June, 01 2022, 08:08am EDT
As the UN commemorates 50 years since the first international summit on the environment, a new report exposes the critical dangers that fossil fuels pose to all 17 sustainable development goals.
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.

As the UN commemorates 50 years since the first international summit on the environment, a new report exposes the critical dangers that fossil fuels pose to all 17 sustainable development goals.
As the UN commemorates 50 years since the first international summit on the environment, a new report exposes the critical dangers that fossil fuels pose to all 17 sustainable development goals.
The report, coined Fuelling Failure: How coal, oil and gas sabotage all seventeen Sustainable Development Goals, finds that oil, gas and coal production and emissions are a primary threat to our water, health, biodiversity and ability to provide economic and energy security. It calls for an international framework with binding commitments that constrain fossil fuel production globally, one that complements existing pledges to cut emissions, reverse biodiversity loss and curtails pollution which the world fails to meet due to their rampant fossil fuel production.
The report, which is draws on more than 400 academic articles, civil society reports and case studies, acknowledges that "the exploration, extraction, refining, transportation and combustion of oil, gas and coal is making it impossible for the global community to meet the SDGs, threatening lives and livelihoods, and the ability of the planet to sustain human wellbeing". Today's most pressing crises - from poverty, world hunger, health and conflict - are all made increasingly difficult in a warming world.
Co-author Freddie Daley, Research Associate at the University of Sussex, said: "2030 is a line in the sand for the health of our planet and its people. By 2030, humanity needs to have halved global emissions, while at the same time achieving all 17 SDGs. This is an impossible endeavour without concerted global efforts to constrain and phase out fossil fuel production in a fast, fair and equitable manner, with the wealthy nations that continue to benefit from fossil fuelled economic growth leading the way. This research lays out the incompatibility of sustainable development and fossil fuels - and what is at stake if we fail to address unchecked fossil fuel expansion."
Current international climate agreements primarily focus on emissions reductions and make no mention of fossil fuels. The international framework required to align efforts to achieve the SDGs with ending the era of fossil fuels could take the form of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has garnered support in cities around the world and amongst leading parliamentarians, scientists, academics and faith leaders.
Tzeporah Berman, Chair for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative and Stand.earth International Programs Director, said: "Fossil fuel addiction poisons every earnest attempt we make to tackle the sustainable development and climate agendas. Despite a robust pile of evidence that fossil fuels are core to our problems, governments are not moving and international cooperation is lacking. We have the solutions at hand but the obstacle is a lack of political courage. Bold new ideas like the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty are necessary to revive our living systems and take them off life support."
The paper was produced by researchers at the University of Sussex on behalf of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative and key civil society partners with expertise across the SDGs: 350.org, ActionAid, REN21, Stand.earth, Health Care Without Harm, CAN South Asia, UNRISD, Food and Water, Rapid Transition Alliance, Leave It In the Ground Initiative, GAIA, CAN International, Center for Biological Diversity, Stamp Out Poverty, MOCICC, Power Shift Africa, WECAN and Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development.
The full report is available online as well as the executive summary. The paper will be presented at a virtual public event ahead of the Stockholm+50 conference on Wednesday, 1st June, 9.30am-10.30am CEST.
Kjell Kuhne, founder of the Leave It In The Ground Initiative (LINGO), said: "In the early 2020s, we are moving into the fossil endgame. Because we have delayed it for so long, we will need to play it much faster now. Everyone should get ready for a rapid transition ahead - either as an active driver and participant, or as a fossil age relic to be washed away by the new times."
Teresa Anderson, global lead on climate justice for ActionAid International, said: " Drought in the Horn of Africa means that 20 million people are currently at risk of famine. The world's food systems are struggling to cope with the rising temperatures and haywire weather patterns caused by fossil-fuelled climate change. Farmers are no longer able to predict when rains will come, and are struggling to grow enough food for their families and communities. We're now at the point where we have to choose between fossil fuels and food security, because an overheating planet will not be able to feed humanity."
Josh Karliner, International Director of Program and Strategy at Health Care Without Harm, said: "Civilization has two paths before it. We can either collectively continue our addiction to fossil fuels thereby undermining public health and the natural systems that support life on the planet, throwing the SDGs out the window along the way. Or we can kick the fossil fuel habit and organize a just transition to clean, renewable energy systems that will help foster healthy people on a healthy planet, thereby giving us a fighting chance to meet the Sustainable Development Goals. The health of future generations depends on our action today."
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the environmental advocacy organization Food & Water Watch, said: "This comprehensive report from the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative makes abundantly clear what we've been warning for years: There is no viable solution to the climate crisis that can include continued reliance on fossil fuels. In spite of real progress made on many sustainable development goals around the world, the ultimate success or failure in our mission to maintain a livable climate for future generations depends on transitioning fully to clean, renewable energy now."
Mariel Vilella, Director of GAIA's Global Climate Program, said: "The fossil fuel industry is using a false "net zero" narrative to justify investing billions to increase plastic production, with low income communities and communities of colour suffering the worst impacts. This needs to stop: both the SDGs and the Paris Climate Agreement are being actively undermined by this suicide mission to produce more plastic waste."
Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, said: "The fossil fuel industry is built on servicing extractive systems and has left communities - especially those in Africa - vulnerable to socio-economic and ecological traps, shocks and under development. Fossil fuels are undermining sustainable development in many ways, including fuelling catastrophic extreme weather impacts on our people's lives and livelihoods. To achieve sustainable development, we need to see a rapid and urgent shift away from fossil fuel investments and increased financing of people-centred, community-owned, decentralized and distributed, accessible, resilient, and affordable renewable energy systems, particularly for the vulnerable sections of the society in Africa."
Osprey Orielle Lake, Founder/Executive Director of the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN), Steering Committee member for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, said: "Globally women are strategizing and working to accelerate our collective efforts to halt the worst impacts of the climate crisis, stop extractivism at the source, and protect our lands, forests, water, and global climate for current and future generations. Studies worldwide demonstrate that women are essential to resolving multiple interlocking crises. Women's leadership and solutions are vital to ending the era of fossil fuels and pushing forward innovative solutions, like the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty which ensures an end to sacrifice people and sacrifice zones, and the protection of our global communities and ecosystems."
Paul Ladd, Director of UNRISD, said: "This important and timely report sheds light on a simple truth: The continued reliance on fossil fuels is not compatible with sustainable development. Unpacking a wealth of information and data, it showcases the many ways in which fossil fuel extraction and use undermine sustained progress across the range of SDGs. We must do everything we can in order to accelerate a low-carbon transition that is built on principles of equity, justice and inclusion."
Jean Su, director of The Centre for Biological Diversity, said: "Every day that we burn fossil fuels is one more day that we're undermining these goals for a sustainable, livable planet. The first step to fighting the extinction of countless species and the scourge of global poverty is to turn off the spigot of dangerous fossil fuels. That's the only way we can build a just, peaceful future that protects the dignity of humanity and all life on Earth."
Lidy Nacpil, Coordinator for Asian Peoples' Movement On Debt And Development, said: "This report makes clear that fossil fuels are weapons of mass destruction. In the Global South, the extraction and burning of fossil fuels threatens millions of lives through devastating climate impacts while dependence on fossil fuels locks countries into increasing cycles of debt, fuelling poverty and undermining education, jobs and health. Already more than 200 parliamentarians, led by representatives from the Global South, have joined a global call for a Fossil Fuel Free Future to break this cycle of debt and destruction. We need international cooperation on a global just transition from fossil fuels to make this future a reality."
David Hillman, Director of Stamp Out Poverty, said: "The catastrophic warming of our planet through the relentless burning of fossil fuels is devastating the lives and livelihoods of people now. Between the tropics, particularly, populations are at the sharp end of increasingly violent storms and crop-destroying droughts. Impacts to food and water security are causing poverty to rise with previous progress on the SDGs going into reverse. There is only one way to break this cycle, we need to stop using fossil fuels. There simply is no time to lose."
Mahir Ilgaz, Associate Director, Global Policy and Campaigns for 350.org: "This report demonstrates once again that there can be no fossil fuel based development, and any energy system based on fossil fuels is bound to failure while also damaging our health, prosperity, and environment. The false dependencies created by the fossil fuel industry are entirely of their own making and avoidable. As the energy transition progresses, dependence on fossil fuels as the main sources of our energy mix will have an additional effect on our economies, as these investments lose their value. Fossil fuels are not only destroying our climate but they are also undermining our right to development through the appropriation of resources that should be going to clean and just development for all."
##
About the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative
The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative is spurring international cooperation to end new development of fossil fuels, phase out existing production within the agreed climate limit of 1.5degC, and develop plans to support workers, communities and countries dependent on fossil fuels to create secure and healthy livelihoods.
The proposed Treaty draws on lessons from global efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and ban ozone depleting chemicals, landmines and other threats to humanity. It will advance action under three pillars:
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
Amid a growing rift between Israel and the White House, one foreign policy analyst says the meeting "will signal whether Washington is prepared to continue underwriting open-ended escalation."
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu heads to Mar-a-Lago to meet with US President Donald Trump on Monday, amid a growing rift with the president and his advisers, reports say he'll seek to push the US back toward war with Iran.
Last week, NBC News reported that at the meeting, "Netanyahu is expected to make the case to Trump that Iran’s expansion of its ballistic missile program poses a threat that could necessitate swift action" and that "the Israeli leader is expected to present Trump with options for the US to join or assist in any new military operations."
"Netanyahu plans to press Donald Trump for US backing for another round of war with Iran, now framed around Iran’s ballistic missile program," said Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. “Netanyahu’s pivot to missiles should therefore be read not as the discovery of a new threat, but as an effort to manufacture a replacement casus belli after the nuclear argument collapsed."
He noted criticisms levied against Netanyahu by Yair Golan, chair of the Democrats, a center-left party in Israel, earlier this week: "How is it possible that last June, at the end of the war with Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu solemnly declared that ‘Israel had eliminated Iran’s nuclear threat and severely damaged its missile array’; and that this was a ‘historic victory’—and today, less than six months later, he is running to the president of the United States to beg for permission to attack Iran again?" Golan said.
Iran is just one of several areas the two will likely discuss on Monday. According to Israeli officials who spoke to the Washington Post, Netanyahu also reportedly wants Trump to "take a tougher stance on Gaza and require that Hamas disarm before Israeli troops further withdraw as part of the second phase of Trump’s 20-point peace plan."
The chief of Israel's armed forces suggested earlier this week that its occupation of more than half of Gaza would be permanent, but walked those comments back after reported behind-the-scenes outrage in the White House. Meanwhile, Trump—invested in his image as a peacemaker—has reportedly balked at Israel's routine violations of the ceasefire agreement he helped to broker in October.
Near-daily strikes have resulted in the death of at least 418 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Media Office. Meanwhile, Israel's continued blockade of humanitarian aid has left hundreds of thousands of people—displaced from homes destroyed by Israeli bombing—to languish in the cold without tents. Desperately needed fuel, food, and medicine have entered the strip at far lower numbers than the ceasefire agreement required.
As Axios reported on Friday, Trump's advisers increasingly fear that Netanyahu is intentionally slow-walking and undermining the peace process in hopes of resuming the war.
Netanyahu also seeks Trump's continued backing of Israel's territorial expansion in Syria. Earlier this month, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) pushed through a UN-monitored demilitarized zone between Israeli and Syrian-held positions in the Golan Heights, which Israel illegally occupies.
This push into southern Syria went against the wishes of the Trump administration, which feared it could destabilize the Western-backed government that rules in Damascus following the ouster of former President Bashar al-Assad.
Israel has also routinely struck Lebanon in violation of the US-brokered ceasefire it signed with Hezbollah in late 2024, with bombings becoming a near-daily occurrence in December. Last month, the UN reported that at least 127 civilians, including children, had been killed in Israeli strikes since the ceasefire began.
"Netanyahu’s visit unfolds against a backdrop of unresolved fronts, with widening disputes with Washington over the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, including postwar governance, reconstruction, and Turkish involvement," Toossi said. "At the same time, Israel is seeking greater latitude to escalate again against Hezbollah in Lebanon, an end to US accommodation of Syria’s new leadership, and firm assurances on expanded military aid."
“Taken together, Netanyahu’s visit is less about resolving any single crisis than about postponing strategic reckoning," he continued. "The outcome will signal whether Washington is prepared to continue underwriting open-ended escalation, or whether this meeting marks the beginning of clearer limits on Israel’s regional strategy.”
"We cannot have a nation with extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, but where... healthcare, childcare, housing, education is unaffordable," the San Francisco lawmaker said.
US Rep. Ro Khanna defended California's proposed tax on extreme wealth Saturday after a pair of prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalists threatened to launch a primary bid for his California House seat.
The proposal, which advocates are gathering signatures to place on the ballot in 2026, would impose a one-time 5% tax on those with net worths over $1 billion to recoup about $90 billion in Medicaid funds stripped from the state by this year’s Republican budget law. The roughly 200 billionaires affected would have five years to pay the tax.
While higher taxes on the superrich are overwhelmingly popular with Americans, the proposal has rankled many of California’s wealthiest residents, as well as California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said earlier this month that he’s “adamantly” against the measure.
On Friday, the New York Times reported that two of the valley's biggest powerbrokers—venture capitalist and top Trump administration ally Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Larry Page—were threatening to reduce their ties to California in response to the tax proposal.
This has been a common refrain from elites faced with proposed tax increases, though data suggests they rarely follow through on their threats to bail on cities and states, even when those hikes are implemented. Meanwhile, the American Prospect has pointed out that the one-time tax would still apply to those who moved out of the Golden State.
Khanna (D-Calif.), who is both a member of the House's progressive faction and a longtime darling of the tech sector, has increasingly sparred with industry leaders in recent years over their reactionary stances on labor rights, regulation, and taxation.
In a post on X, the congressman reacted with derision at the threats of billionaire flight: "Peter Thiel is leaving California if we pass a 1% tax on billionaires for five years to pay for healthcare for the working class facing steep Medicaid cuts. I echo what [former President Franklin D. Roosevelt] said with sarcasm of economic royalists when they threatened to leave, 'I will miss them very much.'"
Casado, who donated to Khanna’s 2024 reelection campaign according to OpenSecrets, complained that “Ro has done a speed run, alienating every moderate I know who has supported him, including myself.”
"Beyond being totally out of touch with [the moderate] faction of his base, he’s devolved into an obnoxious jerk," Casado continued. "At least that makes voting him the fuck out all the more gratifying."
Casado's post received a reply from another former Khanna donor, Garry Tan, the CEO of the tech startup accelerator Y Combinator.
"Time to primary him," Tan said of Khanna.
Tan, a self-described centrist Democrat, has never run for office before. But he is notorious for his social media tirades against local progressives in San Francisco and was one of the top financial backers of the corporate-led push to oust the city's liberal former district attorney, Chesa Boudin, in 2022.
Casado replied: "Count me in. Happy to be involved at any level."
Progressive commentator Krystal Ball marveled that “Tech oligarchs are now openly conspiring against Ro Khanna because he dared to back a modest wealth tax.”
So far, neither Casado nor Tan has hinted at any concrete plans to challenge Khanna in 2026. If they did, defeating him would likely be a tall order—since his sophomore election in 2018, a primary challenger has never come within 30 points of unseating him.
But Khanna still felt the need to respond to the brooding tech royals. He noted that he has "supported a modest wealth tax since the day I ran in 2016," which prompted another angry retort from Casado, who accused the congressman of "antagonizing the people who made your district the amazing place it is" with a tax on billionaires.
Khanna hit back at his critics with a lengthy defense of not just the wealth tax, but his conception of what he calls "pro-innovation progressivism."
"My district is $18 trillion, nearly one-third of the US stock market in a 50-mile radius. We have five companies with a market cap over $1 trillion," Khanna said. "If I can stand up for a billionaire tax, this is not a hard position for 434 other [House] members or 100 senators."
"The seminal innovation in tech is done by thousands, often with public funds," Khanna continued. "Yes, we need entrepreneurs to commercialize disruptive innovation... But the idea that they would not start companies to make billions, or take advantage of an innovation cluster, if there is a 1-2% tax on their staggering wealth defies common sense and economic theory."
"We cannot have a nation with extreme concentration of wealth in a few places, but where 70% of Americans believe the American dream is dead and healthcare, childcare, housing, education is unaffordable," he concluded. "What will stifle American innovation, what will make us fall behind China, is if we see further political dysfunction and social unrest, if we fail to cultivate the talent in every American and in every city and town... So, yes, a billionaire tax is good for American innovation, which depends on a strong and thriving American democracy."
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigeria's information minister.
When President Donald Trump launched a series of airstrikes in Nigeria on Christmas, he described it as an attack against "ISIS Terrorist Scum in Northwest Nigeria who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians."
But locals in a town that was hit during the strike say terrorism has never been a problem for them. On Friday, CNN published a report based on interviews with several residents of Jabo, which was hit by a US missile during Thursday's attack, which landed just feet away from the town's only hospital.
The rural town of Jabo is part of the Sokoto state in northwestern Nigeria, which the Trump administration and the Nigerian government said was hit during the strike.
Both sides have said militants were killed during the attack, but have not specified their identities or the number of casualties.
Kabir Adamu, a security analyst from Beacon Security and Intelligence in Abuja, told Al Jazeera that the likely targets are members of “Lakurawa,” a recently formed offshoot of ISIS.
But the Trump administration's explanation that their home is at the center of a "Christian genocide" left many residents of Jabo confused. As CNN reported:
While parts of Sokoto face challenges with banditry, kidnappings and attacks by armed groups including Lakurawa–which Nigeria classifies as a terrorist organization due to suspected affiliations with [the] Islamic State–villagers say Jabo is not known for terrorist activity and that local Christians coexist peacefully with the Muslim majority.
Bashar Isah Jabo, a lawmaker who represents the town and surrounding areas in Nigeria's parliament, described the village to CNN as “a peaceful community” that has “no known history of ISIS, Lakurawa, or any other terrorist groups operating in the area.”
While the town is predominantly Muslim, resident Suleiman Kagara, told reporters: "We see Christians as our brothers. We don’t have religious conflicts, so we weren’t expecting this."
Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation with more than 237 million people, has a long history of violence between Christians and Muslims, with each making up about half the population.
However, Nigerian officials have disputed claims by Republican leaders—including US Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)—who have claimed that the government is “ignoring and even facilitating the mass murder of Christians.”
The senator recently claimed, without citing a source for the figures, that "since 2009, over 50,000 Christians in Nigeria have been massacred, and over 18,000 churches and 2,000 Christian schools have been destroyed" by the Islamist group Boko Haram.
Cruz is correct that many Christians have been killed by Boko Haram. But according to reports by the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project and the Council on Foreign Relations, the majority of the approximately 53,000 civilians killed by the group since 2009 have been Muslim.
Moreover, the areas where Boko Haram is most active are in northeastern Nigeria, far away from where Trump's strikes were conducted. Attacks on Christians cited in October by Cruz, meanwhile, have been in Nigeria's Middle Belt region, which is separate from violence in the north.
The Nigerian government has pushed back on what they have called an "oversimplified" narrative coming out of the White House and from figures in US media, like HBO host Bill Maher, who has echoed Cruz's overwrought claims of "Christian genocide."
“Portraying Nigeria’s security challenges as a targeted campaign against a single religious group is a gross misrepresentation of reality,” said Nigerian information minister Mohammed Idris Malagi. “While Nigeria, like many countries, has faced security challenges, including acts of terrorism perpetrated by criminals, couching the situation as a deliberate, systematic attack on Christians is inaccurate and harmful. It oversimplifies a complex, multifaceted security environment and plays into the hands of terrorists and criminals who seek to divide Nigerians along religious or ethnic lines."
Anthea Butler, a religious scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has criticized the Trump administration's attempts to turn the complex situation in Nigeria into a "holy war."
"This theme of persecution of Christians is a very politically charged, and actually religiously charged, theme for evangelicals across the world. And when you say that Christians are being persecuted, that’s a thing," she told Democracy Now! in November. "It fits this sort of savior narrative of this American sort of ethos right now that is seeing itself going into countries for a moral war, a moral suasion, as it were, to do something to help other people."
Nigeria also notably produces more crude oil than any other country in Africa. Trump has explicitly argued that the US should carry out regime change in Venezuela for the purposes of "taking back" that nation's oil.
Butler has doubted the sincerity of Trump's concern for the nation's Christians due to his administration's denial of entry for Nigerian refugees, as well as virtually every other refugee group, with the exception of white South Africans.
She said: "I think this is sort of disingenuous to say you’re going to go in and save Christianity in Nigeria, when you have, you know, banned Nigerians from coming to this country."