

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.
Supriya Kumar, skumar@worldwatch.org, (+1) 202-745-8092, ext. 510
If everyone lived like the average American, according to the Global Footprint Network, the Earth could sustain only 1.7 billion people----a quarter of today's population----without undermining the planet's physical and biological systems. Overconsumption in industrialized societies and among developing world elites causes lasting environmental and human impacts. In his chapter, "The Path to Degrowth in Overdeveloped Countries," Worldwatch Senior Fellow and State of the World 2012 Project Co-director Erik Assadourian describes the benefits and opportunities of proactive "economic degrowth"----defined as the intentional contraction of overdeveloped economies and more broadly, the redirection of economies away from the perpetual pursuit of growth.
Fixation with economic growth and increasing levels of consumption contributes to debt burdens, long working hours, increased rates of obesity, dependence on pharmaceuticals, social isolation, and other societal ills, Assadourian writes. Meanwhile, the window to prevent runaway climate change is closing, and mitigating global warming will be all but impossible without dramatic reductions in consumption and fossil fuel use. High levels of warming will result in large population shifts due to natural disasters, such as coastal flooding, prolonged drought, and the introduction of disease to new regions----a future scenario not only incompatible with perpetual economic growth but likely to lead to economic and societal decline.
In response to the destructive impacts of the growth-centered global economy, degrowth has begun to gain traction as an economic strategy in recent years. In Italy and France, there are now degrowth political parties, and worldwide, the third bi-annual International Degrowth Conference recently concluded in Venice with over 700 registered participants. More broadly, there is growing recognition that an end to or reversal of growth will be an essential rite of passage for global civilization as humanity comes to understand that climate change and natural resource scarcity are rooted in the impossibility of perpetual human growth in a finite biophysical environment.
Efforts to facilitate degrowth are in the early stages worldwide and range from shifting taxes and moving from private to public goods, to building Transition Towns and promoting healthier, more sustainable consumption habits, such as "Meatless Mondays" that are helping to reduce levels of meat consumption.
"Moving toward degrowth will involve redefining prosperity altogether----resurrecting traditional understandings of what this word means with regard to health, social connectedness, and the freedom to work less while still earning a livable wage," said Assadourian. "Degrowth offers a new vision of prosperity focused on living well with less, instead of maximizing growth and consumption. It strives to establish a stable economic system that no longer transcends Earth's limits."
Advocates of degrowth also voice the need for equitable distribution of societal benefits. Industrialized countries will need to curb their overconsumption, while the poorest third of humanity undoubtedly will need to increase resource consumption at least modestly to improve their quality of life through improved sanitation and safe water, nutrition, shelter, and transportation. "By realigning economic priorities, policymakers can improve individual well-being, strengthen community resilience, and start to restore the Earth's ecological systems," said Assadourian.
In Chapter 2 of State of the World 2012: Moving Toward Sustainable Prosperity, Assadourian details three reforms that would augment the global movement toward degrowth in industrialized societies:
Transform the consumer culture: Shifting societal norms regarding food, housing, and transportation can affect great change. To promote degrowth, governments can help normalize living in smaller homes, leading walkable lifestyles, and eating less food as well as food that is less processed and lower on the food chain. Communities can also facilitate degrowth and increase their resilience by cultivating opportunities for localized formal and informal economic activities, such as small-scale farming, child and elder care, midwifery, and helping to develop essential skills like repair and carpentry.
Distribute tax burdens more equitably: Taxes on the wealthiest sectors of societies, on polluting resources, on advertising, and on financial transactions could discourage excessive economic growth and overconsumption. This new revenue could further fund degrowth initiatives, such as goods-sharing services, or improve existing essential infrastructure (like water and sanitation services and public transit) and help build important sustainability infrastructure like green roofs, renewable energy, and bicycle paths.
Share working hours: If the real average per-capita work week were calculated, counting the unemployed, the underemployed, and people working excessive hours, it would be much shorter. Indeed, in the United Kingdom, this real average work week was 21 hours in 2010, according to the New Economics Foundation. Restructuring the work week to better distribute work hours would help reduce unemployment and poverty, while also significantly improving the quality of life of employees.
These reforms are just a few of the many initiatives that societies can implement in order to catalyze a movement toward global degrowth. Degrowth, Assadourian argues, offers a new perspective and an array of solutions to the social and environmental problems that afflict the global community today.
Worldwatch's State of the World 2012, released in April 2012, focuses on the themes of inclusive sustainable development discussed at Rio+20, the 20-year follow-up to the historic Earth Summit of 1992, also held in Rio de Janeiro. The report presents a selection of innovative ideas and practices to achieve global environmental sustainability while meeting human needs and providing jobs and ensuring dignity for all.
The Worldwatch Institute was a globally focused environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C., founded by Lester R. Brown. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations by Globescan Survey of Sustainability Experts. Brown left to found the Earth Policy Institute in 2000. The Institute was wound up in 2017, after publication of its last State of the World Report. Worldwatch.org was unreachable from mid-2019.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has insisted that the plan to pay taxpayer funds to Trump allies is dead. But he hasn't said so under oath.
A federal judge may have dealt the final blow to President Donald Trump's $1.8 billion "weaponization fund" on Friday, indefinitely blocking it and ordering his administration to state unequivocally that it's no longer happening.
In the face of bipartisan backlash, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had publicly backed off plans to use the money earlier this month, and a court temporarily blocked the transfer of the money to what opponents had dubbed a "slush fund" for Trump's supporters, including January 6 rioters who claim to be victims of government "weaponization" by the Biden administration.
But The Atlantic reported on Thursday that even as the US Department of Justice (DOJ) publicly swears that the payouts are dead, administration officials have been reassuring Trump's cronies behind the scenes that they'll get their checks and that the administration simply needs to wait for the legal blowback to die down or find an alternative way to award them the money, which was set to follow a DOJ-brokered settlement between Trump and his own Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
That may prove more difficult after Friday, however, when US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely extending her previous two-week pause on the fund.
She described the arrangement, to have taxpayer funds disbursed without court rulings to “an extremely small group” that many Americans feel engaged in “unacceptable” conduct, as "problematic."
The DOJ had attempted to have the case against the fund dismissed, arguing that it was now a moot point, since Blanche had publicly declared it dead. But Brinkema said, "The [government’s] mootness argument, in my view, doesn’t go anywhere.”
While the DOJ stated that the fund has “not been set up and is now not going forward," Brinkema noted that Blanche had declined to state that under oath, while Trump has publicly continued to champion the fund even as his administration has backed away from it.
During the hearing in the Eastern District of Virginia, Brinkema pressed DOJ lawyer Andrew Block on why, if the fund was truly defunct, the administration had not formally rescinded the order setting it up. He said he didn't know.
The judge gave Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr., and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, whose department would have overseen the fund, one week to sign a “clear, unambiguous” declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the fund is dead, and wrote in the order that they must affirm that it "will not proceed in any manner, or under any name."
She said in order for the lawsuit to be thrown out, the government needed to put it in writing because "we don’t have the kind of absolute certainty that this fund wouldn’t rear its head."
CEO @SkyePerryman and Senior Counsel Pooja Boisture break down our major slush fund win from court. pic.twitter.com/ngneLRsl8R
— Democracy Forward (@DemocracyFwd) June 12, 2026
Outside the courtroom, Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward—the watchdog group that sued the DOJ—celebrated that the court had "put the brakes on Donald Trump's slush fund."
The group is representing several plaintiffs who say they'd be harmed if the fund were to be enacted.
They include a former federal prosecutor fired after leading January 6 cases; the city of New Haven, Connecticut, which has been targeted by the administration over its sanctuary policies; the National Abortion Federation, which says the fund could reward anti-abortion activists convicted of clinic-related offenses; and the watchdog group Common Cause, which argues that the opaque scheme could embolden January 6 defendants.
"We were thrilled that the judge understood the significant harm that our clients face as a result of the fund, as well as the American people," said Democracy Forward senior counsel Pooja Boisture. "We were thrilled that she got it right. She understood that this was not a partisan issue."
It remains unclear whether the order would stop the administration from pursuing other methods for rewarding Trump's allies. Reuters reported on Friday that his legal allies have discussed dusting off a 1946 law called the Federal Tort Claims Act, which would allow individuals to file administrative claims and lawsuits that could be settled out of court with a lot of flexibility for the government.
“The Trump administration cannot be trusted with the public’s money,” said Omar Noureldin, Common Cause’s senior vice president for policy and litigation. "We’ve successfully locked the president’s personal slush fund for now, and we’ll keep the pressure on until it’s shut down for good.”
“The money that Trump wants to burn on war should instead be spent on the needs of the American people, including restoring funding for healthcare, food, housing, and climate action,” said one critic.
Republicans in both houses of Congress voted Thursday to advance President Donald Trump's request for record-high US military funding for 2027, prompting rebuke from Democrats and consumer advocates who decried the GOP's deep cuts to social safety net programs amid an ongoing affordability crisis.
The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 18-9 to advance the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027. Meanwhile, the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee advanced the Fiscal Year 2027 Defense Appropriations Bill during a closed-door markup. The House bill provides $1.072 trillion for the Pentagon and other military-related activities, a $234 billion increase from this year's enacted level.
The Trump administration's broader national security proposal requests nearly $1.5 trillion in total defense-related spending for 2027, which includes $350 billion in supplemental funding for munitions production, shipbuilding, missile defense, drones, artificial intelligence, and other long-term military programs. Trump wants Congress to use the budget reconciliation process to secure the additional funding. However, GOP lawmakers are wary to do so for a third time; just this week, Republicans used reconciliation to pass $70 billion in new funding for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.
"This year, the majority has written a Defense Appropriations Act that provides the department with over a trillion dollars—an unprecedented sum. But this level of defense spending comes at the cost of cuts to domestic investments like education and workforce training, as well as international diplomacy," Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) said in a statement.
"President Trump said, ‘Jump,’ and Republicans in Congress said, ‘How high?’ Meanwhile, Republicans are proposing nearly $13 billion in cuts to domestic programs that provide relief for working families struggling to stay afloat as costs keep rising," the congresswoman added. "The American people are begging for relief from high prices, but the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress are deaf to their pleas."
In addition to increasing the national debt by an estimated $6.9 trillion over the next decade, Trump is seeking over $70 billion in proposed domestic cuts, including the elimination of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, sharp cuts in student aid, ending the Job Corps, slashing medical research and public health programs and Federal Emergency Management Agency assistance, reducing mental health and substance abuse programs, and halving Environmental Protection Agency funding.
These and other proposed reductions follow the enactment of the biggest cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program in the programs' histories under the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by Trump last July. The OBBBA cuts were made to help fund trillions of dollars in tax reductions that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans.
Robert Weisman, co-president of the consumer advocacy watchdog Public Citizen, noted significant opposition to Trump's proposed $234 billion increase in Pentagon spending for 2027.
“There is a rising tide of Democratic and Republican opposition to Trump’s illegal Iran war and massive proposed increases to the Pentagon budget," Weissman said Thursday, pointing to the "dozens" of lawmakers who voted against the additional spending during committee sessions, and the "bipartisan majority of the House" that "voted in support of the war powers resolution that directs Trump to end his war on Iran."
“Trump has repeatedly stated that he doesn’t care about childcare, inflation, or addressing the needs of the American people," Weissman continued. "Instead, he is seeking an overall $600 billion annual increase in Pentagon spending that would raise the total Pentagon budget to over $1.5 trillion."
“The American people are demanding Congress block Trump’s attempts to increase the Pentagon budget," he said. "This means voting against his National Defense Authorization Act, rejecting any Iran war supplemental funding bill, and blocking his proposed third reconciliation bill."
"The money that Trump wants to burn on war should instead be spent on the needs of the American people, including restoring funding for healthcare, food, housing, and climate action," Weissman added.
"Donald Trump and all of his depraved billionaire friends who think that they can get away with disgusting acts... that they're above the law, they're about to find out that they're not," said the Maine Democrat.
Just a few days after winning Maine's Democratic primary for US Senate by over 52 points, Graham Platner on Friday shared a short video of his reaction to Republican President Donald Trump calling him a "thug" and "worse than any human being that's ever run for office, probably."
In the video posted on social media, Platner holds a laptop and watches 20 seconds of the president's comments, chuckling, before responding: "Wow! I got to say, being called a thug and the worst person to ever run for office by Donald Trump might be the highest compliment that I have ever received."
Since Trump's Wednesday attack on Platner in the wake of his decisive primary victory, critics have pointed out that the president has used his position to enrich himself and his family while gutting programs for working families and cutting taxes for the rich. He was also found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, accused of sexual misconduct by more than two dozen women, and reportedly named over a million times in files related to his former friend, convicted sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.
"He's also right: There might not be a lot of other people like me who've run for office," Platner said. "You know, people that actually serve their country, fought in this nation's wars, came home, started the business, lived down here in the real world, have spent years and years being involved at the local level in the community, and then one day decided to go run for US Senate."
When Platner launched his campaign last August, he named "the oligarchy"—the billionaires, and the politicians who do their bidding, including Maine's Republican Sen. Susan Collins—as "the enemy." The combat veteran and oyster farmer quickly won support from progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Mainers across the state, who have stood by him amid media and public scrutiny of his old Reddit posts, a tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol that he's now covered up, and his personal relationships.
Platner's primary challenger, Gov. Janet Mills, suspended her campaign in April, citing a lack of financial resources. The seat long held by Collins is a key target for Democrats, who aim to reclaim majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives, to continue fighting against Trump—and potentially impeach him for a historic third time.
According to Platner, the reason Trump is now attacking him personally, less than five months away from the general election, "is that he's scared... He knows that we're coming after him. He knows that when we win this election, when we take this kind of politics down to Washington, when we retake this seat for working-class Mainers, when we retake the Senate with fighting Democrats who actually want to hold Trump and his cronies and all their corruption accountable, he knows that's coming—and it's got him shaking in his boots."
"And he should be, because we are coming, because we're building something here in Maine the likes of which has not been seen before. We are really building a true, broad-based, working-class coalition, to build power the old-fashioned way, organizing people and taking it," he continued. "Taking it to fight for a better future."
"The Epstein class... Donald Trump and all of his depraved billionaire friends who think that they can get away with disgusting acts, think that because of their money and their power and their wealth and their influence that they're above the law, they're about to find out that they're not, and it's got them terrified," he added. "And they should be."
Platner's video came on the heels of The Maine Monitor publishing an analysis of campaign finance data showing that nearly 100 billionaires and their spouses have contributed to Collins' reelection bid so far, dumping nearly $10 million into her campaign committee and political action committees supporting her.
"While Susan Collins' campaign is backed by billionaire donors, our campaign is built on a movement funded by the people, with an average donation of $26," said Ben Chin, Platner's campaign manager. "The establishment can bring it on—they cannot defeat the will of working Mainers, 15,000+ volunteers, and a campaign powered by small-dollar donors from nearly every ZIP code in Maine."