April, 04 2022, 11:08am EDT

New IPCC Report Finds Sharp Cuts in Fossil Fuels and Emissions Urgently Needed, Policymakers' Failures Putting Climate Goals at Risk
Statements by Drs. Rachel Cleetus, Kristina Dahl at the Union of Concerned Scientists
WASHINGTON
Following a virtual session, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today released the third part of its Sixth Assessment Report, which focuses on mitigating climate change and assesses options for reducing global warming emissions and removing them from the atmosphere. It also builds on the first and second parts of the assessment, which covered the physical science basis for climate change and climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, respectively. Complementing the report is a summary document for policymakers that has been endorsed by governments.
This report is the result of several years of hard work by scientists from around the world, drawing on an exhaustive foundation of peer-reviewed scientific literature in a process that demands intensive scrutiny and consensus. Among its main findings, the IPCC's Working Group III emphasized emissions must be cut sharply within this decade and decline to net zero by roughly 2050 to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, in line with the Paris Agreement. Such an endeavor requires transformative shifts across the economy and society, including ramping up energy efficiency, a complete transition to renewable energy to power homes and businesses, widespread electrification of vehicles, and increased conservation of forests and lands. In addition to the usual information past IPCC reports have covered, the latest iteration increases the inclusion of social science analyses; examines how mounting climate litigation could further climate action; and highlights the growing roles of cities, states, Indigenous Peoples, youth, and businesses in demanding and driving efforts to rein in global warming emissions.
Below is a statement by Dr. Kristina Dahl, a principal climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
"The very first IPCC report found that limiting climate change and its resulting impacts would require nations to cut the majority of their heat-trapping emissions. Thirty-two subsequent years of inaction by policymakers and obstruction by the fossil fuel industry has led us in the opposite direction. This latest IPCC report finds that global emissions are now 54% higher than they were in 1990 and starkly points out that from 2010 to 2019, heat-trapping emissions were higher than ever and are still rising globally across all major sectors.
"To keep the principal goal of the Paris Agreement within reach, countries will need to strengthen their national pledges and decrease global heat-trapping emissions by roughly 40% relative to 2019 levels within this decade. Because we have failed to rein in global warming emissions to date, the choices available to us are no longer ideal. In addition to deep, absolute cuts in heat-trapping emissions, some amount of these emissions will also need to be removed from the atmosphere if nations are to limit planetary warming to 1.5 degrees or even 2 degrees Celsius. Most emissions removal options, however, come with substantial, and in some cases untenable, tradeoffs. On the other hand, surpassing the 1.5-degree Celsius threshold would lead to catastrophic climate impacts--with some so extreme adapting will no longer be feasible--as well as significant loss of life, property, and ecosystems in the United States and around the world. The science of climate change, its consequences, and the solutions to it could not be clearer. The ball is now in the court of world leaders and policymakers, who must act with the utmost urgency to address the global climate crisis."
Below is a statement by Dr. Rachel Cleetus, the policy director and lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS and an official civil society observer to the IPCC Working Group III process.
"This latest IPCC report puts policymakers on notice, yet again, that the current global trajectory of heat-trapping emissions is alarmingly off-track. Their continued inaction is directly responsible for the climate crisis already here, and it has also placed the goals of the Paris Agreement at grave risk. The solutions are obvious and have been for a long time--the world needs to rapidly phase out fossil fuels and accelerate the shift to clean energy. Richer nations, including the United States, bear significant responsibility for action because of their outsize contribution to global warming emissions.
"Fossil fuels are the root cause of climate change, of environmental injustices and--as we are witnessing in Ukraine right now--frequently associated with geopolitical strife and conflict. Transformative changes in how we get and use energy are entirely within our grasp as the costs of wind and solar power, as well as battery storage, tumble while innovation soars. What's urgently needed are robust policies and investments to cut heat-trapping emissions across every sector of the economy by scaling up energy efficiency, renewable energy, clean transportation, and electrification; protecting and restoring forests, soils and ecosystems; and investing in a just transition for communities and workers dependent on fossil fuels.
"Richer nations must also provide funding for low-income countries to make a clean energy transition aligned with sustainable development, yet those financial flows have been significantly lagging. Additionally, public and private financing for fossil fuels still exceed those for addressing climate change. The increased interest in climate litigation also signals the importance of holding fossil fuel companies accountable for the climate damages for which they are responsible.
"Decades of failure in global leadership, combined with fossil fuel companies' single-minded focus on their profits and unsustainable patterns of consumption within the world's richest households, are putting our planet at peril. Continuing down the current path leaves us poised to exceed 1.5 and even 2 degrees Celsius of warming. Every year policymakers choose to selfishly delay action from here on out is a testament to their lack of courage, which future generations will not soon forget. Instead, let's seize this precious, narrow window of opportunity to secure a safer, healthier and more just world."
If you would like to talk with Dr. Cleetus, Dr. Dahl, or another UCS expert on any of the three latest IPCC reports, please contact UCS Climate and Energy Media Manager Ashley Siefert Nunes.
Additional Resources:
- A UCS statement on part one (WGI) of the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report.
- A UCS statement on part two (WGII) of the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report.
- A recent blog post by Dr. Cleetus on the need for world leaders and policymakers to address crises happening simultaneously--such as the war in Ukraine and climate change--given a recent IPCC report says such crises will continue to intersect and overlap in the years ahead.
- A 2021 UCS report that offers a transformative framework to ensure a people-centered approach for transitioning the United States to a clean energy economy.
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.
LATEST NEWS
In Gift to Billionaires, Supreme Court Buys Vance's Argument Against Post-Watergate Campaign Finance Rule
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that upholds our fundamental freedoms—not one that consistently sides with billionaire donors and diminishes the power of everyday citizens," said one democracy defender.
Jun 30, 2026
Just days after Vice President JD Vance suggested that if Watergate happened today, it would barely make the news, let alone end a presidency, the US Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority on Tuesday embraced the Republican's argument against a 1974 campaign finance rule that Congress passed in response to the seismic scandal.
Specifically, the court struck down restrictions on political parties coordinating campaign spending with candidates. The ruling is the result of a 2022 lawsuit filed by Vance, then a Republican Senate candidate in Ohio; Steve Chabot, then a GOP congressman from the same state; and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and its House counterpart.
The high court had previously upheld the rule in 2021, but as with the 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign spending by corporations and ultrarich individuals via super political action committees (PACs), the majority cited the First Amendment to the US Constitution in its 6-3 decision in NRSC v. FEC. The three liberals dissented.
Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at the group Issue One, stressed that Tuesday's decision opening up "a new avenue for wealthy donors and special interests to buy favor with political candidates" is part of "a string of disastrous campaign finance rulings from the Roberts Court that began with Citizens United and have left our political system awash in large contributions that most Americans could never dream of giving."
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs for the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, similarly declared that "the right-wing supermajority on the Supreme Court thinks Citizens United didn't go far enough. Today they gave their blessing for billionaires to buy even more influence over the politicians who represent us."
"Americans deserve a Supreme Court that upholds our fundamental freedoms—not one that consistently sides with billionaire donors and diminishes the power of everyday citizens in our democracy," Edkins asserted, calling on Congress to add more members to the court once President Donald Trump finishes his second term in 2029.
"Congress should rein in this rogue court once Trump leaves office by enacting major reforms, including term limits, an enforceable code of ethics, and expanding the court with justices who will defend our democracy and our fundamental freedoms," he said.
In the meantime, Americans will have to contend with the new ruling in the November midterms as well as the next presidential cycle in 2028.
Along with calling out a high court that yet again "twisted the First Amendment to help billionaires and corporations buy our elections and bend our government to their will," Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger argued Tuesday that "we have to combat this outcome by increasing transparency so voters know who’s paying for election ads, empowering small donors and public matching funds, and passing the Democracy For All Amendment to empower Congress, the states, and the voters to put in place reasonable protections to guard against campaign finance corruption."
The ruling came as Public Citizen released a report documenting the historic $517 million in corporate spending on the 2026 cycle so far—money that has largely gone to "industry-prioritizing super PACs" and the Trump-aligned MAGA Inc.
Democratic Party leaders, who hope to reclaim majorities in both chambers of Congress this November, also ripped the new ruling.
In a joint statement, Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, as well as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), who lead the party's campaign arms for each chamber, called it "a win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption."
"Republicans have failed the American people with a record that has ripped away healthcare and raised costs on families, and they know voters will hold them accountable in November—which is exactly why they are rewriting the rules in an effort to drown out the will of the voters by flooding elections with more money from their billionaire backers," they said.
"Democrats are fighting back for the American people," the trio added, "and in November, voters will reject Republicans' toxic agenda and efforts to rig the system and weaken our democracy by electing a Democratic House and Senate majority."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Call On NYC Council to Expel Member Paladino for Saying CIA Should 'Neutralize' DSA Organizers
"Yet another example of Vickie Paladino calling for the federal government to retaliate against people she disagrees with," said congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier.
Jun 30, 2026
Darializa Avila Chevalier, the progressive organizer whose primary victory over five-term Democratic Congressman Adriano Espaillat last week stunned the party's establishment, was among those calling for the expulsion of New York City Council member Vickie Paladino Tuesday night after the Republican issued "a thinly veiled call" for the government "to kill" democratic socialists.
On the social media platform X, Paladino posted an image of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) 2025-27 National Political Committee, including national co-chairs Ashik Siddique and Megan Romer, and mused that in the past, government agencies may have mobilized to kill the 27 people in the picture to stop their left-wing activities.
"There was a time in our history, not too long ago, when the CIA/FBI would’ve made sure unabashed revolutionaries like this were neutralized one way or another," said Paladino (R-19). "In fact, that was basically the entire point of having them."
Paladino appeared to be referring to the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which surveilled, infiltrated, and tried to disrupt groups and movements that fought for civil rights and against the US war in Vietnam. COINTELPRO was involved in the 1969 raid in Chicago in which police killed Black Panther Party leaders Fred Hampton and Mark Clark.
"This is insane," said US Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) after Paladino suggested the US government should use the FBI and CIA to "neutralize" DSA organizers, who are working to elect advocates for Medicare for All, universal childcare, and abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, among other increasingly popular progressive proposals.
Chevalier, a member of the DSA's New York City chapter, called for Paladino to be "expelled."
"We need public leaders who will fight for a politics of life and the council member has shown time and time again that she does not," said Chevalier.
Paladino's call to "neutralize" left-wing organizers came a day after she urged New York City police to "run over" protesters who were blocking officers on bikes. Last December, Paladino said the US should "take very seriously the need to begin the expulsion of Muslims from Western nations," and last June she suggested New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who was then a primary candidate, should be deported.
The Brooklyn Young Democrats also accused Paladino of "encouraging political violence" and called on the City Council to condemn her comments "and consider appropriate action—including expulsion."
Ryan Deitsch, co-founder of the gun control group A March for Our Lives, addressed the New York Police Department and Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, asking whether Paladino's threat raised any "red flags."
The council member's comments came less than a week after a number of progressive primary victories in New York City, including Chevalier's. The election results led centrist Democrats to quickly mobilize against democratic socialist candidates, warning that progressive contenders are “bomb-throwers, not problem solvers"—even as Mamdani secured a two-year rent freeze that will affect roughly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments, as New Yorkers and people across the country struggle with rising costs.
One DSA organizer said in response to Paladino, "Imagine if Zohran Mamdani said something about having the [Republican National Committee] chair and co-chair 'neutralized one way or another' with a secret police force."
"Expel Vickie Paladino from the NYC Council," they added, "and have her arrested and charged for making a terrorist threat."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not Even Trying to Hide Their Brazen Corruption': Trump Sons Set to Profit From Tungsten Mining Deal
"This is the most corrupt administration in American history," said one House Democrat. "It is not close."
Jun 30, 2026
A bombshell New York Times report detailing how President Donald Trump's eldest sons stand to profit from a tungsten mining deal negotiated by their billionaire father sparked outraged calls for accountability on Monday, with Democratic lawmakers characterizing the taxpayer-funded project as yet another example of the administration's unchecked and unprecedented corruption.
"You will not believe it until you see it laid out," US Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote in response to the Times story published over the weekend. According to the newspaper, Trump and his team—including billionaire Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick—"won an agreement from the Kazakh leader to give a little-known American company access to one of the world’s largest untapped reserves of tungsten, a metal that the United States desperately needs for the production of missile warheads, fighter jets, computer chips, and other critical goods."
Ahead of the deal's completion last September, according to the Times, the Trump administration "approved preliminary applications for as much as $1.6 billion in federal financing for the American company, now called Kaz Resources, which plans to break ground on the project in rural Kazakhstan."
Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr., along with Lutnick's sons Brandon and Kyle, are poised to benefit from the project. "Within weeks of the St. Regis negotiations, investors with a firm called Dominari Securities, which is housed at Trump Tower in New York and partly owned by the president’s two eldest sons... joined with other partners to take a 20% stake in a corporate entity related to the Kazakhstan project," the Times reported.
"We’ve seen 300,000 Georgians lose health coverage in the last six months because they couldn’t find room in the budget for health insurance. But they’ve got room in the budget for a tungsten mine overseas, controlled in part by Prince Don and Prince Eric," Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) said in an MS NOW appearance late Monday.
Ossoff: You’ve got the American government, controlled by Donald Trump, backing a Trump family tungsten mine in Kazakhstan with more than a billion dollars in federal commitments at the very same time that they are cutting health care, defunding hospitals and nursing homes, and… pic.twitter.com/LCZbJgLyUX
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 30, 2026
Lutnick's sons, meanwhile, "helped one of the lead investors... on the Kazakh deal raise $210 million in new capital for a related entity," potentially resulting in a multimillion-dollar boon for Cantor Fitzgerald, the investment firm overseen by Brandon and Kyle Lutnick.
"They're not even trying to hide their brazen corruption anymore," wrote US Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "President Trump and Secretary Lutnick used your tax dollars to further enrich their families from a major mining deal with Kazakhstan."
Beyer stressed that "this isn't an isolated incident." The Times found that at least "14 companies working on critical mining deals with the US government that have ties to Cantor Fitzgerald or the Trump family," including Kaz Resources, Perpetua Resources, and USA Rare Earth.
Trump's family has profited massively from his return to the White House, thanks in a large part to a crypto scheme spearheaded by the president's eldest sons. A "Trump Family Digital Grift Wealth Tracker" maintained by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee estimates that crypto projects have netted the president and his family over $2.4 billion in profits so far.
"This is the most corrupt administration in American history. It is not close," Levin said Monday, accusing Trump's Republican allies—including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)—of enabling the president as he loots federal coffers to further enrich himself and his family.
"We must keep digging, and keep asking the questions they do not want asked," Levin added. "Republicans in Congress are unwilling to lift a finger. Mike Johnson is running a protection racket."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


