

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.
More than 7 million borrowers booted from a Biden-era loan forgiveness program will have to quickly switch to a new plan using a system that's been backed up for months.
After axing a Biden-era student loan repayment program, the Trump administration is threatening to kick its millions of mostly low-income beneficiaries onto the government's most expensive plan unless they switch to a new one quickly.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that the Department of Education was beginning to email the more than 7 million people enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, telling them they needed to change their plan within the next 90 days.
Around 4.5 million of those borrowers earn incomes between 150% and 225%, allowing them to qualify for zero-dollar monthly payments under SAVE, which the Trump administration effectively killed in December after settling with Republican states who'd brought lawsuits against the program under former President Joe Biden.
Anonymous officials told The Post that those who do not switch plans within three months of receiving the email will automatically be re-enrolled in the Standard Plan. Unlike SAVE, which is income-based, the Standard plan has borrowers pay a fixed rate over 10 years.
Standard typically carries the highest monthly payments, and those transitioning to it from SAVE could pay more than $300 extra per month in some cases, with the poorest borrowers seeing the sharpest increases.
While 90 days may seem like plenty of time to switch to a less expensive repayment plan, it's not nearly that simple.
Due to the large exodus of borrowers, the Department of Education has struggled to process all the forms, processing only about 250,000 per month. Many borrowers who have tried to transition have found themselves waiting months for a reply.
To make matters more confusing, many of these borrowers will have to switch programs again soon, since all but one repayment program will be dissolved on July 1, 2028 as a result of last year's Republican budget law. The remaining plan will also be income-driven, though it is still expected to cost borrowers more each month.
According to a report released last month by the Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers, two groups that support loan forgiveness, nearly 9 million student loan borrowers are in default. During Trump's first year back in office, the student loan delinquency rate jumped from roughly zero to 25%, which it called "precedent-shattering."
"Much of the rise in delinquencies can be linked to the Trump administration’s actions aimed at increasing student loan payments," the report said. “The US Department of Education blocked borrowers from accessing more affordable payments through income-driven plans, having ordered a stoppage in application processing for three months and mass-denying 328,000 applications in August 2025. As of December 31, 2025, a warehouse’s worth of 734,000 applications sat unprocessed.”
Being in default has major ramifications for borrowers' finances. Those with delinquent loans saw their credit scores decrease by an average of 57 points during the first three quarters of 2025, dragging around 2 million of them into "subprime" territory, which forces them to pay thousands of dollars more for auto and personal loans and makes them more likely to have difficulty finding housing and employment.
The report estimated that if those booted from SAVE defaulted at the same rate as other borrowers, the number of student loan borrowers in distress could rise as high as 17 million.
According to Protect Borrowers, the typical family will pay more than $3,000 per year in additional costs as a result of the end of SAVE.
The end of SAVE comes as oil shocks caused by Trump's war in Iran have spiked gas prices and threaten to raise them throughout the economy, adding to the already elevated costs of food, housing, and transportation resulting from the president's aggressive tariff regime.
"In the middle of an affordability crisis driven by Donald Trump," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "Trump is killing a plan that lowers student loan costs. It's shameful."
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament... Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp."
Multiple reports published in the last two days have indicated that President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran, which has significantly hurt his domestic political standing—partially by raising gas prices at a time when polls show US voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.
While ending the Iran war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the US and Iran truly understand that deescalation is in both nations' best interests.
George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, have written an essay published on Thursday by Foreign Policy outlining what an achievable Iran "exit plan" would look like.
The authors acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway, but said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.
On Iran's side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing "its stated commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons," re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping vessels, and making a commitment "to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan."
The US, meanwhile, would "grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction" and "would also permit a specified group of states—such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf—to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices."
Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step, and they said the next step would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament," they wrote. "Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp—one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation."
Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.
In an analysis published Thursday, Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow at the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace's Middle East Program, argued that even nations in the Middle East that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs, given that Trump's war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.
Yerkes also highlighted how Trump's handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.
"Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes," Yerkes explained. "One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire from Trump."
The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that "each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States—from friends and foes, inside and outside—is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure."
"We should attract the best and brightest in our country to become teachers and pay them the decent wages that they deserve."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday rejected First Lady Melania Trump's vision of a near-future in which artificial intelligence-powered humanoid robots do the work of human school teachers, arguing that society should instead do better by its human educators.
The wife of President Donald Trump entered Wednesday's gathering of the Global First Ladies Alliance accompanied by Figure 03, an AI-powered "general purpose humanoid robot" developed by the Sunnyvale, California-based company Figure.
“The future of AI is personified," Trump told attendees, who included Brigitte Macron of France, Sara Netanyahu of Israel, and Olena Zelenska of Ukraine. “It will be formed in the shape of humans. Very soon artificial intelligence will move from our mobile phones to humanoids that deliver utility.”
“Imagine a humanoid educator named Plato," she said. “Access to the classical studies is now instantaneous: literature, science, art, philosophy, mathematics, and history. Humanity’s entire corpus of information is available in the comfort of your home.”
Responding to Trump's remarks, Sanders (I-Vt.) said Friday on social media: "Call me a radical, but NO."
"We should not be replacing teachers in America with robots," the senator added. "We should attract the best and brightest in our country to become teachers and pay them the decent wages that they deserve."
Trump and Macron also warned about the dangers technology poses to children in remarks that came the same week that a New Mexico jury ordered tech titan Meta to pay a $375 million penalty for endangering youth and jurors in a landmark social media addiction trial found that Meta and YouTube harmed a child user of their platforms.
The office of California Gov. Gavin Newsom—who is believed to be a likely contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination—also slapped down the idea of robot teachers, as did ordinary social media users.
"They want to replace human beings. Where will we work? How do we make money?" asked one X account with tens of thousands of followers. "No one wants this. We did not ask for it. Fuck all of this shit."