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.
COP26 president Alok Sharma speaks during a press conference on November 13, 2021 in Glasgow, Scotland. (Photo by Ian Forsyth/Getty Images)
Faced with new research showing a significant gap between current commitments to cut planet-heating emissions and the Paris agreement's 1.5degC target, negotiators from nearly 200 countries on Saturday struck a deal that critics say falls short of what is needed to tackle the climate emergency.
"It's meek, it's weak, and the 1.5degC goal is only just alive, but a signal has been sent that the era of coal is ending. And that matters."
The agreement came out of COP26, the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland that was scheduled to wrap up Friday. As talks spilled over into Saturday, global campaigners expressed frustration with what they called "a clear betrayal by rich nations."
That criticism of the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States came early Saturday after they killed an effort by poor countries to create a new mechanism that would make rich nations pay for climate-related "loss and damage."
Outrage over that omission and other elements of the Glasgow Climate Pact mounted--and mixed with some expressions of hope--as the meeting ended. Greenpeace International executive director Jennifer Morgan said in a statement about the deal that "it's meek, it's weak, and the 1.5degC goal is only just alive, but a signal has been sent that the era of coal is ending. And that matters."
While lamenting that "the offsets scam got a boost," Morgan welcomed "progress on adaptation," the recognition that vulnerable countries are already enduring loss and damage, a call for emissions cuts of 45% by 2030, and a line on phasing out coal and fossil fuel subsidies, which she said is "compromised but its very existence is nevertheless a breakthrough."
\u201cThe #COP26 outcome is a compromise, reflecting the interests, contradictions & state of political will in the world today. \n\nIt's an important step, but it's not enough. \nIt's time to go into emergency mode. \n\nThe climate battle is the fight of our lives & that fight must be won.\u201d— Ant\u00f3nio Guterres (@Ant\u00f3nio Guterres) 1636834438
Oil Change International executive director Elizabeth Bast said that "compared to just a few years ago, the progress and momentum made in the last two weeks towards phasing out fossil fuels is striking," highlighting some specific wins from the U.K.-hosted conference.
"The joint commitment by nearly 40 countries and institutions to end public finance for oil, gas, and coal projects overseas now puts pressure on all countries to end funding for all fossil fuels," she said. "The Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, launched by 12 countries and regions, is the first diplomatic initiative acknowledging the need for governments to manage the phaseout of fossil fuel production as a key tool to address the climate crisis."
Related Content
With the summit in Scotland now over, many activists are already setting their sights on COP27 in Egypt and demanding more progress.
"Glasgow was meant to deliver on firmly closing the gap to 1.5degC and that didn't happen, but in 2022 nations will now have to come back with stronger targets," said Morgan. "The only reason we got what we did is because young people, Indigenous leaders, activists, and countries on the climate frontline forced concessions that were grudgingly given. Without them, these climate talks would have flopped completely."
Some activists framed this year's talks as a total failure. As Sara Shaw, Climate Justice and Energy program co-coordinator at Friends of the Earth International, put it: "The U.K. presidency and their allies are patting themselves on the back but no deal at all would have been better."
"Perhaps it is no surprise that this was the moment a deal was finally forced through on carbon markets--a free pass for rich countries reluctant to cut emissions," she said, noting the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at the event. "This deal could mean a rise in global emissions and--combined with a weak commitment to 'net-zero' by midcentury and the inclusion of seductive sounding 'nature-based solutions' (read massive tree planting in the Global South)--will fuel a grabbing of Indigenous and developing countries' land for carbon offsets, not to mention a rush for unproven technofixes."
Related Content
Grassroots Global Justice Alliance policy director Adrien Salazar said that "we came to COP26 with frontline Indigenous, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Arab leaders impacted by climate crisis, fossil fuel extraction, and pollution. What we have witnessed here is another trade show for corporate and government schemes to evade real solutions that reduce emissions at the source, while they resist winding down fossil fuels."
"This entire COP has been framed for net-zero targets, but net-zero and carbon offsetting schemes enable continued violence on vulnerable communities," Salazar added. "We have been given smoke and mirrors in this agreement. Over 500 fossil fuel lobbyists were here at COP, more than any single delegation. Militaries, like the U.S. military--the largest single carbon emitter in the world--remain exempt from this climate agreement again. There is not enough in this document to protect human rights, and this outcome leaves far too many loopholes for fossil fuel corporations to continue their violent business model. People on the frontlines of climate chaos and extractive industry need real solutions and real reductions now."
Related Content
"It is nothing less than a scandal," Shaw argued. "Just saying the words 1.5 degrees is meaningless if there is nothing in the agreement to deliver it. COP26 will be remembered as a betrayal of Global South countries--abandoned to the climate crisis with no money for the energy transition, adaptation, or loss and damage."
As The New York Times detailed Saturday:
A decade ago, the world's wealthiest economies pledged to mobilize $100 billion per year in climate finance for poorer countries by 2020. But they are still falling short by tens of billions of dollars per year.
At the same time, only a small fraction of that climate aid to date has gone toward measures to help poorer countries cope with the hazards of a hotter planet, such as sea walls or early-warning systems for floods and droughts...
The new agreement tries to fill in some of those gaps. It calls out rich countries for failing to meet the $100 billion goal and urges them to "at least double" finance for adaptation by 2025. It also sets up a process for figuring out a collective goal for long-term finance, although that process could take years, and developing countries say they may ultimately need trillions of dollars by the end of the decade.
Shaw said that "the 150,000 people out on the streets for climate justice in Glasgow know the solutions to the climate crisis: a just transition to a world without fossil fuels and climate finance flowing from developed to developing countries. Disgracefully, rich countries opted instead for the Glasgow 'get-out clause' while hanging developing countries out to dry."
Related Content
While the two-week COP26 saw some participation from diplomats and activists of poor and frontline communities, Rachel Cleetus, a policy director and lead economist in the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that organizers of the event--which was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic--have come under fire for its exclusionary nature, and connected that criticism to the deal that emerged Saturday.
"The final COP26 decision is overwhelmingly compromised by countries that have contributed most greatly to the climate crisis," Cleetus said, "and once again denies justice for climate-vulnerable developing countries already experiencing loss of lives, livelihoods, culturally significant sites, and critical ecosystems."
"The next COP must be a reckoning for the fossil fuel industry and the rich countries that caused the climate crisis."
"It also reflects the pervasive access and equity issues that plagued the Glasgow talks from the start," she continued. "Limited availability of Covid-19 vaccines in the Global South, a venue too small to accommodate those that made the difficult journey, and glitchy technology shut out many negotiators and civil society members from participating in the process."
Nick Dearden, director of the London-based group Global Justice Now, similarly called out the host government, declaring that "from the very start, the U.K. presidency set this summit up for failure. A sanitized COP, captured by corporate interests and inaccessible to the Global South, was never going to adequately or equitably respond to the climate crisis."
Dearden celebrated that since the summit started on October 31, "the climate justice movement that came out in force in Glasgow and around the world became mainstream." However, he also said that "this hollowed-out agreement shows that, for all the lip service they paid, world leaders and big business have not listened."
Warning the 1.5degC goal "may not yet be dead, but it is on life support," he added that "the next COP must be a reckoning for the fossil fuel industry and the rich countries that caused the climate crisis. Anything less will consign us to devastation."
Related Content
Alok Sharma, the British politician who served as COP26 president, also recognized Saturday that more ambition going forward is essential.
"We can now say with credibility that we have kept 1.5 degrees alive," Sharma said. "But, its pulse is weak and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action."
"It is up to all of us to sustain our lodestar of keeping 1.5 degrees within reach and to continue our efforts to get finance flowing and boost adaptation," he added. "After the collective dedication which has delivered the Glasgow Climate Pact, our work here cannot be wasted."
Martin Vilela, Latin America Climate Campaign coordinator at Corporate Accountability, was less optimistic, saying that "COP26 has effectively buried the opportunity to stabilize global temperatures below 1.5 degrees and condemned us to false solutions, impunity, and irrationality."
"Regardless of the success story that so-called leaders are selling to the world, we know that this only means more suffering for billions," Vilela added. "We don't believe them anymore! Now is the time to build solidarity with grassroots struggles that are challenging the powers and systems that have gotten us here, and build a just pathway forward."
This post has been updated with comment from the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance and Corporate Accountability.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Faced with new research showing a significant gap between current commitments to cut planet-heating emissions and the Paris agreement's 1.5degC target, negotiators from nearly 200 countries on Saturday struck a deal that critics say falls short of what is needed to tackle the climate emergency.
"It's meek, it's weak, and the 1.5degC goal is only just alive, but a signal has been sent that the era of coal is ending. And that matters."
The agreement came out of COP26, the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland that was scheduled to wrap up Friday. As talks spilled over into Saturday, global campaigners expressed frustration with what they called "a clear betrayal by rich nations."
That criticism of the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States came early Saturday after they killed an effort by poor countries to create a new mechanism that would make rich nations pay for climate-related "loss and damage."
Outrage over that omission and other elements of the Glasgow Climate Pact mounted--and mixed with some expressions of hope--as the meeting ended. Greenpeace International executive director Jennifer Morgan said in a statement about the deal that "it's meek, it's weak, and the 1.5degC goal is only just alive, but a signal has been sent that the era of coal is ending. And that matters."
While lamenting that "the offsets scam got a boost," Morgan welcomed "progress on adaptation," the recognition that vulnerable countries are already enduring loss and damage, a call for emissions cuts of 45% by 2030, and a line on phasing out coal and fossil fuel subsidies, which she said is "compromised but its very existence is nevertheless a breakthrough."
\u201cThe #COP26 outcome is a compromise, reflecting the interests, contradictions & state of political will in the world today. \n\nIt's an important step, but it's not enough. \nIt's time to go into emergency mode. \n\nThe climate battle is the fight of our lives & that fight must be won.\u201d— Ant\u00f3nio Guterres (@Ant\u00f3nio Guterres) 1636834438
Oil Change International executive director Elizabeth Bast said that "compared to just a few years ago, the progress and momentum made in the last two weeks towards phasing out fossil fuels is striking," highlighting some specific wins from the U.K.-hosted conference.
"The joint commitment by nearly 40 countries and institutions to end public finance for oil, gas, and coal projects overseas now puts pressure on all countries to end funding for all fossil fuels," she said. "The Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, launched by 12 countries and regions, is the first diplomatic initiative acknowledging the need for governments to manage the phaseout of fossil fuel production as a key tool to address the climate crisis."
Related Content
With the summit in Scotland now over, many activists are already setting their sights on COP27 in Egypt and demanding more progress.
"Glasgow was meant to deliver on firmly closing the gap to 1.5degC and that didn't happen, but in 2022 nations will now have to come back with stronger targets," said Morgan. "The only reason we got what we did is because young people, Indigenous leaders, activists, and countries on the climate frontline forced concessions that were grudgingly given. Without them, these climate talks would have flopped completely."
Some activists framed this year's talks as a total failure. As Sara Shaw, Climate Justice and Energy program co-coordinator at Friends of the Earth International, put it: "The U.K. presidency and their allies are patting themselves on the back but no deal at all would have been better."
"Perhaps it is no surprise that this was the moment a deal was finally forced through on carbon markets--a free pass for rich countries reluctant to cut emissions," she said, noting the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at the event. "This deal could mean a rise in global emissions and--combined with a weak commitment to 'net-zero' by midcentury and the inclusion of seductive sounding 'nature-based solutions' (read massive tree planting in the Global South)--will fuel a grabbing of Indigenous and developing countries' land for carbon offsets, not to mention a rush for unproven technofixes."
Related Content
Grassroots Global Justice Alliance policy director Adrien Salazar said that "we came to COP26 with frontline Indigenous, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Arab leaders impacted by climate crisis, fossil fuel extraction, and pollution. What we have witnessed here is another trade show for corporate and government schemes to evade real solutions that reduce emissions at the source, while they resist winding down fossil fuels."
"This entire COP has been framed for net-zero targets, but net-zero and carbon offsetting schemes enable continued violence on vulnerable communities," Salazar added. "We have been given smoke and mirrors in this agreement. Over 500 fossil fuel lobbyists were here at COP, more than any single delegation. Militaries, like the U.S. military--the largest single carbon emitter in the world--remain exempt from this climate agreement again. There is not enough in this document to protect human rights, and this outcome leaves far too many loopholes for fossil fuel corporations to continue their violent business model. People on the frontlines of climate chaos and extractive industry need real solutions and real reductions now."
Related Content
"It is nothing less than a scandal," Shaw argued. "Just saying the words 1.5 degrees is meaningless if there is nothing in the agreement to deliver it. COP26 will be remembered as a betrayal of Global South countries--abandoned to the climate crisis with no money for the energy transition, adaptation, or loss and damage."
As The New York Times detailed Saturday:
A decade ago, the world's wealthiest economies pledged to mobilize $100 billion per year in climate finance for poorer countries by 2020. But they are still falling short by tens of billions of dollars per year.
At the same time, only a small fraction of that climate aid to date has gone toward measures to help poorer countries cope with the hazards of a hotter planet, such as sea walls or early-warning systems for floods and droughts...
The new agreement tries to fill in some of those gaps. It calls out rich countries for failing to meet the $100 billion goal and urges them to "at least double" finance for adaptation by 2025. It also sets up a process for figuring out a collective goal for long-term finance, although that process could take years, and developing countries say they may ultimately need trillions of dollars by the end of the decade.
Shaw said that "the 150,000 people out on the streets for climate justice in Glasgow know the solutions to the climate crisis: a just transition to a world without fossil fuels and climate finance flowing from developed to developing countries. Disgracefully, rich countries opted instead for the Glasgow 'get-out clause' while hanging developing countries out to dry."
Related Content
While the two-week COP26 saw some participation from diplomats and activists of poor and frontline communities, Rachel Cleetus, a policy director and lead economist in the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that organizers of the event--which was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic--have come under fire for its exclusionary nature, and connected that criticism to the deal that emerged Saturday.
"The final COP26 decision is overwhelmingly compromised by countries that have contributed most greatly to the climate crisis," Cleetus said, "and once again denies justice for climate-vulnerable developing countries already experiencing loss of lives, livelihoods, culturally significant sites, and critical ecosystems."
"The next COP must be a reckoning for the fossil fuel industry and the rich countries that caused the climate crisis."
"It also reflects the pervasive access and equity issues that plagued the Glasgow talks from the start," she continued. "Limited availability of Covid-19 vaccines in the Global South, a venue too small to accommodate those that made the difficult journey, and glitchy technology shut out many negotiators and civil society members from participating in the process."
Nick Dearden, director of the London-based group Global Justice Now, similarly called out the host government, declaring that "from the very start, the U.K. presidency set this summit up for failure. A sanitized COP, captured by corporate interests and inaccessible to the Global South, was never going to adequately or equitably respond to the climate crisis."
Dearden celebrated that since the summit started on October 31, "the climate justice movement that came out in force in Glasgow and around the world became mainstream." However, he also said that "this hollowed-out agreement shows that, for all the lip service they paid, world leaders and big business have not listened."
Warning the 1.5degC goal "may not yet be dead, but it is on life support," he added that "the next COP must be a reckoning for the fossil fuel industry and the rich countries that caused the climate crisis. Anything less will consign us to devastation."
Related Content
Alok Sharma, the British politician who served as COP26 president, also recognized Saturday that more ambition going forward is essential.
"We can now say with credibility that we have kept 1.5 degrees alive," Sharma said. "But, its pulse is weak and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action."
"It is up to all of us to sustain our lodestar of keeping 1.5 degrees within reach and to continue our efforts to get finance flowing and boost adaptation," he added. "After the collective dedication which has delivered the Glasgow Climate Pact, our work here cannot be wasted."
Martin Vilela, Latin America Climate Campaign coordinator at Corporate Accountability, was less optimistic, saying that "COP26 has effectively buried the opportunity to stabilize global temperatures below 1.5 degrees and condemned us to false solutions, impunity, and irrationality."
"Regardless of the success story that so-called leaders are selling to the world, we know that this only means more suffering for billions," Vilela added. "We don't believe them anymore! Now is the time to build solidarity with grassroots struggles that are challenging the powers and systems that have gotten us here, and build a just pathway forward."
This post has been updated with comment from the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance and Corporate Accountability.
Faced with new research showing a significant gap between current commitments to cut planet-heating emissions and the Paris agreement's 1.5degC target, negotiators from nearly 200 countries on Saturday struck a deal that critics say falls short of what is needed to tackle the climate emergency.
"It's meek, it's weak, and the 1.5degC goal is only just alive, but a signal has been sent that the era of coal is ending. And that matters."
The agreement came out of COP26, the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland that was scheduled to wrap up Friday. As talks spilled over into Saturday, global campaigners expressed frustration with what they called "a clear betrayal by rich nations."
That criticism of the European Union, United Kingdom, and United States came early Saturday after they killed an effort by poor countries to create a new mechanism that would make rich nations pay for climate-related "loss and damage."
Outrage over that omission and other elements of the Glasgow Climate Pact mounted--and mixed with some expressions of hope--as the meeting ended. Greenpeace International executive director Jennifer Morgan said in a statement about the deal that "it's meek, it's weak, and the 1.5degC goal is only just alive, but a signal has been sent that the era of coal is ending. And that matters."
While lamenting that "the offsets scam got a boost," Morgan welcomed "progress on adaptation," the recognition that vulnerable countries are already enduring loss and damage, a call for emissions cuts of 45% by 2030, and a line on phasing out coal and fossil fuel subsidies, which she said is "compromised but its very existence is nevertheless a breakthrough."
\u201cThe #COP26 outcome is a compromise, reflecting the interests, contradictions & state of political will in the world today. \n\nIt's an important step, but it's not enough. \nIt's time to go into emergency mode. \n\nThe climate battle is the fight of our lives & that fight must be won.\u201d— Ant\u00f3nio Guterres (@Ant\u00f3nio Guterres) 1636834438
Oil Change International executive director Elizabeth Bast said that "compared to just a few years ago, the progress and momentum made in the last two weeks towards phasing out fossil fuels is striking," highlighting some specific wins from the U.K.-hosted conference.
"The joint commitment by nearly 40 countries and institutions to end public finance for oil, gas, and coal projects overseas now puts pressure on all countries to end funding for all fossil fuels," she said. "The Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, launched by 12 countries and regions, is the first diplomatic initiative acknowledging the need for governments to manage the phaseout of fossil fuel production as a key tool to address the climate crisis."
Related Content
With the summit in Scotland now over, many activists are already setting their sights on COP27 in Egypt and demanding more progress.
"Glasgow was meant to deliver on firmly closing the gap to 1.5degC and that didn't happen, but in 2022 nations will now have to come back with stronger targets," said Morgan. "The only reason we got what we did is because young people, Indigenous leaders, activists, and countries on the climate frontline forced concessions that were grudgingly given. Without them, these climate talks would have flopped completely."
Some activists framed this year's talks as a total failure. As Sara Shaw, Climate Justice and Energy program co-coordinator at Friends of the Earth International, put it: "The U.K. presidency and their allies are patting themselves on the back but no deal at all would have been better."
"Perhaps it is no surprise that this was the moment a deal was finally forced through on carbon markets--a free pass for rich countries reluctant to cut emissions," she said, noting the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at the event. "This deal could mean a rise in global emissions and--combined with a weak commitment to 'net-zero' by midcentury and the inclusion of seductive sounding 'nature-based solutions' (read massive tree planting in the Global South)--will fuel a grabbing of Indigenous and developing countries' land for carbon offsets, not to mention a rush for unproven technofixes."
Related Content
Grassroots Global Justice Alliance policy director Adrien Salazar said that "we came to COP26 with frontline Indigenous, Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Arab leaders impacted by climate crisis, fossil fuel extraction, and pollution. What we have witnessed here is another trade show for corporate and government schemes to evade real solutions that reduce emissions at the source, while they resist winding down fossil fuels."
"This entire COP has been framed for net-zero targets, but net-zero and carbon offsetting schemes enable continued violence on vulnerable communities," Salazar added. "We have been given smoke and mirrors in this agreement. Over 500 fossil fuel lobbyists were here at COP, more than any single delegation. Militaries, like the U.S. military--the largest single carbon emitter in the world--remain exempt from this climate agreement again. There is not enough in this document to protect human rights, and this outcome leaves far too many loopholes for fossil fuel corporations to continue their violent business model. People on the frontlines of climate chaos and extractive industry need real solutions and real reductions now."
Related Content
"It is nothing less than a scandal," Shaw argued. "Just saying the words 1.5 degrees is meaningless if there is nothing in the agreement to deliver it. COP26 will be remembered as a betrayal of Global South countries--abandoned to the climate crisis with no money for the energy transition, adaptation, or loss and damage."
As The New York Times detailed Saturday:
A decade ago, the world's wealthiest economies pledged to mobilize $100 billion per year in climate finance for poorer countries by 2020. But they are still falling short by tens of billions of dollars per year.
At the same time, only a small fraction of that climate aid to date has gone toward measures to help poorer countries cope with the hazards of a hotter planet, such as sea walls or early-warning systems for floods and droughts...
The new agreement tries to fill in some of those gaps. It calls out rich countries for failing to meet the $100 billion goal and urges them to "at least double" finance for adaptation by 2025. It also sets up a process for figuring out a collective goal for long-term finance, although that process could take years, and developing countries say they may ultimately need trillions of dollars by the end of the decade.
Shaw said that "the 150,000 people out on the streets for climate justice in Glasgow know the solutions to the climate crisis: a just transition to a world without fossil fuels and climate finance flowing from developed to developing countries. Disgracefully, rich countries opted instead for the Glasgow 'get-out clause' while hanging developing countries out to dry."
Related Content
While the two-week COP26 saw some participation from diplomats and activists of poor and frontline communities, Rachel Cleetus, a policy director and lead economist in the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted that organizers of the event--which was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic--have come under fire for its exclusionary nature, and connected that criticism to the deal that emerged Saturday.
"The final COP26 decision is overwhelmingly compromised by countries that have contributed most greatly to the climate crisis," Cleetus said, "and once again denies justice for climate-vulnerable developing countries already experiencing loss of lives, livelihoods, culturally significant sites, and critical ecosystems."
"The next COP must be a reckoning for the fossil fuel industry and the rich countries that caused the climate crisis."
"It also reflects the pervasive access and equity issues that plagued the Glasgow talks from the start," she continued. "Limited availability of Covid-19 vaccines in the Global South, a venue too small to accommodate those that made the difficult journey, and glitchy technology shut out many negotiators and civil society members from participating in the process."
Nick Dearden, director of the London-based group Global Justice Now, similarly called out the host government, declaring that "from the very start, the U.K. presidency set this summit up for failure. A sanitized COP, captured by corporate interests and inaccessible to the Global South, was never going to adequately or equitably respond to the climate crisis."
Dearden celebrated that since the summit started on October 31, "the climate justice movement that came out in force in Glasgow and around the world became mainstream." However, he also said that "this hollowed-out agreement shows that, for all the lip service they paid, world leaders and big business have not listened."
Warning the 1.5degC goal "may not yet be dead, but it is on life support," he added that "the next COP must be a reckoning for the fossil fuel industry and the rich countries that caused the climate crisis. Anything less will consign us to devastation."
Related Content
Alok Sharma, the British politician who served as COP26 president, also recognized Saturday that more ambition going forward is essential.
"We can now say with credibility that we have kept 1.5 degrees alive," Sharma said. "But, its pulse is weak and it will only survive if we keep our promises and translate commitments into rapid action."
"It is up to all of us to sustain our lodestar of keeping 1.5 degrees within reach and to continue our efforts to get finance flowing and boost adaptation," he added. "After the collective dedication which has delivered the Glasgow Climate Pact, our work here cannot be wasted."
Martin Vilela, Latin America Climate Campaign coordinator at Corporate Accountability, was less optimistic, saying that "COP26 has effectively buried the opportunity to stabilize global temperatures below 1.5 degrees and condemned us to false solutions, impunity, and irrationality."
"Regardless of the success story that so-called leaders are selling to the world, we know that this only means more suffering for billions," Vilela added. "We don't believe them anymore! Now is the time to build solidarity with grassroots struggles that are challenging the powers and systems that have gotten us here, and build a just pathway forward."
This post has been updated with comment from the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance and Corporate Accountability.
"They're now using the failed War on Drugs to justify their egregious violation of international law," the Minnesota progressive said of the Trump administration.
Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Delia Ramirez on Thursday strongly condemned the Trump administration's deadly attack on a boat allegedly trafficking cocaine off the coast of Venezuela as "lawless and reckless," while urging the White House to respect lawmakers' "clear constitutional authority on matters of war and peace."
"Congress has not declared war on Venezuela, or Tren de Aragua, and the mere designation of a group as a terrorist organization does not give any president carte blanche," said Omar (D-Minn.), referring to President Donald Trump's day one executive order designating drug cartels including the Venezuela-based group as foreign terrorist organizations.
Trump—who reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to use military force to combat cartels abroad—said that Tuesday's US strike in international waters killed 11 people. The attack sparked fears of renewed US aggression in a region that has endured well over 100 US interventions over the past 200 years, and against a country that has suffered US meddling since the late 19th century.
"It appears that US forces that were recently sent to the region in an escalatory and provocative manner were under no threat from the boat they attacked," Omar cotended. "There is no conceivable legal justification for this use of force. Unless compelling evidence emerges that they were acting in self-defense, that makes the strike a clear violation of international law."
Omar continued:
They're now using the failed War on Drugs to justify their egregious violation of international law. The US posture towards the eradication of drugs has caused immeasurable damage across our hemisphere. It has led to massive forced displacement, environmental devastation, violence, and human rights violations. What it has not done is any damage whatsoever to narcotrafficking or to the cartels. It has been a dramatic, profound failure at every level. In Latin America, even right-wing presidents acknowledge this is true.
The congresswoman's remarks came on the same day that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio designated a pair of Ecuadorean drug gangs as terrorist organizations while visiting the South American nation. This, after Rubio said that US attacks on suspected drug traffickers "will happen again."
"Trump and Rubio's apparent solution" to the failed drug war, said Omar, is "to make it even more militarized," an effort that "is doomed to fail."
"Worse, it risks spiraling into the exact type of endless, pointless conflict that Trump supposedly opposes," she added.
Echoing critics including former Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth, who called Tuesday's strike a "summary execution," Ramirez (D-Ill.) said Thursday on social media that "Trump and the Pentagon executed 11 people in the Caribbean, 1,500 miles away from the United States, without a legal rationale."
"From Iran to Venezuela, to DC, LA, and Chicago, Trump continues to abuse our military power, undermine the rule of law, and erode our constitutional boundaries in political spectacles," Ramirez added, referring to the president's ordering of strikes on Iran and National Guard deployments to Los Angeles, the nation's capital, and likely beyond.
"Presidents don't bomb first and ask questions later," Ramirez added. "Wannabe dictators do that."
"The fact that a facility embedded in so much pain is allowed to reopen is absolutely disheartening!" said Florida Immigrant Coalition's deputy director.
Two judges appointed to the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit by President Donald Trump issued a Thursday decision that allows a newly established but already notorious immigrant detention center in Florida, dubbed Alligator Alcatraz, to stay open.
Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida sought "to halt the unlawful construction" of the site. Last month, Judge Kathleen Williams—appointed by former President Barack Obama to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida—ordered the closure of the facility within 60 days.
However, on Thursday, Circuit Judges Elizabeth Branch and Barbara Lagoa blocked Williams' decision, concluding that "the balance of the harms and our consideration of the public interest favor a stay of the preliminary injunction."
Judge Adalberto Jordan, an Obama appointee, issued a brief but scathing dissent. He wrote that the majority "essentially ignores the burden borne by the defendants, pays only lip service to the abuse of discretion standard, engages in its own factfinding, declines to consider the district court's determination on irreparable harm, and performs its own balancing of the equities."
The 11th Circuit's ruling was cheered by the US Department of Homeland Security, Republican Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, and Gov. Ron DeSantis, who declared in a video that "Alligator Alcatraz is, in fact, like we've always said, open for business."
Uthmeier's communications director, Jeremy Redfern, collected responses to the initial ruling by state and federal Democrats, and urged them to weigh in on social media. Florida state Sen. Shevrin "Shev" Jones (D-34) did, stressing that "cruelty is still cruelty."
In a Thursday statement, Florida Immigrant Coalition deputy director Renata Bozzetto said that "the 11th Circuit is allowing atrocities to happen by reversing the injunction that helped to paralyze something that has been functioning as an extrajudicial site in our own state! The Everglades Detention Camp isn't just an environmental threat; it is also a huge human rights crisis."
"Housing thousands of men in tents in the middle of a fragile ecosystem puts immense strain on Florida's source environment, but even more troublesome, it disregards human rights and our constitutional commitments," Bozzetto continued. "This is a place where hundreds of our neighbors were illegally held, were made invisible within government systems, and were subjected to inhumane heat and unbearable treatment. The fact that a facility embedded in so much pain is allowed to reopen is absolutely disheartening! The only just solution is to shut this facility down and ensure that no facility like this opens in our state!"
"Lastly, it is imperative that we as a nation uphold the balance of powers that this country was founded on," she added. "That is what makes this country special! Calling judges who rule against you 'activists' flies in the face of our democracy. It is a huge tell that AG Uthmeier expressed this as a 'win for President Trump's agenda,' as if the courts were to serve as political weapons. This demonstrates the clear partisan games they are playing with people's lives and with our democracy."
While Alligator Alcatraz has drawn widespread criticism for the conditions in which detainees are held, the suit is based on the government's failure to follow a law that requires an environmental review, given the facility's proximity to surrounding wetlands.
In response to the ruling, Elise Bennett, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The Associated Press that "this is a heartbreaking blow to America's Everglades and every living creature there, but the case isn't even close to over."
The report found that seven of America's biggest healthcare companies have collectively dodged $34 billion in taxes as a result of Trump's 2017 tax law while making patient care worse.
President Donald Trump's tax policies have allowed the healthcare industry to rake in "sick profits" by avoiding tens of billions of dollars in taxes and lowering the quality of care for patients, according to a report out Wednesday.
The report, by the advocacy groups Americans for Tax Fairness and Community Catalyst, found that "seven of America's biggest healthcare corporations have dodged over $34 billion in collective taxes since the enactment of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law that Republicans recently succeeded in extending."
The study examined four health insurance companies—Centene, Cigna, Elevance (formerly Anthem), and Humana; two for-profit hospital chains—HCA Holdings and Universal Health Services; and the CVS Healthcare pharmacy conglomerate.
It found that these companies' average profits increased by 75%, from around $21 billion before the tax bill to about $35 billion afterward, and yet their federal tax rate was about the same.
This was primarily due to the 2017 law's slashing of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, a change that was cheered on by the healthcare industry and continued with this year's GOP tax legislation. The legislation also loosened many tax loopholes and made it easier to move profits to offshore tax shelters.
The report found that Cigna, for instance, saved an estimated $181 million in taxes on the $2.5 billion it held in offshore accounts before the law took effect.
The law's supporters, including those in the healthcare industry, argued that lowering corporate taxes would allow companies to increase wages and provide better services to patients. But the report found that "healthcare corporations failed to use their tax savings to lower costs for customers or meaningfully boost worker pay."
Instead, they used those windfalls primarily to increase shareholder payouts through stock buybacks and dividends and to give fat bonuses to their top executives.
Stock buybacks increased by 42% after the law passed, with Centene purchasing an astonishing average of 20 times more of its own shares in the years following its enactment than in the years before. During the first seven years of the law, dividends for shareholders increased by 133% to an average of $5.6 billion.
Pay for the seven companies' half-dozen top executives increased by a combined $100 million, 42%, on average. This is compared to the $14,000 pay increase that the average employee at these companies received over the same period, which is a much more modest increase of 24%.
And contrary to claims that lower taxes would allow companies to improve coverage or patient care, the opposite has occurred.
While data is scarce, the rate of denied insurance claims is believed to have risen since the law went into effect.
The four major insurers' Medicare Advantage plans were found to frequently deny claims improperly. In the case of Centene, 93% of its denials for prior authorizations were overturned once patients appealed them, which indicates that they may have been improper. The others were not much better: 86% of Cigna's denials were overturned, along with 71% for Elevance/Anthem, and 65% for Humana.
The report said that such high rates of denials being overturned raise "questions about whether Medicare Advantage plans are complying with their coverage obligations or just reflexively saying 'no' in the hopes there will be no appeal."
Salespeople for the Cigna-owned company EviCore, which insurers hire to review claims, have even boasted that they help companies reduce their costs by increasing denials by 15%, part of a model that ProPublica has called the "denials for dollars business." Their investigation in 2024 found that insurers have used EviCore to evaluate whether to pay for coverage for over 100 million people.
And while paying tens of millions to their executives, both HCA and Universal Health Services—which each saved around $5.5 billion from Trump's tax law—have been repeatedly accused of overbilling patients while treating them in horrendous conditions.
"Congress should demand both more in tax revenue and better patient care from these highly profitable corporations," Americans for Tax Fairness said in a statement. "Healthcare corporation profitability should not come before quality of patient care. In healthcare, more than almost any other industry, the search for ever higher earnings threatens the wellbeing and lives of the American people."