

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.

Reduced Plastic Production is Key Demand for Many Parties
The second session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on Plastic Pollution, or INC-2, ended today with a “zero draft” of a treaty expected before INC-3 and no sign from the U.S. of firm commitments to curb plastic production.
During the week-long negotiations, country delegates debated the rules of the negotiation process, identified options they would like to see included in a zero draft — a preliminary document that gets the ball rolling — and agreed on how to make progress between now and the next negotiating session in November.
“I’m glad the United States helped jumpstart substantive talks in Paris, but the team must come to the next session with a bold commitment to cut plastic production,” said Julie Teel Simmonds, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The U.S. hasn’t yet been willing to put the reduction of plastic production front and center in this treaty, and we can’t curb pollution without drastically scaling back its creation. At the next negotiations, the United States should take direct aim at the pervasive plastic that’s infiltrating every corner of our planet by hitting hard on production.”
Many country delegates and groups in attendance as observers, including the Center, expressed support for including mandatory measures in the treaty to reduce plastic production. Participants also called for prohibiting false solutions often suggested by industry representatives, such as “chemical” or “advanced” recycling that they misleadingly label “circular.”
The U.S. delegation in Paris was instrumental in resolving initial procedural debates, which focused on whether to adopt a consensus or a majority voting process throughout the negotiations. Its diplomacy helped move the negotiations into core discussions on the treaty’s potential contents. In the latter part of the week, delegates split into two groups to begin working out the treaty’s core elements, including obligations, financial mechanisms and other implementation measures.
But the United States stopped short of supporting any mandatory measures that will directly reduce plastic production and consumption and focused almost exclusively on voluntary measures and measures left to national definition.
Negotiations were marred by complaints from stakeholder groups about limited access to sessions and calls to give Indigenous Peoples and frontline and fenceline communities a bigger and more meaningful platform.
The next negotiating session, INC-3, will take place in Nairobi, Kenya, in November 2023.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252"Do the right thing: Get off of corporate welfare and pay all of your workers a living wage with good benefits," the democratic socialist senator implored Walmart's multibillionaire owners.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday launched an investigation into how corporations including Walmart—which hit $1 trillion in market value earlier this week—benefit from tax breaks in Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act while many of their workers can't make ends meet.
Sanders (I-Vt.) informed Walmart president and CEO Doug McMillon and the heads of Kroger, Dollar General, and Dollar Tree in separate letters that he's probing how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) passed by the GOP-controlled Congress and signed by President Donald Trump last year "has negatively impacted the health and well-being of workers at large corporations... and how it has financially benefited the owners and executives of these multinational conglomerates."
"This legislation made the largest cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in history to pay for $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1% and over $900 billion in tax cuts to large corporations," noted Sanders, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
"As you know, Walmart is the largest corporation in America with over $680 billion in revenue, $19.4 billion in profits, and more than 2 million workers," Sanders wrote in his letter to McMillon. "Walmart also recently became the first retailer ever to hit $1 trillion in market value. It is owned by one of the wealthiest families in America, the Walton family, which has become over $348 billion richer since 2017 and is now worth more than half a trillion dollars."
"Yet, despite the enormous wealth of the Walton family and these huge corporate profits, Walmart pays wages so low that many of its workers rely on public assistance to survive," the senator said. "At Walmart, tens of thousands of low-wage workers are forced to depend on SNAP to feed their families and Medicaid to get the healthcare they need—all paid for by US taxpayers."
"Walmart pays wages so low that many of its workers rely on public assistance to survive."
Sanders is asking the heads of the companies in his probe to "disclose how much they expect to make from the Republicans’ tax breaks and whether any of these savings will be passed along to workers."
“It has never been acceptable that incredibly profitable companies like Walmart—owned by one of the richest families on Earth—pay their workers starvation wages, forcing many of them to rely on programs like Medicaid and SNAP," Sanders wrote to McMillon. "But it is even more unacceptable when those benefits are being slashed so that corporate executives and billionaires like the Walton family can become even richer.”
Current models "assume the future will behave like the past, even as we push the climate system into uncharted territory," said the lead author of a new report that's based on input from dozens of experts.
In a report published Thursday, UK experts highlighted the "growing gap between real-world climate risk and the economic analysis used to guide policy, supervision, and investment," while also warning that because the "window for preventing catastrophic warming" is narrowing, ambitious action "cannot await perfected models."
Various scientific institutions concur that 2025 was among the hottest years on record—and the ongoing failure of governments across the globe, particularly the Trump administration, to enact policies that would significantly cut planet-heating emissions from fossil fuels is pushing the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C and 2°C goals for this century further out of reach.
The new report from the University of Exeter and the think tank Carbon Tracker Initiative, titled Recalibrating Climate Risk, incorporates the expert opinions of 68 climate scientists from Australia, Austria, Canada, China, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
"Our expert elicitation reveals a fundamental disconnect: Climate scientists understand that beyond 2°C, we're not dealing with manageable economic adjustments," said Jesse Abrams, lead author and senior impact fellow at Exeter's Green Futures Solutions, in a statement.
"The climate scientists we surveyed were unambiguous," he explained. "Current economic models systematically underestimate climate damages because they can't capture what matters most—the cascading failures, threshold effects, and compounding shocks that define climate risk in a warmer world and could undermine the very foundations of economic growth."
Abrams said that "for financial institutions and policymakers relying on these models, this isn't a technical problem—it's a fundamental misreading of the risks we face, which current models miss entirely because they assume the future will behave like the past, even as we push the climate system into uncharted territory."
Current economic models miss the mark on climate risks, warning that catastrophic tipping points and extreme weather could crash the global economy, far worse than 2008.As said many times before delaying action will be far costlier than cutting emissions now.www.theguardian.com/environment/...
[image or embed]
— Ian Hall (@ianhall.bsky.social) February 5, 2026 at 12:46 AM
Communities around the world are already contending with devastating droughts, fires, and storms—and, as another report from researchers at Exeter and the UK's Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFOA) pointed out last month, "above 1.5°C, we enter the danger zone where multiple climate tipping points may be triggered, such as the collapse of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, permafrost melt, Amazon dieback, and changes in ocean circulation."
The IFOA report "warned that when cascading and systemic risks are taken into account, warming of 2°C by 2050 could result in a 25% hit to projected GDP, rising to a halving of projected economic growth between 2070 and 2090," BusinessGreen editor-in-chief James Murray reported Thursday. "Similarly, a report from consultancy Boston Consulting Group calculated a third of the global economic output could be lost under a scenario where temperatures reach 3°C above preindustrial levels by 2100."
"The studies stand in stark contrast to some mainstream economic models that have suggested warming of 2°C or more will only reduce projected economic growth by a few percentage points—analyses that have been seized upon by opponents of climate action to argue that decarbonization policies can be dropped or delayed," Murray noted.
Abrams told the Guardian that some current economic models "are saying we'll have a 10% GDP loss at between 3°C and 4°C, but the physical climate scientists are saying the economy and society will cease to function as we know it. That's a big mismatch."
Your periodic reminder that the economic models that suggest climate change will knock a couple of percent of future GDP - models that are used widely by governments, investors, and businesses - are almost certainly complete garbage. www.businessgreen.com/news/4525211...
[image or embed]
— James Murray (@james-bg.bsky.social) February 5, 2026 at 7:08 AM
Laurie Laybourn, a Carbon Tracker board member and executive director of Strategic Climate Risks Initiative, cited another recent report that provides a bleak picture of the current moment and what lies ahead.
"As the UK government's landmark security assessment of ecosystem collapse showed last week, we are currently living through a paradigm shift in the speed, scale, and severity of risks driven by the climate-nature crisis," she said. "Yet, beyond this report, there has not been a corresponding paradigm shift in how regulators and government as a whole assess these risks."
"Instead, they're routinely underestimated if not missed entirely, meaning many regulations and government action are dangerously out of touch with reality," she continued. "This threatens disaster when that reality catches up with us. So, it's critical that policymakers change course, providing clear signals and guidance to markets that these risks should be priced accordingly, rather than downplayed."
And, as the experts emphasized Thursday, it's not just policymakers—investors are also still relying on "flawed economic advice," said Carbon Tracker founder and CEO Mark Campanale. The result is "widespread complacency... with many investors viewing climate scenario analysis as a tick-box disclosure exercise."
"Until the gap between scientists and economists' expectations of future climate damages is closed and government bodies act to ensure the integrity of advice upon which investment decisions are made," he added, "financial institutions will continue to chronically underprice climate risks—meaning that pension funds and taxpayers will remain dangerously exposed."
Hetal Patel, head of sustainable investment research at Phoenix Group, the UK's largest and retirement and savings business, said that her firm "supports the report's call for a more robust and coordinated approach to climate‑risk modeling. Underestimating physical risk doesn't just distort financial analysis and investment decisions, it underplays the real‑world consequences that will ultimately affect customer outcomes and society as a whole."
The new report stresses that addressing the "fundamental disconnect between what climate scientists understand about climate impacts and how these impacts are represented in economic models" would require "research investments spanning years," but rather than simply waiting for better modeling, decision-makers "must proceed on the basis of precautionary risk management, physical climate science, and observed impacts."
"New Yorkers deserve leaders who believe in transformation. Leaders who understand that hope is inspired by a vision, and sustained by change."
New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani opened his essay explaining his decision to endorse Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in her run for reelection with the same words she spoke last month when the pair announced—just days after Mamdani was sworn in—that they had reached an agreement to deliver a universal childcare program for his city.
"The era of empty promises ends," Mamdani, also a Democrat, wrote at The Nation.
The universal childcare program for children aged 6 weeks to 5 years, which Hochul agreed to fund for its first two years, is "as consequential a policy victory as our movement has seen in quite some time," said the mayor, who is an avowed democratic socialist.
Although he and Hochul have "real differences, particularly when it comes to taxation of the wealthiest, at a moment defined by profound income inequality," Mandani wrote, the governor moved to provide $1.7 billion in state funding to expand the social safety net for millions of New York City families.
"We delivered this historic win together," he wrote, emphasizing that the unlikely duo, should Hochul win reelection, plan to continue engaging "in an honest dialogue that leads to results."
I'm endorsing Gov. @KathyHochul because she's someone willing to engage in honest dialogue that delivers results.Along with the movement that powered our campaign, it's how we secured a historic agreement on childcare. And we're just getting started.www.thenation.com/article/poli...
[image or embed]
— Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@zohrankmamdani.bsky.social) February 5, 2026 at 9:25 AM
Mamdani endorsed Hochul over Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado, who chose India Walton, a democratic socialist who ran for mayor of Buffalo in 2021, as his running mate this week. Delgado has positioned himself as a progressive challenger to Hochul, who has faced criticism from environmental justice groups for approving a fracked gas pipeline and has not thrown her support behind the single-payer New York Health Act as Delgado has.
Although Mamdani and Hochul disagree on some key issues, the mayor emphasized that he has “come to trust” the governor since she endorsed his campaign last September, when other top Democratic lawmakers like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) refused to do so.
"For too long, our politics has been defined by a familiar cycle: big promises, bitter fights, and little tangible progress. This stagnation has taken a toll," wrote Mamdani. "Those of us entrusted with the sacred oath of service must heed that call and work together to honor it. That requires not the absence of disagreement but the presence of trust. We must be able to disagree honestly while still delivering for the people we serve. Over the past six months, Gov. Hochul and I have done exactly that."
He added that in his collaboration with Hochul, he has seen a model for what the Democratic Party can be.
"At its best, the Democratic Party has been a big tent not because it avoids conflict but because it channels conflict toward progress," Mamdani wrote. "A party united not by conformity but by a commitment to structural change—and to the work required to achieve it."
"New Yorkers deserve leaders who believe in transformation. Leaders who understand that hope is inspired by a vision, and sustained by change," he wrote. "Gov. Kathy Hochul has earned my endorsement because she has chosen to govern in that spirit."