August, 04 2021, 11:06am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
West Coast: Carley Towne, carley@codepink.org
East Coast: Cole Harrison, cole@masspeaceaction.org
Peace, Religious, and Community Groups Call for 'No First Use of Nuclear Weapons' Policy
As the mass deaths caused by the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are commemorated in towns across the U.S. from August 6th through 9th, thousands are demanding that such a holocaust never be allowed to happen again.
A broad coalition of peace groups, religious leaders, and community organizations has formed to launch a national campaign urging the U.S. Congress and President to adopt a policy of No First Use of Nuclear Weapons. Organizers see the policy as a step on the road to the eventual abolition of all nuclear weapons by all nations.
WASHINGTON
As the mass deaths caused by the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are commemorated in towns across the U.S. from August 6th through 9th, thousands are demanding that such a holocaust never be allowed to happen again.
A broad coalition of peace groups, religious leaders, and community organizations has formed to launch a national campaign urging the U.S. Congress and President to adopt a policy of No First Use of Nuclear Weapons. Organizers see the policy as a step on the road to the eventual abolition of all nuclear weapons by all nations.
"As long as the nuclear-armed nations maintain thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, the danger that these weapons of mass destruction will be used continues to increase," said CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin. Cole Harrison, Executive Director of Mass Peace Action, noted: "Our own Congress is funding an upgrade of our nuclear weapons triad, increasing the danger of an inadvertent or intentional nuclear exchange."
According to MIT Professor Jonathan King, launching even a small number of these weapons risks the destruction of human civilization on our planet. Mass. Senator Edward J. Markey reported to a recent peace conference that: "The risk of inadvertent nuclear war has risen to a level that is simply unacceptable."
A first-use nuclear strike is defined as an attack using nuclear weapons against an enemy that did not first launch a nuclear strike against the United States, its territories, or its allies. "The United States has never agreed to a No First Use policy and has nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, ready to strike first and begin a nuclear war that could result in the deaths of billions of people around the globe," said Steve Gallant of Mass. Peace Action.
Not only does the United States currently lack a pledge or policy of No First Use, but the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review actually expands the range of significant non-nuclear strategic attacks - whether they be cyber, chemical, or biological warfare - to which the U.S. may respond with the use of nuclear weapons.
Professor Elaine Scarry, author of "Thermonuclear Monarchy", points out that the President of the United States has the sole authority to order the launch of hundreds of nuclear warheads within minutes, without consultation or agreement from any other sector of U.S. government or society: not the Cabinet, nor the Congress, nor the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nor the Supreme Court. Princeton's Professor Zia Mian notes that this power holds even though "any threat or use of nuclear weapons in the present day constitutes a crime against humanity and a crime under international law."
Legislation has been introduced into both the House and Senate restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons. Representative Adam Smith (D-WA), Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, introduced the "No First Use Act" in the House (H.R. 2603) and Senate (S.1219). President Biden is on record supporting a No First Use nuclear policy and should sign this legislation when it passes.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2021 (H.R.669 and S.1148). It prohibits the use of federal funds to conduct a first-use nuclear strike unless Congress expressly authorizes such a strike pursuant to a declaration of war.
Pamela Richard of Peace Action of Wisconsin makes clear that "while we urge the passage of these bills as a first step, what is needed is the universal acceptance of the recent UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, banning the development, testing, production, stockpiling, stationing, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Our long-term goal is total nuclear disarmament."
The Coalition will be carrying out educational campaigns on college and university campuses, on law school campuses, and among major social organizations such as the Rotarians and other civic groups. Organizations promoting the "No First Use: Decreasing the Dangers of Nuclear War" Campaign include CODEPINK; Campaign for Peace, Disarmament and Common Security; Chicago Area Peace Action; Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility; Institute for People's Engagement; Massachusetts Peace Action; Peace Action Maine; MIT Radius; Peace Action of Wisconsin; Peaceworks of Kansas City; and other nuclear disarmament advocacy groups.
CODEPINK is a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs.
(818) 275-7232LATEST NEWS
Arctic Tundra Has Turned From 'Carbon Sink to Carbon Source' in Dangerous Flip: NOAA
"This is yet one more sign, predicted by scientists, of the consequences of inadequately reducing fossil fuel pollution," said one scientist.
Dec 10, 2024
Permafrost in the Arctic has stored carbon dioxide for millennia, but the annual Arctic Report Card released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a concerning shift linked to planetary heating and a rising number of wildfires in the icy region: The tundra is now emitting more carbon than it is storing.
The report card revealed that over the last year, the tundra's temperature rose to its second-highest level on record, causing the frozen soil to melt.
The melting of the permafrost activates microbes in the soil which decompose the trapped carbon, causing it to be released into the atmosphere as planet-heating carbon dioxide and methane.
The release of fossil fuels from the permafrost is also being caused by increased Arctic wildfires, which have emitted an average of 207 million tons of carbon per year since 2003.
"Our observations now show that the Arctic tundra, which is experiencing warming and increased wildfire, is now emitting more carbon than it stores, which will worsen climate change impacts," said Rick Spinrad, administrator of NOAA. "This is yet one more sign, predicted by scientists, of the consequences of inadequately reducing fossil fuel pollution."
Sue Natali, a scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center in Massachusetts and one of 97 international scientists who contributed to the Arctic Report Card, told NPR that 1.5 trillion tons of carbon are still being stored in the tundra—suggesting that the continued warming of the permafrost could make it a huge source of planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions.
Along with the "Arctic tundra transformation from carbon sink to carbon source," NOAA reported declines in caribou herds and increasing winter precipitation.
The report card showed that the autumn of 2023 and summer of 2024 saw the second- and third-warmest temperatures on record across the Arctic, and a heatwave in August 2024 set an all-time record for daily temperatures in several communities in northern Alaska and Canada.
The last nine years have been the nine warmest on record in the Arctic region.
"Many of the Arctic's vital signs that we track are either setting or flirting with record-high or record-low values nearly every year," said Gerald (J.J.) Frost, a senior scientist with Alaska Biological Research, Inc. and a veteran Arctic Report Card author. "This is an indication that recent extreme years are the result of long-term, persistent changes, and not the result of variability in the climate system."
Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, emphasized that the continuous release of fossil fuel emissions from oil and gas extraction and other pollution has caused the Arctic to warm at a faster rate than the Earth as a whole over the past 11 years.
"These combined changes are contributing to worsening wildfires and thawing permafrost to an extent so historic that it caused the Arctic to be a net carbon source after millennia serving as a net carbon storage region," said Ekwurzel. "If this becomes a consistent trend, it will further increase climate change globally."
The Arctic Report Card was released weeks before President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office. Trump has pledged to slash climate regulations introduced by the Biden administration and to increase oil and gas production. He has mused that sea-level rise will create "more oceanfront property" and has called the climate crisis a "hoax," while his nominee for energy secretary, Chris Wright, the CEO of the fracking company Liberty Energy, has claimed that climate warming is good for the planet.
"These sobering impacts in the Arctic are one more manifestation of how policymakers in the United States and around the world are continuing to prioritize the profits of fossil fuel polluters over the well-being of people and the planet and putting the goals of the Paris climate agreement in peril," said Ekwurzel. "All countries, but especially wealthy, high-emitting nations, need to drastically reduce heat-trapping emissions at a rapid pace in accord with the latest science and aid in efforts of climate-vulnerable communities to prepare for what's to come and help lower-resourced countries working to decrease emissions too."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Huge Administrative Waste Makes Clear For-Profit Insurance Is 'Actually Very Bad': Analysis
"It is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system," writes Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project. "The quicker we nationalize health insurance, the better."
Dec 10, 2024
Last week's murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson brought to the surface a seething hatred of the nation's for-profit insurance system—anger rooted in the industry's profiteering, high costs, and mass care denials.
But that response has led some pundits to defend private insurance companies and claim that, in fact, healthcare providers such as hospitals and doctors are the real drivers of outlandish U.S. healthcare costs.
In an analysis published Tuesday, Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project argued that defenders of private insurers are relying on "factual misunderstandings and very questionable analysis" and that it is reasonable to conclude that the for-profit insurance system is "actually very bad."
"From a design perspective, the main problem with our private health insurance system is that it is extremely wasteful," Bruenig wrote, estimating based on existing research that excess administrative expenses amount to $528 billion per year—or 1.8% of U.S. gross domestic product.
"All healthcare systems require administration, which costs money, but a private multi-payer system requires massively more than other approaches, especially the single-payer system favored by the American left," Bruenig observed, emphasizing that excess administrative expenses of both the insurance companies and healthcare providers stem from "the multi-payer private health insurance system that we have."
He continued:
To get your head around why this is, think for a second about what happens to every $100 you give to a private insurance company. According to the most exhaustive study on this question in the U.S.—the CBO single-payer study from 2020—the first thing that happens is that $16 of those dollars are taken by the insurance company. From there, the insurer gives the remaining $84 to a hospital to reimburse them for services. That hospital then takesanother $15.96 (19% of its revenue) for administration, meaning that only $68.04 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.
In a single-payer system, the path of that $100 looks a lot different. Rather than take $16 for insurance administration, the public insurer would only take $1.60. And rather than take $15.96 of the remaining money for hospital administration, the hospital would only take $11.80 (12% of its revenue), meaning that $86.60 of the original $100 actually goes to providing care.
High provider payments, which some analysts have suggested are the key culprit in exorbitant healthcare costs, are also attributable to the nation's for-profit insurance system, Bruenig argued.
"Medicaid and Medicare are able to negotiate much lower rates than private insurance, just as the public health insurer under a single-payer system would be able to. It is only within the private insurance segment of the system that providers have been able to jack up rates to such an extreme extent," he wrote. "Given all of this, I think it is totally fair for people to identify private insurers as the key bad actor in our current system. They are directly responsible for over half a trillion dollars of administrative waste and (at the very least) indirectly responsible for the provider rents that are bleeding Americans dry."
"The quicker we nationalize health insurance," he concluded, "the better."
Bruenig's analysis comports with research showing that a single-payer system such as the Medicare for All program proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and other progressives in Congress could produce massive savings by eliminating bureaucratic costs associated with the private insurance system.
One study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in January 2020 estimated that Medicare for All could save the U.S. more than $600 billion per year in healthcare-related administrative costs.
"The average American is paying more than $2,000 a year for useless bureaucracy," said Dr. David Himmelstein, lead author of the study, said at the time. "That money could be spent for care if we had a Medicare for All program."
Deep-seated anger at the systemic and harmful flaws of the for-profit U.S. insurance system could help explain why the percentage of the public that believes it's the federal government's responsibility to ensure all Americans have healthcare coverage is at its highest level in more than a decade, according to Gallup polling released Monday.
"There's a day of reckoning that is happening right now," former insurance industry executive Wendell Potter, president of the Center for Health and Democracy, said in an MSNBCappearance on Monday. "Whether we're talking about employers, patients, doctors—just about everybody despises health insurance companies in ways that I've never seen before."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Extreme Weather Fueled by Climate Crisis Cost Insurers $600 Billion
"Unless we cut emissions sharply this decade, climate damages will grow exponentially and could overwhelm both insurers and economies," one expert warned.
Dec 10, 2024
A report out Tuesday shows that the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency accounts for an estimated $600 billion of global insured weather losses over a recent two-decade period, which a campaign targeting the insurance industry called "an immense climate price tag that insurers have long been passing on to policyholders."
Insure Our Future, the international campaign behind the eighth annual scorecard, is supported by advocacy groups including Ekō, Greenpeace, Mazaska Talks, Public Citizen, Rainforest Action Network, Reclaim Finance, the Sunrise Project, and Waterkeeper Alliance.
The report—titled, Within Our Power: Cut Emissions Today To Insure Tomorrow—"examines what 20 years of climate attribution science reveals about today's insurance crisis, explores the status of gross direct premiums from insuring fossil fuels and renewable energy activities, and analyzes the coal, oil, and gas policies of 30 leading primary insurers and reinsurers."
While climate-attributed losses from 2002 to 2022 worked out to around $30 billion annually, the financial burden was not evenly spread out over those 20 years. Instead, the report says, such losses "have recently accounted for a growing share of insured weather losses, showing how decarbonization is crucial to contain soaring insurance costs."
"The climate-attributed share of insured weather losses rose from 31% to 38% over the last decade on average, and their annual growth (6.5%) significantly outpaced thegrowth of the insured losses (4.9%)," the publication explains. "In 2022, $52 billion out of $132 billion was climate-attributed."
The other key findings are:
- Estimated climate-attributed losses for 28 top property and casualty insurers ($10.6 billion) approached the fossil fuel premiums they collected ($11.3 billion) in 2023—and for more than half the companies, they exceeded them;
- The renewable energy insurance market is still under 30% of the size of the fossil fuel insurance market in 2023, threatening to be a bottleneck for investments in the climate transition; and
- At the brink of 1.5°C, insurers are abandoning at-risk communities worldwide while enabling fossil fuel expansion that drives these risks higher—requiring immediate policy and regulatory action.
The report acknowledges that its findings arrive amid scientists' warnings that 2024 is on track to be the first full year to breach 1.5°C—the Paris agreement's target for temperature rise this century. The latest meeting for countries signed on to that treaty, held in Azerbaijan last month, concluded with what critics called a "big F U to climate justice."
Like activists and experts outraged by the conclusion of COP29, Ilan Noy, a professor focused on the economics of disasters and climate change at New Zealand's Victoria University of Wellington, stressed the importance of bolder global action in response to the Insure Our Future report.
"Insurers are fundamentally misunderstanding climate risk by failing to recognize how greenhouse gas emissions have driven up losses throughout this century," Noy said in a statement. "Unless we cut emissions sharply this decade, climate damages will grow exponentially and could overwhelm both insurers and economies."
🔎 The scandal: Fossil fuel underwriting is less than 2% of insurers’ premium income - pocket change. Yet this small slice enables massive fossil fuel expansion, pushing our planet toward irreversible tipping points. [3/8]
— Insure Our Future Global (@insureourfuture.bsky.social) December 10, 2024 at 4:13 AM
Laurie Laybourn, director of the U.K.-based Strategic Climate Risks Initiative, similarly suggested that the climate emergency poses an existential threat to the insurance industry while discussing Insure Our Future's report with Forbes' David Vetter.
"Because insurance impacts are mounting and because we don't have an insurance system built for the way that climate change is evolving, this dynamic is only going to get much worse," Laybourn said. "As we're already seeing, governments are having to step in to effectively ensure that insurance can still exist in certain places."
"In Florida, you have a situation where flood insurance is increasingly receding and the government is having to make decisions about how and what to cover," he noted. "It's the case as well in the U.K., where major flooding events led to the creation of Flood Re, a government-backed reinsurance agency to cover places that are effectively uninsurable through private markets."
Warning of a potential "doom loop" in which climate impacts cause instability that impedes adequately ambitious action, Laybourn added that "we need systems that are more resilient so that we can continue to remain focused on decarbonization, even as things get more unstable."
⏰ Time’s up for ‘voluntary’ action. While Generali overtook Allianz in our #Scorecard with stronger oil & gas restrictions, the industry is stalling on fossil fuels while accelerating its retreat from communities. [7/8]
— Insure Our Future Global (@insureourfuture.bsky.social) December 10, 2024 at 4:13 AM
The new report offers a roadmap to a more resilient insurance system. As the document points out, this is the first time Insure Our Future has included policy recommendations for lawmakers and regulators.
The publication urges insurance firms to immediately stop insuring new fossil fuel projects or any customers from the industry that have not published a transition plan for the 1.5°C goal. It also calls on insurers to set their own binding Paris-aligned targets and to divest from coal, gas, and oil companies.
The report further pushes insurers to align stewardship activities, trade associations membership, and public positions with a credible 1.5°C pathway; establish mechanisms to ensure clients fully respect human rights; and explore bringing fossil fuel companies to court "to make polluters rather than insurance customers pay."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular