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
fossil fuel financing
Climate Breakdown Is the Biggest Story on Earth, So Why Are US Leaders Ignoring It?
Let’s start by looking at the science, of which there’s been a lot this week. Because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change takes five years or more to issue its massive assessments, a somewhat smaller and nimbler group of 60 international experts has been assembled to issue interim annual updates, and this year’s is a doozy. Let’s let Zeke Hausfather sum it up:
“Things aren’t just getting worse. They’re getting worse faster,” said study coauthor Zeke Hausfather of the tech firm Stripe and the climate monitoring group Berkeley Earth. “We’re actively moving in the wrong direction in a critical period of time that we would need to meet our most ambitious climate goals. Some reports, there’s a silver lining. I don’t think there really is one in this one.”
The headline here is that we’ll pass the 1.5°C mark within a few years, but that’s long been obvious to anyone paying attention. The scary part is about the constantly growing energy imbalance on our planet, as more and more of the sun’s heat is held here instead of radiating out to space—this imbalance is up by about 25% over the last decade. Air temperatures are hitting new records almost every month, of course, (and if you want to read about the human damage that is causing, this new report from Pakistan is utterly typical) but most of the heat is pouring into the planet’s oceans. This makes oceans rise faster because warm water takes up more space than cold, and because ice is melting—the rate of sea-level rise has doubled in the past 10 years compared with the period from 1971-2018.
This kind of news is not producing the kind of reaction any normal person would reasonably expect.
I think the important thing to take away from this is that everything is now happening in very real time—forget 1.5°C, we’ll pour enough carbon into the air at our current pace to lock in 1.7°C within nine years. And that two-tenths of a degree, which sounds like so little? That’s enough to move 200 million human souls out of the comfortable climate zone they currently inhabit. (Nine years is the Trump term, and then assuming he leaves the next one).
But we’re already in the white water above the waterfall. New NASA data (and by the way it wouldn’t surprise me if these kinds of reports start to dwindle dramatically) this week showed an extraordinary increase in extreme weather events like droughts and floods around the world. Here’s how Roger Harrabin of The Guardian explained the findings:
The study shows that such extreme events are becoming more frequent, longer-lasting, and more severe, with last year’s figures reaching twice that of the 2003-2020 average.
The steepness of the rise was not foreseen. The researchers say they are amazed and alarmed by the latest figures from the watchful eye of NASA’s Grace satellite, which tracks environmental changes in the planet. They say climate change is the most likely cause of the apparent trend, even though the intensity of extremes appears to have soared even faster than global temperatures.
The closest thing we have to an explanation may have appeared in another new study, this one from the dauntless climate scientist Michael Mann and others, which found, as Seth Borenstein explained in The Associated Press, that climate change has tripled the number of “atmospheric wave events linked to extreme weather in the last 75 years.”
Planetary waves flow across Earth all the time, but sometimes they get amplified, becoming stronger, and the jet stream gets wavier with bigger hills and valleys, Mann said. It’s called quasi-resonant amplification or QRA.
This essentially means the wave gets stuck for weeks on end, locked in place. As a result, some places get seemingly endless rain while others endure oppressive heat with no relief.
“A classic pattern would be like a high pressure out West (in the United States) and a low pressure back East and in summer 2018, that’s exactly what we had,” Mann said. “We had that configuration locked in place for like a month. So they (in the West) got the heat, the drought, and the wildfires. We (in the East) got the excessive rainfall.”
The reason for the stuckness? We’ve melted much of the sea ice in the Arctic, reducing the temperature difference with the equator, and
that weakens the jet streams and the waves, making them more likely to get locked in place, Mann said.
“This study shines a light on yet another way human activities are disrupting the climate system that will come back to bite us all with more unprecedented and destructive summer weather events,” said Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center who wasn’t involved in the research.
The effects as this plays out will be—well, horrific. An eight-year study study of six key crops—corn, soybeans, rice, wheat, cassava, and sorghum—in the premier scientific journal Nature on Wednesday predicted that each degree Celsius increase in temperature will lower global food production by an average of 120 calories per person per day. Solomon Hsiang, who led the study at Stanford’s Doerr School for Suystainability, helpfully summed up the findings for CNN:
“If the climate warms by 3°C, that’s basically like everyone on the planet giving up breakfast,” he said. The world is currently on track for around 3°Celsius of warming by the end of the century.
America would be hit particularly hard, because we have the best grain-growing soil and climate on Earth—but it’s in a vast continental interior susceptible to drought in the new world:
If humans keep burning large amounts of fossil fuels, corn production could fall by 40% in the grain belt of the U.S., eastern China, central Asia, southern Africa, and the Middle East; wheat production could fall by 40% in the U.S., China, Russia, and Canada; and soybean yields could fall 50% in the U.S.
Again, this is not far away—remember that we learned in one of those other studies that the global carbon budget for staying below 2°C will be exhausted by the mid-2040s on our current trajectory.
So—you would think this would be the biggest story on planet Earth, and by several orders of magnitude. After all, “What’s for breakfast?” is one of the four most important questions on Earth, along with “What’s for lunch,” “What’s for dinner,” and “Do you think you could love me too?”
I don’t think it’s climate alarmism that’s going to end up on the ash heap of history—I think it’s pretty clearly humanity, not to mention the rest of the planet’s biology.
And at some level our leaders understand this. Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve and hence arguably the most important figure in the world economy, told the Senate Banking Committee this week that “banks and insurance companies are pulling out of coastal areas and… areas where there a lot of fires. So what that’s going to mean is that if you fast-forward 10 or 15 years there are going to be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage.” America’s wealth is largely stored in its houses—perhaps you remember the global financial crisis of 2008 when that wealth started to evaporate? This is that, but on steroids. Indeed, a new analysis from the entirely credible people at Bloomberg Intelligence estimated that the U.S. alone is already spending a trillion dollars a year on climate damage. “That’s 3% of GDP that people likely would have spent on goods and services they’d prefer to have, and amounts to “a stealth tariff on consumer spending,” the analysts write. (And it’s not just the U.S.—a new study found that climate-caused subsidence in soils is now a multi-trillion dollar risk for insurers across the E.U.)
And yet—and here we are definitively switching from science to politics and economics—this kind of news is not producing the kind of reaction any normal person would reasonably expect. It’s not even producing it at the Treasury Department, which you think might pay some small attention to the Fed Chairman. Instead, check out this description of events from intrepid reporters Alastair Marsh and Laura Noonan:
At a June 11 gathering of the Financial Stability Board, officials from France, the Netherlands, and Canada voiced dismay after Michael Kaplan, the Treasury’s interim undersecretary for international affairs, said climate should only be a focus if there’s proof of an imminent financial stability risk, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified discussing private talks.
The comments drew instant pushback, with some officials raising their voices, the people said. That led FSB Chair Klaas Knot from the Netherlands to briefly suspend the meeting until those present had cooled down, the people said.
That’s right, they had to stop the meeting for a while so that financial regulators didn’t—I don’t know, beat up?—the American representative. And of course America is where most of the world’s capital hangs out. The new edition of the now-venerable Banking on Climate Chaos report came out this week, and it was as big a doozy as the various scientific studies. After making endless pledges to help decarbonize the planet, the big banks—led of course by Chase, Citi, and Bank of America—”walked back many of those climate pledges and significantly increased their fossil fuel financing, including ramping up finance for fossil fuel expansion.” This is a gold-standard report—it found the banks, after four years of decreasing their funding to the fossil fuel industry, had increased it by $162.5 billion between 2023 and 2024, which were also the two hottest years we’ve ever recorded on this Earth.
Probably the best account of the folly of our financial system comes from the Sierra Club’s Ben Cushing, who last week put out a crucial paper calling on the planet’s investors to weigh systemic climate risks: “The greatest threat to long-term portfolios isn’t from holding particular stocks—it’s the continued rise in global emissions. And unless those emissions are reduced in the real world—not just in investors’ accounting systems—the damage will continue, and portfolios will bear the cost.”
But if financiers can’t bring themselves to think about more than the next quarter, Republican politicians can’t bring themselves to think about more than the next round of donations. The Senate this week decided to back up the House, and continued the job of gutting support for clean energy in the Big Beautiful Bill. As Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) explained, “The legislation achieves significant savings by slashing Green New Deal spending.” Instead, the Senate decided to reward oil drillers with new subsidies. For instance, as Evan Halper reports:
Several firms, including Occidental Petroleum, which is completing a large carbon-capture plant in the West Texas oil fields, sought expanded subsidies for using captured carbon dioxide to pressurize wells and draw more oil from the ground. The carbon-capture subsidy would push up the tax legislation’s price tag by what experts forecast will be billions of dollars.
It emerged after Occidental’s CEO said she personally lobbied President Donald Trump… The CEO said subsidizing the technology will enable oil companies to pull 50 billion to 70 billion additional barrels of oil out of the ground that they would not otherwise be able to get at.
Trump’s team was also busy arresting the public official who has done the most to stand up to the financial system’s insane greed, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who spent the afternoon in the hoosegow for the other crime in our current regime, helping immigrants. Meanwhile, remember those NASA satellites showing us the increase in extreme weather events? That’s the kind of thing the administration is busily shutting down. Scott Waldman in Politico reported that
All told, it’s an unprecedented assault on humanity’s understanding of how global warming is transforming the planet, scientists say. And they warn that Trump’s actions will blind the United States and the world to the ways people are rapidly heating the planet by burning fossil fuels.
As Energy Secretary, and former fracking exec, Christopher Wright put it on Twitter last week:
Climate alarmism has had a terrible impact on human lives and freedom. It belongs in the ash heap of history.
Given the science above, I don’t think it’s climate alarmism that’s going to end up on the ash heap of history—I think it’s pretty clearly humanity, not to mention the rest of the planet’s biology. All of this would be stupid enough if we had no alternative to fossil fuels. But of course this week, like every week, there was more and more news of precisely how well those alternatives were working. To give just the smallest sampling:
The world’s first large-scale sand battery went into operation in Finland:
The new 1 MW sand battery has a precursor. In May 2022, Polar Night Energy rigged a smaller design to a power station in Kankaanpää town.
Launched just as Russia cut off gas supplies in retaliation for Finland joining NATO, the project was a timely example of how renewable energy could be harnessed in a new way.
It’s quite a simple structure to begin with, Polar Night Energy said of its prototype. A tall tower is filled with low-grade sand and charged up with the heat from excess solar and wind electricity.
The sand can store heat at around 500C for several days to even months, providing a valuable store of cheaper energy during the winter. When needed, the battery discharges the hot air—warming water in the district heating network. Homes, offices, and even the local swimming pool all benefit in Kankaanpää, for example.
And in Japan, a new fleet of solar cars was unveiled, designed especially for small island nations that don’t have great distances to drive. As The Japan Times reported:
The electrification of transport, a potent strategy to address climate change, is gaining momentum, with over 38 countries committing to no less than 30% zero-emission newly sold medium- and heavy-duty trucks by 2030. For LDCs and SIDS, harnessing the drive for electrification using what is often their richest natural endowment—sunshine—could represent a breakthrough.
These seem small and niche to you? Then consider the ongoing miracle in China, where new data shows that the world’s largest economy generated more solar power through May of this year than it did in all of 2022. As industry watcher Felix Hamer said, “This is what a 30% annual growth rate can look like.” Just as an example, China leads the world in converting old coal mines into solar farms—90 projects so far, with 46 more in the works according to new data this week from Global Energy Monitor.
That’s all good news. To go back to the top of this account—those vast scientific studies showing the breakdown of the planet’s climate system—there are only two things that can conceivably scale fast enough to make a real difference. One is some kind of as-yet-undeveloped carbon sequestration scheme. The other—now fully available to us everywhere—is the rapid buildout of clean energy across the Earth. If we were functioning effectively as a species, spreading solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries would be job one, two, and three on this planet—especially since if we were successful at it we could stop fighting wars at least partly about oil, wars which this week, of course, threaten to escalate into something far worse.
So as I bring this tour to an end, let me remind you to figure out something to do for SunDay. The first events are appearing already on the map. From Julie Williams comes the sun of the week:
I hope this tour through science and economics and politics has been helpful in some way—you can see why I sometimes despair, not just of the future but even of my own ability to get across what’s happening in the present. I think I’ve been at this so long that I have a better sense than most of how all those moving pieces interact, but there are so many pieces and they’re now moving so fast.
Which is why we need to be moving some of them ourselves—the stakes of this wager are so ominous that anything we can do to change the odds we must; it is the greatest of all the challenges we face on this anxious planet. Thank you, immensely, for being a part of this fight.
Youth Demand a Fossil Fuel-Free Insurance Industry
All of these horrible consequences stem from a simple rule that defines much of the home insurance industry’s dealings with the public: Increased risk means increased prices. In more disaster-prone areas, the likelihood of insurance companies having to compensate homeowners is heightened by the prevalence of destructive events, and insurance companies raise premiums to remain profitable and to ensure their financial ability to cover future losses or drop clients altogether. For instance, knowing that California is highly prone to destructive wildfires, insurance companies will deny housing coverage for people in high-risk forest fire areas to avoid paying the high cost of rebuilding thousands of homes should one occur.
As climate organizers encounter a federal government unfriendly to systemic change but have made decent strides in their work with financial institutions, it is clear that targeting the private sector is imperative at this moment.
Rising insurance prices are not isolated to one region, though. Communities across the country from Kentucky to Florida to New York are now facing the brunt end of this crisis. When hurricane Ida hit New York in 2021, damages cost one woman up to $25,000 dollars out of pocket for repairs because Liberty Mutual outright rejected them coverage. This disproportionately affects low-income communities, who will face even more struggle trying to afford to pay for damages that should have been covered by their housing insurance in the first place.
Even considering the fact that the burden often falls on people purchasing insurance for their homes, increased and intensified natural disasters fundamentally have an adverse financial effect on insurance companies by making their services more expensive, which is also often accompanied by reduced coverage. Therefore, you would think that they would address the root cause of this increase in destruction—climate change.
But, many don’t. Everyday, insurance companies like Chubb, Liberty Mutual, and AIG practice hypocrisy, creating a perpetual cycle that expedites climate destruction and inequality. This is accomplished through the underwriting of fossil fuel projects, which is often cheaper for these companies because it allows them to invest and insure something deemed less “risky” that, in the short-term, will make the company more money. Insurance companies continue to underwrite pipelines for transporting fossil fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure that is often built nearby vulnerable communities. The domestic insurance industry has also invested $582 billion of assets collected through client’s premiums into the fossil fuel industry. Still, climate change, caused by the emission of those exact fossil fuels into the Earth’s atmosphere, further exacerbates and increases the frequency of the (not so) natural disasters that drive up insurance prices. Essentially, these companies contribute to the climate crisis through their financial choices, and then expect frontline communities to foot the bill.
(Graphic: Green America)
The insurance industry is one of the key pillars of our society’s reliance on fossil fuels alongside the financial institutions that bankroll it and the government agencies that sign off on its expansion. When insurance companies provide coverage for fossil fuel extraction projects, they provide insurance so that in the case of a disaster like a spill or explosion, the extraction project is protected. Without insurance coverage, corporations simply cannot continue building the infrastructure that keeps us hooked on fossil fuels. For example, last year, when Chubb dropped the coverage from the Rio Grande LNG project, AIG stepped right in as an insurer on the initiative. As climate organizers encounter a federal government unfriendly to systemic change but have made decent strides in their work with financial institutions, it is clear that targeting the private sector is imperative at this moment.
Insurance companies, especially, know the risks of climate change and are vulnerable to its effects. A report by the asset manager Conning shows that 91% of insurance executives profess “significant” concern about the climate crisis. This makes efforts to persuade insurance companies on matters of climate particularly salient and realistic during these times—especially when the public wants change. According to one study, 78% of U.S. voters are at least somewhat concerned about rising property insurance costs and 67% percent are concerned about extreme weather events. Most importantly, the vast majority of the population surveyed said that insurance executives are to blame for the aforementioned rising costs and 57% said that these costs should not be passed on to customers.
Although older generations also suffer the difficulties of accessing reliable insurance and figuring out how to pick up their lives after devastating climate disasters, Gen Z is uniquely forced to come of age without the financial expectations and infrastructure that were promised to us as part of the American economic system. Affordable mortgages and insurers that will actually cover us and provide reliable and ethical insurance now seem near-impossible to access for young people, knowing the state of our climate. This has particularly impacted Gen Z because we have grown up in a time where climate disasters are stronger, more frequent, and now something of a regular occurrence. In response to these climate events becoming normal, companies will continue to increasingly deny us housing coverage and proper insurance in hopes of saving money. This calls youth across the country to take action against the hypocrisy of these companies, calling for sustainable insurance that does not fund the fossil fuel industry.
The shift to a fossil fuel-free insurance industry will not be easy, but it is now, more than ever, a necessary step toward ensuring the common good. It is, in fact, the only ethical option on behalf of corporations that are meant to protect people’s livelihoods. As youth, we demand immediate action from the individuals and corporations in power, and to those who refuse to listen to us, we have one question: Who do you expect to pay your premiums in 50 years?
Most Popular