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.
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.
"This data is a wake-up call for anyone claiming to speak for the American Jewish community while beating the drums of war," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street.
Two separate polls released Monday show that a majority of American Jews oppose the US-Israeli war on Iran as the assault drags on into its fifth week, with increasingly dire regional and global consequences.
The surveys were published by the liberal advocacy group J Street and the Jewish Electorate Institute (JEI), a research organization. Both polls of Jewish Americans showed majority opposition—60% and 55%, respectively—to the US-Israeli war on Iran.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's president, said in a statement that "this data is a wake-up call for anyone claiming to speak for the American Jewish community while beating the drums of war."
"Most American Jews see this war for what it is: A reckless, unforced error by a president who has no clear, achievable goals or an exit strategy," said Ben-Ami. "This poll proves that the ‘pro-Israel’ position is the pro-peace position—and that means stopping this war before more lives are lost."
J Street's poll shows that 77% of Jewish Americans don't think US President Donald Trump "has a clear plan and mission for the war." In JEI's survey, 41% of those who expressed opposition to the Iran war said they were against US military action because "we should not go to war without clear provocation and clear objectives."
Jim Gerstein, principal at GBAO Strategies—which conducted the poll on behalf of J Street—said that American Jews "have clearly formed views on the war in Iran."
"A large majority opposes the war, and they do not think Trump has a plan and mission in Iran," said Gerstein. "Jewish voters hold overwhelmingly negative views of both Trump and Netanyahu—Jewish opposition to the war and those leading it is unmistakable."
The surveys mark the latest evidence of widespread US public opposition to the war on Iran. Nearly 60% of American voters overall believe that, one month in, the war has "gone too far," according to a poll released last week, and around 70% oppose a ground invasion of Iran as Trump deploys thousands of troops to the Middle East.
The opposition to the war among Jewish Americans stands in stark contrast to the strong support among Jewish Israelis. The Israel Democracy Institute released a poll on Friday showing that 78% of Jewish Israelis support the assault on Iran.
The Precision Strike Missile has never before been used in combat by the US military.
As experts and investigators analyze one of the first strikes carried out in the US-Israeli war on Iran, mounting reports point to a ballistic missile that had never been used before by the US military in combat—but which may have struck a residential area, a sports hall, and a school in the southern city of Lamerd.
Along with being accused of bombing a school in Minab, killing more than 160 children and teachers, the US reportedly attacked several facilities and civilian areas near an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps facility in Lamerd, killing an additional 21 people, including children.
While analysts have found a US Tomahawk cruise missile was used in the Minab attack, munitions experts interviewed by the BBC and The New York Times in recent days said footage of the attacks and images of the targets after they were struck suggest a short-range ballistic missile called a Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) was used to bomb a sports hall, school, and residential neighborhood in Lamerd.
The missiles are newly developed and are designed to detonate just above a target and propel small tungsten pellets into the surrounding area.
As the Times reported, the PrSM is manufactured by Lockheed Martin and has the capability to hit targets at a 400-mile range, "but additional details about the weapon, including its expected accuracy and the quantity of explosives it carries, remain unknown to the public."
The Times reported that munitions experts had analyzed footage of a weapon in flight over a residential area about 900 feet from the sports hall and school, showing the missile erupting "in a large fireball midair."
Another video showed an explosion in midair just above the sports hall and nearby school, and photos of the aftermath showed the sites with numerous holes, presumably from the tungsten pellets.
The Times also verified a video that showed a plume of smoke rising in an area close to the other strikes at the same time, and local media reports said a cultural center had been hit in that attack. The target couldn't be independently verified.
Late last week, the BBC also reported that the PrSM was likely used on residential buildings in Lamerd on the first day of the war.
Experts at the defense intelligence firm Janes and at McKenzie Intelligence told the BBC that the shape, length, and size of the explosions created in verified footage they analyzed indicated the weapons were likely PrSM missiles.
"US Central Command has admitted to using PrSM in strikes from the desert of an unnamed Gulf country against Iran in the early phases of the conflict," McKenzie Intelligence emphasized.
Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Dan Caine also celebrated the use of the PrSM in a press conference on March 13, reported the BBC, saying the US military had "made history" and carried out attacks with "precision and determination that comes from relentless training and trust in each other and in their weapon systems."
But a spokesperson for US Central Command on Saturday told the Times that Pentagon officials are "aware of the reports and are looking into them," and claimed US forces "do not indiscriminately target civilians."
The US has also not officially taken responsibility for the attack in Minab that happened on the same day as the ones in Lamerd, but fragments of a Tomahawk missile that were found at the site are among the mounting evidence pointing to the Trump administration as the perpetrator.
The sports hall in Lamerd was reportedly being used by a children's volleyball team at the time of the strike; fourth grader Helma Ahmadizadeh and fifth grader Elham Zaeri were among those killed while at volleyball practice, according to an Iran-based journalist, Negin Bagheri.
Zaeri's father "described her as an avid volleyball player, who would always turn up to the sports hall 20 to 25 minutes early," the BBC reported.
The outlet also said the youngest victim of the suspected PrSM strike was two years old.
At Drop Site News, Mahmoud Aslan reported on the attack on the sports hall shortly after it took place, before analysts linked the bombing to the PrSM.
Hossein Gholami told Aslan his 16-year-old daughter, Zahra, had been training in the facility when he "noticed a strange gathering of people at the corner of the street leading to the sports hall."
“The screaming was rising from a distance," said Gholami. "A colleague ran toward me, waving his arm, and said in a shaken voice: ‘Zahra, the hall, there has been an explosion.'"
“The continuous screaming of the injured mixed with the sounds of secondary explosions," said Gholami, whose daughter was killed in the attack. "The ground was covered in debris and shattered glass. It was difficult to move with all the rubble. Ambulances arrived after about twenty minutes, but most of the injured were in critical condition. The smell of blood and burns covered everything."
“Every time I close my eyes," he said, "I see her face, her smile, and I hear the sound of the explosion."
"If the agency is going to allow such chemicals to be freely sold at Home Depot, Walmart, and farm supply stores, the very least the EPA must do is require a clear cancer warning on the label," said one critic.
The US Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly failed to warn consumers of the cancer risks posed by pesticides—even when its own research has found those products to be carcinogenic, a pair of green groups said Monday.
The Center for Food Safety studied the EPA's permitted risk level in active components of both currently approved and legacy pesticides. CFS researchers found that the EPA allowed pesticides with a cancer risk "as high as 1 in every 100 people exposed, a far greater level than the EPA’s benchmark of a 1-in-a-million chance of developing cancer."
"Of the 570 unique pesticide chemicals that EPA’s Office of Pesticide program has classified for carcinogenic potential since 1985, over one-third (200, or 35%) are either possible human carcinogens (127) or likely to be carcinogenic to humans (73)," the CFS report notes. "The status of 62 others (11%) is uncertain, because EPA lacks sufficient data to make a determination.
A second report, from the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), shows that of the 200 pesticides that are possible or likely human carcinogens, 125 are still registered for use.
CBD analyzed the labels of every pesticide currently approved by the EPA and found that the agency has placed cancer warnings on just 69 of 4,919 pesticide labels (1.4%) "containing an active ingredient that the agency has designated a 'likely' human carcinogen." Additionally, the EPA has put cancer warnings on just 242 of the 22,147 pesticide labels (1.1%) that "contain an ingredient the agency has designated as a 'possible' human carcinogen."
CFS science director Bill Freeses said in a statement Monday: “It’s bad enough that the EPA approves cancer-causing pesticides. But if the agency is going to allow such chemicals to be freely sold at Home Depot, Walmart, and farm supply stores, the very least the EPA must do is require a clear cancer warning on the label. Warnings save lives by incentivizing users to wear protective equipment that reduces risk."
Lori Ann Burd, director of environmental health at the CBD, said on Monday that “it's dumbfounding that the EPA has failed to require any cancer warning on thousands of pesticide products sold to the public that the agency itself has linked to cancer."
“Why should anyone have confidence in the EPA’s ability to keep tabs on the pesticide industry and protect us all from harmful poisons when it won’t even compel companies to put long-term health warnings on pesticides it knows are really dangerous?" she added.
Last month, CFS, CBD, and others denounced the EPA's reapproval of the pesticide dicamba—which scientific studies have linked to increased risk of cancer and hypothyroidism in high-dose exposure—for certain cotton and soybean crops.
The new CFS and CBD analyses come ahead of next month's oral arguments in Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell, a case before the US Supreme Court in which Bayer, the Germany-based pharma giant that bought Monsanto in 2018, is seeking substantial immunity from future lawsuits filed by people in the United States who used glyphosate-based products like Roundup weedkiller and were then diagnosed with rare pesticide-linked cancers. The company has paid out billions of dollars to settle such suits.
CBD and other advocacy groups have also warned that the industry-backed Farm Bill currently advancing in the Republican-controlled Congress weakens or delays pesticide safety regulation, preempts state-level cancer warning rules, and shields chemical companies from lawsuits.