

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.

Aaron Huertas, 202-331-5458
Unchecked climate change could saddle taxpayers, businesses, and state
and local governments across the country with hundreds of billions of
dollars in damages, according to a new report
released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The report,
"Climate Change in the United States: The Prohibitive Costs of
Inaction," is an overview of more than 60 studies analyzing the
potential financial toll of global warming if we fail to dramatically
curb emissions. The costs are largely due to rising sea levels, more
intense hurricanes, flooding, declining public health, strained energy
and water resources, and impaired transportation infrastructure.
"If we don't address global warming, you can imagine a cash register going 'ka-ching' all across the country," said Lexi Shultz, deputy director of the Climate Program at UCS. "By late this century, the Midwest could be inundated with more torrential rainstorms costing tens of billions of dollars. California, Washington and Oregon could be hit with an additional billion dollars in property damage from wildfires every year. The Northeast and Northwest, meanwhile, could lose most of their snowpack, which would kill the ski industry."
The
good news is that the cost of taking preventive action would be
dramatically less than the cost of doing nothing. Two federal agencies
recently calculated the cost of a climate and energy bill, passed by
the House of Representatives in June, that would promote clean energy
technologies and curb global warming emissions. The Department of
Energy's Energy Information Administration estimated that the bill
would increase U.S.
household energy bills by only $10 a month in 2020. The Congressional
Budget Office arrived at a similar estimate. As Energy Secretary Steven
Chu pointed out, "We can move to a clean energy future at a cost of
less than a postage stamp per family per day."
"The
investments we need to make in a clean energy economy are clearly
affordable and will pay major dividends," said Rachel Cleetus, climate
economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "What we can't afford
are the steep and rising costs of doing nothing."
Global warming already has altered the U.S. climate, the report pointed out: "Average U.S. temperatures have already risen by 2degF
over the past 50 years, and are projected to rise another 7degF to 11degF
by the end of this century" if we do not significantly cut emissions.
Given that heat-trapping gases remain in the atmosphere for decades or
even centuries, continuing to emit them at current rates would place a
massive burden on generations to come.
Below
are just some examples of costs that would be incurred due to sea level
rise, extreme weather events, and diminished tourism if global warming
continues unabated.
IN THE NORTHEAST
If emissions continue on their current trajectory, many winter recreation areas are projected to become unsuitable for skiing or snowmobiling. The region could lose $405 million to $810 million in annual skiing revenues.
Sugar
maples and other trees that produce the region's stunning fall foliage
also are vulnerable to a warming climate. The region stands to lose $5
million to $12 million annually from maple sugar losses alone, due to
shrinking tree habitat and decreased sap flow.
Sea
level rise, meanwhile, comes with a high price tag. Constructing
seawalls to protect Northeast towns and cities could cost as much as
$1.2 billion.
IN THE SOUTHEAST
In North Carolina:
A projected sea level rise of 18 inches could cost the beach recreation
industry $11 billion in cumulative damages by 2080 and cause $2 billion
in cumulative property damage by 2100.
In Georgia:
A sea level rise of 20 inches could require a cumulative $1.3 billion
in sand replenishment by 2100, and lead to a loss of 5,000 jobs in the
tourism industry.
In Florida: Sea level rise is projected to result in residential real estate losses of as much as $60 billion per year by 2100. Florida's tourism industry risks losing $178 billion annually by 2100 due to severe beach erosion, Everglades flooding, and coral bleaching. In addition, by 2100, Florida
residents could be socked with $19 billion annually in additional costs
for air conditioning. And property damage associated with more intense
hurricanes is projected to reach $111 billion annually by 2100.
IN THE MIDWEST
More
Floods: According to a June 2009 climate report by 13 federal agencies,
heavy rainstorms are projected to increase as much as 40 percent
nationwide, and the Midwest
and Northeast likely would experience the greatest increase in heavy
downpours. Recent floods portend significant future costs. In May and
June of last year, thunderstorms, tornadoes and floods caused more than
$18 billion in damage and 55 deaths nationwide, primarily in the Midwest.
More
Crop Damage: Climate change may mean wetter springs, which could delay
crop planting. One study projected a 7 percent increase in
precipitation in Illinois,
which would increase soil erosion as much as 38 percent by 2060,
driving up the costs of agricultural production. When combined with a
predicted 4.5degF increase in annual average temperatures, the annual
costs of climate change for Illinois's agricultural sector could reach $9.3 billion.
IN THE WEST
New Mexico:
The combined annual health costs from heat waves and ground-level ozone
are expected to jump by $1.6 billion by 2080. Reduced stream flows from
rivers primarily supplied by snowmelt would cost farmers an estimated
$21 million per year by 2080. In addition, wildfires would cost New Mexico an estimated $2 billion in timber value and additional firefighting expenditures a year by 2080.
California:
Annual heat-related health costs could reach an estimated $14 billion
by 2100, while rising ground-level ozone levels would boost medical
bills by another $10 billion. The cost of protecting low-lying coastal
property from sea level rise and the resulting storm surges,
particularly around San Francisco Bay, would range from $6 billion to $30 billion annually by 2100.
The
state's economy also would take a major hit. By the end of the century
Sierra snowpack could diminish by 80 percent. As a result, California's
ski season could disappear, and with it 15,000 jobs and $500 million in
annual industry revenues. Total annual tourism industry losses could
reach $7.5 billion. Meanwhile, annual losses to state agriculture,
forestry and fisheries could reach $4.3 billion. Hotter conditions
would slow production and reduce the quality of many of the state's
agricultural products. For example, milk production could fall as much
as 22 percent by 2100.
Additionally,
annual large wildfires would increase by as much as 53 percent by 2100.
Last year, the federal government spent $200 million on firefighting
efforts in California, three-quarters of which went to fight just three fires.
Washington and Oregon: These
two states together could lose $1.7 billion in annual revenues from
hydropower by 2080 because of shrinking snowpack and water shortages.
By 2080 the states' ski industry would suffer an estimated $525 million
dollar annual loss due to reduced snowfall, while the cold-water
angling industry would experience more than a $1 billion annual
decline. Oregon likely would suffer an additional $497 million in annual property damage from wildfires beyond today's price tag. Washington's wildfire bill, meanwhile, would likely be $380 million higher.
Alaska: Over the last 50 years, Alaska
has warmed more than twice as fast as the rest of the nation, and
melting permafrost has damaged roads, runways, water and sewer systems,
and other infrastructure. Continued thawing would add $3.6 billion to
$6 billion to the cost of publicly owned infrastructure by 2030, and
$5.6 billion to $7.6 billion by 2080. Oil and gas infrastructure is
particularly vulnerable to warming temperatures. Much of the
Trans-Alaska pipeline, for example, is built on permafrost.
Alaska
also is threatened by sea level rise. The cost of locating just three
threatened towns -- Shismaref, Kivalina and Newtok -- is estimated at
$405 million.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
"This is about the BBC’s independence," said one former BBC official. "So they should definitely fight it."
The British Broadcasting Corporation vowed to fight back against President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit filed on Monday—the latest legal challenge brought by the president against a media organization over its coverage of him.
A spokesperson for the BBC said in a brief statement on Tuesday, "We will be defending this case" after Trump filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Florida, alleging that the network defamed him and violated the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act when it aired edited comments he made in a speech on January 6, 2021, just before thousands of his supporters attacked the US Capitol.
Before last year's presidential election, the BBC series Panorama aired a documentary titled "Trump: A Second Chance?" The film includes a section featuring Trump's speech to a crowd in Washington, DC on January 6, with two clips of him speaking about 50 minutes apart spliced together, making it appear as though he directly urged people to march to the Capitol.
With his lawsuit, Trump has suggested the edited clip created the impression that he incited violence—though several journalists have noted that those allegations predate the documentary. The edited clip received little attention until recent months when the right-wing Daily Telegraph published details from a memo by Michael Prescott, a former BBC standards adviser with links to the Conservative Party.
In the memo, Prescott took aim at the documentary's editing and alleged a "pro-transgender bias" and "anti-Israel bias"in the BBC's news coverage.
Trump's lawsuit cites the internal review mentioned in Prescott's memo, alleging “a string of incidents that demonstrate serious bias in the corporation’s reporting.”
The BBC has publicly apologized for the editing of the documentary, but has denied that Trump has a legitimate basis for a defamation claim.
The lawsuit is Trump's latest against a media company over coverage of him. At least two cases—against ABC and CBS and its parent company, Paramount, have ended in settlements, with the companies agreeing to pay the president $16 million each. He also has a defamation case pending against the New York Times.
On Monday, Trump gave a muddled explanation of his latest lawsuit while speaking to the press at the White House, falsely claiming the BBC was accused of using AI to make him say "things [he] never said" in the documentary.
"Trump is suing the BBC. He doesn’t know why. But he’s suing anyway," said BBC presenter Sangita Myska.
Trump: "I'm suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth ... I guess they used AI or something" pic.twitter.com/VxYMDp6oZ2
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 15, 2025
Richard Tice, deputy leader of the right-wing Reform Party, expressed support for Trump's lawsuit on Tuesday and agreed with the push for "wholesale change" at the BBC. Christopher Ruddy of the Trump-aligned network Newsmax also told The Guardian that the BBC should "figure out a quick and easy settlement."
But on the network's "Today" program, former BBC Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer said that "it would be extremely damaging to the BBC’s reputation not to fight the case."
"This is about the BBC’s independence," said Damazer. "And, unlike American media organizations which have coughed up the money, the BBC doesn’t have commercial business interests that depend on President Trump’s beneficence in the White House. So they should definitely fight it."
"The BBC has likely an extremely strong case," he added. "The 1960s established a very wide margin of press freedom in a case called Sullivan v. The New York Times, from which the BBC would undoubtedly benefit... President Trump was not harmed by what the BBC mistakenly did in its Panorama edit. The program wasn’t shown in the United States. He was neither financially nor politically hurt, and the BBC should definitely fight this case."
Zoe Gardner, a researcher and commentator on migration policy in the UK, denounced "far-right politicians and pundits" for "cheering" Trump's lawsuit.
"Given the BBC is publicly funded, this is Donald Trump suing you and me," Gardner said. "It’s a pathetic cry-bully attack on journalism by a wannabe dictator and an attack on every British person."
One expert said the Trump White House is "replaying the Bush administration's greatest hits as farce."
US President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order designating fentanyl a "weapon of mass destruction," a move that came hours before his administration carried out another flurry of deadly strikes on vessels in the eastern Pacific accused—without evidence—of drug trafficking.
Trump's order instructs the Pentagon and other US agencies to "take appropriate action" to "eliminate the threat of illicit fentanyl and its core precursor chemicals to the United States." The order also warns of "the potential for fentanyl to be weaponized for concentrated, large-scale terror attacks by organized adversaries."
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the US Program at the International Crisis Group, said in response to the executive action that Trump is "replaying the Bush administration's greatest hits as farce," referencing the lead-up to the Iraq War. Trump has repeatedly threatened military attacks on Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico, citing fentanyl trafficking as the pretext.
Ahead of the official signing of the fentanyl order, an anonymous State Department official suggested to the independent outlet The Handbasket that the directive's "purpose is a combination of designating fentanyl cartels as terrorist organizations and creating justification for conducting military operations in Mexico and Canada."
The official also suspected "that it will be used domestically as justification for rounding up homeless encampments and deporting drug users who are not citizens," reported The Handbasket's Marisa Kabas.
Hours after Trump formally announced the order, the US Southern Command said it carried out strikes on three boats in the eastern Pacific, killing at least eight people.
"The lawless killing spree continues," Finucane wrote late Monday. "The administration justifies this slaughter by claiming there’s an armed conflict. But it won’t even tell the US public who the supposed enemies are. Of course, there’s no armed conflict. And outside armed conflict, we call premeditated killing murder."
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, argued that "Trump's classification of fentanyl as a 'weapon of mass destruction' will do nothing to salvage the blatant illegality of his summary executions off the coasts of Venezuela and Colombia because fentanyl largely enters the United States from Mexico."
On Dec. 15, at the direction of @SecWar Pete Hegseth, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted lethal kinetic strikes on three vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations in international waters. Intelligence confirmed that the vessels were transiting along known… pic.twitter.com/IQfCVvUpau
— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) December 16, 2025
Monday's boat bombings brought the death toll from the Trump administration's illegal strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, which began in early September, to at least 95.
Writing for Salon last week, Drug Policy Alliance executive director Kassandra Frederique and former counternarcotics official James Saenz observed that "the US is bombing boats that have nothing to do with fentanyl or the overdose crisis devastating American communities."
"These recent military actions have negligible impact on the transshipment of illicit drugs and absolutely no impact on the production or movement of synthetic opioids. And fentanyl, the synthetic opioid responsible for most US overdoses, is not produced in Venezuela," they wrote. "These developments raise serious questions about the direction of US drug policy. We must ask ourselves: If these extrajudicial strikes are not stopping fentanyl, then what are the motives?"
"History should be a warning to us. In the Philippines under Rodrigo Duterte, the drug war became a tool of fear," Frederique and Saenz added. "Thousands were killed without trial, democratic institutions were hollowed out, and civil liberties stripped away—all while drugs continued to flow into the country."
Israel is seeking to invalidate the ICC's arrest warrants for fugitive Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Appellate judges at the embattled International Criminal Court on Monday rejected Israel's attempt to block an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes committed during the Gaza genocide.
The ICC Appeals Chamber dismissed an Israeli challenge to the assertion that the October 7, 2023, attacks and subsequent war on Gaza were part of the same ongoing "situation" under investigation by the Hague-based tribunal since 2021. Israel argued they were separate matters that required new notice; however, the ICC panel found that the initial probe encompasses events on and after October 7.
The ruling—which focuses on but one of several Israeli legal challenges to the ICC—comes amid the tribunal's investigation into an Israeli war and siege that have left at least 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and 2 million more displaced, starved, or sickened.
The probe led to last year's ICC arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhau and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder and forced starvation. The ICC also issued warrants for the arrest of three Hamas commanders—all of whom have since been killed by Israel.
Israel and the United States, neither of which are party to the Rome Statute governing the ICC, vehemently reject the tribunal's investigation. In the US—which has provided Israel with more than $21 billion in armed aid as well as diplomatic cover throughout the genocide—the Trump administration has sanctioned nine ICC jurists, leaving them and their families "wiped out socially and financially."
The other Hague-based global tribunal, the International Court of Justice, is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed in December 2023 by South Africa and backed by more than a dozen nations, as well as regional blocs representing dozens of countries.
University of Copenhagen international law professor Kevin Jon Heller—who is also a special adviser to the ICC prosecutor on war crimes—told Courthouse News Service that “the real importance of the decision is that it strongly implies Israel will lose its far more important challenge to the court’s jurisdiction over Israeli actions in Palestine."
Although Israel is not an ICC member and does not recognize its jurisdiction, Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute, under which individuals from non-signatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry condemned Monday's decision, calling it "yet another example of the ongoing politicization of the ICC and its blatant disregard for the sovereign rights of non-party states, as well as its own obligations under the Rome Statute."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, welcomed the ICC decision.
“This ruling by the International Criminal Court affirms that no state is above the law and that war crimes must be fully and independently investigated," CAIR said in a statement. "Accountability is essential for justice, for the victims, and survivors, and for deterring future crimes against humanity.”