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.
If humanity wants to be part of a sustainable future, we know exactly what we need to do by 2030. These are precisely the years we cannot afford to lose.
Among the several critical issues on the November ballot in the U.S., the future of Planet Earth has to be high on the list.
For decades, scientists have warned of the apocalyptic consequences of global ecological collapse. We know the causes, consequences, and solutions to this existential crisis, but as governments have remained captured by short-term financial interests, they have largely ignored the warnings and resisted taking substantive action to solve the crisis.
This decade, 2020-2030, is widely thought to be our last best chance to make the changes urgently needed to secure a livable future for all life on Earth.
Here is what the science says—we ignore it at our collective peril.
The global environment is in far worse shape than it was in 1970 (the first Earth Day), and is nearing a point-of-no-return. Human activities have caused the loss of half the world’s forests, coral reefs, wetlands, grasslands, and mangroves; annual use of 75% more resources than Earth can sustain; runaway climate change; air and water pollution in every corner of the world; and most of the Earth’s surface significantly impacted by just one species: Homo sapiens.
The global environment is in far worse shape than it was in 1970... and is nearing a point-of-no-return.
By some estimates, we have already caused the extinction of more than one million species, with another million expected to go extinct in coming years. Beyond species extinctions, wildlife population numbers have plummeted in recent decades: overall global wildlife numbers declined by 60%, large oceanic fish by 66%, seabirds by 70%, and insects declined by 40% in the last decade alone.
In addition, the socioeconomic condition of civilization has continued to decline, with 700 million people now living in extreme poverty and hunger; 16,000 children under the age of five dying every day due to preventable causes; 19,000 people dying every day from breathing polluted air; billions living in water-stressed regions; more people enslaved than at any time in history; thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert; and growing global insecurity.
Scientists have been warning of global ecological collapse for decades.
The 1992 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” from the Union of Concerned Scientists, noted the “ever-increasing environmental degradation that threatens global life support systems on this planet,” warning that: “A great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided.”
Twenty-five years later, the 2017 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice,” issued by over 15,000 scientists from 184 countries, noted that this “great change” in environmental stewardship had not occurred, and that most trends had become alarmingly worse, warning that: “Soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”
The 2019 “Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” concluded that: “Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business as usual and are largely failing to address this predicament.” A U.N. report concluded that for critical ecological systems - atmosphere, land, water, oceans, and biodiversity - environmental degradation now ranges from “serious to irreversible.”
The only chance that human civilization can unite to solve these existential imperatives in time is if the Democrats retain the White House.
Science is clear that if present trends continue, the planet will be virtually uninhabitable for humans and perhaps half of all other species by the end of this century. In fact, for many people and species, in many places, it already is. U.N. officials admit that to solve this crisis, we need “an exponential increase in ambition.”
Fortunately, we know exactly what we need to do to solve this crisis. As British naturalist David Attenborough recently said: “Never before have we been so aware of what we are doing to the planet—and never before have we had such power to do something about it.”
If humanity wants to be part of a sustainable future, we know exactly what we need to do by 2030: reduce global carbon emissions by 50%; stabilize human population; halt destruction of forests and other ecological habitat; place half of the Earth’s lands and waters in fully-protected status; reduce extinction rates to the pre-human background level; shift to a zero-waste, circular economy focused on stability and equity rather than growth; transform agriculture into a sustainable, low-impact food system; electrify global transportation; reduce wealth disparity and poverty; provide education, health care, and economic opportunity for all; and eliminate all nuclear weapons.
In discussing “the fierce urgency of now,” Martin Luther King warned that “there is such a thing as being too late.” For the global environment, we are almost at that point.
Simply put, the only chance that human civilization can unite to solve these existential imperatives in time is if the Democrats retain the White House. Hopefully Americans will vote this November like the future of the world depends on it. It does.
"By 2030, we have to make a radical cut in emissions," an author said. "Military spending... isn't just not addressing the problem, but actually worsening the problem."
The militaries of North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries emitted an estimated 233 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2023, a sharp uptick that exacerbates climate breakdown and serves only to enrich weapons manufacturers, according to a briefing issued Monday by the Transnational Institute, a research and advocacy organization, and several other nonprofits.
The 32 national militaries together emitted more carbon than the country of Colombia, which has a population of about 52 million people, the briefing says. NATO countries' military spending increased from about $1.21 trillion in 2022 to $1.34 trillion in 2023, thanks in part to the conflicts in Ukraine and Palestine. TNI used a spend-emission conversion factor to estimate the carbon cost of the spending.
The briefing's authors warn that NATO's spending targets must be abandoned or its emissions will continue to rise significantly in the next few years—despite a pledge to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030. Member countries have pledged to spend at least 2% of gross domestic product on defense, and many have have already met or surpassed the target.
The authors note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determined that all sectors of the economy need to reduce emissions by 43% by 2030 from 2019 levels to keep global warming at or below the Paris agreement's 1.5°C target.
"By 2030, we have to make a radical cut in emissions," Nick Buxton, TNI's communications manager, toldThe Guardian. "But the biggest investment we're making worldwide, and in particularly NATO, is in military spending, which isn't just not addressing the problem, but actually worsening the problem."
If NATO members increase their spending to 2% of GDP in the next five years, they will divert an estimated additional US$2.57 trillion away from climate spending. This would be enough to pay for climate adaptation costs for all low- and middle-income countries for seven years. pic.twitter.com/7KJkqutYXS
— Transnational Institute (@TNInstitute) July 9, 2024
The United States accounts for more than two-thirds of NATO countries' military spending and one-third of the world's, which also surged in 2023. U.S. military spending increased by 24% from 2022 to 2023, and some leading Republicans in Congress have recently called for large increases.
A 2022 report from the Conflict and Environment Observatory, a research and advocacy group, estimated that military emissions accounted for 5.5% of all global carbon emissions. Estimates are difficult because lack of transparent reporting practices by many militaries, experts say.
The new briefing suggests that military spending could be diverted to climate finance for developing countries, which have been the subject of intense international negotiations in recent years, with rich countries slow to provide funding even as they spend profligately on their militaries, critics have argued.
"The climate is caught in the crossfire of war," TNI said on social media. "We need peaceful solutions to conflicts if we are to defend our world. There is no secure nation on an unsafe planet."
The "only winners" from NATO's spending policy are weapons manufacturers, says the briefing, which states that backlogs of weapons orders at the 10 largest arms companies based in NATO member countries went up by an average of 13% in 2023.
Source: Transnational Institute
Current orders will lock in emissions for decades, as military systems are normally used for 30 or 40 years, the briefing warns. For example, Lockheed Martin, a major defense manufacturer, has said that NATO countries will by 2030 fly 600 of its F-35 jets, which use 5,600 liters of oil an hour, even more than the F-16 jets they're replacing, the briefing says.
"The legacy of this increased arms trade will be an ever more militarized world at a time of climate breakdown," the authors wrote. "This military expenditure will fuel wars and conflict that will compound the impact on those made vulnerable by climate change."
Direct air capture and similar technologies come with glossy brochures and lofty promises but we must not be fooled. They are a distraction and a scam orchestrated by the fossil fuel industry.
A newly opened facility in Iceland that will remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere has been heralded as a hopeful turning point in the urgent fight to stop climate catastrophe. In reality, it is further evidence of a new type of techno-optimism that is not quite old-fashioned climate denial, but something you might call climate delusion.
On its face, the technology known as direct air capture (DAC) seems like a plausible, painless solution to the climate crisis: Giant machines pull greenhouse gasses out of the air, and they are either injected underground or integrated into consumer products.
For years, we have been hearing that a massive breakthrough is just around the corner. The clamor grew much louder when the Climeworks facility in Iceland came online. It is the world’s largest DAC facility—and yet is designed to capture just 36,000 tons of CO2 annually—which is, for the sake of comparison, just one percent of the pollution generated by a single coal power plant. There are much larger DAC plans in the works: Occidental Petroleum is part of a group building a facility in Texas that they claim will capture 500,000 tons of CO2 per year.
Handing out free money to polluters is not only broadly unpopular, it is also terrible public policy. Congress must stop the public funding and support for these climate scams.
And while that theoretical capability sounds impressive, it is still less than 0.01 percent of annual U.S. carbon emissions. And these projections become even less impressive when we consider the track record of carbon removal so far. Another recent Occidental project, the Century carbon capture facility, failed to capture more than a third of its capacity before they liquidated this asset.
There is another more fundamental problem with most of these carbon removal technologies: When the captured carbon is used to squeeze out oil from existing wells (a process known as enhanced oil recovery), is it of any climate benefit at all? There is no doubt that Occidental sees direct air capture as a tool to help it continue extracting fossil fuels; when they are touting ‘net zero oil,’ one cannot escape the conclusion that the goal is to greenwash oil extraction as a climate solution.
Breaking ground on the world's largest DAC facilitywww.youtube.com
To hear proponents of DAC explain it, science tells us this technology is a necessity at this stage in the race to stop climate catastrophe. This is misleading; there is a wide range of modeled pathways for slowing down the rate of global temperature increase, and they do not all rely on carbon removal that have not been shown to work.
Even if DAC was shown to be effective, its costs are astronomical. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the cost range of early-stage DAC plants is $600-$1,000/ton of carbon dioxide; and operating DAC at a meaningful scale would consume an estimated one-sixth of the world’s energy output.
By promoting the adoption of technologies they insist will eventually work as advertised, fossil fuel giants can delay the transition away from fossil fuels.
Instead of viewing techno fixes like DAC as a necessity, many in the scientific community warn that reliance on DAC is a risky move that could “obstruct near-term emissions reduction efforts.” This is exactly what makes DAC and carbon capture so appealing to major polluters: By promoting the adoption of technologies they insist will eventually work as advertised, fossil fuel giants can delay the transition away from fossil fuels.
Unfortunately, U.S. taxpayers are funding these false climate solutions; billions of dollars in subsidies are available through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and similarly lucrative corporate tax credits are a major part of the Inflation Reduction Act. There is ample evidence that this is a poor investment. A 2020 Treasury Department Inspector General investigation found that nearly 90 percent of tax credits claimed for carbon capture operations were done so with no accompanying verification that any carbon was actually being captured.
Instead of taking corrective action, Congress massively expanded these tax credits, making this scam even more lucrative than before. To make matters worse, the IRS will not release information about which companies are benefiting from this billion dollar taxpayer-funded boondoggle.
Handing out free money to polluters is not only broadly unpopular, it is also terrible public policy. Congress must stop the public funding and support for these climate scams. Continuing to encourage the expansion of direct air capture will waste precious money and time and perpetuate further harms on communities most affected by fossil fuel pollution.