

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.

Ashley Siefert Nunes with UCS, asiefert@ucsusa.org, Maddie Rocklin with Woodwell Climate, maddie@ninetywest.com
A paper by U.S. scientists published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances today finds that fires occurring in U.S. and Canadian boreal forests between now and 2050 could release about 3% of the remaining global carbon budget unless greater investments are made to limit fire size in these carbon-rich forests. The first-of-its-kind study was led by Dr. Carly Phillips, a fellow with the Western States Climate Team at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and co-authored with a team of researchers from the Woodwell Climate Research Center, Tufts University, Harvard University, the University of California, and Hamilton College.
The latest scientific report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes clear that countries have a quickly narrowing window to rein in heat-trapping emissions. To meet the Paris Agreement's principal goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius to avoid some of the worst climate change impacts, nations need to drastically reduce heat-trapping emissions during this consequential decade and reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
" Wildfires in boreal forests can be especially harmful in terms of the amount of emissions they release into the atmosphere since they store about two-thirds of the world's forest carbon, most of which is contained in the soil and has accumulated over hundreds or even thousands of years," said Dr. Phillips. "If not properly contained, heat-trapping emissions from wildfires in boreal forests could dramatically increase, jeopardizing nations' ability to limit warming in line with the Paris Agreement."
The study found that by midcentury, burned area in Alaskan and Canadian boreal forests is projected to increase as much as 169% and 150%, respectively, releasing nearly 12 gigatons of net carbon emissions--equivalent to the annual emissions of 2.6 billion cars--which represents about 3% of the remaining global carbon budget. These estimates are conservative, as the study did not assess the potential for boreal forest wildfires to accelerate permafrost thaw and other ecosystem processes that could further increase net carbon emissions.
"Governments rightly prioritize rapid suppression of wildfires that occur near heavily populated areas and crucial infrastructure, but allow other areas that hold large amounts of carbon to burn-a practice hazardous to the health and safety of communities in Alaska, Canada and beyond," said Dr. Peter Frumhoff, a research scientist at Harvard University's Center for the Environment and a co-author of the study. "Expanding fire management to keep wildfires near historical levels across boreal North America would provide multiple benefits and leave us far better positioned to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement."
Despite contributing an outsized share of carbon emissions, U.S. and Canadian boreal forests are given disproportionately small amounts of funding for fire suppression efforts. Alaska, for example, accounts for roughly 20% of burned land area and half of U.S. fire emissions annually, yet only receives about 4%, on average, of federal fire management funding. The study found the average cost of avoiding the emission of 1 ton of carbon dioxide was about $12, a cost comparable to or below that of other measures to mitigate climate change. In Alaska, that would mean investing an average of $696 million per year over the next decade to keep the state's wildfire emissions at historical levels.
"Reducing boreal forest fires to near-historical levels and keeping carbon in the ground will require additional investments," said Dr. Brendan Rogers, an associate scientist at Woodwell Climate Research Center and co-author of the study. "These funds are comparatively low and pale in comparison to the costs countries will face to cope with the growing health consequences exacerbated by worsening air quality and the more frequent and intense climate impacts that are expected if emissions continue to rise unabated. They can also ensure wildlife, tourism, jobs, and many other facets of our society can persevere in a warming world."
A corresponding UCS fact sheet is available here. Related blog posts by Dr. Phillips and by Dr. Rogers are also available.
More information can be found online in the Science Advances press package at eurekalert.org. Reporters will need their user ID and password to access the information.
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.
One expert warned of a "direct hit on consumer prices" if the Iran war persists.
President Donald Trump's unprovoked and unconstitutional war against Iran has already been raising gas prices for US drivers, and could soon raise the cost of food both in the US and all over the world.
NBC News reported on Tuesday that the price of diesel fuel has now soared above $5 per gallon for the first time since December 2022. If the price of diesel remains high, the report explained, it will raise the price of all goods delivered by trucks throughout the US, including food.
Paul Dietrich, chief investment strategist at Wedbush Securities, told NBC News that diesel prices will become a "direct hit on consumer prices" if they remain elevated, as "groceries get more expensive, delivery costs rise, and household budgets are tightened."
"Diesel is what moves the real economy," explained Dietrich. "It hauls the food, the packages, the building supplies, and the inventory sitting on store shelves."
The cost of diesel isn't the only factor that could spike food prices, as the Iran war has also put a strain on fertilizer that farmers need to grow crops.
Al Jazeera reported on Wednesday that there is growing concern that the rising price of fertilizer caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could lead to a global food crisis.
As Al Jazeera explained, almost half of the global supply of urea, the most commonly used fertilizer, is shipped from Middle Eastern nations through the Strait of Hormuz.
With the strait closed by Iran in response to US and Israeli attacks, Al Jazeera wrote, "urea export prices from the Middle East have surged by about 40%, rising from just less than $500 to a little more than $700 per metric ton as of last Friday."
Al Jazeera also cited an estimate from data and analytics firm Kpler projecting that up to one-third of the global fertilizer trade could be disrupted if the strait remains closed for a prolonged period.
Carl Skau, deputy executive director and chief operating officer of the World Food Program, warned on Tuesday that the Iran war could push millions of people into extreme hunger should it persist.
"If this conflict continues, it will send shockwaves across the globe, and families who already cannot afford their next meal will be hit the hardest," said Skau. "Without an adequately funded humanitarian response, it could spell catastrophe for millions already on the edge."
WFP said the disruption in fertilizer markets offers "the most recent proof that conflict is the number one driver of hunger."
"Conflict forces people from their homes, destroys infrastructure, fuels inflation, and wipes out jobs," said the agency. "All of this makes it nearly impossible for people to find or afford enough food to survive. And children are always hit hardest: A child living in a country ravaged by conflict is more than twice as likely to be malnourished and out of school than their peers in peaceful settings."
Warnings about the war's impact on the price of food come as the US economy is showing signs of accelerating inflation.
As reported by CNBC on Wednesday, wholesale prices in February surged by 0.7%, more than double economists' consensus estimate of 0.3%.
On a year-over-year basis, wholesale prices rose by 3.4% in February—the highest increase in a year.
Spikes in wholesale prices, which reflect the amount that firms pay for inputs for their products, typically also lead to increased consumer prices, as companies pass on their cost increases to customers.
"The report suggests that pipeline inflation pressures remain persistent, particularly on the services side, complicating the Fed’s path as it weighs how long to keep interest rates elevated," CNBC noted.
"The US publicly threatens Cuba, almost daily, with overthrowing the constitutional order by force," said Miguel Díaz-Canel.
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel on Tuesday condemned US President Donald Trump's open threat to forcibly seize control of the island nation and vowed that any such aggression would be met with "impregnable resistance."
"The US publicly threatens Cuba, almost daily, with overthrowing the constitutional order by force," Díaz-Canel wrote on social media. "And it uses an outrageous pretext: the harsh limitations of the weakened economy that they have attacked and sought to isolate for more than six decades."
"They intend and announce plans to seize the country, its resources, its properties, and even the very economy they seek to strangle to make us surrender," the Cuban president added. "Only in this way can the fierce economic war be explained, which is applied as collective punishment against the entire people. In the face of the worst scenario, Cuba is accompanied by a certainty: Any external aggressor will clash with an impregnable resistance."
Díaz-Canel's statement came a day after Trump said from the Oval Office of the White House that he believes he will have "the honor of taking Cuba" as it faces a grave humanitarian crisis fueled by the administration's oil embargo, which began shortly after the US abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in early January.
"I think I can do anything I want with it," Trump said of Cuba on Monday.
The New York Times reported earlier this week that Trump administration officials are demanding Díaz-Canel's ouster as part of any negotiated deal between the two countries.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants and a longtime supporter of regime change on the island, said publicly on Tuesday that Cuba "has to get new people in charge." Trump said earlier this month that he's "going to put Marco over there and we’ll see how that works out."
A YouGov poll out this week shows that more Americans disapprove than approve of the US embargo on Cuba. The same survey found that only 13% of US voters would support attacking Cuba, and a mere 18% would support using military force to overthrow the country's government.
Trump's threats came as his oil embargo and the broader, decadeslong, and illegal economic warfare against Cuba continued to take their toll on the island's population, most recently in the form of an island-wide blackout that lasted nearly 30 hours.
On Wednesday, the first delegation of the Nuestra América Convoy arrived in Havana as part of an effort by individuals and organizations to deliver critical humanitarian aid to the Cuban people as the US besieges the island's economy and threatens its sovereignty.
Nathan J. Robinson and Alex Skopic, editors of the left-wing magazine Current Affairs, announced Wednesday that they are heading to Cuba to cover the mission, which they characterized as part of a "proud tradition of internationalism" on the American left.
"Beyond food, medicine, and energy infrastructure, this mission sends a message," Robinson and Skopic wrote. "As Americans, we want to make it crystal clear that the Trump administration does not speak for us when it talks about 'taking over' Cuba, and we’re sickened by what Trump and Rubio are doing to the Cuban people in the name of U.S. foreign policy. But we’re determined to do what we can, and we’re going to make sure the people of Cuba do not stand alone."
"It’s time to kick AIPAC and other billionaire-funded super PACs out of Democratic primaries."
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee failed on Tuesday to secure wins in the two Illinois US House primaries it invested the most money in, the latest electoral flop for the pro-Israel lobbying organization whose brand has become increasingly noxious to Democratic voters amid Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza.
In Illinois' 7th and 9th Congressional Districts, AIPAC spent millions backing Chicago treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin, who finished second, and Democratic State Sen. Laura Fine, who finished third. In the latter race, AIPAC pivoted from initially attacking Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss—who ultimately won—to concentrate on defeating Justice Democrats-backed Kat Abughazaleh.
AIPAC, which faced backlash for trying to conceal its spending in the Illinois contests using shell organizations, tried to spin the 9th Congressional District results as a win, despite spending more against Biss than against Abughazaleh.
"Though Kat narrowly lost this race, we are proud to have backed this campaign that helped ensure the people of IL-09 would not be represented by another AIPAC shill," Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats, said in a statement. "This outcome is a massive loss for AIPAC as they lose more and more influence within the Democratic Party. No amount of shell PACs or covert funding can hide their toxicity from Democratic voters, their monopoly over this party’s agenda is coming to an end.”
Two AIPAC-backed candidates did prevail Tuesday: Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller in the 2nd Congressional District and former Rep. Melissa Bean in the 8th Congressional District.
AIPAC's mixed results came amid broad alarm over outside spending that flooded Tuesday's midterm primary elections in Illinois, driven by pro-Israel, crypto, and AI special interest groups. Overall, more than $92 million was spent on campaign ads in Tuesday's contests in Illinois, a state record.
"I think we can safely say that almost $100 million spent in a handful of primaries is a full-spectrum disaster for democracy," wrote David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, which called the torrent of spending "a corruption of democracy that is relatively unprecedented in modern elections."
The National Journal reported Tuesday that when the national midterm cycle is over, "the price tag for the Illinois primary will be an important footnote in what’s projected to be the most expensive midterm election ever."
"The nonpartisan research firm AdImpact estimates that more than $10.8 billion will be spent on ads alone this cycle," the Journal observed. "Even as the competitive map gets smaller, the price tag keeps increasing as more outside deep-pocketed groups invest more in primaries."
Super PACs, entities that can spend unlimited sums boosting their preferred candidates, pumped roughly $31 million into Tuesday's US House primaries in Illinois. AIPAC-linked organizations accounted for around $22 million of the total.
"It’s time to kick AIPAC and other billionaire-funded super PACs out of Democratic primaries," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote ahead of Tuesday's races.