
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"This is such a large number that it can be numbing, but it is made up of parents and children, grandparents and neighbors, people going to work, caring for families, and living their lives."
A report published Wednesday by researchers at the University of Chicago's Climate Impact Lab estimates that extreme heat fueled by this year's "Super El Niño" event could kill more than 450,000 people in the coming months, in addition to deaths from drought, wildfires, and other extreme weather.
The report notes that "anomalously warm conditions" caused by the record-shattering El Niño—which refers to the warming of ocean-surface temperatures in the Pacific—"will resemble the higher temperatures that climate change is projected to deliver 20 years in the future... and will lead to 44% more extremely hot days than we would expect in a normal year."
Climate Impact Lab researchers projected that the extreme heat will result in 451,000 more lives lost through February 2027, compared to a typical year.
"This is about 65 times larger than the 6,800 people believed to be dead or missing from the recent Nepal flash flood," the new report observes. "With current forecasts suggesting El Niño will remain in place through spring 2027, we expect all of these numbers to grow even higher, particularly as impacts such as higher-than-average temperatures and heat-related deaths will linger into June and July."
Nigeria is expected to see the largest number of El Niño-related deaths over roughly the next five months, at 31,400. Indonesia, Sudan, India, and Brazil will see more than 10,000 deaths each through February, according to the Climate Impact Lab.
"This is such a large number that it can be numbing, but it is made up of parents and children, grandparents and neighbors, people going to work, caring for families, and living their lives,” Michael Greenstone, a co-founder of the Climate Impact Lab, said in a statement. "This report allows decisionmakers to see exactly where emergency actions can be taken now to save tens of thousands of lives in the coming months."
The impact lab's report describes this year's El Niño as a "postcard from our future," noting that "it is bringing temperatures climate change is projected to deliver 20 years in the future."
"Twenty years from now, once today’s extreme temperatures become the new normal," said Tamma Carleton, faculty head of research for the Climate Impact Lab and co-author of the new report. "We don’t want to be in a constant state of emergency."
The report was released shortly after United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned in his final address to the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday that "a supersized El Niño" is "speeding straight for humanity."
"As tragic events have shown, impacts are arriving sooner, hitting harder, and spreading further than many anticipated," said Guterres. "Now we face a near-certain breach of the 1.5°C limit."
On Saturday, The Washington Post observed, the average ocean-surface temperature in a portion of the central equatorial Pacific Ocean reached 3.05°C, "the highest peak sea surface temperature anomaly on record."
"The record anomalous reading occurred two months earlier in the year than the previous peak in November 2015 and an El Niño in 1877 that contributed to a famine that wiped out 3 to 4% of the global population," the Post added.
"We know that fossil fuel interests won't step aside on their own," said the UN chief. "When the harms of Big Tobacco became undeniable—governments acted. The climate crisis demands the same determination."
With United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres set to leave his post at the end of this year, he used his final address to the UN General Assembly on Monday to share a familiar call: "Polluters must pay" for fueling the global climate emergency.
Since the Portuguese politician began his first five-year term leading the world body nearly a decade ago, he has repeatedly called for international action to rapidly phase out the coal, gas, and oil that are heating up the planet. In late 2023, he emphasized that "the science is clear. The 1.5°C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce. Not abate."
The UN chief announced at the end of 2024 that "the top 10 hottest years on record have happened in the last 10 years," and declared: "This is climate breakdown in real time. We must exit this road to ruin." Last year, he argued that fossil fuels represent "the greatest threat to energy security today," and countries clinging to them are "sabotaging" their own economies and futures.
Earlier this month, after a UN report found that at least temporarily surpassing the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels is now inevitable, Guterres stressed that "this summer’s scorching heat, raging wildfires, and deadly floods are a warning of what lies ahead," and called for making the overshoot "as small and short as possible."
Speaking to the General Assembly on Tuesday, he cited that recent finding: "Now we face a near-certain breach of the 1.5-degree limit, with a supersized El Niño speeding straight for humanity. The dangers are real. But so is the hope."
"The sun belongs to no one. The wind cannot be embargoed. Innovation can come from everywhere," he said. "Renewables are now the cheapest source of new electricity in most of the world. And the most viable path to energy security, independence, and sustainable growth... A future beyond fossil fuels is in sight. The question is how."
"Will it be a just and orderly transition built on international cooperation—or chaotic and costly, leaving people and countries behind?" he asked, urging every government to adopt a Paris Agreement-aligned national plan to transition away from fossil fuels.
"We know that fossil fuel interests won't step aside on their own. For decades, Big Oil has treated the atmosphere as an open sewer—and cashed in on the consequences," he acknowledged. "We have seen this kind of abuse of power before. When the harms of Big Tobacco became undeniable—governments acted. The climate crisis demands the same determination."
According to the UN chief: "Those who polluted the most—and profited the most—must do far more to repair the damage they caused. Polluters must pay. And to the leaders, cities, civil society and citizens working to hold them accountable: I say, you are on the right side of history. Keep going."
"And governments must keep going on all fronts: To end deforestation. Invest in grids and storage. Cut methane emissions," he continued. "But these actions are not enough: We need climate justice with a focus on adaptation and finance. Developed countries must respect their commitments. They must triple adaptation finance.And make the Loss and Damage Fund work at scale."
"We must also ensure that the mining of critical minerals does not dig deeper into the inequities of the past," he added. "Producing countries and affected communities must retain a far greater share of the value created from their resources. No more plundering. No more exploitation."
While Guterres' speech didn't just focus on "the power fueling climate chaos and the war on nature"—it also addressed peace and security, inequality, and artificial intelligence in detail—climate campaigners welcomed the time he devoted to the crisis.
"When the UN secretary-general calls for fossil fuel companies to pay, you know this demand has become impossible to ignore," said Louise Hutchins, co-convenor of the Make Polluters Pay International Coalition, in a statement. "Millions of people around the world are calling for it, and governments are starting to listen."
His address came just a day after campaigners from groups around the world delivered over 2 million petition signatures calling on governments to make polluters pay to Selwin Hart, the UN's assistant secretary-general for climate action, in New York City.
"For years, campaigners and communities on the frontlines have been saying the same thing: The companies that profited from fossil fuels must pay their fair share of the costs of the crisis they helped create. Today, that demand is moving into the mainstream," 350.org executive director Anne Jellema noted after Guterres' remarks. "The voices of more than 2 million people are now being brought to the UN. Governments have the power to make polluters pay, and they must use it."
Enough is enough: over 2 million petition signatures at UNGA to Make Polluters Pay www.greenpeace.org/internationa...
[image or embed]
— Nick Young (@nickofnz.bsky.social) September 21, 2026 at 5:56 PM
Amitabh Behar, executive director of Oxfam International, highlighted that "the people who have contributed least to the climate crisis are paying the highest price. They are losing homes, livelihoods, and access to food and facing an increasingly uncertain future, while fossil fuel corporations and their billionaire backers continue to profit. The call to make rich polluters pay is about justice. It is about ensuring that those who have benefited most from the fossil fuel economy pay for the damage it has caused."
Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen pointed out that "Guterres has spent years warning leaders where fossil fuel dependence leads, and this year proved him right. From deadly heat to devastating fires and floods, the very dependence driving these disasters is shaking entire economies and leaving families exposed to volatile energy and food prices, while the companies behind it keep raking in the profits."
"New rules forcing governments to align their taxes and spending with global climate goals would raise hundreds of billions of dollars to support the countries and communities least responsible, while incentivizing money out of fossil fuels and into secure, renewable energy that actually protects people," he argued. "As long as destruction stays profitable, the transition to a safer, fairer future will keep being held back. Guterres has named the solution, governments must now act on it."
"As long as we continue to burn fossil fuels," said one scientist, El Niño "occurs on an increasingly hotter baseline, making it much more difficult for communities to deal with the consequences.”
Although “El Niño comes and goes," as one climate scientist said of the naturally occurring warm-weather phenomenon on Monday, experts are in agreement that this year is different—with meteorologists already recording a temperature rise of 3.07°C in the Pacific Ocean, putting it at a statistical tie with November 2015, when El Niño caused the ocean to warm by 3.08°C.
The temperature rise is not expected to peak until November and December, when an average of 14 models examined by Zeke Hausfather of Carbon Brief and Berkeley Earth found that a temperature rise of 4.1°C is forecast.
The event has been underway since June, Hausfather wrote, and has been gathering strength "faster than any previous event on record."
Scientists typically track the strength of El Niño—which leads to heavy rainfall, higher global temperatures, and other extreme weather as warmer Pacific waters are pushed to the south—using the Niño 3.4 anomaly, or ONI, which determines how much hotter the central Pacific is compared with a 30-year rolling average.
A temperature rise above 2.0°C is considered a "very strong" El Niño, and scientists and policymakers are already calling this year's event a "super El Niño," with some experts using the terms "Godzilla-level" and "jaw-dropping" to describe the weather conditions that can be expected in the coming months due to the warmer climate.
As Common Dreams reported late last month, planetary heating driven by fossil fuel emissions is intensifying El Niño, while the naturally occurring phenomenon can in turn worsen the impacts of the climate emergency.
In the last 40 years scientists have recorded a 16% increase in the strength of El Niño events, according to a study published in Science last month. They've also gotten 36% stronger than they were before industrialization began.
The "double whammy," as The Guardian called it, could make 2027 the hottest year ever recorded, blowing through heat records that have just been set this year—and that have been linked to the deaths of people around the world from extreme heat and flooding.
“This event is a huge redistribution of energy in the climate system and is dangerous because it is unfolding on top of a much warmer, human-influenced climate system," climate scientist Friederike Otto of Imperial College London told The Guardian. “So, in many places around the world we will see never-before-experienced heat extremes, with all their consequences on health, food security, and water stress."
Despite the fact that El Niño predates the human-caused climate emergency, Otto said, "as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels, it occurs on an increasingly hotter baseline, making it much more difficult for communities to deal with the consequences.”
This year's event is likely to be the most intense El Niño in 1,000 years, reported to The Guardian, with hotter and drier conditions already linked to deadly wildfires in Indonesia and crop losses in Central America and the Caribbean region due to drought conditions. Rice production this season is expected to fail in Indonesia, according to the Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability at Harvard University.
As the Southern Hemisphere's summer months approach, southern Africa and Australia are at heightened risk of wildfires and droughts as well. Meanwhile, cocoa production could be damaged by extreme rainfall in parts of South America.
"All strong El Niño events on record have continued to strengthen well into the winter—and the models are in near-unanimous agreement that this one will, too," wrote Hausfather at Carbon Brief. "If the forecast holds, the current event will peak between November and January at a level far beyond any event previously observed in the instrumental record."
In California on Monday, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in an effort to prepare communities for El Niño's impacts in the coming months, which could include coastal flooding and heavy snow in mountain regions.
Hausfather noted that strong El Niño events like those that occurred in 1997 and 2015 were also "associated with hundreds of billions of dollars in damages globally."
"This event," he told The Guardian, "is leaving those past ones in the dust."
"Seven of nine planetary boundaries are transgressed, and pressure on all seven is at its highest recorded level," said one scientist.
Like other recent warnings from climate scientists, the message sent by the latest Planetary Health Check report on Monday was clear: "We need to move fast," as the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the group behind the report, said.
"Seven of nine planetary boundaries are transgressed, and pressure on all seven is at its highest recorded level," said Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute (PIK).
The report finds that seven measures of the Earth's health are no longer within the "safe operating space": ocean acidification, freshwater change, land system change, climate change, modification of biogeochemical flows, introduction of novel entities, and change in biosphere integrity.
Just two markers, stratospheric ozone depletion and the increase in atmospheric aerosol loading, have shown improvement over the last decade, said the Planetary Boundaries Science Lab at PIK.
“The diagnosis is unambiguous," said Boris Sakschewski, the lead author of the report. "Pressure is rising across every planetary boundary already outside the safe operating space. It means that the risk of large-scale, persistent, and potentially irreversible change is increasing, while our margin for error in tackling these problems is shrinking."
The scientists behind the report emphasized that with recent news regarding the state of the planet's crucial coral reefs, forests, and extreme weather events like heatwaves and flooding, it should come as no surprise that the Earth's boundaries have been transgressed, as continued fossil fuel emissions have caused runaway planetary heating.
Earlier this month, United Nations scientists said the planet can no longer avoid at least a temporary temperature rise above 1.5°C over preindustrial levels.
Oceans have also become so warm that stressed coral reefs have less and less time to recover from climate damage, as Common Dreams reported last month, and a UN report last year found that the world's governments are not moving fast enough to end the destruction of forests.
Last month and the summer of 2026 both set heat records, with extreme heat killing more than 1,000 people across Europe, and wildfires spreading across the continent and Canada. Record-breaking heat was also recorded in parts of Asia and the Middle East.
In June, the UN Children's Fund found that nearly every child on Earth is now exposed to at least one climate hazard driven by fossil fuel emissions, including flooding, heatwaves, and drought.
"Pakistan’s 2025 monsoon floods affected more than 6.9 million people," said PIK. "Global ocean heat content reached a new record in 2025, with Hurricane Melissa rapidly ramping up to a Category 5 hurricane and striking Jamaica after passing over exceptionally warm seas. From January 2023 to September 2025, bleaching-level heat stress impacted about 84.4% of the world’s coral reef area, making it the largest global coral-bleaching event observed to date."
Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, chair of Planetary Guardians, implored readers of the Planetary Health Check report to "read that list again: Pakistan, the Caribbean, Europe, the reefs beneath our oceans. These are not separate emergencies; the planet is telling us, in every region at once, that it is out of balance."
"As chair of Planetary Guardians, I hear this same story wherever I go, whether from a pastoralist watching the rains fail season after season or a coastal community watching the sea rise," said Ibrahim. "The 2026 Planetary Health Check puts data behind what communities on the frontlines already know from living it. We do not have the luxury of treating these as separate crises any longer.”
Rockström emphasized that while "we do not have the luxury of time... we do have the knowledge, capacity, and solutions to change course."
"Accelerating action to return to the safe operating space across all planetary boundaries is essential to protect lives and livelihoods," said Rockström, "and to deliver on the promise of shared future prosperity."
"It’s time to stop making taxpayers subsidize luxury private jet travel and use our resources to green other industries," said one of the report's authors.
A handful of the world's wealthiest people are traveling aboard some of the planet's most polluting vehicles while receiving substantial public subsidies, according to a new report documenting how taxpayers and commercial airline passengers are funding billionaires' private jet lifestyles due to corporate lobbying, tax breaks, and other policies.
The Institute for Policy Studies' (IPS) "High Flyers 2026: The High Cost of Private Jet Excess," released on Friday, notes that only about 256,000 people around the world—roughly 0.003% of the global population—fly on private jets. Yet these ultrawealthy travelers account for a disproportionate share of aviation activity while paying a fraction of the taxes that fund air traffic infrastructure.
According to the report—which is co-authored by Chuck Collins, Omar Ocampo, Kalena Thomhave, and Emily Wagner—private jets and charter services account for roughly 16% of flight operations handled by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), while noncommercial private jets account for about 7% of airspace activity.
NEW: Private jet travel — the most ecologically destructive form of transportation — is increasing among the wealthiest 0.003% of people. Taxpayers and commercial flyers are subsidizing it.It's time to tax this reckless consumption. REPORT:
[image or embed]
— Institute for Policy Studies (@ips-dc.org) September 18, 2026 at 6:05 AM
However, private jets contribute less than 0.6% of the taxes flowing into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which helps finance FAA operations.
"We all pay for the harms of private jet excess," the report states. "US taxpayers and commercial air travelers subsidize the luxury private jet transportation sector. Private jets fail to pay their fair share of their use of airspace and the costs of their carbon pollution, shifting the burden to everyone else."
The disparity is particularly stark when the climate consequences of private aviation are taken into account. IPS found that a passenger traveling by private jet is responsible for roughly 10 to 14 times the emissions of a passenger on a commercial airline and around 50 times those of a passenger traveling the same route by rail. On some low-carbon rail systems, the disparity can exceed 200-fold.
"Private jets are the super-polluters. On a warming planet, private jet operations are indefensible," the report's authors wrote. "Private jets account for a small sliver of aviation activity, but they are the most polluting form of transport and represent the fastest-growing segment of aviation emissions."
The report also found that at least half of private jet operations are for recreational, vacation, and personal luxury travel.
"The ultrarich and greedy corporations are private jet-setting at the expense of the rest of us," Collins told The Guardian on Friday. "The rest of us should not have to pay for the luxury excess of the private jet billionaire class."
The report comes amid increasing criticism of tax policies that have made private aircraft particularly lucrative investments for wealthy Americans. Last year, US President Donald Trump signed legislation permanently implementing 100% bonus depreciation for qualifying business assets, allowing full tax deductions for certain purchases—including private aircraft—in the year they are acquired.
In a May opinion piece published by Common Dreams, Collins and Wagner slammed what they described as "a massive tax break for billionaires and centimillionaires that use the most polluting form of transportation on the planet."
A corporation that buys a $50 million private jet could potentially deduct the entire purchase price from its taxes in the year of acquisition, meaning "ordinary taxpayers pick up the tab for the private jet industry and billionaire high flyers," according to Collins and Wagner.
The Trump administration has also recently declined to close another tax loophole benefiting wealthy private jet users. A proposal by Democratic senators would have changed the rules governing the so-called Standard Industry Fare Level method for calculating the taxable value of personal flights aboard corporate aircraft. The lawmakers argued that the system allows wealthy executives to substantially undervalue their personal use nof company jets.
"While working families struggle to afford groceries, housing, and gas," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said earlier this month, the Trump administration "focuses on tax breaks for billionaires—including tax breaks for private jets. What a disgrace."
The private jet industry has also benefited from efforts to shield aircraft owners from scrutiny. Earlier this year, House Republicans sought to restrict government use of flight tracking data that can help identify privately owned aircraft for taxation purposes.
“Oh look—Republicans helping private-jet billionaires avoid paying taxes," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) quipped in June. "If only they worked that hard for consumers.”
IPS noted the private aviation industry's substantial political influence. The National Business Aviation Association spent approximately $2 million lobbying for the sector in 2025, including on policies concerning tax breaks and private flight secrecy.
The report's authors list policy changes they say would help "decarbonize private jet users' indefensible behavior."
"A luxury tax of 10% on used jets and 5% on new jets could have raised more than $3 billion in 2025, funds that could be invested in sustainable ground transportation," they asserted.
"Congress should strip a private jet tax avoidance provision from the pending air traffic safety legislation, the ALERT Act," the authors argued.
The report also calls for:
“Since we first released our analysis on the costs of private jet travel to taxpayers and the planet in 2023, we’ve seen a shocking and irresponsible rise in the use of private jet travel,” Ocampo said in a statement.
“Unfortunately, the private jet lobby has worked hard to lower the tax obligations of the ultrawealthy," he added. "Meanwhile, the aviation industry pushes false solutions on the climate crisis. It’s time to stop making taxpayers subsidize luxury private jet travel and use our resources to green other industries.”
"The buffers that have historically protected water security—snow, ice, groundwater—are eroding in many regions on a timescale of years, not overnight," the agency leader said, stressing "a sense of urgency, not panic."
The world's water cycle "has become more erratic and unpredictable," and recent trends have "serious implications for people and economies in the future," the United Nations' weather agency said Thursday, announcing the release of its annual report on one of the planet's most important natural resources.
Speaking at the launch of the "State of Global Water Resources 2025," World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Secretary-General Celeste Saulo explained that "some parts of this cycle—such as precipitation, river flow, soil moisture—are fast. They respond to weather within hours, days, weeks. Others, like groundwater and glaciers, are slow. They accumulate or decline over seasons to decades or longer."
"Traditionally, these slow reserves have acted as the planet's savings account: a buffer that absorbs bad years so that a single drought or a single dry season does not translate directly into a water crisis," she continued. "One of the central stories of the 2025 report is what is happening to that savings account. And the simple answer is that we are depleting it. We are spending our reserves."
According to the WMO's new report, terrestrial water storage—or the total stored in groundwater, lakes, rivers, soil moisture, vegetation, ice, and snow—has been falling since the mid-2010s. Saulo stressed that "this is not a single bad year, but it is a persistent, decadelong signal."
The agency also found that 2025 was among the driest years for river discharge worldwide in more than three decades, with below-normal flows over a third of the global basin area—and for the seventh straight year in a row, the number of river basins with "normal" conditions was in the minority.
Last year was also the fourth straight to feature widespread glacier loss across all regions. The WMO noted that the losses from 2023-25 could fill about 560 million Olympic-sized swimming pools—or about a third of annual freshwater withdrawals.
The report also "shows that water-related extreme events continue to devastate communities and economies," Saulo noted, highlighting the Early Warnings for All Initiative. "Over the past five years, Asia and Africa have accounted for at least half of all reported hydrological extreme events and more than 80% of associated deaths. And precisely these regions often lack the observations necessary for forecasts and early warnings."
Her comments came a day after the death toll from the flooding disaster in Tibet and Nepal topped 1,400. Experts have emphasized that tragedy's connection to the fossil fuel-driven climate crisis, with University of Pennsylvania professor Michael Mann writing that the "glacial collapse and deluge... was not a freak weather event; it was the structural failure of a mountain itself, nature's latest commentary on the deadly consequences of human-caused planetary warming."
That warming has also intensified the naturally occurring warm phase of a key pattern in the Pacific Ocean called El Niño, according to a study published last month. The WMO chief warned in her Wednesday remarks that "the strengthening El Niño will increase the extremes—drought in some countries and floods in others."
The agency's latest forecast, also released Wednesday, anticipates an "exceptionally high likelihood of nearly 100%" that the warm phase will persist through to February 2027. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that "El Niño is being supersized before our eyes. The science leaves no room for doubt: The planet is in uncharted waters, and those waters are heating up."
Only when the last glacier has melted and the last reservoir has dried up will you realize that you can't drink gasoline…#climatecrisis#climatecollapse
[image or embed]
— Jürgen Döschner (@jdoeschner.bsky.social) September 17, 2026 at 4:01 PM
While the related releases generated calls for action, Saulo said that "it is not all bad news. Some regions showed improvement in 2025," pointing out that "parts of South America saw a partial recovery in water storage during 2025 after a severe multiyear deficit," while "Central and Southern Africa maintained much-above-normal water levels across several major lakes."
Still, action is needed. As Saulo put it: "The State of Global Water Resources report calls for a sense of urgency, not panic. The buffers that have historically protected water security—snow, ice, groundwater—are eroding in many regions on a timescale of years, not overnight. We have a genuine window for action: expanding early warning coverage; investing in the hydrological monitoring infrastructure; and opting for water management policies to address both water supply and use/overuse."
"My concluding message is that this report exists because members share their data and their science," she said. "This level of understanding—global, standardized, comparable year to year—did not exist a decade ago. It is the product of sustained international cooperation under WMO's mandate. And my last call is for all of you to continue to invest in it."
"What the administration is proposing to do is take all of the force out of what we have all understood the act to mean: Don't kill endangered species."
"Hmmmm.... I've done a lot of horrible things lately. What is another evil, cruel, nonsensical idea? Ya know, one that would have irreversible generational consequences?"
That's how University of Alberta professor Timothy Caulfield responded to The New York Times' Wednesday reporting that President Donald Trump's administration "is quietly moving to strip a core protection" of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), according to an internal memo obtained by the newspaper.
Signed by US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik, the memo interprets the law to mean that only the intentional killing or wounding of a protected species is illegal. The Times explained that excluding accidental acts "would be a seismic shift," because "the killing of endangered animals almost always happens incidentally, in the course of economic activity."
The memo is dated September 14—the same day that another Trump administration attack on the ESA took effect. That legally contested earlier policy rescinds the regulatory definition of "harm" under the 1973 law so that extractive industries can degrade crucial habitats. When the move was announced in July, critics called it "a death knell for America’s wildlife."
The effort revealed by the Times goes even further. Andrew Mergen, a Harvard University law professor who previously supervised ESA litigation at the US Department of Justice, told the paper that "this is really an assault on the act like we've never seen before."
"What the administration is proposing to do is take all of the force out of what we have all understood the act to mean: Don't kill endangered species," he said. "What they seem to be saying in this document is, it doesn't matter if you killed an endangered species if you didn't mean to."
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that "this stabs at the very heart of the Endangered Species Act by giving federal approval to the killing of some of America's most beloved wildlife... The Trump administration is desperate to annihilate environmental protections, but this incredibly radical measure is both cruel and profoundly unlawful. Killing endangered wildlife is illegal, whether that's your purpose or not."
"If you chop down a tree full of endangered birds or race a huge ship through a pod of endangered whales, you should be held accountable for your destructive acts," Hartl added. "But this administration wants to give wildlife killers a 'Get out of jail free' card. Imposing new limitations on the entire definition of take is a flagrant and illegal attempt to rewrite the Endangered Species Act via unilateral fiat. This would drive imperiled species over the cliff to extinction."
Other opponents of the plan called it "pure evil," and blasted the "perpetual villainy" of Trump's second administration—which has continued an assault on the landmark law launched during the Republican's first presidential term. All of his previous attacks on the ESA have faced resistance from conservation organizations and many members of Congress.
The rule on harm has sparked not only legal challenges from advocacy groups and state attorneys general, but also legislative pushback. In late July, US Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, introduced the Safeguarding Endangered Species Act, to nullify the policy.
Then, last month, Democratic US Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution that, if passed, would repeal the policy. As the rule took effect on Monday, a Schiff spokesperson told CNN that "the senators will look to force a vote in the coming weeks."
This article has been updated with comment for the Center for Biological Diversity.
"When foreign aid retreats, Indigenous peoples and small-scale farmers can be left with fewer resources and less support as they defend the forests, rivers, and other ecosystems that sustain their communities and help keep the global climate stable,” one campaigner said.
A total of 124 people were killed defending the environment in 2025, according to a Global Witness report released Wednesday, as the global rise of authoritarianism and a dramatic decline in foreign aid makes the lives and work of environmental and humans rights advocates more challenging.
The report singles out the administration of US President Donald Trump—which dismantled the US Agency for International Development, delayed paying other United Nations fees, and has shown a broader disregard for international humans rights norms and the institutions that uphold them—for worsening the global climate for defenders. In 2025, total development aid plummeted by a record 23%, depleting the resources available to local communities and the organizations that support them.
“The effects of these budget cuts are not abstract," Juliana Vélez Echeverri, a senior campaigner at Global Witness, said in a statement. “In Colombia, projects working to promote and protect human rights and support defenders have been hit by the sudden drop in foreign aid, particularly from the US. When foreign aid retreats, Indigenous peoples and small-scale farmers can be left with fewer resources and less support as they defend the forests, rivers, and other ecosystems that sustain their communities and help keep the global climate stable.”
"We can’t prevent climate change when they kill those who protect the environment."
Colombia was the deadliest country for land defenders for the fourth year in a row with 39 killings, followed by Brazil with 26, and Honduras and the Philippines with 12 each. As the site of 85% of the killings, Latin America was the deadliest region, as it has been since Global Witness began counting the killings of environmental defenders in 2012. Indigenous people remain especially vulnerable to violence, as over three-quarters of the people killed in 2025 were either Indigenous, Afro-descendant, or small-scale farmers.
"For Indigenous peoples, land is life," said Joan Carling, executive director of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights International, in the report foreword. "Any threat to our lands, territories, and resources is a threat to our very existence—our cultures, our identities, our dignity, and our future generations. That is why our communities were willing to risk everything to protect them."
Seven of the Indigenous people killed in 2025 were members of Indigenous guards established to patrol and protect their territories from illegal encroachment. For example, the Indigenous Guard of the Kakataibo People of Peru was formed in 2022 to protect their rainforest home from illegal cocoa growing and logging.
“Defending our territory is important to us as a community and as a people, and we’re proud to support the climate that we all depend on," said Segundo Ispón, commander of Peru’s Kakataibo Indigenous Guard, in a statement. "In our culture, the work of defending our resources and territory is taught from an early age. But for this next generation coming up, the work is more dangerous than ever.”
The experience of the Kakataibo reflects another growing trend that endangers defenders: the rise of organized crime amid weakening state authority to oppose it. More than one-third of killings in 2025 were linked to organized crime or hitmen. And more than half of the killings were due to land disputes, "demonstrating how authorities’ failure to resolve competing land claims or demarcate territory paves the way for attacks on defenders and their communities," the report authors said.
As Ispón said in the report: “There is inaction from the state, inaction from the authorities. Faced with that, what do we do? We protect ourselves. We take care of each other.”
Yet the rise in lawlessness goes hand in hand with a rise in government repression against activists, making it difficult to get accurate information about the numbers of defenders killed. While the 124 figure is lower than the 142 killed in 2024 or the 196 killed in 2023, the report authors noted that "these figures are likely a significant underestimate, as many cases go unreported.
They added: "This is typical of situations involving serious armed conflict and genocide, where generalized insecurity and mass killings make identifying and verifying individual cases difficult. Research is also challenging in repressive contexts where victims and civil society groups face reprisals for reporting and documenting abuses."
Indeed, civic freedom tracker CIVICUS Monitor considers 10 of the 15 countries in which deaths were reported to be repressed.
Furthermore, the number killed does not reflect other forms of harassment and repression, such as the criminalization or weaponization of social media against activists, both of which are common in Asia.
The report comes as the state of the global environment is ever more dire, with the United Nations warning the planet is now on a path to overshoot the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goal even as the US, the No. 1 historical emitter, has jettisoned all attempts at climate policy under Trump.
"We can’t prevent climate change when they kill those who protect the environment," Amnesty Norway policy adviser Frank Conde Tangberg wrote on social media in response to the report.
The Indigenous and local voices being violently silenced could have a lot to teach global leaders at a crucial moment, if only they would listen.
As Carling wrote:
In today’s world, that ancestral knowledge is vindicated every day. From sustainable agriculture to climate-resilient water management, Indigenous peoples’ customs offer effective climate solutions.
But the climate crisis is testing our capacity to adapt to the natural world. It is too drastic, too vast in scale. Rather than try to respond to this emergency on our own, we want to contribute to collective global efforts.
Instead of being listened to, however, Indigenous peoples are being excluded from major decision-making spaces. As a result, the very projects touted as solutions—renewable energy, transition minerals—drive land grabs, dispossession, and violence. We call this “green colonialism.”
After land grabs, mining was the industry linked to the most deaths in 2025, followed by logging and agribusiness.
Yet another way forward is still possible. As Carling concluded: "Indigenous peoples and our knowledge must be at the heart of climate decision-making. Our role as custodians of land, our understanding of the consequences of climate breakdown, and our collective resistance to dispossession must have an influence on policy at the centre of power."
"But this can only happen when our territories are secure and our people protected from harm," she said. "States and leaders must work with us firstly to ensure that our communities are safe—and then to tackle the environmental crises that pose an existential threat to us all."
"With every additional centimeter of sea-level rise," the lead author noted, "about 2 to 3 million people are put at risk of annual coastal flooding."
Following fresh warnings from scientists about governments not doing nearly enough to cut fossil fuel pollution and what that could mean for the warming planet, an international team of experts on Wednesday published "the most complete picture of ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica to date."
The polar scientists compared and combined 42 independent estimates derived from satellite observations for Earth's two main ice sheets to determine their gains and losses from 1972 in Greenland and 1979 in Antarctica until 2023—then released their findings in the journal Scientific Data.
The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) team found a collective loss of about 11.3 trillion metric tons, or 12.5 trillion US tons.
Inès Otosaka, the professor from England's Northumbria University who led the study, told Reuters that "to put this very large number into context, 11.3 trillion tons of ice is enough ice to fill in a cube that would be 23 kilometers (14.3 miles) in height."
The Associated Press pointed out that it is also "enough frozen water to stack ice 5 feet (1.5 meters) deep across the continental United States."
The ice loss led to around 3.1 centimeters, or 1.2 inches, of global sea-level rise. Study co-author, IMBIE founder, and Northumbria professor Andrew Shepherd said in a statement that the figure "may sound small, but that puts another 6 to 9 million people at risk of coastal flooding and erosion."
The study stresses that "since the 1990s, the pace of ice loss from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets has accelerated, contributing to the increase in global mean sea-level rise, with the ice sheets now representing almost a quarter of global sea-level rise."
"Our dataset shows that Antarctic mass loss continues to be dominated by ice discharge from West Antarctica," the scientists explained, "rising in every decade of our record," from 29 billion metric tons per year in the 1980s to 163 billion in the 2010s. Across the ice sheet, that rate rose from 48 metric tons in the 1980s to 202 billion in the 2010s. The team estimated that during the study period, Antarctica lost a total of 4.78 trillion metric tons.
"Greenland was close to a state of balance in the 1970s but started to lose mass in the following decades," they explained. While the ice sheet lost about 60 billion metric tons annually in the 1980s and 57 billion in the 1990s, "losses then accelerated, reaching a rate three times higher in the 2000s," at 192 billion metric tons, and climbing to 264 billion in the 2010s. Overall, Greenland lost 6,215 trillion metric tons of ice from 1972 to 2023.
TK said that "by reaching back to the 1970s, we can now see how the ice sheets have changed across half a century. More than four-fifths of the ice lost was discharged into the ocean by faster-flowing glaciers, rather than melted at the surface—which tells us the long-term trend is being driven by the dynamic response of the ice sheets to a warming ocean."
International scientists have previously found that the ocean stores an estimated 91% of the heat from excess greenhouse gases, and the rate of ocean warming has more than quadrupled over the past four decades, as humanity has largely ignored experts' warnings to urgently phase out fossil fuels.
The new study was released less than two months ahead of the next United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP31) in Türkiye—where recent deadly fires have reignited demands for a swift global transition away from fossil fuels and stronger efforts to prepare vulnerable communities around the world for what UN scientists now warn is an inevitable, but potentially temporary, overshoot of the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target for temperature rise this century.
Otosaka told Reuters that "when ice sheets melt, they contribute to rising global sea levels. And with every additional centimeter of sea-level rise, about 2 to 3 million people are put at risk of annual coastal flooding."
"These findings have implications for coastal planning," she added, "showing that we urgently need to develop plans for protecting coastal communities around the world from the impact of ice sheet melting."
"The federal government should be protecting our national parks, not parceling them out behind closed doors to benefit the wealthy and politically connected," said one campaigner.
Hundreds of advocacy groups and members of Congress on Tuesday called on President Donald Trump's administration to reject a proposal to hand over part of Yosemite National Park in California to a private developer.
The Washington Sun—formerly known as NOTUS—revealed late last month that federal staffers were under political pressure to keep working on a possible land swap for a quarter-mile strip of the famed park with "a company that, through a web of limited liability companies, is operated by real-estate developer and investment firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital."
California's Democratic US senators, Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, partnered with two other Democrats from the state, House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman and Congressman Jim Costa, to spearhead a Tuesday letter to Trump's interior secretary, Doug Burgum, about the future of the park.
Yosemite "is a cornerstone of the National Park System and is one of California's crown jewels," wrote the bipartisan group of over 150 lawmakers. "We are extremely concerned that the Department of the Interior is considering selling off portions of the park to private development, and we strongly oppose the proposed land transfer."
According to the Sun, the developer owns 83 acres west of the park and wants "to build a short road connecting the property to one of Yosemite's central thoroughfares," providing "the land exceptionally rare private access to a park that is otherwise almost entirely buffered by national forests."
The lawmakers noted similar previous efforts that were blocked in court and argued that "at its core, this proposal appears to provide a private benefit at the expense of land that belongs to all Americans."
"This transaction does not seek to expand public access to Yosemite, improve visitor services, or address transportation deficiencies in park access," they emphasized. "Rather, this land exchange seeks to merely cut down on driving time for a select few on private property. Any decision to relinquish public land to private ownership should be supported by a clear and compelling public benefit, not merely the economic interests of a private party."
"We were alarmed that the Department submitted to Congress a proposal to use money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) authority to facilitate this exchange. That fund exists to acquire and protect public lands for the benefit of the American public—not sell them off to corporate developers," the lawmakers wrote, noting that a Senate subcommittee has not agreed to move forward.
The lawmakers also pointed out that "in response to inquiries from Congress, the department indicated that it has not identified any land to be exchanged for the parcel of Yosemite National Park that the department is seeking to sell to the private developer. This gives further credence to the notion that this exchange is not being done in the public interest, but rather solely to benefit a private developer."
"Public lands belong in public hands. Protection of public lands is a bipartisan issue, overwhelmingly supported by the American people from all walks of life," they concluded. "We oppose any effort to privatize, sell off, give away, or otherwise undermine the continued existence of public lands, in Yosemite or across the country. We ask that you honor congressional objections and abandon this effort to sell off a piece of Yosemite National Park."
Separately on Tuesday, a coalition of over 150 advocacy organizations—led by the Center of Biological Diversity—sent a similar letter to Burgum.
"Trump wants to carve off a chunk of Yosemite so a private equity firm can turn it into a playground for billionaires," said Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the center. "The federal government should be protecting our national parks, not parceling them out behind closed doors to benefit the wealthy and politically connected. If Yosemite can be chopped apart, no national park in America is safe."
The center was joined by groups including the American River Conservancy, California Environmental Justice Coalition, Greenpeace USA, Public Citizen, Public Lands Conservancy, Save Our Parks, Sierra Club, and Yosemite Rivers Alliance.
The coalition described Yosemite as "sacrosanct—the cradle of American conservation, and the first land the federal government protected purely for its scenic value," and warnd that "ceding national park land to a developer sets a dangerous precedent: America's parks are for sale to whomever has the money and power to take them."
Highlighting that "Kingsbarn CEO Jeff Pori is a donor to Trump's campaign... and the firm is represented by politically connected lawyer Lanny Davis," the groups stressed that "deals like this undercut the public's faith in government."
"In your confirmation hearing," the coalition reminded Burgum, "you said 'we need to support and protect every single inch' of our national parks. Yosemite is invaluable, and no portion of it should end up on Kingsbarn's ledger. We expect you to keep your promise and to abide by your statements to Congress."
"This is full-throated climate denial while the climate crisis happens in real time and a shocking betrayal of the American public."
In what environmental advocates describe as "another gift to the fossil fuel industry," the Trump administration plans to end rules limiting the release of planet-heating emissions from power plants that burn coal and gas.
Power plants are considered the largest industrial source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US and account for about a quarter of the nation's climate pollution, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In 2024, the EPA under the Biden administration used the Clean Air Act to require that many new gas plants and existing coal plants reduce their carbon emissions by 90%, including by installing carbon capture technology, by 2032.
The EPA estimated that the rule would reduce the amount of CO2 emissions by about 1.38 billion metric tons over the next two decades, the equivalent of about a year of emissions from the entire US electric power sector.
On Monday, Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator under President Donald Trump, announced an end to this policy at a meeting of energy ministers at the Group of 20 conference in Houston.
Not only will this prevent the enactment of a policy that the EPA has estimated would prevent around 1,200 premature deaths and 360,000 asthma cases by 2035. But the administration is also rolling out a proposal seeking to prevent future administrations from regulating carbon emissions as a health risk.
It is an effort that runs parallel to the administration's rescission of the 2009 "endangerment finding," which allowed the EPA to regulate vehicle emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act on the grounds that they are harmful to human health. That move is also being challenged in court.
Power plants are regulated under a different section of the Clean Air Act, Section 111, which allows the EPA to regulate facilities that "cause, or contribute significantly to" dangerous air pollution.
But whereas the courts have previously interpreted this statute to regulate the outputs of entire facilities, the Trump administration is asking courts to adopt a novel reading of the statute which says each individual chemical under scrutiny must “contribute significantly” to climate change.
As Meredith Hankins, legal director for climate and energy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, explained in a policy memo last week, it likely won't be easy for the administration to prove that the CO2 emissions from US power plants aren't a significant driver of climate change.
"Power sector emissions account for a quarter of total US emissions, so if they cannot be counted as significant, it’s hard to conceive of any emissions that would," Hankins wrote. "In fact, if the US power sector were a nation, it would be the world’s fifth-largest emitter after China, the United States, India, and Russia. That’s a pretty 'significant contribution' to the problem."
The effort to gut power plant regulations comes after the hottest meteorological summer recorded in US history and amid a year with one of the largest numbers of climate disasters on record, including widespread drought, destructive wildfires, and repeated flooding and tornado outbreaks.
As the planet has warmed over the last half-century, the US has seen a sharp, near-sevenfold increase in weather disasters costing over $1 billion, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
“While wildfires rage, floods devastate communities, and families struggle to afford skyrocketing electricity bills and insurance premiums, the Trump administration is handing the fossil fuel industry a license to keep polluting," said Holly Bender, chief program officer for the Sierra Club, following news of the EPA's rollback of power plant rules. "This is full-throated climate denial while the climate crisis happens in real time and a shocking betrayal of the American public."
She added that "the Sierra Club will fight back against this reckless and dangerous proposal with everything we have in the courts, in Congress, and in communities across the country.”
If successful, the reversal of the power plant rules would be one of the most significant steps in Zeldin's push to eviscerate the EPA's authority to combat climate change on behalf of the fossil fuel industry. Earlier this summer, during a meeting of the National Coal Council, he bragged that "many of the items" on the industry's "wish list are now done."
He has put the wheels in motion to roll back virtually every Biden-era regulation on the coal industry, including rules limiting pollution from mercury and toxic metals, controls on toxic wastewater from coal plants, and limits on coal ash.
And while seeking to undermine the legal basis to regulate greenhouse gases, Zeldin's EPA has also taken a sledgehammer to its practical ability to do so, dismantling offices that collect climate data, erasing information about human-caused climate change from the agency's websites, and filling research panels with scientists employed by the fossil fuel industry.
Former State Department energy official Alan Eyre noted that on the world stage, the US "has always been obstructionist" when it comes to climate policy. Under Trump, he said, "we're actively malevolent."