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
economic growth
Shortsighted Business-as-Usual Is Crushing Nature, Warns Landmark Report
"The growth of the global economy has been at the cost of immense biodiversity loss, which now poses a critical and pervasive systemic risk to the economy, financial stability and human wellbeing."
Feb 10, 2026
A new report confirms that unchained economic growth driven by corporations seeking profits with too little concern for downside harm is having devastating impacts on biodiversity and natural systems across the planet while also undermining the health of the global economy in the long run.
The landmark new report published Monday by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was backed by over 150 nations after three years of research and analyses by 79 leading experts from 35 countries across all regions of the world.
What the research found is that "the current conditions in which businesses operate are not always compatible with achieving a just and sustainable future, and that these conditions also perpetuate systemic risks" with far-reaching implications.
"The growth of the global economy has been at the cost of immense biodiversity loss, which now poses a critical and pervasive systemic risk to the economy, financial stability and human wellbeing," warned the IPBES in a statement.
“We must place true value on the environment and go beyond gross domestic product as a measure of human progress and wellbeing. Let us not forget that when we destroy a forest, we are creating GDP. When we overfish, we are creating GDP.” —António Guterres, UN Secretary-General
With natural resources "being depleted and degraded faster now than any period in human history," the report is designed to warn humanity, equip policymakers with knowledge, and provide solutions that could mitigate the crisis of biodiversity loss.
The report notes that "unsustainable economic activity and a focus on growth as measured by the gross domestic product, has been a driver of the decline of biodiversity... and stands in the way of transformative change."
According to Alexander De Croo, an administrator with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), an IPBES partner organization, "Businesses are inseparable from the ecosystems they operate in: they both depend on them and profoundly impact them. As significant drivers of today’s planetary crises, businesses have contributed to climate change, biodiversity loss and cultural erosion."
At the same time, he added, these companies "have a critical role to play in advancing more sustainable solutions, a role already reflected in a growing number of initiatives." The real problem, the report finds, is how intractable the business-as-usual approach has been, with corporations resistant to changing their operations to put them more in line with nature and too little pressure coming from governments to force through more sustainable practices.
According to the report:
Current conditions perpetuate business-as-usual and do not support the transformative change necessary to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. For example, large subsidies that drive losses of biodiversity are directed to business activities with the support of lobbying by businesses and trade associations. In 2023, global public and private finance flows with directly negative impacts on nature, were estimated at $7.3 trillion, of which private finance accounted for $4.9 trillion, with public spending on environmentally harmful subsidies of about $2.4 trillion.
In contrast, $220 billion in public and private finance flows were directed in 2023 to activities contributing to the conservation and restoration of biodiversity, representing just 3% of the public funds and incentives that encourage harmful business behaviour or prevent behaviour beneficial to biodiversity.
“The loss of biodiversity is among the most serious threats to business,” said Prof. Stephen Polasky, co-chair of the assessment. “Yet the twisted reality is that it often seems more profitable to businesses to degrade biodiversity than to protect it. Business as usual may once have seemed profitable in the short term, but impacts across multiple businesses can have cumulative effects, aggregating to global impacts, which can cross ecological tipping points."
But Polasky goes on to say that the report "shows that business as usual is not inevitable," and that with better policies, "as well as financial and cultural shifts, what is good for nature is also what is best for profitability."
The IPBES assessment arrived alongside fresh warnings about the disastrous results that have stemmed from obsessive allegiance to gross domestic product (GDP) as the key economic indicator by governments and businesses worldwide.
In an interview with the Guardian on Monday, UN secretary general António Guterres suggested that the obsession with GDP was driving humanity toward a cliff.
“We must place true value on the environment and go beyond gross domestic product as a measure of human progress and wellbeing," Guterres said. "Let us not forget that when we destroy a forest, we are creating GDP. When we overfish, we are creating GDP."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Legal Cannabis Is Powering the US Economy; Washington Needs to Catch Up
The question is no longer whether the United States should move toward legalization, but why federal law still treats a mainstream industry as a crime.
Nov 26, 2025
This fall, the Drug Enforcement Administration is anticipated to decide whether to reclassify cannabis at the federal level. Nearly 90% of Americans support cannabis legalization, 47 states have legalized it for medical use, and over 20 allow for recreational use. The question is no longer whether the United States should move toward legalization, but why federal law still treats a mainstream industry as a crime.
In 2024, Americans spent just as much on cannabis as they did on beer. The US legal cannabis market is worth more than $35 billion and expanding quickly. Yet, under federal law, cannabis is still a Schedule I drug, grouped alongside heroin and considered to have “no medical use.” It’s a Nixon-era relic that has remained unchanged since 1971—by those outdated standards, cocaine and crystal meth are classified as less harmful Schedule II substances. That classification is not only outdated, but it also creates an untenable mismatch between federal policy and economic reality.
Today, cannabis is one of the fastest-growing industries in America, employing nearly 500,000 people—more than the beverage and tobacco manufacturing industries combined—and generating billions in annual tax revenue. Federal legalization would strengthen an already significant engine of economic growth. The cannabis industry added roughly $115 billion to the US economy in 2024 alone and is expected to reach $45 billion in legal sales by 2025. It is one of the few sectors that is both labor-intensive and domestically produced—every gram sold is grown, tested, packaged, and distributed in the US.
All of this growth has happened without access to the basic tools every other sector relies on: banking, capital markets, credit cards, and institutional investment. Because cannabis remains federally illegal, businesses can’t take out conventional bank loans, list on US stock exchanges, or process credit card payments. Dispensaries operate as cash-only businesses, creating daily security risks for employees and customers. Entrepreneurs cannot access Small Business Administration loans or standard insurance. Even employees, founders and executives in the cannabis industry often struggle to qualify for personal mortgage loans due to the industry they work in.
Rescheduling would not be radical. It would be a recognition of the obvious: Cannabis is already part of American life and the American economy.
The result is a thriving yet hobbled industry, competing on an uneven playing field. Legal operators are forced to navigate a different set of regulations, packaging requirements, and facilities for every state where they conduct business, while the illicit market still accounts for an estimated $50 billion in unregulated sales each year and has no problem selling cannabis to the American youth. The DEA’s forthcoming decision offers an opportunity to modernize this system before it calcifies further.
The cultural and economic shifts are here to stay. Cannabis is mainstream. It’s integral to how Americans relax, socialize, and take care of themselves. It’s in our music, our fashion, our film, and our homes. What’s missing is a legal, regulatory, and financial framework at the federal level that reflects reality.
The public health case is equally clear. Consistent national standards would strengthen consumer safety and transparency, closing the gap between legal and illicit markets. Rescheduling would also remove barriers to research and innovation. The current classification makes it nearly impossible for US scientists to study cannabis at scale, leaving critical medical discoveries to foreign and underfunded research programs.
In a country where millions of adults use cannabis for anxiety, pain, and sleep, and where opioid dependency remains a public health crisis, the restriction is not just outdated, but negligent.
A recent study published by the American Journal of Health Economics found that states with legal cannabis programs reduced opioid prescriptions by up to 22%. The American Medical Association also found that cannabis helps cancer patients reduce opioid use throughout their treatments.
Legalization would also improve public safety. With access to banking, dispensaries could move away from cash-heavy operations that make them frequent targets for robbery. National standards for labeling, potency, and contaminants would protect consumers and build trust. And as we’ve already seen in legal states, underage use declines when cannabis is regulated.
Rescheduling would not be radical. It would be a recognition of the obvious: Cannabis is already part of American life and the American economy. In 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services formally recommended to the DEA that cannabis be rescheduled—a historic acknowledgment that federal law is out of step with science, public opinion, and economic reality. Even the Supreme Court has noted the “contradictory and unstable” relationship between federal and state cannabis laws.
This is one of the few policy issues with broad bipartisan support. Former President Joe Biden campaigned on rescheduling cannabis in 2020. So did President Donald Trump in 2024. With the DEA’s decision imminent, the window for meaningful modernization has never been clearer.
The cultural reality is undeniable. The economic opportunity is massive. The public mandate is clear. The question is no longer whether cannabis belongs in American life—it already does. The question is when federal law will finally catch up.
It’s time for Washington to finish what the majority of states have already started: Bring cannabis policy into alignment with science, economics, and public consensus.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A House Tax Break Would Help the Rich at the Expense of the Rest
Extending or increasing a deduction for pass-through businesses is likely to exacerbate economic inequality, while delivering no economic benefits in the long run.
May 22, 2025
House Republicans’ tax plan would expand a tax break in the 2017 tax reform for “pass-through” businesses that has overwhelmingly benefited high earners. “Pass-throughs” are entities structured so that profits are not taxed at the business level but instead at the owners’ individual income tax rate.
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act introduced a 20% deduction for Qualified Business Income (QBI) for pass-through businesses. House Republicans want to extend this tax break and increase it to 23%.
Contrary to proponents’ claims that the QBI deduction stimulates economic growth, economic research suggests a more nuanced and challenging reality. Recent analysis from our team at American University’s Institute for Macroeconomic and Policy Analysis (IMPA) reveals that extending or increasing the QBI is likely to exacerbate economic inequality, while delivering no economic benefits in the long run.
Extending the QBI deduction would systematically redistribute economic resources in ways that amplify existing inequalities.
Importantly, extending the QBI deduction would reduce government revenue significantly—by approximately 1.9% annually in the long run. Permanently increasing it would reduce revenue by 2.2% annually. These revenue losses represent a substantial fiscal challenge that cannot be overlooked.
Understanding Pass-Through Businesses
Traditional C corporations must pay the federal corporate income tax. Shareholders then pay individual income taxes on any profits distributed as dividends. In contrast, sole proprietorships, S corporations, and partnerships, as well as certain other types of businesses, are called “pass-throughs” because the businesses themselves do not pay taxes; instead, profits are passed through to individual owners, who then are taxed at their own individual tax rate. The QBI deduction reduces the amount of income from pass-throughs that is taxed.
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the number of nonfarm businesses organized as pass-throughs grew by 15% between 1980 and 2015, at which time more than 95% of all businesses were pass-throughs. But pass-through income is highly concentrated among top earners. Congressional Budget Office data show that, while income from pass-through businesses represents more than 20% of total household income for the top 1%, it accounts for merely 3% of income for the bottom 80% of households.
Think high-powered law firm partners or private equity fund executives. Without this tax break, they might owe the top marginal income tax rate of 37%. Under the current Republican proposal, they would owe just a 28.49% pass-through rate.
How Would Extending the QBI Deduction Affect the Economy?
Economic theory suggests that such tax deductions on business income have very little direct effects on real business activity if investment costs can be deducted from taxable income. And that is the case for pass-throughs. Because they can use accelerated depreciation provisions, taxes on their business income don’t change their investment decisions.
It’s not just theory: A recent study using tax record data finds no clear impact on investment, wages, or employment among pass-throughs that got an earlier tax break. A separate study found no impact on wages.
Even if tax breaks for businesses have no effect on individual business decisions, they can have negative effects on the economy as a whole. For example, such tax breaks reduce government revenue. If the revenue shortfall is financed by government borrowing, it can crowd out private investment. If the revenue shortfall is matched by reduced spending on public investment, such as scientific research, it is likely to reduce our standard of living in the long run. Such tax breaks also increase the after-tax required return to investors, which could cause businesses to distribute more profit, leaving less for investment.
We find that extending the QBI deduction would decrease government revenue by about 1.6% annually after 10 years and 1.9% in the long run.
Finally, such tax breaks increase after-tax profits and the market value of businesses, which raises the wealth of already-wealthy owners.
Our estimates using the IMPA macroeconomic policy model confirm that making the QBI deduction permanent would not boost economic activity, as is commonly claimed. Instead, we find that there would be a small decrease in GDP of 0.07% in the long run. Increasing the deduction to 23% would magnify the negative impact on economic activity.
Extending the QBI deduction would systematically redistribute economic resources in ways that amplify existing inequalities. Extending the QBI deduction would increase the share of the wealth owned by the top 1% by approximately 1.1%, while the bottom 50% would see their share fall by approximately 2.4%. Increasing the deduction, of course, redistributes even more wealth from the lower half of the distribution to the top.
Finally, we find that extending the QBI deduction would decrease government revenue by about 1.6% annually after 10 years and 1.9% in the long run. Increasing it permanently to 23% would reduce revenue 2.2% in the long run. How much is that? In the 2023 budget, 2% was enough to cover about three-quarters of the annual cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Or it would support 12 years of cancer research at 2023 levels.
To sum it up: QBI deduction costs taxpayers a lot, does not stimulate growth, and has regressive distributional consequences. There is no economic justification for its continuation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular