Despite this enormous potential, Indonesia faces a persistent threat that continues to undermine its economic strength and maritime sovereignty. One of the most serious challenges is the practice of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing. This activity has become a major concern for marine governance and fishery sustainability in the region.

For many people, IUU Fishing is often understood simply as the theft of fish by foreign vessels. Such a perception, however, oversimplifies the problem. In reality, IUU Fishing represents a multidimensional issue that involves economic losses, environmental degradation, violations of maritime sovereignty and connections to transnational organized crime.

Massive economic losses

From an economic perspective, the impact of IUU Fishing on Indonesia is extremely significant. National losses are estimated to range from ($1.7 billion) to Indonesian rupiah ($5.9 billion) annually. Earlier estimates from Indonesia’s Supreme Audit Agency suggested that the potential losses could reach as high as Indonesian rupiah ($17 billion) per year.

These figures demonstrate that IUU Fishing is far more than an ordinary illegal activity. It represents the extraction of natural resources without contributing any economic benefit to the state. Fish caught through illegal operations are not recorded in official fishery statistics and are not subject to taxes or landing fees.

In many cases, the catch is transported directly overseas without passing through Indonesian fishing ports. This situation deprives the country of potential non-tax state revenue and eliminates opportunities for domestic value-added activities in fish ports. Practices such as illegal transshipment at sea prevent catches from entering national supply chains, thereby reducing for local fish processing industries.

The economic consequences are also felt directly by small-scale fishers. Large industrial vessels that operate illegally create an uneven competition with traditional fishing communities. In several cases, such conditions have and intimidation against local fishers.

Threats to marine resource sustainability

Beyond economic losses, IUU Fishing also poses a serious threat to the sustainability of marine resources. Unregulated fishing pressure accelerates overfishing and leads to significant declines in fish stocks. Such pressures can disrupt marine ecosystems and weaken the resilience of fishery resources.

and unreported catches are estimated to result in substantial losses of marine resources each year, with some estimates suggesting figures of up to tons annually. Losses of this magnitude not only harm the fisheries sector but also disturb the ecological balance of marine environments.

The situation is further aggravated by the use of destructive fishing methods such as blast fishing, cyanide poisoning and trawl fishing. These practices have caused extensive damage to marine habitats. Reports indicate that around 33.82% of Indonesia’s have experienced degradation due to fishing activities.

Fish is also one of the main sources of protein for many Indonesian communities. Declining fish stocks, therefore, have direct implications for national food security. Reduced fish availability may increase the risk of nutritional deficiencies in coastal and .

In a broader global context, the degradation of Indonesia’s marine resources carries international implications. Indonesian waters form part of important migration routes and habitats for globally traded fish species. Declining productivity in these waters may therefore influence seafood supply stability in international markets.

Violations of maritime sovereignty

IUU Fishing also represents a direct violation of Indonesia’s maritime sovereignty. Many foreign vessels illegally enter Indonesia’s Exclusive Economic Zone and conduct fishing operations without permits. Such activities undermine the authority of the state over its own maritime territory.

To evade detection, these vessels often disable their Vessel Monitoring System or manipulate ship documentation. Some vessels also engage in double flagging by changing and registration. These strategies make enforcement more complicated and reduce the effectiveness of monitoring systems.

Law enforcement at sea also faces institutional challenges. In Indonesia, at least seven agencies share authority over maritime law enforcement. These include the Indonesian Navy, the National Police, the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries and the Indonesian Maritime Security Agency.

The overlapping responsibilities of these institutions often create coordination challenges in the field. Such institutional fragmentation may open opportunities for illegal operators to in enforcement. As a result, IUU Fishing continues to persist despite regulatory efforts.

Links to transnational organized crime

Over time, IUU Fishing has evolved beyond a simple violation. The practice increasingly operates as part of transnational organized crime networks that threaten and . These networks frequently operate across national borders and utilize complex logistical structures.

Criminal involvement in illegal fishing operations often includes labor exploitation and human trafficking. Such practices further increase in maritime regions.

In addition, illegal fishing operators often rely on document manipulation and vessel identity changes to conceal ownership and evade monitoring systems. These methods complicate law enforcement efforts to identify the structures behind illegal fishing operations.

Illegal transshipment at sea is another key mechanism used in these networks. This activity allows vessels to transfer catches offshore in order to avoid customs inspections and sanitary regulations. As a result, illegally caught fish can be and mixed with legally caught products in global seafood markets.

Investigations into IUU Fishing operations have also revealed connections to other crimes such as and drug trafficking. These activities often rely on the same distribution networks operating across international waters. Empirical studies indicate that this form of transversal criminality involves thousands of violations globally and includes hundreds of industrial fishing vessels linked to corporate entities across .

Legal challenges further complicate efforts to prosecute the masterminds behind these networks. Fishery regulations frequently impose penalties only on vessel crews rather than targeting the corporate actors responsible for organizing illegal operations. Jurisdictional ambiguity in the high seas also to obscure the origin of catches before landing them in port.

This situation not only threatens marine ecosystems but also worsens the vulnerability of coastal communities that depend heavily on fishery resources. The continued exploitation of marine resources through illegal activities food security and undermining sustainable fishery governance.

Strengthening ocean governance

In response to these challenges, Indonesia has implemented policies based on three main pillars: sovereignty, sustainability and welfare. One of the most widely known policies is the sinking of illegal fishing vessels. This measure was designed to create a deterrent effect against illegal fishing operators.

The policy has contributed to a temporary reduction in certain types of violations. However, combating IUU Fishing requires more than symbolic enforcement actions. Strengthening through technology remains essential.

Improved coordination among maritime enforcement institutions is also necessary. Institutional integration would help close enforcement gaps that illegal fishing operators frequently exploit. Effective governance requires collaboration across agencies responsible for maritime security.

International cooperation is equally important. Because IUU Fishing networks operate across borders, regional collaboration in maritime surveillance and fishery governance is essential. Data sharing, coordinated patrols and supply chain transparency can significantly strengthen enforcement efforts.

IUU fishing and the challenge of achieving the SDGs

Ultimately, IUU Fishing is not merely a fishery management problem. It is an issue that intersects with economic development, environmental protection, maritime security and human rights. In the context of global sustainability, the persistence of IUU Fishing also directly undermines the achievement of several (SDGs).

Unchecked illegal fishing threatens SDG 14 (Life Below Water) by accelerating the depletion of marine resources and damaging critical ocean ecosystems. At the same time, declining fish stocks and the loss of fishery income weaken coastal livelihoods and undermine SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), particularly for communities that rely heavily on fisheries as a primary source of food and income.

The human rights dimension of IUU Fishing further highlights its relevance to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Illegal fishing operations are frequently linked to labor exploitation, human trafficking and weak maritime governance, which undermine fair labor conditions and effective law enforcement in maritime sectors.

Addressing IUU Fishing should therefore go beyond enforcement alone. It requires strengthening governance systems, improving transparency in fish supply chains and reinforcing in maritime territories. In this context, combating IUU Fishing is also part of safeguarding national sovereignty and institutional integrity.

At a time when global marine resources are under increasing pressure, Indonesia’s ability to tackle IUU Fishing will play an important role in advancing the global sustainability agenda. Effective action against IUU Fishing can contribute not only to ocean conservation but also to food security, equitable economic development and stronger institutions across the Indo–Pacific region.

[ edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post IUU Fishing: A Devastating Threat to Indonesia and the World appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The answer is not straightforward, but one that entails a complex interplay of the development of labor, structural inequality, environmental necessity and unique alterations in human cognition and agency. The world population has risen steadily over the last ten years, from approximately billion in 2020 to nearly 8.3 billion today. Although a higher population ideally means a greater labor and bigger markets, it also simultaneously stresses employment systems. The AI burst adds to the problem by increasingly automating repetitive manual and even tasks. While nations grapple with accommodating increasing populations, they also have to contend with the structural displacement that comes with the speed of AI penetration.��

Work creation has lagged behind such population pressures. The International Labour Organization () originally projected the development of million new jobs by 2025, but reduced the number to million when the growth of the economy slowed down, as quoted by . Therefore, a vast majority of these new roles involve high-level technical and AI ability, leaving the conventional increasingly at risk. Consequently, this intensified disconnection adds more to the urgency of getting by on the basis of reskilling and forward-looking workforce planning. Without progressive policies, AI can further exacerbate the global between high-skill and low-skill labor markets.

Beyond the bottom line: the collateral impact of automation

On a different note, AI business deployment levels have sped up. Over of large firms had already implemented AI in their operations by 2019, as indicated by the (), given that AI is more operationally efficient, cheaper and more often makes choices. Yet this speed comes at significant human expenses. Analytics, decision-making and creative work are under threat. Overemphasizing efficiency at the expense of greater social costs can lead to incremental erosion of human in decision-making and innovation.

Furthermore, job dismissals have already been hit by trade barriers, geopolitics, sanctions and intellectual property conflicts, which are compounded by restructuring due to AI. Over employees were discharged by 221 American technology companies in 2025 alone, as estimated by . These are structural, not cyclical, , as the labor could be lost for good or require skills that the existing labor pool lacks. Subsequently, this creates destabilizing forces for traditional social safety nets and labor institutions that policymakers will find difficult to deal with.

Furthermore, the environmental of AI is typically underestimated. In addition to energy usage, AI needs custom hardware composed of scarce minerals like neodymium, dysprosium and tantalum. The extraction of the has environmental impacts and geopolitical dependencies. The data centers used to house AI systems account for vast amounts of water usage for cooling and plenty of power to process, according to the (). by fossil fuels, these operations have high levels of carbon emissions. Places with this sort of infrastructure are subject to local water deprivation and resource shortage, proof that the social benefits of AI have undetected ecological and social effects.

The cognitive erosion: reclaiming human autonomy

Aside from economic and environmental , AI insidiously menaces human thought and culture. With AI interfaces and alert systems overwhelming human , attention is splintered, diminishing creativity, civic engagement and the capacity for long-term strategic contemplation. AI excels at capturing explicit knowledge but cannot fully grasp context-dependent know-how, risking the erosion of institutional memory and local problem-solving capabilities. interpersonal decision-making and AI-mediated communication can diminish empathy, negotiation skills and emotional resilience — qualities essential for healthy workplaces and social cohesion. 

Moreover, AI’s reliance on historical data for optimization may unintentionally constrain innovation, favoring safe and predictable trajectories over bold, unconventional ideas. The psychological reliance on AI for professional, personal and ethical decision-making also risks destabilizing autonomous human thought. Business investment in AI keeps expanding. As per a McKinsey and Company Report, of business executives are planning to increase AI spending, with over half expecting a hike from existing levels. The force of transformation that AI represents is gigantic, but not necessarily for all. Whether AI will raise human potential or speed up inequality will be determined by governance, regulation, upskilling and inclusive deployment strategies. 

As we begin this new era, caution needs to catch up to optimism. Societies may unwittingly dependent on AI networks owned and controlled by a few large firms, generating systemically produced . AI-rich environments everywhere can distract attention in the crowd, undermining imagination, long-term thinking and civic participation. Human of context-dependent and experiential knowledge can be contemplated as being pushed aside, and optimization by algorithms can pressure innovation along predetermined lines, deterring out-of-the-box solutions.

The final experiment: shaping our machine-driven destiny

On the whole, dependence on AI for making , individual and moral decisions may quietly erode independent thought. Unobtrusive external costs — such as mining of rare metals, water-cooled operation and energy-intensive usage — add to the multifaceted, interdependent nature of AI deployment footprint. A sense of these problems ensures that AI is benefiting human beings and not becoming stuck in inequality, environmental pressure or psychological reliance.

Moreover, AI is no longer a ; it’s a force remaking the destiny of economies, societies and even the brain. The question now is no longer whether we can control AI, but whether human beings will be the masters of their own destiny and not just passive actors in a machine-dominated world. Optimism about AI needs to be paired with , ethical sensitivity and robust governance.

Therefore, in order to realize its full potential, human societies will have to develop not only technological know-how but also public wisdom, cultivating a human-AI partnership that is attuned to local conditions and capable of responding to diverse social and environmental . Not only are we developing AI, but AI is also developing us. It is a different kind of experiment, and one whose outcome is less predictable and more fateful than ever.

[Ainesh Dey edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post ​Beyond the Code: Reclaiming Human Agency in an AI-First World appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The economic consequences are immediate. Oil prices have already jumped as markets price in the risk of supply disruption and prolonged instability. Analysts that a prolonged conflict could push oil prices above $100 per barrel and intensify inflation across import-dependent economies.

For Indonesia, the war presents a clear danger. The country still relies heavily on imported crude oil and refined fuels. When global prices surge, Indonesia’s fiscal burden through fuel subsidies and higher import bills. Yet crises often create opportunities for structural change. The current oil shock could become a catalyst for Indonesia to accelerate its long-delayed energy transition.

A global oil crisis should not be treated only as a short-term emergency. It should also be treated as a catalyst for a faster shift toward cleaner, more resilient energy systems. Indonesia, as well as the rest of the world, must invest in this change now before it is too late.

Renewable energy expansion

The most immediate step is electrification. Indonesia’s transport and logistics sectors remain deeply on diesel fuel. Trucks, buses and delivery fleets vast amounts of imported petroleum. Electrifying these systems would reduce exposure to global oil volatility. Electric buses for urban transport, electric freight corridors for logistics and electric two-wheelers for urban mobility could significantly reduce oil demand. When electricity increasingly comes from renewable sources, the economic benefits multiply.

The power sector is equally important. Many regions across Indonesia still on diesel-fueled generators, particularly in remote islands. This diesel-based electricity generation is expensive and heavily reliant on fuel logistics. Replacing these plants with renewable systems would deliver immediate gains.

Indonesia also has enormous renewable energy . Solar energy alone could reach around 100 gigawatts through the large-scale deployment of panels across the archipelago. Wind energy has the potential to provide roughly 154.6 gigawatts of capacity, with hydropower resources potentially contributing another 89.3 gigawatts. The technology and human resources already exist; what remains is decisive government policy.

A major renewable expansion would also reduce the burden of energy subsidies. Diesel imports expose the state budget to global price spikes, and renewable energy systems operate without fuel imports once installed. The result is more predictable electricity costs and greater fiscal stability.

Government policy should therefore focus on accelerating investment in renewable energy, particularly in the power sector. Fiscal incentives can support the installation of solar panels, wind turbines and hydropower plants. Tax credits, concessional financing and long-term power purchase agreements would attract both domestic and international investors.

Indonesia has already set a target of at least renewable energy in the national energy mix. That level should be seen as a minimum threshold rather than a ceiling. The higher the renewable share, the stronger Indonesia’s buffer against external shocks such as oil price spikes. However, not all policy responses move in that direction.

The environmental and energy security trade-offs

One frequently proposed response to rising oil prices is expanding biodiesel blending mandates. The idea of moving toward B50 — a 50% palm oil biodiesel blend with diesel fuel — is often as a solution to energy security. However, it is not an ideal solution, as palm oil blending still relies on petroleum diesel. The system continues to depend on imported fossil fuels. That is the policy’s fundamental weakness. Blending reduces diesel demand, but it does not eliminate it.

Environmental consequences also deserve attention. Expanding palm oil plantations can worsen deforestation and ecological degradation. The recent flooding in parts of Sumatra has already raised concerns about the loss of natural water absorption areas linked to plantation expansion. Several companies whose permits were revoked were connected to plantation related environmental violations.

Further expansion of plantations could create new risks. In Papua, large-scale palm oil development raises fears of land conflicts with local communities and further deforestation. A cleaner strategy lies elsewhere: Solar farms, wind projects and hydropower installations reduce fossil fuel demand without triggering the environmental tradeoffs associated with large-scale plantation expansion.

Indonesia should also strengthen its international commitments to move away from fossil fuels. Joining the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation would provide a clear roadmap to reduce dependence on crude oil while accelerating investment in renewable energy systems.

The time to diversify

The war in the Middle East is a geopolitical crisis with global consequences. Oil prices are rising sharply; trade routes remain unstable; import-dependent countries are starting to feel the pressure. For Indonesia, the lesson is straightforward: Energy security cannot depend on imported fossil fuels vulnerable to distant conflicts.

The current war may destabilize energy markets, but it may also provide the political urgency needed to accelerate Indonesia’s transition toward renewable power. Crises often force choices that normal politics would otherwise delay, and Indonesia now faces one of those moments. The only question now is whether Indonesia will seize this opportunity to diversify its energy supply or remain dependent on oil.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Middle East War Could Finally Push Indonesia Toward Renewable Energy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In 2009, the EPA issued a comprehensive scientific “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases (GHGs) pose a threat to public health and welfare. The agency prepared the document after thoroughly reviewing US and international peer-reviewed climate assessments in response to a US Supreme Court requiring review before regulating GHGs under the US .

The present administration justifies its proposal by citing a new Department of Energy that selectively ignores the extensive body of peer-reviewed research and instead relies on outdated and disproven claims. This illustrates another instance of strong climate change denial efforts.��

In the years following the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, federal action quickly turned the scientific decision into regulations. Starting in 2010, the administration and agencies vehicle-emissions and fuel-efficiency standards. They used the Clean Air Act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other industrial sources. These efforts peaked in 2015 with the and a series of climate and mobile-source regulations, marking the most ambitious federal attempt to reduce US emissions.

The next three administrations alternated policies. Between 2017 and 2020, regulations were : the Clean Power Plan was targeted for repeal, the Affordable Clean Energy proposal was introduced and vehicle emissions targets were relaxed under the Safer, Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule (). Starting in 2021, the Biden administration to undo many of these rollbacks, restore stricter standards and reaffirm the scientific basis of the endangerment finding at the core of federal climate policy. Now, with the current US Presidency, there seems to be a trend to disconnect climate science from national environmental regulations.��

Economic claims vs. domestic reality: assessing fossil-fuel benefits

The current administration that, over generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty worldwide. However, a more detailed analysis indicates this isn’t accurate for America since 1980.

In the US, although the average income of a US citizen was $57 per day, in 2023, an estimated 36.8 million Americans lived below the poverty line of $24.50 per day, according to the US . This results in an official poverty rate of over 11% of the total American population.

Poverty in the US is often linked to economic and social factors, including the lack of a strong social safety net and significant racial disparities. Since 1980, income inequality has been rising sharply. This trend results from political and economic shifts that seem to have disproportionately benefited the wealthiest. During this period, fiscal policies started to resemble favors to the wealthy, with tax cuts benefiting those already in advantageous positions.

Beyond social inequalities, the continued use of fossil fuels directly conflicts with the endangerment finding issued during President Barack Obama’s first term. However, the EPA now that the decision “unreasonably analyzed the scientific record” and that its scientific basis was overly pessimistic and unsupported. Such an opinion blatantly contradicts the majority of climate science in the US and worldwide.

Science under siege: EPA, evidence and vulnerabilities

In a briefing with reporters last month ahead of the EPA’s decision, the president and CEO of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Manish Bapna, called the expected repeal “the single biggest attack in US history on federal authority to tackle the climate crisis.” On the NRDC’s , they explicitly say: “This decision is dangerous. It’s also illegal. We will see them in court, and we will win.”

The expectation of legal plaintiffs against the EPA’s “endangerment finding” relates to its very purpose and legal basis: Under the Clean Air Act (section 202[a]), the EPA determined whether GHGs from new motor vehicles “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger” public health or welfare. This followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007), which required the EPA to make such a determination for GHGs if supported by science.

Climate science has always been based on peer-reviewed research, including work from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change () — the UN body established in 1988 to assess climate change —, the , the US Global Change Research Program and other reputable organizations. These sources demonstrate that GHG emissions are driving climate change, leading to impacts such as rising temperatures and sea levels, extreme weather events, ecosystem and agricultural impacts, and public health concerns.

The dangers of global warming are evident: In , 27 confirmed disasters caused over $1 billion in damage and resulted in more than 550 deaths in the US. This includes Hurricane Helene, which affected North Carolina, Georgia and Florida; the wildfire that destroyed 11,000 homes in California; and the severe floods in Texas in early 2025.

Several peer-reviewed journals and national science academies that revoking the EPA’s endangerment finding would weaken the scientific basis for US climate regulation. Scientific comments and academy statements emphasized that the endangerment finding consolidates decades of peer-reviewed evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to widespread harms, and that removing it could hinder agencies’ ability to use that evidence in policymaking.��

�����Ա��  from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine states that “the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare caused by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute.” Across editorials and academy documents, authors pointed to converging lines of research on warming trends, studies linking emissions to extreme events and a large body of impacts research as the basis for maintaining a regulatory framework that connects scientific findings to statutory protections.��

The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a nonprofit scientific society, involved climate and health experts, a signed letter and testimony at EPA public hearings, and provided comments with over 650 expert signatures supporting the endangerment finding and its scientific basis. The letter criticized the EPA’s attempts to manipulate or censor climate science with inaccurate information. This is the strategy of most anti-climate-change organizations and their supporters.

The global mean surface temperature discussion

The conservative think tank The Heartland Institute, on the other hand, the upcoming change. According to them, climate science spends trillions of dollars fighting climate change based on flawed assumptions, mainly because it emphasizes temperature measurements on an essentially meaningless and fabricated metric: the global mean surface temperature (GMST).��

Present anti-climate change scientists that GMST lacks a clear regulatory definition and is, in fact, physically meaningless under basic principles of thermodynamics. Yet, they support warming claims based on alleged temperature changes; they assert that the methodologies and assumptions used by the IPCC to identify and predict temperatures are “fundamentally fraudulent” because averaging temperatures is meaningless outside an equilibrium system, which Earth and its various climates are not. They claim that a standard measurement system should be used to obtain accurate measurements of average temperature change.

The technical analyses used to cast doubt on IPCC temperature data are part of a popular “cherry-picked” narrative, where technicalities like the GSMT are quickly discredited by physics and thermodynamics arguments. This is a common climate change denial tactic. We need to examine the IPCC’s methodology thoroughly.

The GSMT is the clearest indicator of planetary warming. It is calculated from land, ocean and satellite data that all show the same trend, and the results are reported with uncertainty ranges. Hence, policymakers understand the risks and confidence level of the numbers. Recent studies indicate that the Earth has warmed by about since pre-industrial times. The agreement among different instruments, consistent methods and transparent uncertainty estimates gives this measure strong scientific credibility.

This temperature indicates the planet’s energy imbalance caused by greenhouse gases and other factors. Climate models that incorporate observed emissions successfully reproduce this trend, and research attributes most of the warming to human activities. A nearly linear relationship between cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and temperature increase allows scientists to estimate remaining carbon budgets and timelines for reaching net zero. The temperature signal is confirmed by rising ocean heat content, shrinking glaciers and higher sea levels, providing additional supporting evidence.

For decision-makers, this metric directly links emissions to impacts, helps establish risk thresholds and guides adaptation strategies and policy choices. Its consistency, physical basis and policy relevance make it essential for monitoring global warming and focusing efforts to reduce emissions to reach net zero.

The evolution of climate science during the endangerment finding

After all, it is interesting to note the evolution of climate science from 2009 to date. Climate science has matured over the last 16 years, thus supporting all evidence for the continued “endangered finding” designation. IPCC is key to this position.

The IPCC unites 195 countries and covers three main areas: climate science, impacts and adaptation, and mitigation. It releases comprehensive assessment reports (AR) approximately every six to seven years; the current cycle is . The science working group for AR6 included 234 authors from 66 countries, including coordinating and lead authors, along with hundreds of contributors; the report cites over 14,000 references and received more than 78,000 review comments. The IPCC warns that emissions must decrease by more than 40% by 2030 to prevent catastrophic outcomes. Its findings are subject to thorough expert and government review and have gained global recognition, including a of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

By the time the EPA issued the “endangerment finding”, the IPCC had already its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. In short, it described possible futures: the planet would warm, sea levels would rise and risks would increase if emissions continued. By 2023, the sixth assessment strengthened the science: human activity is unquestionably warming the climate; 1.5°C is likely to be reached soon under many scenarios; and many impacts and limits to adaptation are now visible. The window to prevent the worst outcomes is quickly closing. Meanwhile, anti-climate science clung to cherry-picked narratives, such as distrusting the use of GSMT, while the IPCC advanced the world’s understanding of climate change.

Over the past 16 years, IPCC assessments have strengthened the evidence and refined estimates by incorporating more observations and improved models, directly linking cumulative CO2 emissions to warming through updated carbon budgets. The scenario framework shifted to shared socioeconomic pathways with clear mitigation options, illustrating how emissions choices relate to projected temperature and sea-level changes. The report warns that risks are greater and start at lower warming levels, with damages already underway that will worsen with each additional degree, and it provides more precise short-term reduction targets and net-zero timelines to limit warming.

End-of-century temperatures now range from about 1.5°C with strong mitigation to over 4°C in high-emission scenarios, and sea levels are expected to continue rising for centuries under the worst conditions. The updated carbon budget allows only a few hundred billion tons of CO2 with a roughly 50% chance of staying near 1.5°C, highlighting the importance of reaching net-zero CO2 to prevent further long-term warming.

In the near term (up to around 2040), many pathways still allow us to limit warming to 1.5°C, but impacts will grow more severe and accumulate over time. In the long run, cumulative emissions determine the final amount of warming; delays increase the dependence on carbon removal, raise the risk of irreversible changes and lock in higher sea levels.

Net zero as a timescale: an urgent mandate

The science now reads like a timeline: deep, rapid and sustained cuts this decade, and reaching net-zero CO2, are clear paths to lower long-term risks. Delaying actions increases costs, raises risks and limits options. The choice facing governments, businesses and societies is no longer whether to decarbonize but how quickly and fairly to do it.

Separately, the EPA’s announcement is already sparking legal battles with environmental groups that have pledged to oppose proposed rollbacks. Before that fight officially begins, the agency must initiate a rulemaking process that will take months or longer to finish.

IPPC’s AR6 makes net-zero CO2 a near-term timetable, not a distant aspiration: cumulative emissions determine long-term warming, so rapid, deep cuts this decade are required to avoid locking in irreversible harms. That scientific mandate implies urgent policy actions to phase out unabated fossil infrastructure and scale clean alternatives, while pairing mitigation with adaptation and equity measures. 

Because the EPA’s “endangerment finding” is the legal foundation that allows such rules, weakening it risks immediate and significant litigation; courts will decide whether administrative rollbacks align with established science and statutory obligations, making legal challenges a key battleground for maintaining the timelines AR6 and upcoming reports require.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Undoing the Endangerment Finding: Science, Policy and the Fight Over US Climate Authority appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The current American way of death is built on an avoidable lie. We’re conditioned to believe that a respectful farewell requires a sealed metal casket, a concrete vault and a body injected with harsh, carcinogenic chemicals. But this “toxic funeral” is neither ancient, globally common nor legally required. It is a largely 19th-century American invention — a post-Civil War marketing success story that has morphed into a destructive industrial standard.

The environmental and economic toll of a toxic tradition

The environmental of this approach are staggering. Annually, the traditional US burial system commits approximately 4.3 million gallons of formaldehyde-based fluid (a chemical preservative and potential carcinogen), 20 million board feet of hardwoods and 1.6 million tons of concrete to the earth. 

Our have become ecological dead zones, meticulously manicured lawns maintained with fertilizer and gasoline, turning sacred ground into resource-intensive, land-guzzling monuments to vanity.

The financial cost is equally . With the median cost of a conventional funeral easily approaching $10,000, the industry has successfully corporatized grief, turning a moment of spiritual significance into a high-pressure sales transaction. 

Crucially, the centerpiece of this system — embalming — is not legally required in the vast majority of the US. Green burial simply adheres to existing law while rejecting these costly, optional industrial standards.

Reclamation: grieving with integrity

Choosing a is, for many, an act of spiritual integrity and social defiance against the funeral-industrial complex. It allows the final disposition to reflect a life lived with environmental consciousness, bringing us back to the traditions practiced by most of the world and much of human history.

For faiths like and , some elements of green burial align well with their mandates: immediate burial, nonembalming and simple shrouds to facilitate the swift return of the body to the earth. Beyond formal religion, natural burial has profound therapeutic value. 

The process the ritual from a sterile viewing in a distant funeral home to a family-led event, offering a deeply therapeutic experience that allows for an active, meaningful “continuing bond” with the deceased. It is a return to an affordable, dignified and democratic way to say goodbye.

The global context and rising adoption

The philosophy behind green burial is not revolutionary; it is a . Many cultures, particularly in Africa and Asia, practice natural burial out of necessity, religious obligation or deep tradition. In Western nations such as the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the natural burial movement is well established, with hundreds of certified sites. 

Germany has seen significant growth in “sanctuary forests” or , where ashes are interred at the base of trees, providing a space-efficient and beautifully sustainable alternative. In the US, all states technically permit green burial, as embalming is generally optional. However, states are now creating specific, supportive regulatory frameworks for dedicated sites. 

The is expanding rapidly, with states like California, Washington, Texas and New York seeing a significant in the establishment of hybrid and dedicated natural burial cemeteries. This reflects the reality that the primary hurdle is no longer the law itself, but overcoming inertia and the deep-seated resistance of the conventional funeral industry.

The power of perpetual protection (conservation burial)

The most impactful form of this is the Conservation Burial Ground (CBG). This model moves far beyond simply reducing harm; it actively protects and restores land in perpetuity.

In a , one’s final resting place becomes a living memorial. Burial fees are directly channeled into the long-term stewardship of the land. Legal agreements, often in the form of a conservation easement held by a land trust, permanently restrict future development. 

The burial native habitat restoration, enhances biodiversity and sequesters carbon. The intentional shallow depth of burial maximizes aerobic decomposition and nutrient cycling, directly benefiting the surrounding ecosystem. It is a final act that is regenerative rather than extractive.

Addressing concerns and moving forward

As with any shift in cultural practice, have been raised, primarily focusing on public health and land use. Critics often express fears that unembalmed bodies could contaminate groundwater or be exhumed by animals. 

However, scientific studies and the experience of centuries of natural burial globally that when basic, common-sense regulations are followed — such as proper burial depth and mandated setbacks from water sources, which many states already have —  the risks are negligible. 

Furthermore, the concern over land use is easily dismissed by the Conservation Burial model, which turns the land from an ecologically inert lawn into a perpetually protected, biodiverse preserve. Momentum is building for the greening of burial practices. 

The National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA) that over 60% of consumers are interested in exploring green funeral options. However, there are still many obstacles to overcome, such as:

• Awareness and Accessibility: The primary remains a lack of public knowledge and the slow adoption by the established funeral industry. Many consumers and funeral directors remain largely unaware of green burial as a legal, accessible option, leading to a gap between consumer interest and provider availability.
  
• Regulatory Inertia and Zoning: Zoning laws and municipal ordinances were written for the conventional, lawn-park model. Adapting these regulations to accommodate the “wilder,” natural look of a CBG political advocacy and legal innovation.
  
• The Future of Deathcare: The industry’s response includes the rise of hybrid cemeteries that dedicate specific sections to natural burial, and the development of new alternatives, such as human composting (natural organic reduction), which are gaining in several states.

The only real concerns are navigating the lack of a uniform definition — leading to “greenwashing” by some conventional providers — and the challenge of zoning laws, which were simply not written to the “wilder,” natural look of a conservation site.

The green burial movement is poised to reshape the funeral industry. It proves that the final disposition of the human body can be a regenerative act. The choice is clear: We can continue to bury our loved ones in an expensive, polluting box, or we can choose to return them to the earth to enrich the living land they walked upon, leaving behind a legacy of conservation instead of consumption.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Thinking Out of the Coffin: Doing Away With the $10,000 Toxic Tomb appeared first on 51�Թ�.

What is the Endangerment Finding?

The Endangerment Finding was signed in late 2009 under President Barack Obama and stated in legalese that “the Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases … in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.”

The finding determined that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), via the Clean Air Act, was legally required to regulate harmful pollutants. A raft of environmental regulation followed, including greenhouse gas (GHG) standards and permits for large emitters, such as car and aircraft manufacturers, as well as Clean Power Plans for the US’ energy mix.

From a national health perspective, the finding was a tremendous success. In 2009, over 128,000 deaths in the US were attributed to air pollution. By 2023, this had dropped to 82,000, according to .

The repeal and immediate reactions

Still, on February 12, 2026, the Trump Administration announced an “” of the Obama-era finding, allowing the EPA to wash its hands of its responsibility to regulate harmful emissions.

A White House published the next day announced with great fanfare that the repeal would be the “biggest regulatory relief in history.” The press briefing was unequivocal and brief in its summary: “lower prices, more freedom, and a stronger economy for every American,” along with quotes from spokespeople from the Petroleum Alliance, the Heritage Foundation and the American Energy Alliance.

What follows will be a lengthy legal process full of challenges. Within the week, a collection of health and environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Now all eyes are watching to see whether the DC Circuit will issue a stay or an injunction that would block the repeal as the legal challenges play out.

The legal grounds for the repeal will depend on whether the court judges that it was not arbitrary or capricious, inconsistent with the Clean Air Act and in keeping with the latest science. The Federal Government was dealt a blow regarding the latter when a federal court a Department of Energy report in August 2025 that sought to downplay the impacts of climate change. Depending on the outcome, an appeal might bring the challenge to the Supreme Court, which is currently in the Trump Administration’s bad books after the President’s tariff plan. 

A final resolution could take months or even years as it squirms through the due process. The outcome of the midterm elections, despite predicting a Democratic slide, is unlikely to deliver the kind of supermajority needed to reverse the repeal via the Congressional Review Act.

Environmental and market impacts

There are concerns among environmentalists and health experts that the repeal, if and when it is pushed out of the legal system, could have significant impacts on the environment and the wider US economy.

The environmental impacts of the repeal of the Endangerment Finding could see a bounce-back in US emissions of carbon dioxide, which have been on a since 2007, and other pollutants, such as toxic heavy metals produced in coal combustion, that can be deadly when inhaled.

But there are mitigating factors that might dampen an emissions boom. For one, there is the possibility of a state-level fightback. (mainly blue) States and the District of Columbia all have greenhouse gas reduction targets independent of the Clean Air Act, and some, like California, have their own industrial standards and cap-and-trade emissions schemes. 

It is also unclear if market forces will continue to follow the Endangerment Finding after it is repealed. The US automobile industry exported 1.6 million light vehicles in 2023. These same industries might be disadvantaged in export markets as environmental levy policies are put in place for dirtier products. Indeed, there is discussion within the EU that the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which today applies only to imported materials, might be expanded to finished products like cars in 2028.

The repeal could negatively impact high-value American industries, redirecting capital and innovation in the US away from rapidly growing markets, like those for electric vehicles. In late 2025, Ford its program to develop its fully electric F-150, while in January, General Motors took a write-down on its EV investments. The result will be sacrificing ground to China in the ever-expanding for electric vehicles, and begs the question: Could industry innovation be endangered by the repeal of the Endangerment Finding and a return to 2009?

Business uncertainty and regulatory volatility

For some businesses, long-term investments in factories and less clean energy infrastructure might prove too costly. Board members will have one eye on the prospect of a switch back to the Democrats in the next election cycle, and might be dizzied by a tightening and loosening of the regulatory environment every half-decade.

In the carefully chosen of Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, addressing Fox Business in the build-up to last year’s tariff Liberation Day: “The more we can have certainty on the policy agenda as we move forward, the better that’s going to support capital investment”. 

Business leaders across the country are looking for a new normal, but the issue is that nothing about politics today is normal. The largest confounding factor is the Trump Administration’s flip-flopping, back-tracking and contradictory approach to government oversight and intrusion into citizens’ lives.

On the one hand, the repeal is the latest example of a federal strategy aimed at reducing departmental spending and powers, especially in departments that have not traditionally aligned with Make America Great Again (MAGA) objectives, begun and imperfected with the Department of Government Efficiency’s job cuts of over federal workers and contractors. 

On the other hand, the incumbent Presidency is only too happy to support branches of government with unprecedented and “” to carry out its goals, with put aside as funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in addition to levying sweeping global tariffs of on all countries.

For example, the drill-baby-drill and “beautiful clean coal” mantras have been one of the more consistent Trump 2.0 policies. Despite that, year-on-year coal consumption in the USA’s electricity mix is projected to in 2026, according to the United States Energy Information Administration.

In the short term, the upheaval of political life in the US today may well have a moderating impact on the industrial response to the repeal of the Endangerment Finding, even if and when it comes out the other side of the courts. 

After that, the real battle may well only take place after the next election. Whatever happens, the incoming president will have important and long-lasting decisions to make about the future of American industry and the health and safety of its people.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Trump’s Continued War on Climate Change: Repealing the Endangerment Finding appeared first on 51�Թ�.

While technology is important, it addresses only part of the problem. The largest source of environmental harm , in land clearing and peatland drainage. Forests are cut, carbon is released and ecosystems are fragmented long before palm oil reaches a mill. Financing biofuel projects without strict safeguards allows these impacts to continue, creating a gap between cleaner mills and destructive cultivation practices. This gap undermines any claims of meaningful sustainability.

Indonesia has already experienced the consequences of unchecked expansion. Between 2001 and 2023, the country millions of hectares of tree cover, much of it tied to agricultural development. In many cases, forests were intentionally cleared using fire, which not only destroyed ecosystems but also public health, displaced communities and strained regional relations. These patterns should not repeat in a country with one of the world’s last large intact forest landscapes.

Indonesia’s forests massive amounts of carbon and support biodiversity found nowhere else on earth, giving them extraordinary ecological value. Large-scale plantation development threatens to fragment these ecosystems and undermine indigenous land rights. Once damaged, such environments are difficult, if not impossible, to restore.

China’s financial influence gives it leverage to prevent this outcome. As a major investor and energy consumer, China can set clear conditions for cooperation. Halting funding for biofuel projects associated with deforestation would send a strong market signal: that economic partnership does not require environmental compromise.

This is not an argument against cooperation, but rather an argument for better cooperation. China can redirect investment toward projects that increase productivity on existing plantations rather than expanding into forests. Supporting replanting programs, yield improvements and methane capture technology would reduce emissions without triggering new land conversion.

Practical steps

To make this approach practical, Chinese policy banks, commercial lenders and Indonesian regulators should anchor cooperation in four measures. 

First, lenders should require verifiable zero deforestation commitments as a condition of financing, backed by satellite monitoring and public reporting. Second, Indonesian authorities must secure indigenous and local community land rights before project approval, with lenders verifying compliance. Third, both governments should mandate full supply chain disclosure, including independent verification of emissions and sourcing. Fourth, financing contracts should include automatic suspension clauses when violations occur, enforced jointly by regulators and financial institutions.

These steps are also strategic. Global markets are imports of commodities linked to deforestation, and investors are screening portfolios for environmental risk. Projects that ignore these trends risk becoming stranded assets. For Indonesia, higher standards strengthen long-term market access while protecting livelihoods. Short-term gains from deforestation are fleeting; credible, sustainable practices ensure economic stability over decades.

The Low Emission Palm Oil Mills initiative can still play a constructive role if paired with firm upstream protections. Technology should complement conservation, not distract from it. Sustainability begins with decisions about where plantations are allowed and where they are not.

China and Indonesia can become a model 

Cleaner mills alone cannot prevent forest loss, but when integrated with strong land-use standards, transparency and community protections, they can reinforce sustainable production. The real test of progress is simple: forests remain intact, communities retain their rights and emissions decline across the full supply chain. If these outcomes are met, cooperation between Indonesia and China can become a model of green growth for tropical commodities.

Ending biofuel financing tied to deforestation is not a retreat from partnership. It is a commitment to responsible development, recognizing that once primary forests disappear, no mill, no matter how advanced, can restore them. Protecting forests, enforcing standards and supporting communities is the path to a palm oil industry that is both economically valuable and environmentally credible.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post China Should Stop Funding Biofuel Projects Linked to Indonesia’s Deforestation appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Reading the above headline, a reasonable person interested in climate change would wonder how we can have global warming and simultaneously experience such extreme cold events sweeping through large areas of the United States. But a climate scientist would simply nod their head.

The simplest answer is that global warming causes climate change, and climate change is all about extreme weather. And extreme weather means more frequent and more severe heat waves, floods, droughts, storms and yes, cold weather. As more of the heat gets trapped in our atmosphere, it provides more energy into the weather system. This added energy feeds the movement of air and ocean currents, changing our climate. In doing so, it’s as though climate change stretches the normal distribution curves of weather events, with more extremes at either end.

All of these intense events are happening and will continue to happen, inconsistently and unevenly, non-linearly. That means temperatures will not rise in a straight line, going up year by year. In some years, they may drop. They will not happen evenly throughout the world, and the extreme events will not increase in their frequency or intensity linearly. Some areas will become drier, others will get wetter. Some will become hotter while others may even get cooler. All of that is because the world’s weather is dependent on countless interacting factors and complicated connections.

Warming the polar vortex

Let’s now hone in on the one aspect of the news item regarding the bitter cold sweeping through the eastern parts of the US. Incidentally, this event is not new. In , and , the US experienced significantly intense, widespread winter storms and freezing temperatures. So, what is going on?

The paradox of global warming and freezing events in the US is driven by a number of factors. First, winters are the season in the US — up (-15.6° C) on average from 1970–2025 — with 98% of cities experiencing warmer winters. Despite this, warming is linked to the increased number and intensity of extreme cold events.

That’s because this warming is affecting what is termed the “.” A polar vortex is a large, persistent, low-pressure area of circulating, frigid air that exists in the stratosphere and upper troposphere above both of Earth’s poles, strengthening in winter and weakening in summer. During winter, it acts as a vortex of wind that traps cold air near the poles. It is not a new or artificial phenomenon; it is a natural, recurring feature of the Earth’s atmosphere that exists year-round.

A strong vortex keeps cold air trapped at high latitudes, which brings normal conditions. But because the Arctic is warming nearly four times faster than the rest of the world, the polar vortex is weakening. When this band of strong winds becomes unstable, it can shift or split, allowing arctic air to spill into mid-latitudes and causing the severe cold snaps Americans are experiencing. Disruptions to the stratospheric polar vortex appear to be increasingly linked to the rapid Arctic warming, potentially making the vortex more prone to stretching and splitting. So, this effect isn’t going to go away, quite the contrary.

Social and economic devastation caused by extreme cold

Such severe winter weather, including heavy snow and freezing temperatures in areas that normally don’t experience such terrible cold, can cause significant social, economic and health impacts. The direct health impacts of hypothermia affect the elderly and the vulnerable. And they have a higher proportional in the lower economic demographic and those that live in isolated communities.

These communities can be further isolated by road and rail closures. Apart from the health impacts, this also causes social disruption. Power outages and system failures also commonly due to increased power usage and falling power poles and towers.

Power outages, road, rail and air transport closures also have a significant economic impact. Already, insurance companies are making significant adjustments based on the recent and forecasted damage to property and infrastructure from storms, heatwaves, cold snaps, floods and droughts.

How we will adapt to climate change

Climate change has and will continue to have considerable social and economic impacts around the world. Adapting to new climatic trends will involve major changes to infrastructure and the way we live on this planet. Much of our infrastructure was designed and built for a different set of criteria to what we are likely to see in the future. So what does adaptation to a changing climate look like?

This will need to be done in a number of steps, each unique to each location or region, each unique to a particular type of infrastructure: transport, communication, health, energy, water etc.

The first step is to establish the science-based climatic forecasts data for a region. These are usually available in various scenarios, such as ‘low,’ ‘medium’ and ‘high’ impact over time, each with levels of likelihood and probability. For a particular region, there may be a high likelihood of increased events of lower temperatures.

These events may become more severe and more frequent over time. For example, the northeastern region of the US may be forecast to experience an increased number of days with a lower average winter temperature by, say, (-1.5° C) by 2030, and this may increase to 5.4° F (-3.0° C) by 2050. Or perhaps the forecast may predict an increased number of days below a certain temperature.

These data points are then used to identify the particular risk factors or impacts and their likelihood for a particular class of infrastructure or service. They are then ranked from highest to lowest in terms of impact and likelihood under regular conditions. For instance, the roads in the above region may be more prone to closures due to snow and frost, increased by the number of days. The mitigation of each risk is then identified and costed over time.

Such exercises usually expose weak points and vulnerabilities as well as resilience in infrastructure and processes. The health systems of remote communities may be more vulnerable due to road closures and/or energy disruptions when severe storms and extreme cold snaps may affect services. While there is inherent resilience currently built in infrastructure, and it can cope with a certain number and severity of certain impacts, often such resilience becomes tested under more prolonged and more frequent events.

There is no way to avoid some of these risks of impacts without identifying them, developing mitigation actions for building increased resilience in current systems and infrastructure, and yes, allocating great amounts of money to rectifying them over time. And the longer these actions take, the greater the money needed to deal with the impending risks will be.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Freezing During Global Warming appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The basin’s survival depends on dismantling unilateral “hydro-hegemony.” We must move beyond regional finger-pointing. Instead, a new trilateral framework must be established. This framework should recognize the residents of Ghor and Herat as the primary custodians and sovereign stakeholders of the river.

Climate shifts and hydrological collapse

Climate change has fundamentally decoupled the Harirud from its historical snow-melt cycles. Average temperatures in the basin have increased by 1.7°C (3.06°F) since 1980. Rainfall has declined by roughly 150 millimeters. The Baba Mountain glaciers serve as the basin’s “water tower.” They have experienced a nearly in surface area over four decades.

The basin is currently enduring its sixth consecutive year of drought. Surface water resources have decreased by 29%. This represents a loss of approximately 1 billion cubic meters of available water. Even during the spring thaw, the riverbed remains dangerously low. It fails to meet the minimum ecological flow requirements for regional biodiversity.

Geopolitical misconceptions and the “single-source” myth

A primary hurdle in regional diplomacy is a false narrative. Many believe the water of the Harirud is solely the responsibility of Afghanistan. In reality, the catchment area is . Afghanistan accounts for 39.5%, Iran for 43.7% and Turkmenistan for 20.9%. Although the headwaters are in Afghanistan, critical tributaries, such as the Kashafrud River in Iran, join the system.

This “single-source” myth allows downstream states to evade responsibility. Downstream nations demand “customary rights” from the headwaters in Afghanistan while often obstructing secondary branches within their own borders. This selective focus distorts the diplomatic narrative.

This situation highlights a critical water management disparity. Afghanistan utilizes only about 40% of its potential surface water resources due to conflict-damaged infrastructure. Meanwhile, neighbors Iran and Turkmenistan heavily exploit their resources, even exceeding sustainable limits. This causes aquifer stress and water scarcity, impacting agriculture, drinking water and regional stability.

The infrastructure imbalance: diversion to Mashhad

A technical comparison of reservoir capacities debunks claims that development in Afghanistan is the sole cause of downstream scarcity:

• The Doosti (Friendship) Dam: Built jointly by Iran and Turkmenistan in 2004 without consultation with Afghanistan. It has a massive capacity of  cubic meters (m³). Critically, this dam functions as a mechanism for interbasin water transfer. It diverts water out of the Harirud system to supply Mashhad, Iran’s second-largest city.
• The Pashdan Dam: Inaugurated in , this project in Afghanistan has a capacity of 54 million m³. It irrigates 13,000 hectares of Herati land. This represents only 4.3% of the total volume of the Doosti Dam.
• The Salma Dam (Afghanistan-India Friendship Dam): This project has a capacity of 633 million m³.

The Salma Dam is situated nearly 480 kilometers upstream of the Doosti Dam. This vast distance means the Harirud passes through hundreds of kilometers of arid terrain and irrigation zones before reaching the border. The storage deficit at the Doosti Dam is clearly driven by systemic losses and the 180-kilometer pipeline diversion to Mashhad, which sits outside the natural flow of the Harirud River.

Furthermore, Salma is not a “new” infrastructure. The project was initially conceived in , and construction began in 1976. For four decades, its completion was a known factor in regional hydrology. The current collapse of the Doosti reservoir is a result of the 1.7°C temperature rise, not upstream impoundment.

Ghor and Herat: the epicenter of custodianship

The residents of Ghor and Herat are the frontline victims. Ghor is the “water tower” where the river begins. Herat was the most productive agricultural hub of the basin, but multi-year droughts have displaced thousands of  in western Afghanistan.

Survival depends on local stewardship. The ancient irrigation “blocks” of Herat follow the 16th-century by Qasim Haravi. This manuscript remains a legal reference for water conflicts today. Modernizing this traditional system with lined canals could reduce water losses from seepage by . This would directly benefit the families who have protected this river for generations.

The path toward a basin-wide plan: a strategic framework

Addressing “water bankruptcy” requires a multidimensional approach that balances high-level diplomacy with grassroots custodianship:

1. Establishing trilateral data transparency and a joint monitoring body: The first step toward stability is the creation of a permanent, trilateral technical committee involving Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan. This committee must facilitate the transparent exchange of real-time data on all tributaries. This includes the Kashafrud River and other secondary branches originating in Iran. By establishing a common hydrological baseline, the three nations can move away from political rhetoric and toward evidence-based allocation and joint drought forecasting.

2. Modernizing local custodianship through integrated management: We must bridge the gap between ancient wisdom and modern technology. We must modernize community-led irrigation by integrating pressurized systems and satellite-monitored soil sensors. These upgrades should be managed directly by the local Mir Abs (Water Masters). Empowering local stakeholders ensures “buy-in” and compliance that top-down treaties often lack.

3. Addressing interbasin transfer inequities through benefit-sharing: Negotiations must confront the unsustainable practice of interbasin transfers. The Doosti Dam’s primary function — supplying Mashhad at the expense of the Harirud’s internal ecology — is a major driver of regional scarcity. Treaties must prioritize the basin’s ecology over external urban demand. Downstream nations must invest in internal recycling and desalination rather than further depleting the Harirud. A “basin-first” policy could be supplemented by a  in which downstream gains contribute to upstream water efficiency.

4. Legal harmonization and accountability: Regional water management must be codified within a robust legal framework of “equitable and reasonable utilization.” This requires harmonizing national water laws with international standards. By moving toward a unified basin-wide plan, the Harirud can transform from a source of conflict into a model for regional cooperation and climate resilience.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Beyond the Flow: The Fight for Survival in the Harirud Basin appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On average, according to the medical journal The Lancet, of the extremely hot days we’ve faced over the past five years would not have occurred without human-induced climate change that the American president seems intent on making so much worse. Heat-related deaths are already 63% more frequent than in the 1990s. That Lancet article also reported that heat- and drought-related hunger, as well as deaths from wildfire smoke and industrial air pollution, are breaking records globally almost yearly.

Climate Impacts Tracker 2025 “The Year of Climate Disasters,” noting,

Flash floods tearing up a Himalayan village in India, hurricanes and wildfires ravaging the US, heatwaves and wildfires scorching Europe, record-breaking heat in Iceland and Greenland, torrential rains and floods roaring through Southeast Asia — 2025 marked yet another year of human tragedies, driven by extreme weather events.

The number of environmental disasters and their destructiveness are only ratcheting up in step with increases in global greenhouse-gas emissions, ever more extraction of key minerals, the ever-greater exploitation of biological resources and outbreaks of (most recently with the US Venezuela). All of that is linked to one crucial phenomenon: the single-minded pursuit of economic growth by the owning and investing classes. Not surprisingly, they the lion’s share of the benefits from such growth and bear next to none of its devastating consequences.

Though it’s seldom highlighted, the world economy has indeed reached an astounding physical scale. During the past century, resource extraction has doubled every 20 years or so. Indeed, humanity reached a grim milestone in 2021, when the global quantity of human-made mass — that is, the total weight of all things our species manufactured or constructed — the total weight of all living plant, animal and microbial biomass on this planet. And worse yet, that mass of human-made stuff continues to grow, year by year, even as the natural world diminishes further.

In other words, our species is vainly striving to circumvent what’s come to be known as , from an aphorism credited to economic guru Herbert Stein: “If something can’t go on forever, it won’t.”

Count on this: at some point, global economic growth will finally have to grind to a halt and shift into reverse. After all, if the corporate and political powers carry on with business as usual, such growth will end in chaotic, violent collapse. (Think Mad Max.) But if the elites can be thwarted and we can dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and other resources in a reasonably well-planned way, we might be able to avoid that fate.

That’s the pitch put forward by the movement. In essence, it’s a refutation of the “” doctrine. (Green-growthers, ignoring Stein’s Law, claim that technological “innovation” will ensure that economies can continue to grow indefinitely.) In that debate, degrowth finally seems to be getting a leg up. A 2023 survey of nearly 800 climate-policy researchers found that almost three-quarters of them or no growth over green growth.

And here’s the reality the rest of us need to take in: societies could indeed achieve a distinctly better quality of life (not in spite of) degrowth, since full-scale restraints on the endless extraction and consumption of fossil fuels could force them to ensure that their limited resources would be used to satisfy basic human needs instead of being wasted on yet more increasing profits for the already wealthy few.

The growth-addled political and economic forces pushing us toward ecological doom are many and formidable indeed. And that makes it ever more important that people in rich, overconsuming countries like ours come to realize how important it is that we stand up to the forces of ecocide, while developing a more realistic vision of the better world that awaits us once we’ve jumped off the growth-by-carbonization bandwagon.

One way to bring that better world into sharper focus is to examine a few of the many miseries and dangers that degrowth would help us alleviate or even leave behind. What follows is just a handful of examples.

Goodbye, war machine

Topping the list of American institutions and resources that a degrowth economy could starve would be the US military-industrial complex. After all, the Pentagon is actually the largest institutional user of fossil fuels in the world. The greenhouse gases our military emits, even in peacetime, are believed to have a global-warming impact of metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. The Earth can’t handle that any longer.

To begin shrinking our military’s now trillion-dollar annual budget would not only prevent a significant amount of global warming but also save countless human lives and greatly enhance the quality of life in this country and across the planet.

With degrowth, for example, the Defense (not — thank you, Trump, Pete Hegseth and crew! — ) Department’s nearly employees, who enable the resource-heavy, deadly work of war-fighting, imperialism and, if the Trump administration gets its way, the suppression of domestic , can find themselves better jobs. After all, employees in all but the top echelons of the military, underpaid and exploited, often endure harsh working and living conditions. Zeroing out the Pentagon would free up a vast workforce to help meet people’s actual needs rather than killing all too many of us on this planet (most recently, at least in the bombing of Venezuelan boats and more in the January 3 attack on Caracas). And they’d be better off losing those jobs.

Enlisted personnel receive such small paychecks that many are eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — “food stamp” — benefits, even if only apply for them. Among the families of junior enlisted troops, often can’t afford enough food. More than of them don’t get an adequate variety or amount of food and, of those, about 120,000 report sometimes skipping meals and eating less than they need for fear of running out of money.

And that’s not all. A nationwide analysis suggested that towns and cities abutting military bases have higher (19% greater for property crimes and 34% for violent crimes) than similar towns not near such installations.

Worse yet, people living or working in or around military bases are often exposed to dangerous levels of over long periods and can also be plagued by noise pollution. Not surprisingly, studies have also high rates of hearing loss among the troops. In the US, almost of active-duty personnel suffer hearing impairment of some sort (and it’s one of the most common health problems among as well).

Dismantling our war machine would also help restore a better quality of life for tens of millions of people elsewhere. Consider the death and misery our military has inflicted during the past six decades on Indochina, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Kuwait, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iran and the Caribbean Sea, the Eastern Pacific Ocean and, of course, .

As if that weren’t bad enough, for decades, our military-industrial complex has provided armaments to repressive, murderous regimes around the globe — Israel’s of the Palestinian people being the most recent example.

Adiós, vehicular supremacy

In a much less resource-intensive American society, human needs would also no longer be subordinated to those of gasoline-driven motor vehicles, and our collective quality of life would improve dramatically.

Based on the importance of keeping this planet livable, any ecologically sane society would break free from what Gregory Shill has labeled “,” and that, of course, would be a particularly significant accomplishment for any degrowth movement in the US or other wealthy countries.

As a start, motor vehicles are regularly among the causes of death for US residents under the age of 55. Worse yet, pedestrian fatalities, which had been for decades, shot up by between 2010 and 2023, while fatalities caused by increasingly taller, heavier, more aggressively armored pickups and sport utility vehicles (SUVs) climbed at precisely twice that rate, .

With private gas-driven vehicles largely replaced by extensive transit networks, electric vehicles, and bike and foot traffic, we also won’t have to contend with as many drivers in armored pickup trucks the size of World War II . We won’t face the health dangers posed by air and noise pollution from vehicle traffic. Our cities will have vastly more green space, because significant parts of the 30% of their soil surface now covered by concrete or asphalt solely to accommodate motor vehicles could be revegetated. And we won’t suffer the extra-blistering summer that comes with such over-paving.

With degrowth and the end of automobile supremacy, traffic jams will vanish into the past; we’ll no longer risk being while simply walking, biking along a roadway, crossing a street legally or engaging in lawful, peaceful ; and everyone will all too literally be able to stop driving everyone else crazy.

Farewell to so many other fossil-fuelized plagues

Starving militarism and automobile supremacy of resources, while improving the quality of life of our communities, would also go a long way toward halting the ecological breakdown of this planet, while the sources of many smaller-scale dangers and ills would also fade into the past. Taken alone, each might appear insignificant, but cumulatively, such culprits severely degrade the quality of life in our wildly growth-oriented economy. As just one example of something that, with degrowth, we could say “good riddance” to, let me suggest that loud-mouthed neighborhood bully, the .

Generating wind speeds approaching those of an EF5 tornado, gas-powered leaf blowers blast out noise at decibels (two to eight times louder than the safe upper limit set by federal agencies). Electric leaf blowers, while less noisy, still significantly exceed the maximum safe noise level near schools, hospitals, daycare centers, retirement homes or anywhere else where there are vulnerable people present.

Most gas-powered blowers and other deafening lawn machinery are operated for long hours by commercial landscaping crews, whose ears are just a couple of feet from the roar. Often surrounded by other leaf blowers, lawn mowers and gas-powered equipment, such workers commonly suffer .

The noise of a leaf blower, like that produced by vehicular traffic and wind turbines, is rich in low-frequency sound that carries long distances, easily passing through walls. Exposure to such noise the risk of a range of health problems, including sleep disruption, mental stress, high blood pressure, heart ailments, stroke and immune-system dysfunction.

And keep in mind that the substitution of leaf blowers for perfectly functional rakes is just the tip of the iceberg. Our economy is now chock-full of unnecessary products that diminish the quality of life and would be left in the nearest ditch if energy consumption were deeply reduced.

Hello again, night sky

By ending profligate energy consumption, degrowth could also restore much-loved wonders of nature that the growth economy has stolen from us.

Consider the night sky. Since 2010, in cities and towns, as well as anyplace near them, “skyglow” (a bleaching-out of the night sky that hides stars from view) has been increasing at an astonishing rate of a year.

This surge in light pollution has coincided with the rapid adoption of light-emitting diodes () for streetlights and other outdoor illumination. Such LEDs produce far more light per watt of energy consumed than older light sources. Unfortunately, companies and municipalities have taken advantage of LED efficiency not by cutting their energy consumption, but by flooding parking lots, streets, billboards, sports fields and car dealerships with even brighter light.

Most LED lighting now in use is rich in short wavelengths at the “cool-blue” end of the visible spectrum, which ensures that it will be scattered by the atmosphere more efficiently and so produce a rapid increase in skyglow. As a result, stars have all but from the night sky in cities, suburbs and nearby rural areas.

Exposure to cool-blue light at night also threatens humans and other species by disrupting our circadian sleep-wake cycle. Among the impacts on human health gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and even cancer.

A degrowth society dialing down its energy use would not only reduce light and noise pollution but also achieve significant advances in environmental justice. Brightly lit industrial and commercial facilities and parking lots are all too often placed in low-income, racialized communities. As a consequence, across the US, light pollution is in neighborhoods where a larger proportion of the population is Black, Latino or Asian.

Amid mounting ecological and humanitarian crises and with Trump still in the White House for another three potentially devastating years, the vanishing of the heavens may be regarded as a problem only for astronomers and aesthetes. But such a view badly underestimates how important the starry night sky has to be to our culture, scientific progress and social cohesion. It was an unalloyed good, shared freely and equally by all humanity. And it could be so again if, with degrowth, we put our cities and towns on a dimmer switch.

To be clear, the degrowth movement’s not claiming that the way to prevent ecological and civilizational collapse is simply to play Whac-A-Mole by working our way through individual problems like traffic congestion or light and noise pollution. In fact, the point of degrowth is that societies should leave all such problems, including the potential disaster of climate change, in history’s trash heap. We’d reap myriad benefits by deeply cutting resource use while ensuring that collective sufficiency and justice for all become the focus of our world.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post We’re Racing Down the Highway to a Mad Max World appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On October 28, 2025, Hurricane Melissa made landfall in Jamaica. Cell towers across Jama������’s southeastern parishes failed. Families lost contact for days. Emergency responders dispatched helicopters without knowing which communities were cut off, which roads remained passable or who needed rescue. The storm was Jama������’s strongest on record, with sustained winds near 185 miles per hour, which caused in damage, roughly 41% of the country’s GDP, and dozens of . Meteorologists had tracked the storm for days. Authorities evacuation orders on October 27. But Jamaica lacked the capacity to send targeted alerts to every phone, coordinate regional evacuations or maintain communications when infrastructure collapsed. The result was preventable chaos.

Holness called the crisis “an opportunity for us to rebuild, but not what was there before.” He spoke of roads, congestion, sidewalks and parking. But he might be overlooking another infrastructure: digital.

In 2025, Jamaica joined the global “” campaign to build digital infrastructure for faster services and smarter government. It launched a program to digitally modernize its education system. These are worthy investments. But the global digital public infrastructure (DPI) agenda prioritizes identity and payments; for small island states facing existential climate risk, survival infrastructure must come first: a geotargeted early warning system that reaches every phone when hurricanes emerge.

Lessons from Southeast Asia

As a Jamaican-American researcher specializing in digital communication, media and development, I see lessons Jamaica can draw from Southeast Asia’s Lower Mekong Region, where I led research on . When I watched Melissa unfold with no way to reach my relatives, it became clear that Cambodia and Vietnam could offer Jamaica a path forward.

and share profile: climate-exposed, middle-income, highly mobile phone-saturated, experimenting with digital IDs and e-government, and reliant on external funders. Both have built digital infrastructures explicitly designed to protect people and property when disasters strike, with governance structures that prevent mission creep into surveillance.

In Vietnam, a Short Message Service (SMS) early warning system links provincial authorities to thousands of village volunteers who receive alerts and transmit real-time flood data back. In Cambodia,the Early Warning System 1294 () enables users to register a basic mobile phone by dialing a short code; when river gauges detect danger, authorities trigger voice and SMS alerts. These systems work when power fails, require neither smartphones nor high-speed data, and embed human rights .

That last point matters. Early warning systems built without accountability constraints can become surveillance tools. Cambodia’s system limits data collection to phone numbers and geographic zones: no names, no identity verification, and no message content logging. Alerts flow one-way during emergencies; two-way communication only activates when users voluntarily report conditions. Provincial disaster committees, not security ministries, control the trigger authority. These design choices reflect lessons from the region’s history of state overreach, and they offer Jamaica a template for building public trust alongside safety.

Jama������’s readiness and challenges

Jamaica is well-positioned to replicate these models. Two dominant carriers cover over 95% of the island, andmobile penetration exceeds . Many Jamaicans hold multiple SIM cards. Jamaica operates 15 siren towers that consolidate hazard data for responders. A Japan-funded early in Old Harbour Bay was activated during Melissa. This is proof that the technology works. However, one station cannot cover three million people, and sirens cannot deliver the geotargeted, language-specific instructions that save lives when every minute counts.

Cell-broadcast warning systems alone are inadequate. Catastrophic flooding recently killed at least in southern Thailand, despite the country having launched , a nationwide cell-broadcast system, earlier that year. Alerts reached phones, but the system was new, messages imprecise and once power failed, technology could not compensate. Indonesia, where more than in the same regional floods, had solid forecasting and a national warning platform but lacked universal, geotargeted cell-broadcast capacity.

Cambodia tells another story. Monsoon flooding days earlier prompted authorities toevacuate over from Pursat province; no deaths were reported. The difference: a decade of building and testing acoordinated early-warning led officials to act preemptively.

Jama������’s task is, in one respect, simpler: with a population one-sixth of Cambodia’s size, coordinating nationwide alerts should be more manageable. Jamaica first needs a system that reaches every cell phone with region-specific evacuation instructions. As like theCaribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency and such asEarly Warnings for All invest in better forecasting and coordination, a comprehensive digital disaster system could cost Jamaica a low single-digit number of millions of dollars if it follows Cambodia’s open-source model: for messaging, for telephony, for alert dissemination.

Funding and financial gaps

Jamaica is financing recovery through prearranged disaster funds: a World Bank catastrophe bond, a $91.9 million Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility payout, plus contributions from the International Monetary Fund (), the Inter-American Development Bank, the UN and the US Department of State. However, a funding gap remains.

One option to reduce that gap is the , funded by the EU with €9.5 million for broadband expansion, school Wi-Fi and digital skills. Because Digital Jamaica operates as budget support — direct transfers to Jama������’s treasury rather than project-specific grants — the government has flexibility to seek EU approval to redirect these funds toward a national cell-broadcast system delivering geotargeted messages in English and Jamaican Patois. Precedent exists for such reallocations.

If approved, telecommunications regulations should require all operators to support emergency cell broadcast. Network upgrades should dovetail with existing Digital Jamaica projects. The government should train technicians in digital emergency communications and build a network of river-level, rainfall and landslide sensors in vulnerable watersheds, feeding a two-way communication system. Trained volunteers and local officials would confirm receipt of alerts and report conditions: which bridges are gone, where floodwaters are rising and who needs to be evacuated.

Jamaica has an opportunity to use Melissa as a launchpad. Southeast Asian models show what works and what doesn’t. The choices Jamaica makes now will determine whether the next generation weathers future hurricanes or remains trapped by a geography it cannot change.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Jamaica Needs Digital Disaster Infrastructure appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Many theories abound concerning the origin of Earth’s oceans, which cover more than 70% of Earth’s surface. An array of scientific theories exists, including outgassing, comet and asteroid bombardment, volcanic activity and other possibilities during the first approximately two billion years of Earth’s ~4.6 billion-year history.

Three useful by National Air and Space Association () Ames scientists and the University of Colorado describe Earth’s early atmosphere as being in (escaping) hydrogen and helium, and a planet devoid of free oxygen and water, with continuous volcanic activity spewing ash, extraterrestrial bombardments of carbonaceous meteorites and an array of noxious gases.

A new hypothesis

In 2010, an important experiment (In-Situ Resource Utilization field demonstration) was in Hawaii by a group of US, Japanese and Canadian entities, primarily by Lockheed Martin Corporation at a Japan/US Science, Technology & Space Applications Program (JUSTSAP) symposium, which the author chaired. The experiment was designed to demonstrate that water could be obtained from volcanic ash to simulate regolith rich in silicates (silicon oxides) found throughout the Moon, as a potential source of rocket fuel (“”) and for other human applications.

The experiment conducted on Mauna Kea, not far from the Visitors Center at 3,000 meters, demonstrated that volcanic ash rich in silicates (especially [SiO2]) fed into a ~three-meter elongated glass chamber (on a small conveyor belt) then intensely heated by solar energy at atmospheric pressure, produced water at an outlet tap at the far end of the chamber — after hydrogen had been injected into the chamber.

Hydrogen reduction of SiO2 involves reacting SiO2 with hydrogen gas, typically at high temperatures to produce silicon (Si) or silicon monoxide (SiO) and water (a key process for green silicon production and semiconductor passivation, involving complex kinetics controlled by temperature, pressure and gas conditions), often via the typical reaction: SiO2+2H2⇌Si+2H2O — although there is also a parallel reaction which forms silicon oxide (SiO) plus water.

A significant volume of water was recovered relative to the mass and volume of the volcanic dust, with perhaps >65% SiO2. Water was formed by hydrogen atoms combining with oxygen atoms from the silicates, using intense solar heat. At the time, this was a fascinating experiment, but it begged the question: Where would the hydrogen come from? One possibility could be as a component of the rocket fuel used to reach the Moon & Mars.  

Circa 2018, following more science-based evidence that the Earth’s early atmosphere for the first ~2 billion years was a reducing atmosphere rich in escaping hydrogen and other reducing gases, an intriguing, serendipitous hypothesis emerged. Namely: Could most of the water in Earth’s oceans have come from “in gassing” of dry volcanic ash loaded with SiO2, interacting with hydrogen, in the presence of intense solar radiation* and other high-energy sources?

*Initial (4.5–4 Billion Years Ago) 

• Molten & Scorching: The first few million years were dominated by intense heat from planetary accretion and giant impacts (like the one forming the Moon), keeping Earth molten with surface temperatures potentially exceeding 2,000°C.
• Cooling & Solidification: After the magma ocean solidified, the surface cooled enough for rock to form, but intense volcanic activity and greenhouse gases kept it very warm.

Water vapor and condensed liquid water could probably have been produced in sufficient quantities, depending on ambient temperatures, when combined with other events (e.g., carbonaceous chondrite meteorites [~20% water], comet bombardment, Earth’s nascent weather cycles, etc.), to form the early oceans on Earth — and possibly other planets and their moons in the solar system (e.g., Europa, Enceladus, Pluto, etc.), and elsewhere in the cosmos, followed by condensation.

Contrary to some previous speculation that insufficient free hydrogen existed in Earth’s early atmosphere, due to the escape of low-density gases, including hydrogen, it now appears that considerably more hydrogen was available and for longer periods.

Possible next steps

The next step is to determine if this “s�����������ٱ��-�ٴ�-�ɲ��ٱ��” hypothesis holds scientific water! 

• Could sufficient water/water vapor have been generated over a period of many hundreds of millions of years from volcanic dust on Earth (in conjunction with bombardment from comets, asteroids, and other chemical & atmospheric processes) to form the early oceans on Earth? The author postulates affirmatively*
• Was the bombardment of the early Earth by chondritic carbonaceous meteorites and comets sufficient to explain the formation of the oceans? The author believes not, based on the probable lack of sufficient impact volumes.

*The key question being: Is this hypothesis both necessary and sufficient to explain the probable origin of Earth’s oceans? The author believes so — largely based on the aforementioned experiment of “silicates to water” he witnessed in Hawaii in 2010, plus scientific data indicating longer periods of hydrogen in Earth’s early reducing atmosphere, than previously postulated.

[The author is a past chairman of JUSTSAP and a current Corporation board member of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.]

[JUSTSAP formed the organization called (Pacific International Space Center for Exploration Systems) in 2006/7 while the author was chairman. This organization was instrumental in the “Dust to Thrust” experiments.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Did the Earth Get Its Oceans? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

No less curiously, the country visibly on the rise, China, is distinctly not acting like a typical imperial power of history (at least the history I’ve known). In a world where the US still has or so military bases around the world, China, as far as I can tell, has at most just one (in ). While its economy has become significant globally (imperially significant, you might say), unlike essentially every from the Portuguese and Spanish in the 15th and 16th centuries on, it has no colonies and only the most minimal military presence abroad, though it does continue to build up its military power (and its ) at home.

Of course, it’s worth remembering that we are distinctly on a different planet than the one any of those older powers inhabited. And even if Amer������’s great man (my joke!), President Trump doesn’t seem to know it, but China’s leader, Xi Jinping, certainly does.

Putin’s version of imperial aggression is, at present, aimed at Ukraine in a war that will in the — and yes, I can hardly avoid the word! — end undoubtedly prove a disaster, not just for Ukraine but for Russia and the rest of the planet, too. Meanwhile, Trump’s version of imperial aggression, which is likely (again, in the end) to prove disastrous, is for the time being (and, with him, you always have to add a qualifier) the Caribbean Sea, the Eastern Pacific Ocean, and (which he now seems intent on turning into an ), even as he prepares to build his own “,” including “” (old-fashioned) battleships.

On the other hand, China’s major “aggression” (and indeed, that word does have to be put in quotation marks!) is aimed — setting aside the island of Taiwan (which it claims not as a colony but as a part of China itself) — at the conquest of the future global green economy.

Or put another way, to give credit where it’s due, despite the fact that China continues to coal plants in an unnerving fashion, its great-power desires are at least aimed at something — in fact, the thing — that truly matters on this distinctly beleaguered planet of ours. It is intent on becoming the Earth’s global powerhouse when it comes to the sale of green energy and the ways to produce it. Consider that its imperial target, one unlike any other in history (though perhaps a comparison could be made to the industrialization of what became imperial Great Britain in the nineteenth century). Moreover, it’s already green energy production units to countries globally, while anyplace else on this planet in producing electric vehicles (EVs).

At war with the world

Last year, China installed more wind turbines and solar panels than any other country, indeed more than the rest of the planet combined. And as The New York Times (The Times) earlier in 2025, “Not only does China already dominate global manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, EVs, and many other clean energy industries, but with each passing month it is widening its technological lead.”

While Trump’s America is putting so much of its energy (so to speak) and into coal, oil and natural gas production, China’s government has been giving hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to wind, solar and electric car manufacturers. And it is now hard at work spreading the products for producing wind and solar power globally. As The Times also reported:

Block Quote:

Chinese firms are building wind turbines in Brazil and electric vehicles in Indonesia. In northern Kenya, Chinese developers have erected Afr������’s biggest wind farm. And across the continent, in countries rich with minerals needed for clean energy technologies, such as Zambia, Chinese financing for all sorts of projects has left some governments deeply in debt to Chinese banks.

And of course, China is unequaled in the production of electric vehicles. There are now at least selling such vehicles in China, and they are exporting more than one-fifth of their products globally, while Chinese companies continue to out-innovate those elsewhere on this planet.

On the other hand, Putin, who that global warming might be good for Russians because they could then “spend less on fur coats,” at least now acknowledges its reality. Nonetheless, he only recently a decree that would allow his country, already heating up 2.5 times faster than the global average, to increase its emissions of greenhouse gases by 20% by 2035. And of course, the US is now led by a president who, all too bluntly, ran for office the second time around on the campaign slogan “” and is making policy based on “ the green new scam.”

Only recently, in fact, his administration “paused” the leases on and the building of five major wind projects under construction off the east coast of the US, supposedly due to “national security risks.” In essence, Trump and crew have been doing their best to or get rid of anything in this country that might effectively impede climate change and the future broiling of Planet Earth. That is, in fact, the definition of his America, which is also the definition of decline on a scale that once would have been unimaginable. And remember, I’m talking about the same president who, last fall, delegates from nations around the world at the UN that climate change was “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world,” while insisting that, “If you don’t get away from this green scam, your country is going to fail.”

In the bluntest terms, the greatest imperial power of the past century, the US, is now in the Trumpian process of sending itself into a steep imperial decline on a distinctly beleaguered planet itself undoubtedly in decline. And part of the reason for that, Trump aside for a moment, is that we humans just can’t seem to stop making war on ourselves. After all, in addition to killing and wounding staggering numbers of us and doing untold damage to (even destroying) whole regions of the planet, wars also release stunning amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as do what still pass for “peacetime” armies. In fact, the US military, even when not at war, more greenhouse gases than whole countries like Sweden or Norway. As it happens, it may be the single largest institutional emitter of such gases on planet Earth.

And worse yet, at such an increasingly dangerous moment in history, there are at least three significant wars underway on this planet of ours. In this distinctly post-modern age, there should be a term for such wars and the way — in addition to the hell on earth they have created since time immemorial — they are now helping produce an environmental hell through the release of greenhouse gases in vast quantities into the atmosphere. There is, of course, the never-ending war in Ukraine, the one (in partial — but — remission) in the Middle East and the brutal ongoing one in Africa. I’m thinking of , of course. (And don’t forget the more minor but still brutal one in the Congo.)

And when it comes to one conflict for which we have some figures on greenhouse gas emissions, The Guardian that, in the first 15 months of Israel’s war in Gaza, those emissions were “greater than the annual planet-warming emissions of a hundred individual countries.” It similarly reported that “the climate cost of the first two years of Russia’s war on Ukraine was greater than the annual greenhouse gas emissions generated individually by 175 countries.”

A long-term definition of suicidal on planet Earth

So, at a time (and what a time!) when we’re experiencing one record hot year after another, ever fiercer forest fires, ever more horrific floods, ever more severe droughts and so on (and on and on) — at a moment, in other words, when it increasingly seems as if humanity is ever more at war with this planet, the old form of imperial power, the one involving wars, colonies around the world and global military bases, seems increasingly passé, even if the leaders of neither the US nor Russia seem capable of recognizing that reality.

And in that context, those two imperial powers of the last century aren’t simply following the pathways of other imperial powers whose time was up. Yes, they are both distinctly heading downhill, but both of them, in an eerily purposeful fashion, seem (in climate-change terms) to be intent on taking down much of the rest of the planet with them. And none more purposefully (or so it seems) than Trump’s America, which is distinctly focused on ensuring that, at least in the United States, wind power projects will be , solar energy projects avoided or , and ever larger areas from to more than a of ocean waters opened to the production of yet more fossil fuels. If you need a long-term definition of “suicidal” at both a national and a planetary level, that obviously should be it.

And it’s in just such a world that China, the rising power on this planet, is neither spreading its military might globally, nor creating military bases and seizing colonies around the world. Instead, its leaders are doing their damnedest to take control of the universe of green energy and so plowing new imperial ground by potentially becoming the unparalleled green-energy power on planet Earth.

Of course, it shouldn’t really be a surprise that, on a planet changing before our eyes in the most basic fashion, the meaning of the very word imperial would change or that the old war-making, colonizing version of it would be left to the history books (and to the increasingly ancient and outdated great powers whose leaders can no longer seem to imagine the actual nature of our future).

And this brings me to myself. In some ways, in my 82nd year on this planet, I just can’t believe the world I’m in, nor could I ever have guessed that it would be quite this way. Trump, president of the United States … really? At a moment when it should have been all too obvious that humanity was in danger of creating an all-too-literal hell on earth, a of my compatriots elected (for a second time!) a man who not only refuses to faintly grasp what’s happening but has made a clear and conscious decision to worsen our situation by promoting the further use of fossil fuels in every imaginable way.

All too sadly, though it’s not normally used that way, the word “suicidal” seems a reasonable description of his policies. I mean, what needed to be done really shouldn’t have been all that complicated — not on a planet where the most recent years have been the hottest in human history, the last ten the , 2024 the hottest year ever (and unsurprisingly, when the final figures are in, will undoubtedly be right up there, too); not on a planet where Arctic ice is , sea levels and the weather (from to ) is growing ever more extreme by the year.

And yet, obvious as all that may be, Trump and crew have decided to actively intensify the ongoing disaster. And if that isn’t the definition of a once great imperial power going down (and attempting to take the rest of us with it), what is? To the extent that great power global politics even matter anymore, President Trump is literally turning this world, economically and ecologically, over to China, lock, stock and rain barrel.

And all of that makes me wonder: How did I — how did any of us — end up here?

Yes, we’re clearly entering a new imperial age with China potentially at the helm of a planet that, in weather (and human) terms, will be going down, down, down.

It may be hard to believe, but that’s our reality — and I must admit that I find it painful to leave such a planet to my children and grandchildren. They truly deserved better.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post What Planet Are We On? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Still, for Indonesia, the partnership could matter a great deal if it is implemented with intention.

The MOU is a framework, not a project list. It specifies no funding volume, no country allocation and no thematic quotas. Instead, it allows QFFD to cofinance ADB-led projects using ADB’s existing pipelines, safeguards and relationships with recipient governments. Projects are expected to begin in 2026, following individual approvals by both institutions and host countries.

This structure gives the partnership flexibility. It also leaves outcomes largely contingent on choices yet to be made, particularly in large, energy-hungry countries like Indonesia.

Transition goes beyond financing

Indonesia’s energy transition remains uneven. Coal continues to the power sector, renewable deployment stated targets and fiscal constraints limit the government’s ability to finance large-scale change. In this context, new development partnerships are often presented as potential solutions. But financing alone does not guarantee transition.

The ADB–QFFD partnership emphasizes concessional financing, typically in the form of loans with lower interest rates and longer maturities. These instruments can help close financing gaps, but they also add to public debt. For Indonesia — where energy transition investments often produce public rather than commercial returns — debt-heavy financing risks slowing progress rather than accelerating it.

If the partnership is to benefit Indonesia’s energy future, QFFD would need to go beyond concessional lending. Grants, equity participation and risk-sharing instruments would be better suited for renewable energy deployment, grid upgrades and early coal retirement. Without such flexibility, Indonesia may gain infrastructure, but not transition.

Challenges and opportunities

Coal remains the central constraint. Indonesia’s decision to the early retirement of the Cirebon-1 coal-fired power plant illustrated how fragile its transition commitments remain. Without retiring coal assets, emissions reductions will be marginal, regardless of new renewable investments.

While the MOU does not address coal explicitly, the partnership could support Indonesia’s transition if it aligns future financing with coal phase-down efforts. Financing new infrastructure alongside operating coal plants risks undermining climate and economic resilience objectives.

Governance will also determine whether Indonesia benefits. Under the , ADB remains the lead implementing agency. QFFD can choose to be a passive financier or an active partner in project design and oversight. If it opts for the former, it will inherit ADB’s long-standing challenges, particularly around social safeguards and community engagement in large infrastructure projects.

A more active role for QFFD, as a project coordinator rather than merely a source of capital, could help improve project quality and accountability, especially in energy projects that affect land use and local livelihoods.

Project selection is another open question. ADB’s in Indonesia have historically favored capital-intensive projects such as geothermal power. Geothermal energy is considered an abundant renewable resource, but it often creates conflict with local communities in many areas. Meanwhile, distributed renewable solutions such as rooftop solar, community-scale solar and micro-hydropower remain underfinanced despite their suitability for Indonesia’s archipelagic geography.

The partnership could become an opportunity for Indonesia if project selection shifts toward these locally appropriate solutions. This would require a bottom-up approach, informed by community needs rather than institutional preferences.

Finally, who participates in decision-making matters. ADB typically works through central ministries, leaving subnational governments with limited influence. In a decentralized country like Indonesia, this approach often disconnects projects from local energy needs.

QFFD could encourage trilateral coordination among ADB, the central government and subnational authorities. Greater local involvement would increase the likelihood that projects support Indonesia’s actual energy transition rather than abstract development targets.

The ADB–QFFD partnership does not promise Indonesia an energy transition. But it creates a window. If financing moves beyond loans, if coal retirement is not sidelined, and if communities and local governments are meaningfully involved, the partnership could help Indonesia reshape its energy future. If not, it risks becoming another well-funded initiative that leaves the fundamentals unchanged.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post What ADB and Qatar’s New Partnership Means for Indonesia’s Energy Future appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A recent coauthored by Wharton accounting professor , titled “Transparency and Real Effects of Climate Stress Tests for Banks,” shows how regulators’ mandated climate stress tests increased transparency at European banks in their reporting of climate risks and led to a reduced climate risk exposure in their loan portfolios. Next-order effects extended to the high-risk borrowers of those banks, which were forced to adjust their investment strategies.

Hail’s coauthors are three experts from the University of Mannheim in Germany — , chair of the business administration and accounting department, and doctoral students and . They analyzed data from the 230 largest European banks from 2017 to 2022. These banks account for a large share of total lending in the European market.

“The stress tests could act as change agents for banks to become more aware of climate risks in their portfolios, and to integrate them into their financial risk management,” said Hail. “Ultimately, climate risks affect a borrower’s financial situation and are thus equivalent to the common credit risk.”

Regulators are using climate stress tests instead of imposing direct mandates to curb lending to high transition-risk borrowers, he noted. “With heightened awareness and better data, we expect incentivized banks to expand transparency, adjust lending standards, and reduce their loan exposure to climate risks,” the paper stated.

Not all banks are equal

European banking regulators started to introduce climate stress tests from 2019 onwards, which required banks to methodically collect data and measure the climate risk in their lending portfolios. The study’s sample of 230 banks was made up of 55 banks that were subject to the climate stress tests, which formed the “treated group” in the analysis. These banks are typically the largest financial institutions in an economy. The remaining 175 banks served as the “control group.” The authors tracked changes in transparency about climate risks between the two groups, both before and after the climate stress test mandate.

An increase in transparency was evident in just about half of the 55 banks of the treated group. These were banks that already had a history of commitment to climate issues, such as having dedicated board committees for ESG issues, faced market-based pressure from outside investors and analysts to become climate-conscious, or were exposed to substantial climate risks in their portfolios.

A Climate Disclosure Score developed by the authors shows that after the stress tests, banks with such market-induced incentives — the paper referred to them as “committed banks” — increased their transparency by between 16% and 18% relative to the remaining banks. The effect translates into about six new disclosure items on their climate risk exposure and how they handle the climate risks in their lending portfolios.

But the effects did not stop with more transparency. Committed banks also actively managed their climate risk exposure and shifted their lending from long-term to short-term maturities for borrowers with high climate risks.

Constraints on high-risk borrowers

Next, the study focused on the stress-tested banks’ borrowers, totaling about 66,000 mostly private corporate clients, and analyzed their financing and investment strategies. Here, the paper tests regulators’ commonly held assertion that by forcing banks to be more transparent, the climate-risk policies would trickle down to bank borrowers and lead them to adjust their operations to a low-carbon economy.

The authors found that committed banks subject to climate stress tests — and only those — imposed funding and investment constraints on high-risk borrowers that faced significant risks in transitioning to low-carbon operations. Such high-risk corporate borrowers reduced their total and long-term loan financing, which in turn hampered their growth prospects and investment activities.

“We clearly see a link between banks being more conscientious about their lending to borrowers with high climate risks and these borrowers being constrained in their growth,” said Hail. “But we only find these effects for a small subset of banks that have good reasons to implement changes.” For the other banks, the study finds no evidence that they start more actively managing their climate risks in their lending portfolios. Rather, to the contrary, there are signs that these banks tried to gain business from their competitors.

One unintended outcome of the climate stress tests at committed banks could be that high-risk borrowers take their business to less committed and less tightly regulated banks, Hail said. Indeed, the study finds some evidence of such substitution taking place. “If anything, borrowers from exempted banks expand their long-term loan financing after the climate stress tests,” the paper stated. “Thus, the average borrower in the EU seems little affected by arguably stricter climate risk provisions for banks.”

Banks as agents of change

In the US, large banks with more than $10 billion in assets are required to conduct annual stress tests to check their ability to withstand recessions and severe economic downturns, but not climate stress tests. Hail did not expect US regulators to mandate climate stress tests on banks anytime in the foreseeable future. The Securities and Exchange Commission in 2024 adopted rules to mandate “material climate risk disclosures” by public companies, but they have since been .

Nonetheless, Hail expects European regulators to continue their push towards more climate-friendly, but less intrusive, policies like climate stress tests. “European regulators, central bankers, and politicians see climate stress tests as one way to nudge corporations towards a less carbon intense, greener economy,” Hail said. “Ultimately, however, our study shows that whether such policies succeed heavily depends on what incentives are in place for these banks.”

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Banks Can Be Change Agents in Climate Consciousness appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Legal deforestation as national policy

Satellite and field indicate that the clearing is not a fringe crime but a mapped, sanctioned process tied to strategic projects and concessions, and that the damage is concentrated where biodiversity and carbon stores are richest.

According to , Indonesia lost 260,000 hectares of forest in 2024, an estimated 190 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, a figure echoed by civil society monitors and contested by official tallies.

The scale of forest loss leaves little room for abstract debate. Independent monitoring found that Indonesia’s tree cover losses in 2024 were in the hundreds of thousands of hectares — roughly the equivalent of several Jakarta’s — and that nearly all the most recent losses occurred within legally authorized concessions. That transformation of upland watersheds into monoculture plantations has a hydraulic consequence: forests act like sponges, and when those sponges are replaced by single-species oil palm stands, runoff spikes and flash floods become more likely.

Global Canopy’s (a nonprofit that targets the market forces destroying nature) work in Aceh, for policymakers and communities, shows plantation-dominated catchments flood three to five times more often than intact forested systems — not an abstract correlation but a local lived reality.

From land-use change to climate diplomacy

This is not only an internal policy dilemma. Indonesia sits at the center of global commodity chains and climate diplomacy. Land-use change — much of it driven by plantation expansion — has for nearly half of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions over recent decades, complicating pledges made at international conferences and undermining credibility with partners seeking durable climate action.

The diplomatic irony is sharp: victories at trade panels or at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over market access for palm derivatives ring hollow if the homeland keeps being sold short of the resilience needed to face a warmer, stormier century.

Comparative experience matters. The late-2025 floods in Sumatra are part of an unsettling pattern observed elsewhere in tropical forest states. In , accelerating Amazon clearance has produced urban flooding and heat stress in Amazonian cities. In Belém, the loss of tree cover led to a summer of chronic flooding and record temperatures that became impossible to ignore during a recent international . These are parallel expressions of a single governance problem: an extractive approach to natural capital that externalises risk onto marginalised communities and into the future.

The Philippines’ extraordinary late-2024 typhoon season, which over a million people, and Myanmar’s loss of 290,000 hectares of forest in the same year, underscore that Sumatra’s floods are part of a wider Southeast Asian crisis of climate vulnerability and ecological degradation.

Sumatra’s floods pose a moral question: how much forest and how many rivers must be sacrificed before a development model is judged dangerous to its own people? The answer is visible in submerged roofs, muddy queues for clean water and communities whose losses were predictable. When an unusually intense November cyclone met landscapes reshaped for profit, a humanitarian catastrophe became inevitable.

The human toll

Human costs are staggering and still rising. Official tallies and reporting in the immediate aftermath of the Sumatra flood 1,000 dead, 200 missing, tens of thousands evacuated and critical infrastructure severed — bridges, power lines and communications — leaving pockets of the island almost inaccessible to rescuers.

Recent climate-driven storms and landslides in western Indonesia have hundreds of lives and left many still unaccounted for, a humanitarian tragedy that has exposed gaps in preparedness and raised difficult questions about national urgency and accountability. This is not an abstract policy debate but a clear moral responsibility: every hectare of forest lost erodes food security, water regulation and the resilience on which our communities will depend in the decades ahead.

Suppose we are serious about safeguarding the next generation. In that case, we need transparent moratoria on destructive concessions, swift support for affected families, and a credible plan to restore and protect the forests that anchor the nation’s safety and stability.

Trust, leadership and the policy response

The images from flooded towns and isolated villages carry another figure: trust, eroded. Where systems for land stewardship and disaster response should have been robust, communities report thin budgets and slow escalation of national assistance, exposing gaps between legal authority and practical rescue capacity.

In this context, President Prabowo Subianto’s for expanded oil palm planting in Papua to support biofuel production and reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels raises concern. Indonesia needs leadership that reads the lessons of today’s climate disasters carefully and responds with policies that strengthen resilience rather than deepen ecological risk.

Policy responses must therefore be twofold: immediate and structural. First, emergency governance needs simplification so that severe events trigger rapid national mechanisms for logistics, finance and military support — mechanisms that are not dependent on protracted interbureaucratic certainties. The procedural hesitation of past weeks translated into delayed helicopters, late convoys and preventable suffering. 

Second, the longer arc of reform must reframe land use as a security imperative. Legal moratoria that remain porous and concessions that permit conversion of high-risk watersheds should be tightened into enforceable obligations, accompanied by credible, independently audited standards for plantation certification.

Reforestation of critical catchments and support for agroforestry — policy instruments that align livelihood diversification with ecological restoration — offer practical ways to reduce flood risk while income. Evidence-based policy, backed by rigorous monitoring and sanctions for non-compliance, will be central to restoring both ecosystems and confidence.��

International partners also have a role beyond moralizing. Technical cooperation to strengthen remote sensing and concession transparency, finance for watershed restoration and trade agreements that incentivise low-impact production would turn global demand into leverage for better governance rather than a driver of degradation.

The Council on Strategic Risks and other think tanks have that climate adaptation belongs inside national security planning; protecting ports, energy grids and rural lifelines against climate shocks is not a discretionary budget item but a foundational defense of national capability.

The moral and strategic reckoning

The moral ledger here is clear and severe. When landscapes are fundamentally reshaped for export and the legal system prioritizes short-term gains over long-term resilience, the cost is disastrous: lives are lost, towns are displaced and diplomacy suffers. The choice isn’t between conservation and development but between a fragile, extractive approach that repeatedly harms its citizens and a resilient path that safeguards livelihoods by repairing the hydrological and social systems that support them.

Sumatra’s rivers will remember what was cut from their slopes. Rebuilding will require more than sandbags and temporary shelters; it demands an honest recalibration of national priorities, one that reconciles sovereign economic interests with the sober realities of climate risk and ecological limits. That is a foreign-policy truth as well as a necessity: partners will judge commitments by deeds, not speeches; communities will judge leaders by whether tomorrow’s rains are met by forests and systems that hold. The most immediate tributary of security is the watershed — and the next crisis will not wait for better intentions.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post A Nation’s Rivers Remember What Was Cut Away: Indonesia’s Flood Crisis appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Winston Churchill after the Allied forces’ victory at El Alamein turned the tide against the Axis powers in Africa, November 1942. Today, I repeat this Churchillian quip with reference to a defeat.

Last month, in the gateway city to the Brazilian Amazon, Belém, COP30 reached a . Putting aside the protests and logistical issues, the conference itself issued only a milquetoast encouragement to increase climate funding, crafted in politically meticulous language to avoid discouraging any country from continuing fossil fuel production.

At the same time that the headlines of COP30 were dominated by , and , American President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to celebrate their closer economic relationship. The golden opulence exhibited by these oil-producing giants starkly contrasts with the compromise-riddled conference.

More than ever, the direction forward has been clouded by disagreements stemming from shifting priorities among conference participants and observers. Bill Gates, a longtime supporter of climate action, issued a new and noticeably measured that advocated for the conference to temper the direct approach to net zero with other developmental goals, which has been met with much controversy.

As subsidies are withdrawn and tax incentives are repealed, the green transition faces strong headwinds from the powers of brown energy it seeks to replace. The one area of clear global transformation has been the rise in metal production that has enabled of renewable technologies. The relationship between metals and energy, however, is fraught with ulterior motives and logistical .

The energy addition

The increasingly bellicose tone of bilateral diplomacy has become akin to a duel of logistical chess. National autonomy is the paramount goal, and energy is the basis for achieving this aim. It can be argued that the explosion in for metals in recent years is principally motivated by martial competition, not an , although its implications for soft power are significant. Although appearing diametrically opposed, American hydrocarbons and Chinese renewables are but two sides of the same coin of energy policy. It is an , not transition.  

China’s enormous economy depends upon a voracious amount of energy, which it satisfies with domestic coal, imported oil and gas, and an increasing number of renewable projects leveraging the country’s mineral wealth to support a larger . China continues international market domination for various critical materials, from graphite and nickel to cobalt and rare earth elements (REE).

Green technology not only represents a means of securing energy independence but also a means of establishing foreign dependence on Chinese exports for green grid stability. The imported 98% of its solar panels and 43% of its wind turbines from China in 2023, ballooning its renewable capacity as the continent weans itself off of Russian imports. Europe faces a difficult dilemma to balance its climate goals with policies that will bolster its sagging industrial competitiveness. The overreliance on Chinese materials will become an increasing strategic liability, although many Europeans about new methods to combine economic and environmental goals. 

Across the pond, the Trump administration has exhibited for the advice of climate scientists. Although some of the actions taken by the administration to the intention of expanding American energy output, the reversal in energy policy is better understood in geopolitical terms of Trump’s hawkishness in weaning the United States off the Chinese supply chain for .

Even if or when the American AI and Chinese manufacturers’ cost-cutting come to bust, the mining boom that they have stimulated is not likely to reverse in light of this new geopolitical reality. Throughout the United States and Europe, new mines are being opened using improved extraction techniques that make previously uneconomic deposits commercially viable. 

One such example is Rio Tinto’s program for recovering copper, which coats ore with sulfuric acid and a special kind of copper-digesting bacteria to refine the metal on massive leach pads in the Arizona desert. In Alaska, the tailings of former gold mines are being for antimony ores, now that the element has gone from a leftover to a critical mineral for the strengthening of armaments. While these mines come online, manufacturers in the United States, Japan and elsewhere in the Western fold look to new techniques that will reduce or omit the need for critical minerals obtained from Chinese suppliers.

In light of international affairs, it is understandable why the climate change discussion from prevention to adaptation. The developing world is in need of more direct infrastructural and institutional resources to handle climate-compounded disasters, particularly with geopolitical insecurity and the diminishment of funding from sources like the US Agency for International Development (USAID). for reconfiguring climate finance, like the Green Swap, would enable money lending institutions to decouple the developmental and environmental goals of their investments, which would improve both aspects and empower more sustainable societies in the developing world based on green technologies.

There is an assumption that the green transition, in presiding over the demise of Big Oil’s monopoly over energy production, will lead to a more socially and environmentally just world.  One must predict, however, that socioeconomic inequities will persist, whether in a supply chain controlled by ExxonMobil and Volkswagen or by Rio Tinto and Tesla. We will continue in a world where the sufferings of vulnerable nations are neglected unless they possess useful resources to obtain. 

Untangling the green from the brown

The burgeoning of green energy has taken place so far within the interests and infrastructure of brown energy, making it difficult to fully separate. As our first industrial revolution rolls along, the green transition promised to eventually replace it is still characterized by mining, production, consumption and waste, which will compound ecological stress and societal risk factors. It is worth considering how green energy is tied to the old system, and how green projects around the world might adversely affect people and the environment within the contexts of extraction and refuse.

Nowhere is the entanglement of green and brown energy more exemplified than in the recent surge of Chinese manufacturing exports. From photovoltaics to electric vehicles (EVs), China has been the driving force behind the global progress that has been made in the green transition. It is important to remember, however, that these electronics have been born out of sustained oil importation and increased power plant capacity. 

Essential trace elements for green technology, like lithium and REEs, are often obtained as byproducts of the hydrocarbon industrial complex. For example, briny wastewater from Marcellus Shale oil in western Pennsylvania can supply of the United States’ demand for lithium batteries — provided the fracking continues. What happens to its wastewater is yet another matter.

As epitomized by the intensive Chinese REE mines in Inner Mongolia, , a region can enjoy an economic boom while simultaneously grappling with the landscape-altering defects of mining to health and environment. Every tonne of REE refined here generates approximately two thousand tonnes of toxic waste. Although great strides have been made by the Chinese government in consolidating companies and improving procedures, the region remains saddled with contaminated soil and water resources across over a thousand processing sites. 

Aluminum, another essential metal, is procured from bauxite found in the red clays of tropical soils from countries like Guinea and Jamaica. To refine these soils, caustic chemical agents are used to separate alumina from the leftover “red mud,” which is enriched in toxins during the process. Locals have been adversely affected by the atmospheric and hydrologic contamination, and for operations to wind down, noting how the economic incentives have declined in recent decades. 

As President Javier Milei’s Argentina for new mining investments, some communities across the Andes in northern Chile and suffer from occupational hazards, impoverished social development and long-term health risks like elevated cancer diagnoses because of unsafe mining practices used to obtain lucrative amounts of copper, gold and lithium. Multiple mines, including the world’s largest porphyry copper deposit, Chuquicamata, stack mountains of tailings near the city of Calama, in the Antofagasta region of Chile. Although determined to keep mines operational, nevertheless advocate for greater measures to prevent the dispersion of refuse minerals into the local aquifer and atmosphere.

Neglect or mismanagement of these leftover resources has led to environmental catastrophes, as in the collapse of an iron tailings dam on the upper Rio Doce in central Brazil that killed 20 people and polluted an entire watershed with a cocktail of chemicals. Only ten years later, concurrent to COP30’s proceedings, did a British court the mining company BHP liable for the disaster. The operations to extract and refine metals for this ballooning global demand will inevitably jeopardize many vulnerable communities, and each will have its own set of collateral environmental consequences.

Besides the mining and manufacturing of renewables, one must mitigate other environmental risks related to use. , whose large batteries already incur a sizable carbon debt in manufacture, reduce carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions but can increase levels of sulfur dioxide and other atmospheric particulates, due to different internal components and, in particular, whose wear increases with the additional weight of the car battery. The environmental positivity of the battery itself is outright negated when fossil fuels are used to power the electric grids for charging EVs during their lifespan.

Sustainability has yet to be achieved when batteries are spent. Currently, a mere of the metals assembled into batteries are recycled. Catalytic converters, attached to automotive tailpipes to neutralize nitrogen oxides in petrol-combusting cars, constitute the majority of recycling for several critical metals, like palladium (33%), rhodium (32%) and platinum (20%). 

Numerous facilities for are set to come online in the coming years. However, in order to scale up to global ambitions, strides in mining and recycling must be scaled up by orders of magnitude. Mining companies will have to mine a Chuquicamata-sized deposit in order to keep up with projected copper demand by 2050. EVs make up the bulk of demand for many metals like lithium (around 1100 of 1400 kilotonnes in 2025). 

As methods improve, the green transition will significantly benefit the environment overall, but there will still be substantial environmental risks associated with renewable technologies. It is necessary to ensure thorough custodianship of locations hosting hazardous industries and waste products as mines spring up and electronic waste proliferates. The consent and consultation of local populations is essential to maintain both the economic and ecological justice of green energy projects.

Humanity has affected the environment in many ways, and resolving its issues is not a straightforward task in certain cases. The numerous cargo ships that travel across our globalized world release exhaust full of water-condensating particulates. These create anthropogenic clouds whose reflects sunlight back into space, the impact of the greenhouse effect on the atmosphere.

In and of itself, cutting back the emissions of these maritime aerosol particles would serve to exacerbate global warming significantly. The inverse relationship between extreme heat and extreme smog is one of the many ethical knots which ensnare the green transition to the legacies of brown energy. 

Climate change does not only concern the atmosphere. There is increasing consensus that all these industries have impacted Earth’s geology to the point that we have entered a new stratigraphic epoch: the . Plastics, the “wonder material” of hydrocarbon reserves, manufactured more than ever before, have infiltrated the of living creatures in deleterious ways still not fully understood. The collective weight of anthropogenic asphalt, concrete, metal, and other materials the collective biomass living on planet earth. On average, a body’s worth of our weight is produced as waste every week. Within our lifetimes, alkaline seawater the coastal debris from steelmaking into solid rock. 

Civilization has made an indelible mark on the world. Even in a green transition, it will continue to do so. If we cannot go backward, we must then go forward. There must be a renegotiation of man’s place in nature.

For a thorough understanding of climate change and the solution to it, we must use the natural sciences to contextualize our energy production. After all that we have done, the ultimate question is not whether to stop, but whether to undo and redo sustainably. The solution to the oil rigs must not merely add more open-pit mines, but must also address the root causes of human-induced imbalance to the environment. To do so, the green transition will have to be augmented by a blue one.

Chemical imbalances

An unfathomable quantity of carbon rock has been deposited on the earth, accruing and eroding with the rise and fall of seascapes and landscapes. Forested swamps metamorphose into , which we burn for power. Oceans of plankton mature into the we convert into plastics. Corals and other calcium carbonate skeletons are cemented into the we calcine for concrete. From each of these rocks civilization extracts carbon, on an earth-changing scale, for the power and materials unleashed by its liberation into the atmosphere.

Industrialization has manipulated the natural cycles of other key elements of life. The , which fixes atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia for crop fertilization, has enabled food yields to feed billions more than before. Another important component of fertilizers, phosphorus, is quarried from sedimentary phosphate deposits. Ruthless mining has obliterated in the Pacific for the phosphate-rich guano that coated them. Millions of tonnes of its waste product, , loom over cities like Huelva, Spain, threatening to contaminate waters with carcinogenic and radiogenic metals.

Nitrogen and phosphorus in the water are two of the most important controls on the carrying capacity of organisms in the water. More nutrients mean more life. Watersheds that have accumulated years of artificial nutrients from sewage, lawncare and agricultural runoff suffer from as a result. Ironically, this overabundance of nutrients wrecks ecosystems when harmful algal blooms () explode into existence.

The HABs created by eutrophication include toxins from dinoflagellates, whose eventual death and rot asphyxiate the water of its oxygen. Oddly enough, they are a testament not only to mankind’s problem, but also represent the unmatched potential for quick-growing photosynthesizers to capture carbon and lock away toxins and other excess nutrients in a harvestable form.

Already, the oceans have absorbed over a quarter of our cumulative carbon dioxide emissions. A majority of photosynthetic carbon fixation and deposition takes place in the ocean. The hydrosphere has been the in the exchange of carbon between the geosphere and the atmosphere. By simple stoichiometric reckoning, it serves to reason that if we have artificially accelerated the release of carbon from the earth into the sky, then we must find a means of artificially accelerating its capture. The ocean is the ultimate enabler of this objective.

The elemental processes into which humanity has inserted itself are ultimately still a part of natural carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. In disturbing these cycles, we have damaged the planet. Even if all carbon emissions were to cease tomorrow, the cumulative imbalance of atmospheric carbon would continue to and exacerbate heatwaves. Any plan for a circular economy cannot only substitute carbon combustion. It must also include a completion of them. The carbon must be made solid again. The most sustainable way of accomplishing this has a name: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS).

The aquacultural revolution

for BECCS have been proposed, involving the rewilding of land with forests and dense vegetation, which would be managed to permanently capture carbon. However, land use on Earth is already strained to its limits, and attempts to use arable land for non-edible purposes, such as sequestration, have rightly drawn criticism. The case of American corn being used to produce than petrol through bioethanol is a perfect example.

The overexploited biomass of the oceans, on the other hand, is already in need of a reboot.  As Taras Grescoe underlines in his expose, , the current level of fishing in oceans worldwide is unsustainable. Widespread trawling in waters like the North Sea has obliterated the virtual entirety of the seafloor ecosystem in the quest for seafood, so that large finfish stocks remain only 2–3% of what they were before fishing was industrialized. The insidious proposals for robotic of critical minerals threaten to cull the ocean floor yet again. 

It is evident that fishing requires a revolution in approach. The green economy also requires a revolutionary change in approach. The wedding of aquaculture to the green economy is to create the “blue economy.” combines economy with ecology to offer the opportunity at reconstructing an entire food chain to be diverse, robust, and sustainably managed for continual fruitfulness. This is the approach of integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA).

IMTA is a mouthful of a term, but it simply describes a body of water used to grow multiple different types of species. Incorporating proxy data into that clarify how biomass cycles through nutrients, growers can artificially select different species to symbiotically grow in a combined ecosystem. Algae, especially seaweeds like kelp, are its keystone species.

By cultivating kelp on longline ropes floating upon open water with scaffolding to support shellfish aggregation and coral reefs, IMTA systems could expand across the open ocean. Coastal communities would be revitalized by such stable aquaculture, and even inland industries would benefit from the surge of biomass to be sequestered and repurposed.

currently dominates the production of seaweed cultivation and consumption. In fact, Chinese producers have been leaders in the development and upscaling of IMTA, particularly in the Shandong peninsula. Sixty percent of Sanggou Bay (~100 square kilometers) on Shandong’s east coast has been dedicated to IMTA, yielding 84,000 dry tonnes of seaweed and 60,000 tonnes of shellfish annually. An of companies now exists in China to process yields from waters like it. 

Sustainable aquaculture can be accomplished at a profit. Conservation funds that establish marine lead to at least twice as much monetary value being generated from the biomass of fish and crustaceans enabled to grow in their waters. As with mining, BECCS and its concomitant industries will be constrained by the need to worldwide IMTA development. The for seaweed is its current supply, which is in high demand yet represents only a fraction of what it could ideally be. 

Improved technologies must enable logistical upsizing of the aquaculture supply chain by orders of magnitude to implement IMTA globally. To do so, engineers from Europe and elsewhere are creating innovations in and mechanical harvesting that will enable drastically greater yields than are possible with existing methods that are manually intensive. New policies can facilitate oceanic expansion of IMTA and between aquaculture projects and renewable energies like offshore wind farms. 

The case of seaweed production in , in the Solomons of the South Pacific, demonstrates the budding potential for aquaculture to enable greater food and financial independence for climate-vulnerable nations. The blue economy gave greater leverage to the island’s local community when deciding to reject proposals for a with the potential to contaminate local water. Nevertheless, a catastrophic and overreliance on the fluctuating export market to China are recent challenges that emphasize the need for IMTA to be logistically robust, economically diversified, and locally tailored to suit each country the best according to its needs.

As demonstrated by HABs, abundant algae is a double-edged sword. Whether a society is prepared to harvest and convert is the difference between a pleasant or a nuisant existence; whether lives are saved or killed. For example, the free-floating sargassum kelps of the Sargasso Sea are beached on Caribbean coastlines in large quantities, whose numbers correlate positively with rising temperatures and pollution. When it decomposes, the sargassum releases lethal fumes of hydrogen sulfide, which have endangered the health and tourism-reliant economies of coastal communities.

Seizing upon the opportunities presented, scientists at the University of the West Indies in Barbados developed a method for using wastewater and sargassum biomass as the principal ingredients of an . Further investment and mechanization will scale up production to levels that will have significant effects on the energy independence of Caribbean nations. Other investigated by a group from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) aim to produce hydrogen gas and REEs from sargassum biomass. 

The commercial potential of seaweed and other algae is staggeringly diverse. Plastic packaging in the United Kingdom is being replaced with packaging. Enriched in the very nutrients of eutrophication in the ocean, seaweeds like fucus have been harvested in France and Ireland for centuries as . Hydrocolloids like agar, alginate and carrageenan are an of algal polysaccharides used for various creams and medicines. Everywhere humanity has wantonly dispersed the planet’s elements, seaweed and other algae purify water quality and mollify acidity while concentrating the very nutrients we need.

Advances have been made in the nurturing of other marine organisms that will support IMTA projects. Scientists from the Horniman Museum in London have natural stimuli in coral hatcheries to spawn corals in captivity for the first time. Salmon hatcheries have already benefited fish stocks in freshwater systems like those in Scotland. The calcium carbonate of shellfish like oysters and mussels has the potential to quarried limestone as a green alternative to cement and aggregate in concrete. Altogether, IMTA has the potential to supplement or even supplant the bulk of extractive industries with renewable resources.

Abiotic techniques

As IMTA is researched and scaled up, one may also consider more immediate methods for capturing carbon. Funding for carbon capture projects declined 55% in 2024, the steepest fall among all climate technologies, even before the incoming Trump administration existing infrastructure. Carbon capture already receives a among environmentalists, especially when touted as a carbon-neutral solution to expanding hydrocarbon power plants or, more generally, to delaying the transition from fossil fuels. 

This can be partly attributed to the way in which carbon capture is advertised. In particular, the abstract concept of has fostered dishonest business practices, in which carbon-emitting businesses often use a horde of loopholes to gamify the buying and selling of carbon debt. Often, these credits reference tracts of existing land that have been secured from vulnerability, or are pegged to carbon that has yet to be sequestered, sold by direct air capture firms as vouchers. Still, the sheer ingenuity of several proposals by well-meaning individuals deserves attention.

Some have proposed of carbon capture that do not involve harvesting biomass. One is an abiotic proposal to dump granulated sands of , a common mineral present in oceanic basalt rocks, to weather carbon dioxide from solution and sink to the ocean floor. Others have suggested iron dust could be spread across the ocean to encourage phytoplankton blooms that would sink. Proposals like these offer promising possibilities, but each suffers from its novelty. A carbon capture project must procure funding, draw up complex ecological models to calculate risk, negotiate with stakeholders and occasionally overcome . 

Electricity acquired from a power grid of renewables may aid the manual process of harvesting algae and sequestering carbon into rock. One company, Seacrop, has innovated a technique involving the of certain fibers to phytoplankton, separating biomass out of water more efficiently than current pumps and filters allow. from UCLA suggests flow reactors could be scaled up to electrically increase the alkalinity of seawater, allowing calcium and magnesium ions to precipitate into carbonate rock from the carbon already in aqueous solution. 

Other renewable technologies are adopting techniques to eschew metals wherever feasible. One Swedish startup, Modvion, wind turbines out of wood rather than steel, which will enable them to be built in larger sizes. Meanwhile, the technology of is rapidly evolving when compared to standard lithium-ion batteries. The replacement of lithium with this heavier yet more common element could greatly improve the economic and ecological standing of electric vehicles.

The future

Japanese economist Masaaki Yoshimori recently wrote in 51�Թ� that the objective of the Green Swap is to provide the architecture for the transition to “post-carbon capitalism.”  Respectfully, I think on the contrary: the future may well be one of post-capitalist carbon.  However volatile our nations and our markets, our planet’s elements are constant. If an economic system is to perpetuate itself upon our planet for the centuries and millennia to come, there must come to be an equal and opposite market incentive to recapture and recycle carbon and other minerals back into the economy.

In order to properly envision a circular economy, of efficiency and success might have to be introduced. A truly green revolution cannot be a one-way street only concerned with the mining and consumption of renewables. A true circular economy will be one that mimics natural cycles, not omits them. Only the well-curated bounty of the oceans is capable of sustainably replicating the commodities and energy obtained from hydrocarbon drilling.

We must think big, but we must also act carefully to rebalance our relationship with worldwide ecosystems. As we reconsider how to implement the green revolution, the blue economy must play a starring role in all of our plans.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Green Transition Needs a Blue Transition, Too appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The recent flooding and landslides across South and Southeast Asia claimed at least : 921 in Indonesia, 627 in Sri Lanka, more than 150 in Thailand and a few in Malaysia. With 627 dead and 336 still missing in Sri Lanka, this disaster is the largest our island has faced since the Asian Tsunami. The loss extends beyond lives to roads, bridges, farmlands, plantations, vehicles and factories — everything that anchors a society to its daily rhythm. From the central hills to the river plains, through villages and towns, and reaching the edge of Colombo, the destruction carved a path from the inside out. Unlike the tsunami that struck from the sea, this catastrophe rose from the heart of the island and spread outward, indifferent to borders or names.

The weight of past devastation

The last time I witnessed devastation of this scale was in . Nearly 36,000 lives were lost, and the entire coastline was torn apart. I spent four years among broken harbors and shattered livelihoods as part of the government administration, serving as Chair of the Ceylon Fishery Harbours Corporation (). I learned then that after disaster comes a profound silence — not only around us, but within us — a stillness in which we confront what has vanished. And yet from that silence, strength rises slowly. We rebuilt because life demands continuation.

Rebuild we did. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) was one of the largest , with Ambassador Robert O. Blake Jr playing a steady, crucial role. China, Japan, Greece and many smaller donors joined in, each offering a stone for the reconstruction of a wounded nation. Ten harbors and hundreds of anchorage points were completed ahead of schedule. What made this possible was not charity alone, but a synergetic relationship among institutions, governments and local communities — multiple layers of cooperation forming something larger than the sum of their parts.

Synergy, as American philosopher Buckminster Fuller once , is like placing a wheel beneath a box: the parts remain the same, yet their relationship creates a new entity capable of movement. Jerome Glenn of the Millennium Project reminds us that this kind of thinking is essential when confronting forces larger than any single nation.

In 2023, we scanned South and Southeast Asia and saw climate threats rising like dark tides across the region. The  “Synergetic Thinking for the Absence of Multilateralism in South Asia”, written by Glenn, Joshua Bowes and me, warned that Pakistan’s floods — affecting over 30 million people — were a sign of what was to come.

With 750 million South Asians affected by climate disasters in the last 20 years, we argued for evacuation training, stronger infrastructure and a multilateral vision — without which the region’s poorest will always bear the highest cost. Bangladesh’s cyclone-shelter network demonstrated what clarity of purpose can achieve. A similar call for coordinated action had been emphasized in an analysis published by 51�Թ� following the Myanmar earthquake, highlighting the urgent need for collective regional preparedness.

The cost of forgotten preparedness

Sri Lanka once understood the value of preparedness. On November 11, 2019, the Cabinet approved the National Defence Policy (). Alongside it stood another document — the National Security Policy (NSP) — developed over four years with contributions from armed forces officials, along with myself. Only one policy saw the light of day, while the NSP remained shelved.

That document spoke with clarity about the very disaster we face today. It stated plainly: “Special emphasis has to be given in respect of mitigating natural and manmade disasters, since Sri Lanka is more vulnerable to floods and droughts more often, and it drastically affects the economy of the country.” It outlined structural reforms, resource-based capacities and long-term strategies for resilience.

In moments like this, when the island is wounded again, we are reminded that forgotten policies have consequences. Citizens should request these documents, update them and ensure they are enacted. A nation cannot rebuild if it ignores the very foundations it once intended to strengthen. It is the right time to prepare for the next.

During the 2004 recovery, Sri Lanka built layers of synergy. Government administrations coordinated, local champions were empowered and international donors worked through structured channels. A hybrid network emerged, guided by leaders who understood the weight of urgency.

Ernst & Young, during its external audit of the Fisheries Harbours Corporation, recognized this model as an innovative and transparent mechanism of public participation. There were several large-scale highlighted by the auditor general, as in any national effort of such scale, but they did not derail the broader system. What mattered was the discipline of institutions. Without such discipline, recovery falters — just as nearly disappeared in the Philippines under the guise of flood-control projects.

The need for disciplined recovery today

Disaster recovery requires a senior advisory body of experienced administrators, divisional secretaries and foreign service officers who know how to stand between chaos and order. It is not a stage on which the wealthy or business conglomerates parade their goodwill, but a system where institutions, public servants, opposition parties and local networks align in a single synergetic relationship. That is the wheel beneath the box.

And yet today’s world is not the world of 2004. Then, social media was a distant echo. Now, truth and falsehood move side by side, indistinguishable in their speed. Confusion spreads faster than the waters that destroyed our homes. Some voices may twist this tragedy for political gain. Such impulses are familiar everywhere, but a nation from the 2022 economic collapse cannot afford new fractures.

This is not the hour for chaos. It is the hour for clarity, for solidarity and for the simple truth that we rise only when we rise together. The waters have receded, but the silence remains. In that silence lies our choice: division or reconstruction. Let us choose to rebuild — patiently, honestly and together.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Silent Waters: Rebuilding a Nation Amid Loss, Failure and Rising Climate Threats appeared first on 51�Թ�.

At the global level, issues such as trade disputes, supply chain competition and wars have fuelled a resurgence of unilateralism and nationalist political movements that prioritize domestic interests over global cooperation. At the same time, domestic crises ranging from economic inflation, unresolved territorial disputes and mass immigration have altogether pushed government priorities inwards, readjusting their focus toward domestic economic and security anxieties.

In a world where more nations are reasserting nationalism and turning more inward, international cooperation on climate change is becoming more politically unfashionable. As tensions grow and countries withdraw from collaboration, wealthy nations’ moral obligations to support vulnerable nations in addressing climate change will be put to the test.

Conference of the Parties: A series of disappointments for developing countries

As wealthy nations’ attention to climate change drifts, developing countries increasingly place their hopes in the UN Climate Conference or Conference of the Parties (COPs). However, the conference, once a source of optimism, has become a litany of disappointments for developing countries, owing to a lack of ambition, watered-down commitments and growing political fatigue.

such as fair climate finance and fossil fuel phase-out repeatedly fall short of expectations. Decision-makers continually postpone or dilute loss-and-damage funding, pushing it from one conference to the next as the crisis worsens. Straightforward language calling for a “coal phase-out” is often resisted by fossil-fuel-dependent nations, and replaced by more such as “phase down” or “transitioning away.”

The increasing presence of fossil fuel lobbyists has become another troubling trend. At COP28, the number of fossil fuel lobbyists an unprecedented level, surpassing the combined delegations of the ten most climate-vulnerable countries. This pattern continued at COP30, where delegations swarmed the conference, breaking another record and outnumbering all delegations from every nation except the host country.

Prior to COP30, the typhoons devastated the Philippines, killing several people and forcing nearly a million people to evacuate. Still, fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered the Philippine delegation at COP30 by roughly a  �����پ���.��

Given the lack of actual progress and the growing influence of fossil fuel lobbies, do COPs and the Paris Agreement still serve their intended purpose?

Are COPs and the Paris Agreement still fit for purpose?

Climate conferences and the Paris Agreement delivered two unsettling truths. Before 2015, the world was for 4°C of warming. Today, though still far from the 1.5°C threshold, projections hover around 2.7°C, an improvement only made possible by climate accords and decades of global cooperation. However, annual greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to rise by roughly since the early 1990s. These two contradictory realities lead to a conclusion: while multilateralism may have slowed the growth of emissions, it has not moved fast enough to keep 1.5 degrees within reach.

Global momentum for a fossil fuel phaseout became more at COP30, with a broader coalition of countries pushing for a clear, time-bound economy-wide roadmap. Support for the roadmap from Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Pacific, EU member states and the United Kingdom. However, major global emitters, including the United States, China, India and most of ASEAN Member States (AMS), were unfortunately absent from this coalition. Despite growing support, the COP30 final text was widely condemned as shamefully weak because it both the proposed roadmap and the explicit timeline for phasing out fossil fuels.

A series of underwhelming COP outcomes makes one thing clear: the current system is moving far too slowly for a crisis that demands far greater ambition and urgency. While many negotiators have long for the adoption of voting mechanisms to curb veto power and accelerate decisions on contentious issues, developing countries should also collectively call for a more transparent system and stricter convention-wide policies to limit the presence and influence of fossil-fuel lobbyists at the climate conference.

Reforming COP negotiations as climate multilateralism declines

Global momentum for a collective fossil fuel phase-out grew at COP30, marking an unprecedented step compared to previous COPs, with most of the Global South and North now an action-oriented pathway to phase out fossil fuels. However, this progress rings hollow if countries simultaneously allow or send fossil fuel lobbyists into the negotiations, exposing a contradiction that undermines trust and reveals a persistent double standard. As the number of fossil fuel lobbyists grows, it is hard to ignore how their overwhelming influence at COPs likely contributes to the failure to secure a robust fossil fuel phaseout roadmap and the persistent shortfall in climate finance.

In the absence of binding conflict-of-interest rules, countries should demonstrate renewed political commitment by supporting and adhering to a United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) wide transparency and conflict-of-interest framework. Such a framework could significantly reduce fossil fuel corporate sponsorships at COPs, improve transparency around participants’ affiliations and ultimately limit the influence of fossil fuel interests on contentious issues. This framework must establish clear regulations to curb the influence of nonstate actors, including the exclusion of corporate entities whose business models are fundamentally incompatible with the 1.5°C objective. 

All developed and developing countries should likewise prohibit fossil fuel companies from being accredited as members of national negotiation teams and restrict their participation in official country delegations, since even Indonesia reportedly allowed fossil-fuel lobbyists to influence its official negotiating position, resulting in the country receiving the “” award.

For the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Islands Developing States (SIDS), the consequences of a weakening climate multilateralism and dysfunctional COPs will be severe. This is especially true, as many of them lack the economic strength to join influential blocs (such as the G20), where meaningful opportunities to reamplify the climate agenda exist. As multilateral cooperation is at a low point and climate finance is still falling far short, reforming the way climate decisions are negotiated at COPs may be the most viable path to avert the escalating climate calamity ahead.

In an increasingly challenging geopolitical landscape, countries’ political morals will face a defining test. Although political momentum to phase out fossil fuels has grown considerably, countries’ political willingness to also curb fossil fuel lobby influence, embrace UNFCCC-wide transparency, and disclose the composition of their delegations will ultimately determine whether their climate commitments are sincere or merely symbolic.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Amidst Climate Multilateralism and COPs’ Credibility Weakening, Countries’ Political Morals Will Face a Defining Test appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The key points of Belém were the “joint decision,” the shifting positions of the European Union, the objections of large oil-producing countries and the enormous efforts of Brazilian diplomatic coordination to deliver on implementation of the Paris Agreement. In parallel with the diplomatic conference, Belém welcomed a vigorous presence of civil society, a powerful expression of its commitment to social justice in the fight against climate change.

The decision to join forces: strategy, scope and limits

In the context of the climate negotiations, the Brazilian presidency of the COP created the — a “joint decision” strategy to untangle sensitive issues and stitch together a single package of decisions that included finance, adaptation, just transition, trade, gender and technology. At the end of the conference, this package resulted in the approval of 29 documents that sought to advance on multiple fronts without leaving behind urgent demands from the Global South.

Among the financial measures approved, concrete allocations of to the Adaptation Fund and to adapt the health sector to climate impacts stand out. The presidency also proposed reformulating climate finance reporting, linking it to the New Collective Quantified Goal for Climate Finance (), seeking greater transparency between “provided” and “mobilized” resources.

On the other hand, financial ambition fell short of what was necessary: the task-force proposal foresees adaptation financing by 2035 compared with 2025, but without a clearly defined base value. This gap reflects the historical difficulty of the multilateral system in translating political commitment into measurable financial flows — a challenge that, according to climate finance experts, is reflected in the current adaptation finance gap, estimated at around $340 billion. This amount is forecast to reach $1.35 trillion by 2035.

No binding target was delivered to finance adaptation, and the multilateral ambition to mobilize trillions for clean infrastructure remains without clear accountability mechanisms. The recognition that historical goals have not been met gained space in the final text, but without new and effective structures that guarantee the flow of resources where they are most urgent.

Among other points in the task-force decision, advances were made on information integrity and the fight against climate disinformation — essential to confronting denialism, including promoted by parts of the fossil-fuel industry. There were also developments on carbon markets and discussions on high-integrity rules — a necessary subject for robust accounting of carbon credits, which remains controversial given cases of fraud and technical errors worldwide.

The EU’s position: defensive pragmatism

The European Union played a decisive role in the final design of the “joint decision”. European officials adopted a pragmatic stance: supporting the negotiated package as long as it did not include provisions they considered unfeasible or unsupported, especially those related to the energy transition. In negotiations, European representatives conditioned their greater willingness to finance adaptation on the inclusion — from their point of view — of balanced measures in the energy transition.

This stance produced two key effects: (1) the EU helped ensure approval of the package, avoiding a total impasse; (2) at the same time, its bargaining limited the financial ambition of the final text, contributing to less binding wording on goals and responsibilities. Observers interpreted this strategy as a balance between pro-climate rhetoric and cautious practice — especially relevant after the United States’s direct absence, which altered traditional leadership dynamics.

Objections from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, China, India and Russia: blocking the fossil roadmap

One of the most sensitive points in the Belém negotiations was the so‑called “roadmap” for moving away from an economy dependent on fossil fuels — an explicit priority of the Brazilian presidency. Although the initiative gained important political support, especially from the Global South and activist leaders, it did not make it into the final texts due to a lack of consensus. Fossil-fuel-producing countries (notably Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), as well as major emitters such as China and India, and to a lesser extent, Russia, and even Japan, raised .

These objections ranged from practical issues (timing, socioeconomic impacts and energy security) to geopolitical positions defending industrial and revenue interests. For many of these countries, formal commitments to abandon fossil fuels would entail high political and economic costs, requiring guarantees of finance, technology transfer and just treatment for workers and communities. This bloc managed to bar inclusion of the roadmap in the joint decision, relegating it to a parallel initiative — albeit one that faces growing political pressure.

Brazilian diplomatic leadership: sewing consensus and maintaining the agenda

Brazil, as COP30 president, worked intensively to transform the ���ܳپ���ã�� effort into a political reality. The presidency’s strategy combined multilateral diplomacy (bilateral and multilateral negotiations), global visibility — placing the Amazon at the center of discussions — and bridge-building among groups of countries. The presidency the creation of an international just-transition mechanism, with a draft to be presented by June 2026 and contributions open until March 15, 2026, aiming to establish an instrument to organize finance, technical cooperation and capacity building.

This action produced results: presented new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) during COP30, and a package of decisions elevated just transition as an institutional priority. However, the Brazilian effort coexists with internal contradictions — part of the government promoted a roadmap for renewables even as the state authorized auctions at the mouth of the Amazon, renewed contracts for gas and coal thermal plants through 2040, and faced a Congress about to review vetoes and make environmental licensing more flexible.

These internal tensions erode the policy coherence needed to transform international commitments into robust domestic policies. Even so, the efforts of Brazilian climate leadership deserve attention and recognition.

Colombia–Netherlands initiative: a promising path to the end of fossil fuels

Facing the impasse on including the energy transition roadmap, Colombia and the Netherlands a joint initiative to organize the first international conference on “Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels” in April 2026. This initiative deserves attention and applause for inaugurating an alternative strategic path to the unanimity-based system of UN climate conferences. It points to a promising mobilization of more than 80 countries to address the transition from coal, oil and gas to renewable energies, in parallel with COP processes.

By shifting the debate to a dedicated forum with technical and political focus, the coalition creates space to build operational consensus, finance transition guarantees and design social and labor protections. This parallel path is a necessary complement to global negotiations on the planet’s foremost climate agenda: ending the use of fossil fuels.

Civil society, Indigenous peoples and the pulse of climate democracy

Belém experienced one of the highest levels of civil society participation in COP history after three years of conferences in less receptive environments for public demonstrations. At COP30, more than Indigenous people engaged inside and outside the negotiations, defending territorial rights among many demands; hundreds of parallel events addressed themes related to the Amazon’s socioenvironmental values and standing-forest bioeconomy. The streets were filled with a estimated at 70,000 people — a clear popular demonstration for global climate action. Science was prominent: a scientific pavilion brought climate scientists into direct contact with the COP presidency.

Civil society demanded ambition, integrity of information and climate justice — reinforcing that serious policy must articulate science, human rights and broad social participation. The launch of the Tropical Forests Forever Fund (), which raised nearly $7 billion, was welcomed by some sectors; others criticized its governance and reliance on private funds, reflecting the debate on financing forest protection without offloading public responsibility.

The end of deforestation by is an imperative for Brazil to reach its NDC. Efforts have been made to decrease present deforestation to reasonable levels, which will continue in the coming years. Nevertheless, the TFFF figures and other funding sources suggest that they are below the zero-deforestation ambition needs.

The event also exposed shortcomings in COP infrastructure: thermal discomfort in the Amazon heat and humidity, and a small fire that was quickly controlled but interrupted use of some spaces for an afternoon and led to a few hospital visits without major consequences.

What lies ahead

At the slow pace of consensus-based diplomacy, attention now turns to in Turkey, with Australia chairing negotiations. Key points to watch for a minimally positive meeting include guaranteed and meaningful inclusion of civil society; a real commitment by hosts to halt approval of new coal projects; concrete progress on adaptation finance with numerical targets; operationalization of the just-transition mechanism; and consolidation of technical processes that make the fossil-fuel roadmap a negotiable agenda rather than mere rhetoric. A Pre-COP in the Pacific, responding to the needs of island states threatened by sea-level rise, and the selection of a negotiation president with the capacity to unite interests will be decisive.

COP30 in Belém renewed the political agenda by placing the Amazon at the heart of negotiations and by structuring a joint package of decisions that seeks to reconcile justice, adaptation and transition. At the same time, it made clear that without binding financial commitments, consistent social inclusion and domestic policy coherence, progress will be slow.

The Colombia–Netherlands initiative for a conference dedicated to ending fossil fuels is a promising beacon: it offers a technical-political forum to translate political pressure from Belém into concrete measures. If Brazilian diplomacy and global coalitions can convert the “joint decisions” momentum into operational instruments and real finance, COP30 may be remembered as the starting point of a historic turning point — led, above all, by the civil society that occupied Belém and demonstrated that the world wants, and can, accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels.

Geopolitical conflicts and multilateral fissures persist, but Brazilian leadership at this COP advanced agendas despite contradictions. The resistance of oil-producing countries and the absence of the United States shaped resistance to consensus-based diplomatic agreements. Still, Belém sent a strong signal from civil society and a considerable coalition of countries willing to pursue the end of fossil fuels — a positive and promising outcome for a polarized world dominated by the capital of the old fossil economy.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post COP30 in Belém: Joint Effort, Tensions and a Path to the End of Fossil Fuels appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In this situation, a successful voluntary carbon market for agriculture can play a crucial role not only in mitigating GHG emissions and enabling adaptation to climate change, but also in raising the incomes of farmers. In view of this, there is an urgent need to strategize the requisite measures to address the challenges and promote the development of an efficient voluntary carbon market for agriculture. 

The global voluntary carbon market (VCM) is valued at around and is expected to grow at a 25% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in the next decade. , about 2.45 billion were issued, and 1.04 billion remain across 10,701 projects as of August 31, 2025. Of the total, agriculture accounted for only 1.5%, while forest & land use and renewable energy accounted for about 37% and 30%, respectively, of carbon credits issued.

India accounted for about 17% of total projects and 15.7% of total carbon credits, as estimated as of August 2025. However, the agriculture and forest & land use sectors accounted for only about 0.2% and 0.8%, respectively, while the renewable energy sector accounted for about 87% of the country’s carbon credits.

Further, within agriculture, the focus of project registries has been very narrow and largely confined to a few areas. According to the database, only the project registries of improved irrigation management and manure methane digester were successful and received most of the carbon credits, but not the registries of feed additives, rice emission reductions and sustainable agriculture. These trends also suggest that Indian agriculture project registries have been declining steadily over the past five years or so.

Challenges in implementation

Despite the tremendous potential with multiple benefits, the progress of carbon farming in India is very limited, constrained by a number of challenges. These challenges plague not only India but the rest of the globe as well, making agricultural projects highly prone to rejection.

The extent of VCM project rejection in agriculture, forest and land use categories is as 81%. Further, the registration period of these projects in India is much longer, at 1689 days, compared to 623 days for the rest of Asia.

One of the major challenges is the lack of affordability for dominant smallholder farmers for the initial investments to take up carbon farming projects, especially long-term projects. Another major challenge is the constant monitoring, evaluation and verification by third parties. While engaging such third-party services may be expensive and add to the costs, the reliability and accuracy of such expert services are other major challenges. 

The lengthy period of registration is another hindering factor, especially for small farmers in carbon farming projects. Lack of expertise in estimating complex processes of carbon accounting, such as measurement of soil carbon, change in emissions, etc., is another important challenge. 

In addition, increasingly volatile global carbon markets are also discouraging stakeholders due to uncertain returns on investment in the projects. Falling carbon prices in recent years are one of the reasons for the slowdown in VCM project registrations globally. Such uncertainty in carbon pricing is a cause for concern as it may drive away investments.

Further, research studies identified challenges such as regulatory hurdles, manipulation, a lack of expertise in ensuring compliance with standards and social exclusion of local communities, among others. Studies also found instances of nonreceipt of the monetary benefits by the intended farmers, leading to abandonment or noncompletion of projects.

Finally, the growing number of extreme weather events from climate change is adversely impacting carbon farming projects, which require a stable ecosystem to measure their success. 

The way forward

In view of the rising volatilities in global carbon markets, there is a need to develop a domestic carbon market and trading system so that farmers are not adversely impacted by such price volatilities. Further, in view of the past experiences in terms of the long periods of registration, suspension and rejection of projects, there is a need to strengthen the domestic carbon farming ecosystem with comprehensive measures addressing the challenges of all stakeholders, including farmers, investors, third-party verification agencies, auditors, end-using industry and more.

Towards this, it is essential to simplify and customize processes suitable for Indian conditions wherever feasible, while taking into account global standards. There is also a need to bring out guidelines for authenticating and designating third-party monitoring, verification and auditing agencies. 

In this regard, the can be a starting point with a simplified version of processes and standards with small-scale, shorter-duration projects. This will help farmers and other stakeholders to get familiarized with the carbon farming processes, standards and regulations.

A public–private partnership judiciously combining government and industry incentives may be an effective way of funding such green credit programs. Towards this, agro-based and agri-input industries may be encouraged to contribute actively. For instance, the fertilizer industry, being a large contributor of GHG emissions, may be encouraged to participate in green credit programs, providing incentives to farmers.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Monetizing Carbon Markets Now: The Results India Needs appeared first on 51�Թ�.

That Category 5 storm’s unprecedented ferocity was driven by an overheated Caribbean Sea, produced by 275 years of industrial civilization that has spewed obscene amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually.

The same week that UN officials of an “apocalypse” in Jamaica, American billionaire Bill Gates a certain unease about officials and scientists concerned with climate change who, he thought, were being hysterical. He urged them to chill the hell out. It was an arrogant and manipulative oracle, uttered with all the privilege of the world’s man. A symbol of monopoly capitalism, his individual net worth rivals the annual gross domestic product of the Dominican Republic. And when he responded to Hurricane Melissa, he did so (not surprisingly, I suppose) in the narrow sectional interests of the world’s wealthiest class in Silicon Valley.

“My house is a rubbish heap”

Gates the view that climate change “will decimate civilization,” insisting instead that it “will not lead to humanity’s demise.” Of course, no one in the scientific community had argued that climate change would actually wipe out humankind, so he is indeed (and all too conveniently) attacking a straw man.

That he resorted to a description of such fallacious relevance shows how intent he is on engaging in a bad-faith argument. And that, in turn, raises the question of his motivation. After all, the possible decimation of civilization, as did indeed occur in parts of Jamaica recently, is quite different from the full-scale extinction of the human species, and it certainly raises questions of equity.

The nearly half a million Jamaicans who will be without electricity for weeks and who may face severe food shortages because of crop damage will, of course, not be enjoying much in the way of “civilization” in the wake of Melissa. As Sherlette Wheelan of that island’s Westmoreland Parish , “My house is like a rubbish heap, completely gone. If it wasn’t for the shelter manager, I don’t know what I would’ve done. She found space for me and others, even though her own roof was gone.”

And imagine this: the hurricanes of the future world we’re now by burning such quantities of fossil fuels, in which temperatures could rise by a disastrous 3° C, are likely to be so gargantuan as to make our present behemoths look sickly. Melissa was already a third more powerful than it would have been without climate breakdown. Heat up the Caribbean Sea even more, and the power of storm winds won’t increase on a gentle slope but exponentially.

Scientists are already that we need a new Category 6 classification for such hurricanes, since our present five categories are inadequate, given their increasing power. Remember, at present, with Melissas already appearing, we have only a global 1.3° C increase in temperature over the preindustrial norm. At issue is the quality of life and the degree of civilization that will be possible in a world where the temperature increase could be at least double that.

The demand for data centers cannot be met sustainably

A decade ago, many of the companies in Silicon Valley seemed willing to take on the role of climate champions. Microsoft, where Gates made his career, to be carbon negative by 2030. Jeff Bezos’s has already put more than 30,000 electric vehicles on the road and has pledged to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.

In general, you would think that Silicon Valley would be pro-science and hence willing to combat the use of fossil fuels and the worsening of climate change. After all, the industry depends on basic scientific research, much of it produced by government-funded scientists.

As it turns out, though, the high-tech sector that has produced so many billionaires is instead simply pro-billionaire. This year, we were treated to the spectacle of , while still working with US President Donald Trump, 10% to 15% of all government scientists under the rubric of “the Department of Government Efficiency,” an act that, in the long run, could also help destroy American scientific and technological superiority.

Climate scientists were especially . The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency is now so understaffed that the carnage of Hurricane Melissa had to be monitored by

The high-tech world’s abrupt turn to a rabid anti-science stance is likely the result of the emergence of large language models (also known as “artificial intelligence” or AI) and a consequent new romance with the burning of fossil fuels. This development made Nvidia, which produces the graphics-processing units that run much of AI, the first company. That AI has not yet proven able to increase productivity or produce any added value has not stopped the hype around it from driving the biggest securities bubble since the late 1990s.

The AI phenomenon may functionally print money for tech billionaires, at least for the time being, but it comes with a gargantuan environmental cost. Its data centers are water and energy hogs and are poised to use ever more fossil fuels and so increase global carbon emissions significantly.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers that “by 2026, the electricity consumption of data centers is expected to approach 1,050 terawatt-hours,” rivaling that of the energy consumption of whole countries like Japan or Russia. By 2030, it’s estimated that at least a tenth of electricity demand is likely to be by new data centers.

MIT’s Noman Bashir ominously, “The demand for new data centers cannot be met in a sustainable way. The pace at which companies are building new data centers means the bulk of the electricity to power them must come from fossil fuel-based power plants.”

Bashir’s analysis provides us with the smoking gun for solving the mystery of why the high-tech sector is now trying to kill climate science. Suddenly, Silicon Valley has a monetary reason for wanting to slow down the global movement to reduce the use of fossil fuels (no matter the cost of heating this planet to the boiling point), allying itself with Big Oil in that regard. Scientists Michael E. Mann and Peter Hotez have analyzed this sort of billionaire-driven anti-intellectualism in their seminal new book .

Turbocharging the climate

One of Gates’s half-truths is that there is good news about our climate progress, and so no grounds for doomsaying. It certainly is true that we now have the levers to limit climate damage. That, however, doesn’t change our need to jolt the world aggressively with those very levers.

The United Nations has recently that we are indeed on a path to limit (if, under the circumstances, that’s even an adequate word for it) global heating to 2.8° C over the preindustrial average, if the countries of the world were to continue with their current policies, which reflect, however modestly, the global consensus that grew out of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. Before that milestone, the world was marching toward an increase of 3.5º C or more in the average surface temperature of the globe by 2100.

The reduction in that projection, achieved over a decade, certainly represents genuine progress and should be celebrated, but the one thing it should not be used for (as Gates indeed does) is as an excuse for now slacking off.

The world’s peoples could shave another significant half a degree off that number if they simply met their Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs. But even if they were indeed to be faithful to their promises, we’re being taken inexorably toward at least a 2.3º C global heat increase and, to put that in perspective, climate scientists worry that anything above 1.5º C could ensure that the world’s climate will become devastatingly more chaotic. Imagine repeated Hurricane Melissas, far more turbocharged and striking not just islands in the Caribbean but, say, the US Atlantic coast.

Just as we can’t afford to give in to a sense of doom, we can’t afford to be Pollyannas either. The news already isn’t good, and we in the United States in the age of Donald Trump are now facing ever stronger headwinds against climate action. His Republican Party has, of course, enacted wide-ranging pro-carbon policies that will take effect next year and will also take pressure off China and the European Union to accelerate their paths to end the use of fossil fuels. Nor is it likely that the UN projections have truly reckoned with the coming proliferation of dirty data centers globally.

Worse yet, even before that hits, the world hasn’t found a way to get on a trajectory that is likely to truly decrease carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions substantially. In fact, the International Energy Agency has that “total energy-related CO2 emissions increased by 0.8% in 2024, hitting an all-time high of 37.8 Gt [gigatons] CO2.” In other words, we’re still putting more CO2 into the atmosphere in each succeeding year. It’s only the rate of increase that has slowed somewhat.

And that’s not the end of the bad news either. The 2.8° C (5° F) increase toward which we’re still headed poses tremendous dangers. The numbers may not sound that dauntingly large, but remember, we’re talking about a global average of surface temperatures. If the average temperature goes up 5º F, that increase could translate into double-digit rises in places like Miami, Florida and Basra, Iraq. And scientists now believe that, if cities with humidity levels of 80% experience a temperature of 122º F, that combination could be to us humans.

Scientists have a formula for combining humidity and temperature, yielding what they call a “wet bulb” temperature. We cool off by sweating and letting the moisture evaporate from our skin, but that kind of heat and humidity would prevent such a cooling process from kicking in, which could mean that we humans would essentially be cooked to death.

And the danger won’t only be in places like the Gulf of Mexico and similar regions. As the National Air and Space Association (NASA) , “Within 50 years, Midwestern states like Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa will likely hit the critical wet-bulb temperature limit.” In short, significant parts of this planet could be turned into what might be thought of as the Hot Tub of Death. And with that comes, of course, the possibility of now almost inconceivable mega-storms, droughts, wildfires and sea-level rise.

It’s already that, by 2050, only 25 years from now, 200 million people annually will need humanitarian assistance to deal with an increasingly raging climate. That would be a billion people every decade.

Davy Jones’ locker

In a sense, we’ve lucked out so far because until now, so much carbon dioxide has been by the oceans and other carbon sinks on this planet. On the old, cold Earth of preindustrial times, half of the carbon dioxide produced went into the oceans or was absorbed on land by rainforests, chemical weathering or rock formations. But the absorptive capacity of the oceans is now decreasing, which means that, if humanity continues to burn staggering quantities of fossil fuels and emit staggering amounts of CO2, we’ll overtax the capacity of the planet’s major carbon sink, and ever more new carbon dioxide could then stay in the atmosphere, heating the globe for thousands of years.

The oceans absorb carbon dioxide in more than one way. Carbon dioxide mixes with cold sea water to form carbonic acid, which then splits into hydrogen and bicarbonate ions, and the bicarbonate tends to stay in the water. More hydrogen, however, makes the oceans more , which is not good for the on which so many of us depend for food.

Some carbon is also used up by phytoplankton for photosynthesis, turning it into organic matter that is then eaten by other sea creatures, and which also ultimately sinks to the ocean floor. But note that the oceans simply can’t take in infinite amounts of carbon dioxide. And if the increasing acidity of the ocean or its rising surface heat kills off a lot of phytoplankton, then their role in absorbing carbon will decline, and even more CO2 will stay in the atmosphere.

The world’s oceans still absorb some 90% of global heating, the surfaces of which are experiencing rapidly rising temperatures — and the hotter their surfaces get, the less carbon they can bury in Davy Jones’ locker because the water beneath them is growing ever .

The blue screen of death

Billionaire Bill Gates carps that a “doomsday outlook” is causing climate activists to “focus too much on near-term emissions goals.” Well, he’s wrong. The focus on near-term emissions goals comes from science. Gates doesn’t even mention the phrase “carbon budget” in his blog entry, which is telling.

After all, we are definitely in a race against time — and there’s no certainty that we’ll win. There is only so much carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere if we want to keep the increase in temperature under 1.5º C. And more than that is likely to cause weird, unexpected and distinctly unpleasant changes in the world’s climate system.

Unfortunately, as of 2025, we can only put 130 billion more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and still meet that goal. At our current rate of emissions, we would that budget in — can you believe it? — just three years. What if we want to hold the line at 1.7º C? That budget would be exceeded in only nine years. So, the urgency climate activists feel in limiting short-term emissions derives from a knowledge that we’re rapidly depleting our carbon budget.

Most estimates are that, at current rates of emissions, we’ll use up the carbon budget for limiting warming to 2º C by 2050. Moreover, we will start losing a friend we had in that endeavor. The Earth’s biggest carbon sink, the oceans, will gradually being able to take up CO2 in the same quantities.

If cutting our use of fossil fuels means slowing (or even stopping) the rollout of AI data centers, inconveniencing Microsoft, Amazon, Google and the rest of the crew, well, too bad. AI has its uses, but we clearly don’t need so much more of it desperately enough to thoroughly wreck our planet.

For a couple of decades, when I used a computer with Bill Gates’s Microsoft operating system, I would occasionally lose a day’s work because it abruptly crashed (through no fault of my own). We used to call that malfunction “the blue screen of death.” We don’t need the same thing to happen to the planet’s climate. As climate scientist Michael E. Mann has , once you’ve crashed this planet, unlike a computer, you won’t be able to reboot it.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Hot Tub of Death?: Bill Gates, Hurricane Melissa and a Civilization Under Threat appeared first on 51�Թ�.

For instance, residents of deserts rely heavily on potable water from other regions, need fewer resources to cope with cold weather and have minimal rainwater drainage requirements. People living along seashores or in tropical regions experience a climate of moderate to hot weather. Their energy needs to manage climate severity in order to remain relatively stable and their diets depend largely on seafood.

In contrast, inhabitants of cold, mountainous regions face milder summers but harsher winters. They require abundant fuel and food resources, often relying on what they produce in summer or importing supplies from other nations. This natural balance in ecosystems is vital for all living beings in their habitats.

When is disturbed due to climate change, the consequences are severe. A temperature rise of just 1–2 degrees Celsius can trigger glacier melts and cloudbursts in mountainous areas, leading to flash floods and landslides. Such events directly destroy lives, homes, seasonal crops and livestock. This would also indirectly affect populations living downstream in plains, where flooding disrupts food security and infrastructure. Coastal populations face rising sea levels that submerge land, displace communities and threaten livelihoods. These are just some of the impacts; other contributing factors include deforestation, carbon emissions and rapid urbanization.

The impact of industrialization 

The root causes of ecosystem imbalances are overwhelmingly human-driven. , which began in the late 17th to early 18th century, accelerated resource consumption. The British Industrial Revolution relied heavily on coal and iron, while the first American was drilled in 1859, leading to rapid industrial growth in the US by the 1870s.

After World War II, industrialization expanded further with mechanized agriculture, large-scale manufacturing and new modes of transportation, such as steamships, automobiles and airplanes. Cities became centers of industry and research, driving urban migration.

Industry and urbanization heavily rely on fossil fuels such as coal, oil, diesel and furnace oil. Burning these fuels releases large amounts of carbon, contributing to global warming. Urbanization also leads to deforestation, displacing habitats critical for ecosystem stability. Additionally, transportation relies on fossil fuels, further increasing carbon emissions. Together, these human activities are major drivers of climate change.

Developing countries, where industrialization is still evolving, contribute relatively little to global carbon emissions. On average, a person in a high-income country emits more carbon than someone in a low-income country. Pakistan, for example, produces less than of the world’s carbon emissions. Yet it ranks among the most vulnerable countries to climate change, bearing the brunt of industrialized nations’ carbon output.

Countries like Bangladesh face similar challenges — minimal contributions to global emissions but high vulnerability to floods and cyclones. Wealthier nations, which are the primary producers of fossil fuels and have higher carbon footprints, should support these vulnerable countries.

Urgent action needed

Recent events highlight this vulnerability. In August 2025, torrential monsoon rains devastating floods in India and Pakistan, affecting thousands of lives, livestock and infrastructure. On top of that, Pakistan’s 7,000 glaciers are , increasing the risk of glacier lake outbursts and flash floods.

Vulnerable nations urgently require funding not only to mitigate and adapt to climate damage but also to ensure compliance with international treaties, such as the (which governs the use of the river Indus and its tributaries, allocating the eastern rivers to India and the western rivers to Pakistan). Any suspension or unilateral violation of such agreements could set a dangerous global precedent, making the exploitation of natural resources easier and accelerating climate deterioration.

Climate change is no longer a distant threat. For countries like Pakistan, its impacts are immediate and catastrophic, demanding global attention, accountability from high-emission nations and urgent action to protect human lives and natural ecosystems.

[ edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Climate Change: An Existential Threat to Developing Nations appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Singapore today ranks among the world’s highest in literacy, life expectancy and productivity, consistently outperforming far larger Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) neighbors. The World Bank it at the top of the Human Capital Index, with children expected to reach nearly 90% of their full productivity potential, to 54% in Indonesia.

Education at the cornerstone of growth

In the 1960s, Singapore instituted universal education and invested in teacher training, school infrastructure and curriculum development. The National Institute of Education was tasked with ensuring teachers were not only highly trained but also continuously upskilled. A Compulsory Education Act in 2000, reinforced universal access, while curriculum reforms gradually from rote learning towards creativity, resilience and socioemotional skills.

By 2022, Singaporean students had dominated global rankings: of 15-year-olds achieved basic proficiency in mathematics, compared to an OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) average of 69%, and were considered top performers, compared to 9% across the OECD. In creative thinking, 60% of Singaporean students reached the two highest proficiency bands, the OECD average.

These outcomes were not confined to elites. Even students from low-income households outperformed wealthier peers in many OECD countries, proof that equity was built into the system.

Health measures given equal weight

While total health expenditure remains only about 4.5% of GDP — half the OECD average — Singaporeans enjoy one of the life expectancies in the world, at 83.7 years. Infant mortality is among the globally, with a 99.7% child survival rate. This achievement stems from a hybrid model that combines mandatory health savings, catastrophic insurance and targeted subsidies, underpinned by preventive campaigns that encourage individual responsibility.

Smoking rates have , chronic disease is carefully managed and stunting — a persistent challenge in neighboring Indonesia and the Philippines — has been nearly eradicated. As the UN Development Program has , longevity and productivity are inseparable: Healthy citizens sustain economic dynamism and reduce fiscal burdens.

�����Բ�����ǰ���’s socioeconomic journey highlights these benefits in health and education. Annual GDP growth 7% from independence until the late 2000s, elevating the country into the high-income group. Its workforce is now among the most skilled and adaptable globally.

Children starting school today can expect nearly 14 years of effective education, to just over 12 in Indonesia. These two extra years are not just facts; they create an innovation-ready workforce capable of advanced manufacturing, biotechnology and financial services. The OECD estimates that a single year of schooling can increase lifetime earnings by up to 10%, making �����Բ�����ǰ���’s education advantage a structural benefit.

Implications of �����Բ�����ǰ���’s success 

The broader implications for ASEAN — and especially Indonesia — are profound. Many states in the region still to “hardware-first” development: airports, highways and mega-dams as visible signs of progress. Yet without matching investments in classrooms, clinics and skills training, such infrastructure risks becoming hollow.

Indonesia’s Human Capital Index score of means a child born today will achieve barely half of their productivity potential, a figure that starkly limits its long-term growth trajectory. Even recent reforms, such as (Freedom to Learn), while laudable, remain underfunded and unevenly delivered.

Singapore offers both inspiration and caution. Its model cannot simply be transplanted — its political system, size and historical context are . But the principles travel well: prioritize people, institutionalize continuous learning, health with economic policy and pursue equity as a growth strategy.

The UN’s 2030 Agenda makes this point explicit: Sustainable Development Goal 4 (quality education) and Goal 3 (good health) are not secondary aspirations but the upon which all other goals rest. ASEAN governments that underinvest in these areas court instability, inequality and lost opportunity.

Lessons for ASEAN

The environmental dimension is also instructive. �����Բ�����ǰ���’s shows how human capital and sustainability can be pursued in tandem. Urban planning integrates green spaces and water security, while public transport expansion reduces emissions. For ASEAN, one of the regions most vulnerable to climate change, this is critical. Health and education gains are unsustainable if citizens face worsening air pollution, food insecurity or displacement from rising seas. Investing in climate is part of investing in people.

For Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines, the lesson is urgent. Without decisive shifts human-centric policies, their demographic dividends could decay into . Rising youth populations, if undereducated and underemployed, may fuel unrest rather than growth.

The International Labour Organization that 23% of young people in Southeast Asia are not in employment, education or training — a figure that starkly contrasts with �����Բ�����ǰ���’s near-universal participation in some form of lifelong learning.

�����Բ�����ǰ���’s is not flawless. Questions about political freedoms and inequality remain. Yet its human-capital-first model has become conventional wisdom in development policy: Durable growth comes not from monuments of steel but from citizens equipped to innovate, adapt and thrive. The challenge for ASEAN is to translate this wisdom into action.

The message is clear. ASEAN does not need to copy Singapore, but it cannot ignore the lesson. Human capital is not a luxury; it is the of resilience, fairness and long-term prosperity. As �����Բ�����ǰ���’s experience shows, a country’s infrastructure isn’t its tallest tower or biggest dam — it’s the mind of a child who can read, the health of a worker who can endure and the creativity of a citizen who can lead. For ASEAN’s future, investing in people isn’t just a smart policy; it’s way forward.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can ASEAN Scale a Singapore-Style Human Capital Strategy? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Avis frames the discussion through an accessible lens: In a small backyard garden, every design choice carries ecological meaning. Slugs, aphids and nutrient-poor soil aren’t isolated annoyances. They are signals of missing relationships, missing predators and missing system elements. Understanding those relationships, he argues, is the heart of regeneration.

Rethinking knowledge and starting small

Campani asks why so many new gardeners feel overwhelmed. In response, Avis reflects on how knowledge transfer has changed in modern times. Instead of relying on intergenerational guidance, people now turn to YouTube, books or artificial intelligence tools — and while the volume of information can be dizzying, he notes that “a lot of it’s pretty good.”

However, the real challenge isn’t information, but rather scale. Too many beginners, especially men, leap into projects that are too big for them. Avis urges a different approach: Start with four square feet, a model drawn from American gardener Mel Bartholomew’s classic guide, Square Foot Gardening. Small successes build confidence. And when problems appear, you can look them up, adjust and try again. Regeneration, even at the level of a backyard, begins with humility and the willingness to experiment.

This philosophy extends beyond gardening advice. Avis sees it as a universal principle: systems thrive when we begin with manageable interventions and let learning compound over time. This small, resilient experiment becomes a foundation for larger regenerative practices.

Three natural fixes for slugs

From here, Campani steers the conversation in a practical direction: What can gardeners do about slugs? Avis offers three solutions, two available everywhere and one rooted firmly in permaculture:

1. Diatomaceous earth (DE)

DE is composed of fossilized diatoms — “basically microscopic seashells” — that sequestered carbon as they settled on ocean floors. When sprinkled around plants, the tiny particles give slugs tiny cuts as they crawl, causing them to dry out. It’s an organic method that adds no chemicals to the garden.

2. Beer traps

A bowl of beer attracts slugs, which then fall in and drown. It’s inexpensive, simple and effective, especially for urban gardeners.

3. Ducks

Avis’s preferred method, and the most ecological, involves integrating livestock. Ducks, he explains, devour slugs without touching vegetables because they’re seeking a high-protein snack. This leads to one of permaculture’s most beloved axioms: “You don’t have a slug problem, you have a duck deficiency.” For Avis, this isn’t just a joke; it’s design logic. When the right organism is present, the problem dissolves into the system itself.

Predators, missing elements and the regenerative mindset

This highlights a broader ecological principle: When pests appear, something in the system is absent. Regenerative design means identifying that missing element, usually a predator. A good ecologist asks: What predator will feed on this prey?

Avis illustrates the point with aphids. Many gardeners reach for pesticides, but this kills the aphids and harms the ladybugs that naturally feed on them. Instead of fighting nature, gardeners should create conditions where ladybugs thrive — habitat, shelter and food — and allow the ecological relationship to rebalance the system.

This principle scales upward. Whether in a backyard or a landscape, solutions emerge not from adding external inputs but from restoring ecological relationships that should already exist.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Talks: Regenerative Design and How To Keep Your Garden Slug-Free appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The scale problem we refuse to see

Campani opens by asking why the front lawn, an ordinary feature of American life, plays such an outsized role in environmental decline. Avis replies that the misallocation is so absurd that “some days I feel like we’re in a Shakespearean comedy,” because the data are widely known and yet culturally invisible.

The US maintains nearly 40 million acres of front lawn, roughly the same land base used to grow wheat. That comparison, he explains, makes the underlying opportunity impossible to ignore. When one of his students questioned whether cities could meaningfully contribute to food production, Avis ran a quick calculation. If every one of those acres grew nothing but wheat, the country would produce enough calories to feed the entire populace “a 2,000-calorie diet per day for two years.” No one advocates monocropping lawns, but the land base is already there.

Campani presses on the resource side of the problem. Beyond unused acreage, Americans expend staggering amounts of energy and money to maintain lawns that produce nothing. Avis notes that the gasoline used annually on this turf could drive a Hummer electric vehicle around the Earth 21,000 times. Lawn care also absorbs far more nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, herbicides and pesticides than most commercial farms, largely because homeowners do not face the same economic constraints. This creates a system that consumes resources without delivering real value. As Avis puts it bluntly, maintaining the lawn “enslaves us.”

Paradigm is the real barrier

The conversation shifts from data to mindset. For Avis, the decisive obstacle to regeneration is cultural sentiment: the paradigms people operate within, the stories they inherit and repeat. Americans tend to treat lawns as symbols of order, beauty or status, even when those norms undermine ecological health.

Change the paradigm and food systems could be rebuilt from the ground up. Urban and peri-urban spaces could grow fruits and vegetables, while larger commercial farms shift back toward perennial systems far better suited to the continent’s ecology. This shift would not merely reduce harm; it would actively restore ecological function.

Avis points to a striking example drawn from ecological history and research. Before European settlement, the vast region stretching from North Dakota south to the Gulf of Mexico and east to the Mississippi River was grassland. If the corn, soy and wheat currently grown there were converted back into perennial grasses, the carbon storage effect alone could make the US carbon-neutral “overnight”. Such a transformation would also restore the Mississippi watershed and eliminate dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico.

The return of perennial grasslands would support healthier ruminants — cows and bison — in regions where they are ecologically appropriate. Avis acknowledges the political and moral debates around livestock but argues that the ecological system itself provides guidance.

Regeneration is simpler than we think

Campani closes by asking why, if the solutions are so obvious, society seems stuck. Avis responds that complexity at the global level masks the simplicity of the local fixes. People often assume that solving environmental problems requires advanced technology or sacrifice. It begins with recognizing overlooked assets, like the quiet sprawl of Amer������’s lawns, and redesigning them in ways that work with, not against, natural systems.

The land exists, the solutions are there and the ecological benefits are measurable. What must change is the cultural lens. Once that shifts, regeneration becomes an achievable design choice.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Talks: Here’s Why More Americans Need to Grow Their Own Food appeared first on 51�Թ�.

To make the concept tangible, Avis turns to an unexpected teacher: the beaver, an animal whose actions look destructive but actually revitalize entire ecosystems. He offers a blueprint for how human systems can shift from extracting value to creating life.

The limits of conventional thinking and the illusion of sustainability

Avis defines regeneration by first explaining what it is not. The conventional paradigm, he argues, is “business as usual” — a system built on endless GDP growth, shareholder primacy and the externalization of ecological harm. This model is now visibly fraying, as soil and oceans have degraded, air quality is worsening, food nutrient density is collapsing and hormonal health is declining. “Everybody pretty much knows that at some point the party’s going to end,” he says. The costs are multiplying in ways that can no longer be ignored.

Yet the second paradigm, sustainability, fails to offer real transformation. It frames humans as inherently destructive, and the best we can do is tread lightly, shrink our footprint, or aspire to net zero. Avis is critical of the mindset behind zero-impact philosophies, which are “put forward as positive, but they’re actually negative” because they presume the ideal solution is human absence. That logic ends in misanthropy: If we are always a liability, the only true solution is to reduce ourselves to nothing.

Sustainability is, in his view, a linguistic trap. It invites small fixes and incremental improvements, but never asks how natural systems actually function, or how humanity might participate in those systems as a generative force. Avis insists that the next step requires fully rejecting the premise that humans must minimize harm. Instead, we must learn to maximize benefit. That means flipping the question from, “How do we do less damage?” to, “How do we create more life?”

The regenerative paradigm: learning from beavers

The regenerative paradigm begins with a radical premise: Humans are not separate from nature; we are nature. It is impossible to have no footprint. Every action produces a reaction. If the footprint cannot be erased, the real challenge becomes: How do we optimize it?

To illustrate, Avis turns to the beaver. On his own 160-acre property in northern Alberta, Canada, he coexists with eight beaver families. The previous owner shot them, but Avis welcomed them back. To visitors, the fallen trees, chewed bark and flooded creeks make the beaver’s work look like destruction. Avis loves capitalizing on this frequent misconception to change their mental model.

Beavers are ecosystem engineers. Their dams hold millions of liters of water, slowing runoff and restoring natural hydrology. Their appetite creates open space and new growth. Most importantly, they don’t just sustain life — they expand it. Biodiversity increases 28-fold where beavers build. That means more opportunity for life to flourish.

The beaver has a footprint, but it disturbs in a way that produces abundance. In ecological terms, it is not neutral. It is regenerative.

Choosing our impact

Humans, Avis argues, must learn to be regenerative as well. He contrasts the three paradigms simply:

• Conventional eliminates life and turns it into products.
• Sustainable sees the human footprint as a liability that must be minimized.
• Regenerative accepts that humans have an impact and chooses whether that impact is positive or negative.

“There is no such thing as neutral,” Avis comments. We are always moving toward more or less life.

The regenerative paradigm is therefore not a moral plea, nor a nostalgic call to return to a pre-industrial past. It is a systems-level redesign based on ecology, feedback and abundance. It treats humans not as interlopers in a natural world, but as participants with the capacity to restore, enhance and even accelerate life.

The future, Avis concludes, is not about sustaining a damaged Earth — it is about regenerating it.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Talks: Want to Save the Planet? Beavers Have the Answers appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Rising domestic reserves: A glimpse of self-reliance

As of December 2024, Pakistan’s proven oil reserves stood at approximately 238 million barrels, representing a from around 193 million barrels in December 2023. This growth, though modest in global terms, underscores the country’s latent potential and highlights the importance of sustained investment in domestic exploration. Despite this encouraging rise, domestic production still falls short of meeting national demand, keeping Pakistan reliant on imports to fuel its industries, transport and households.

The scale of this reliance is significant. In the fiscal year 2023–2024, Pakistan’s petroleum import bill reached $15.1 billion, according to the State Bank of Pakistan, while some sources reported a slightly higher figure of .

This consistent outflow of foreign exchange underscores the importance of developing local reserves as a top priority. Every barrel produced domestically represents not just a saving in import costs, but also a step towards greater national resilience.

Shale energy: Pakistan’s untapped frontier

Beyond conventional oil and gas, Pakistan is among the world’s most promising nations in terms of shale energy potential. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Pakistan’s oil reserves are estimated at barrels, with oil and condensate production at around 60,000 barrels per day. These resources, largely concentrated in the Sembar and Ranikot formations of the Lower Indus Basin, could transform Pakistan’s energy profile if developed successfully.

It is important to note, however, that these remain geological assessments rather than proven reserves. Unlocking them would require extensive drilling, advanced technologies and a carefully phased development strategy. Industry estimates suggest that an initial investment of $5 billion or more, along with several years of effort, would be necessary before commercial-scale extraction becomes feasible.

Yet, this challenge also represents an opportunity. Pakistan has the chance to build partnerships with technologically advanced nations and multinational energy firms that can bring the expertise, capital and innovation needed to realize these resources. By positioning itself as an attractive investment destination, Pakistan could set the stage for a major transformation in its energy sector.

The Pakistan-US investment relationship holds untapped strategic value, particularly in critical sectors like minerals, energy, information technology (IT) and agriculture. Pakistan’s mineral reserves, valued between , including copper, lithium and rare earths, offer a strategic edge. These resources are crucial for the US clean energy transition and technological security.

The Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC) has been a pivotal enabler in streamlining procedures and boosting investment, especially in sectors like renewables and mining. US foreign direct investment (FDI) in Pakistan remains underutilized, with further engagement in energy development and mineral extraction critical for both countries’ long-term economic interests.

Offshore exploration: the next energy frontier

Momentum is also being built offshore. In early 2024, a multi-year seismic survey was conducted in the offshore Indus Basin, which detected promising subsurface structures containing hydrocarbons.

While still at an early stage, these findings suggest that Pakistan’s coastal regions may hold the key to future discoveries. Successful offshore exploration would not only diversify the energy mix but also elevate Pakistan’s status as a serious player in the global energy market.

These initiatives underline the fact that Pakistan is far from resource-poor; rather, it is a nation on the cusp of converting geological promise into economic strength. With the right strategies and partnerships, it could unlock reserves that support industrial growth, create jobs and stabilize its balance of payments.

Energy development cannot be viewed in isolation; it is deeply tied to Pakistan’s international partnerships. Since its independence in 1947, Pakistan’s with the United States has been shaped by both geopolitical shifts and enduring economic cooperation. Despite ups and downs, the trade and investment relationship has proven resilient, with the US consistently ranking among Pakistan’s largest trading partners.

Today, the United States is not only Pakistan’s export market, accounting for about 17% of total exports, but also a leading source of foreign direct investment. US companies have been active in consumer goods, information and communications technology (ICT), renewable energy and financial services, bringing global expertise and creating local opportunities. Pakistan, in turn, has exported textiles, apparel and a growing range of goods to the US, cementing the bilateral trade corridor as one of the most important in South Asia.

The momentum has accelerated further in recent months. In July–August 2025, high-level talks culminated in a new trade agreement aimed at developing Pakistan’s oil reserves and reducing bilateral tariffs. The accord promises not only to deepen cooperation in hydrocarbons but also to expand market access for Pakistani exports.

US President Donald Trump that future exploration could position Pakistan as an energy exporter to regional markets such as India — an ambitious but symbolic indicator of Pakistan’s potential.

Toward an energy-independent future

Pakistan’s energy challenge is undeniable, but so too is its potential. Rising proven reserves, significant shale prospects and encouraging offshore surveys highlight a future that could be shaped by reform, innovation and foreign investment.

For partners like the United States, deeper engagement in Pakistan’s energy sector is not only an economic opportunity but also a strategic investment in regional stability. If managed wisely, Pakistan could move from chronic dependency toward becoming a more resilient, self-sufficient player in the global energy landscape.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Powering Progress: How Can Pakistan Transform Its Energy Potential? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

From California wildfires to Vermont floods, insurers are pulling out of climate-exposed markets. Nearly one in five American homeowners now live in counties where insurers have reduced or completely eliminated coverage as climate losses in high-risk areas have over since 1980.

As a result, millions of homes are underinsured, unprotected and increasingly reliant on federal disaster aid. The United States is entering a climate insurance crisis — one that reveals how economic systems built for the past century are failing to manage today’s environmental risks.

When markets misprice risk

Traditional insurance models rely on historical data and predictable risk probabilities. But climate change has made that data obsolete, resulting in skyrocketing premiums and coverage withdrawals as private insurers fully price in the escalating risk. A dramatic shift in federal policy compounds this new reality.

The administration is the national commitment to long-term climate adaptation and pre-disaster mitigation, shifting the burden and cost to the state and local level.

Federal agencies have signaled a retreat from forward-looking climate planning, having halted implementation of flood protection standards and systematically eliminated key future risk assessment tools and climate planning pages from government websites. Most critically, the primary vehicles for federal resilience funding — including the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program and Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) — have been suspended or canceled, jeopardizing billions in planned mitigation projects nationwide.

While the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is prioritizing streamlining disaster response for immediate relief, this focus on quick recovery at the expense of pre-disaster mitigation leaves states and localities on their own to future-proof against extreme weather. In this environment of federal retreat, the financial gap between rising climate risk and available resilience funding has widened significantly.

An economic tool for an uncertain climate

Indexed (or parametric) insurance offers a data-driven alternative. Instead of paying for verified losses after a disaster — often a slow and contested process — payouts are triggered automatically when a pre-agreed threshold is met. For example, if rainfall exceeds ten inches in 24 hours, or wind speeds top 120 miles per hour, coverage holders receive payment — fast. The trigger is the event itself, not the damage report.

This model has worked elsewhere: the Caribbean Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility () pays governments within weeks of hurricanes, while African Risk Capacity () covers drought losses before famine strikes.

In the US, corporations and city governments are beginning to use similar tools to hedge against business disruption. New wildfire parametric products, for instance, are in California with support from global reinsurers. But for ordinary Americans — especially homeowners and small businesses — parametric insurance remains rare.

A public use for a private innovation

The US could adapt indexed insurance for the public good. Imagine if state disaster agencies used parametric triggers to issue automatic relief payments to affected households: no paperwork, no waiting, fewer political fights over aid. 

Local governments could also purchase community-level parametric coverage to stabilize budgets after extreme events. Cities like and are already exploring “climate-triggered” municipal bonds — why not extend that logic to disaster response?

Even small businesses could benefit. A coastal café that loses customers during mandatory storm evacuations could receive a payout the moment wind speeds cross a certain threshold, keeping workers paid and recovery faster.

Basis risk and data inequality 

Yet, this model isn’t without flaws. The greatest challenge is basis risk — the mismatch between the index and actual experience on the ground. A farmer might lose crops to localized flooding even if rainfall gauges in her county (or other local area) record below-threshold totals. In that case, she gets nothing. The data says she’s fine; reality disagrees.

In the US, this problem intersects with data inequality. Wealthier regions often have dense sensor networks, detailed flood maps and robust modeling. Rural and low-income areas often lack those systems. Reducing basis risk requires investment in high-resolution, open-access climate data. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has county-level hazard mapping tools and vulnerability indices, but more granular data — especially for rainfall, soil moisture and wildfire risk — is needed.

Open and publicly accessible from agencies like NOAA and the National Air and Space Association’s (NASA) Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) should underpin parametric models. Transparency in how triggers are calculated is essential to maintaining trust.

Equity and public oversight 

If left purely to private markets, parametric insurance risks deepening inequality. Wealthy property owners could easily buy coverage, while lower-income households — already hit hardest by disasters — remain uninsured. This is where environmental economics meets public ethics. Indexed insurance is most effective when embedded in a social contract:

— Publicly subsidized premiums for low-income or high-risk households.

— Clear disclosure rules so buyers understand triggers and exclusions.

— Integration with FEMA and state recovery systems for transparency.

The California Wildfire and Louisiana’s parametric pilot program are early steps. But a national strategy — modeled on the Community Rating System used in flood insurance — could link coverage affordability to local resilience efforts like wetland restoration or defensible space around homes.

Leveraging indexed insurance

From an environmental economics perspective, indexed insurance helps internalize the costs of climate volatility by signaling where adaptation investments are most needed. If parametric payouts spike in a certain region year after year, that’s not just a budget problem — it’s a warning. It means the true cost of inaction is now visible in economic terms. By connecting financial systems to environmental indicators, indexed insurance can turn climate uncertainty into actionable information — aligning markets with physical reality.

Beyond national borders, indexed insurance could anchor the US role in global climate finance. Channeling part of that funding into global risk pools — backed by US expertise in data analytics and insurance modeling — would demonstrate solidarity while leveraging American innovation. 

If the US modernizes its domestic disaster insurance system using parametric principles, it could export that framework worldwide — especially to small island states and low-income countries facing similar climate risks.

The path forward 

To make indexed insurance part of a fair, effective climate resilience strategy, the following need to be considered: 

— Launch federal and state pilot programs for parametric insurance in high-risk areas, focusing on floods, droughts, and wildfires.

— Invest in open-access climate and hazard data to reduce basis risk and ensure fairness.

— Subsidize premiums for vulnerable households and small businesses, funded through federal resilience grants or carbon revenues.

— Link payouts to adaptation actions, such as floodplain restoration or wildfire risk mitigation.

The beauty of indexed insurance lies in its speed and simplicity: when disaster strikes, help arrives automatically. Less red tape, less uncertainty. But simplicity is not the same as justice. If these systems are to serve all Americans — not just those who can afford them — they must be built on public data, transparent governance and equitable access. 

As the climate crisis deepens, insurance is no longer a niche financial product; it is a pillar of resilience. Indexed insurance won’t stop the storms, but it can ensure that when the wind rises, Americans aren’t left to weather it alone.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Indexed Insurance Could Build US Climate Resilience appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The choice of Belém is no accident. It is an urgent call to action in one of the world’s most vital and threatened biomes. But with powerful nations backing away from their commitments and fossil fuel industry lobbyists infiltrating the negotiations, cautious optimism clashes with the harsh reality of a crisis that is advancing faster than any response.

“The ceiling is already practically broken”

Luiz Villares, a leader in sustainability in the Amazon and executive of socioenvironmental projects, sounds the alarm about the urgency of the moment. “COP30 will mark the first decade of the Paris Agreement, coming a year after we passed the 1.5°C limit for global warming, the main goal of Paris”, he says. This is not a projection of the future, but a present reality. What was once a goal to be avoided is now a milestone that has already been reached, triggering increasingly severe climate consequences.

The scientific community is unanimous: every additional tenth of a degree of global warming represents an exponentially greater risk to life on Earth. With the 1.5°C ceiling close to being compromised, humanity is dangerously the 2°C limit, a point of no return that, according to experts, would bring “very uncomfortable impacts for human life and the survival of many animal and plant species”.

Historically, climate discussions have focused on mitigation, i.e., reducing emissions. Adaptation — how to protect communities, infrastructure and ecosystems from the already visible effects of climate change — was seen as a “B-side”, a lower priority. However, inaction and unfulfilled commitments have dramatically changed that perception.

“Adaptation has become the ’A-side’ of climate change for all the reasons of urgency for possible life on the planet”, emphasizes Villares. This means that, in addition to trying to slow down warming, the world now needs to invest heavily in measures to deal with droughts, floods, heat waves and extreme events that are . Global infrastructure is not prepared, and the costs of this adaptation are astronomical and growing.

The hidden power of the fossil fuel industry and climate denial

Global inertia in the face of the climate crisis is no accident. In-depth investigation that the fossil fuel industry has played a central role in spreading misinformation and effective climate action for decades. “The oil industry, with more than 1.5 trillion barrels in reserves, has been promoting climate denial since the 1970s”, reveals Villares, citing internal studies that large companies in the sector already had on the risks of fossil fuels, but chose to “ignore and shelve.”

In addition to concealing research, these companies have funded “denialist think tanks with hundreds of millions of dollars, promoting a powerful lobby of misinformation”. The overwhelming presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at COPs, outnumbering delegations from vulnerable nations, is proof of the power and influence that undermine diplomatic efforts. “After 30 years of diplomatic meetings, we have failed to curb the climate crisis, let alone help the poorest and most vulnerable countries protect themselves from climate change”, Villares laments.

Despite the challenges, COP30 in Belém represents a unique opportunity. Unlike the last conferences held in “petro-states” such as Azerbaijan (COP29) and the United Arab Emirates (COP28), “Belém brings elements that differentiate it from previous editions. It is the first time in three years that a climate conference will not take place in an oil-producing country, and the meeting will be held in a democratic country, welcoming demonstrations by civil society”, Villares points out.

Brazil proposes to lead with three guidelines: promoting multilateralism, connecting the climate regime to people’s real lives and accelerating the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

Multilateralism is crucial, especially in the face of governments such as President Donald Trump’s in the US, which demonstrate climate denialism. “The United States’ from the Paris Agreement undermines its credibility as a global leader”, notes Villares, opening space for nations such as China and Brazil itself to strengthen their geopolitical influence on the climate agenda.

The great Brazilian paradox: preservation and oil

However, Brazil’s leadership at COP30 is not without contradictions. Although President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government has a “50% reduction in deforestation in the Amazon” compared to the previous government of Jair Bolsonaro, there is a duality in energy policy. “The predicted growth in oil exploration, including in the Amazon estuary, reflects a situation of parallel desires in a nation oriented towards both the new green economy and the old fossil fuel economy”, points out Villares.

This ambiguity reflects a global problem: the energy transition is a “worldwide challenge”, where even nations committed to climate change face low popularity ratings for their leaders when implementing climate agendas that are “unpopular and highly costly to public budgets.”

The biggest obstacle to implementing climate goals is financing. Brazil reforming the international financial system to reach $1.3 trillion annually for climate adaptation over the next decade. But the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are the countries’ climate goals, show a “low commitment from most countries to the negotiations”. Only of member states submitted revised NDCs in time for COP30.

Villares argues that climate financing should be structured under a “risk avoidance approach,” where “investments in prevention and building resilient structures are much cheaper than paying the bill after the damage is done”. Prevention today can cost “five times less than paying the bill after the damage”, a ratio that, according to some economists, could soon be 15 times higher.

The last call for life on the planet

The challenges are immense, and time is short. “The deadline for all this is eight years, or less”, warns Villares. If inaction persists, the predicted scenario is a “world rich in financial wealth in the hands of a few, and poor in biodiversity, with nature and ecosystems devastated, under indebted governments, unable to care for their people”.

COP30 in Belém is more than a climate conference. It is the final opportunity for Brazil and the world to come together in a collaborative, real and tangible effort. “The world really needs a real COP30,” concludes Villares. “Brazil presents itself to the world as the country that is implementing the global climate agenda.” Hope lies in Belém’s ability to force a reckoning with climate reality and usher in an era of decisive action.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Amazon Under Threat: The Urgency of COP30 in Brazil appeared first on 51�Թ�.

We will arrive at COP30 in Belém in Pará, Brazil, this November, with the planetary budget for greenhouse gas emissions rapidly reaching its limit in less than five years. We are rapidly the 2°C limit — a “very uncomfortable” scenario for human life and the survival of countless species. Tipping points are just around the corner, and adaptation, once secondary, has risen to the “A-side” of the climate crisis.

The cost of inaction and the urgency of adaptation

In 30 years of exhaustive COPs, nations have failed to do their mitigation homework. Now, climate adaptation needs to be addressed first, and this is happening in a context of renewed climate denialism, in favor of an economy still dependent on fossil fuels. The costs of neglecting mitigation, transition and adaptation have escalated dramatically.

In 2008, the renowned Stern Report estimated the need for just over $500 billion annually for mitigation and a few billion for adaptation. Almost 17 years later, the costs exceed $9 trillion per year, with $5.4 trillion for mitigation, $3.4 trillion for climate transition and “only” $300 billion for adaptation — a figure that, according to experts, will be $1.35 trillion annually by 2035.

We missed a historic opportunity to pay a “payable bill” 15 years ago. Today, climate costs, especially for adaptation, fall on governments. Who will invest in renovations and construction to accommodate billions of people in scorching temperatures? Who will pay for coastal fortifications against rising sea levels? Who will bear the exponentially increasing damage from “climate disasters”? How can we invest in infrastructure without a financial return?

The introduction of the Green Climate Fund () and other funds is commendable, but they fall far short of what is needed. If the oil industry, with its net worth of over $100 trillion in reserves, had contributed significantly in 2008, the drama of climate finance would be much less. We would be at COP30 celebrating a world below 1.5°C.

Brazil and COP30: a decisive moment

COP30 in Brazil emerges as a crucial turning point. Adaptation takes center stage in climate negotiations. Those who understand and work toward this idea will adapt more easily to the world that awaits us. We need to understand the interest-bearing nature of governments and appropriate the best knowledge from the risk industry and multilateral funds.

Capitalism, especially neoliberal capitalism, demands returns, even if they are patient and combined with philanthropy. The basic assumption is always profitability. So who will invest in retaining walls, rebuilding public roads and repairing flood damage? Governments. But financial markets demand austerity, and public debts, such as Brazil’s, already commit a large part of budgets to honoring financial commitments. 

We have a paradox: governments need to allocate more resources to adaptation, but their debts and climate costs continue to grow. There is no money today, much less tomorrow, for climate adaptation needs.

Given the scarcity of resources, climate financing must be structured with a view to risk avoidance, prioritizing costly and scarce public and private efforts over remediation in the future. Investments in prevention and the construction of resilient structures are much cheaper than paying the bill after the damage has been done. Insurance experts that prevention today costs five times less than repair. This ratio may soon be 15 times more expensive, given the exponential increase in climate events.

Modeling future scenarios can no longer be based solely on the past. The climate events ahead are unknown. Climate science has competently predicted a 1.5°C increase as a viable ceiling for a decent life, but it also warns that increases above 3°C will not allow human life on Earth, except perhaps for a billionaire elite.

The challenges of climate finance have become the main item in the negotiations. The viability of our life on the planet requires a commitment to remain between 1.5°C and 2°C at most. The deadline for this is eight years or less. If denialist governments and industries continue to generate high emissions and invest minimally in sustainable solutions, we will see an increase in inequality and unpredictable impacts on the living conditions of the majority.

In another fifteen years, we will have a world that is financially rich in the hands of a few, but poor in biodiversity, with nature and ecosystems devastated, under indebted governments incapable of caring for their people. This is not the climate adaptation scenario I hope for our home, Planet Earth.

I still believe that global rentier capital can understand that adaptation is for everyone. An environmentally and socially possible world is challenged in its resilience by every tenth of a degree increase in temperature. Adaptation must come first and foremost as a chance for future generations to live a possible life here on Earth.

The paths are still possible. They involve understanding the need to make investments now and forever, with less profitability and an unconditional love for the lives of all planetary beings. There can only be one side of life for everyone on Earth. It is “Side A” of climate adaptation.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Belém, the Climate Crossroads: The “A Side” of Adaptation for the Global Future appeared first on 51�Թ�.

At the same time, coal companies failed to use the last five years to prepare for this shift. Their reluctance to invest decisively in solar, hydropower, battery storage or other clean technologies has left them exposed, underperforming and increasingly asking governments for relief rather than reinventing themselves.

Falling exports and prices reveal industry strain

The data makes the severity of their situation clear. In the first four months of 2025, Indonesia only about 150 million tons of thermal coal abroad — roughly 12% less than in the same period in 2024. China and India, Indonesia’s two biggest coal customers, have both their imports: China because of increased domestic production and tighter environmental rules, India due to similar motivations plus stronger domestic alternatives.

Meanwhile, in the first half of 2025, Indonesia’s coal production about 357.6 million tons — just under half its annual target of 739.7 million tons. Of that output, 238 million tons went to exports, 104.6 million tons to domestic market obligations and 15 million tons remained in inventory.

Simultaneously, coal prices have sharply — by about 30% globally for key benchmarks. In Indonesia, authorities have acknowledged that coal selling prices are low and the drop in revenue is “significant.” But coal executives often shift blame onto renewables. They say solar and wind are undermining coal demand. That claim ignores the timing: renewables were becoming more cost-competitive only gradually, and coal companies had a window years ago to pivot. Rather than shift capital into solar farms, hydro or energy storage, many instead doubled down on coal capacity expansion.

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis’s (IEEFA) review of seven major Indonesian coal producers (Adaro, Bayan, Geo Energy, Harum, Indika, Indo Tambangraya Megah [ITMG], PT Bukit Asam [PTBA]) that even after record profits in 2022 — $8.4 billion — and strong profits in 2023 — $4.4 billion — several of those companies are planning further expansion of coal production. Bayan Resources and Geo Energy alone are eyeing increases of up to 58 million tonnes of new coal capacity.

The consequence is that coal is growing more expensive to produce, while renewables are becoming cheaper. Mining costs rise with regulation, tougher environmental requirements, land acquisition challenges, labor, overburden removal and increasingly remote locations.

At the same time, solar panels, inverters, balance-of-system costs, and installation costs in Indonesia are dropping. For example, wholesale solar panel prices in recent assessments are in the range of about $0.07 to $0.28 , depending on efficiency, type, volume and supplier. That makes solar increasingly competitive, especially for new generation capacity. When coal companies insist that renewables are undercutting them, the claim misses that renewable energy’s (RE) competitive edge has been building slowly, whereas coal’s cost pressures have escalated sharply.

Profit margins erode as markets shift

Coal’s profitability is slipping. Lower prices, falling export volumes and rising domestic costs squeeze margins. Export revenues have fallen; in March 2025, for example, coal export value about 23% year-on-year, while volumes also slid. Being over-reliant on coal, especially for export, leaves companies vulnerable not only to market cycles but also to shifting policies in importing countries — such as environmental regulation, demand for higher calorific value (CV) coal, carbon pricing and climate goals. China and India are buying less of Indonesia’s medium- and low-CV coal in favor of higher-grade coal from other sources.

The strategic error is clear. Rather than build significant capacity in renewables when profits peaked, many coal firms either postponed or made modest, symbolic moves. Their expansion plans remain heavily coal-focused. Some invest in nickel smelting or aluminum, yet even those downstream moves do not substitute for generative RE capacity.

The result is declining profitability, shrinking market share and a risk that these firms will become increasingly dependent on state interference — higher domestic market obligation (DMO) prices (the minimum price coal-fired power plants pay), regulatory relief, subsidies, perhaps even bailing out stranded coal assets. If these become the primary tools, the public cost will grow, and the sector will remain locked in its decline.

A narrow window for energy transition

Indonesia is at a turning point. Its government has set targets for renewable energy, and there are international commitments, such as the Just Energy Transition Partnership (), that aim to accelerate clean power deployment. To meet these, policy must shift: incentives should favor RE deployment (tax breaks, auction mechanisms, streamlined permits), coal subsidies must be phased out and the regulatory regime should penalize carbon externalities rather than shielding coal producers.

Coal companies must accept that the era of business‐as‐usual is over. The path forward lies in pragmatism: reallocate future capital expenditure to solar, hydro and storage; form partnerships with established RE developers; acquire or build internal RE expertise; develop clear transition roadmaps for investors and stakeholders.

If coal firms do not change their strategy, they risk becoming legacy utilities propped up by protective policy rather than generating profits from competitive markets. Those that act decisively — recognizing that global and domestic trends are against coal — will have a chance to survive, or even to lead in Indonesia’s energy transition. But time is not a luxury. The longer the delay, the harder the pivot, and the greater the cost — for companies, for government and for ordinary Indonesians.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Indonesia’s Coal Giants Are Losing Ground: Why the Time to Diversify Was Five Years Ago appeared first on 51�Թ�.

What is regeneration?

Avis contrasts regeneration with conventional and sustainable systems, arguing that the former is not about minimizing damage but about creating conditions for more life to flourish. He frames regeneration as both a mindset and a movement toward active partnership with the Earth.

He outlines three paradigms shaping humanity’s relationship with the planet. The conventional system prioritizes economic growth while externalizing environmental costs and depleting resources. The sustainable system aims for “net zero,” yet he finds this logic self-defeating since it implies humanity’s best outcome is to vanish.

The regenerative paradigm begins with the premise that humans are part of nature, not separate from it. Every action we take affects something — the question is whether it produces more life or less. Regeneration accepts that humans cannot be neutral; they can only be creative or destructive participants. The goal is to design systems that convert human energy into abundance and ensure that every footprint becomes a foundation for growth rather than decline.

Reimagining spaces

To illustrate this shift, Avis turns to the beaver. On his land in northern Alberta, Canada, beavers fell trees and flood valleys that at first seem ravaged. Yet their dams store millions of liters of water, slow erosion and multiply biodiversity. Their apparent destruction becomes the foundation for new life.

Translating that principle into human spaces, Avis argues that cultural norms block progress more than technology does. Nearly 40 million acres of land in the United States are devoted to lawns — an area equal to all the nation’s wheat fields. Maintaining them burns fuel, uses chemicals and yields nothing edible.

If even a fraction were converted to gardens, communities could feed themselves while farms revert to perennial systems. Urban agriculture, he says, can be the seed of a larger transformation, where food production and ecosystem health reinforce each other. For Avis, regeneration is not austerity but designing abundance into daily life.

Regenerative agriculture

At the farm level, Avis’s method begins with diagnostics — what the land wants to be, what the owner needs, and what resources exist. The intersection of these forms the sweet spot for regenerative design.

The keystone is the water cycle. Without functioning hydrology, no ecosystem can thrive. “The sun is the gas pedal,” Avis remarks, and “water is like the gasoline.” Restoring the water cycle through ponds and vegetation restarts the biological engine. Examples range from China’s Loess Plateau to India’s Water Cup project and American farmers like Gabe Brown, who regenerate soils by integrating livestock and perennials.

For individuals, regeneration begins in the garden. Avis advises starting small; even a one-meter plot is enough to learn ecological feedback. “You don’t have a slug problem, you have a duck deficiency,” he jokes, showing that every pest has a predator. The goal is to add missing relationships, not apply poisons.

Improving nutrition in crops

Industrial farming, Avis notes, has drained nutrient density from food. Regenerative practices restore minerals and microbial life to soil, improving plant nutrition and taste alike. Healthy soil acts as a living digestive system; chemicals disrupt the exchange of carbon and nitrogen that makes crops nourishing.

Rebuilding soil’s organic matter through composting, cover crops and rotational grazing links directly to public health. Declining soil vitality parallels rising endocrine disorders, infertility and chronic disease. Avis sees this as evidence that human well-being and ecological integrity are intertwined — the health of people mirrors the health of the land.

Reducing the carbon footprint

Despite his background in carbon engineering, Avis calls the world’s fixation on emissions “misguided.” The real issue is that humans dismantled ecosystems that once managed carbon naturally.

Before colonization, North Amer������’s grasslands teemed with bison and beavers that stored water and carbon. Today, soils that once contained 20% organic matter hold less than 3%. Each ton of grain harvested erodes several tons of soil, leaving about 60 crop cycles at current loss rates.

The regenerative answer is to restore the life that cycles carbon for us. Grasslands and forests evolved to regulate the planet’s chemistry through growth and renewal. Focusing on carbon numbers, Avis warns, misses the elegance of these living processes. “We need life-based thinking, not mechanism-based reduction,” he says.

Campani observes that regeneration sounds more like participation than protest. Avis agrees, describing it as a forward movement, not a return to the past. If humanity can engineer nuclear weapons, he concludes, it can also engineer regeneration to make the future brighter. “It has to taste better, it has to be more fun,” he says. We can start by growing a tomato plant, setting a rain barrel or propagating a patch of living soil.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Talks: Regeneration Explained — Redesigning Our Planet, Our Food and Our Future appeared first on 51�Թ�.

I have spent an enormous amount of time organizing for social justice in high school with The Sunrise Movement and now in college with Mi Familia Vota. For months, I had been asking myself: Are my peers blind to what is happening to our society, to our world? Do they not care? Where are the youth in this moment, and why aren’t we fighting for the democracy and civil rights we have recently learned from our social studies textbooks? And why, at the protest, could I only spot a few of my peers’ faces in the crowd of thousands of people?

A constant deluge of threats 

The truth is, my generation has been facing the threat of climate change since we were old enough to learn about the weather. COVID-19 completely uprooted our lives, sending us home from school without warning, trapping us inside for what ended up being close to a year and a half. We have been raised alongside news alerts constantly buzzing in our pockets, informing us of the latest deadly storm, shooting or war. 

Throughout our teenage years, my peers and I participated in at least three school strikes a year, streaming out of our classrooms to make ourselves seen and heard as we told the world that our education was worthless if a shooting could steal away our futures or climate change was expected to upend the very earth that sustains us.

Considering that our , safety and health are already in states of emergency, added to our democracy and our are merely another item on a long list. Although this past November was my first time voting in a presidential election, it’s clear to me that the Trump administration’s actions are unprecedented.

It is not that my generation does not believe that our healthcare, universities, the rule of law, freedom of speech and the right to assemble are seriously threatened. It is not that we don’t understand that this is once again an emergency. It is that life-altering threats and unprecedented times are not novel to us. Crisis is another word for normal. 

Adapting to a world in crisis 

Every day, I go through my email and sort through dozens of calls to action with subject lines such as: “Dangerous Article V Convention: An Unprecedented Event;” “The US House Voted to ‘Defund’ Planned Parenthood;” “‘Theft’: GOP Approves Largest Medicaid, SNAP Cuts in US History.” This spring, I would skim through each email to sign petitions, customize email action alerts and sometimes even make phone calls, leaving my representatives awkward voicemails that I hoped would count for something. 

Now, I feel a knot in my stomach as I send most of these emails straight to the trash. For every petition I sign, I end up being subscribed to new organizations’ lists. I have become increasingly aware that, as one person, I can’t do it all. There will always be emergencies that I am actively turning a blind eye to. 

I don’t blame my friends who check out and decide to ski or sleep in or have a nice brunch rather than attend the Saturday protest. Continuing to live life and find joy even under catastrophe is part of being human, a survival skill that my generation had to learn from a young age. 

It is impossible for each individual to meet every crisis at the level of its immensity. This will only lead to burnout and eventually a general sense of apathy. Simultaneously, the prospect of each individual turning a blind eye completely to the crises of our times is itself catastrophic. We must somehow find a way to strike a balance. 

Finding communal resilience 

This balance can only be realized when we understand that being aware of and vocal about the crises that threaten our lives and futures does not prevent us from finding joy in the present. Joy, love and hope are themselves forms of resistance. Not the “resistance” preached by self-care books and Instagram accounts that claim all the world’s problems will be solved if we each find peace by looking inside and focusing on ourselves. We are not living in times of peace, and the expectation of individual well-being without communal support only adds to my generation’s confusion and isolation.  

As youth, we first have to permit ourselves to fully feel the frustration that comes with a sense of loss for what to do during these times. We must understand that these emotions are normal in facing an unprecedented amount of inconceivable circumstances. Only when we accept these emotions can we open up to those around us and realize we don’t have to hold the weight of the world alone. 

The act of sharing our anger, joy and honesty will naturally lead to collective support, healing and mobilization. I have found this through working with the Mi Familia Vota team. Together, we not only promote the health, safety and prosperity of Latino communities, but also organize individuals to unite in shaping a society that works in their best interests.

Just as we cannot all be doctors, engineers, teachers and scientists at once, we cannot find all the answers to these times inside ourselves. We must take action together and allow ourselves to feel fulfilled by our contributions to communal resiliency.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Communal Resilience as a Young Person in an Increasingly Volatile US appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The intelligence revolution has an energy problem

Training a single large AI model consumes more electricity than 100 American homes use in a year. The International Energy Agency () estimates global data centers devoured 460 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2022, and that number could more than double by 2026. In 2024, accounted for 24% of server electricity demand.

This is not just driven by Silicon Valley and Wall Street using AI. AI is quickly becoming essential globally, from agriculture in to logistics in and disaster response in . But AI does not work without power. A climate model predicting hurricane paths in the Caribbean? A diagnostic system identifying heart defects in infants? These miracles of machine learning are meaningless if the servers powering them go dark.

How nuclear energy is ideal for AI

Nuclear energy can power AI sustainably and more effectively. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power does not emit carbon. Unlike solar and wind, it does not .

Advances in fast neutron reactors now allow us to recycle fuel, extracting up to more energy from the same material and reducing the remaining waste by up to . This remaining waste has also significantly reduced radiotoxicity and can be stored safely in deep geological repositories, such as Finland’s , which was built to endure for millennia. 

There is also a growing geopolitical dimension to this conversation. As nations integrate AI into defense systems, border monitoring and biotech infrastructure, energy security becomes a key component of national security. Nuclear power offers not just carbon-free stability but strategic hedging space. Uranium stockpiles are key economic exports for source countries, making them less likely to be used in economic bargaining. 

Further, unlike oil or natural gas, nuclear supply chains are relatively to geopolitical flashpoints. Countries with nuclear power plants typically have strategic uranium reserves or long-term purchase agreements that mitigate the impact of short-term geopolitical disruptions.

As the global nuclear energy market grows, so does the diversification of uranium sources. Emerging uranium suppliers such as Uzbekistan, Namibia, and Niger are expanding and offering alternative sources that can mitigate the geopolitical uncertainty in any one region. 

Operationally, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), now under development from the to and , could be deployed near industrial clusters, AI data centers, and innovation parks. The size and efficiency of SMRs allow nuclear power to be built in nations without legacy nuclear infrastructure. They also provide strategic deterrence against grid failure and cyber threats by decentralizing power generation, incorporating cybersecurity measures by design, and ensuring operational resilience.

As the world realigns into energy blocs — clean versus dirty, stable versus vulnerable — countries that master AI and nuclear power will shape the terms of the next century.

The real cost of nuclear energy

The bigger risk is not nuclear energy; it is not building it fast enough. Delay means AI projects stalling, emissions rising and critical infrastructure stuck on unstable grids. Yes, nuclear power plants are more expensive upfront than coal plants. However, over the full lifetime of a plant, nuclear energy becomes with and often cheaper than coal and renewable energy sources.

The fear surrounding nuclear energy is often emotional, not empirical. The aftermath of Chernobyl and Fukushima led to that emphasized continuous safety training, transparency and rigorous adherence to safety protocols.

International standards, including oversight processes, set by organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), have been , ensuring that nuclear power plants are built and operated according to global best practices. Modern reactors have passive safety features and are designed to be inherently stable and self-regulating, significantly reducing the likelihood of a catastrophic failure.

According to Our World in Data, though higher than solar power, nuclear has the mortality rate per unit of energy produced, even lower than wind or hydropower. It is safer than some of the renewables we romanticize and exponentially safer than the fossil fuels we continue to burn.

To change the story, we need to reframe the stakes: nuclear energy is not about yesterday’s fears. It is about tomorrow’s potential. It is not a necessary evil but rather a strategic enabler of progress.

Nuclear energy is not just part of the solution. It may be the only energy source capable of matching the intelligence we are building with the infrastructure it demands. If we want to be serious about our AI future, it is time to power it like we mean it.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post AI is Hungry, and Only Nuclear Energy Can Feed It appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Around the world, a disturbing trend is unfolding. Seasonal viruses are behaving out of turn. The H3N2 flu virus is striking and more forcefully in and metropolises. Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is experiencing surges outside of its typical seasons. At the same time, the slow creep of avian influenza has hundreds of bird and mammal species and could eventually reach the stage of continuous human transmission.

In India, the Nipah virus has reemerged, killing two in Kerala. Officials were quick to confirm additional cases, but fears continue to grow that a virus with a high death toll and no cure will spread again amongst the population.

This is not science fiction. It is an established, , driven by urbanization, deforestation and the climate crisis. Looming over all of this is the threat of antimicrobial resistance. A less flashy but potentially more terrifying threat. Infections that once responded to basic antibiotics now resist them. We are headed into a world and most governments are still treating it as a theory.

The forces that spread disease 

Vaccine hesitancy is no longer on the margins: it is a public health emergency. Driven by misinformation and politicization, the US is now on the brink of vaccination rates being below the necessary for herd immunity. Politicians, including those who hold positions in the national office, systematically undermine mandatory childhood vaccinations. We are witnessing the live demolition of medical progress over the decades.

Climate is also redrawing the disease map. Longer winters allow ticks and mosquitoes to survive longer, increasing the spread of Lyme disease, dengue fever and malaria. Even other diseases extend into wider latitudes. Floods, droughts and the extension of wildlife are pushing humans into new forms of viral contact. Diseases that were once “tropical” are becoming global.

Globalization has the spread of disease even further. Air travel infections faster than our health system can keep up. This has caused the world to become smaller and less prepared to handle this kind of rapid spread. 

Disease is on the rise, and not just a new disease. Old and familiar scourges are finding new means of survival in a world that is becoming increasingly unable to defend itself. The question is not whether the disease will continue to rise. It already is. The question is: Will we make our response rapid enough to adapt?

To date, the indicators aren’t auspicious. They might become so if we behave as though it makes a difference.

The future of public health

We already have the answers to prevent many of these crises, or at least manage them.

Vaccines are effective. Public health messaging is effective. Global surveillance connecting countries and species — what scientists the “One Health” approach is effective. But too frequently, these solutions are underfunded, politically sabotaged or simply ignored until it is too late.

The return of measles to America should be a wake-up call. Not only because of what it is but because of what it implies. If we can not manage a disease we had previously contained, how can we possibly manage the next Nipah virus, the next COVID-19 or the next drug-resistant supervirus?

The 20th century gave us miracles: antibiotics, vaccines, sanitation and disease surveillance on a worldwide scale. The 21st century will test whether or not we can maintain them.

[ edited this piece.] 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Hidden Tsunami: A Public Health Crisis That’s Already Here appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Over a million people signed a petition urging repeal. It was successful — France’s highest court, the Constitutional Court, the Duplomb law on the basis of environmental concern. But while the concern is real, the story is more complicated.

The Duplomb Law was a step in the right direction

The Duplomb Law doesn’t open the floodgates. It permits temporary, closely monitored use of acetamiprid in areas where no effective alternatives exist. In addition, it would also be subject to review by , France’s independent food safety agency. If implemented as intended, this is a precaution, not a blanket return to chemical agriculture.��

Rather, the law reflects the difficult choices modern governments face as they attempt to simultaneously safeguard food security, rural livelihoods and environmental health. If implemented transparently and carefully, the Duplomb Law could serve as a model for science-informed, balanced regulation. This is especially important in an era when climate change and ecological fragility demand not ideological purity, but evidence-based pragmatism.

So, let’s start with the facts.

Acetamiprid, unlike other insecticides such as imidacloprid and clothianidin, is generally considered to bees and poses relatively low environmental risk when used under proper guidelines. The European Food Safety Authority still allows its use across the European Union. Yet France, in 2018, went further by all neonicotinoids  preemptively. The ban was largely in response to public concern about pollinators.��

That concern is valid. The role of pollinators in agriculture and biodiversity is critical. But treating all neonicotinoids as equally dangerous is scientifically inaccurate. Not all pesticides are the same. Policy must differentiate based on , not chemical class alone or emotional response.

Inflexible bans yield losses, too

Still, we must be clear-eyed: even lower-risk pesticides carry costs. Acetamiprid can accumulate in soil and water and affect beneficial insects. Over-reliance on any chemical can lead to resistance and undermine long-term sustainability.

But the costs of inflexible bans are real, too. Bans such as the one France has passed yield losses such as food insecurity, farmer distress and increased use of black-market or unregulated chemicals. Meanwhile, French farmers, especially beet and fruit growers, are under pressure. As climate change fuels warmer winters and shifts in pest patterns, outbreaks of whiteflies and aphids — many of which spread crop-killing viruses — are becoming increasingly difficult to control. Some farmers report 30% to 40% of their harvests.

Alternative methods like organic farming or integrated pest management () are essential for the future. But in many areas, they are not yet viable at scale, particularly in the face of acute pest infestations. Farmers need immediate, to prevent ruin, not inactionable promises.

A pesticide policy that protects pollinators but collapses farm incomes is not sustainable. Nor is one that boosts yields but poisons ecosystems. What we need is a framework that accounts for all these trade-offs — a approach that links human, animal and environmental health.

France needs to consider empirical evidence in its policymaking

Here’s how France and other nations can get this right:

Governments need to base every policy reauthorization on transparent, evidence-based, peer-reviewed science. Let risk assessments be public, replicable and insulated from political pressure.

There needs to be limits on approvals according to time and geography. Emergency uses should expire unless re-evaluated and monitored through real-time tracking of pesticide residue levels and their impacts on ecosystems.

States must invest urgently in alternatives. Governments must fund research into biopesticides, pest-resistant crops and agroecological practices that can actually scale.

France is not the only country facing this dilemma. Around the world, farmers and policymakers are confronting climate-driven , rising input costs and ecological collapse. These are not times for simplistic answers.

We need policies that recognize the complexity of modern agriculture and are guided by science, not sentiment. The Duplomb Law, while controversial, offered an opportunity to show how evidence-based governance can rise above ideological divides.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post France Sacrifices Evidence for Emotion in New Pesticide Policy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This dichotomy is not just a policy-level contradiction; it is India’s lived energy reality. The world’s most populous country faces the herculean task of reconciling its development ambitions with its 2070 pledge, all while addressing the energy needs of people.

Solar surges, but coal persists

India’s renewable push is undeniable. With over 119.02 gigawatts of installed in mid-2025, the country ranks among the top five globally. The government’s target of of non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030 has driven the of Ultra Mega in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, transforming barren lands into grids of gleaming photovoltaic panels.

These investments are not just about climate goals. They also make economic sense. India’s solar power tariffs fell to a record low of ₹2 ($0.02) in 2020 and stood at around ₹2.56–₹2.57 ($0.03) in late 2024, as approved by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission—keeping renewables an attractive alternative for distribution companies facing higher coal costs.

Yet coal continues to power of India’s electricity generation. In June 2025, the Power Ministry greenlit the reopening of 32 abandoned , citing soaring demand amid a . Electricity consumption hit as air conditioning use spiked across urban centers.

The decision underscores a core challenge: while solar shines at midday, coal provides the steady, dispatchable power required around the clock. With large-scale battery storage still in its infancy and hydro capacity limited, coal remains the country’s energy backbone for now.

Just Transition or just talk?

COP30 places at the heart of its agenda. For India, this raises hard questions. What does a just transition look like in the coal districts of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Odisha, where entire communities rely on mining for jobs, livelihoods and local economies?

In towns like , the net-zero narrative feels distant. Generations have worked in coalfields. Informal workers, many of them women and , depend on coal scavenging and truck loading for subsistence. If the mines closed, where will they go? Despite central government assurances, local voices worry that economic alternatives remain vague or absent.

Programs like the fund, proposed in India’s draft National Electricity Plan, are promising on paper but lack clear pathways for re-skilling or regional development. Unlike Germany, which has invested billions to coal while protecting workers, India’s fiscal room has limits. Without concrete investment in healthcare, education and alternative employment in coal districts, the transition may be more abrupt than just.

Solar corridors and shifting rural economies

Conversely, in the sunny plains of Rajasthan and Gujarat, the rise of solar power is reshaping local economies, though not always smoothly.

In , once a dusty village, the world’s largest solar park sprawls across 14,000 acres. Thousands of temporary construction jobs emerged during the installation phases. Some farmers now to solar developers, generating passive income. However, others express concern over land alienation, water stress and the uneven distribution of benefits. Critics warn that top-down land acquisition for energy projects often marginalizes those without legal titles, exacerbating inequality.

The central government’s Pradhan Mantri Kisan Urja Suraksha evam Utthaan Mahabhiyaan (PM-KUSUM) , which subsidizes solar-powered pumps for farmers, offers a more inclusive model. By enabling decentralized solar production and usage, it allows smallholders to cut input costs and sell surplus power to the grid. Still, its uptake has been uneven across states, often stalling due to bureaucratic delays and lack of awareness.

Between global south leadership and domestic trade-offs

India seeks to position itself as a climate leader of the Global South, amplifying voices from low and middle-income countries demanding climate justice, technology transfer and fair finance. At the Group of 20 () forum (an intergovernmental forum comprising 19 sovereign countries, the EU and the African Union [AU]) and other forums, New Delhi has “common but differentiated responsibilities” and called out the unmet $100 billion climate finance pledge from developed nations.

At COP30, India will likely repeat its call for equity: rich nations must not only cut their emissions but also support others in transitioning away from fossil fuels. It will advocate for climate finance mechanisms that are accessible, predictable and responsive to national contexts.

Yet India’s domestic trade-offs may raise eyebrows. How does one credibly push for global equity while reviving coal? The answer may lie in India’s developmental compulsions. While per capita emissions remain far below Western levels, India faces intense pressure to deliver jobs, industrial growth and energy access.

Over Indians still lack regular electricity access — millions more face load shedding. Until renewables become fully reliable and scalable, the state’s social contract may demand that coal continue, at least in the short term.

Straddling the transition: pragmatism or drift?

India’s energy trajectory does not fit neatly into binaries. It is not a simple story of green vs. black, progress vs. pollution. Rather, it is a balancing act shaped by geography, demography and development needs.

Some analysts call this pragmatism — an incremental approach that prevents energy shocks. Others see it as inertia — a reluctance to make tough decisions, such as setting a clear coal phase-out date or investing adequately in energy storage.

What’s clear is that India’s actions are being watched closely. As the world barrels toward the , every country’s pathway matters. India’s scale means that its transition choices will shape global climate outcomes. But its challenges are structural and social; it demands empathy and nuanced understanding.

COP30 and the road ahead

As COP30 unfolds in the Amazon, the symbolism is powerful. A summit held in the heart of the planet’s largest rainforest asks the world to act on the urgency of climate change. For India, this means owning its dual identity: a clean energy frontrunner and a coal-dependent economy in transition.

The success of India’s net-zero mission will depend not only on solar installations and EV rollouts but also on how it treats its most vulnerable — mine workers, marginal farmers and those left behind by energy transitions.

If India can bridge its energy divide while pushing for global climate justice, it may yet emerge not just as a negotiator but as a model. Not because its transition is perfect, but because it is honest, human and ongoing.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post India’s Challenge At COP30: Between Coal and Solar Power appeared first on 51�Թ�.

At the center of this deal is a proposed project in Kalimantan, a coal-rich region of Indonesia located on the island of Borneo, north of Java, where the capital, Jakarta, is located. An as-of-yet unnamed is reportedly in talks to revive a stalled effort to turn low-grade coal — an abundant but highly polluting fuel — into dimethyl ether (DME), a synthetic gas sometimes marketed as a cleaner alternative to traditional cooking fuels. The Indonesian government has promoted DME as a way to reduce its reliance on imported liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). But make no mistake: this is still a coal-based project — and a carbon-intensive one at that.

Kalimantan is no ordinary location. It’s a place of immense ecological importance, home to dense rainforests and rich biodiversity. It is also the planned site of Indonesia’s new capital, , envisioned as a modern, sustainable city that represents the country’s future. To channel billions into fossil fuel infrastructure in such a symbolically and environmentally significant region feels at odds with that vision.

Wealth grows as governments backpedal

The potential investment is not being driven by state-led climate policy. Rather, it appears to be a profit-oriented move by a private Chinese firm drawn by the project’s financial appeal. A senior official from Indonesia’s Ministry of Energy recently that the company’s internal rate of return is projected to exceed 15% — a figure that helps explain the commercial motivation, even if the environmental rationale remains weak.��

This DME initiative is not new. It was initially in 2022 by PT Bukit Asam Tbk (PTBA), a major state-owned coal mining company under Indonesia’s mining holding company, Mining Industry Indonesia (). PTBA had partnered with the US-based energy firm Air Products, but the deal collapsed in 2023 when Air Products to redirect its investments to the US, where it could benefit from generous clean energy tax credits. Since then, PTBA has actively sought new foreign partners to fill the gap, with Chinese firms as leading contenders.

Daya Anagata Nusantara (Danantara), Indonesia’s sovereign wealth fund, is currently the feasibility of the project and is likely to play a central role. The fund has publicly committed to supporting clean and renewable energy, which makes its potential involvement — financial or political — all the more consequential. Danantara’s decisions will carry long-term implications not only for Indonesia’s energy mix but also for its credibility as a climate partner.

This moment presents a clear fork in the road. If Indonesia and China (understood here as a broader ecosystem of companies, investors and institutions) continue to back coal-linked development, they risk doubling down on an outdated model. Yet both countries are also uniquely positioned to pursue a different path. Indonesia’s vast geography offers for solar, wind and hydropower. China is home to the world’s most of solar panels, wind turbines and battery storage systems.

A green future, not business as usual

To be clear, it is not certain whether the Chinese government will be involved or not. And under international norms, it cannot control the decisions of private firms operating abroad. But perception matters. Beijing has spent the past decade a leadership role in green development, especially across the Global South. If Chinese firms continue to fund fossil fuel infrastructure — even in the absence of public money — it can muddy that message.

The same is true for Indonesia. Its continued emphasis on coal, even under the guise of cleaner technologies like DME, may satisfy near-term energy goals but could deter global investors from increasingly prioritizing sustainability. The economic case for is stronger than ever: Solar and wind technologies are not only cleaner but also often cheaper than fossil fuels. They also offer the potential to create more jobs, expand energy access and promote long-term stability.

It’s worth remembering that this project is not a done deal. The is still underway, and no final investment decision has been made. This gives Indonesian institutions — especially Danantara — a chance to change course. It also allows Chinese stakeholders to pivot their overseas investments toward technologies that align with their country’s official climate pledges.

This is not a call to halt collaboration between China and Indonesia, far from it. The two countries have a of economic partnership, and that relationship could become a catalyst for clean energy development across Southeast Asia. But for that to happen, both sides need to align their incentives with a shared vision of a low-carbon future — one that avoids locking in decades more of fossil fuel dependency.

The world is watching where major economies place their bets. The smart money — and the responsible leadership — is on renewables.

[ edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post China and Indonesia Need to Overcome Coal appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Raus opens by critiquing the former president’s Inflation Reduction Act, calling it a misnamed policy that lavished billions of dollars in subsidies on solar and wind industries — what he labels “corporate handouts.” He argues these subsidies distorted the energy market by pre-selecting winners rather than letting innovation and consumer demand determine the most effective energy sources.

Raus says solar and wind were favored not because of their reliability or affordability, but because of ideological preferences. Simultaneously, more promising sectors like geothermal and nuclear were sidelined. He sees this as a prejudiced approach that inflated US debt and ignored real technological limitations, such as the poor performance of solar batteries.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act levels the playing field

By contrast, Raus praises the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act for eliminating corporate tax credits for solar and wind. He believes this shift allows for a more level playing field, enabling all energy sources to compete based on merit rather than political support.

While state-level subsidies may persist, Raus emphasizes that the federal rollback signals a broader return to consumer-driven energy development — one focused on safety, reliability and affordability. He views the new policy as a correction to what he sees as the prior administration’s ideological overreach, putting economic concerns at the forefront amid ongoing inflation and post-pandemic recovery.

Reframing environmentalism: innovation vs. degrowth

Singh challenges Raus on environmental risks, mentioning that scientists fear Trump’s policy could “cook the planet.” Raus argues that both green and traditional energy projects are stifled by excessive environmental regulation under laws like the National Environmental Policy Act. He advocates for a “pro-growth, pro-innovation” mindset, suggesting that the reform and acceleration of development are key to resolving environmental challenges — not halting progress.

Raus opposes what he calls the “degrowth” movement, claiming it is incompatible with how market economies function. He maintains that removing subsidies doesn’t tilt the scales toward fossil fuels but rather ends government favoritism, allowing the most viable technologies to emerge organically.

Nuclear and geothermal are the next frontier

Raus sees promise in both nuclear and geothermal energy. Geothermal, he states, is finally nearing scalability. Nuclear is regaining public support after years of fear-driven opposition. With growing energy needs from emerging technologies like AI, he believes nuclear energy offers a viable, scalable solution. He notes openness to nuclear energy even among environmentalists and tech giants like Google and Meta, who are investing in that space.

However, Raus cautions that public opinion and geographic siting issues could still pose challenges. He urges broader participation and compromise to avoid turning energy policy into a cultural battle, expressing optimism about bipartisan acceptance of nuclear as a major player in the future energy mix.

The US vs. global energy strategies

Singh points out that the world is moving away from this idea, instead prioritizing green energy. Raus defends the United States’s more market-based approach. He contrasts it with the top-down, state-controlled strategies of the European Union and China — these produce inefficiencies like regulatory overreach, ghost cities and a lack of innovation.

The American system fosters dynamic competition, allowing diverse energy sources to fill specific roles — from residential solar to nuclear-powered AI infrastructure. Raus believes the US has stronger natural resources, international supply chains and modern infrastructure, giving it an edge in both energy and AI. He envisions the US leading by example with a balanced, decentralized approach that other nations may eventually adopt.

Singh and Raus agree that the future of US energy is not about picking one source but embracing a diverse mix. Traditional sources will remain important as newer technologies mature. Raus supports this pragmatic vision and sees it as a reflection of sound policy that prioritizes competition, innovation and consumer needs over government mandates.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Talks: Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act Will Cook the Planet? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Though a public entity, USAID played a leading role in advancing sustainable development, accounting for nearly of the US climate financing and a of spending by the developed world. The vanishing of USAID has created a gap in global sustainability, which, in the spirit of saving US dollars, has cost gains of the burgeoning climate finance market and losses for existing projects spurring capital growth.

The key element in spurring private sector involvement is USAID’s facilitation of blended finance contracts. Blended finance is the use of capital from public or philanthropic sources to increase private sector investment, and climate-blended finance has contributed immensely to global development. 

From 2021 to 2023, of climate-blended finance investments generated local employment, and 26% of these projects have targeted climate-smart industries and infrastructure. USAID’s Feed the Future alone facilitated $4.5 billion in investments and loans to the agriculture sector, generating $10.5 billion in sales for small and mid-sized businesses. These are multifaceted wins: environmental, economic and social.

Climate resilience is fiscal prudence

Investing in climate resilience is also a tool to prevent fiscal losses. The United Nations estimates that every in risk reduction and prevention saves up to $15 in post-disaster recovery. In February 2025, the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change released a Climate Resilience Investment , offering an actionable guide to help investors understand climate action and its impact on financial returns. This framework illustrates how smart climate investments can safeguard long-term business models through this lens.

USAID has been a catalyst for private sector involvement in climate and development projects. One of its flagship programs, INVEST, launched in 2017, facilitated over in private capital across 14 sectors, including climate, clean energy and agriculture, among others, through hundreds of public-private partnerships. By lowering barriers to entry, this initiative demonstrates the capability of public entities like USAID to mobilize private capital in high-impact areas.   

Through 2018, USAID has brought the private sector into Global Development Alliances (public-private supporting the implementation of projects in developing countries) that are expected to leverage more than $43 billion in non-US government funds towards US objectives. For instance, USAID, Unilever and EY launched the in 2024, a $21 million initiative to invest in small businesses in the plastics and packaging value chain across Asia. These collaborations demonstrate how public funding can unlock scalable, sustainable and profitable solutions to global issues.

Blended finance yields measurable results both abroad and domestically.��In developing regions, early investments in clean technology can open new markets.��Cambodia is a prime example of a developing market for renewable energies. In 2016, two , ADB and Sunseap Asset Co., utilized blended-finance mechanisms with the Cambodian government that financed Cambodia’s first utility-scale solar project, generating 110 MW of energy.��

This single project lit the signal for a surge in renewable energy development, catalyzing more than $70 million in blended finance and over $1 billion in solar power infrastructure by 2023 with a combined capacity of around 800 MW. This lack of existing market snowballed into a national energy transition and a resulting new market. 

Blended finance powers sustainable growth

These climate-related projects, and USAID as a whole, have long faced criticisms for inefficiency and unnecessary spending. In February, the Trump admin justified cuts to USAID in a February White House as a means to reduce wasteful spending; however, this rationale ignores proven financial gains of .��

Blended finance initiatives align with growing market interest in climate-focused initiatives, creating capital while contributing to several sustainable development goals (SDGs) outcomes.  Loss of USAID leadership risks undermining what could be incredible financial and developmental gains. 

Attacking USAID as a harbinger of wasteful spending does not hold water when compared to other areas of the US budget. The US Army’s 250th Anniversary parade on June 14th — just months after budget cuts — was estimated to cost million. The Transportation Security Administration’s annual budget is about despite of mock explosives and weapons in security checkpoints during undercover tests.��

Allocation to the US military has long been accused of taking up too much of the federal budget, with the United States not only spending more on its military than any other country in the world, but exceeding the of the next nine countries with the largest defense expenditures. The US military has never once passed a financial audit, meaning this money has never even been fully accounted for.

Misplaced fiscal priorities undermine climate leadership

The idea of defunding any of these departments would be considered unthinkable and dangerous to many Americans and lawmakers. Instead of a complete defunding and dismantling, reforming USAID with those internal to the agency working with the administration would have been a more viable move with less loss. 

The abrupt dismantling of USAID leaves a leadership vacuum. Private investors and philanthropists anchored by USAID are left without alternative strategies, guidance or budgeting. Existing projects are left in limbo, many have been axed completely and would-be investors are becoming deterred by a lack of long-term vision. Climate finance, not long ago, was emerging as the wise business decision, but is now shrouded in uncertainty. 

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Aftershocks of the USAID Dismantlement on the Future of Blended Climate Finance appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Biodiversity at risk

Chemical pesticides pose both direct and indirect risks to human health. Numerous studies have confirmed associations between pesticide exposure and neurological disorders, respiratory ailments, endocrine disruption, and cancer. Farmworkers and rural residents are especially vulnerable. A comprehensive found strong links between chronic pesticide exposure and increased risk of Parkinson’s disease. In India, field-level studies conducted by the Indian Council of Medical Research () have reported the accumulation of pesticide residues in soil and water, which impacts both human and livestock health.

Chemical pesticides rarely remain confined to their target areas. They leach into groundwater, pollute rivers and accumulate in the food chain. estimates that less than 2% of applied pesticides reach their target pests — the remainder affects non-target organisms and ecosystems. These include beneficial insects, aquatic life, pollinators and birds. A in Cell linked widespread pesticide use to massive declines in beneficial insect populations across Europe, with severe implications for pollination services and food security.

The loss of biodiversity due to is deeply concerning, especially in the context of climate change. Soil microbial communities are essential for nutrient cycling, plant health and carbon sequestration and are particularly sensitive to chemical interference. A in SN Applied Sciences reported that exposure to glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, reduced microbial diversity in soil by up to 50%. This compromises soil fertility and weakens resilience to droughts, pests and diseases. Pesticide-driven of predator–prey relationships among insects has also created a dangerous dependency on synthetic chemicals, perpetuating resistance and ecological imbalance.

Economic rationale for biopesticides

While biopesticides were once considered less effective than chemical alternatives, this perception is changing fast. Though biopesticides may have shorter residual activity, they typically require fewer applications and impose far lower health and environmental externalities. A European Commission impact study found that reducing chemical pesticide use by 50%, instead of using bio-pesticides as proposed in the EU Strategy, could preserve yields while improving long-term public health and environmental quality.

In India, a nationwide survey by in organic and natural farming clusters revealed that farmers using neem-based and microbial biopesticides incurred lower input costs and earned higher net returns, largely due to better pest control and premium prices for pesticide-free produce.

Innovations in bio-based solutions

Technological advances are rapidly addressing previous limitations of biopesticides. Nano-biopesticides, such as nano-encapsulated plant extracts or microbial agents, offer improved stability, targeted delivery and extended shelf life. A 2025 found that nano-formulated Bacillus thuringiensis biopesticides were two to three times more effective than conventional formulations and posed minimal risk to non-target organisms.

Biopesticides are especially effective when integrated into broader pest management systems. Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which combines crop rotation, biological controls, habitat diversification and biopesticides, has proven to be a robust and ecologically sound approach to pest management. A in Nature confirmed that IPM-based redesigns of agricultural systems often lead to both yield stability and biodiversity recovery.

Momentum in policy and practice

Global policy increasingly reflects this transition, as the European Union commits to halving pesticide use and risk by 2030. Many countries set similar targets — a advocates for urgent investment in biopesticide innovation and ecological pest management. The study also highlighted the harmful effects of chemical pesticides on children’s and women’s health in America. India’s National Mission on promotes the use of biocontrol agents, but real progress depends on regulatory reform, investment in quality control and practical farmer training.

Still, challenges remain, including a lack of awareness, inadequate extension services, limited availability of certified biopesticides and market entry barriers for startups. Overcoming these requires a coordinated approach involving public–private partnerships, regulatory incentives and international and local cooperation.

Biopesticides and the One Health vision

The framework compels us to see the health of people, animals, plants and ecosystems as interconnected. A pesticide that harms bees also endangers food production. A fungicide that disrupts soil fungi reduces carbon storage. A herbicide that contaminates rivers poses a threat to both aquatic life and public health.

Biopesticides, by contrast, offer a regenerative pathway. They support biodiversity, reduce toxic exposure and enhance climate resilience. Their adoption, integrated into agroecological systems, can restore balance and reduce agriculture’s ecological footprint.

The evidence is unequivocal. The health, ecological and economic costs of continuing with toxic chemical pesticides are too high to ignore. Biopesticides are no longer marginal alternatives but are now scientifically validated and economically sound tools for the future of agriculture. Supporting their adoption through policy, scientific and market reforms is not just desirable, but necessary. Working with nature, rather than against it, is the most effective approach.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Working with Nature: Why Biopesticides Must Replace Chemicals appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Nonetheless, while nuclear power could reduce domestic fossil fuel dependency and diversify the nation’s power source potential, the partners with whom the nation collaborates on this project will be most responsible for any potential generational fallout. As the Indonesian government’s 2025-2034 electricity fails to articulate that risk, we can discuss it from the perspective of a Chinese agreement in particular.

Approaching with Caution

Although signing a nuclear contract with China is not inherently problematic, as Indonesia has long benefited from its past infrastructure and trade cooperation, understanding what the Middle Kingdom could gain from this deal can help us see why any such partnership must be approached with care. 

Investing in nuclear technology is a regulatory ecosystem of commitment, demanding an extensive safety protocol, waste management system and technical support team for optimal energy return. With that said, as China aggressively promotes abroad, including those for small modular reactors (SMRs), its continued debtor could scare any potential buyers.

Should Indonesia still embrace an offer from China, their government must know that many of these project exports include state bank-supported finance packages, lengthy fuel supply agreements and often opaque clauses obligating their suppliers’ beyond construction timelines.

Into the Future

Unless President Subianto is comfortable with China using his country as a testing ground for their historically unreliable technology, or giving them prolonged control over Indonesia’s energy network, then he may best find a new ally.

Open negotiation, straightforward financing and incessant project oversight could ensure the security of Indonesian interests over another nation’s ambition. Therefore, as nuclear power is fast approaching the Equatorial Emerald, let us make sure it arrives on fair terms.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Indonesia Faces Hidden Costs If China Helps It Go Nuclear appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Here is what a Dark Park would do: it would coax and train people to blend into Nature, and as their reward they’d be saner and happier. Probably healthier, too. “Sensory Metrics of Neuromechanical Trust,” the done by my wife Criscillia and myself eight years ago, mathematically proves that humans need to coexist with Nature to recalibrate our mental states. The peace and rejuvenation humans get from Natural spaces is real, measurable and the perfect antidote to the world of deadlines, monetization and screens.��

In a Dark Park, the well-known ethos of “leave no trace” would be extended beyond litter to artificial light and sound as well. The less obtrusive we are, the more beneficial Natural stimuli are for our nervous systems. The filigreed fractals and sounds of Nature fit us perfectly. And now we can measure those filigreed fractals too, thanks to new technologies, and thus protect Nature better. The core concept of the Dark Park is to use instrumentation and Big Data to protect the wholeness of Nature, for everyone’s benefit.

Protecting the Natural from the un-Natural requires a statistical approach

There are three technological components needed to monitor the health of ecosystems in real time. The first two are obvious: hardware sensors and software processing, which I’ll get to later. But very few people know the third piece, the one I happen to be an expert on: what exactly to measure in the first place. The scientific phrase for this subset of quantitative biophysics is “natural statistics,” the measurement of patterns as they appear in their Natural form and format. 

The field was started in the 1990s by my longtime neuroscience colleague , now professor and director of UC Berkeley’s for Theoretical Neuroscience. He and others like took pictures of Nature and looked for common textures. Lo and behold, patterns emerged at scales slow to fast, tiny to vast: moss to mountains, ferns to forest, rivulets to rivers, patterns blending small to big in the “fractal” statistical format Nature uses the most. Those different scales seamlessly knitted together provide a full-scale moving 3-D picture of the ecosystem. Understanding all that data well enough to predict an ecosystem’s health must involve newly invented data technologies made originally for fields such as finance or astrophysics. Now these will be aimed not at measuring human consumers, but at Nature as She is, in order to protect Her.

With the development of sensor technology and statistical algorithms, we can now capture enough data to predict how Nature evolves in real time. Until now, much discussion about vibrations in Nature has been called “hippie talk.” This is because people were imagining that electromagnetic vibrations could be used to measure Nature, rather than plain old mechanical ones like motion, sound and ultrasound. We already know brains deal with exactly such mechanical vibrations.. So now we can apply battle-tested technology concepts such as signal format, information flow, carrier waves, phase, 3-D orientation, latency and resolution. In other words, now we have not only hardware and processing software, but also the crucial, quantifiable which encode organic trust and interaction.

The harmful effects of un-Natural light and sound can be measured

As relatable examples of how natural statistics works, let’s take blue light and traffic roar. In all species, for sensible physics reasons, the eyes are extra-sensitive to blue light. In the natural world, we’re not supposed to see any blue at night at all, so mere exposure — through a screen, or LED lighting, or car headlights — can induce sleeplessness, anxiety and headaches. To show how simple these effects are to measure, I offer some pictures from my lab-bench at home.

On the left is a graph of natural sunlight. It has very little blue. On the right is the spectrum from a LED headlamp. The shark’s-tooth blue spike on its left is the energetic source driving the other colors. Our eyes did not evolve for so much blue, and can’t adapt quickly.

Below are traces from two scientific instruments, an oscilloscope (left) and a frequency analyzer (right). The peaks and valleys show how light “screeches” in ultra-fast, on/off switches. This means the light from LEDs are “hyper-variable.” In fact, if this signal was connected to a speaker one could hear that the light sounds like a mosquito. Even though our nervous systems cannot sense hyper-variable light sources directly, we are still deeply irritated and destabilized by them precisely because they never existed in Nature.

The problem isn’t just too much blue light, but too much flicker.  Flickering LED lighting is harmful, but also cheap and minutely more energy-efficient than less harmful kinds, so industry has blocked medical science from investigating the harms in the first place. Likewise, the roar of artificial traffic (like I heard growing up in Menlo Park, California) is unnaturally steady and regular, and is bad for us. The irregular roar of surf and wind are the exact opposite, and good for us. In general, the organic sounds and ultrasounds of Nature have just the right texture to relieve human stress.

Building a Dark Park is a team effort

But how to get a Dark Park up and running cost-efficiently? The same way all technology develops: by starting with what you’re already good at, learning fast, and then making the process fun. In my vision, the Dark Park will be constructed by three teams, formally adversarial but, at their core, deeply collaborative: Team Sensor, Team Prowler and Team Container. 

Team Sensor tries to build a sensor which can “read” natural statistics in real time so that it can detect and track deviations, such as outsiders. Team Prowler, on the other hand, tries to sneak past those detectors in order to intimately learn their limitations. In other words, Team Sensor invents radar and Team Prowler invents under-the-radar evasion, both in tandem. Meanwhile, Team Container acts as referees, focusing on developing the park to make it fun for visitors. All three disciplines – scientific understanding, measurement technology and human behavior – get better by working together. 

Team Sensor

Team Sensor would be my favorite to join, or just look in on. This team would be the first to read Nature in her native language, the language of ultra-bandwidth vibrations, using the very latest sensor and algorithmic technologies. 

I imagine Team Sensor hits the ground running by first purchasing a bunch of cheap light-sensors ranging from the infrared to ultraviolet. Then, the team will hack up some amplifier circuits to measure light intensity by the microsecond. This is an unusual innovation which lets them track not only overall color spectrum, like the extra blue from screens or infrared from fires, but also the difference between the flickering of natural sources like bugs, and that of tech sources like LEDs. 

After creating quick-and-dirty light analyzing gadgets, Team Sensor repeats the process, this time creating circuits that measure sound. Vibration-sensors will be able to map Nature’s sounds and tremors into the techno-language of Fourier (a representation of a signal’s power) and multiscale 3-D wavefront (the patterns that occur within a signal). They then hook all those measurement gadgets up to data-loggers in waterproof boxes, and plop them in nooks and crannies on Montara Mountain. They wait, and come back to harvest their data. Rinse and repeat.

With their new data about how Nature works, and how their gadgets work, Team Sensor can build algorithms into sensors that are able to interact with live people in real-time. I imagine the sensors looking like a streetlight in the forest, listening and looking for outliers. I call it a SenTree in honor of using sensors to guard Nature, and, of course, for looking like a tree. The firehose of Sentree data will make sure disturbances are caught long before anything actually goes wrong. It would emit noises depending on behaviors of the park-goers – whispering encouragement through hidden speakers to people who follow the rules, or growling disapproval at loud music and bright flashes. 

Team Prowler

Meanwhile, Team Prowler gets a few of the sensors, so they can practice evading. By the time SenTrees go live, Team Prowler already has trickery up their sleeves. They’ll be able to “sneak up” on SenTrees and pinch their robotic butts – that is, know the weak points of the sensors. Can they learn to walk on gravel without being heard? Do irregular footsteps, like the “sandwalk” in the movie Dune, make sensing difficult? Do camouflage clothing make it harder to be seen? Is a phone a dead giveaway? A word? A grunt? A hand-signal?

The semi-adversarial approach in which Team Sensor and Team Prowler improve each other’s game is how the most potent algorithms, like , were able to evolve. After a few rounds both teams will be world experts on what Nature looks and sounds like, which technologies can measure Nature in real time and how the human form can move in ways which look like Nature.��

Furthermore, if park-goers are actually encouraged to learn how to sneak past the SenTrees, they will naturally cultivate skills and sensitivities when interacting with Nature – tracker-level skills. These skills can be honed and respected in near-infinite directions, and taught to others. I bet some 12-year-old boys would enjoy learning physical spycraft. Visitors will learn how to respect the park. Personally, I would love to know that the visitors lurking in the forests facing my house are silent mountain scouts, not versions of the loudmouth Homer Simpson.

Team Container

Turning scientific insight into a public park is where Team Container comes in. They have the hardest job, that of inventing a whole new way for people to interact with each other and Nature. Team Container learns crucial cues from the Sentrees, and how their responses can be misinterpreted by humans. 

Team Container will consult not only with designers of National Parks worldwide, but with designers of casinos, theme-parks, religious pilgrimages and ski resorts. Where does our species naturally flock, and what makes these places enticing? How can technology teach us to be our best selves? Team Container’s established practical knowledge will mix with Team Sensor’s dataset to make a best-of-breed technical specification for what park visitors should expect as rules and guidelines. In this way, Team Container acts as both translator and host for the Dark Park.

If Team Sensor, Team Prowler and Team Container do their job, the Montara Dark Park will protect a local wonder of Nature while also making it accessible to more people than a normal campground could. Active, sensitive, neutral monitors will “gamify” the park experience to nudge park-goers into treating Nature with respect, thereby allowing more visitors to have better experiences while simultaneously preserving Nature.

A Dark Park teaches the spirit of collaboration

Usually, parks will have rules to protect Nature, so the concept of rules in parks is nothing new. Some places ban people altogether. There are rules about campfires and smoking and multi-weeks stays, and rules for touching walls in caves. In most situations there is a near-religious commitment to “leave no trace,” neither litter nor stain.

In the Dark Park, it’s not just the rules, but the spirit of the rules, that will protect Nature. As a general rule people like to collaborate and help (yes, even 12-year-old boys). If the spirit of the park is not to bring gadgets or cause ruckus, the people who attend will self-select and naturally help others keep resolve. 

Visitors to the Dark Park will be happy to be there. If they are told about natural statistics, shown the subtle beauty of quiet and are encouraged to blend in, they will join in eagerly, help their friends, and strive to protect Nature. 

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Case for Dark Parks: Protecting Nature Through Technology appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In postwar America, conformity was the air people breathed. It was the era of Levittown suburbs, Chevrolet Bel Airs and nuclear family orthodoxy. The suburban conformity of postwar America, starchy, restrictive and suffocating, has been memorably captured in Richard Yates’s novel (1961), later adapted into a film featuring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, which explored the desperate yearning for escape beneath the surface of middle-America in the 1950s.

Civil rights were barely on the horizon; feminism was still second-wave future tense. Against this backdrop, rock ’n’ roll didn’t just sound unlike anything else: it felt transgressive. And it didn’t pop out of a cultural vacuum. Film had already incubated the youth rebellion. Asked what he was rebelling against in the film The Wild One, Marlon Brando replied: “What have you got?”

James Dean died in a car crash in 1955 at age 24, after starring in Rebel Without a Cause. His death cemented his legend as the ultimate symbol of tragic youth, living fast and dying young. But it was in rock music that young people discovered a new kind of rebellion: they didn’t just listen to it; they danced to it, wore it and shrieked at the bands that played it. Rock music both surrounded and penetrated them.

The outrage that greeted Elvis’s performances (particularly his shamelessly “indecent” hip swivel: he was known as “Elvis the Pelvis”) was the genre’s original moral panic. Parents feared their children would be corrupted by Elvis and the “jungle music” he purveyed. That was the point. Rock was supposed to worry people. 

And what made it dangerous wasn’t the music alone: it was the race politics hidden in plain sight. In this sense, the genre was born already in disguise: Black art, white faces, sold as new. What Elvis launched wasn’t just a sound or even a look: it was a method, a way to disguise rebellion as pleasure.  

Dylan and the politics of protest

By the 1960s, rock had swapped its leather jacket and drainpipe bluejeans for placards and newsboy caps. As America agonized over the nuclear bomb, civil rights and the Vietnam war, a generation of musicians appeared. They were a bit like troubadours, but their aim was not just to entertain, but to educate. Enter Bob Dylan. He didn’t invent the genre that became known as protest music, but he gave it poetic licence. His songs didn’t chronicle the world: they pointed angry fingers at the likes of the “Masters of War”. Dylan didn’t merely lament conflict; he condemned the military-industrial complex with a biblical fury. His “The Times They Are A-Changin’” became the opus of a generation. 

Dylan’s influence remains today: He showed that a rock lyric could be philosophical, elliptical and occasionally incomprehensible. But it could still resonate. The more obscure his lyrics became, the more they seemed to capture the zeitgeist.

Unlike the comparably important output of Motown (more of which below), there was no optimism in Dylan’s folk-rock hybrid: it encouraged discomfort if not downright rage. It told uncomfortable truths. He wasn’t alone. Artists like Joan Baez, Joni Mitchell and, eventually, John Lennon, aligned rock with anti-establishment causes, such as anti-war, anti-nuclear, pro-civil rights and, in Lennon’s case, the dissemination of love.

But there was something else going on: the medium itself was becoming more openly oppositional. It wasn’t just the lyrics; it was what we now call attitude – some genres of rock became truculent, angry and uncooperative. Rock became self-consciously untamable and immovably defiant. 

Rock concerts morphed into political assemblies with guitars. In Pierre Bourdieu’s terms, rock was asserting its own “cultural capital”, inverting what respectable taste looked and sounded like.

And of course, this politicization of sound generated its own backlash. From the FBI’s surveillance of folk singers to the Reagan-era culture wars, protest music was never left alone. But the mere existence of such responses proved the point: rock could and was willing to provoke. Not change policy perhaps, but change the way people looked at the world. Some might argue that this is a necessary precursor. It urged fans to think and argue. Still does.

Motown, Hip-Hop and today’s outrage

If rock in the 1960s screamed defiance, Motown in the same decade softly murmured it. Berry Gordy’s Detroit hit factory crafted a pop-funk blend that explicitly avoided politics or any kind of social issue. Gordy’s genius (and, for some, limitation) was to make music that white audiences couldn’t resist. Artists like Marvin Gaye and The Supremes broke barriers, but at a price: no overt mention of civil rights, no protest, no bucking the system. Respectability was the Trojan horse.

Yet this silence was strategic: it was part of Gordy’s master plan. He demonstrated that black culture could “cross over” and flourish, if not dominate the mainstream. Eventually, cracks formed in its apolitical façade. Marvin Gaye’s inimitable What’s Going On (1971) was a turning point. A protest against the Vietnam war and an elegiac cry for peace, it was unmistakably political.��

Still, by the 1980s, it was another genre that picked up the cudgel of confrontation: hip-hop. Unlike rock or Motown, hip-hop didn’t bother with subterfuge. Emerging from the ruins of post-industrial cities, it voiced fury, detachment, pride and a different type of community, closer to tribes than families. Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power” was both a song and call to arms. The message behind N.W.A.’s “Fuck tha Police” was self-explanatory. Hip-hop didn’t flirt with outrage: it pursued it. And it succeeded. Politicians, parents, and the police responded predictably: with bans, censorship, and surveillance, all of which paradoxically made hip-hop more relevant.

Kanye West, in many ways, was and is both culmination and mutation. Early in his career, he revived the politically aware rapper: “Jesus Walks”, “All Falls Down”, and “Diamonds from Sierra Leone” offered critique and analysis-of-sorts. But then he seemed to lose interest and turned inward: flirting with Trump, invoking slavery as “a choice” and dissolving the boundary between art and spectacle. His brand of provocation blurred the lines between dissent and bigotry.

Today, whether through Kendrick Lamar’s Pulitzer-winning meditations on black trauma or the performativity of artists like the British pair Bob Vylan, the tradition continues, reminding us that the purpose of such music is not always harmony but conflict, collision and confrontation. As ever, it is unpleasant, filthy, and repugnant to some. That, after all, is the point.

Kraken wakes

The recent — still raging as police investigate Bob Vylan’s anti-IDF chant — reminds us that rock’s restless and unruly spirit never quite disappears. Like Kraken, the legendary sea monster, it just lies dormant until someone dares to wake it. That a neo-punk duo like Bob Vylan could provoke such political and media uproar with a few shouted words speaks not only to the raw power of performance, but to the enduring unease society feels when music stops entertaining and starts accusing.

Critics argue the chant “incites violence”. Yet the legal bar for incitement is set high: it requires intent, imminence and, crucially, actual disorder. No such consequences have emerged. What has emerged is something more familiar: moral panic. Just as Elvis’s hips, Dylan’s lyrics, and N.W.A.’s defiance once stirred fears of chaos, today’s outrage says more about the public’s need for containment than any actual threat.

If anything, the Glastonbury episode proves the point made across decades: rock and its successors exist to disrupt, offend, confront and get people’s backs up. It challenges the status quo or, to paraphrase Brando, “what you got”. And in doing so, it affirms its place in a tradition that stretches back through the history of cultural resistance. Sanitized pop will always dominate the charts. But when a song, a chant, or a moment on stage still has the power to rattle institutions, from the BBC to the police, it’s a healthy sign that the music, however filthy or odious, still matters.

*[Ellis Cashmore’s “” is published by Bloomsbury.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Rock Music is Sickening, Disgusting, Filthy, Repugnant, Unpleasant and Odious – That’s the Point appeared first on 51�Թ�.

If you’ve never heard of Raja Ampat, you’re not alone. This remote archipelago in Papua, Indonesia, lies at the heart of the Coral Triangle, home to the richest marine biodiversity on Earth. Over 1,500 fish species, three-quarters of all known coral species, and countless fragile ecosystems thrive here. Indigenous Papuans rely on these waters and forests for food, identity, and survival.

But this ecological and cultural sanctuary is now under siege — from the very industry that claims to be building a cleaner, greener future: nickel mining. Indonesia the world’s largest reserves of nickel, a key ingredient in electric vehicle (EV) batteries. As demand for EVs soars, so does pressure to exploit these deposits. Chinese companies Indonesia’s nickel supply chain, from financing to refining. But the of this expansion falls disproportionately on communities least able to resist.

This year’s , meant to celebrate the country’s rise as a key supplier for the global energy transition, instead revealed a darker truth: behind the optimism lies a growing backlash against extractive practices that destroy ecosystems, displace Indigenous peoples, and hollow out governance.

Raja Ampat is a prime example. Several mining operations have been in this ecologically sensitive region — including projects backed by Chinese capital. One company, , operates a 746-hectare mine on Manuran Island. Despite being located in a marine paradise, it was granted a permit by Indonesian authorities. Backed by investors with to China’s Vansun Group, the company has environmental regulations, clearing protected forests and discharging waste into the sea. An investigation by Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment these violations. The damage to marine life and local livelihoods is incalculable.

Yes, the Indonesian government recently a handful of mining permits, including this one. But this move is too little, too late — and does not excuse the government’s deeper, systemic failures. Permits continue to be granted through opaque processes, with . Environmental impact assessments are often rubber-stamped or ignored. Local communities are from decisions that directly affect their lives. In short, the destruction of Raja Ampat is not an accident — it is a consequence of state negligence, if not complicity.

The primary blame lies with Indonesia. It is the Indonesian government’s duty to uphold environmental laws, respect Indigenous rights, and regulate the extractive industries it permits. That duty has been repeatedly abandoned in the pursuit of economic gain. No foreign company — Chinese or otherwise — could mine in Raja Ampat without an Indonesian license. Yet, the state has failed to protect one of its most precious natural and cultural treasures.

But Chinese actors cannot claim innocence. China plays an outsized role in Indonesia’s nickel economy. Its companies, banks, and state-owned enterprises are central to this supply chain. While the legal responsibility for enforcement lies with Indonesia, Chinese investors must also be held accountable for turning a blind eye to abuses they help finance. Profiting from weak regulations and corrupt systems doesn’t absolve them — it implicates them.

If China is serious about its global — especially under the Belt and Road Initiative — it must extend those standards to its overseas projects. That means conducting rigorous due diligence, refusing to fund environmentally destructive ventures, and ensuring that Chinese-backed companies comply with international norms, not just the letter of local law.

Anything less makes China complicit in greenwashing. It also risks undermining the very legitimacy of China’s leadership in the global energy transition.

What’s happening in Raja Ampat is not just an Indonesian problem, or a Chinese one. It is a test case for whether the world can reconcile the clean energy transition with environmental justice. A green future that tramples on Indigenous rights and destroys biodiversity is neither sustainable nor ethical.

Indonesia must act decisively: not just by revoking permits after damage is done, but by overhauling its licensing processes, prosecuting environmental violations, and ensuring Indigenous communities have real power in land-use decisions. Protecting ecosystems like Raja Ampat is not a luxury — it is essential to climate stability, ocean health, and global biodiversity.

China, too, must step up. With its vast influence over the nickel industry and EV supply chains, it has the leverage to demand better. The question is whether it has the will.

Raja Ampat is not just a remote corner of Indonesia — it is a global treasure, and a frontline in the battle for a just energy transition. Coral reefs destroyed by runoff may take centuries to recover. Indigenous knowledge and culture, once uprooted, may never return. The cost of inaction is permanent loss.

The youth who protested in Jakarta were not just speaking for themselves. They were sounding an alarm on behalf of all of us. We would do well to listen — and act.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Nickel Mining Ravages Raja Ampat: Indonesia to Blame, China Complicit appeared first on 51�Թ�.

My forthcoming book Winds of Change began at Mong Khet, Myanmar, at the heart of the “”—the world’s most populous region. Lee Kuan Yew University professor Danny Quah once described it as an extraordinary encirclement of humanity, a dense cluster of 4.2 billion souls. First, there was COVID, starting from the same Valeriepieris circle, killing hundreds of thousands across Southeast Asia and around 7 million globally.��Earthquakes and high geopolitics between India, China and the US shape the surrounding waters. Natural disasters merely turn a page in the ongoing upheavals — poverty, hunger, malnutrition and political-economic crises. Myanmar itself is a continuous struggle for stability, its people enduring a brutal civil war that has ravaged the nation. According to the UN, 17.6 million people in Myanmar required humanitarian assistance, where 1.6 million were internally displaced, with over 55,000 civilian buildings and infrastructure destroyed since 2021. The international community, having long cut off Myanmar, now finds itself reaching out to assist in the ongoing natural disaster — a fragile, fleeting gesture of humanity amid isolation.

Mandalay’s vulnerable foundations

The building shook for a few seconds, long enough to conjure mortality in the minds of those inside. People rushed out, some crying others silent in their fear. I joined them, moving with humanity’s current toward the open space. I witnessed mothers carrying their children, their eyes shadowed by the fear of death. What struck me was not the panic but the order, no pushing, no trampling — just a somber acceptance of the chaos. A discipline, perhaps ingrained into the fabric of their culture, revealed itself in those fleeting moments.

To be honest, I was ready for death. Just a few days earlier, I had completed a final act — burying my mother’s ashes. I had delayed it for nearly a year, postponed by during the previous government in Sri Lanka. The weight of that unfinished duty had hung over me, but now, with it done, I felt a strange calm amidst the turmoil.

I survived. Like many others, I was caught in the quake’s fury, just as the earth continued to tremble beneath us. Mandalay, lying on the eastern end of the Alpide Belt — one of the world’s most active seismic zones — has always been vulnerable. Yet vulnerability rarely prepares one for the shock. Thousands lay dead, more than 3,600 injured. The numbers, still uncertain, would only rise as rescue teams unearthed the buried from their cement graves. As I watched the scene unfold, I couldn’t help but see a reflection of the geopolitical tremors I had written about. The shifting alliances, the silent aggressions — fragile structures that seemed permanent until they suddenly weren’t. The earthquake was more than just a natural disaster; it was a reminder that instability waits for a moment to break free beneath the surface, whether of the earth or nations. Today, the people of Myanmar lie buried beneath rubble, but perhaps we are all buried under the same rubble of our own making.

The under-construction headquarters for the Auditor General’s office was the only building that collapsed among the many non-quake-resistant structures sitting on the soft soil of Bangkok. Another tremor of a similar magnitude would have taken down the apartment building I was staying in, where cracks had seeped through on every floor. Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar killed over a hundred thousand, floods and landslides continue to claim lives, and yet, disaster preparedness in the region lingers as an afterthought.

Transcending politics in times of crisis

Leaders of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation () gathered in Thailand. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will arrive, speaking of resilience, shared responsibility in the Bay of Bengal region, and BIMSTEC’s vision for collaborative disaster management. Afterward, Modi continued to Sri Lanka, where the new Marxist president, Anura Kumara Dissanayake, awaits. Politics will resume, but the earth has imposed its brutal order, disrupting human plans with indifferent force.

A Sri Lankan journalist I interviewed in Colombo shared a striking story. A Chinese fishing vessel, , capsized, resulting in the deaths of several fishermen. Sri Lankan naval officers salvaged it using a U.S.-donated vessel and salvage and diving training from India. This episode highlights a crucial lesson: when human lives are at risk, we set aside geopolitical competition in favor of synergy — a collective human responsibility toward a greater cause.

As people lie buried under rubble from the devastating earthquake, nations have come together, putting aside internal geopolitical tensions, including the ongoing civil war in Myanmar, to assist and save lives. In times of catastrophe, humanity transcends politics — a rare but powerful reminder of our shared fragility.

[ edited this piece.]

The post Tremors of Change: Myanmar Quake Temporarily Unites Divided Nations appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Sushi as a symbol: from culinary art to geostrategic indicator

Once the preserve of coastal Japan, sushi is now a globalized delicacy, found on the high streets of London, the suburbs of California and the metropoles of the Gulf. Yet behind the polished surface of a tuna sashimi lies a complex geopolitical and ecological story. The of sushi as a global culinary commodity has intensified demand for high-value species like bluefin tuna. To meet this demand fishers overexploit their fish stocks. As more than of global fisheries are now fished at or beyond their sustainable limits, the global appetite for sushi has become a microcosm of the wider collapse of oceanic governance.

This shift is not merely ecological or cultural — it is profoundly economic and strategic. The supply chains supporting the sushi economy, from Japanese longliners to Southeast Asian transshipment hubs, have become entangled with illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) , often backed by criminal syndicates and state-affiliated actors. In some regions, sushi-grade tuna is more than simply food; it is a currency of influence, smuggled alongside drugs and weapons, laundered into legitimate markets and even deployed as an instrument of soft power by major states, most notably China.

China’s maritime ambitions: from seafood to sovereignty

Nowhere is the intersection of fisheries, food security and geopolitical rivalry more evident than in the Indo-Pacific. The South China Sea is home to some of the world’s richest marine biodiversity, and its most contested waters. China’s use of state-subsidized distant water fishing , often operating under opaque flags of convenience, serves dual purposes: economic extraction and territorial signaling. Fishing vessels, frequently protected or even accompanied by Chinese maritime militia or coast guard ships, have been instrumental in asserting Beijing’s expansive maritime claims, often at the expense of regional neighbors such as Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia.

These fleets not only strain fish stocks through overfishing and IUU operations but also increase the risk of naval skirmishes and regional destabilization. In this regard, fish become a vector of confrontation, used to test maritime boundaries and force diplomatic concessions.

In many small island developing states, fish plays a central role in diets, often serving as the primary source of animal protein. This reliance is especially pronounced in nations such as the Maldives, Kiribati, Sierra Leone and Cambodia, where local food security is closely tied to sustainable marine resources. As competition intensifies and ocean temperatures rise due to climate change, migration of species northward could leave tropical developing nations nutritionally and economically stranded. This could sow the seeds for social unrest, political destabilization and ultimately, failed states.

The “blue shadow economy:” crime, climate and convergence

As the ocean becomes increasingly lawless, criminal actors exploit the governance vacuum. The “blue shadow ” encompasses a spectrum of interconnected illicit activities: IUU fishing, drug trafficking, arms smuggling and labor exploitation, often facilitated by the very same fleets. The convergence of these crimes often hides in plain sight. The very vessels that export yellowtail for Tokyo sushi counters may also traffic methamphetamines to Southeast Asia or harbor enslaved crew members on board.

The SOS Project rightly identifies that climate change accelerates these vulnerabilities. Warming waters drive fish stocks to migrate unpredictably, which shifts economic incentives for both legal and illegal actors. As fish become harder to catch and more valuable, criminal cartels treat them like extractive commodities, similar to conflict diamonds or rare earth metals — high value, low transparency, easy to exploit.

In many cases, criminal fishing operations are backed or tolerated by state actors who benefit from economic rents and geopolitical leverage. This dual use of fishing as a livelihood and a lever of influence makes maritime security increasingly inseparable from domestic governance and international diplomacy.

Resilience through governance: the case for a global ocean framework

The challenge, then, is about more than detecting and deterring criminal fishing or protecting marine ecosystems. It is fundamentally about reconceptualizing ocean governance as an integrated pillar of international security, akin to nuclear non-proliferation or counterterrorism. The SOS Project proposes just that: a fusion of environmental conservation, sustainable development and geostrategic stability.

This vision includes:

• New regional maritime coalitions: Coalitions like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations maritime partnerships can be instrumental in coordinating patrols, data sharing and enforcement actions across the Indo-Pacific.

• Technological innovation: Satellites, AI-driven vessel detection and blockchain-traceable supply chains are not mere novelties — they are essential tools in a world where a ship can change names, flags and cargo multiple times in a single voyage.

• Human rights enforcement: Modern slavery aboard fishing vessels remains a deeply underpoliced issue. Integrating labor inspections and seafarer protections into port state controls is a moral and security imperative; exploited labor forces are more easily co-opted by criminal networks.

• Food security diplomacy: The global North must invest in the food sovereignty of the global South through capacity building, shared governance and equitable trade. Sustainable fisheries are more than a development goal; they are the frontline of climate resilience and conflict prevention.

Alaska’s fisheries: A warning and a window

The facing Alaska’s salmon fisheries serves as a poignant microcosm. Once a symbol of abundance and resilience, some fisheries in the region are now collapsing due to warming waters, invasive species and misaligned governance regimes. For Indigenous communities like those in Naknek, the disappearance of salmon is greater than an ecological loss — it’s a cultural trauma, a severing of kinship, sustenance and sovereignty.

The Indigenous-led response, rooted in co-governance, knowledge sovereignty and intergenerational stewardship, offers a powerful counternarrative to extractive models of marine use. These lessons must inform global governance. A just transition for ocean economies is impossible without the inclusion of those most dependent on and connected to the sea.

Heading toward a secure blue future

The crisis unfolding in our oceans is neither distant nor abstract. It is immediate, entangled with the core challenges of our century. From the quiet disappearance of sushi-grade tuna from the global market to the aggressive deployment of state-backed fishing fleets and the rise of maritime human trafficking, the seas have become both a contested frontier and a mirror reflecting the vulnerabilities of our global order.

The traditional separation between food security, environmental sustainability, geopolitical stability and labor rights is no longer tenable. These issues are fundamentally interconnected, and the maritime domain is where they converge most acutely. The health of the ocean is a strategic imperative that will define the resilience of nations and the legitimacy of the global system.

If we fail to respond, the consequences will extend far beyond vanishing fish stocks. We will face cascading instabilities: the displacement of coastal populations, intensified geopolitical friction over maritime boundaries and resources and rising volatility in global commodity markets. Ocean degradation is worse than a threat multiplier — it is a sovereignty disruptor.

Yet, with deliberate leadership, transnational cooperation and investment in ocean governance, the maritime realm can also become a foundation for regeneration and peacebuilding. A rules-based, ecologically anchored ocean order is a utopian necessity.

Security in the 21st century will not be measured solely by military deterrence or fortified borders. It will be shaped by our ability to protect, manage and equitably share the planet’s most essential and endangered commons: the ocean.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Sushi Wars: Maritime Food Security, Criminal Networks and Geopolitical Risk appeared first on 51�Թ�.

While France and the United Kingdom have never abandoned nuclear power, others that once rejected it, such as Germany and Switzerland, are now reconsidering. Japan needs to stabilize its energy production for an ever-growing economy.

The resurgence of nuclear energy in political discourse comes at a time when climate targets are urgent — if not past due — yet economic pressures often dictate policy more than safety or public interest. This debate is not just about science or technology — it’s about politics, economics and public trust. While some governments argue that nuclear power is essential for meeting climate goals, the reality is that investment, regulatory hurdles and energy security concerns are often the real drivers of policy decisions.

Complex realities and divided narratives

A far more complex reality lies beyond carbon dioxide emissions alone. Water scarcity and its safety are already instigating regional conflicts, while biodiversity loss and soil degradation are preparing serious food security issues.

With this context, let us talk about the feasibility of nuclear expansion. Can we bear the financial cost of diverting resources from other endeavors? The timelines that may be too long? The unresolved waste issue? Not to mention the decommissioning that has never been done?

Proponents argue that nuclear power is a necessary low-carbon energy source. They will tell us that France has than other countries because it invested in nuclear power plants when it was time. But critics highlight its prohibitive cost and inherent risks, reminding everyone of the infamous accidents of in 1986 and in 2011. The public remains caught between narratives of climate urgency and energy independence, often without full transparency on the trade-offs being made in their name.

What is the renewed push for nuclear energy across Europe and Japan telling us? We must question whether its revival is truly about climate strategy, or whether economic forces are steering the conversation in ways most people don’t yet realize.

National relationships with nuclear energy

Nuclear power plants are considered the and cleanest energy sources, releasing carbon dioxide than coal or gas. Scientists use carbon dioxide as a measurable proxy to better understand complex environmental processes. However, this may be difficult for the public to grasp and is often overlooked in policymaking. As a result, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have prioritized carbon emissions, which has led to the complex and often problematic rise of carbon credits. This system is prone to manipulation and corruption, a bit like money laundering in some respects.��

The great nuclear disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima prompted a Swiss that terminated nuclear power plants. People are rightly questioning their safety. The Fukushima incident sparked the development of the Energy Strategy 2050, which legally prohibits the construction of new nuclear power plants. It received approval by nearly 58% of voters on May 21, 2017. Hence, building new nuclear plants is banned. This leaves uncertainty about how to replace electricity production, especially during winter months.

Even as the two disasters affected the public, French authorities and influential groups remained committed to nuclear energy. France had rigorous safety standards, and nuclear power’s economic advantages and role in ensuring energy independence couldn’t be ignored. The country operates 56 nuclear reactors today, making it the producer of nuclear energy in the world after the United States. The French state owns the country’s nuclear plants as well as eight plants in the UK through the state-owned EDF Energy. Currently, more than of France’s electricity is generated from nuclear power, with only about 21% coming from renewable sources.

Conversely, only a few weeks ago, Reporterre, an investigative journalism organization in France, that the construction materials for a new plant are not compliant with industry standards. Astonishingly, the relevant state department was informed by the journalists, not by the contractors. So nuclear power plants can only be as safe as humans make them.

The UK public is that its nuclear power plants are owned and by the French state-owned company Électricité de France (EDF). And post-Brexit, this ownership structure presents complications related to energy security, regulatory alignment and investment strategies. But are they informed about this material’s noncompliance? 

The Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents heavily affected the German public. Germany shut down its last reactors in 2023. Yet already Friedrich Merz, who is expected to succeed Olaf Scholz as chancellor, supports a of nuclear power production. Rafael Grossi, the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, believes that it should be for Germany to recover its nuclear energy production plans. Let’s consider that restarting even only one reactor would cost Germany greatly in reactivation, maintenance, retraining and everything that’s necessary.��

In Japan, economic matters and drives political decision-making. Japan is set to revise its climate targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 66% from 2013 levels by fiscal year 2035, with a broader strategy to adjust the country’s energy mix by 2040. This plan seeks to provide businesses with a predictable framework for future investments and ensure compliance with international environmental standards set by the Paris Agreement.��

Economic and environmental consideration

Nuclear power is often seen as a solution to energy instability. The real issue isn’t the technology itself, but the economic implications of unpredictable energy production in a world where constant growth is still considered the only acceptable option. While some argue nuclear is key to meeting climate goals, the rising cost of nuclear energy, alongside falling costs for renewables like wind and solar, makes the question of investment ever more urgent. Nuclear plants are slow to build and require massive investment, which conflicts with the “free market” mindset that prioritizes short-term returns.

Countries like Germany face the reality that nuclear plants are becoming increasingly expensive to maintain. The unresolved issues of waste management and decommissioning only add to the growing concern. Sites where nuclear power plants have been active may remain radioactive for .

The nuclear debate is about more than just science or technology — it’s a matter of politics, economics and public trust. Governments are driven by energy security concerns, regulatory barriers and economic interests, not just environmental imperatives. With renewables advancing at a faster pace, the true question is whether nuclear power is the right investment for a future of sustainable energy.

Without greater transparency and accountability in energy decision-making, and without a revised process to bring large, powerful Manhattan-style projects into the world, we risk prioritizing short-term political and economic gains over long-term sustainable solutions. We need to take measures that will safeguard our future and the sustainability of human civilization.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Is Nuclear Energy the Path to a Sustainable Future? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Since beginning his second term, Trump has reversed many climate regulations and clean-energy incentives, which has heavily shifted the nation’s energy policy to fossil fuel production. He has the US from the Paris Agreement for the second time, the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s environmental justice office. These moves will have serious consequences for the environment and public health.

“What this administration is doing is endangering all of our lives—ours, our children, our grandchildren,” Christine Todd Whitman, who served as President George W. Bush’s EPA chief, in March 2025 about the proposed rollback of more than 30 environmental rules. “We all deserve to have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. If there’s an endangerment finding to be found anywhere, it should be found on this administration because what they’re doing is so contrary to what the Environmental Protection Agency is about.”

Legal scholars have expressed concerns that several of the Trump administration’s actions may challenge the constitutional principle of states’ rights. A bipartisan group of over 950 law professors and teachers have a letter criticizing the administration’s executive orders as illegal and unconstitutional. “We believe we are in a constitutional crisis,” the signatories wrote.

Additionally, experts from UC Law San Francisco have discussed the of the administration’s sweeping executive order. They have emphasized that while presidents can issue orders within their delegated powers, they cannot override laws or dictate state and local government actions. Radhika Rao, a professor at UC Law San Francisco, noted the administration’s “coercive use of federal power to intrude into areas traditionally governed by state and local law.”

Key strategies for states

As the federal government rolls back environmental protections and loosens regulations on polluting industries, it is more crucial than ever for US states to protect the natural ecosystem and public health. They can do this by leveraging their legal authority, promoting local environmental policies and collaborating with other states to form strong coalitions.

“The way that our federalism works is [that] states have quite a lot of power to take action to both reduce carbon pollution and to protect residents from climate impacts,” Wade Crowfoot, head of California’s Natural Resources Agency, Mother Jones in January 2025. “So regardless of who is president, states like California have been driving forward and will continue to drive forward.”

Here are some key strategies that states can employ to maintain control:

1. Enact strong state-level environmental regulations: States can create and enforce environmental laws that exceed federal standards. One notable example is the state of California, which has stringent air and water quality regulations that go beyond federal requirements. For instance, the state can establish its own pesticide use limits and waste disposal regulations to protect natural resources.

In addition, California can seek waivers from the EPA to set its own vehicle emission standards through the Clean Air Act of 1967. In 2022, the state adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation, which was implemented to the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. The EPA a waiver for the program in December 2024.

Regardless, Trump has threatened to block California’s clean air initiatives. Whether he will succeed is questionable, as any reversal would likely face legal challenges. In fact, during his first term, Trump tried to dismantle several of California’s environmental laws. However, when contested in court, his administration lost of its cases.

States can also strengthen their authority to protect resources against federal actions by incorporating “” or “Environmental Rights Amendments” into their constitutions. These amendments grant citizens a constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment. As of 2025, three states have such amendments in their constitutions: , and .

2. Utilize state sovereignty and the Tenth Amendment: The grants US states powers not delegated to the federal government. States can use this to argue that specific federal actions infringing on local environmental protections are unconstitutional. When federal agencies attempt to supersede state regulations, states can assert their rights under the Tenth Amendment and file lawsuits to block federal overreach, claiming federal actions violate state sovereignty or overstep the limits of federal authority.

In September 2017, the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance published a outlining the collaborative power distribution between the federal government and the states, known as . It stated:

“As has long been the case, the overwhelming majority of EPA’s enforcement actions are taken in programs that are not delegable to the states or in states that have not sought authorization to implement a delegable program. In authorized states, EPA and states share enforcement responsibility with primary enforcement responsibility residing with the states, which often join with EPA in bringing cases. EPA generally takes the enforcement lead in authorized states only: 1) at the request of the state; 2) when the state is not well positioned to bring an action (e.g., federal and state facilities or in actions involving facilities in multiple states); 3) when the state ‘do[es] not provide the resources necessary to meet national regulatory minimum standards or ha[s] a documented history of failure to make progress toward meeting national standards;’ or 4) when EPA has a unique role, including emergency situations and national enforcement priority areas, and actions addressing violations across multiple state jurisdictions.”

3. Challenge federal decisions in court: States can file lawsuits against federal agencies if they believe actions, such as approving environmentally harmful projects or rolling back regulations, threaten local ecosystems. For example, multiple states have sued the federal government over detrimental changes it made to the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. These lawsuits can slow down or prevent federal initiatives that states view as exploitative, preserving local environments and resources.

For instance, in September 2019, a total of 17 US states — led by California, Massachusetts, and Maryland — the Trump administration over harmful changes it had made to the Endangered Species Act. The new rules ended protections for animals newly listed as threatened species and curtailed the preservation of critical habitat. In 2022, US District Judge Jon S. Tigar the rules, reinstating protections for hundreds of species.

4. Form state coalitions and interstate compacts: States can form coalitions to present a unified stance against federal policies that may harm the environment. They can also negotiate interstate compacts, which are agreements between two or more states to jointly address shared concerns, such as transportation, public safety and natural resources like rivers or forests. These agreements can set regional standards that limit federal intervention in these areas.

Here are some notable examples:

• The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) (1921): This between New York and New Jersey enables both states to manage and develop transportation infrastructure, including airports, bridges, tunnels and seaports, in the New York-Newark-Jersey City metropolitan area. The PANYNJ has adopted a series of environmental projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including the Net Zero , an extensive plan to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
• The Colorado River Compact (1922): This includes seven western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming — and allocates water rights from the Colorado River. It provides a framework for managing and sharing this critical resource for agriculture, drinking water and energy.
• The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) (2009): The is a cooperative effort among northeastern and mid-Atlantic states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The states involved are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. Participating states have a cap-and-trade program that limits carbon emissions from power plants and encourages cleaner energy production.
• The Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) (1996): is a national compact that enables states to assist one another during natural or man-made disasters. States can send personnel, equipment and other resources to other states in times of crisis. This compact has been instrumental in coordinating responses to disasters like hurricanes and wildfires by providing legal and logistical frameworks for mutual aid.

These examples underscore the critical role of interstate compacts in environmental protection, public health, disaster management and economic regulation. By leveraging these agreements, states can effectively coordinate policies, safeguard resources and reinforce regional stability, security and sustainability.

5. Leverage public and local support: States can rally public opinion and involve local stakeholders — including tribal governments, environmental groups and local businesses — to oppose federal actions that might damage the environment. Public support can pressure the federal government to reconsider environmentally harmful policies.

Engaging communities can also bolster state-led environmental programs, as residents who are directly affected by potential exploitation will be more motivated to support protective measures. In fact, in 2024, several states voted to a number of state-led climate initiatives. Minnesota residents voted to the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust fund, which will preserve air, land, water and wildlife through 2050. Washington state residents voted to the state’s Climate Commitment Act and cap-and-invest program. Wisconsin residents an amendment that would have restricted the governor’s power to spend federal emergency funds, including for environmental disaster relief.

Democratic states challenge federal environmental policies

Democratic governors and senators have actively utilized state legal authority to counteract federal environmental protection rollbacks. In response to Trump’s policies, California Governor Gavin Newsom a state of emergency to expedite forest management, aiming to reduce wildfire risks and challenge federal criticisms of state environmental regulations.

Additionally, Newsom convened a special legislative to bolster the state’s Department of Justice funding, preparing for legal challenges against anticipated federal policies that could adversely affect environmental protections.

Similarly, Democratic senators have opposed attempts to weaken environmental regulations, such as a bill that would have loosened Clean Air Act mandates. This emphasized the importance of maintaining stringent air quality standards.

State legislators in Virginia, led by Democrats, bills that would have removed the state’s adherence to California’s vehicle emissions standards, underscoring their commitment to robust environmental policies. Together, these actions reflect a concerted effort by Democratic state leaders to leverage legal mechanisms in defense of environmental protections.

By implementing robust local policies, capitalizing on their constitutional rights and fostering multi-state cooperation, US states can establish substantial barriers against federal actions that threaten their environmental priorities. State governors and legislators must act quickly. Considering the fact that 2024 was the on record globally and the first calendar year in which the average global temperature exceeded 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels, there is precious little time to waste.

[, a project of the Independent Media Institute, produced this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How US States Can Protect the Environment From Federal Rollbacks and Intervention appeared first on 51�Թ�.