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 fuels
'We Lost Everything': Hawaii Swamped by Worst Flooding in 20 Years
Experts agree that the climate emergency caused by the burning of fossil fuels is making extreme rainfall events on the islands wetter and more common, reigniting the debate about who should foot the bill.
Mar 25, 2026
Hawaii was inundated by its worst flooding in 20 years over the weekend, in another reminder of how the climate crisis disrupts the lives of ordinary people by increasing the likelihood and frequency of extreme weather events.
Hawaii Gov. Josh Green on Tuesday formally requested federal aid for a series of storms this month that he said could cost the state more than $1 billion in debris clearing and repairs to homes, roads, and infrastructure.
“These storms have impacted every county in our state and stretched our emergency response capabilities,” Green said in a statement.
Hawaii's waterlogged woes began on March 10 with the first in a series of winter Pacific rainstorms known as Kona lows. The initial storm caused upwards of $400 million in damages, including to Maui's Kula Hospital, and left the ground saturated when another storm rolled in beginning March 19, leading to what Green told Hawaii News Now was “the largest flood that we’ve had in Hawaii in 20 years."
“Should the residents just consider it an act of God and open up their checkbooks whenever this happens when the record is clear about who knew what and when they knew it?”
This second storm inundated Oahu's North Shore on Friday night, necessitating more than 230 rescues and placing 5,500 people under an evacuation order at one point, according to The Associated Press. The storm damaged hundreds of homes as well as schools, airports, and highways. All told, the two storms dumped a total of four feet of rain on parts of Oahu and Maui, Green said, as CBS reported.
"We lost everything," Oahu resident Melanie Lee told CBS News after visiting her flood-damaged home on Monday. "My children's pictures. Just real sentimental stuff. Now it's like, now where we go from here?"
The agricultural sector was also hard hit, with farmers on Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and the Big Island reporting over $10.5 million in damages, according to Honolulu Civil Beat.
Yet Friday's storm was not the end. On Monday, another downpour brought flash flooding to southern Oahu, as rain fell at a rate for 2-4 inches per hour, shocking even meteorologists.
“When you think it’s over, it’s not quite over,” National Weather Service forecaster Cole Evans told AP on Tuesday.
Oahu Emergency Management Agency spokesperson Molly Pierce told AP: “Most of us have not seen something that just keeps going like this... We feel like we keep getting punched down. But we’ll keep getting back up.”
Experts agree that the climate emergency is making extreme rainfall events on the islands wetter and more common.
As Honolulu Today reported:
The intense flooding in Hawaii highlights the growing threat of extreme weather events driven by climate change. The frequency and intensity of heavy rainfall have increased in the islands, leading to devastating impacts on infrastructure, homes, and communities.
Retired University of Hawaii professor Tom Giambelluca, who now supervises weather monitoring towers, told Honolulu Civil Beat that scientists have observed Hawaii's weather getting dryer generally, while storms tend to drop more rain that causes more flooding.
“It’s not like we never had extremes before. You know, something like this could have happened with no warming, probably,” Giambelluca said. “But these kinds of events seem to be getting more frequent.”
US Rep. Jill Takuda (D-Hawaii) told Maui Now: “We are accustomed to saying, ‘Well, this was a 100-year flood,’ right?... Well, 100-plus-year floods are happening every few years. We literally have to throw away the book in terms of the way we used to look at weather patterns in Hawaii.”
The flooding is also an example of how the impacts of climate disasters can build on each other. Some of the rains fell on Lahaina in Maui, where soil is less absorbent due to scarring from 2023's deadly climate-fueled wildfires.
“We think about evacuation routes when it comes to a fire,” Maui resident Kaliko Storer told Maui Now. “And now we say, when are we going to really sit down and talk about these (flood) controls?”
The connection between the burning of fossil fuels and the uptick in extreme weather events is reigniting the debate about who should pay for the damages from storms like those that swamped Hawaii this month.
State lawmakers are working to pass legislation that would allow insurers to recoup some storm costs from oil and gas companies directly, as Honolulu Civil Beat reported Tuesday.
"This is the third generational rain event we’ve had in the last four weeks,” state Sen. Jarrett Keohokalole (D-24) said. Referring to reporting that large fossil fuels companies have known for decades about the climate-heating impacts of their products and chose to lie to the public instead of act, he added, “Should the residents just consider it an act of God and open up their checkbooks whenever this happens when the record is clear about who knew what and when they knew it?”
Hawaii is also one of several states that has sued Big Oil for climate damages.
Even as oil prices climb due to the US and Israeli war on Iran, Emily Atkin of Heated argued that disasters like Hawaii's prove that the cost is still deflated.
"This is what the true price of oil looks like: Hawaiians wading through their flooded homes while the state scrambles to find a billion dollars for cleanup," she wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Lead on Climate, Colombia's Petro Must Oppose Trade Framework That Impedes Action
Investor-state dispute settlement has become a powerful weapon for multinational firms to challenge policies aimed at phasing out fossil fuels, often resulting in massive financial penalties for states that attempt to regulate or transition their economies.
Mar 24, 2026
As Colombia prepares to host the world’s first Global Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels this April, a powerful coalition of more than 220 leading economists, legal scholars, and policymakers is calling on President Gustavo Petro to take bold action.
In a public letter presented on Monday in Bogota, promoted by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Boston University Global Development Policy Center, and the NGO Public Citizen, signatories including Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, economist Thomas Piketty, and Paris Agreement architect Laurence Tubiana urge Colombia to lead an international effort to dismantle investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), a system embedded in thousands of trade and investment agreements worldwide, including in Colombia.
As of 2025, Colombia had over $13 billion in pending ISDS charges, about one-seventh of its annual budget. To compare, it would cost $42 billion to fully implement the 2017 peace agreement, while it would cost about $25 billion for the country to have universal healthcare. Without confronting ISDS, meaningful state action may be impossible.
ISDS, sometimes referred to by economists as “litigation terrorism,” allows foreign corporations to sue governments in private arbitration tribunals over public-interest regulations, including environmental protections. It has become a powerful weapon for multinational firms to challenge policies aimed at phasing out fossil fuels, often resulting in massive financial penalties for states that attempt to regulate or transition their economies.
If the world is serious about confronting the climate crisis, it must also confront the legal and economic structures that entrench fossil fuel dependence. Dismantling ISDS is a precondition for meaningful change.
“Investor-State Dispute Settlement has a track record of being very favorable to foreign corporations at the expense of local communities, the environment, and economic development,” Stiglitz noted. For countries seeking to move away from fossil fuels, ISDS creates a chilling effect; governments hesitate to enact ambitious climate policies for fear of triggering billion-dollar lawsuits.
Stiglitz added that "investor-state dispute settlements don’t just mean growing debt burdens for countries: they are also a barrier to action on the climate crisis.”
Colombia is especially exposed. The country has 129 oil and gas projects covered by ISDS provisions, leaving it vulnerable to a wave of potential claims as it pursues its energy transition.
Petro has signaled his intent to reduce reliance on these mechanisms, but has yet to follow the path of countries such as South Africa, India, and Indonesia, which have terminated ISDS-linked agreements outright after concluding they undermined national sovereignty.
Across Latin America, ISDS has quietly transferred enormous public wealth to foreign corporations. Governments have been forced to pay out tens of billions of dollars in arbitration awards, particularly in countries like Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela, which, not coincidentally, have also faced severe economic and energy crises.
This system vastly privileges foreign investors over domestic firms, bypasses national courts, and effectively grants corporations veto power over public policy. As development economist Jayati Ghosh argues, bilateral investment treaties have “weaponized” corporate influence, restricting the ability of governments to act in the public interest without delivering clear benefits in terms of increased investment.
Colombia’s upcoming conference offers a rare opportunity to challenge this global regime. The letter’s authors propose the creation of an international alliance committed to unwinding ISDS and restoring democratic control over economic policy. The European Union’s recent withdrawal from the Energy Charter Treaty, due to its protections for fossil fuel investments, signals that even advanced economies are beginning to recognize the incompatibility of ISDS with climate goals.
Yet, even as Petro pushes for a fossil fuel phaseout and questions the legitimacy of ISDS, other governments in the hemisphere are moving in the opposite direction. Ecuador’s conservative President, Daniel Noboa, a billionaire businessman dogged by allegations of corruption, authoritarianism, and links to drug traffickers, has aggressively pursued new trade and investment agreements with the United Arab Emirates, Canada, and the United States. These deals include ISDS provisions, despite both the Ecuadorian Constitution and the Ecuadorian people outright banning ISDS.
Other right-wing politicians in the region, including anarcho-capitalist Argentine President Javier Milei, have also expressed support for expanding ISDS, to further the entrenchment of corporate power in the region.
As Andrés Arauz of the Center for Economic and Policy Research puts it, ISDS creates a “fast-track legal system” that grants corporations a “license to kill” public-interest regulation through the threat of massive financial penalties.
The coalition’s message to Colombia is salient; if the world is serious about confronting the climate crisis, it must also confront the legal and economic structures that entrench fossil fuel dependence. Dismantling ISDS is a precondition for meaningful change.
In Santa Marta this April, Colombia has a chance to lead, and turn the region away from complete surrender to foreign corporate interests, instead attempting to build economies around popular prosperity, dynamic democracy, and robust constitutionalism.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Hammer Trump Admin's 'Taxpayer Funded Bribe' to Kill Massive Wind Energy Project
"The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close," said one critic.
Mar 23, 2026
Critics slammed the Trump administration on Monday after it announced a deal to pay almost $1 billion to a French energy company to cancel its plans to construct wind farms across the eastern US.
As reported by The New York Times, French firm TotalEnergies has agreed to forfeit its leases in federal waters off the coasts of New York and North Carolina, and will instead invest the money it received from the Trump administration into oil and gas projects in the US, "including a facility in Texas that would export liquefied natural gas to global markets."
TotalEnergies paid nearly $928 million for the rights to access federal waters during former President Joe Biden's administration.
The Times described the agreement as "an extraordinary transfer of taxpayer dollars to a foreign company for the purposes of boosting the production of fossil fuels, a main driver of climate change, while throttling offshore wind power."
Patrick Pouyanné, the chief executive of TotalEnergies, said that the firm decided to abandon its US wind farm plans due to "practical" considerations, while emphasizing that the firm wasn't giving up on wind power all together.
"When the Trump administration came to power and began setting US energy policy, we said that we’ll have to reconsider, clearly, these offshore wind project developments," explained Pouyanné, adding that "we continue to invest in onshore solar, onshore wind, batteries."
Many critics expressed disbelief that the Trump administration would go to such extraordinary lengths to kill a clean energy project, especially after the president sent oil and gasoline prices soaring earlier this month when he launched an unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
"Let’s call this what it is: a taxpayer-funded bribe to kill homegrown clean energy and hand the money straight to oil and gas executives," wrote climate advocacy organization Evergreen Action in a social media post. "Trump is once again making Americans pay more for energy so his Big Oil donors can rake in even more profits."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, expressed a similar sentiment.
"$1 billion of our tax dollars to kill a clean energy program that creates jobs, just so Trump's Big Oil donors can make more profit," D'Arrigo wrote. "The most corrupt presidency ever—and it's not even close."
Matt Gertz, senior fellow at press watchdog Media Matters for America, argued that the agreement was a corrupt bargain aimed at hurting the president's political foes, including the Democratic leaders of New York and North Carolina.
"Climate/renewables arguments aside, this is the president's administration paying a foreign company to invest in states where Republicans are in charge rather than ones where Democrats are in charge," Gertz wrote, "using tax dollars to punish people who didn't vote for his party."
US Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) said that the deal to kill the planned wind farms was yet another example of the Trump administration making life in the US less affordable.
"This administration just spent $1 BILLION of your money to make sure wind farms don't get built," Blunt Rochester wrote. "You''ll have them to thank for higher electric bills each month."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular