that funded Keeling's early research would go on to fund a campaign denying climate science 35 years later, among them API, the Automobile Manufacturers Association, Chevron, and BP.

"It's important to know that the oil industry sponsored climate science research in the 1950s because it reveals a picture of a much more nuanced, closely connected world of science and the frontiers of scientific discovery than the oil industry has admitted to," John wrote.

Geoffrey Supran, who studies the history of climate disinformation at the University of Miami, toldThe Guardian that John's revelations "contain smoking gun proof that by at least 1954, the fossil fuel industry was on notice about the potential for its products to disrupt Earth's climate on a scale significant to human civilization."

"These findings are a startling confirmation that Big Oil has had its finger on the pulse of academic climate science for 70 years—for twice my lifetime—and a reminder that it continues to do so to this day. They make a mockery of the oil industry's denial of basic climate science decades later."

The Center for Climate Integrity put it more succinctly on social media.

"They knew. They lied. They need to pay," the group said.

The Guardian has removed Osama bin Laden's "Letter to the American People," which had been on its website for more than 20 years, after it went viral on TikTok and other social media sites.

"This page previously displayed a document containing, in translation, the full text of Osama bin Laden's 'Letter to the American People,' as reported in The Observer on Sunday 24 November 2002," the page previously hosting the letter now reads. "The document, which was published here on the same day, was removed on 15 November 2023."

In the letter, which is still available via web archive, bin Laden outlines his grievances against the United States, including its support for Israel, its placement of military bases in Islamic countries, and its participation in or support of other military actions or economic sanctions against people in the Islamic world. He justifies his attacks on U.S. civilians by arguing that they have the power to vote for governments that support different policies. Bin Laden also makes homophobic and antisemitic remarks, including blaming Jews as a group for the excesses of U.S. capitalism.

"The transcript published on our website 20 years ago has been widely shared on social media without the full context."

The letter saw a surprising resurgence on TikTok over the past two days, as posters documented their responses to reading it for the first time.

"The TikToks are from people of all ages, races, ethnicities, and backgrounds," journalist Yashar Ali wrote on social media. "Many of them say that reading the letter has opened their eyes, and they'll never see geopolitical matters the same way again. Many of them—and I have watched a lot—say it has made them reevaluate their perspective on how what is often labeled as terrorism can be a legitimate form of resistance to a hostile power."

The Wrap sourced the trend to a video posted by Lynnette Adkins that TikTok says is currently unavailable.

"I need everyone to stop doing what they're doing right now and go read 'Letter to America,' I feel like I'm going through an existential crisis right now," Adkins reportedly said.

Ali said he saw thousands of similar videos on TikTok and more on other social media platforms. 404 Mediareported Wednesday that searching for "Letter to America" on TikTok brought up a few dozen results, some with as many as hundreds of thousands of views. Videos using the hashtag #LettertoAmerica have together generated 1.3 million views. However, the outlet noted that some of the videos were "not particularly viral by TikTok standards." The top-liked video had 75,000 likes, but true TikTok phenomenons can bee seen hundreds of millions of times. It also noted that not all of the videos expressed support for bin Laden's views: Some simply explained the letter, the trend, or the 9/11 attacks.

The Guardian confirmed to both The Wrap and 404 Media that it had removed the letter because of its surge in online popularity.

"The transcript published on our website 20 years ago has been widely shared on social media without the full context," the paper said in the statement. "Therefore we have decided to take it down and direct readers to the news article that originally contextualized it instead."

404 Media noted that removing the letter absent major factual errors or danger to life was a "highly unusual move," one that has only prompted more commentary on TikTok and other social media platforms.