On December 18, 2025, two seismic events shook the worlds of environmental science and climate policy. First, a groundbreaking study from Aarhus University exposed how the world’s largest food companies are failing to disclose their most pressing environmental harms. Just hours later, the Trump administration announced the closure of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), a world-leading atmospheric science hub in Boulder, Colorado. Together, these developments have left scientists, policymakers, and the public grappling with what some call a dangerous narrowing of focus—one that could have ripple effects for years to come.
Let’s start with the food industry. According to the new study published in Ecology and Society, researchers at Aarhus University scrutinized Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reports from 51 of the world’s largest food companies. Their findings? A stunning imbalance. While these reports are filled with glossy claims of climate neutrality and green transitions, they largely ignore the most significant planetary boundaries agriculture routinely transgresses: nitrogen, phosphorus, and biodiversity.
“We see a massive bias. Climate gets all the attention, while the planetary boundaries that agriculture exceeds the most, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and biodiversity, are almost entirely absent,” said Niklas Witt from the Department of Agroecology at Aarhus University, one of the study’s lead authors, as reported by Ecology and Society. The researchers used the planetary boundaries framework—nature’s own set of guardrails for human activity. Shockingly, six of nine boundaries have already been breached, with agriculture as the main culprit for several of them.
Yet, in the ESG reports analyzed, only climate impact was accompanied by quantitative data. Nitrogen and phosphorus cycles were mentioned a mere eight times across all reports. Witt warns that this “carbon tunnel vision” risks more than just misleading investors and the public; it could direct capital and political will toward the wrong solutions, leaving nitrogen pollution, water scarcity, and biodiversity loss unchecked.
“If companies only report on climate, we risk directing capital and political attention toward the wrong solutions, while nitrogen pollution, water scarcity, and biodiversity loss continue unchecked. It’s a classic example of ‘carbon tunnel vision.’ When everything revolves around CO₂, we overlook the other crises,” Witt explained.
Why does this matter? ESG reporting is not just a matter of public relations. It guides investment decisions, regulatory priorities, and even consumer trust. When companies choose what to measure and report, they shape the entire narrative of what “sustainability” means in the public eye. Witt and his co-authors call for a new approach: “planetary materiality.” This means companies should base their reporting on scientifically assessed environmental impacts, not just what’s easiest or trendiest to measure.
“We risk creating a green transition that is nothing more than a green illusion. That’s why we call for planetary materiality,” Witt said in the Ecology and Society publication. He continued, “If we want a genuinely sustainable transition, we must start by measuring what matters most for the planet.” The implication is stark: if food giants can define “green” on their own terms, the real environmental harms may persist in the shadows, untouched by policy or public scrutiny.
While the food sector was busy shaping its own narrative, the Trump administration was rewriting another. In a move that stunned the scientific community, the White House announced the closure of NCAR, a research institution that has served as the backbone of atmospheric science, weather forecasting, and climate modeling since 1960. White House official Russ Vought told USA Today that NCAR is a source of “climate alarmism” and that “green new scam research” would be eliminated, though “vital functions” like weather modeling and supercomputing would be moved elsewhere.
The outcry was immediate. “Shutting it down would lead to greater uncertainty about what our climate future might be and leave us less able to prepare effectively,” said Michael Meredith at the British Antarctic Survey, as quoted by New Scientist. Meteorologist Jeff Masters, founder of Weather Underground, likened the move to “on the eve of World War II, we decided to stop funding R&D into weapons.” He added, “If we don’t know what’s coming at us, it’s going to be more expensive and it’s going to kill more people.”
For decades, NCAR’s 830 employees have pushed the boundaries of atmospheric science. They invented the GPS dropsonde, a device dropped into hurricanes that revolutionized storm prediction. They developed wind-shear warning systems for airports, preventing countless crashes. But perhaps their greatest legacy is the data and modeling infrastructure they provide to the global scientific community. NCAR administers the Weather Research and Forecasting Model and the Community Earth System Model (CESM), both of which underpin everything from local weather apps to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.
Richard Rood at the University of Michigan told New Scientist that CESM is “probably the most-used model in the world.” Its closure threatens to halt improvements in weather forecasting and climate research, just as extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe. NCAR’s research aircraft, including a C-130 cargo plane and a Gulfstream jet, have conducted vital studies on atmospheric gases, aerosols, and even the sun’s corona. Their work on aerosols is especially critical as policymakers debate geoengineering schemes to block sunlight and slow global warming.
Colin Carlson at Yale University, who relies on NCAR’s climate models to estimate vaccine needs for diseases like cholera and yellow fever, summed up the feeling among many scientists: “We need NCAR to do our jobs.”
So, what do these two stories have in common? Both reveal how the framing and focus of environmental action are increasingly shaped by powerful institutions—be they corporations or governments. When food giants choose to highlight only climate metrics, and when governments shutter research centers that provide inconvenient truths, the definition of sustainability itself is up for grabs. Who gets to decide what matters most for the planet?
As Witt put it, “It’s not just about reports and numbers. It’s about how we, as a society, understand sustainability and which solutions we prioritize. When companies choose to highlight climate while ignoring nitrogen, phosphorus, and biodiversity, they create a narrative that can preserve the status quo. And that has consequences far beyond financial reports.”
With the closure of NCAR and the selective reporting of environmental harms by food companies, the risk is clear: society may be lulled into a false sense of progress, even as the most urgent planetary boundaries slip further from view. The future of environmental action will depend on whether we choose to confront these uncomfortable truths—or let them remain hidden in plain sight.
