SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
cop30
Trump, Faced With Global Armageddon, Does Everything He Can to Bring It On
From opening 1.3 billion acres of coastline to oil and gas drilling to promising to resume nuclear testing, Trump invites us to pick our own apocalypse.
Dec 11, 2025
What self-destructive creatures we turn out to be!
Can you even believe it? Only recently, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, met in Brazil for two weeks. While 194 countries were represented there, the historically greatest fossil-fuelizer on the planet, Donald Trump’s United States, was, of course, missing in action (for the first time in 30 years). Worse yet, while the conference was underway, the Trump administration announced a new plan to open 1.3 billion acres (no, that is not a misprint!) of coastal waters to new oil and gas drilling. As for the conference itself, after floundering and almost foundering, its member nations barely agreed on a way more or less forward, what were termed “baby steps” toward a better (or at least less utterly disastrous) future. And yet, can you believe this? The final agreement didn’t even include the words “fossil fuels” or reaffirm in blunt language that they should be phased out! (President Donald Trump must have been pleased!)
Hey, and if that doesn’t cheer you up enough, consider this: A White House spokeswoman responded to the conference with the claim that President Trump had “set a strong example for the rest of the world” by pursuing new fossil fuel development while it was underway. “President Trump has been clear,” she said. “He will not jeopardize our country’s economic and national security to pursue vague climate goals that are killing other countries.”
Yes, indeed, what a world! After all, we’re talking about one of the two ways human beings have discovered to utterly devastate Planet Earth (the other, of course, being with nuclear weapons). And full credit is due. Consider us nothing less than remarkable creatures for coming up with not one but two ways to potentially do ourselves and this planet in.
A child born today is, in truth, being delivered into the slow-motion climate equivalent of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, for such a kid, there’s unlikely to be any ducking and covering.
Now, imagine this: “My” president, the man, inaugurated for a second time in January 2025, was the oldest nominee ever for that office and, should he complete this term, will be the oldest president in American history, older even than ancient Joe Biden when he left office (assuming, of course, that Donald Trump ever does leave office). And give him full credit: He’s essentially put his weight—and that’s no small thing, given that he’s been termed “technically obese,” even if his administration has been denying obese immigrants entry to this country—behind both ways of doing this planet in. After all, he only recently announced that, for the first time since 1992, the US might once again begin testing nuclear weapons!
Duck and Cover
Now, imagine this: I was born in the final months of the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, just over a year before World War II ended. In my youth, I lived in a world in which the two great powers on this planet, my country and the Soviet Union, were threatening to do us all in atomically. I can still remember ducking and covering under my desk in grade school, hands over my head, as sirens howled outside the classroom window, indicating a Soviet nuclear strike. (It was, of course, just a test.) I can also remember getting duck-and-cover advice from the cartoon character Bert the Turtle, as well as wandering the streets of New York City and seeing (but paying little attention to) the common yellow fallout shelter signs that indicated where you should hide, were an atomic war to suddenly break out. And in my freshman year in college in New Haven, Connecticut, I can remember fearing, because of the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, that the world (or at least the East Coast version of it) might be obliterated in a potential nuclear holocaust.
Of course, none of that ever actually happened, and today, 80 years after the first (and last) two atomic bombs were actually used to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are no longer nuclear tests or nuclear shelters of any sort. The last US aboveground nuclear test took place in the 1960s and the last underground one in 1992. And few people seem to think about such weapons anymore or the planet-devastating war making that could potentially go with them.
No matter that nine countries now possess nuclear weapons and—count on it!—more will do so in the future; or that nuclear-armed Israel and Russia are both involved in wars at the moment; or that, at one point, Russian President Vladimir Putin did indeed implicitly threaten to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine; or that, in May, nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, each possessing about 170 nuclear weapons, faced off against each other, however briefly, in a war-like fashion, with President Trump claiming that he had stopped a nuclear war from happening. (“I’m not going to have you guys shooting nuclear weapons at each other, killing millions of people, and having the nuclear dust floating over Los Angeles.”) Nor does it seem to matter that we now know a significant nuclear war could lead to a “nuclear winter” on planet Earth in which millions of us, including undoubtedly Bert the Turtle, would be likely to starve to death and the planet itself would be devastated.
Do you truly feel confident that we humans will never consider using nuclear weaponry again?
Meanwhile, though the US hasn’t tested an atomic weapon explosively since 1992, President Trump did recently suggest that he might be ready to do so again. As he put it, “Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis. That process will begin immediately.” It didn’t. Not yet at least.
No matter that no other country is, in fact, doing actual nuclear testing at the moment, though Russia is indeed testing nuclear delivery systems, or that the US military hasn’t (yet) followed up on the president’s statement by preparing to do so. The only country to have openly tested a nuclear weapon since the 1990s is, in fact, North Korea. Nonetheless, my own country now has an estimated more than 5,000 nuclear weapons out of the more than 12,000 believed to be on this planet, whether aboard nuclear submarines that travel the globe’s oceans (while a “next generation” of nuclear subs is now being built), in missile silos on land, or in storage.
Worse yet, the US military has plans to put $1.7 trillion—no, that is not a misprint!—into keeping the American nuclear arsenal in what passes for good shape over the next three decades, while producing yet more such weaponry in the years to come. And do you really feel confident that Israel or, in the future, Iran, or right now North Korea would never under any circumstances consider using such weaponry? Donald Trump certainly didn’t feel confident of that, or why would he have bombed Iran’s still-peaceful nuclear sites this year?
And sadly, unlike in the 1970s and 1980s, there is no significant American or global protest movement calling on this country and other countries to reduce, not to say eliminate their nuclear arsenals. In some fashion, however strangely, the nuclear form of potential end times, of ultimate destruction, has generally been ignored (except, of course, by those producing, handling, or storing such weaponry).
And honestly, given the strange history of humanity and the growing nuclear arsenals on this planet, despite those 80 years of no use—I wish I could say uselessness!—do you truly feel confident that we humans will never consider using nuclear weaponry again?
The Slow-Motion Equivalent of Nuclear War
And consider it truly strange that we humans have come up with not one but two ways to potentially do ourselves and this planet in and the second one, unlike the nuclear version, is already quite literally in process. In some eerie sense, in fact, our world could indeed be considered, though it’s seldom thought of that way, as in a slow-motion, climate-change version of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After all, the rising heat that fossil fuel burning continues to produce globally is already estimated to be killing a person a minute on this planet. That’s millions of us annually. And worse yet, it’s guaranteed to grow significantly harsher in the decades to come.
And when it comes to climate change, unlike nuclear warfare once upon a time, there are no warning sirens or shelters, nor are its “weapons” stored in arsenals. In their own strange fashion, they are instead being both produced and exploded right before our eyes. And strangely enough, while no nuclear war has yet happened, the climate-change version of such a conflict is distinctly ongoing. That means, whether you care to think about it or not, that each of us is now facing a slow-motion version of end-of-worldism in our own lives right now, even though most of the time you’d hardly know it.
Not just Donald Trump but all too many other leaders globally are at work making things worse.
Yes, the waters of this planet are heating and rising, wildfires growing ever fiercer, floods ever more extreme, and the temperature globally is distinctly climbing in a fashion that should be considered all too unnerving. After all, the last 10 years have been the warmest in human history; 2024 was the warmest year ever experienced, and 2025 looks likely to be the second or third warmest of all time. Unlike the nuclear version of ultimate destruction, in other words, the climate one is happening right now, even if in slow motion. And yet, here’s the truly eerie thing: Most days, if you read the mainstream media or watch the mainstream TV news, climate change is seldom headline making. You would certainly have little sense from the media that, at this very moment, we’re already in the midst of a distinctly apocalyptic, if slow-motion event. Most of the time, given what we humans are doing to each other from Ukraine to the Middle East, it’s at best secondary news.
In case you hadn’t noticed (and you surely have), whatever Donald Trump does—quite literally anything, even picking his nose, no less meeting in the White House with New York’s next mayor, Zohran Mamdani—instantly gets more attention than the world-devastating situation we’re living through every moment of every day (and night). Someday, if historians still exist on this planet of ours, I suspect Donald J. Trump will appear, in the grimmest sense imaginable, to be an eerie wonder of these eerie times; a president who, faced with a possible global Armageddon, did everything he could to bring it on, from opening ever more land and waters to fossil fuel production to shutting down anything that has to do with the production of renewable, non-carbon energy.
Though few would ever think of it this way, a child born today is, in truth, being delivered into the slow-motion climate equivalent of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and, for such a kid, there’s unlikely to be any ducking and covering. And yet not just Donald Trump but all too many other leaders globally are at work making things worse. It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about the president’s decision to open those 1.3 billion acres of coastal waters to further drilling for oil and natural gas, China’s willingness to build significant numbers of new coal-burning power plants, or Vladimir Putin’s desire to continue, even intensify the human activity that may put more heat-inducing carbon into the atmosphere than any other, military activities of just about any sort but, above all else, making war.
Only the other week, in fact, while the COP30 Climate Summit was underway, Donald Trump, the president of the world’s leading producer of oil and natural gas, the man who has done everything he possibly could to shut down green projects of any sort, met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whose state oil company, Aramco, remains a monster producer of oil and natural gas. And can there be any doubt that such a meeting at such a moment was intended to be a global slap in the face to efforts of any sort to bring climate change under control and an implicit (or perhaps I mean explicit) promise to take us all to hell in a handbasket?
As someone who, at 81, has kids and grandkids, I fear for the world that Donald Trump, Mohammed bin Salman, and so many other figures on this planet, including Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu, are preparing for them. Thought of a certain way, our planet is indeed experiencing the slow-motion, climate-change equivalent of nuclear war and yet it’s hardly even news. And if that isn’t truly bizarre, what is?
Keep ReadingShow Less
The ‘COP of Truth’ Just Normalized a New Kind of Climate Denialism
The new denialism no longer bellows about hoaxes; it asks for more studies, more modelling, more consultations, always in the service of delay.
Dec 02, 2025
Belém promised a “COP of truth.” What unfolded was a courteous unravelling of ambition, as denialism left global climate action wobbling at the moment it needs steel.
As the Chair of the UK’s COP30 youth delegation, I realized within hours that this United Nations climate conference would be defined by its optics—not its outcomes. The venue teemed with political hopefuls more interested in cameras than commitments, and with a record 1,600 fossil fuel and 531 carbon-capture lobbyists, 1 in every 25 attendees served commercial interests.
Then came the negotiations, where delegates quietly diluted the science. References to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), long regarded as the global lodestar of climate knowledge, were either softened into ambiguity or dropped altogether. Several companies went even further, trumpeting improvements in emissions intensity as if they were genuine reductions.
It was greenwashing par excellence, a polite fiction to excuse keeping emissions exactly where they are.
After the failures of COP29 and COP30, the process will only matter again if governments are finally pushed toward honesty and supported by tools that can hold them to it.
So it was no surprise when the negotiations titled toward erasure, governing not just the deal but the language that framed it. The term “fossil fuel” vanished from the final Belém Political Package, replaced with sweeping and unenforceable vows to renewables and adaptation funding.
We should have foreseen how settled climate science would be twisted and spun. After all, one investigation found more than 14,000 pieces of COP-related disinformation in just the three months before Belém. Much of it was generated by AI, including a widely shared fake video that showed the host city swallowed by floods.
This version of climate denialism reveals the moral credibility of climate action is being leveraged to keep emissions frozen in place. It no longer bellows about hoaxes, except by Donald Trump who has happily dragged America back into isolationism. In the diplomatic world it asks for more studies, more modelling, more consultations, always in the service of delay. It is denialism wearing the mask of governance, and it is far more corrosive than the loud bluff it replaced.
The timing could hardly be worse. The IPCC’s carbon budget for a 50% chance of staying below 1.5°C will vanish by 2029 if emissions continue at today’s pace. This is also the first year after the Global Stocktake that mandates governments to draft national plans that will set our course until 2030.
And what happens now determines the shape of the decisive decade. Crossing 1.5°C sharply raises the risk of irreversible cryosphere collapse—rapid ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland which will lock the world into meters of sea-level rise that imperil coastal megacities across every hemisphere. At 2°C, another billion people will face severe water scarcity—especially in the Global South where adaptation capacity is lowest and exposure is highest. This reality is why the deliberate sidelining of climate science is not just exasperating but catastrophic.
And COP30’s lone nod to honesty—the Declaration on Information Integrity—feels painfully thin. The declaration, which promises to counter climate falsehoods, was only signed by 12 countries. And with no sanctions or accountability, it is a gesture at truth in the exact moment truth needed teeth.
We need a global firewall for climate truth: binding rules for climate information, a UN body capable of verifying data with transparent AI, and legal duties on platforms to curb the algorithmic spread of lies. Climate inaction is becoming a matter of legal liability. That burden should fall equally on those who deliberately twist the science.
There must be a counterweight capable of tracing disinformation, naming the culprits of confusion, and dragging the debate back to the science that anchors it. Only then can we hope to restart global climate momentum. And in an irony worthy of our age, the technology that helped generate the mess—AI—may be the only thing sharp enough to cut through it.
According to Sachin Dev Duggal, Britain’s foremost expert on applied artificial intelligence and EY’s Entrepreneur of the Year in 2023, the internet is now a space where reliable information sits beside convincing fabrications, and no amount of earnest climate communication will fix this without tools that can separate accuracy from invention at scale.
AI is already showing what those tools might look like. It can review millions of words in seconds and test claims against established climate data with a consistency no human team can match. We are already seeing this in practice. For example, the machine-learning model ClimateBERT has analysed corporate reports and exposed misleading emissions claims. Another model, CLIMINATOR, has also been trained to hold political and corporate actors to account by checking whether their climate statements align with the evidence or contradict it. And the FactCrisis project, cofounded by the EU, has used AI during heatwaves to track false statistics and identify accounts pushing them, offering a glimpse of what becomes possible when AI and international bodies finally start reinforcing one another.
Duggal argues that the next step is a decentralized verification model. Climate data from satellites, sensors, and national inventories would sit in a shared public ledger that no ministry or corporation can quietly revise. When a government or company makes a claim about progress, anyone could check it against a record that does not bend to convenience. It would make the small acts of creative reporting that feed climate denialism far harder to get away with.
Yet today’s AI carries a flaw that limits its usefulness. Large language models are fluent but ungrounded, reproducing the language of climate science without retaining the facts that give it weight, which makes them unreliable referees in a space awash with motivated distortions. Duggal sees that any serious AI tool must reconnect claims to their evidence, trace where the data came from, and reveal the steps that turned information into a conclusion. This is the direction of his SeKondBrain project, which concentrates on how to build these evidential scaffolds so that an AI system can point to the exact documents, numbers, or assumptions that shaped its judgement. That kind of traceability matters because it gives climate negotiators and regulators something concrete to interrogate. And without systems built to preserve and expose the evidence behind their outputs, AI will remain too opaque to play any serious role in protecting science.
After the failures of COP29 and COP30, the process will only matter again if governments are finally pushed toward honesty and supported by tools that can hold them to it. Without that basic partnership, we may have reached the point where another COP has nothing left to say.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Flooding Kills 1,000+ Across South Asia as Climate Crisis Fuels More Extreme Rain
“We need to confront climate change effectively,” Indonesia's president said.
Dec 01, 2025
More than 1,100 people across South Asia have died after torrential rains fueled by warming temperatures caused widespread flooding and landslides in recent days.
Following days of unprecedented cyclone conditions, people across Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand have been left with their homes destroyed and forced to flee for their lives. A separate cyclone in Sri Lanka has left hundreds more dead.
The worst devastation has been seen in Indonesia, where Cyclone Senyar has claimed over 500 lives as of Sunday. On the island of Sumatra, rescue teams have struggled to reach stranded people as roads have been blocked by mudslides and high floodwaters. Many areas are still reportedly unreachable.
As Reuters reported Monday, more than 28,000 homes have been damaged across the country and 1.4 million people affected, according to government figures. At least 464 were reported missing as of Sunday.
Other countries in the region were also battered. In Thailand, the death toll was reported at 176 as of Monday, and more than 3 million people are reported to be affected. The worst destruction has been in the southern city of Hat Yai, which on November 21 alone experienced 335mm of rain, its single largest recorded rainfall in over 300 years.
At least two more have been killed in Malaysia, where nearly 12,000 people still remain in evacuation centers.
Sri Lanka has witnessed similar devastation in recent days from another storm, Cyclone Ditwah, that formed around the same time as Senyar. Floods and mudslides have similarly killed at least 330 people, and destroyed around 20,000 homes, while leaving around a third of the country without electricity. More than 200 people are missing, and over 108,000 are in state-run shelters, officials say.
Work has begun in Indonesia to restore damaged roads, bridges, and telecommunication services. But after he visited survivors in Sumatra, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto said that the work will extend beyond merely recovering from the storm.
“We need to confront climate change effectively,” Prabowo told reporters. “Local governments must take a significant role in safeguarding the environment and preparing for the extreme weather conditions that will arise from future climate change.”
Southeast Asia was top-of-mind for many attendees at last month's COP30 climate summit in Brazil. As Winston Chow, a professor of urban climate at Singapore Management University and part of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told the Straits Times, this is because the region "is highly vulnerable to climate change."
"As a whole, it faces multiple climate risks and hazards, such as rising temperatures, sea-level rise, increasing droughts and floods, and the intensification of extreme events like typhoons," he continued.
In recent years, the region has been hit by annual devastating heatwaves, resulting in record-shattering temperatures. In Myanmar, where temperatures exceeded 110°F last April, Radio Free Asia reported that 1,473 people died from extreme heat in just one month.
Floods have likewise grown more deadly in recent years. Just this month, floods killed dozens more people in Vietnam, and a pair of typhoons killed hundreds more in the Philippines and forced over a million people to evacuate their homes.
While it's difficult to determine the extent to which any one disaster was caused by climate change, in aggregate, they are growing more intense as the planet warms.
"As the world’s oceans and atmosphere warm at an accelerating rate due to the rise in greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, tropical cyclones are expected to become more intense," explained Steve Turton, an adjunct professor of environmental geography at CQUniversity Australia in The Conversation on Sunday. "This is because cyclones get their energy from warm oceans. The warmer the ocean, the more fuel for the storm."
According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, part of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, October 2025 was the third-warmest October on record globally and had above-average tropical cyclone activity.
"The warming atmosphere is supercharging the global water cycle, and peak rainfall rates are increasing," Turton said. "When more rain falls in a short time, flash flooding becomes more likely."
At COP30, protesters from across Southeast Asia assembled to demand action from global leaders. On November 10, shortly after her home in Manila was battered by a pair of typhoons, 25-year-old activist Ellenor Bartolome savaged corporations and world leaders who have continued to block global action to reduce fossil fuel usage.
“It gets worse every year, and for every disaster, it is utterly enraging that we are counting hundreds of bodies, hundreds of missing people... while the elite and the corporations are counting money from fossil fuels," she told attendees as they entered the conference.
Ultimately, many climate activists and scientists left the conference enraged yet again, as the final agreement stripped out all language related to fossil fuels.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular