

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.

Declaring that after three decades of studying the climate he's "never been as worried" about the future of the planet as he is today, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber--founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany--warned that even as extreme weather wreaks havoc across the globe and experts issue one terrifying prediction after another, political leaders are still refusing to confront the climate crisis with the necessary urgency.
"Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet. The risks are compounding all the time. It stands to reason that the sooner we can take action, the quicker we can rein them in."
--Richard Betts, University of Exeter
"I've worked on this for 30 years and I've never been as worried as I am today," Schellnhuber declared during the COP24 climate summit in Poland, arguing that even the language commonly used to describe the changing state of the climate doesn't sufficiently convey the enormity of the crisis.
"Global warming doesn't capture the scale of destruction. Speaking of hothouse Earth is legitimate," added Schellnhuber, who co-authored a "terrifying" study warning that humanity may be just 1degC away from irreversible planetary catastrophe.
Richard Betts, professor of climate impacts at the University of Exeter, agreed with Schellnhuber's dire assessment, and argued that "global heating" is more accurate than "global warming" in describing what continued carbon emissions are doing to the climate.
"Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet," Betts said. "The risks are compounding all the time. It stands to reason that the sooner we can take action, the quicker we can rein them in."
But Betts went on to express dismay at the suicidally slow pace at which world leaders are working to confront the crisis that--if immediate and bold action is not taken--threatens to render the planet uninhabitable for future generations.
"Things are obviously proceeding very slowly," Betts said. "As a scientist, it's frustrating to see we're still at the point when temperatures are going up and emissions are going up. I've been in this for 25 years. I hoped we'd be beyond here by now."
As world leaders refuse to ditch fossil fuels or--in the case of the Trump administration--attempt to increase production, people around the world are mobilizing around ambitious solutions like a Green New Deal, which is rapidly gaining support in the U.S. Congress.
As Common Dreams reported, the "Extinction Rebellion" movement--which is demanding that governments reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025--has spread to 35 countries in just six months.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |

Declaring that after three decades of studying the climate he's "never been as worried" about the future of the planet as he is today, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber--founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany--warned that even as extreme weather wreaks havoc across the globe and experts issue one terrifying prediction after another, political leaders are still refusing to confront the climate crisis with the necessary urgency.
"Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet. The risks are compounding all the time. It stands to reason that the sooner we can take action, the quicker we can rein them in."
--Richard Betts, University of Exeter
"I've worked on this for 30 years and I've never been as worried as I am today," Schellnhuber declared during the COP24 climate summit in Poland, arguing that even the language commonly used to describe the changing state of the climate doesn't sufficiently convey the enormity of the crisis.
"Global warming doesn't capture the scale of destruction. Speaking of hothouse Earth is legitimate," added Schellnhuber, who co-authored a "terrifying" study warning that humanity may be just 1degC away from irreversible planetary catastrophe.
Richard Betts, professor of climate impacts at the University of Exeter, agreed with Schellnhuber's dire assessment, and argued that "global heating" is more accurate than "global warming" in describing what continued carbon emissions are doing to the climate.
"Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet," Betts said. "The risks are compounding all the time. It stands to reason that the sooner we can take action, the quicker we can rein them in."
But Betts went on to express dismay at the suicidally slow pace at which world leaders are working to confront the crisis that--if immediate and bold action is not taken--threatens to render the planet uninhabitable for future generations.
"Things are obviously proceeding very slowly," Betts said. "As a scientist, it's frustrating to see we're still at the point when temperatures are going up and emissions are going up. I've been in this for 25 years. I hoped we'd be beyond here by now."
As world leaders refuse to ditch fossil fuels or--in the case of the Trump administration--attempt to increase production, people around the world are mobilizing around ambitious solutions like a Green New Deal, which is rapidly gaining support in the U.S. Congress.
As Common Dreams reported, the "Extinction Rebellion" movement--which is demanding that governments reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025--has spread to 35 countries in just six months.

Declaring that after three decades of studying the climate he's "never been as worried" about the future of the planet as he is today, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber--founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany--warned that even as extreme weather wreaks havoc across the globe and experts issue one terrifying prediction after another, political leaders are still refusing to confront the climate crisis with the necessary urgency.
"Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet. The risks are compounding all the time. It stands to reason that the sooner we can take action, the quicker we can rein them in."
--Richard Betts, University of Exeter
"I've worked on this for 30 years and I've never been as worried as I am today," Schellnhuber declared during the COP24 climate summit in Poland, arguing that even the language commonly used to describe the changing state of the climate doesn't sufficiently convey the enormity of the crisis.
"Global warming doesn't capture the scale of destruction. Speaking of hothouse Earth is legitimate," added Schellnhuber, who co-authored a "terrifying" study warning that humanity may be just 1degC away from irreversible planetary catastrophe.
Richard Betts, professor of climate impacts at the University of Exeter, agreed with Schellnhuber's dire assessment, and argued that "global heating" is more accurate than "global warming" in describing what continued carbon emissions are doing to the climate.
"Global heating is technically more correct because we are talking about changes in the energy balance of the planet," Betts said. "The risks are compounding all the time. It stands to reason that the sooner we can take action, the quicker we can rein them in."
But Betts went on to express dismay at the suicidally slow pace at which world leaders are working to confront the crisis that--if immediate and bold action is not taken--threatens to render the planet uninhabitable for future generations.
"Things are obviously proceeding very slowly," Betts said. "As a scientist, it's frustrating to see we're still at the point when temperatures are going up and emissions are going up. I've been in this for 25 years. I hoped we'd be beyond here by now."
As world leaders refuse to ditch fossil fuels or--in the case of the Trump administration--attempt to increase production, people around the world are mobilizing around ambitious solutions like a Green New Deal, which is rapidly gaining support in the U.S. Congress.
As Common Dreams reported, the "Extinction Rebellion" movement--which is demanding that governments reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2025--has spread to 35 countries in just six months.