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
debt
Global South Debt Relief Benefits Everyone
Private creditors’ current power to disrupt sovereign debt resolution has negative ripple effects on our own people in the US, especially the most vulnerable.
Jul 10, 2026
Amid a succession of financial shocks, the Middle East war being only the most recent, developing countries’ debt levels are alarmingly high and continuing to rise. These burdens make it even more difficult for governments in the Global South to meet the basic needs of their populations. And because the world is interconnected through international trade and financial markets, these developing country debts boomerang back to harm ordinary people in the United States and other advanced economies as well.
To effectively address this growing crisis, we need to recognize that the debt landscape is very different today than it was in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when global leaders agreed on relief initiatives worth more than $130 billion. Back then, private creditors held only about 5% of developing country debt. The rest was in the hands of public creditors, including the United States, UK, Germany, and other Group of 7 rich country governments, as well as multilateral financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which the G7 largely control.
Today, more than 60% of developing country debt is owed to private creditors who typically have the power to sue for full payment even when collective talks or international community initiatives for debt relief are ongoing. The mere threat of litigation gives these private creditors disproportionate leverage that puts debtors at a disadvantage and erodes debt relief gains. During Ethiopia’s prolonged struggle to access debt reductions under the G20 Common Framework, for example, private bondholders threatened to sue rather than make an effort similar to that of public creditors.
What can be done? One promising approach involves working the levers of power in the jurisdictions that govern private debt contracts. More than 90% are issued in New York and the UK. And over the past year, a bill to crack down on predatory private creditors gained real traction in the New York legislature. The “Champerty Fix Act” would prevent private creditors with debt contracts in that state from purchasing heavily discounted debt and then litigating to collect in full, instead of constructively engaging in debt negotiations. The bill would also significantly cut the high interest rates that debt crisis countries pay on claims under litigation.
Lifting the burden of unsustainable debts is the morally right thing to do—and it is in our interest.
With support from a coalition of religious, business, union, anti-poverty, environmental, development, and diaspora organizations, the bill passed the New York Senate and had enough support to pass in the Assembly, but that chamber’s leader chose not to bring it up for a vote by the time the session ended in early June. Supporters continue to demand that the Assembly be re-opened for a vote on the matter before the end of the year.
This legislation would be a huge win for the billions of people in countries where high debt payments divert essential financing for poverty reduction, social services, and development progress. It would also benefit workers, savers, consumers, and taxpayers in advanced economies—including the United States. Private creditors’ current power to disrupt sovereign debt resolution has negative ripple effects on our own people, especially the most vulnerable.
When debt crises affect US trade partners, jobs and wages that depend on import- and export-dependent companies in the United States inevitably suffer. And when inflation goes up due to supply chain disruptions in countries undergoing debt crises, consumers quickly feel it in the prices of their groceries and other everyday goods.
Pensions and other savings vehicles in the United States have exposure to indebted developing economies either directly—when they invest in instruments they issue—or indirectly—when they invest in US companies that have trade or investment in such countries. Reducing the time it takes a country to go from a debt crisis to a lasting restructuring—which currently averages 10 years—would significantly improve returns for our pensions and savers.
Taxpayers also have a stake in ensuring that taxpayer-funded debt relief does not bail out private creditors unwilling to negotiate fairly. In current restructuring deals, private creditors typically get repayments that are 20 percentage points higher than those received by public lenders.
Debt relief for the poorest has strong religious foundations that cut across multiple faith traditions and has been a landmark bipartisan pillar of US policy under every administration since the late 1990s.
Last year, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his counterparts in all G20 countries adopted a declaration on debt sustainability. As the United States took over this year’s Presidency of the G20, he reaffirmed this direction by making the improvement of debt restructurings and debt transparency a priority. Building checks on private creditors in jurisdictions whose courts they use as leverage would go a long way toward supporting these goals by facilitating successful debt renegotiations.
Lifting the burden of unsustainable debts is the morally right thing to do—and it is in our interest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Inflation Soars Under Trump, US Families Face Record High Household Debt
"These numbers tell the real story," said one campaigner. "His administration has failed to address—and in many cases, worsened—an historic cost-of-living crisis that is crushing everyday Americans."
May 12, 2026
While inflation hit a three-year high on Tuesday and President Donald Trump publicly confessed that he doesn't consider how his illegal war on Iran impacts Americans' finances, a Federal Reserve bank revealed that US household debt has risen to a record high of $18.8 trillion.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York's Center for Microeconomic Data found that household debt increased by $18 billion in the first quarter of this year.
It specifically found that by the end of March, mortgage balances increased by $21 billion to $13.19 trillion, home equity line of credit balances jumped by $12 billion to $446 billion, and automobile loan balances rose by $18 billion to $1.69 trillion.
The center further found that "while student loan balances remained essentially flat, decreasing by $6 billion and standing at $1.66 trillion," the delinquency rate "increased to 10.3% of balances 90+ days delinquent, up from the 9.6%" in the last quarter of 2025.
The analysis notes that credit card balances dropped by $25 billion to $1.25 trillion, a seasonal decline that generally occurs after the winter holidays. However, in its coverage of the New York Fed's findings, CNBC highlighted another report out Tuesday that shows how Americans are struggling with current economic conditions.
As CNBC detailed:
More than half—53%—of consumers carry credit card balances to cover essential expenses, according to a report released Tuesday by debt management company Achieve.
"For many households, higher balances are less a sign of economic optimism and more a sign that wages and savings are struggling to keep pace with essential expenses like groceries, utilities, and housing," Austin Kilgore, analyst for the Achieve Center for Consumer Insights, said in a statement.
Among respondents in Achieve's survey of 2,000 consumers, 57% of borrowers said it would take six months or longer to pay off all their credit card debt.
According to ABC News, "On a call with reporters Tuesday morning, researchers at the New York Fed described Americans' overall credit as 'stable,' but noted there are weaknesses among younger consumers and lower-income households."
Mike Pierce, co-founder and executive director of the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, was far more scathing, declaring in a statement that "working families are at a breaking point and desperately need relief. Instead, President Trump is bragging about his plans for a new White House ballroom while his head economist touts families' surging debts as a sign of a booming economy."
"These numbers tell the real story: Trump's economy has driven up costs," Pierce continued. "His administration has failed to address—and in many cases, worsened—an historic cost-of-living crisis that is crushing everyday Americans under stagnant wages and rampant price gouging by grocery conglomerates, data centers, corporate landlords, and private equity firms."
"Making matters worse, Trump's war with Iran is pushing inflation to record levels and forcing Americans to feel the economic pain at the pump," he added, as gasoline prices topped $4.50 a gallon on Tuesday. "It is clear that President Trump is not only failing to 'Make America Affordable Again' but is actively pushing millions of families further into the red."
Last week, Pierce's group and The Century Foundation published an analysis about soaring US auto loan debt. Report co-author and Protect Borrowers senior fellow Tara Mikkilineni said at the time that "for millions of working families, a car is not a luxury, it is an essential economic lifeline. Working families deserve relief, and they deserve to have a government that is watching out for them, not allowing lenders and auto dealers to rake in record profits at their expense."
Meanwhile, Trump—who is facing intense disapproval from the US public, particularly regarding the economy—has repeatedly made clear he doesn't care how his policies, from sweeping tariffs to the Iran War, impact Americans' pocketbooks.
Trump's assault prompted Iran to restrict ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route, which has driven up the prices of fossil fuels worldwide. Speaking with journalists outside the White House last month, Trump suggested that $4 a gallon for gas is "not very high."
Asked about the war's impact on the US public's finances again on Tuesday, Trump said that "the only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran—they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing—we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all."
Those remarks came just hours after the latest consumer price index from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which shows that prices increased by 3.8% on an annual basis in April—above economists' expected 3.7% jump—and the cost of living rose above average monthly wage gains. Various experts responded by taking aim at the president.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers said that "Trump campaigned on bringing down the cost of living 'starting on day one,' and then: started a trade war; deported much of the farm workforce, bombed Iran, allowed healthcare subsidies to expire, cut food assistance, ran an interest-rate boosting deficit, and attacked Fed independence."
Keep ReadingShow Less
It's Crucial to Follow the Money on the National Debt
The point is that a big chunk of the growing interest payments American taxpayers make on the federal debt is going to wealthy Americans.
May 11, 2026
The U.S. national debt just crossed a once-unthinkable threshold on the way toward breaking the record set in the wake of World War II: It now exceeds 100 percent of America’s gross domestic product.
As of March 31, our publicly held debt was $31.27 trillion, while America’s GDP in 2025 was $31.22 trillion. This puts the ratio at 100.2 percent, compared with 99.5 percent when the last fiscal year ended September 30.
That 100.2 percent figure will likely climb, because the federal government is running historically large annual deficits of nearly 6 percent of GDP, which add to the debt. The final tally will depend on Iran war spending, tariff refunds, and the strength of the economy.
Should you worry? Well, it’s not as if we’re heading into a depression. Passing the 100 percent threshold won’t suddenly cause the world to lose confidence in the dollar.
The real problem is that an increasing portion of our nation’s budget—and your tax dollars—is dedicated to paying interest on this growing debt. That’s money we don’t spend on education, healthcare, roads and bridges, social safety nets, or (if we actually needed more spending on it) national defense.
As the debt continues to grow, interest payments continue to soar. We’ll soon be paying more in interest on the federal debt each year than we spend each year on Medicare.
So, who exactly receives these interest payments? This is an issue you hear very little discussion about, because the wealthy and powerful of this country would rather you didn’t know.
You probably do hear that a chunk of our debt is held by foreign governments and foreign investors. That’s true, but they hold only about 30 percent of our debt. The rest—roughly 70 percent—is held domestically. That is, we pay the interest to ourselves.
And who, exactly, is the “ourselves” who receive these interest payments? The Federal Reserve holds part of this debt, state and local governments hold part.
But the biggest chunk—nearly half—is held by mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, and banks. And who owns them? The Americans who invest in these funds—and who thereby, directly or indirectly, hold Treasury bills.
And who, exactly are these Americans—the Americans who are directly or indirectly collecting a large amount of the interest we’re paying on the national debt? It’s the people at the top.
The richest 1 percent of U.S. households hold about 35.6 percent of all financial assets—shares of stock, corporate bonds, and Treasury bills—so it’s safe to assume they hold at least a third of all Treasury bills.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Here’s where things get really interesting.
Decades ago, wealthy Americans financed the federal government mainly by paying taxes. Their tax rate was far, far higher than it is today. In the 1950s, under President Dwight Eisenhower, the richest Americans paid a marginal tax rate of 91 percent. (Tax deductions and tax credits meant that the top effective marginal rate was lower than this.)
Fast forward. Now, wealthy Americans finance the federal government mainly by lending it money and collecting interest payments on those loans.
Interest payments on the national debt this year are expected to reach $1 trillion.
There are roughly 128 million households in the United States. Dividing $1 trillion in annual interest among U.S. households would amount to $650 per household per month. (This is a simplified average, of course; actual burdens vary based on tax status, income, and spending.)
The point is that a big chunk of the growing interest payments American taxpayers make on the federal debt is going to wealthy Americans.
Keep following the money. One of the biggest reasons the federal debt has exploded is that tax cuts—starting with the George W. Bush administration in 2001 and extending through Trump’s 2018 and 2024 tax cuts—have reduced government revenues by $10.6 trillion.
Most of the benefits from those tax cuts are going to the wealthy. Since 2000, 65 percent of the benefits from tax cuts have gone to the richest fifth of Americans—22 percent to the top 1 percent.
So, you see what’s happened?
The wealthiest Americans used to pay higher taxes to finance the government. Now, the government pays wealthy Americans interest on a swelling debt, caused largely by lower taxes on wealthy Americans.
Which means a growing portion of everyone else’s taxes are now paying wealthy Americans interest on those loans, instead of paying for government services everyone needs.
So, from now on, whenever you hear someone say how huge, horrible, and out-of-control the national debt is, explain to them that it’s because of tax cuts to the wealthy—who are also the major recipients of interest on that debt.
America’s wealthy have never been wealthier. If they paid their fair share of taxes, we wouldn’t have such a huge federal debt. And we wouldn’t be paying them so much interest on that debt.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Drives Up Gas Prices and Trashes Economy, US Auto Debt Hits Record High
"Reckless actions on the economy and the expensive fallout from the war in Iran has made it harder for working families to purchase a car and has left millions more feeling major pocket pain at the pump," one researcher said.
May 06, 2026
As Americans on Wednesday continued to face the economic fallout of President Donald Trump's war on Iran, a gallon of gasoline cost $4.536, the average transaction price for a new vehicle was $49,275, and a pair of progressive groups published a report detailing "how surging auto loan debt is hurting households."
"The costs of purchasing and financing a car have been going up for years," noted Protect Borrowers senior fellow Tara Mikkilineni, who co-authored the report, "When The Wheels Come Off," with other experts from her organization and The Century Foundation.
"Unfortunately, the Trump administration's reckless actions on the economy and the expensive fallout from the war in Iran has made it harder for working families to purchase a car and has left millions more feeling major pocket pain at the pump," Mikkilineni said. "For millions of working families, a car is not a luxury, it is an essential economic lifeline. Working families deserve relief and they deserve to have a government that is watching out for them, not allowing lenders and auto dealers to rake in record profits at their expense."
Mikkilineni's team found that "in recent years, aggregate total auto debt has reached $1.68 trillion, a 37% jump since early 2018, and now comprises the largest volume of outstanding loan debt ever recorded. At the end of 2025, nearly 86 million Americans—roughly 28% of consumers—have outstanding auto loan or lease debt. Residents in states where driving is most necessary, such as Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, and Florida, are struggling with the highest levels of auto debt."
"Borrowers carrying auto loans see significantly higher and faster credit card balance growth—regardless of income level—suggesting that auto debt cascades into broader financial pressure," according to the report. Specifically, "between early 2018 and late 2025, credit card balances for middle-income borrowers with auto debt surged by 31%, while those without auto loans saw a notably lower growth of 17%. Borrowers with extended-length auto loans are carrying monthly balances on their credit cards that are 190% of (that is, nearly twice) their monthly income."
"At the end of 2025, the average origination balance for an auto loan reached $33,519, an amount $10,000 higher than the average in 2018, due to massive increases in the price of even the most basic cars and a shortage of 'affordable' car models," the publication explains. "Borrowers are also facing higher interest rates. Today, the average annual percentage rate (APR) for auto loans is nearly 10%, up from 7.5% in 2018."
Financially vulnerable borrowers are being hit particularly hard by current conditions. The researchers found that for those with the most limited access to credit, "the average APR is up to 18.7%, which means a six-year loan on a $30,000 car will cost $20,000 in interest alone. Furthermore, Black, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native borrowers face higher interest rates than their white and Asian counterparts."
NEW from @cnbc.com: Auto debt is crushing families. Our new report with @borrowerjustice.bsky.social shows that 86 million Americans owe a staggering $1.68 trillion in auto loan debt, with auto debt now reaching the highest level ever recorded. www.cnbc.com/2026/05/06/c...
[image or embed]
— The Century Foundation (@tcfdotorg.bsky.social) May 6, 2026 at 10:24 AM
Affordable vehicles are also harder to find these days. Sean Tucker, a managing editor at Kelley Blue Book, told CNBC that "in 2017, [automakers] built 36 models priced at $25,000 or under... Today? Four."
Tucker said that a "record" share of new cars—over 43%—are now bought by households with incomes of at least $150,000. According to him, "Automakers are serving that market."
Angela Hanks, another report co-author and chief of policy programs at The Century Foundation, stressed that "for the overwhelming majority of working families, a car is a necessity—yet purchasing a car has become a financial trap, eating up more of people's paychecks than ever before."
With so many US communities lacking quality public transit, some US families in need of a vehicle turn to loans with longer terms. The report points out that "for these borrowers, even after taking on these riskier products with additional lifetime costs, auto loan payments are still nearly 20% of their monthly income, meaning nearly $1 out of every $5 they earn will go toward car payments over the seven years of their loan."
Hanks highlighted that "while families drown" from costly, extended-term loans, "the Trump administration is refunding big businesses for the tariffs that consumers paid, with interest."
The Trump administration last month launched a portal designed to facilitate refunds for around $166 billion in tariffs that the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional, but only businesses that directly paid the import taxes are eligible, even though companies largely passed on the cost hikes to consumers.
Meanwhile, the president responded to the high court's decision by imposing temporary import taxes, and his administration is pursuing "plan B," holding hearings required to impose tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a different legal authority than the one Trump used last year.
The new report concludes by calling on US policymakers to act: "Amidst the growing affordability crisis, Americans deserve urgent action to bring down costs and rein in profiteering from the dealers and lenders who have been allowed to get away with nickel-and-diming working families for far too long."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'They Profit, We Pay': Coalition Says End Mideast Wars, Tax Fossil Fuel Giants
Governments gathering for International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings "have a clear responsibility," said a 350.org leader. "End this illegal war, stop the flow of destruction, and make the profiteers pay."
Apr 14, 2026
As the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group were held in Washington, DC during a two-week ceasefire between the United States, Israel, and Iran, over 130 civil society groups this week urged global governments to "secure a permanent end to the wars in South West Asia and break the chains of fossil fuel dependence."
The joint statement was coordinated by Fight Inequality Alliance and 350.org, which has been advocating for a windfall profits tax on oil and gas giants since the US and Israel launched their illegal war on Iran in late February, and the Iranian government responded by restricting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which sent fossil fuel prices soaring worldwide.
"While people struggle to afford food, fuel, and basic necessities, fossil fuel companies are profiting massively from the chaos. The IMF itself has warned of the risk of a global recession," said 350.org managing director Savio Carvalho in a statement.
"Governments gathering in Washington have a clear responsibility: End this illegal war, stop the flow of destruction, and make the profiteers pay," Carvalho argued. "Taxing windfall oil and gas profits could provide immediate relief to families and invest in the clean, affordable energy systems we urgently need. They profit, we pay. It's time to fix it now: no bombs, no barrels."
A permanent end to the war—which has killed people across the region—is the first demand of the open letter. The second is a windfall profits tax on fossil fuel giants, with the revenue being used "to guarantee public services, and provide immediate support to families and precarious workers hit hardest by soaring food and fuel prices."
Martha Tukahirwa, Fight Inequality Alliance's Africa coordinator, explained that "while thousands are killed in the war in Iran, millions of people across Africa are being crushed by soaring fuel prices that have made even the simplest meal unaffordable. In Nigeria, diesel has surged over 60%. In Malawi, the poorest households are forced to choose between cooking and eating."
"In Zimbabwe, the cost of public transport has soared, making it impossible for working people to earn a living," Tukahirwa continued. "This is no accident—fossil fuel companies and commodity traders are reaping massive profits from this crisis while our governments stand idle. Tax these obscene profits and redirect the money to shield our people from hunger and hardship. The time for half measures is over, the time for bold action is now."
The letter's third demand is to "make food and energy secure for all." The war has impacted the availability of not only fuel but also fertilizer. The coalition called on governments to "invest public money in sustainable local farming and homegrown renewable energy, and stop harmful handouts to weapons, fossil fuels, and fossil fertilizer."
The groups—which also include ActionAid International, Corporate Europe Observatory, Council of Canadians, Friends of the Earth International, GreenFaith, Greenpeace Japan, Make Polluters Pay, Oxfam in the Pacific, War on Want, and more—called for urgently rolling out "renewable energy solutions for farms, homes, schools, and clinics to protect them from this and future energy crises."
Rev. Fletcher Harper, executive director of GreenFaith, said that "our faiths call us to make peace with people and the planet alike, and to hold the powerful to account. Letting fossil fuel giants pocket windfalls while families struggle is a moral failure. Taxing windfall profits to provide energy relief is not radical. It is basic justice."
The fourth and final demand is to cancel debt payments for Global South countries, and agree to fairer debt rules. The coalition stressed that "after paying interest to Wall Street lenders, bankers, and rich governments, many Global South countries have no money left over to protect their people from this crisis."
As part of the debt demand, the coalition also urged governments to "support informal workers, farm laborers, women, and older people, and guarantee universal access to healthcare, education, and public transport."
David Archer, head of programs and Influencing at ActionAid, pointed to civil society's push for a United Nations treaty for restructuring sovereign debt.
"Billions of people across the Global South are living in countries already facing a debt crisis. This war will make their lives even harder, leading to rising prices and rising interest rates," Archer said. "We need urgent action to cancel debt and to take the power over debt away from the IMF and rich countries—through developing a UN Framework Convention on Sovereign Debt."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump 'Too Busy Siding With Wall Street,' Says Warren as US Credit Card Debt Crisis Explodes
A new analysis shows that over 40% of all US adults are unable to fully pay off their credit cards each month, leaving them trapped in "cycles of persistent debt."
Mar 17, 2026
US President Donald Trump promised repeatedly during his 2024 campaign to temporarily cap credit card interest rates at 10%, but—in the face of Wall Street opposition—he has done nothing concrete to fulfill that pledge since returning to the White House.
That failure, according to an analysis released Tuesday, has so far cost Americans $134.5 billion in interest payments. Every day, The Century Foundation (TCF) and Protect Borrowers estimate, US credit card holders are accruing $368 million more in interest than they would have if rates were capped at 10%. The average interest rate for credit cards in the US is currently around 25%, according to a Forbes measure.
In January, Trump called on Congress to approve a 10% cap on credit card interest rates for one year, and bipartisan legislation has been introduced in both the House and the Senate. But the president has not pressured bank-friendly Republicans to back the measure, and he vowed earlier this month to refuse to sign any legislation that reaches his desk unless lawmakers approve a massive voter suppression bill that is likely dead in the Senate.
“Trump could work with Congress to deliver on his promise to cap credit card interest rates at 10%—saving the average American with credit card debt about $900 a year," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Tuesday. "But he is too busy siding with Wall Street.”
The new analysis by TCF and Protect Borrowers shows that over 40% of adults in the US are "unable to pay off their credit card bills each month, trapping them in cycles of persistent debt that balloons ever-higher due to record-high, industry-inflated interest rates and predatory fees."
Collectively, around 111 million Americans carry more than $1 trillion in credit card debt month to month, according to the analysis, and more than 27 million Americans can't afford more than the minimum monthly payment on their cards.
"Americans’ monthly credit card payments have grown by nearly 40% since 2018, a trend that is continuing unabated under President Trump," TCF and Protect Borrowers found. "From 2018 to 2025, the average monthly credit card payment rose by $553, or 38% (from $1,441 to $1,994). This growth far outstrips inflation."
"Since Trump’s inauguration alone, the average annual amount that Americans pay in credit card bills grew by an additional $1,177 (from $22,756 to $23,933)," the groups added. "The pace of this growth suggests that, in large part due to soaring interest rates, families today devote more income to credit card payments than at any point in history."
The nation's worsening credit card debt crisis comes amid a broader affordability crisis in an economy that Trump has hailed as the "greatest" in history, despite all the glaring evidence to the contrary.
A West Health-Gallup Center on Healthcare in America survey published last week found that roughly a third of respondents—equivalent to more than 80 million Americans—said they have had to skip a meal, borrow money, cut back on utilities, or make other painful trade-offs to afford healthcare expenses over the last 12 months as prices continue to rise across the economy.
“Grocery, utility, and healthcare bills are piling up, and Americans are increasingly turning to credit cards—some carrying interest rates exceeding 22%—just to make ends meet,” Jennifer Zhang, policy, research, and data Analyst at Protect Borrowers and co-author of the new analysis, said Tuesday.
“President Trump promised to tackle crushing credit card interest rates by January 20 of this year," Zhang added, "but that deadline has come and gone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
American Garbage
We consume far beyond our means because our military keeps enough of us feeling secure, and we have such a large military because we consume far beyond our means.
Feb 01, 2026
I learned one of my most valuable lessons about US power in my first year as a Brown University doctoral student. It was in anthropology professor Catherine Lutz’s seminar on empire and social movements. I’d sum up what I remember something like this: Americans consume one hell of a lot—cars, clothes, food, toys, expensive private colleges (ahem…), and that’s just to start. Since other countries like China, the United Kingdom, and Japan purchase substantial chunks of US consumer debt, they have a vested interest in our economic stability. So, even though you and I probably feel less than empowered as we scramble to make mortgage, car, or credit-card payments, the fact that we collectively owe a bunch of money globally makes it less likely that a country like China will want to rock the boat—and that includes literally rocking the boat (as with a torpedo).
In classes like that one at Brown, I came to understand that the military power we get from owing money is self-reinforcing. It helps keep our interest rates low and, in turn, our own military can buy more supplies (especially if President Donald Trump’s latest demand for a $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget goes through!). Our own debt somewhat ironically allows this country to continue to expand its reach, if not around the globe these days, at least in this hemisphere (whether you’re thinking about Venezuela or Greenland). Often when I splurge on a fancy Starbucks latte or a new pair of shoes, I think about how even critics of US military hegemony like me help prop up our empire when we do what Americans do best—shop!
To put this crudely, we consume far beyond our means because our military keeps enough of us feeling secure, and we have such a large military because we consume far beyond our means.
American Trash and the Politics of Consumption
And boy, can we shop! As of August 2025, US consumer debt ballooned to nearly $18 trillion and then continued to rise through the end of last year.
Here’s one consequence of our consumptive habits: We Americans throw a lot of stuff out. Per capita, we each generate an average of close to two tons of solid waste annually, if you include industrial and construction waste (closer to one ton if you don’t). Mind you, on average, that’s roughly three times what most other countries consume and throw out—much more than people even in countries with comparable per capita wealth.
Reminders of our waste are everywhere. Even in my state, Maryland, which funnels significant tax dollars into environmental conservation, you can see plastic bags and bottles tangled in the grass at the roadside, while the air in my wealthy county’s capital city often smells like car exhaust or the dirty rainwater that collects at the bottom of your trash can. Schoolchildren like mine bring home weekly piles of one-sided worksheets, PTA event flyers, plastic prizes, and holiday party favors. Even the rich soil of our rural neighborhood contains layers of trash from centuries of agricultural, household, and military activity, all of which remind me of the ecological footprint we’re leaving to our children and grandchildren.
Not all of us create or live with garbage to the same degree.
To our credit, some of us try to be mindful of that. In recent years, three different public debates about how to fuel our consumptive habits (and where to put the byproducts) have taken place in my region. Residents continue to argue about where to dispose of the hundreds of thousands of tons of our county’s waste (much of it uneaten food) that’s currently incinerated near the scenic farmland where I live. Do we let it stay here, where it pollutes the land and water, not to mention the air, and disturbs our pastoral views? Or do we haul at least some of the residual ash to neighboring counties and states, to areas that tend to be poor majority-minority ones? While some local advocacy groups oppose the exporting (so to speak) of our trash, it continues to happen.
A related dispute has taken place in an adjacent county that’s somewhat less wealthy but also majority white. That debate centers on the appropriate restrictions on a data center to be built there that will store information we access on the internet and that’s expected to span thousands of acres. How far away need it be from residents’ homes and farms? Will people be forced to sell their land to build it?
While many of our concerns are understandable—I’m not ready to move so that we can have a data center nearby—it turns out that some worries animating such discussions are (to put it kindly) aesthetic in nature. Recently, a neighbor I’d never met called me to try to enlist our family in a debate about whether some newcomers, a rare Indian-American family around here, could construct a set of solar panels in a field along a main road, where feed crops like alfalfa can usually be seen blooming in the springtime.
My neighbor’s concern: that the new family wanted to use those fields for solar panels to supply clean energy to their community (stated with emphasis, which I presumed to denote the Asian-Americans who would assumedly visit them for celebrations and holidays). Heaven forbid! She worried that the panels would disrupt the views of passersby like us and injure a habitat for the bald eagle—ironic concerns given how much of a mess so many of us have already made renovating our outbuildings, raising our dogs and chicken flocks, and chopping down trees that get in the way of our homes or social gatherings.
Many such concerns are raised sincerely by people who care deeply about land and community. However, the fact that, to some, solar panels are less desirable than the kinds of crops that look nice or feed our desire for more red meat should reframe the debate about whose version of consumption (and garbage) should be acceptable at all.
Indeed, not all of us create or live with garbage to the same degree. Compared to white populations, Black populations are 100% more likely and communities of Asian descent 200% more likely to live within 6 miles of a US Superfund site (among America’s most polluted places). Such proximity is, in turn, linked to higher rates of cancer, asthma, and birth defects.
Nor do whites suffer such impacts in the same ways. According to an analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency—and let’s appreciate such an analysis while we still have access to it, since the Trump administration’s EPA just decided to stop tracking the human impact of pollution—Black Americans live with approximately 56% more pollution that they generate, Hispanic Americans experience 63% more than what they create, and—ready for this?—white Americans are exposed to 17% less than they make.
Military Contamination
Our military, far from being just another enabler of unequal consumption and suffering, contributes mightily to the waste we live with. In the US, hundreds of military bases are contaminated by so-called forever chemicals, such as PFAS, in the drinking water and the soil. We’re talking about chemicals associated with cancer, heart conditions, birth defects, and other chronic health problems. The civilian populations surrounding such bases are often low-income and disproportionately people of color. Of course, also disproportionately impacted are the military families and veterans who live and work around such bases, and tend to have inadequate healthcare to address such issues.
An example would be the Naval Submarine Base in New London, where my family spent a significant amount of time. Encompassing more than 700 acres along the Thames River, that base was designated a Superfund site in 1990 due to contamination from unsanctioned landfills, chemical storage, and waste burial, all of which put heavy metals, pesticides, and other toxic substances into the environment.
Rather than bore you with more statistics, let me share how it feels to stand on its grounds. Picture a wide, deep river, slate gray and flanked by deciduous trees. On the bank opposite the base, multifamily housing and the occasional restaurant have been wrought from what were once factories. After you pass the guard station, a museum to your left shows off all manner of missiles, torpedoes, and other weaponry, along with displays depicting the living spaces of sailors inside submarines, with bunks decorated with the occasional photo of scantily clad White women (presumably meant to boost troop morale).
To your right, there are brick barracks, office buildings, takeout restaurants, even a bowling alley, and submarines, their rounded turrets poking out of the water. Along roadways leading through the base, old torpedoes are painted in bright colors like children’s furniture and repurposed as monuments to America’s military might. The air smells like asphalt and metal. Signs of life are everywhere, from the seagulls that swoop down to catch fish to the sailors and their families you see moving about in cars. It’s hard to comprehend that I’m also standing on what reporters have called “a minefield of pollution… a dumping ground for whatever [the base] needed to dispose of: sulfuric acid, torpedo fuel, waste oil, and incinerator ash.”
Empire of Waste
When I say that our military produces a lot of garbage, I don’t just mean in this country. I also include what it does abroad and the countries like Israel that we patronize and arm. Last summer, I corresponded with anthropologist Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins, who spent more than a year documenting the human casualties and costs of what the Israeli military and other Israelis have done in Israeli-occupied Palestine. That includes the mass dumping of garbage there from Israeli territories and the barricading of Palestinian communities from waste disposal sites, all of which have led to environmental contamination.
I think progressives would do well to consider how important it is that our signs, our social media posts, our political speeches, and even our patterns of consumption send a message—that many are welcome here, skin color, pronouns, and even specific brands of left-wing ideology be damned.
For example, Stamatopoulou-Robbins visited the 5,000-person Palestinian village of Shuqba, surrounded by open land on all sides and controlled by the Israeli government. Nearby cities and settlements dump waste, including X-ray images, household appliances, broken electronics like cell phones, industrial waste, wrecked vehicles, and car parts right in its neighborhood. One young man told Stamatopoulou-Robbins that he and his wife couldn’t have a baby because of the toxic environment. Many others, he told her, experienced the same problem, along with higher-than-average rates of cancer and respiratory and skin problems. His story, Stamatopoulou-Robbins wrote me, was one of many similar tales in Shuqba, tales that multiplied across the West Bank, where Israeli settlements and trucks from Israel, as she put it, “regularly dump their wastes in proximity to Palestinian residential areas and farmland.”
Her research drives home how we experience pollution all too often depends on who we are. I’m a case in point. My family and I pride ourselves on being the first to inhabit our sprawling rural property since the family whose ancestors built a home on it in 1890 and passed it down to two subsequent generations. In 2020, when we initially came to look at it, we couldn’t afford the asking price. However, the older couple who, in the end, sold it to us wanted a family in the house who would raise children there as they had. As they put it flatteringly, we were a “salt-of-the-earth” family (and the feeling was mutual).
Trash and Belonging
Nowadays, the news abounds with references to who is a “real” American, and who belongs beyond our borders. References to purity and contamination apply not just to our growing piles of waste but to human beings, too. Consider candidate Donald Trump’s promise, at a 2023 campaign rally, to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country,” or his claim that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other Somali immigrants are nothing less than—yes—“garbage.”
And it’s true that what (or who) we consider garbage, and what (or who) we tolerate in our field of vision matters. My family recently renovated an old cabin behind our house to serve as an office for me to see my psychotherapy patients in person. The idea was that the veterans and military families who come to me for help with trauma, many of whom themselves are lower-income people of color, would have a peaceful place to process it.
As we demolished an outer wall to add a bathroom to my new office, something fell out of that wall: an old paper advertisement for black licorice candy (“Licorice Bites”) that depicted a Black baby, eyes wide in the stereotypical fashion of Jim Crow Era ads, trying to crawl away from an alligator, its mouth gaping open. Good thing, I thought, that it hadn’t fallen out of that drywall when a patient of mine was there. The experience, while fleeting, reminded me of writer Ta-Nehisi Coates’s point that Americans so easily minimize foreign genocides because we’ve done such a striking job of burying (in the case of my house, literally!) the atrocities of slavery, the segregated world that followed it, and their role in our country’s expansion.
Whoever put it there, that ad in my cabin wall—just like local gossip about that Indian-American family—is a reminder of who belongs and who doesn’t in this country. Like an Egyptian pyramid filled with a pharaoh’s possessions, remnants of American lives remind us of how some of us are kept sick, intimidated, and belittled, while feeding the appetites of others.
In the meantime, I think progressives would do well to consider how important it is that our signs, our social media posts, our political speeches, and even our patterns of consumption send a message — that many are welcome here, skin color, pronouns, and even specific brands of left-wing ideology be damned. Who is “of this earth” is questionable at best.
We should also ask why pictures denigrating Black people and half-naked women, and monuments to weaponry, so excite the patriotic souls of enough Americans that it’s easy to find them throughout our land. We cannot continue to allow the other side’s exclusionary ideals to dominate today’s political messaging.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Drives Up Costs, Record Share of Subprime Auto Loans Overdue
"The vulnerable part of the economy is having an even tougher time making ends meet," said one finance professor.
Nov 13, 2025
Last month's jobs report may never be released after being delayed during the federal government shutdown, but other figures demonstrate the havoc President Donald Trump is wreaking on the US economy, including new data for subprime borrowers behind on car payments.
The share of US borrowers with low credit scores or limited credit histories who are at least 60 days past due on their auto loans rose to 6.65% in October, the highest percentage since Fitch Ratings began tracking it in the early 1990s.
"The vulnerable part of the economy is having an even tougher time making ends meet," Massachusetts Institute of Technology finance professor Christopher Palmer told Marketplace on Wednesday in response to the new data.
As Bloomberg reported Wednesday:
Miriam Neal in Atlanta is one of those struggling to afford all of her expenses. The 29-year-old lost her job as a research fellow in December and couldn't make her car payments, leading to her vehicle being repossessed. Thanks to a GoFundMe that she started in July, she was able to get her car back, but said she still can barely afford her bill.
"It's been a little bit difficult maintaining it with the car insurance, the maintenance, and my car loan," Neal said. "I'm usually about 30 days late."
She still hasn't been able to find employment and ended up having to move back in with her parents while she drives for Amazon Flex to make a little bit of money. Still, she estimates she makes only about $100 a day, which isn't enough for all of her bills.
Fitch's findings on missed car payments notably follow two key disruptions in the auto lending space.
"PrimaLend, which serves the 'buy-here-pay-here' auto financing market—where dealers sell and directly finance vehicles for customers with poor or limited credit—filed for bankruptcy protection last month," Reuters reported. "Tricolor, which sold cars and provided auto loans mostly to low-income Hispanic communities in the Southwestern United States, also filed for bankruptcy in September."
In mid-October, the credit score model development company VantageScore released an analysis showing that auto loans "have now evolved from being one of the least risky consumer credit products to one of the loan types most prone to delinquencies," as consumers struggle with rising interest rates, financing costs, and prices of cars, insurance, and repairs.
"Auto loans have not followed the trends of other credit products as delinquencies have been persistently trending up across all credit tiers and income groups over the past 15 years," said VantageScore's chief economist and strategy officer, Rikard Bandebo, in a statement. "Even after the industry tightened lending criteria three years ago, delinquencies have continued to rise."
A few days before the VantageScore analysis, Cox Automotive's Kelley Blue Book announced that in September, the average transaction price (ATP) of a new vehicle in the US had soared above $50,000 for the first time.
"It is important to remember that the new vehicle market is inflationary. Prices go up over time, and today's market is certainly reminding us of that," said Cox Automotive executive analyst Erin Keating last month. "The $20,000 vehicle is now mostly extinct, and many price-conscious buyers are sidelined or cruising in the used vehicle market. Today's auto market is being driven by wealthier households who have access to capital, good loan rates, and are propping up the higher end of the market."
"Tariffs have introduced new cost pressure to the business, but the pricing story in September was mostly driven by the healthy mix of EVs and higher-end vehicles pushing the new vehicle ATP into uncharted territory," she added. "We've been expecting to break through the $50,000 barrier. It was only a matter of time, especially when you consider the bestselling vehicle in America is a pickup truck from Ford that routinely costs north of $65,000. That's today's market, and it is ripe for disruption."
The downturn becomes more evident ...Record number of subprime borrowers miss car loan payments in October, data shows - www.reuters.com/business/aut...
[image or embed]
— Not Born Yesterday (@oatsmint.bsky.social) November 12, 2025 at 4:44 PM
Other recent findings that have shown the economic deterioration under Trump include a Thursday report from Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC), which found that the average US family is spending around $700 more each month on basic items since Trump returned to office in January.
"As families across the country spend more to pay their bills and put food on the table, Democrats and Republicans should be working together to lower costs," said Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), the JEC’s ranking member. "Instead, President Trump is pushing ahead with reckless tariffs that continue to fuel inflation and drive prices up even higher."
A closely watched University of Michigan survey revealed last week that since October, consumer sentiment has fallen over 6% to 50.3, the second-lowest level since 1978, and the "current economic conditions" index has dropped nearly 11% to an all-time low of 52.3.
Earlier in November, the Washington Post reported on layoff data from corporate outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, which documented 153,000 job cuts in October, bringing the total for this year to 1.1 million.
"We haven't seen mega-layoffs of the size that are being discussed now—48,000 from UPS, potentially 30,000 from Amazon—since 2020 and before that, since the recession of 2009," said the firm's CEO, John Challenger. "When you see companies making cuts of this size, it does signal a real shift in direction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Adaptation Failure Is the Next Debt Crisis for the Global South
This is the new face of global inequality: Countries that contributed least to the crisis are being made to pay twice—first through climate impacts, and then through debt.
Nov 11, 2025
As deadly storms ripped through the Caribbean, a new United Nations report delivered a sobering warning: The world is failing to prepare for the climate it has already created.
The UN Environment Programme’s Adaptation Gap Report 2025, aptly titled Running on Empty, finds that developing nations will need between US$310 and $365 billion annually by 2035 to cope with intensifying climate impacts. Yet, international public finance for adaptation fell to just US$26 billion in 2023, down from US$28 billion the previous year. The result: Only one-twelfth of what’s needed is being delivered.
This gap is not an abstract number. It’s visible in the wreckage of homes, farms, and economies across our region. Last month, Hurricane Melissa, the strongest-ever storm to hit Jamaica, tore through the Caribbean, leaving destruction equivalent to nearly 30% of the island’s GDP. With at least 75 lives lost and damages exceeding US$50 billion, Melissa is not just another storm; it is a case study in the cost of global inaction.
A rapid attribution study found that climate change made Melissa four times more likely and increased its wind speeds by 7%, raising damages by around 12%. For Haiti, Jamaica, and other small island developing states (SIDS), such storms bring unbearable losses eroding livelihoods, tourism revenues, and vital infrastructure. These countries contribute the least to global emissions yet bear the highest costs.
Adaptation finance should not create more debt.
The pattern repeats globally. This year’s monsoon floods in Pakistan displaced 7 million people and destroyed thousands of homes. Whether in South Asia or the Caribbean, the message is clear: The failure to invest in adaptation is costing lives.
Adaptation is not a distant goal; it is an urgent necessity. It means building stronger flood defenses, adopting climate-smart agriculture, and developing social protection systems that safeguard the most vulnerable. Research by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) shows that every US$1 invested early in resilience saves more than US$5 in avoided losses. Yet, the world continues to spend far more on disaster relief than on prevention.
Every dollar delayed multiplies the human and economic toll. In Haiti, where communities are already grappling with political instability, weak infrastructure, and high poverty, each storm magnifies vulnerabilities. The Caribbean, with its densely populated coastal areas and economies heavily dependent on tourism and agriculture, cannot afford to treat adaptation as optional.
At COP29 in Baku, governments pledged through the Baku to Belém Roadmap to mobilize US$1.3 trillion by 2035, including at least US$300 billion annually for developing nations. On paper, this looks ambitious. In reality, it falls far short of what is needed. Adjusted for inflation, adaptation costs could reach US$440-520 billion per year by 2035, and the US$300 billion target covers both mitigation and adaptation, with no separate adaptation goal yet defined.
Adaptation finance was meant to help nations prepare for rising seas, harsher droughts, and lethal floods. Yet, when those funds don’t arrive, countries are forced to borrow. In 2023, 59 least developed countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) paid US$37 billion to service their debts and received only US$32 billion in climate finance. These aren’t productive investments but emergency debts taken just to rebuild what has already been lost.
This is the new face of global inequality: Countries that contributed least to the crisis are being made to pay twice—first through climate impacts, and then through debt. And while the rhetoric of “resilience” fills summit halls, the financial architecture remains rigged against the Global South. Only 15% of adaptation finance in recent years has been delivered as grants; the rest comes as loans. For every dollar of “climate support,” developing nations are paying back many more in interest.
The IIED notes that less than 10% of global climate finance reaches the local level, while international credit rating systems penalize small and vulnerable economies for their exposure to climate risks making it harder for them to attract investment in resilience. These structural barriers are blocking climate justice.
So what should change?
Adaptation finance should not create more debt. Countries hit by climate disasters need grants, not loans, because these crises are caused by global emissions, not their own failures. Second, global lending rules must change. The IMF and World Bank should consider pausing repayments after major disasters. Forcing countries to rebuild while paying high interest is unfair and makes recovery harder. Third, regional cooperation must grow stronger. Shared projects prove that joint action works. Regional funds, supported by concessional finance and local expertise, can deliver faster results than slow global systems.
Adaptation is not charity. It is justice and economic common sense. Without equitable support and reparations, the Global South would sink further and keep on building the same roads and homes after every flood, hurricane, and storm. This is not only senseless but also highly unjust. It is time for the Global North to take responsibility, after all its only fair that the poor and vulnerable shouldn’t have to fix a crisis they didn’t create while drowning in debt.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Shows How to End 'Climate Colonialism' and Ensure a Just Transition for Global South
"A just transition must redistribute power and resources, curb overconsumption, and prioritize dignity and rights for all," Oxfam International stresses in a new report.
Sep 24, 2025
A report published Wednesday details how "climate colonialism" of wealthier nations "hijacks" investment and profits from the Global South—and lays out how the world can "move beyond extractive models and build an energy system rooted in equality, justice, care, and collective prosperity."
The Oxfam International report notes that "the global energy transition stands at a pivotal moment: It can either dismantle the inequalities driving the climate crisis or deepen them. Today, the transition risks reproducing patterns of extractivism and exploitation, with the most marginalized paying the highest price while elites profit."
"From transition mineral mining to debt burdens and unequal energy access, the current trajectory mirrors centuries of colonial injustice," the publication states. "A just transition must redistribute power and resources, curb overconsumption, and prioritize dignity and rights for all."
The report continues:
Today, the warning signs are clear: The global renewable energy transition is being built on unequal foundations. We are witnessing climate inequality inaction: a transition focused on replacing fossil fuels with green alternatives, without questioning the excessive energy use of the richest, while often leaving lower-income communities to bear the greatest costs, including through the harmful impacts of transition mineral mining, inadequate benefit sharing, and global financial and trade systems rigged against their interests. Put simply, the same dynamics that drove historical colonialism are reaemerging in new forms through the green transition.
These patterns of inequality play out both between and within countries. While stark inequalities exist between the richest and poorest within high-income countries too, global inequality is most sharply felt in the Global South, where structural barriers and historic injustices have left entire nations bearing the brunt of the climate crisis and now shouldering the greatest risks in the renewable energy transition.
"Unless the logic underpinning the transition changes, it will continue to replicate the history of extractivism and exploitation," the report warns. "These inequalities intersect with gender, race, class, age, and other marginalized people or groups, meaning that the costs of an unjust transition fall heaviest on Indigenous peoples, Black communities and other racialized groups, women, workers, peasants, and of course young people and future generations."
"This concentration of wealth and power is mirrored in patterns of energy use: A small minority live in extreme luxury and overconsume planetary resources, while others still lack basic electricity," the report's authors wrote. "If just one year’s energy consumption of the wealthiest 1% were redistributed, it could meet the modern energy needs of all the people in the world without electricity seven times over, while redistributing the consumption of the top 10% global energy consumers could meet the needs of the entire Global South nine times over."
The report also highlights how a "colonial financial system" plays a key role in perpetuating injustice, noting that "while rich countries can pour billions into their own clean energy transitions, the Global South is left with rising debt, punishing interest rates, and shrinking fiscal space."
For every #ElectricVehicle that contains about 3kg of cobalt mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tesla earns approximately $3,150 in profit. While the DRC government receives less than $10 in royalties and the average miner earns just $7!📢 Read our new report to learn more: oxf.am/3W68E2o
[image or embed]
— Oxfam International (@oxfaminternational.bsky.social) September 24, 2025 at 6:46 AM
According to Oxfam:
In 2024, high-income countries accounted for roughly 50% of global clean energy investment, and China for 29%, while Africa accounted for just 2%, despite sub-Saharan Africa being home to 85% of all the people in the world without electricity. The inequality is not only in where finance flows, but in how much it costs: Clean energy projects in the Global South face interest rates of 9–13.5%, compared with just 3–6% in richer countries, slowing the pace of the transition. These costs are not inevitable—they reflect a system that prices risk through the racialized lens of colonial legacies. The impact is stark: Powering 100,000 people with clean energy costs about $95 million in advanced economies like the UK, but $139 million (45% higher) in emerging economies such as India and $188 million (97% higher) in African countries such as Nigeria.
How does the Global South reclaim its energy future from climate colonialism? According to the report's authors, "Rather than treating the energy future as a race with few winners, we must reimagine it as a shared global project."
"Energy should not be hoarded, withheld, or used as leverage for geopolitical or corporate power," the report advises. "This structural change requires reparative justice: making rich polluters pay, redistributing resources, confronting overconsumption, and prioritizing the rights of those historically excluded while embracing economic models that put equality, well-being, and ecological limits at the center.
"Tackling inequality is both a moral imperative and an effective strategy for climate mitigation," the authors stressed, offering the following recommendations:
- Differentiating transition pathways based on historical responsibility and capacity;
- Working toward more equitable energy consumption;
- Reforming trade, investment, and taxation systems;
- Replacing extractive financial models with debt cancellation, grant-based climate finance, and reparations initiatives;
- Safeguarding communities and nature;
- Democratizing energy governance; and
- Adopting an international mechanism at the United Nations Climate Change Conference to ensure policy coherence and accelerate, consolidate, and achieve a holistic just transition.
The UN conference, or COP30—scheduled to begin November 10 in Belém, Brazil—is set to feature the theme of a just transition as a central agenda item.
"There is no single blueprint for a just transition—it will differ across contexts, shaped by diverse histories, knowledge, and needs," the Oxfam report states. "But all just transitions must share one principle: Energy should serve life, not profit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy