

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.
A new private jet emissions tracker shows 136 kilotonnes of additional emissions before the final match.
As fans gather for the FIFA World Cup final match, pitting Spain against defending champion Argentina, New York City has been engulfed in a shroud of wildfire smoke.
At the same time, thousands of wealthy fans are arriving in luxury private jets, the most carbon-emissions polluting form of transportation. This seems an appropriate image for what may prove to be the most polluting sports tournament in world history, thanks in part to private jet excess.
The wildfire smoke, from several hundred uncontrolled blazes across Ontario and northern Minnesota, have contributing to air quality emergencies across the northern U.S. On Thursday, the city of Detroit registered a whopping 724 on the Air Quality Index. Index ratings over 300 are considered a health emergency for all living things.
Scientists are often cautious about attributing blame to climate change, but there is little doubt these wildfires are supercharged by global climate change, as forests dry out and atmospheric rain cycles are disrupted.
On Saturday, the air quality in East Rutherford, New Jersey registered 157, an “unhealthy” level. The pollution index is anticipated to improve for the Finals, with weather shifts and a thunderstorm scrubbing the air. This may bring the pollutant index to 100, considered “moderate” but posing risks for sensitive groups including older adults, children, and those with lung or heart disease.
Compounding the injustice, ordinary fans, taxpayers, and the flying public subsidize the pollution spewing activity of the high-flying private jet class. Private jets don’t chip in their fair share of the cost of airspace, let alone their environmental impact. And last year, the U.S. Congress slathered on more tax breaks for private jets and their ultra-wealthy users.
These tax breaks don’t even address the biggest subsidy: the ability of private jets to avoid any responsibility for the health and environmental costs of their pollution impacts.
With an assist from our new IPS Private Jet Emission Tracker, designed to assess the impact of special events, we know that thousands of private jets have already attended the first 102 matches of the FIFA World Cup. Prior to the final match, the private jets attending the tournament have spewed an estimated 136 kt of additional carbon pollution into the atmosphere, the equivalent of driving 31,723 gasoline powered cars for a year. The Tracker looks at private jet activity in match-host cities over five years and documents the spike in activity.
In our assessment, Red Card for Private Jets at the FIFA World Cup, we document the excessive emissions and the costs to everyone else. We call on FIFA to ban private jets at matches and live up to their pledge to be carbon neutral by 2040.
FIFA should also stop designing tournaments that span continents and cater to the ultra-wealthy private jet class and not ordinary fans. The 2030 FIFA World Cup will be played in six different countries, with most matches in Morocco, Portugal, and Spain. But in honor of the 100th anniversary of the World Cup, the opening matches will be played in the South American nations of Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay.
FIFA is clearly competing to produce the world’s most polluting sport competition. They must do more to protect the players, the fans, and our planet. The World Cup belongs to everyone, not just the private jet class.
We’re football fans who see no alternative: The CO2 party must end.
Football is more popular than Jesus of Nazareth and John Lennon combined. And at first glance, it seems like a pastime that doesn’t harm the environment: Players just need a ball, some space, and the desire to run. But the data are shocking: Football is directly responsible for 0.3-0.4% of the world’s annual carbon dioxide emissions, equivalent to Denmark's emissions. The Wall Street Journal reports that in 2024 the sport generated more than 30 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels as a source of energy, equivalent to 150 million barrels of oil. Every match at the men’s World Cup finals emits between 44,000 and 72,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases, the same as 30,000 to 50,000 cars on British roads each year. Recent studies estimate that emissions from the cup will range between 1.65 and 3.63 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent between 2000 and 2026.
Let’s also consider football’s basic equipment: boots and balls. Generations of kangaroos have been slaughtered, with the blessing of the Australian government, as raw material for “k-leather” boots, while balls from Pakistan are made from petroleum-derived synthetic leather, rubber, and cotton extracted from plant species, and leather and glue obtained from animals slaughtered before their natural lifespan. The 60 million balls sold in 2010 travelled from the sewing workshops in Sialkot to the professional football pitches of Europe and the Americas. The balls emerge from these frequently clandestine sewing workshops to a carbon cycle of transport companies, customs administrations, equipment, the advertising industry, sporting goods retailers, and department stores. The chain turns a ball costing 63 rupees (€0.62) into a product retailing for over €100.
Think also of the water and chemicals used in the construction and maintenance of stadia, the electricity needed to watch matches and bet or report electronically on them, and the impact of tourism.
Sponsorship by companies with high CO2 emissions alone is responsible for 75% of sports emissions, as it stimulates demand for highly polluting products and lifestyles. The large eco-laundering multinationals use football to cover up their environmental shame. For example, shortly after Repsol spilled thousands of barrels of oil on 1,400 hectares of Peru’s Pacific coast in 2022, killing native life and destroying the livelihoods of thousands of people, the company signed a sponsorship with the national team. The motto of the project, also associated with supporting youth and women's representatives, was “Let's look to the future.” In Spain, Repsol and Petronor have signed an agreement to supply renewable energy to Athletic Club de Bilbao that supposedly demonstrates the multinational’s commitment to decarbonization. But the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority found Repsol distorted its environmental commitment by highlighting production of synthetic fuels and biofuels, which only account for a small fraction of its core business—fossil fuels.
Instead of greenwashing and pseudo-reforms, football needs a drastic transformation to disrupt its environmental impact, corruption, systematic human rights violations, sponsorship by highly problematic companies, and money laundering by bookmakers.
Qatar’s bid for the 2022 World Cup in 2009 promised to be CO2-neutral. The damage caused by constructing facilities, desalination, and water use in an arid climate would be offset because, according to the organizers, future generations would enjoy the facilities. There is no evidence for that.
As we all know, the candidacy was successful, despite evidence of vote buying. Implementation resulted in total disregard for labor and human rights: massive exploitation of migrant workers, workplace accidents, derisory wages, and impossible working hours. The pollution generated by air conditioning stadia to withstand Qatar’s climate, as well as the 150 daily flights of attendees, confirm the New Yorker’s verdict: FIFA is “a rancid institution.”
600 million trees would have to be planted to counter the climate calamity caused by Qatar 2022. Despite the trademark Sustainable FIFA World Cup 2022TM, the environmental plundering of the event was greater than that of any other World Cup or Summer Olympics. As usual, the United States provided the largest number of international tourists, which resulted in the emission of 191,055 tons of CO2, including a staggering 14,700 tons produced by private jets.
Le Monde exposed the environmental propaganda as a “mirage.” Scientific American called the event a “climate catastrophe.“ This was “the dirtiest World Cup“ in history, bathed in oil and corruption. The French collective Notre Affaire à Tous explained: “By presenting the World Cup as carbon neutral, FIFA makes [...] fans believe attending such an event has no impact on the environment, which is clearly incompatible with the international World Cup travel that affects greenhouse gas emissions.”
The Swiss Commission for Equity received complaints from Notre Affaire à Tous along with Carbon Market Watch (Belgium), the UK’s New Weather Institute, Alliance Climatique (Switzerland), the Netherlands’ Reclame Fossiettvrij, and Fossil Free Football (international). The commission ruled FIFA had lied by claiming the cup was the first event of its kind to be “totally carbon neutral.”
The 2026 men’s World Cup is expanding to include 48 national teams. For the first time, matches will be held in three huge countries: Canada, Mexico, and the United States, across four time zones, in 16 venues separated by several thousand kilometers, each with derisory public transport. Five and a half million spectators are expected, who will need to use the map to locate the venues: Mexico City will mark the southernmost point, Vancouver the north, Boston the east, and San Francisco the west. In terms of logistics, practically all travel will be by air due to a primitive railway infrastructure. Radio France refers to this as a “very carbonated cocktail.” The New Weather Institute with Scientists for Global Responsibility estimates that aviation emissions “will increase by 160% to 325% in each of the three tournaments in 2026, 2030, and 2034” compared to recent World Cups.
In addition, in the scheduled period—midsummer—96% of the US population experienced extreme heat for one or more weeks in 2023, and 45 cities had very high average temperatures. 2024 broke numerous records due to unprecedented drought and rainfall.
The environmental impacts in Mexico are horrific. The Akron stadium is close to the Primavera de Guadalajara reserve, home to pumas, a near-extinct species, deer, golden eagles, and migratory birds. The conservation of wild fauna and flora is at serious risk due to the World Cup, while the presence of 50,000 spectators and 4,000 cars will cause significant tensions in water resources in Mexico City and Monterrey (also next to a key biological corridor).
The World Cup is “simultaneously the greatest sporting festival on the planet and a sordid commercial machine that carries an enormous human and environmental cost, for the benefit of torturers, exploiters, and insatiable greedy.” Ecology only matters in football as an instrument of public image for the governing associations, host countries, and sponsors.
Instead of greenwashing and pseudo-reforms, football needs a drastic transformation to disrupt its environmental impact, corruption, systematic human rights violations, sponsorship by highly problematic companies, and money laundering by bookmakers. The World Cup's claims of carbon neutrality are just rhetoric. In reality, it has become a “greenwashing World Cup.”
We’re football fans who see no alternative: The CO2 party must end.
Abolish the World Cup!
"The goal is clear," said one of the experts. "To justify inaction and avoid meaningful emissions reductions."
The US Department of Energy's July climate report is "biased, full of errors, and not fit to inform policymaking," according to a comprehensive review released Tuesday by a group of 85 scientists who reviewed the document independently.
The department's "Climate Working Group" drew up the report as part of the effort by US President Donald Trump to fatally undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) determination, commonly known as the "endangerment finding," that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane endanger human lives by warming the planet.
"If successful," Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M, says, "this move could unravel virtually every US climate regulation on the books, from car emissions standards to power plant rules."
The Energy Department's nearly 150-page paper, titled "A Critical Review of the Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the US Climate." Dessler describes its five authors as "climate contrarians who dispute mainstream science." The team behind the report, he argues, was "hand-picked" by Energy Secretary Chris Wright to lend legitimacy to the Trump administration's predetermined conclusions about climate science.
The DOE report's five authors seek to contradict the much more rigorous analyses conducted by groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports have been written by over a thousand researchers and which cite tens of thousands of academic studies.
The multinational panel has concluded that human fossil fuel usage has considerably warmed the planet, causing increased amounts of extreme weather, threatening food and water security, destroying ecosystems, and risking dangerous amounts of sea-level rise.
The Energy Department's report advances the main idea that climate scientists like those at the IPCC broadly "overstate" the extent of the human-caused climate crisis as well as its risks. Unlike other research of its kind, the department crafted its report in secret, which prompted the expert response.
"Normally, a report like this would undergo a rigorous, unbiased, and transparent peer review," said Dr. Robert Kopp, a climate and sea-level researcher at Rutgers. "When it became clear that DOE wasn't going to organize such a review, the scientific community came together on its own, in less than a month, to provide it."
Their review found that the Energy Department's report "exhibits pervasive problems with misrepresentation and selective citation of the scientific literature, cherry-picking of data, and faulty or absent statistics."
For instance, the report claims that there is "no obvious acceleration in sea-level rise" even though the number of days of high-tide coastal flooding per year has increased more than 10-fold since the 1970s.
It also attempts to portray CO2 emissions as a net benefit to the environment, particularly agriculture, by pointing to its benefits for crop growth, but ignores that the impact of increased droughts and wildfires far outweighs those benefits.
And it attempts to pick out isolated historical weather events like the Dust Bowl during the 1930s as evidence that dramatic climatic changes happen very frequently within short amounts of time and that the unprecedented increase in global temperatures over the past century and a half is not worthy of alarm.
"My reading of the report uncovered numerous errors of commission and omission, all of which slant toward a conclusion that human-caused climate change poses no serious risks," said Kerry Emmanuel, a meteorologist and climate scientist who specializes in hurricane physics. "It seems to work backward from a desired outcome."
Dessler notes that over 99% of the literature included in the IPCC's report was simply ignored by the Department of Energy. He described the report as a "mockery of science" akin to a "Soviet show trial."
"The outcome of this exercise by the Department of Energy is already known: climate science will be judged too uncertain to justify the endangerment finding," he said. "Once you understand that, everything about the DOE report makes total sense."
In 2025, the US National Weather Service issued a record number of flash flood warnings, while 255 million Americans were subject to life-threatening triple-digit temperatures in June. The previous year, 48 of 50 US states faced drought conditions, the most ever recorded in US history, while nearly 9 million acres burned due to wildfires.
"We live in a world where the impacts of climate change are increasingly being felt by citizens all around the globe—including communities throughout the US," said Andra Gardner, a professor of environmental science at Rowan University.
"This is perhaps what makes the DOE Climate Working Group report most astounding," she continued. "In a country where we have the tools to not only understand the impacts of climate change but also to begin meaningfully combating the crisis, the current DOE has instead decided to promote fossil fuel interests that will further worsen the symptoms of climate change with a report that turns a blind eye to the established science."
According to an analysis from Climate Power published in January, oil and gas industry donors gave $96 million in direct donations to the campaign of Donald Trump and affiliated super PACs during the 2024 election, while spending $243 million to lobby Republicans in Congress.
The result has been an administration that has purged climate science information from federal websites, laid off thousands of EPA employees, and gutted government funding for wind and solar energy.
Becca Neumann, an associate professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Washington, says that "the goal" of the report "is clear: to justify inaction and avoid meaningful emissions reductions."
After six months, the policy of tolling drivers has reduced traffic and raised hundreds of millions of dollars for the city's transit system. But the Trump administration is still trying to shut it down.
New York City's congestion pricing program has now been in place for six months as of Saturday, and according to state officials, it has already proven remarkably successful. It has survived despite efforts by the Trump administration to shut it down.
The program, which tolls drivers who drive through designated "congestion zones" below 60th Street in Manhattan has dramatically reduced traffic, which in turn has sped up commute times, reduced pollution, and raised hundreds of millions of dollars for the city's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).
"Six months in, it's clear: congestion pricing has been a huge success, making life in New York better," Governor Kathy Hochul (D) said Saturday. "In New York, we dare to do big things, and this program represents just that—traffic is down throughout the region, business is booming, transit ridership is up, and we are making historic upgrades to our transit system."
Since the program started, the number of vehicles driving through the congestion zone has decreased by 11%, with a total of 10 million fewer cars having entered compared to last year. In just the first three months of the program, traffic in the congestion zone sped up by 15%.
This has led to reduced wait times for commuters, not just in the congestion zone but in surrounding areas like the Bronx and Bergen County, New Jersey.
The number of crashes is down 14% in the congestion area, while traffic fatalities have reached "historic lows" citywide.
The data has also borne out the predictions from environmentalists and public transit activists who said the program would reduce pollution, both by capping the number of cars on the road and funding long-term investment in the public transit system.
The MTA is on track to raise $500 million from congestion pricing in 2025, as was projected when the policy went into effect. The agency also reports that subway and bus usage have gone up since congestion pricing began, while service speed has improved to "near record levels."
Beyond improving convenience, data shows the program is already improving quality of life in other ways. Early estimates from a working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research show that within the first month of congestion pricing, CO₂ emissions from vehicles decreased by 2.5% with other forms of air pollution and soot levels also declining. These numbers will likely continue to rise as public transit usage expands.
Ben Furnas, executive director of Transportation Alternatives, a New York-based pro-transit group that supported congestion pricing, told The Guardian that the program exceeded his already-high expectations.
"It's been even more obviously beneficial than even the most fervent proponents had hoped, and there have been really tangible improvements that are really gratifying," he said. "Reducing pollution is often seen to involve a lot of sacrifices, but this has been different. People can see the improvements to their lives. There was this cynical assumption that this was a bullshit charge and life will stay the same, but that assumption has gone away now."
During the tumultuous year leading up to congestion pricing's implementation, business groups raised fears that charging drivers would bankrupt small business owners. Hochul even blocked the policy from going into effect for months last year, citing those concerns.
Trump's Transportation Secretary, Sean Duffy, has called the charge a "slap in the face to working class Americans and small business owners."
But the city reports more pedestrian traffic and faster commutes, increasing economic activity.
"Gridlock is bad for the economy," noted a statement from the state of New York. "Commuters are saving as much as 21 minutes each way. Time savings help businesses make deliveries and save costs."
The city also reports increased Broadway ticket sales, hotel occupancy, and commercial office leasing since the policy went into effect, as well as record employment figures.
Despite nearly immediate indicators of the congestion scheme's success, the Trump administration has been attempting to kill it since he returned to office in January.
"We've...fended off five months of unlawful attempts from the federal government to unwind this successful program and will keep fighting–and winning–in the courts," Hochul said.
In February, the White House infamously posted an artificially generated image of Trump wearing a crown. It quoted President Trump saying: "CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!"
That same month, U.S. Transportation Secretary Duffy withdrew federal approval for the congestion pricing pilot program, threatening to pull funding for other state transportation projects if it was not halted.
But a U.S. district judge issued a temporary restraining order in May that has, for the time being, halted the Trump administration's efforts.
Attempts to kill the program may prove more difficult in the future, as it has overcome initial skepticism to grow broadly popular with a majority of New Yorkers. Hochul herself was once among those skeptics, but she has grown to become one of its greatest champions.
"You are seeing in the governor… the zeal of the convert," said Daniel Pearlstein, a spokesperson for the pro-transit Riders Alliance.
"People who had their doubts, they saw it up close. They saw it working," he said. "They are saving New Yorkers and people from New Jersey valuable time every single day. Who would want to rip that away?"
"What we are facing is severely impacting all life in Gaza, and also threatening human rights in the region, and even globally, due to the aggravation of climate change," said one United Nations special rapporteur.
A group of researchers has released an updated analysis detailing the devastating impact that Israel's war on Gaza has had in terms of greenhouse gas emissions—in addition to loss of human life.
The study, first reported on by The Guardian and posted to SSRN on Friday, found that the projected planet-warming carbon emissions of "direct war activities" over 15 months of Israel’s military assault on Gaza were greater than the individual annual emissions of 36 countries and territories.
According to local health officials in Gaza, over 54,000 people have been killed in the enclave following October 7, 2023, when a deadly Hamas attack on Israel spurred a devastating military response.
"For over 600 days, Israel has been saying it's targeting Hamas, but it is civilians who have been corralled, bombed, and killed en masse every day," said Bushra Khalidi, policy lead in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the anti-poverty group Oxfam, on Wednesday.
According to the study, 15-months of war, a period from October 2023 to January 2025, resulted in an estimated 1.89 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. According to The Guardian's write up of the study, 99% of that 1.89 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent was generated by Israel's ground invasion and aerial attacks on Gaza.
In January 2025, a cease-fire went into effect, but Israel ended the cease-fire in mid-March.
The estimated tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent increases to 32.2 million tonnes when the study accounts for "pre-conflict and post-conflict related construction activities."
The pre-conflict emissions include the construction of security-related concrete infrastructure in both Israel and Gaza over the past 16 years, including Hamas' network of tunnels and Israel's "iron wall." Post-conflict relates to the future reconstruction needs of Gaza following extensive Israeli attacks.
"This updated research evidences the urgency to stop the escalating atrocities, and make sure that Israel and all states comply with international law, including the decisions from the [International Criminal Court] and the [International Court of Justice]," Astrid Puentes Riaño, U.N. special rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, told The Guardian.
"Whether or not states agree on calling it a genocide, what we are facing is severely impacting all life in Gaza, and also threatening human rights in the region, and even globally, due to the aggravation of climate change," she added.
The study, which according to The Guardian is under peer review by the journal One Earth, follows a study released last year authored by some of the same researchers who tackled this same question of the climate costs of the war on Gaza.
"These calculations point to the urgent need for increased visibility and mandatory reporting of military emissions for both war and peacetime through the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change," the more recent study states, referencing a treaty ratified by nearly 200 countries in the 1990s to combat "dangerous" human interference with climate systems.
"The steadily declining persistence of seasonal snow is a warning bell for an emerging water crisis," according to the report.
A report released Monday found that snow persistence in the Hindu Kush Himalaya region, sometimes called the "third pole" because of its water resources, was at its lowest level in 23 years during the 2024-2025 winter, or 23.6% below normal—a concerning water security development for nearly two billion people who rely on river basins that are fed by the region's snowmelt.
All told, snowmelt from the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) region contributes about a fourth of the total runoff of twelve major river basins in the region, on average. Snow persistence has been below normal across all twelve major river basins, per the report.
These findings come from the Hindu Kush Himalaya Snow Update, an annual report put out by the International Center for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), which provides yearly analysis of snow persistence in the region—the snow that usually stays on the ground between November and March.
"The steadily declining persistence of seasonal snow is a warning bell for an emerging water crisis," according to the author of the report. "Continuous deficit of meltwater from snow would mean lesser river runoff in dry months and early melt season, highlighting the urgent need for adaptive water resource management strategies in mitigating forthcoming impacts of water shortage, especially for downstream communities facing intensifying summer extremes."
The HKH region stretches multiple thousands of miles long across eight countries—Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Nepal, Myanmar and Pakistan—according GRID-Arendal, an environmental nonprofit based in Norway that works closely with the United Nations. It is the biggest volume of ice and snow outside of the Arctic and Antartica.
"While below-normal snow persistence has occurred before in this region—between 2003 and 2025 the region experienced thirteen below-normal snow years—the increasing frequency and intensity of such occurrences in recent times is a growing concern," according to the report. The 2024-2025 winter was the third consecutive year of below-normal snow persistence.
Sher Muhammad, a remote sensing specialist at ICIMOD who was the lead expert for the report, said in a statement published Monday that the deficit situations occurring in continuous succession is an "alarming trend."
ICIMOD's director general Pema Gyamtsho highlighted the need for policy solutions to address the problem over the long term in a statement published on Monday. "Carbon emissions have already locked in an irreversible course of recurrent snow anomalies in the HKH," said Gyamtsho.
Rising temperatures and water scarcity in the region has already created climate refugees.
Research from ICIMOD published in 2023 found that glaciers in the HKH region are melting at an accelerated rate and could lose up to 80% of their volume by century's end absent ambitious action to slash planet-warming emissions.
In March, a United Nations agency found that, worldwide, 2022-2024 saw the largest three-year loss of glaciers on record.
The study was published as President Donald Trump was blasted for an executive order that one critic said shows he wants to turn the Alaskan Arctic into the "the world's largest gas station."
For thousands of years, the land areas of the Arctic have served as a "carbon sink," storing potential carbon emissions in the permafrost. But according to a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change Tuesday, more than 34% of the Arctic is now a source of carbon to the atmosphere, as permafrost melts and the Arctic becomes greener.
"When emissions from fire were added, the percentage grew to 40%," according to the Woodwell Climate Research Center, which led the international team that conducted the research.
The study, which was first reported on by The Guardian, was released the day after President Donald Trump issued multiple presidential actions influencing the United States' ability to confront the climate crisis, which is primarily caused by fossil fuel emissions, including one directly impacting resource extraction in Alaska, a section of which is within the Arctic Circle.
Sue Natali, one of the researchers who worked on the study published in Nature Climate Change, told NPR in December (in reference to similar research) that the Arctic's warming "is not an issue of what party you support."
"This is something that impacts everyone," she said.
As the permafrost—ground that remains frozen for two or more years—holds less carbon, it releases CO2 into the atmosphere that could "considerably exacerbate climate change," according to the study.
"There is a load of carbon in the Arctic soils. It's close to half of the Earth's soil carbon pool. That's much more than there is in the atmosphere. There's a huge potential reservoir that should ideally stay in the ground," said Anna Virkkala, the lead author of the study, in an interview with The Guardian.
The dire warning was released on the heels of Trump's executive order titled "Unleashing the Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential" that calls for expedited "permitting and leasing of energy and natural resource projects in Alaska," as well as for the prioritization of "development of Alaska's liquefied natural gas (LNG) potential, including the sale and transportation of Alaskan LNG to other regions of the United States and allied nations within the Pacific region."
The order also rolls back a number of Biden-era restrictions on drilling and extraction in Alaska, which included protecting areas within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil and gas leasing.
"Alaska is warming four times faster than the rest of the planet, a trend that is wreaking havoc on communities, ecosystems, fish, wildlife, and ways of life that depend on healthy lands and waters," said Carole Holley, managing attorney for the Alaska Office of the environmental group Earthjustice, in a statement Monday.
"Earthjustice and its clients will not stand idly by while Trump once again forces a harmful industry-driven agenda on our state for political gain and the benefit of a wealthy few," she added.
Trump wants to turn the Alaskan Arctic into the "the world's largest gas station," said Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, in a statement Monday. "Make no mistake, Trump's rushed and sloppy actions today are an existential threat to these lands and waters, and the communities and wildlife that depend on them."
One wonders if the world had paid even the slightest attention to Gaza and the cries of people trapped behind walls, barbed wire, and electric fences, whether the current war and genocide could have been avoided.
The first official reference to Gaza becoming increasingly uninhabitable was made by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, or UNCTAD, in 2012, when the population of the Gaza Strip was estimated at 1.8 million inhabitants.
The intention of the report, The Gaza Strip: The Economic Situation and the Prospects for Development, was not merely to prophesize, but to warn that if the world continued to stand idle in the face of the ongoing blockade on Gaza, a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent.
Yet, little was done, though the U.N. continued with its countdown, increasing the frequency and urgency of its warnings, especially following major wars.
Even after the devastating war on Gaza ends and the rebuilding of the strip concludes, the ecological and environmental harm that Israel has caused will remain for many years to come.
Another report in 2015 from UNCTAD stated that the Gaza crisis had intensified following the most destructive war to that date, the year before. The war had destroyed hundreds of factories, thousands of homes, and displaced tens of thousands of people.
By 2020, though, based on the criteria set by the U.N., Gaza should have become "uninhabitable." Yet, little was done to remedy the crisis. The population grew rapidly, while resources, including Gaza's land mass, shrank due to the ever-expanding Israeli "buffer zone." The prospects for the "world's largest open-air prison" became even dimmer.
Yet, the international community did little to heed the call of UNCTAD and other U.N. and international institutions. The humanitarian crisis—situated within a prolonged political crisis, a siege, repeated wars, and daily violence—worsened, reaching, on October 7, 2023, the point of implosion.
One wonders if the world had paid even the slightest attention to Gaza and the cries of people trapped behind walls, barbed wire, and electric fences, whether the current war and genocide could have been avoided.
It is all moot now. The worst-case scenario has actualized in a way that even the most pessimistic estimates by Palestinian, Arab, or international groups could not have foreseen.
Not only is Gaza now beyond "uninhabitable," but, according to Greenpeace, it will be "uninhabitable for generations to come." This does not hinge on the resilience of Palestinians in Gaza, whose legendary steadfastness is hardly disputed. However, there are essential survival needs that even the strongest people cannot replace with their mere desire to survive.
In just the first 120 days of war, "staggering" carbon emissions were estimated at 536,410 tons of carbon dioxide. Ninety percent of that deadly pollution was "attributed to Israel's air bombardment and ground invasion," according to Greenpeace, which concluded that the total sum of carbon emissions "is greater than the annual carbon footprint of many climate-vulnerable nations."
A report issued around the same time by the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) painted an equally frightening picture of what was taking place in Gaza as a direct result of the war. "Water and sanitation have collapsed," it declared last June. "Coastal areas, soil, and ecosystems have been severely impacted," it continued.
But that was over seven months ago, when parts of Gaza were still standing. Now, almost all of Gaza has been destroyed. Garbage has been piling up for 15 months without a single facility to process it efficiently. Disease is widespread, and all hospitals have either been destroyed in the bombings, burned to the ground, or bulldozed. Many of the sick are dying in their tents without ever seeing a doctor.
Without any outside assistance, it was only natural for the disaster to worsen. Last December, Médecins Sans Frontières issued a report titled Gaza: Life in a Death Trap. The report, a devastating read, describes the state of medical infrastructure in Gaza, which can be summed up in a single word: non-existent.
Israel has attacked 512 healthcare facilities between October 2023 and September 2024, killing 500 healthcare workers. This means that a population is trying to survive during one of the harshest wars ever recorded, without any serious medical attention. This includes nearly half a million people suffering from various mental health disorders.
By December, Gaza's Government Media Office reported that there are an estimated 23 million tons of debris resulting from the dropping of 75,000 tons of explosives—in addition to other forms of destruction. This has released 281,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air.
Once the war is over, Gaza will be rebuilt. Though Palestinian sumud (steadfastness) is capable of restoring Gaza to its former self, however long it takes, a study conducted by Queen Mary University in the U.K. said that, for the destroyed structures to be rebuilt, an additional 60 million tons of CO2 will be released into an already severely impacted environment.
In essence, this means that even after the devastating war on Gaza ends and the rebuilding of the strip concludes, the ecological and environmental harm that Israel has caused will remain for many years to come.
It is baffling that the very Western countries, which speak tirelessly about environmental protection, preservation, and warning against carbon emissions, are the same entities that helped sustain the war on Gaza, either through arming Israel or remaining silent in the face of the ongoing atrocities.
The price of this hypocrisy is the enduring suffering of millions of people and the devastation of their environment. Isn't it time for the world to wake up and collectively declare: enough is enough?
In times of insecurity and conflicts worldwide, it is important to remember that international research collaboration has a role to play in building bridges—and a brighter future for all.
Global expectations for sustainable development took another hit in 2024. Carbon emissions reacheda new high, world leaders settled on an underwhelming climate finance goal, and countries failed to sign the global plastic treaty.
There was, however, one major accomplishment. In September, at the United Nations (UN) Summit of the Future, Member States adopted the Pact for the Future reconfirming their commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Pact underscores the critical role of science, technology, and innovation (STI) and outlines several key action items — from increasing the use of science in policy making, to promoting interdisciplinary collaboration to tackle complex global challenges, to supporting developing countries in harnessing STI for sustainable development.
If implemented, these measures will transform the global scientific community and science systems worldwide, requiring fundamental shifts in the organization, practice, and funding of science.
As the landscape of actors working towards the SDGs continues to grow, complexity and fragmentation are likely, which could undermine the effectiveness of individual SDG-related efforts. As such, global research efforts and research funding require strategic coordination and prioritization. In recent years, the scientific community has developed a number of research priority frameworks, including the Six Transformations, Unleashing Science, and Towards Sustainable Transformation, that can help steer global collective efforts and accelerate progress towards SDGs.
The Pact also emphasizes the need to increase the use of science in policy making. Although there is significant research on the SDGs, it is often ignored in public debates on societal transformations and rarely used in policy processes. While resolving this challenge is a complex matter, creating practical interfaces between science and policy could certainly help.
A recent initiative of the World Bank, the Coalition for Capacity on Climate Action (C3A), seeks to bridge the gap between science and Ministries of Finance. It is a prime example of how to better integrate climate science considerations in economic and financial decision-making processes. The SDSN SDG Transformation Center is also working directly with governments, including in Benin and Uzbekistan, to support efforts in developing science-based pathways for SDG implementation, identifying SDG priorities and context-specific solutions, and aligning policies and financial flows with such priorities. Initiatives like these hold great potential to be scaled and replicated across countries.
As the Pact stresses, responding effectively to current and future challenges requires the engagement of all relevant stakeholders. At the recent Annual C3A Symposium, participating Ministries of Finance emphasized the critical importance of engaging diverse dimensions of expertise to better understand the complexity and dynamic processes of global challenges and changes. Transdisciplinary research can be an effective tool, as it embraces diverse scientific and societal views and helps to identify common context-specific solutions. By providing space for dialogue, learning, and trust building, transdisciplinary research also helps break down the silo mentality that still persists across many institutional structures. But, for this approach to become common practice, both funders and research institutions must introduce incentives and innovative funding models to reduce the structural barriers to transdisciplinarity.
As it stands, engaging in transdisciplinarity can be risky for scientists, especially for early-career researchers. Stakeholder engagement efforts are rarely recognized, and opportunities for transdisciplinary career development within disciplinary institutions are limited and not oftenrewarded. For several years, the International Science Council (ISC) has promoted the creation of environments and reward systems conducive to transdisciplinary research. While transdisciplinarity has become a more frequent requirement in research calls, much remains to be done to fully harness the benefits of knowledge co-production across disciplines and societal actors.
The design of research funding programmes also plays a critical role. Beyond basic research-linked activities, funding mechanisms should support public engagement, science–policy interfaces, capacity development, community-building, and peer learning. Research funding needs to also enable the accumulation, application, and deployment of knowledge. Longer-term funding is especially needed for international research collaboration on societal transformations towards sustainability.
While no single country can address complex sustainability challenges, the scale of current support for global multilateral scientific collaboration on pressing global challenges still remains marginal. Despite a few examples of global sustainability research collaborative funding efforts, including the ISC Science Missions for Sustainability and the Belmont Forum, research funding mostly prioritizes national scientific efforts over international research collaboration, with only 5% of research projects dedicated to multilateral collaboration.
Ongoing public science funding cuts and rising geopolitical tensions — which have become particularly apparent over the past years — are not conducive to cross-border scientific initiatives. But in times of insecurity and conflicts, it is important to remember that international research collaboration on global sustainability challenges provides a common language and critical mechanism that helps bridge the divide between nations. Strengthening international research collaboration and implementing the STI actions outlined in the Pact for the Future is, therefore, a necessity for ensuring a more peaceful, sustainable, and resilient future for all.
"This setback will only help us grow stronger," said the Dutch climate group that originally brought the case. "Large polluters are powerful. But united, we as people have the power to change them."
Climate campaigners didn't sugarcoat their reactions to a Dutch court decision on Tuesday that overturned a landmark 2021 ruling ordering the oil behemoth Shell to cut its planet-warming emissions nearly in half by the end of this decade.
"We are shocked by today's judgment," said Donald Pols, director of Milieudefensie, the Netherlands-based environmental group that originally filed suit against Shell in 2018.
"It is a setback for us, for the climate movement, and for millions of people around the world who worry about their future," Pols said of Tuesday's ruling by the Hague Court of Appeal. "But if there's one thing to know about us, it's that we don't give up. This setback will only help us grow stronger. Large polluters are powerful. But united, we as people have the power to change them."
The original 2021 ruling, as CNBC noted, marked "the first time in history that a company was found to have been legally obliged to align its policies with the Paris Agreement" and "sparked a wave of lawsuits against other fossil fuel companies."
Despite acknowledging that Shell has "an obligation toward citizens to reduce CO2 emissions," the appeals court on Tuesday scrapped a legal mandate compelling the company to slash its emissions by 45% by 2030 compared with 2019 levels, saying it was "unable to establish that the social standard of care entails an obligation for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage."
"It is primarily up to the government to ensure the protection of human rights," the court added.
Laurie van der Burg of Oil Change International said in response that "while we mourn today's setback, the ruling establishes a responsibility for Big Oil and Gas to act that future litigation can build on."
"The court ruled protection against climate change is a human right, and corporations have a responsibility to reduce their emissions," she added. "As far as we know, this is the first case where a court has acknowledged that new investments in oil and gas are incompatible with international climate goals."
"Today's ruling underscores the importance of world leaders now negotiating at the U.N. Climate Summit in Baku taking responsibility."
Shell, which is responsible for just over 2% of global CO2 emissions, said in a statement that it was "pleased" with the court's ruling and claimed to be "making good progress in our strategy to deliver more value with less emissions."
But research by the human rights organization Global Witness has found that Shell has consistently overstated the scale of its investments in green energy—including by characterizing fossil fuels as "renewable."
"Even as Shell claims to be reducing its oil production, it is planning to grow its gas business by more than 20% over the next few years, leading to significant additional emissions," Global Witness wrote in a complaint to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last year.
Andy Palmen, the director of Greenpeace Netherlands, said Tuesday that while campaigners working toward a just phaseout of fossil fuel emissions are "disappointed that Shell is being allowed to continue polluting," they "will not give up the fight."
"This only motivates us more to take action against major polluters," said Palmen. "It really gives hope that the court finds that Shell must respect human rights and has a duty to reduce its CO2 emissions."
"Today's ruling underscores the importance of world leaders now negotiating at the U.N. Climate Summit in Baku taking responsibility," Palmen added, referring to the COP29 gathering that kicked off on Monday in Azerbaijan's capital city. "The summit in Dubai last year marked the end of coal, oil, and gas, now governments must come up with concrete plans to move away from fossil fuels."
The Dutch appeals court's ruling came in the wake of new research showing that oil and gas production surged to an all-time high in 2023—the hottest year on record.
"The oil and gas industry is not transitioning," the environmental group Urgewald and dozens of other NGOs found. "In fact, 95% of the upstream companies on [the Global Oil and Gas Exit List] are still exploring or developing new oil and gas resources. This includes the oil and gas producers TotalEnergies, Shell, BP, Eni, Equinor, OXY, OMV, and Ecopetrol, which all claim to be targeting net zero emissions by 2050."
Nils Bartsch, head of oil and gas research at Urgewald, said Tuesday that the 2023 oil and gas production record is "deeply concerning."
"If we do not end fossil fuel expansion and move towards a managed decline of oil and gas production," said Bartsch, "the 1.5°C goal will be out of reach."