SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
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.
We know what we must do to address the climate crisis, so why aren’t we doing it?
In the summer of 2023, researchers “binge-watched 250 of the most-rated movies” of the past 10 years for climate research purposes. A mere 13% of films made mention of climate-related disasters, some more seriously and others “offhandedly” in dialogue. In contrast, since the rise of Hollywood as the center of entertainment over a century ago, more than “2,500 war-themed movies and TV programs have been made with Pentagon assistance.” Why does the Pentagon partner with Hollywood? And why does Hollywood glamorize war at the expense of the planet?
The Pentagon provides multimillion dollar equipment (tanks, planes such as F-35 fighter jets which cost over $80 million dollars, aircraft carriers) and personnel to operate them, giving movies an air of realism at no cost to the filmmaker or director. Partnering with the military obliges Hollywood directors to accept significant script changes by the Department of Defense, telling directors “what to say—and what not to say.” In the end, movies portray the U.S. military as a force for good in the world and nuclear weapons (in our hands) as critically needed for national security. They use racist stereotypes of Asians and Africans while portraying U.S. soldiers as noble in purpose and making it appear that U.S. wars “are fought to spread freedom, democracy, and human rights.” They hide the profit motives of Hollywood and the self-serving motives of the Pentagon, which are public approval for their existence and mission, gaining public acceptance of war thus attracting new recruits. And the result is: Hollywood glamorizes war for greed at the extreme expense of the planet.
War is a driving force in the climate crisis, with the Pentagon being the largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world powering fighter jets, warships, and 800 military bases. Perversely the U.S. used sustained influential effort to keep the military’s impact on climate out of the 1997 Kyoto protocol counting process. And consequently, there is silence on U.S. military emissions and the climate crisis.
Even before U.S. President Donald Trump’s nihilist administration cut staff and the budget from our key climate agencies NOAA and NASA while furiously promoting oil and coal, we were in trouble with our injured Earth.
Furthermore, the damage to the world’s economy from fossil fuels has been massively underestimated, according to Timothy Neal and colleagues’ recent research. To date it has been thought to be mild to moderate, they stated, the flawed assumption being that damage to a country’s economy is caused within a country by extreme weather and it doesn’t account for how flooding in one country, for example, affects food supply in another. The team found that “if Earth warms by more than 3°C by the end of the century, the estimated harm to the global economy jumped from an average of 11% (under previous assumptions of isolated damage) to 40%,” devastating the livelihoods of a huge part of the world.
Other studies on drought find that increasing evaporation from rising temperatures due to global warming has disrupted the global water cycle in vast regions of North and South America, Africa, East and Central Asia, and Europe. Some regions would need 10 years of significantly above average rain to recover from long periods of drought. The southwest U.S., for example, has been drying out for 30-40 years—a megadrought, hemorrhaging groundwater, threatening its food security and economy. “About 40% of the contiguous U.S.” are in some stage of drought. Expected hotter temperatures and prolonged die-off of trees are the recipe for future wildfires. After a drought for a year or two, scientists would see recovery. No longer: “Drought is a creeping disaster.”
James Hansen, an early and outspoken expert on the climate crisis, and colleagues have published the most critical warning to date. We are experiencing sudden global warming of 1.6°C, and temperatures will oscillate “near or above that level for the next few years.” Their warning is unvarnished: more powerful tropical storms, tornadoes, more extreme floods; intensity of heatwaves, increase in drought in places of dry weather. The polar ice melt and freshwater injection into the North Atlantic Ocean will increase and could slow down AMOC in the next 20-30 years—locking our coasts into sea-level rise of several meters. AMOC, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, circulates water from north to south and back in a long cycle within the Atlantic Ocean. This circulation also brings warmth to various parts of the globe and also carries nutrients necessary to sustain ocean life.
Another frightening factor in faster warming is the fact that the planet’s plants and soils peaked in their capacity to absorb carbon dioxide in 2008. “Natural sequestration of carbon dioxide is in decline: Climate change will accelerate,” concluded the authors of the study.
We are heading toward catastrophe, though it can be mitigated: Though solar is doubling every few years, energy demand is increasing faster and being met by fossil fuels. “Science is clear...: stop using fossil fuels, respect and protect Nature, use resources sustainably.” Why aren’t we doing it?
Even before U.S. President Donald Trump’s nihilist administration cut staff and the budget from our key climate agencies NOAA and NASA while furiously promoting oil and coal, we were in trouble with our injured Earth. Trump has accelerated our ecocide. But human societies have been created by us, our human-made problems can and must be unmade. We owe it to the billions of young people who inherit this Earth.
"These figures represent a continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing," said the project's director.
Less than a week after U.S. President Donald Trump signed a budget package that pushes annual military spending past $1 trillion, researchers on Tuesday published a report detailing how much major Pentagon contractors have raked in since 2020.
Sharing The Guardian's exclusive coverage of the paper on social media, U.K.-based climate scientist Bill McGuire wrote: "Are you a U.S. taxpayer? I am sure you will be delighted to know where $2.4 TRILLION of your money has gone."
The report from the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson School of International and Public Affairs and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft shows that from 2020-24 private firms received $2.4 trillion in Department of Defense contracts, or roughly 54% of DOD's $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending for that five-year period.
The publication highlights that "during those five years, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin ($313 billion), RTX (formerly Raytheon, $145 billion), Boeing ($115 billion), General Dynamics ($116 billion), and Northrop Grumman ($81 billion)."
In a statement about the findings, Stephanie Savell, director of the Costs of War Project, said that "these figures represent a continuing and massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to fund war and weapons manufacturing."
"This is not an arsenal of democracy—it's an arsenal of profiteering," Savell added. "We should keep the enormous and growing power of the arms industry in mind as we assess the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and globally."
Between 2020 and 2024, $771 billion in Pentagon contracts went to just five firms: Lockheed Martin, RTX, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. By comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion. [5/12]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM
The paper points out that "by comparison, the total diplomacy, development, and humanitarian aid budget, excluding military aid, was $356 billion. In other words, the U.S. government invested over twice as much money in five weapons companies as in diplomacy and international assistance."
"Record arms transfers have further boosted the bottom lines of weapons firms," the document details. "These companies have benefited from tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Israel and Ukraine, paid for by U.S. taxpayers. U.S. military aid to Israel was over $18 billion in just the first year following October 2023; military aid to Ukraine totals $65 billion since the Russian invasion in 2022 through 2025."
"Additionally, a surge in foreign-funded arms sales to European allies, paid for by the recipient nations—over $170 billion in 2023 and 2024 alone—have provided additional revenue to arms contractors over and above the funds they receive directly from the Pentagon," the paper adds.
The 23-page report stresses that "annual U.S. military spending has grown significantly this century," as presidents from both major parties have waged a so-called Global War on Terror and the DOD has continuously failed to pass an audit.
Specifically, according to the paper, "the Pentagon's discretionary budget—the annual funding approved by Congress and the large majority of its overall budget—rose from $507 billion in 2000 to $843 billion in 2025 (in constant 2025 dollars), a 66% increase. Including military spending outside the Pentagon—primarily nuclear weapons programs at the Department of Energy, counterterrorism operations at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and other military activities officially classified under 'Budget Function 050'— total military spending grew from $531 billion in 2000 to $899 billion in 2025, a 69% increase."
Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed earlier this month "adds $156 billion to this year's total, pushing the 2025 military budget to $1.06 trillion," the document notes. "After taking into account this supplemental funding, the U.S. military budget has nearly doubled this century, increasing 99% since 2000."
Noting that "taxpayers are expected to fund a $1 trillion Pentagon budget," Security Policy Reform Institute co-founder Stephen Semler said the paper, which he co-authored, "illustrates what they'll be paying for: a historic redistribution of wealth from the public to private industry.”
Semler produced the report with William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute. Hartung said that "high Pentagon budgets are often justified because the funds are 'for the troops.'"
"But as this paper shows, the majority of the department's budget goes to corporations, money that has as much to do with special interest lobbying as it does with any rational defense planning," he continued. "Much of this funding has been wasted on dysfunctional or overpriced weapons systems and extravagant compensation packages."
The arms industry has used an array of tools of influence to create an atmosphere where a Pentagon budget that is $1 trillion per year is deemed “not enough” by some members of Congress. [9/12]
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 2:43 PM
In addition to spotlighting how U.S. military budgets funnel billions of dollars to contractors each year, the report shines a light on the various ways the industry influences politics.
"The ongoing influence of the arms industry over Congress operates through tens of millions in campaign contributions and the employment of 950 lobbyists, as of 2024," the publication explains. "Military contractors also shape military policy and lobby to increase military spending by funding think tanks and serving on government commissions."
"Senior officials in government often go easy on major weapons companies so as not to ruin their chances of getting lucrative positions with them upon leaving government service," the report notes. "For its part, the emerging military tech sector has opened a new version of the revolving door—the movement of ex-military officers and senior Pentagon officials, not to arms companies per se, but to the venture capital firms that invest in Silicon Valley arms industry startups."
The paper concludes by arguing that "the U.S. needs stronger congressional and public scrutiny of both current and emerging weapons contractors to avoid wasteful spending and reckless decision-making on issues of war and peace. Profits should not drive policy."
"In particular," it adds, "the role of Silicon Valley startups and the venture capital firms that support them needs to be better understood and debated as the U.S. crafts a new foreign policy strategy that avoids unnecessary wars and prioritizes cooperation over confrontation."
The president blamed unidentified Democrats for leaking information he repeatedly claimed was "fake news"—until his own defense secretary said it was real.
Without providing any evidence or naming any names, U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday called for the prosecution of Democrats who he said "leaked information" that contradicted his claim to have inflicted "monumental damage" to Iran's nuclear sites during last week's unprovoked attack on the Mideast nation.
Trump took to his Truth Social network to write: "The Democrats are the ones who leaked the information on the PERFECT FLIGHT to the Nuclear Sites in Iran. They should be prosecuted!"
Trump calls for the prosecution of “The Democrats” for leaking information about the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.If the leaked information is not accurate, why is Trump so mad about it?
[image or embed]
— Republican Accountability (@accountablegop.bsky.social) June 26, 2025 at 12:55 PM
Earlier Thursday, four sources familiar with the matter told Axios that the president plans to restrict the sharing of classified information with members of Congress following the leaking of a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency battle damage assessment. The DIA analysis suggested that the U.S. bombing only partially damaged Iran's nuclear facilities and set its nuclear program back by a few months.
The report contradicts Trump's claim that "monumental damage was done to all nuclear sites in Iran," and that "obliteration is an accurate term!"
One of the sources told Axios: "We are declaring a war on leakers. The FBI is investigating the leak. The intelligence community is figuring out how to tighten up their processes so we don't have 'deep state' actors leaking parts of intel analysis that have 'low confidence' to the media."
In a Thursday interview with NBC News, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that "there was a leak, and we're trying to get down to the bottom of that. It's dangerous and ridiculous that happened. We're going to solve that problem."
Asked if he believed the leak came from Congress, Johnson replied, "That's my suspicion."
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday during the NATO summit in The Hague that the Pentagon has launched a criminal probe into the leak. Hegseth also notably contradicted previous claims by Trump that media outlets reported "fake news" about the DIA analysis, confirming the leaked assessment's findings but explaining that they are "preliminary."