

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Deadlier flood disasters "are the foreseeable consequences of a fossil-fueled economy in which those who pollute most are also the best protected from its consequences," said one campaigner.
An analysis released Thursday by anti-poverty group Oxfam juxtaposed the soaring number of flood-related deaths worldwide with the ultrawealthy's ability to insulate themselves from the climate disasters that are growing more common and devastating as oil and gas emissions continue.
The group found that as monthly temperature records were shattered in more than 100 countries this year, flood deaths reached a 13-year high—driven largely by catastrophic flooding in Nepal and Tibet in August, when a glacier collapse sent a "wall of water more than 100 meters high, traveling at 180 kilometers per hour," which swept through a valley and killed more than 1,500 people, with 5,600 still missing.
The flooding disaster, which the chief of the United Nations Office for Project Services said last month should be a "defining moment" for an international community grappling with how to mitigate the impacts of the climate emergency, accounted for about three-quarters of the 8,000 people who died in floods this year.
"Deaths from flooding are seven times higher in more unequal countries," noted Oxfam, while people in the Global South are far less likely to have contributed meaningfully to the carbon pollution that scientists say is heating the planet, putting the 1.5°C limit set by the Paris Agreement in 2015 out of reach, and causing the loss of glaciers and more extreme weather disasters.
"The carbon pollution of a person in the richest 1% has contributed 34 times more to today's extreme heatwaves than the average person, and 100 times more than someone in the poorest 50%," said Oxfam.
In September, the UN found that with countries contributing far too little to efforts to reduce carbon emissions, the planet is now expected to overshoot the 1.5°C threshold, and said policymakers must now focus on ensuring the overshoot is temporary.
But on Thursday, as world leaders gathered in Antalya, Türkiye for the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP31), a report warned that the Earth could in fact be heading for an "irrevocable" breach of the 1.5°C limit.
"The carbon pollution of a person in the richest 1% has contributed 34 time more to today's extreme heatwaves than the average person, and 100 times more than someone in the poorest 50%."
The record number of flooding deaths this year, said Amitabh Behar, executive director of Oxfam International, "are not accidents of weather. They are the foreseeable consequences of a fossil-fueled economy in which those who pollute most are also the best protected from its consequences."
Oxfam also emphasized that while flooding deaths are soaring, one trend at COP31 demonstrated how the ultrarich are making devastating disasters in communities around the world more likely.
The group analyzed data from Polluterjet, finding that 87 private jets landed at Antalya Airport since November 7, just before COP31 began, emitting an estimated 777 tons of carbon dioxide.
"Nigerian billionaire Aliko Dangote’s private jet flew approximately 4,370 kilometers from Lagos to Antalya, emitting an estimated 30 tons of carbon, roughly as much as the average person emits in six years," said Oxfam. "During COP30 last year, 66 private jet journeys were recorded."
According to the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force, taxing private jets owned by about 250,000 people around the world could raise $45 billion per year, "nearly 12 times the amount rich countries gave to UN climate funds in 2025."
“While families mourn loved ones killed by floods and endure blistering heat, the ultrawealthy carry on flying in private jets, high above the devastating consequences,” said Behar. “Governments must stop treating the extraordinarily polluting luxuries of the superrich as an untouchable privilege. Taxing private jets is an obvious first step.”
“Fossil Free Zones are where the transition away from fossil fuels stops being a promise and starts happening on the ground.”
More than 40 advocacy groups on Thursday issued a declaration calling on the world's governments to establish permanent "Fossil Free Zones” to protect the climate, critical ecosystems, and Indigenous peoples and their lands from oil, gas, and coal exploration and extraction.
Unveiled at the United Nations Climate Change Conference—also known as COP31—in Antalya, Türkiye, the Fossil Free Zones Declaration urges governments to make the zones a central component of each nation's plans to transition away from oil, coal, and gas.
What is a Fossil Free Zone? As Cecilia Requena, a Bolivian senator and environmentalist, and Juan Pablo Osornio, the engagement and policy director at the nonprofit green group Earth Insight, explained:
A Fossil Free Zone is a defined area demarcated by its ecological, biodiversity, or cultural significance, where exploration, extraction, and development of fossil fuels are permanently prohibited. Think tropical rainforests, key biodiversity areas, Indigenous peoples’ territories, and critical marine ecosystems. They translate the abstract global commitment to transitioning away from fossil fuels into something tangible: a map, a boundary, a legal safeguard.
"Amid deep geopolitical fragmentation and weakening international cooperation, continued dependence on fossil fuels is further exacerbating existing vulnerabilities," the Fossil Free Zones Declarations states.
"Beyond its climate impacts, this dependence exposes countries and communities to volatile energy markets, supply disruptions, and economic instability, while undermining energy security and national sovereignty," the document continues. "Continued coal, oil, and gas extraction also causes unnecessary and avoidable harm to people and nature, including driving deforestation and biodiversity loss."
"Fossil fuel expansion continues to threaten ecosystems essential for biodiversity, climate stability, and the cultures and livelihoods of the peoples who protect them," the declaration adds. "Halting this expansion in critical territories such as forests or coral reefs is therefore an immediate, concrete step toward a just, orderly, and equitable transition, alongside plans to phase out existing fossil fuel production within key ecosystems."
The declaration—whose signatories include WWF International, Amazon Watch, the Science Panel for the Amazon, and Parliamentarians for a Fossil Free Future—calls for halting new fossil fuel exploration and expansion while prioritizing the responsible closure of existing projects in areas of climatic, ecological, and cultural importance.
“Fossil Free Zones are where the transition away from fossil fuels stops being a promise and starts happening on the ground," said Earth Insight senior associate for diplomacy Ignacio Arróniz Velasco. "When governments permanently close critical ecosystems and Indigenous territories to oil, gas, and coal extraction, they protect ecosystems, uphold the rights of the peoples who steward nature, and take a concrete first step towards a full, fair phaseout."
"This can be done with existing tools like nature protection laws or land tenure recognition," he stressed. "This is what implementation looks like. COP31 gives governments a real chance to work together on Fossil Free Zones and build them into their national roadmaps, so the just transition starts in the places that matter most for climate, nature, and people.”
Noting that "the Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the rest of the globe, and should be the most obvious place to draw the line against new fossil fuel development," Susanne Waage, WWF Norway's fossil fuel transition lead, lamented that "Norway continues to explore aggressively for new oil and gas in one of the world's most vulnerable regions."
Waage added that the European Union, "Norway's largest oil and gas customer, has already said no to new Arctic oil and gas. Norway should listen, stop exploring for new oil and gas resources, and help make the Arctic a Fossil Free Zone."
Pascal Mirindi, Democratic Republic of Congo national coordinator of the group Our Land Without Oil, asserted: "We cannot claim to protect forests, peatlands, and vital ecosystems while opening the door to oil and gas within them. In the DRC, these projects threaten territories and the communities who depend on them for their livelihoods."
"Fossil Free Zones offer a concrete and immediate solution," Mirindi added. "Here at COP31, we are calling on governments to end all new exploration in critical ecosystems, to recognize these zones in their national roadmaps, and to guarantee a just transition centered on the rights of communities."
"The imminence of breaching 1.5°C cannot be an excuse to open the door to defeatism—the focus has to be on accelerating action to limit the magnitude and duration of overshoot."
With world leaders, climate campaigners, scientists, and more gathered in Türkiye for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, an independent project that tracks government action warned Thursday that global warming is headed toward "an irrecoverable overshoot of 1.5°C" unless countries "rapidly reduce emissions to limit both the magnitude and duration of this overshoot."
A series of analyses released in the lead-up to the summit—including the United Nations Environment Program's "Limiting Overshoot" publication from September, the UNEP's "The Emissions Gap Report 2026: The Point of Return" from October, and the World Meteorological Organization's "State of the Climate: Update for COP31" from last week—have all sounded the alarm about at least temporarily surpassing 1.5°C, the Paris Agreement's global temperature rise limit for this century.
The new Climate Action Tracker (CAT) report, "Without Rapid Action, The World Is Heading to Irrecoverable Overshoot," lays out real-world action based on current policies; pledges and targets from the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) of countries that have signed on to the Paris Agreement; and the "optimistic scenario" based on all announced ambitions.
"Aggregated climate action has now essentially stalled for five consecutive years, with positive and negative actions canceling each other out," says the CAT briefing. "The warming outlook from current policies is leading to 2.7°C in 2100 (slightly up from 2.6°C) as it stood from 2021-2024."
"Our 2030 and 2035 targets scenario that assumes governments meet all their targets remains unchanged at 2.6°C in 2100," the report details. "The round of 2035 NDCs has closed: And it's clear governments have failed to meaningfully improve the outlook for end-of-century warming."
CAT's scenario that includes 2030 and 2035 NDCs as well as long-term targets projects "warming of 2.1°C in 2100, down from 2.2°C last year," the report continues. "Ambitious near- and long-term targets matter, but without credible policies and immediate implementation, they risk becoming empty promises rather than drivers of real-world emission reductions."
"Our optimistic scenario, assuming full implementation of all announced and net-zero targets, remains at 1.9°C in 2100," it stresses. "Even under our most optimistic assessment, if governments were to implement every single national pledge they have made—including the net-zero targets—we will still permanently overshoot the 1.5°C limit and get close to 2°C."
As both greenhouse gas concentrations and the profits of fossil fuel giants have soared while communities around the world face deadly heatwaves, rapidly intensifying hurricanes, rising sea levels, and destructive wildfires—like those that ravaged COP31 host Türkiye in September—scientists have reiterated warnings about the need for sweeping action to cut emissions.
"Continued warming from greenhouse gases emitted from human activities threatens to feed further warming as permafrost, wetlands, and wildfires destabilize and respond by releasing carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide," Ben Poulter, warming-induced emissions program director at Spark Climate Solutions, said in September, when a study he co-authored was published.
"This study provides a critical look at the magnitude of the temperature response," Poulter added, "and a call to action to accelerate the accounting and monitoring of warming-induced emissions to support pathways that phase out fossil emissions to stabilize the planet’s climate."
But the brutal truth is that the positive developments do not yet add up to bending the curve of emissions fast enough. Increasing energy demand and build-out of new fossil fuel infrastructure have led to still rising emissions.
[image or embed]
— Climate Action Tracker (@climateactiontracker.org) November 12, 2026 at 1:04 AM
Bill Hare, CEO of CAT partner organization Climate Analytics, emphasized Thursday that "the stark choice for governments is to either continue to support the fossil fuel industry, which would consign humanity to insurmountable economic damages, rising mortality from heat, and climate-driven diseases and disasters that they are unable to adapt to—or pivot to the solutions which are available and cheaper than ever."
"The imminence of breaching 1.5°C cannot be an excuse to open the door to defeatism—the focus has to be on accelerating action to limit the magnitude and duration of overshoot," he argued. "Every increment of warming above 1.5°C means even more significant consequences across climate, nature and human systems."
The report outlines "five key levers that could cut emissions at the speed and urgency needed to follow a Paris-aligned pathway, limiting the magnitude and duration of overshoot," which are:
"Governments collectively are simply not moving fast enough to adopt the policies that would enable us to escape from the emerging overshoot trap," said the lead author of CAT's report, Climate Analytics policy analyst Sarah Heck. "Worse, several are taking their foot off the accelerator and slowing their climate action—or in cases such as the USA, Canada, and New Zealand—rolling it back at a staggering level."
So far this week, Climate Action Network International has given its satirical "Fossil of the Day" award—long used to call out bad actors during climate summits—to New Zealand, for "dismantling its own climate commitments" under Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, as well as "absent leaders of wealthy countries," including Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and Sweden.
The stark choice for governments is to either continue to support the fossil fuel industry – or pivot to the solutions which are available and cheaper than ever. The lack of decisive action means that long-term warming is expected to cross the 1.5°C limit around 2030.
[image or embed]
— Climate Action Tracker (@climateactiontracker.org) November 12, 2026 at 1:04 AM
While a key Democratic US senator is attending COP31, President Donald Trump is skipping the summit and has not sent a delegation, even though his country is the world's worst historical climate polluter. UNEP's report from last month highlights the dangers of the pro-fossil fuel agenda that the Republican leader has pursued since returning to power last year, including ditching the Paris Agreement, again.
Trump's ongoing illegal war on Iran has not only led to the deaths of thousands of people but also padded the pockets of those invested in the fossil fuel industry—including himself—while people around the world pay the price at the pump, due to Iran's restrictions on ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
"With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz exposing our vulnerability to geopolitical shocks," said Niklas Höhne of CAT partner organization NewClimate Institute, "the case for renewables and electrification has never been stronger—and it does appear that global emissions could be on the verge of a peak and a much faster decline than we had previously thought."
"It’s obscene that the very corporations which have created the climate crisis are demanding eye-watering payouts when governments take much needed climate action."
Ahead of an official side event at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Antalya, Türkiye, campaigners on Thursday released an analysis of UN data regarding secretive deals within trade agreements aimed at protecting the profits of corporations, including fossil fuel giants, which have now claimed at least $443 billion from the legal provisions.
Investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS), which allow corporations to sue governments over their investments and profit losses as the result of laws and regulations, have increasingly been used by the fossil fuel industry as countries have started taking action to regulate planet-heating oil and gas emissions, according to data from the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
The data was analyzed by the British campaign group Global Justice Now and the German research organization PowerShift, which found that based on 987 publicly disclosed ISDS cases, corporate investors have demanded a total of $1.177 trillion up to 2025.
That represents a 37.5% increase, or $321 billion more, from the amount investors were attempting to claim at the end of 2023.
$1.177 trillion is nearly equivalent to the total global climate finance needs, including mitigation costs, for 2021-22, said the campaigners.
The total compensation demanded by fossil fuel investors, $443.8 billion, "is equivalent to the estimated minimum amount of economic losses developing countries will face due to climate change in 2030," said Global Justice Now and PowerShift.
In fossil fuel cases, the amount demanded rose by $80 billion, or 22%, compared to 2023.
Fabian Flues, investment policy lead at PowerShift, pointed out that by "weaponizing" ISDS, fossil fuel giants are siphoning "money from public budgets that are already stretched," and Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, compared the ISDS payouts to "the owners of enslaved people being compensated for their grotesque harms following abolition in the early 19th century.”
“We know fossil fuel corporations are making a fortune out of global crises, hitting ordinary people hard," said Dearden. "But they are also using obscure international agreements to bully governments out of responding and drain money from the public sector. It’s obscene that the very corporations which have created the climate crisis are demanding eye-watering payouts when governments take much needed climate action."
This week, US company ExxonMobil launched a legal challenge to the European Union's Net Zero Industry Act, under which the company is required to pay for carbon storage.
“We know fossil fuel corporations are making a fortune out of global crises, hitting ordinary people hard. But they are also using obscure international agreements to bully governments out of responding and drain money from the public sector."
The law would saddle Exxon with "unrealistic timelines," the company said in a statement.
A UK-based mining company and its Singapore-based majority shareholder also sued the UK government last year for £300 million ($398 million) after officials blocked their "unviable" coal mine planned for Cumbria.
“This legal challenge is a last, desperate attempt by investors to make some money out of a project which belonged in the last century," Niall Toru, a senior lawyer at Friends of the Earth, told Land and Climate Review in May.
According to Global Justice Now and PowerShift, the total amount of compensation awarded to corporate investors through ISDS cases reached $123 billion last year, with fossil fuel investors receiving "the lion’s share of $85.9 billion, representing almost 70% of all payouts to investors."
$123 billion is "equivalent to the entire bilateral development aid given by [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries in 2025," said the campaigners.
The groups are among those calling on leaders at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP31) to agree to a coordinated phase-out of ISDS.
Next Monday, Global Justice Now and the Netherlands-based group Both ENDS are organizing an official side event in Antalya featuring Vanuatu Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu, representatives from communities at the center of ISDS disputes, and a senior government official from Australia, which announced a new policy in 2022 of excluding ISDS mechanisms from future trade deals.
"Governments need to stop this heist and cancel the international agreements that enable fossil fuel investors to sue over climate policies," said Flues. "Countries like Australia, South Africa, and Indonesia have taken significant steps to free themselves from ISDS, and others should follow suit.”
“Fossil fuels must go the way of the dinosaurs, but that won’t happen on its own. The dinosaurs did not have a lobby, but fossil fuels do,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
At his last United Nations Climate Change Conference as secretary-general, António Guterres on Wednesday emphasized that he "will not stop telling the truth" about how the fossil fuel industry and the wealthy governments that continue to hand out oil and gas subsidies are allowing the sector to reap massive profits while people around the world suffer from the worsening impacts of the climate emergency.
“The last four years were the hottest ever, and fossil fuel interests keep making a killing while killing our planet," the secretary-general said bluntly.
"Climate disasters are pounding lives, livelihoods, and economies across the globe," he added. "This is the path to mutually assured destruction."
Guterres spoke two days after the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released its "State of the Climate" report at the conference, known as COP31, which is being hosted by the Turkish government in Antalya this year. The report warned that while the past 12 years have been the Earth's warmest on record, the trend has particularly accelerated since 2022.
The impacts have been brutal, with more than 1,500 people killed this year in Nepal and Tibet after a glacier collapsed and caused sudden catastrophic flooding, an estimated 200,000 people killed across Europe by extreme heat over the past years, and tens of thousands of acres scorched by wildfires across Europe and in the COP31 host country this summer.
Last month, the UN released a report finding that avoiding a global temperature rise over 1.5°C above preindustrial temperatures is no longer possible. Experts now say governments must work toward a goal of ensuring that the overshoot is only temporary, just over a decade after the warming limit was agreed to in the Paris Agreement at COP21.
On Wednesday, Guterres emphasized that the failure to avoid passing the 1.5°C limit comes as planet-warming emissions from the oil, gas, and coal industries have continued climbing—and as already wealthy companies' profits have soared.
Meanwhile, those same companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying in an effort to delay a transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources.
“The brutal truth is that the climate crisis is outrunning us," said Guterres Wednesday. "Emissions in 2025 reached all-time highs. Heat records keep shattering."
“Fossil fuels must go the way of the dinosaurs," he added. "And that won’t happen on its own. The dinosaurs did not have a lobby. Fossil fuels do. And their strategy is simple: Distort the science. Delay policy. Delay action. Delay accountability.”
Guterres called on governments to tax oil and gas companies' windfall profits, like those the industry has reported since US President Donald Trump joined Israel in launching an illegal war in Iran. Since the conflict began in February, global energy prices have soared.
Last month, ExxonMobil reported $17.5 billion in adjusted earnings for the third quarter of 2026, while Chevron reported $10.4 billion. British company Shell earned $10.8 billion from July-September, and the French firm TotalEnergies brought in $9.1 billion.
The companies have reaped profits while the global Loss and Damage Fund, which experts and developing countries say needs about $400 billion annually from wealthier governments in order to help poorer countries adapt to emergency and repair damages, is woefully underfunded.
“Those who profit most from fossil fuels must help foot the bill for the damage they have caused," said Guterres. "In the last quarter alone, the nine largest oil companies pocketed $95 billion in profits. Meanwhile, the Loss and Damage Fund has received around $600 million. That is what these companies made in about 14 hours. It’s time for governments to tax these windfall profits—and use them to help vulnerable countries recover. Polluters must pay.”
David Tong, industry campaign manager for the global group Oil Change International (OCI), said in a statement that "trusting big oil to solve the climate crisis is like trusting big tobacco to cure lung cancer."
"Fossil fuel companies actively undermine a renewable energy future while trying to wring as much profits as possible out of fossil fuels while cashing in on conflict," said Tong. "It’s time to tax fossil fuel companies’ superprofits to pay for a transition to publicly owned renewable energy, governments must cut ties with fossil fuel companies and limit their influence on politics, and we must hold polluters accountable—legally and otherwise—for the damages they cause.”
OCI noted that Guterres' speech came shortly after YouGov released new polling that showed significant support in countries with large fossil fuel industries—the US, the UK, and France—for laws to phase out oil, gas, and coal production.
The climate action group 350.org said world leaders at COP31 must "turn growing international support for moving away from fossil fuels into a clear commitment at COP31."
Türkiye and Australia, which is serving as co-president of COP31, "will be to blame if this opportunity is allowed to slip away," said 350.org.
On Tuesday, said the group, attendees took part in "high-level events on roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels," which "saw strong support from countries across negotiating blocs, alongside UN Secretary-General António Guterres, former COP presidents and ministers, for continuing the initiative launched by Brazil's COP30 Presidency in Belém last year."
"While Türkiye indicated it was open to considering the initiative, Australia offered no clear pathway for taking it forward," the organization continued.
Fenton Lutunatabua, Pacific and Caribbean program manager at 350.org, said that "the political mandate for a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels is there."
"The world cannot afford another COP where governments acknowledge the need to move beyond fossil fuels but fail to agree on how to make it happen," said Lutunatabua. “If Australia is unwilling to advance this agenda, Türkiye must lead rather than allow one of the world's most fossil-fuel-dependent governments to hold back progress. The political support is there. What is missing is the leadership to turn it into action.”
This year's UN conference marks the second consecutive year without an official delegation from the US, the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, as Trump has refused to participate.
French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi are also skipping the summit, leaving UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham the only G7 leader attending.
“It really is a disgrace,” Mohamed Adow, the director of Power Shift Africa, told The New York Times of the absences. “The world’s biggest economies should be leading the response to the climate crisis, not leaving it to others.”
But Guterres stressed that despite the absence of leadership from the world's wealthiest economies, "science is not telling us to surrender. It is telling us to fight harder.”
"It’s exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants," one critic said of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act.
The US Senate on Monday voted in bipartisan fashion to advance a fossil fuel industry-backed permitting reform bill that would weaken the Clean Water Act and other key environmental protections to make it easier for the federal government to streamline energy projects—including climate-wrecking gas pipelines.
The 73-25 vote to advance the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) sets the stage for what's expected to be a contentious amendment process. The bill's Democratic supporters—including Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, and Chuck Schumer of New York—argue it is a necessary compromise to accelerate construction of clean energy projects. Environmentalists, tribal organizations, and progressive lawmakers say the legislation is a gift to fossil fuel companies, tech giants, and other corporate interests at the expense of local communities and the planet.
The 22 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus who voted with Republicans for passage were:
"The Senate’s supporters of BAAJA just cleared an initial hurdle towards offering Big Oil and Big Tech a massive giveaway at the expense of our clean air, clean water, and communities' right to protect themselves from polluting projects," said Elizabeth Bast, executive director of Oil Change International. "Just days after voters demanded accountability and relief from soaring costs, 73 senators chose Trump’s energy policies over the American people."
“BAAJA is not a compromise—it’s exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants," Bast added.
The bipartisan permitting reform legislation is backed by the Trump White House—which has waged war on clean energy projects while working to boost fossil fuel production—and the American Petroleum Institute, the leading oil and gas industry trade association in the US. Trump said Monday that he would not approve the construction of any wind turbines, confirming critics' fears that the White House sees the bill as an opportunity to advance dirty energy projects.
The bill would exempt pipeline expansions and other energy projects from review under the National Environmental Policy Act and make it harder for opponents of the projects to challenge them in court. The legislation would also restrict courts' ability to pause projects due to inadequate environmental reviews.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), one of the 25 senators who voted against advancing BAAJA on Monday, said in a statement that while the legislation "has a number of other features that merit careful analysis," it "has never had a public hearing" despite its potentially massive impact.
Merkley warned that, as currently written, the bill "accelerates the extraction and burning of fossil fuels," effectively offsetting the benefits of the measure's promotion of clean energy projects.
“The bill restricts states’ ability to raise and address clean water concerns on gas pipelines as well as transmission lines," said Merkley. "It shortens timelines that make it hard-to-impossible for grassroots and community groups to raise concerns about projects. It eliminates tools that states and localities use to fight the development of new data centers and detention centers. And it impacts the sovereignty and rights of tribes."
"Permitting reform for electrical transmission lines is essential," the senator added. "But the current bill raises too many serious issues that require more deliberation."
Environmental groups and tribal organizations urged lawmakers to pause consideration of the permitting bill until the next Congress, when Democrats will take control of the House and the Senate.
“We shouldn’t and don’t need to endanger our wildlife just to save a few dollars on gas," said Lisa Frank, executive director of Environment America. "We shouldn’t and don’t need to weaken the rules that protect our water from pollution in order to build more clean energy. We shouldn’t facilitate more global-warming air pollution. And we definitely shouldn’t be taking away the public’s right to weigh in on projects that can ruin their environment, make them sick, and lessen their quality of life.”
"If Texas of all places can go blue, then we can be bold enough to say a better bill is possible."
Environmental groups are making a last-ditch push to persuade Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to block a bipartisan permitting bill that they warn would speed up approvals for polluting projects and data center infrastructure.
Activists gathered outside Schumer’s (D-NY) Midtown Manhattan office Monday morning, hours before the US Senate’s planned evening vote on whether to advance the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA).
In a media advisory, organizers from the New York Public Interest Research Group, Food & Water Watch, and New York Communities for Change, who led Monday’s protest and a previous one at Schumer’s apartment on Friday, called the bill an “aggressive attack on federal environmental protections in order to facilitate rapid, unregulated development of fracked gas power plants, dirty fossil fuel pipelines, and expensive hyperscale data centers.”
The motion needs 60 votes to advance, so some Democrats will have to support holding a final vote. The bill’s leading Democratic sponsor, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), said he believes supporters “have the votes to proceed.”
The bill faces longer odds in the US House of Representatives, especially after Tuesday’s Democratic blowout in the midterms, when voters across the country also backed restrictions on data centers.
Sponsors have revised the bill, but David Watkins, director of government affairs for the Climate and Energy programs at the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that the amendment “fails to address the fundamental imbalance of the legislation” in favor of polluting energy.
“To get bipartisan support for negligible reductions in emissions,” he said, “this deal would convert compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Clean Water Act into largely voluntary exercises.”
While some Democratic proponents of the bill have argued that these compromises are necessary to speed up permits for clean energy infrastructure, Watkins said existing law already allows much of that work and saw no need to enact “the most significant legislative reversal in environmental and community protections in decades.”
A coalition of conservation groups, including Earthjustice Action, Defenders of Wildlife, and Friends of the Earth, sent a letter to the Senate on Monday urging members to delay the vote until newly elected members of the US Congress—some of whom made opposition to data centers central to their campaigns—can be sworn in.
“The elections on November 3 sent a clear message from the American public denouncing the administration’s actions over the past two years and, in states across the country, rejecting the accelerated proliferation of data centers,” they wrote. “We strongly encourage you to heed the public’s wishes and advance energy infrastructure needs and an affordability agenda without making false and unnecessary trade-offs that severely undermine tribal sovereignty and our bedrock environmental, public lands, waters, wildlife, ocean, and historic preservation laws.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said he would vote against advancing the bill without substantial changes, adding that “robust consideration of the bill should be a priority in the new Congress.”
"Permitting reform for electrical transmission lines is essential," he said. But, he added, "Getting more renewable electrons where they are needed doesn’t tackle climate change if you simultaneously promote the burning of more fossil fuels. Unfortunately, this bill does exactly that."
As questions mount about whether Democratic leaders will use their new mandate to pursue a bold legislative agenda, some see BAAJA as a worrying sign that Schumer and other party leaders may squander the moment by reverting to business as usual.
“If Texas of all places can go blue, then we can be bold enough to say a better bill is possible,” said Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the youth-led climate group Sunrise Movement. “Young people and the working class deserve it. To stop the climate crisis, America needs Senate Democrats to fight harder. Senate Democrats must deliver.”
The task for states gathering at COP31 now is to ensure that international cooperation delivers on international obligations: preventing further harm, addressing the consequences of climate change, and providing reparation to those in need.
Governments will gather November 9-20 in Antalya, Türkiye, for the COP31 climate talks, amid mounting pressure on nearly every front, and the picture could hardly be starker.
Climate impacts are accelerating, bringing devastating losses to countries and communities that have contributed the least to the crisis and intensifying demands for adequate finance and remedy. Conflict, economic instability, and price spikes are exposing the risks of continued dependence on fossil fuels, strengthening the case for the transition. Yet, windfall war profits for oil and gas companies and growing demand from artificial intelligence and data centers are driving fossil fuel expansion. And as global temperatures approach the 1.5°C temperature limit, speculative technological interventions are increasingly being promoted as ways to manage continued warming rather than prevent it.
The consequences are no longer projections. In August, a devastating glacial flood tore through Nepal, killing more than 1,400 people and leaving billions of dollars in recovery needs in a country responsible for only a tiny fraction of historic global emissions.
Consensus is not the aim. Action is.
The international institutions meant to help governments respond collectively are themselves under strain and struggle to overcome obstruction, corporate influence, and weak accountability. Deadlock at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), escalating attacks on multilateralism and the international rule of law, continued fossil fuel influence, and shrinking civic space all raise a fundamental question for COP31: Can international cooperation deliver the action the climate crisis requires?
Since last year‘s climate summit, states have taken important steps outside and alongside the United Nations climate process toward collective implementation of legal obligations to prevent and repair climate harm. The first Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia brought governments together to begin developing practical pathways for implementing the transition. The UN General Assembly resolution on how to operationalize the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) climate Advisory Opinion showed that the world recognizes the rule of law must guide climate action.
COP31 must build on that momentum while closing the gap between commitment and conduct. The world does not need another inventory of climate promises from COP31 in Antalya. It needs evidence that international cooperation can still deliver when the science is urgent, the law is clear, and political and economic pressures are pushing governments toward delay.
COP31 is the first since the breakdown in Belém, Brazil spotlighted the structural flaws of the climate talks’ consensus-based process, fueling calls for reform.
After 30 years of climate talks, it is abundantly clear that the international climate regime is not delivering the collective response the crisis demands. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement remain essential to international cooperation, but progress on an equitable phaseout of fossil fuels and delivering the necessary climate finance is far too slow. And not for lack of clarity on what the science and law require.
The UNFCCC’s reliance on consensus is a barrier. Without agreed-upon rules for voting when consensus fails, a small number of governments can continue to block progress on the issues central to climate action. What should be an avenue for alignment has become a tool for veto. Of course, consensus itself is not the sole cause of inadequate climate action. Governments have had ample opportunities to act more ambitiously, and fossil fuel interests and some states have repeatedly shaped what is politically possible.
The COP31 slogan, “From consensus to action,” must serve as a reminder of the bottom line: Consensus is not the aim. Action is. When consensus impedes action, voting should be possible, and outvoted countries must nonetheless fulfill their obligations under international law.
A decision is one thing, but action is another. Assessing whether the process is delivering also means looking at how decisions are implemented. Reform must therefore also strengthen accountability. Governments’ commitments mean little without transparent monitoring, public scrutiny, and independent processes to assess implementation and address backsliding, with the participation of rights-holders. Progress must be measured by action: Are fossil fuel production and use declining? Are climate finance and remedies for climate harm reaching the countries and communities that need them?
The climate summit itself must be protected from conflicts of interest and corporate capture. Fossil fuel interests have enjoyed disproportionate influence in climate negotiations, while climate-vulnerable communities, Indigenous peoples, and civil society struggle to even have a seat at the table. At COP31, atates should adopt a clear definition of conflict of interest and safeguards to prevent those profiting from climate-destructive activities from undermining climate action. Protecting civic space and ensuring meaningful public participation are essential to a credible process.
Initiatives such as the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels process with the forthcoming Tuvalu-Ireland conference complement the UNFCCC by building momentum and developing practical pathways for a managed transition and strengthening cooperation among willing states. Such initiatives demonstrate that effective multilateralism can and must extend and change to deliver the action the climate crisis demands.
The critical 1.5°C temperature limit must remain an essential legal and moral benchmark for climate action and accountability. It is not a threshold beyond which all is lost, nor does approaching or exceeding it make further emissions cuts any less important; on the contrary. Warming below 1.5°C has already caused devastating harm, and each additional increment of warming increases the risks and impacts faced by communities and ecosystems worldwide.
Yet as climate action remains inadequate, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and geoengineering technologies are increasingly presented as ways to “manage” warming exceeding 1.5°C, while carbon capture and storage (CCS) continues to be touted as a way to manage ongoing fossil fuel pollution. So-called “climate stabilization scenarios” often assume temperatures can later be brought back down “returning to 1.5°C”, relying on overly optimistic assumptions about feasibility, scale, resources, and risks—and on future technologies that do not even exist.
Decisions must close loopholes that enable continued fossil fuel use and prioritize a rapid and equitable phaseout of fossil fuels.
This approach risks normalizing the idea that the consequences of breaching the 1.5°C limit can be managed through future interventions rather than limited through immediate and deep emissions reductions. The obligation is to prevent climate harm now, not simply to respond to it later. The prospect of exceeding 1.5°C must never become a justification for treating harmful, speculative technological interventions as inevitable or necessary, or worse, delaying action today, entrenching fossil fuel dependence, and locking in devastation tomorrow.
Pathways that overshoot 1.5°C and rely heavily on CDR risk worsening climate impacts and triggering planetary tipping points. COP31 must not entrench speculative technologies in fossil fuel transition road maps or electrification targets. Decisions must close loopholes that enable continued fossil fuel use and prioritize a rapid and equitable phaseout of fossil fuels.
The focus on the ocean at COP31 must also not become an entry point for dangerous marine geoengineering technologies promoted as “ocean climate solutions.” The most important ocean-based solutions involve eliminating ocean-based threats, like offshore oil and gas. The priority must be to prevent further warming and harm, including to the ocean, at their source: Reduce emissions rapidly by curbing fossil fuel production and use; protect and restore ecosystems; and provide the finance needed for a just transition away from fossil fuels.
Climate action cannot be separated from human rights and the protection of those challenging powerful interests to defend people and the planet, who continue to face threats, intimidation, and restrictions on their participation in decisions that shape their futures.
As Türkiye hosts COP31, protecting civic space and the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly must be a top priority of all governments gathering for the COP31. The latest crackdown on LGBTI+ groups, activists, and human rights defenders in Türkiye is yet another stark reminder of the increasingly difficult environment in which civil society is operating.
Against this backdrop, it is particularly concerning that the COP31 Host Country Agreement reintroduces a provision requiring participants not to "interfere in the internal affairs" of the host country, a provision that was absent from the COP30 agreement. At a climate conference, civil society participation necessarily includes being present, speaking out, scrutinizing governments’ decisions and climate policies, and advocating for communities most vulnerable to climate change. Participants should never have to fear that legitimate human rights advocacy, peaceful protest, or criticism could be construed as interference in the host country’s internal affairs.
The COP31 joint Presidencies of Türkiye and Australia, the UNFCCC Secretariat, and all states share responsibility for ensuring safe and open civic space before, during, and after the negotiations. They must protect freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; prevent intimidation, harassment, violence, and reprisals; and guarantee meaningful and non-discriminatory access for civil society, Indigenous peoples, human rights defenders, and all rights-holders.
The same structures of fossil fuel dependence, resource extraction, and unequal power that drive climate breakdown are also deeply connected to the growing militarization of our world. From Gaza to Ukraine, from Iran to Sudan, armed conflicts continue to grow in number, duration, and complexity, with devastating impacts on people, human rights, and the environment while diverting resources from urgent climate needs and compounding suffering. As states gather in Antalya, it is critical that governments confront the crises of war and warming hand in hand.
The test in Antalya is not whether governments can produce another carefully negotiated declaration. It is whether they can tackle what matters in a world of crisis and conflict.
Can governments at COP31 accelerate a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels while war and economic insecurity are being used to justify new fossil fuel investment? Can they protect 1.5°C as a benchmark for ambition and accountability without turning projected exceedance of the temperature limit into a rationale for speculative technological fixes? Can they deliver finance and remedy to countries and communities suffering losses they did little to cause? Can they reform climate institutions to overcome obstruction, rather than reward it? And can they defend human rights and civic space at a time when both are increasingly under attack?
If the ICJ confirmed that states’ climate obligations are grounded in international law, COP31 must confirm that their climate action is too. The task for states gathering at COP31 now is to ensure that international cooperation delivers on those international obligations: preventing further harm, addressing the consequences of climate change, and providing reparation to those in need.
The science leaves no room for ambiguity. Neither does the law. What remains is the political choice.
Against the backdrop of increasingly frequent and extreme weather events, water stress, and food insecurity, this COP must prioritize critical mandates on equitable fossil fuel transitions, post-2020 climate finance, and global urban resilience.
The 31st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP31, marks a critical juncture in the global effort to translate diplomatic pledges into tangible climate action.
This year's negotiations will operate under an unprecedented shared-leadership framework. Türkiye will host the event, and Murat Kurum, the Turkish minister of environment, urbanization, and climate change, will serve as the president-designate. Meanwhile, Chris Bowen, the Australian minister for climate change and energy, has been designated president of the negotiations.
In the run-up to the event, two major findings have been released:
These shocking insights prompted 146 scientists to urge the United Nations to declare climate change an official "global health emergency" and finally force nations to act.
Against the backdrop of increasingly frequent and extreme weather events, water stress, and food insecurity, this COP must prioritize critical mandates on equitable fossil fuel transitions, post-2020 climate finance, and global urban resilience.
This COP must ensure that the newly submitted nationally determined contributions are put into practice while also demanding the urgent submission of outstanding NDCs from parties that delayed their updates.
It will also enact the Climate Implementation Bridge, an initiative to help developing countries translate their high-level NDC commitments into concrete, investable portfolios that can secure international financing.
Murat Kurum has positioned this COP as a vital transition phase in global climate policy. He describes the 1.5°C goal as "a matter of survival. The survival of cultures, history, memories, your homeland, your homes."
The following areas have been flagged as urgent priorities:
Both Türkiye (proposing Antalya) and Australia (proposing Adelaide, in partnership with Pacific Island nations) submitted bids to host COP31 back in 2022. Without consensus on who would host, the process stalled as both nations refused to withdraw their bids.
At COP30, the two countries agreed to split responsibilities and divide leadership. Theoretically, this reduces the risk of negotiation gridlock, brings two very different perspectives into the mix, and allows both sides to hyperfocus on their responsibilities.
It also comes with its fair share of concerns, if the two presidents misalign on major priorities such as the urgency of fossil fuel phaseouts or the mechanisms of debt-free climate finance, it could lead to bureaucratic fragmentation, diluting accountability, and stalling consensus.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan sought the COP31 hosting rights to elevate Türkiye's global profile and position the country as a major bridge and mediator between developed and developing nations.
The focus was on making COP31 a "COP of implementation," not on bringing in more pledges.
Türkiye's bid complements its own national initiatives like its 2053 net-zero target, new national climate laws, plans for an emissions trading system, and commitments to increase renewable energy investments.
When Türkiye voluntarily stepped aside in 2021 to let the United Kingdom host COP26 in Glasgow, it felt it had a strong claim and was unwilling to back down.
Türkiye will steer the summit's overall direction and manage event logistics, infrastructure, and the massive green trade fair in Antalya (Growtech), with the Leaders' Summit planned across Antalya and Istanbul.
It is also responsible for the non-negotiated Action Agenda, pushing for strong, measurable implementation and important side deals.

Australia’s bid for COP31 was a chance to reposition itself as a clean energy superpower, build regional goodwill, and counter rising geopolitical competition from China.
It proposed an unprecedented co-hosting arrangement with Pacific Island nations to amplify the voices of the world's most climate-vulnerable communities, acting as a heavyweight champion for its neighbors.
Their priorities are to address the existential concerns of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), including loss-and-damage funding and rapid divestment from fossil fuels.
"It is like taking a glass of water to a burning house if we do not urgently act to address the root cause of the existential threat facing Tuvalu, Fiji, and all Pacific countries: fossil fuel expansion," said Bowen.
Australia is a shining example of the energy transition in action. By the end of 2025, renewable energy has provided well over half of Australia's electricity needs. Today, 1 in 3 Australian homes generate their own power from rooftop solar panels.
As President of Negotiations, Australia will work with countries to build consensus, draft texts, and lead formal policy negotiations. Australia is also working with the past presidencies to deliver on key initiatives like the Belém Mission to 1.5°C and the Global Implementation Accelerator.
Australia's approach will integrate First Nations knowledge and leadership, and it has selected Sally Higgins as the COP31 presidency youth climate champion.

Nearly 50 parties have still not filed their updated NDCs. Major nations such as India, Argentina, Egypt, Iran, and Vietnam missed the standard deadlines, signalling an alarming lack of political will to pursue ambitious action under the Paris Agreement.
COP29 in Baku was billed as the "Finance COP," yet developed nations fell far short of what was needed to meet mitigation targets. COP30 in Belém finished without securing binding, high-level pathways to funnel capital to the Global South.
The UN framework has repeatedly and frustratingly failed to mandate an outright phaseout of fossil fuels. Recent host nations with strong economic ties to oil and gas have successfully diluted negotiation language.
In light of this, the climate crisis continues to accelerate:

Children and young people are disproportionately affected by climate change; therefore, their voices are particularly important at major climate and biodiversity conferences.
Today's decisions have long-term consequences for their health, education, well-being, and future opportunities. Intergenerational justice looks at how present generations affect past and future people.
On July 23, 2025, the International Court of Justice issued the advisory opinion, which was unanimously adopted by all 15 judges: "Nations have a legal duty to combat the planetary crisis."
This COP31 recognizes children and young people as important stakeholders and constituencies. Official mechanisms have been established to support youth participation:
Major youth organisations and umbrella networks driving the youth climate agenda at COP31 include the European Youth Forum, Generation Climate Europe, Youth Environment Europe (YEE), Regional Conference of Youth (RCOY) Networks, World Food Forum Youth Network, and UNICEF Climate Youth Tracks.

For years, global frustration has grown with these climate conferences; observers, climate scientists, and world leaders point to a persistent pattern of failure in climate finance, the fossil fuel transition, and consensus deadlocks.
COP28 and COP29 saw record-breaking attendance from thousands of fossil fuel lobbyists, diluting the voices of civil society and marginalized youth delegates. It is no wonder they were labelled a farce.
Whether the COP31 unprecedented co-hosting arrangement will help or hinder progress remains to be seen.
Both countries are already drawing criticism for expanding their coal and gas supply chains and omitting any mention of a global fossil fuel phaseout from their official pre-summit communications.
Since 2022, Australia has approved a major Hunter Valley coal mine expansion and 37 new fossil fuel projects.
Türkiye has plans to actively expand its domestic coal and gas capacity by 30% by 2035.
Pacific nations have also expressed their concerns about the joint presidency and the weakening of Australian regional solidarity. They worry the spotlight will shift away from sea-level rise and the vulnerability of small island nations.
On a positive note, the new voluntary "Electrification" pledge, which should help counter the stalemate on phasing out fossil fuels, gives us cause for hope. Another encouraging sign is that record funding for the global energy transition and renewable investment in 2025 reached $2.3 trillion.
It is also hoped that new transparency and funding disclosure rules introduced for delegates will limit the number of fossil fuel lobbyists delaying progress.
Drawing attention to the alarming global rise of militarism, COP31 President-Designate Murat Kurum publicly argued that wealthy countries need to spend much more on climate action than the 5% of GDP NATO members target for defense, warning that climate change is the ultimate security threat.
Without definitive progress at COP31, climate pledges, and indeed the COP conferences themselves, risk collapsing into broken promises and losing public trust. Influential figures such as Greta Thunberg, Chris Packham, Ban Ki-moon, and Mary Robinson have already declared the summits unfit for purpose.
Quite simply, time has run out for more empty words.
With Trump’s repudiation in the 2026 midterm elections, it is time to end Green New Deal hushing and instead consider what a Green New Deal revamped for today should be.
The overwhelming repudiation of President Donald Trump in the 2026 midterm elections may make it possible to constrain his worst depredations. But that will hardly be enough to solve the multiple crises facing the American people or the world. The Green New Deal represents the best vision we have for addressing those realities, but it needs to be updated and expanded for the world we face today. We need a “Green New Deal 2.0.”
Trump’s pet whipping boy was the Green New Deal. His excoriating attacks led many Democratic politicians to engage in “Green New Deal hushing.” With Trump’s repudiation in the 2026 midterm elections, it is time to end Green New Deal hushing and instead consider what a Green New Deal revamped for today should be.
The Green New Deal project has been promoted by a wide array of social forces. It has brought together people operating inside political systems with social movements organizing outside of them. It has used both the institutions of representative democracy and the direct-action power of the people to implement its objectives. The Green New Deal 2.0 will draw on comparable sources of power.
The Green New Deal has proven perennial because it addresses the basic problems faced by our people and planet.
No doubt there are many in both the Republican and Democratic parties who would like to see the Green New Deal where Trump believed he consigned it—in the grave. But the Green New Deal has proven perennial because it addresses the basic problems faced by our people and planet. It is a project that in all its varied manifestations takes the necessity for climate protection as the basis for a broad program for social reconstruction—a visionary program designed to protect the Earth’s climate while creating good jobs, reducing injustice, and eliminating poverty. It will rise again transformed.
In 2008, in the depths of the Great Recession, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for “investment that fights climate change, creates millions of green jobs, and spurs green growth.” He said what the world needs, in short, is a “Green New Deal.”
The project of a Green New Deal rapidly picked up momentum around the world. Green New Deals became official policy in many countries, endorsed by the UN, the international trade union movement, and even by the International Monetary Fund. China, India, and the European Union began implementing some of the policies envisioned by the Green New Deal. But within a couple of years a global counterattack demanding austerity stymied much of the drive for massive investment to implement climate protection and economic justice. The Green New Deal appeared dead.
Even in the Trump era the Green New Deal has continued as a force in American life—from below.
The Green New Deal was reborn a decade later when the Sunrise youth climate movement held a sit-in in the office of US Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) demanding she support a resolution for a Green New Deal proposed by newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Drawing on the proposals a decade earlier for a Global Green New Deal, the resolution called for a “new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal.” The Green New Deal amassed support among congressional representatives, progressive organizations, and young people across the country. A poll found that more than 80% of registered voters “strongly support” or “somewhat support” the general concepts behind a Green New Deal. A poll five years later found that “the Green New Deal is still incredibly popular.”
Notwithstanding its popularity with the public, the Green New Deal met implacable opposition from the fossil fuel industry and hostile forces in both the Democratic and Republic parties. Upon his election as president, Trump declared the Green New Deal dead and proceeded to devastate both climate protection and social justice.
Nonetheless, even in the Trump era the Green New Deal has continued as a force in American life—from below. It has continued to be implemented through little-noticed initiatives by community groups, unions, city and state governments, tribes, and other nonfederal actors pursuing the climate protection and social justice goals of the Green New Deal. I have described it as the “Green New Deal from Below.”
The Green New Deal 2.0, like earlier Green New Deals, is a project to abolish the extraction and burning of fossil fuels while rapidly expanding equality, justice, and well-being. To do that it will have to learn from the earlier Green New Deals but also develop far beyond them. It will be aided in doing so by the radical reduction in the cost of fossil free energy and the ways in which energy is used—the Greentech Revolution. But the Green New Deal 2.0 will also have to function within—and help transform—the period of American dysfunction and global disorder that has come to be known as the Polycrisis.
To succeed, the Green New Deal 2.0 will need to be multilevel: local, state, regional, national, and global. From the start it needs to be global in its perspective and to transcend national borders in many of its actions. But it will initially have to be built from the bottom up, community by community, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. Eventually it will need to control and wield the power of national governments.
Achieving the goals of the Green New Deal 2.0—abolishing fossil fuel extraction and burning while rapidly reducing inequality, injustice, and deprivation—will require simultaneous action at many levels from local communities to global institutions.
The Green New Deal 2.0 won’t happen all at once; it will have to develop over time. In the US the Green New Deal 2.0 may start with an Emergency Green New Deal addressing the catastrophe now being experienced by the American people and its impending intensification. This catastrophe includes the crises of food, housing, energy, health, public safety, climate, inequality, democracy, and the rule of law—a veritable American Polycrisis. In some ways it resembles the “Yeltsin Era” that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union when systems from employment to food to healthcare to housing to the rule of law broke down; male life expectancy at birth fell by six years just between 1990 and 1994.
There is little likelihood of immediate federal solutions to this catastrophe. The newly-elected Congress has an important role to play in limiting Trump’s freedom of action, proposing alternatives, and supporting popular mobilizations. But as long as Trump remains in office, he can veto legislation and wield the powers of the executive branch. Addressing the crises we face requires people organizing themselves from below to implement an Emergency Green New Deal that will put people to work doing the things are that are necessary to ensure survival and well-being in the face of the American Polycrisis.
Achieving the goals of the Green New Deal 2.0—abolishing fossil fuel extraction and burning while rapidly reducing inequality, injustice, and deprivation—will require simultaneous action at many levels from local communities to global institutions. It will constitute an era of social reconstruction.
Here are some of the ways in which the Green New Deal 2.0 can incorporate but go far beyond previous Green New Deals:
The Greentech Revolution: Protecting the climate by replacing fossil fuels with fossil-free energy was the central pillar of the original US Green New Deal. Since then, climate catastrophe has truly arrived. But the global Greentech Revolution has created a new basis for moving to fossil-free communities, countries, and world. The Green New Deal 2.0 will accelerate the timetable for the transition to climate safety, while utilizing it as the pivot for other transformations.
Jobs: The original US Green New Deal resolution noted a “four-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and anti-labor policies.” It proposed to use climate mobilization as a vehicle to transform the world of work through high-quality union jobs, worker rights, labor standards, and a “job guarantee” that would ensure a job for every worker who wants one doing the work that is necessary to protect the climate and create a more just society. Since then, inequality has exploded and artificial intelligence (AI) threatens to eliminate millions of jobs and turn millions of others into excruciating daily oppression. The Green New Deal 2.0 will expand the jobs programs proposed by the Green New Deal, ensure that there are good jobs for those affected by AI, and empower workers to organize and act collectively on the job.
Affordability: Rising prices for the necessities of life are a crucial concern for working people today. The Green New Deal 2.0 will address this from the start by replacing fossil fuels with far cheaper fossil-free energy, reducing the price of everything that uses energy—that is to say, everything. It will also make massive investment in energy-conserving housing, food production, and other necessities of life that will both protect the climate and reduce the cost of living. It will tax the rich to reduce inequality and provide resources for the 99%.
Human Needs: The Green New Deal specifically addressed the unmet needs for housing, education, healthcare, and other necessities of life as part of the transition to a climate-safe society. Recent bills in Congress have proposed Green New Deals for housing and education. The Trump administration has devastated all aspects of our already inadequate social provision and is taking aim at what’s left. The Green New Deal 2.0 will establish new systems of social provision that empower local communities while providing the resources necessary to meet individual and social needs.
Justice and Equity: The original Green New Deal resolution proposed to use its programs to “promote justice and equity by preventing current and repairing historic oppression” of “indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.” Today the further degradation of all these groups is being actively promoted by the Trump administration and its supporters in all spheres of life. The Green New Deal 2.0 will use resources, policies, democratic processes, and law to reverse both historic and new forms of injustice and inequality.
Democratization: The original US Green New Deal was defeated in large part by the inordinate wealth and power of the fossil fuel industry and its power base within both Republican and Democratic parties. Since then, the Trump administration and the forces of plutocracy have further degraded our democracy and empowered the billionaire class. The initial US Green New Deal resolution called for “ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal.” The Green New Deal 2.0 will rebuild democracy from the bottom up. That includes establishing democratic institutions at the grassroots and establishing genuine political equality for all people. It will also extend democracy within workplaces and the economy. Donald Trump has greatly expanded the role of government in the economy for the worst of purposes, to enrich kleptocrats and war contractors. The Green New Deal 2.0 will utilize that expansion of powers to provide planning and investment to serve the common good.
Constraining Corporations and Technologies: The original New Deal of the Great Depression aimed to control the anti-social behavior of “malefactors of great wealth.” The startling growth of hyperscale data centers controlled by a handful of tech billionaires has forced new attention to the need to constrain corporations and their technology. To realize its objectives, the Green New Deal 2.0 will have to go far beyond previous green new deals in halting the anti-social behavior of today’s malefactors of great wealth, the corporations they control, and the destructive technologies they are seeking to impose. It will need to implement the “precautionary principle” that forbids introduction of new technologies until they are proven safe. More broadly, it will need to make the actions of private economic entities accountable to the public and those they affect.
Global Cooperation: Neither the climate nor the economy can be fixed at a purely local or national level. The growing chaos of the global Polycrisis, with its breakdown of international cooperation, has led to a collapse of climate protection, proliferating warfare, economic chaos, and an inability of any nation to provide security and well-being for its people. The Green New Deal 2.0 will treat a worldwide Green New Deal as a common project of the world’s people and will make cooperation among movements and nations a primary part of its local and national programs. It will promote mutually managed international trade in the interest of protecting the climate and the world’s people rather than either economic nationalism or unconstrained globalization.
The elements of the Green New Deal 2.0 will rapidly improve the lives of workers, communities, and ordinary Americans. The Greentech Revolution will not only retard climate devastation, it will reduce pollution and reverse soaring energy costs. Putting millions of people to work addressing human and environmental needs will not only provide quality employment but rapidly expand provision of food, housing, medical care, public safety, and other necessities of life. Rebuilding democracy from the bottom up will offer protection against the agressions of authoritarian government and promote our ability to control our common life.
By itself the Green New Deal 2.0 won’t quell the global Polycrisis. But working with other forces it can begin to constrain Polycrisis dynamics while also starting to transcend them. The rapid reduction in burning fossil fuels and the transition to fossil-free energy can slow and eventually reverse the destruction of the Earth’s climate. The reduction in inequity and injustice, the meeting of social needs, the provision of full employment, and the constraining of corporate power all address the inequality promoted by right-wing policies and the Polycrisis. The drive for international cooperation can help begin to bring war making, war crimes, nihilistic geopolitics, and global plunder under control and start to develop an alternative world order.