Connect with us

Finance

How to think about earnings estimates during volatile times

Published

on

How to think about earnings estimates during volatile times

A version of this post first appeared on TKer.co

Earnings estimates for the next 12 months are rising.

And earnings estimates for 2025 and 2026 have been coming down.

The above statements sound like they’re in conflict. But they are actually two ways of communicating the same information. The differentiating factor: The passage of time.

We often hear analysts talk about earnings estimates based on calendar years. For example, coming into this year Wall Street strategists presented their estimates for 2025 earnings.

Advertisement

As time passes and information emerges, analysts will adjust those estimates. Historically, analysts tend to gradually revise down these calendar year estimates. And so far, this has been the case in 2025.

However, time can pass quickly. And with calendar year estimates, what was once a discussion about future earnings can quickly become a discussion about past earnings.

For example, at the beginning of the year, 2025 earnings represented the next-12 months’ (NTM) earnings. But it’s April now, which means any discussion of 2025 earnings involves an old quarter, and any discussion of NTM earnings involves a quarter in 2026.

Morgan Stanley’s Michael Wilson shared a nice side-by-side visualization of this somewhat confusing dynamic. The chart on the left shows the S&P 500’s NTM earnings per share (EPS). As time passes, you can see NTM EPS move up as it continuously incorporates the higher earnings expected in future periods.

The chart on the right shows EPS estimates for 2025 and 2026 — static periods in time. As time passes, you can see how analysts’ estimates have moved lower in recent months.

Advertisement

NTM earnings estimates look good despite calendar year estimates coming down. (Source: Morgan Stanley)

“NTM EPS estimates continue to advance on the back of stronger 2026 EPS growth,” Wilson observed. “However, NTM EPS may show signs of flattening in recent weeks as 2025/2026 estimates revise slightly lower (-1%).”

To be clear, both charts employ the same analysts’ estimates for earnings. They just differ in the way they reflect the effect of the passage of time.

And the two charts are currently telling us that the promise of earnings growth on a rolling future basis is more than offsetting deteriorating expectations for static periods.

This is important in the context of valuation metrics like the forward price-earnings (P/E) ratio. If earnings are expected to grow, then forward earnings (E) will rise as time passes. This leads to downward pressure on P/E ratios.

Advertisement

As we discussed last week, there are currently a lot of issues with analysts’ earnings estimates. Uncertainty is very high, and there’s evidence that the earnings estimates out there right now are stale.

But again, both visualizations are working off the same estimates. So if we believe the estimates for E is off, discussions about both NTM and calendar year estimates will similarly be off.

The bottom line: Be mindful about what you read and hear about earnings estimates. While it can be helpful to know what’s going on with revisions in certain calendar years, the information for a particular year will become less relevant as time passes. This is why it’s arguably more useful to look to NTM earnings because stock prices are heavily determined by expectations for the future.

There were several notable data points and macroeconomic developments since our last review:

Advertisement

🛍️ Shopping ticks higher. Retail sales increased 1.4% in March to a record $734.9 billion.

(Source: Census via FRED)

Unfortunately, there’s evidence that recent spending has been boosted by consumers front-running tariffs. The 5.3% jump in car and car parts sales is in line with this trend. From Renaissance Macro’s Neil Dutta: “It’s challenging to get a proper signal from retail sales data at the moment. Households are taking tariffs seriously and we have seen a front running of activity, particularly in consumer durables. Ultimately, follow underlying growth. It’s been softening.”

For more on consumer spending, read: We’re gonna get ambiguous signals in the economic data 😵‍💫 and Americans have money, and they’re spending it 🛍️

💳 Card spending data is holding up. From JPMorgan: “As of 10 Apr 2025, our Chase Consumer Card spending data (unadjusted) was 3.0% above the same day last year. Based on the Chase Consumer Card data through 10 Apr 2025, our estimate of the US Census April control measure of retail sales m/m is 0.50%.”

(Source: JPMorgan)

From BofA: “Total card spending per HH was up 2.3% y/y in the week ending Apr 12, according to BAC aggregated credit & debit card data. Among the categories we show, the biggest gains relative to last week were in entertainment, online electronics & grocery. The increase could be due to a dual boost from upcoming Easter and front-loading due to tariff uncertainty.”

Advertisement

(Source: BofA)

Similar to March retail sales, April spending is likely being boosted by consumers pulling forward purchases in an attempt to front-run tariffs.

For more on consumer spending, read: We’re gonna get ambiguous signals in the economic data 😵‍💫 and Americans have money, and they’re spending it 🛍️

💼 Unemployment claims tick lower. Initial claims for unemployment benefits declined to 215,000 during the week ending April 12, down from 224,000 the week prior. This metric continues to be at levels historically associated with economic growth.

(Source: DoL via FRED)

For more context, read: A note about federal layoffs 🏛️ and The labor market is cooling 💼

⛽️ Gas prices tick lower. From AAA: “As spring break travel winds down, gas prices are following suit, down five cents since last week. Softer demand is fueling this downward trend, and with crude as low as it’s been in a few years, drivers may continue to see lower pump prices as summer approaches.”

Advertisement

(Source: AAA)

For more on energy prices, read: Higher oil prices meant something different in the past 🛢️

👎 Inflation expectations heat up. From the New York Fed’s March Survey of Consumer Expectations: “Median inflation expectations increased by 0.5 percentage point to 3.6% at the one-year-ahead horizon, were unchanged at 3.0% at the three-year-ahead horizon, and decreased by 0.1 percentage point to 2.9% at the five-year-ahead horizon.”

(Source: NY Fed)

The introduction of tariffs as proposed by president-elect Donald Trump would be inflationary. For more, read: 5 outstanding issues as President Trump threatens the world with tariffs 😬

👎 New York area managers are worried about the future. From the NY Fed’s Empire State Manufacturing Survey: “Firms expect conditions to worsen in the months ahead, a level of pessimism that has only occurred a handful of times in the history of the survey. The index for future general business conditions fell twenty points to -7.4; the index has fallen a cumulative forty-four points over the past three months. New orders and shipments are expected to fall slightly in the months ahead. Capital spending plans were flat. Input and selling price increases are expected to pick up, and supply availability is expected to worsen over the next six months.”

(Source: NY Fed)

From the NY Fed’s Business Leaders Survey: “After plunging twenty-five points last month, the index for future business activity sank another twenty-three points to -26.6, its lowest reading since April 2020, indicating that firms expect a significant decline in activity in the months ahead. The index for the future business climate also fell twenty-three points, to -50.0, marking its lowest level since 2009 and suggesting the business climate is expected to remain considerably worse than normal. The future employment index turned negative. The future supply availability index dropped to -36.1, with 44 percent of firms expecting supply availability to be worse in six months. Capital spending plans turned sharply negative.”

Advertisement

(Source: NY Fed)

Keep in mind that during times of perceived stress, soft survey data tends to be more exaggerated than actual hard data.

For more on this, read: What businesses do > what businesses say 🙊

🛠️ Industrial activity ticks lower. Industrial production activity in March declined 0.3% from the prior month. Manufacturing output increased 0.3%.

(Source: Federal Reserve)

For more on economic activity cooling, read: 9 once-hot economic charts that cooled 📉

🔨 New home construction starts fall. Housing starts fell 11.4% in March to an annualized rate of 1.32 million units, according to the Census Bureau. Building permits ticked up 1.6% to an annualized rate of 1.48 million units.

Advertisement

(Source: Census)

🏠 Homebuilder sentiment ticks up. From the NAHB’s Buddy Hughes: “The recent dip in mortgage rates may have pushed some buyers off the fence in March, helping builders with sales activity. At the same time, builders have expressed growing uncertainty over market conditions as tariffs have increased price volatility for building materials at a time when the industry continues to grapple with labor shortages and a lack of buildable lots.”

(Source: NAHB)

🏠 Mortgage rates rise. According to Freddie Mac, the average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage increased to 6.83% from 6.62% last week. From Freddie Mac: “The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage ticked up but remains below the 7% threshold for the thirteenth consecutive week. At this time last year, rates reached 7.1% while purchase application demand was 13% lower than it is today, a clear sign that this year’s spring homebuying season is off to a stronger start.”

(Source: Freddie Mac)

There are 147.4 million housing units in the U.S., of which 86.9 million are owner-occupied and about 34.1 million of which are mortgage-free. Of those carrying mortgage debt, almost all have fixed-rate mortgages, and most of those mortgages have rates that were locked in before rates surged from 2021 lows. All of this is to say: Most homeowners are not particularly sensitive to movements in home prices or mortgage rates.

For more on mortgages and home prices, read: Why home prices and rents are creating all sorts of confusion about inflation 😖

😬 This is the stuff pros are worried about. According to BofA’s April Global Fund Manager Survey: “Trade war triggering a global recession is viewed as the biggest ‘tail risk’ according to 80% of investors, the largest concentration for a ‘tail risk’ in 15-year history.”

Advertisement

For more on risks, read: When uncertainty becomes unambiguously high 🎢, Three observations about uncertainty in the markets 😟 and Two times when uncertainty seemed low and confidence was high 🌈

📉 Near-term GDP growth estimates are tracking negative. The Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model sees real GDP growth declining at a 2.2% rate in Q1. Adjusted for the impact of gold imports and exports, they see GDP falling at a 0.1% rate.

(Source: Atlanta Fed)

For more on GDP and the economy, read: 9 once-hot economic charts that cooled 📉 and You call this a recession? 🤨

🚨 The tariffs announced by President Trump as they stand threaten to upend global trade — with significant implications for the U.S. economy, corporate earnings, and the stock market. Until we get some more clarity, here’s where things stand:

Earnings look bullish: The long-term outlook for the stock market remains favorable, bolstered by expectations for years of earnings growth. And earnings are the most important driver of stock prices.

Demand is positive: Demand for goods and services remains positive, supported by healthy consumer and business balance sheets. Job creation, while cooling, also remains positive, and the Federal Reserve — having resolved the inflation crisis — has shifted its focus toward supporting the labor market.

Advertisement

But growth is cooling: While the economy remains healthy, growth has normalized from much hotter levels earlier in the cycle. The economy is less “coiled” these days as major tailwinds like excess job openings have faded. It has become harder to argue that growth is destiny.

Actions speak louder than words: We are in an odd period given that the hard economic data has decoupled from the soft sentiment-oriented data. Consumer and business sentiment has been relatively poor, even as tangible consumer and business activity continue to grow and trend at record levels. From an investor’s perspective, what matters is that the hard economic data continues to hold up.

Stocks are not the economy: Analysts expect the U.S. stock market could outperform the U.S. economy, thanks largely due to positive operating leverage. Since the pandemic, companies have adjusted their cost structures aggressively. This has come with strategic layoffs and investment in new equipment, including hardware powered by AI. These moves are resulting in positive operating leverage, which means a modest amount of sales growth — in the cooling economy — is translating to robust earnings growth.

Mind the ever-present risks: Of course, this does not mean we should get complacent. There will always be risks to worry about — such as U.S. political uncertainty, geopolitical turmoil, energy price volatility, cyber attacks, etc. There are also the dreaded unknowns. Any of these risks can flare up and spark short-term volatility in the markets.

Investing is never a smooth ride: There’s also the harsh reality that economic recessions and bear markets are developments that all long-term investors should expect to experience as they build wealth in the markets. Always keep your stock market seat belts fastened.

Advertisement

Think long term: For now, there’s no reason to believe there’ll be a challenge that the economy and the markets won’t be able to overcome over time. The long game remains undefeated, and it’s a streak long-term investors can expect to continue.

A version of this post first appeared on TKer.co

Finance

Psychological shift unfolds in soft Aussie housing market: ‘Vendors feel pressure’

Published

on

Psychological shift unfolds in soft Aussie housing market: ‘Vendors feel pressure’
Is it becoming a buyers market? (Source: Getty)

Property markets move in cycles, and with interest rates rising and other pressures like high fuel costs, some markets are clearly slowing down. Many first-home buyers who have only ever seen markets going up are conditioned to think that when purchasing, competition is always intense and decisions need to be made quickly.

In those times, buyers often feel they need to act fast, stretch their budget and secure a property at almost any cost. But things have definitely changed.

In a softer market, the dynamic shifts. Properties take longer to sell, competition thins, and it’s the vendors who begin to feel pressure.

RELATED

For buyers who understand how to navigate that change, the balance of power quickly moves in their favour. The opportunity is not simply to buy at a lower price. It is to negotiate from a position of strength.

Advertisement

If that’s you right now, these are the key skills first-home buyers need to take advantage of in softer market conditions.

The most important shift in a soft market is psychological. In a rising market, buyers often feel like they are competing for limited opportunities. In a softer market, the opposite is true. There are more properties available, fewer active buyers and less urgency overall. This gives buyers options.

When buyers understand that they are not competing with multiple parties on every property, their decision-making improves. They are more willing to walk away, compare opportunities and avoid overpaying. Negotiation strength comes from not needing to transact immediately. When that pressure is removed, buyers are able to engage more strategically.

One of the most common mistakes first-home buyers make is continuing to apply strategies that only work in rising markets. Auction urgency is a clear example. In strong markets, auctions often attract multiple bidders and create competitive tension. In softer conditions, properties are more likely to pass in, shifting the process away from a public bidding environment into a private negotiation.

This is where leverage increases.

Advertisement

Private negotiations allow buyers to introduce conditions that protect their position. These may include finance clauses, longer settlement periods or price adjustments based on due diligence. Opportunities that are rarely available in competitive markets become standard in softer ones.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Finance Committee approves an average increase of University tuition by 3.6 percent

Published

on

Finance Committee approves an average increase of University tuition by 3.6 percent

The Board of Visitors Finance Committee met Thursday and approved a 3.6 percent average increase in tuition, a 4.8 percent average increase in meal plan costs and a 5 percent increase in the cost of double-room housing for the 2026-27 school year. The approval was unanimous amongst Board members, though some expressed resistance to the increases before voting in favor of them. 

The Committee heard from Jennifer Wagner Davis, executive vice president and chief operating officer, and Donna Price Henry, chancellor of the College at Wise, about reasons for the raise in tuition and rates. According to Davis and Henry, salary increases for professors and legislation passed by the General Assembly contribute to tuition and rates increases.  

The Finance Committee, chaired by Vice Rector Victoria Harker, is responsible for the University’s financial affairs and business operations, and the Committee manages the budget, tuition and student fees. 

Changes in tuition vary between schools, with the School of Law seeing at most a 5.1 percent increase, the School of Engineering & Applied Science seeing at most a 3.2 percent increase and the College of Arts and Sciences seeing at most a 3.1 percent increase in tuition for the 2026-27 school year. 

For the 2026-27 school year at the College at Wise, the Committee also unanimously approved a 2.5 percent average increase in tuition, a 3.8 percent increase in meal plans and a 2 percent increase in the cost of housing.

Advertisement

Last year, the Committee approved a 3 percent average increase in tuition, a 5.5 percent increase in meal plans and a 5.5 percent increase in the cost of housing for the University.

Davis cited increased costs as the primary reason for the approved increase in tuition. She said that the budget that could be passed by the General Assembly for June 30, 2027 through June 30, 2028 could increase professor salaries — University professors receive raises via this process. Davis said that the Senate and House of Delegates have separate proposals dealing with the pay increases that are currently unresolved, with House Bill 30 raising salaries by 2 percent and Senate Bill 30 raising salaries by 3 percent. 

Davis said every percent increase in faculty salaries costs the University $15 million annually, and the Commonwealth will increase funding to the University by $1-2 million to help pay for that increase. According to Davis, the most common way to stabilize the budgetary imbalance caused by raised salaries is through tuition raises. 

Beyond the increase in salary, Davis cited the minimum wage increase, inflation and Virginia Military Survivors & Dependents Education Program as increased costs to the University. VMSDEP is a program that gives education benefits to spouses and children of disabled veterans or military service members killed, missing in action or taken prisoner. Davis said that the program is “partially unfunded” and could cost the University somewhere between $3.6 to $6 million, depending on how many students qualify for the program.

Davis spoke on other contributing factors to the increase in tuition, specifically collective bargaining — which allows workers to bargain for better wages and working conditions.

Advertisement

“If we look at other institutions or other states that have collective bargaining, [collective bargaining] does put an upward pressure on tuition,” Davis said.

Prior to Thursday’s meeting, the Committee heard the proposal for tuition increases from Davis and Henry April 6 in a Finance Committee tuition workshop with public comment. During the tuition workshop, tuition increases ranged from 3 to 4.5 percent for the University and 2 to 3 percent for the College at Wise. Both increases approved Thursday are within the ranges originally proposed.

Meal plan costs, on average, will be increasing by 4.8 percent in the upcoming academic year. Davis said that the University has been expanding dining options with the opening of the Gaston House and new locations for the Ivy Corridor student housing that is still in progress. She also said that the University has been taking steps to increase the availability of allergen-friendly food options. 

Davis shared that the 5 percent cost increase in housing is due to the expansion of student housing in the Ivy Corridor. Davis also said that there will be 3,000 new units added to the Charlottesville housing market by 2027, of which 780 beds will be for University housing. Davis said that she hopes the Ivy Corridor housing would “free up” the city housing supply by having more students live on Grounds.

Board member Amanda Pillion said she was “concerned” about how tuition increases would harm rural families — she said the constant increases in cost could make a University education out of reach for middle-income Virginians. 

Advertisement

“This is the second governor I’ve served under. Both times I’ve heard affordability, affordability, affordability,” Pillion said. “We need to really be conscious of the fact that … there is a large group of people that [are middle-income] that these increases [in tuition and fees] are really tough for.”

The Committee also approved a renovation for The Park — an 18-acre recreational hub in North Grounds — which will cost $10 million. As part of the renovation, The Park will include a maintenance facility, storm water systems and a maintenance access route. Davis said the renovation will address safety and security issues for the 200 people that use The Park daily. According to Davis, the University will use $2 million of institutional funds and issue $8 million of debt to fund the renovation. 

The Finance Committee will reconvene during the regularly scheduled June Board meetings.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

A Protracted US–Iran War Could Strain Climate Finance From Wealthy Countries to Developing Nations – Inside Climate News

Published

on

A Protracted US–Iran War Could Strain Climate Finance From Wealthy Countries to Developing Nations – Inside Climate News

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The ongoing war in Iran is casting a long shadow over the climate finance commitments countries agreed to in 2024, experts warned, as surging oil prices and rising defense budgets put further pressure on the limited pot of money developing nations are counting on to stave off worsening impacts from a warming planet.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund’s annual spring meetings are underway in the capital this week, with a focus on a coordinated global response to a world economy under pressure from slower growth and rising debt, exacerbating global inequities. 

The U.S. war in Iran adds new supply-chain challenges. In a press briefing Tuesday, the IMF slashed its growth forecast to 3.1 percent for the year, down from 3.3 percent in January, with global inflation rising to 4.4 percent. 

“Our severe scenario assumes that energy supply disruptions extend into next year, with greater macro instability. Global growth falls to 2 percent this year and next, while inflation exceeds 6 percent,” said Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s director of research. 

The blunt assessment has caused a scramble to determine what financial support the institution can offer to member states. And it has raised fresh questions about climate-finance obligations, already under strain from donor-country budget cuts and the United States jettisoning global climate commitments under the second Trump administration. One of President Donald Trump’s first actions back in office last year was ordering the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

Advertisement

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, wealthier countries that promised climate finance have experienced widening fiscal deficits and rising debt, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found in its latest assessment. As a result, aid from donor countries has already declined sharply—dropping almost 25 percent in 2025 compared to 2024. Even before the Iran conflict began, that was projected to drop further this year. 

COP29, the global climate conference held in late 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan, set a commitment of $300 billion per year by 2035, with a broader goal of reaching $1.3 trillion annually from public and private sources. Called the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), the arrangement replaced the previous $100 billion-a-year commitment that wealthy nations had met belatedly in 2022, two years after the deadline. 

Developing nations widely criticized the $300 billion figure as grossly inadequate, given the scale of the climate crisis. These countries are among the least responsible for the pollution driving that crisis and among the hardest hit by its effects. 

The Iran war has triggered a new set of worries as top economists and experts weigh potential impact and likely mitigation strategies. 

“Even before the Iran conflict, reaching the NCQG target would have been difficult, particularly with the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The war worsens the outlook,” said Gautam Jain, senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.

Advertisement
Plumes of smoke rise over the oil depot tanks hit by overnight attacks on March 8 in Tehran, Iran. Credit: Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images
Plumes of smoke rise over the oil depot tanks hit by overnight attacks on March 8 in Tehran, Iran. Credit: Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

He said sustained disruption of the Strait of Hormuz would exacerbate the problem and the effects would weigh on the global economy. As a result, aid budgets would decline and the political pushback to external spending would increase. 

The conflict is “pushing energy security to the forefront of government agendas,” Jain said. That will likely strengthen incentives to deploy more renewables and other forms of domestic clean energy, but the war’s economic convulsions could cut both ways for the energy transition.

“In low-income countries, the transition could be significantly delayed, given limited fiscal capacity to absorb sustained energy price shocks,” Jain said.

One of the main priorities for the World Bank during the meetings in Washington is to develop a new Climate Change Action Plan to replace the one expiring in June. “In the current geopolitical context, progress on this front looks quite unlikely,” Jain said.

Jon Sward, environment project manager at the Bretton Woods Project, which monitors World Bank and IMF policies, said countries that used to fund climate finance are now choosing to spend that money on other priorities.

This story is funded by readers like you.

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.

Advertisement

Donate Now

The Gulf crisis exposed the fragility of a global economic system tethered to fossil fuel extraction and use, Sward noted. For countries dependent on fossil fuel imports, “this is yet another price shock, and quickly diversifying to renewables is certainly an option that many countries are looking at,” he said in an email.

He said that although multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF have begun to assess the conflict’s fallout, it is not yet clear what their response will be or how the World Bank’s climate finance would be affected.

“All of this points to the need for more serious discussions on pausing debt repayments for affected countries and the mobilisation of non-debt creating forms of finance, in order to address the multiple, overlapping shocks facing countries in the Global South, in particular,” he said in his email.

Advertisement

Experts said that rising security and defense expenditures were also cutting into an already limited pot of money badly needed by developing countries struggling to cope with climate challenges.   

“The system was already too fragile given that the U.S. leads all the major multilateral development banks … and has disavowed these targets,” said Kevin Gallagher, director of the Global Development Policy Center at Boston University. On top of that, he said, U.S. threats to abandon NATO’s European countries incentivizes them to prioritize  defense budgets over climate finance.

He said developing countries are already under pressure to cough up climate funding on their own. The current conflict could make that nearly impossible.  

“This year was supposed to be putting together a roadmap to take the $300 billion annual target to the agreed upon $1.3 trillion. This is likely to be abandoned unless new donors such as [the] UAE, China and others step in to fill the gap left from the West,” Gallagher said in an email. 

The crisis in the Persian Gulf makes the loudest case for renewables, he said. “The energy security argument from this conflict is to diversify from fossil fuels. The Dutch took that cue after the Middle East oil shock of the 1970s to build the world’s best wind turbines, and China did after Middle East conflicts in this century. Fossil fuels are now a bad bet on security, economic and climate grounds. The writing is on the wall.”

Advertisement

Gallagher said the World Bank should accelerate solar and wind technology programs across the world. “If the Fund and the Bank don’t rise to this occasion,” he said, “not only is the global economy and climate at stake, but so is the legitimacy of these institutions.” 

Gaia Larsen, a climate finance expert at the World Resources Institute, said it’s too early to know whether stronger interest in energy independence through renewables is translating into shifts in investment. But “if we’re trying to think about long-term peace and long-term access to energy, then renewables are really increasing in prominence,” she said.

About This Story

Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.

That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.

Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.

Advertisement

Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?

Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.

Thank you,

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending