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�.

At first glance, scarcity appears to be a brute fact of nature. Resources are finite; human wants are not. If this exhausted the problem, economics would reduce to a form of engineering: the of given inputs under physical constraints. Were scarcity merely natural, differences in economic outcomes could largely be traced to technology or endowment.

Yet scarcity as it is actually lived is before it is material. What is scarce, for whom it is scarce and by what means scarcity is alleviated or intensified are questions answered not by nature but by . No society encounters limits without simultaneously interpreting them through shared narratives and rules. Land becomes scarce through legally enforced ownership; labor becomes scarce through credentialing and norms of skill; capital becomes scarce through conventions governing credit and risk.

Economics, therefore, begins not where resources end, but where rules, beliefs and expectations begin.

Rationality and the limits of abstraction

This institutional and psychological mediation complicates the canonical image of the rational agent maximizing utility. That image holds undeniable power. By abstracting from context, it renders complex behavior analytically tractable and allows systematic comparison across settings. Yet incomplete it remains, insofar as it treats preferences as given and constraints as exogenous.

Embedded within this abstraction lies a philosophical decision: to bracket the social formation of and the moral framing of constraint. Such bracketing is methodologically convenient, but it is not neutral. It risks mistaking historically contingent norms about work, consumption, risk-taking or fairness, for universal features of human behavior. What appears as “choice” in formal models may in practice reflect conformity to ; what appears as “preference” may be the residue of identity, persuasion and trust.

The limitations of this framework become sharper when individual rationality is aggregated into collective outcomes. That rational actions may culminate in is no paradox, but a structural property of economies governed by interaction and belief. Booms, panics and prolonged stagnations not despite rational calculation, but because such calculation is conditioned on expectations about others. Expectations and outcomes are so tightly interwoven that causality becomes reflexive. Under such conditions, equilibrium is not a stable endpoint but a fragile configuration, perpetually exposed to shifts in .

It is precisely here that institutions enter not as peripheral details but as of economic order. Markets do not precede law; law precedes markets. Only where contracts are credibly enforced, property rights are recognized and money is trusted does exchange acquire durability over time. Absent such institutional scaffolding, prices lose informational content and incentives dissolve into opportunism. What often appears as spontaneous coordination is, in reality, sustained cooperation supported by shared norms and collective enforcement.

A clear illustration of this logic can be found in sovereign bond markets. Government debt is frequently modeled as a financial claim priced according to objective fundamentals. Yet investors’ willingness to hold sovereign debt hinges critically on . When such credibility is taken for granted, borrowing costs may remain low even under high debt burdens; when it is questioned, interest rates can spike abruptly. What becomes scarce in such moments is trust. Market reactions often labeled irrational are better understood as rational responses to uncertainty about institutional narratives.

This example also clarifies why distribution cannot be to the margins of economic analysis. Economic outcomes are evaluated not only by efficiency but by perceived fairness. When gains and losses are systematically skewed, legitimacy erodes, compliance weakens and efficiency itself deteriorates. Equity and efficiency are thus deeply intertwined. Inequality functions as a structural variable shaping macroeconomic stability and political consent.

What is economics?

Contemporary challenges render these insights unavoidable. Climate change confronts economics with irreversible and temporally displaced constraints. To discount the future is analytically ; to justify it normatively is deeply contested. Here, optimization yields to judgment: The issue is not how to maximize aggregate welfare, but whose welfare , and across which temporal horizon.

poses a parallel challenge. As productivity becomes detached from human labor, the wage-based mechanism of distribution loses coherence. Economics must therefore confront questions long treated as external: the valuation of care, unpaid work and social contribution.

What, then, is economics? It is neither mere mathematics nor disguised ideology. It is a disciplined inquiry into how societies coordinate belief and behavior under constraint, how they balance efficiency with legitimacy and how they render scarcity compatible with collective life. Only by integrating institutions, narratives and moral judgment can economics fulfill its promise as a science of social order.

[ 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 Economics Beyond Allocation: Scarcity, Institutions and Collective Judgment 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�.

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�.

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�.

Thanks to the government’s failures, Pakistan has sharply climbed up the ladder vis-à-vis weather extremes. It #5 among countries most affected by extreme climatic events in GermanWatch’s Climate Risk Index 2020. The country now tops the list, mainly due to its monsoon-driven, relative economic losses between June and September 2022.

The increased chances of natural catastrophes have proven lethal. Climate-related calamities have 802 fatalities this year, including 203 children, in the ongoing rainy season. Much of the damage and deaths took place in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), and the bad weather wreaked havoc on infrastructure, crops and livestock.

One of the main reasons for the increase in climate-related catastrophes is due to a phenomenon called glacial melt. Over a period of many years, glacial melt led to the of thousands of glacial lakes in northern areas. The process, kindled by excessive heat, sharply elevated the specter of glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). These sudden events — which are able to cause significant downstream damage by releasing millions of cubic meters of water and debris in a few hours — are a persistent threat to life, infrastructure and livelihoods of 7 million people in KP and Gilgit-Baltistan.

Governance weaknesses

Pakistan’s government often singles out climate and “lopsided allocation” — receiving $2.8 billion from international creditors against pledges of $10 billion — of green funding for its failure on climate action. Yet it remains unwilling to address its own governance weaknesses and step up climate adaptation efforts.

For instance, the UN-backed GLOF-II project faced criticism for failing to contribute to disaster preparedness and early warnings, partially because the funds were misused. Other projects were also accused of being by institutional incompetence and corruption, or of eroding in value due to unimpeded .

Similarly, poor access to climate-smart for farmers and major policy , such as in wheat procurement and inequitable subsidies, continue to block Pakistan’s agricultural transformation and harm rural communities.

Climate finance gaps

At the international climate conference known as COP27, the loss and damage was hailed as a quantum leap in climate finance, but as of this past June, 27 countries had pledged just — a minuscule fraction of the of billions required annually.

Developed nations, largely responsible for global emissions, have shaped the climate fate of vulnerable countries like Pakistan. Their industrialization has created an existential crisis for nations that have made minimal contributions to the problem. Pakistan’s government must act decisively and not succumb to inaction to prevent an irreversible climate catastrophe.

The situation demands an immediate response. Pakistan faces severe climate impacts, including heatwaves, droughts, floods and glacial melt that have disproportionately affected marginalized communities and jeopardized development.

To avert disaster, the government must address deep-seated governance issues like uncoordinated policy, insufficient resources, corruption and poor implementation of climate strategies. This includes strengthening institutions, ensuring transparency and fostering participatory decision-making with local communities, civil society and experts. Without strong governance, climate efforts will fail. The time for action is now.

Mobilizing domestic resources

For Pakistan to imprint a sustainable impact on climate change, it shouldn’t rely squarely on international climate financing and must mobilize domestic resources. Rather than merely shifting blame to the wealthy nations, it should expand the network of technology providers (largely in Punjab) across Pakistan and encourage private investment in renewable energy and climate-resilient infrastructure to boost productivity and lower emissions.

Establishing effective risk-sharing mechanisms, such as crop insurance, promoting initiatives like the of green bonds and experimenting with alternative climate finance models, for example, , should be expedited to protect farmers and generate climate finance.

The country’s energy mix is highly by oil, gas and coal. Albeit , in the energy sector is both a threat to climate adaptation and economic stability, butting heads with terrorism and insurgency for the country’s biggest challenge.

Considering Pakistan’s economic fragility and limited foreign exchange reserves, its heavy reliance on fossil fuels could be acceptable only as a short-term necessity to facilitate a transition toward long-term climate resilience.

Still, the government can’t lurk behind climate injustice to evade climate action. This will be akin to courting disaster. Fixing systemic inefficiencies such as a low tax-to-GDP ratio, strengthening accountability mechanisms and controlling transmission and distribution and unproductive could create a fiscal space to shore up Pakistan’s climate resilience.

The need for a non-partisan response

In the coming decades, Pakistan is projected to remain among the most vulnerable countries to climate change and extreme weather. The country’s high exposure to torrential downpour, floods, cloudbursts and GLOFs urges a collective, nonpartisan national response.

By lacing up climate action with climate injustice or resorting to cosmetic measures — by experts as taxation levies framed as climate mitigation efforts, while climate adaptation funding has declined from 40% to 10% in a decade — the government shouldn’t pretend to act.

The monsoon that once whispered of bliss and euphoria now brings pain and affliction. What was rejoiced as a boon is being mourned as a doom. Climate change isn’t alone responsible for this tragic reversal. Chronic Governance failures have also magnified this crisis. Addressing systemic weaknesses is crucial to boost climate adaptation and build a climate-resilient Pakistan.

[ 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 Pakistan Must Confront its Climate Challenge 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�.

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�.

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 summit, Europe pledged to spend 3.5% of GDP on defense and 1.5% on areas like cybersecurity and infrastructure, totaling 5%. Greminger sees political resolve to invest more, but doubts all NATO members can or will reach the target. He believes it is largely a concession to please Washington.

Meeting the 5% target could undermine social stability

Singh presses on where Europe will get its funds, given its aging populations, high debt and fragile welfare systems. Greminger predicts significant “crowding out” of spending on health, education, diplomacy and other needs. Such trade-offs could fuel populism on both ends of the political spectrum. He agrees that the political backlash could be substantial if social safety nets erode in pursuit of military targets.

Europe faces a security threat mix that stretches resources thin

Greminger outlines Europe’s security environment as a mix of conventional military risks, primarily from Russia, and hybrid threats like cyberattacks and disinformation. Transnational dangers such as terrorism, violent extremism and trafficking persist, while climate change emerges as a new factor. Politicians face the challenge of stretching limited resources across defense, national resilience and social cohesion.

Globalization’s uneven rewards are weakening social cohesion

Addressing Singh’s intelligence concerns about marginalized youth — both disenfranchised Muslim communities and alienated working-class whites — Greminger says these trends have been building for over a decade. He links them to dissatisfaction with globalization, where perceptions of unequal benefit outweigh objective gains. Left unresolved, this discontent could undermine social cohesion across Europe, including in Switzerland.

Strategic autonomy is rising but Europe’s defense industry lags

Though the current trends are not a formal doctrine, Greminger sees growing determination to reduce dependence on Washington’s “moods” and unpredictability. Europeans have made efforts to unify major players, like the EU three — France, Germany and Italy — and strengthen independent capabilities. He suggests Trump may ironically be remembered as a promoter of European strategic autonomy.

Europe’s defense sector is not yet able to meet its demand, meaning militaries will continue buying US arms in the short to medium term. If the Ukraine war drags on, Europe may reindustrialize its defense base; if the conflict ends on acceptable terms, spending could decline as other priorities reassert themselves.

Trade tensions could erode the transatlantic alliance

Reconciling the US–Europe security partnership with growing trade disputes remains a challenge. Greminger warns that consistently hostile US trade policies will have political repercussions for NATO. Europeans may accept some unfriendly policies to preserve the alliance, but there are limits. Washington should act with care to avoid alienating its partners.

[ 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 Dominates NATO Summit as Europe Pledges 5% to Defense appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The story of modern capitalism is, in many ways, a tale of unintended consequences. It’s a narrative that begins with the noble intentions of Enlightenment thinkers like Adam Smith, who saw in free markets a mechanism for increasing societal wealth and well-being. Smith, often caricatured as a cold-hearted prophet of self-interest, actually emphasized the importance of moral behavior and “” as necessary components of a well-functioning market system.

But somewhere along the way, as capitalism evolved through the crucibles of industrialization, world wars and technological revolutions, we lost sight of this moral dimension. The nuanced views of classical political economists gave way to the reductive models of neoclassical economics, which treated humans as purely rational actors in a mechanistic universe of supply and demand.

This intellectual shift laid the groundwork for the neoliberal turn of the 1980s, championed by Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, which promised to unleash unprecedented innovation and prosperity by getting government “ the backs” of entrepreneurs and corporations. And in some ways, this promise has been fulfilled. The past four decades have seen remarkable technological advances and a significant reduction in global extreme poverty.

Yet, as we survey the current landscape, it’s hard not to feel a sense of unease. The spoils of our economic system have been distributed with staggering inequality, creating a new gilded age that would make the robber barons blush. The relentless pursuit of growth has pushed our planet’s ecosystems to the brink, with climate change and biodiversity loss threatening the very foundations of our civilization.

Moreover, the social and cultural costs of our economic paradigm are becoming increasingly apparent. As the has compellingly argued, we’re witnessing a crisis of meaning in consumer societies, where human relationships and experiences are increasingly commodified. The diversity of human cultures, each with its unique wisdom and ways of being, is being homogenized in the solvent of global capitalism.

Perhaps most alarmingly, our physical and mental health seems to be deteriorating even as our material wealth increases. Chronic illnesses are on the rise, and we’re in the midst of a mental health that no amount of mindfulness apps or productivity hacks seems able to solve.

Thinking is the answer, not technology

The techno-optimists among us, by figures like Marc Andreessen, argue that these are merely growing pains on the path to a technological utopia. They paint a seductive vision of a future where artificial intelligence, genetic engineering and other marvels will solve all our problems, from climate change to mortality itself.

But this narrative of technological solutionism, while not without merit, fails to grapple with the full complexity of our predicament. It assumes that we can innovate our way out of problems that are, at their core, about values, power and the way we relate to each other and the natural world.

What’s needed is not an abandonment of markets or innovation, but a fundamental rethinking of their role in our society. We need an economic model that recognizes the interconnectedness of economic, social and ecological systems. One that internalizes the externalities that our current system so blithely ignores.

This means moving beyond GDP as our primary measure of progress and developing new indicators that capture true societal well-being. It means embracing the principles of , which seeks to align our economic activities with the rhythms and limits of natural systems.

We must also recalibrate the role of government, not as an enemy of markets, but as a vital force in shaping them to serve the common good. This includes robust regulation to internalize environmental and social costs, investment in public goods that markets systematically undervalue and a commitment to fostering innovation that addresses our most pressing challenges.

Vitally, we need to rebuild our sense of community and shared purpose. The atomization of society into individual consumers, each pursuing their own self-interest, has left us ill-equipped to face collective challenges. We must find ways to support local economies, preserve traditional knowledge systems and create spaces for meaningful connection and collective action.

Our difficult, necessary choice

None of this will be easy. The vested interests that benefit from the current system will resist change, and the sheer complexity of the challenges we face can be overwhelming. But as we stand at this crossroads in human history, we have a choice. We can continue down the path of a capitalism that treats the world as nothing more than resources to be exploited and markets to be conquered. Or we can chart a new course towards an economic model that serves human needs, fosters cultural flourishing and ensures ecological sustainability.

The stakes could not be higher. Our current trajectory is not only unsustainable but it is also an existential threat. But within this crisis lies an opportunity — a chance to redefine progress, to create an economy that works for all of us, not just a privileged few. It’s time to write a new story of capitalism, one that recognizes the full breadth of human potential and our deep interdependence with the natural world.

As we embark on this journey, we would do well to remember the wisdom of Smith, who understood that markets, at their best, could be a force for moral and social good. It’s time to reclaim that vision, updated for the complex realities of the 21st century. Our very future depends on the reinventing of Smith’s vision.

[ 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 Price of Progress: Rethinking Capitalism in the 21st Century 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�.

We Americans were, of course, going to shock and awe them. But from that moment on (if not from the moment, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, when, rather than simply going after Osama bin Laden and crew, President George W. Bush launched a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan), you could say that it was we who were truly shocked and awed. After all, in their own disastrous fashion, our post-9/11 wars prepared the way for… yes!… Trump to take the White House the first time around (shock and awe!) — and then the final disastrous retreat of the American military from Afghanistan in 2021 on the Biden administration. (“Kamala Harris, Joe Biden — the humiliation in Afghanistan set off the collapse of American credibility and respect all around the world.”) And of course, four years later, his reelection on a functional platform of Trump First, Americans Last, was distinctly a double shock and awe!

And if you’ll excuse my being thoroughly repetitious, that was — or at least should have been seen as — the true definition of shock and awe. Trump! Twice! Even now, can you truly take it in? In fact, more or less every moment since his reelection victory in November 2024 has been — pardon me for the turn of phrase — a first-class S&A experience.

And — shock, if not awe — I haven’t even mentioned billionaire CEO and now Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk yet, have I? I mean, who can take him in either? The richest man on Planet Earth (S&A!) and, at least until Trump levied those massive tariffs on our three major trading partners (only to partially back off soon after), still making money hand over fist (wrist, pissed?) — (S&A!) just between the November 2024 election victory of Trump and the moment he actually took power again in January 2025 — at the expense of the rest of us. Meanwhile, he’s been more or less running this country (into the ground) hand in glove with Trump, who, by the way, is already talking about a possible ! (“They say I can’t run again; that’s the expression… Then somebody said, I don’t think you can. Oh.”) Now, wouldn’t that be an all-American S&A first (or do I mean last?)!

A mad, mad, mad world

Phew, I’m already out of breath and exclamation points! No surprise there, of course, given the awesomely shocking and shockingly Trumpified (or do I mean Muskratted?) world we’re now living in and dealing with.

After all, we once again have a president who himself is (or may be — since you never know with him) a and has at his side the DOGE-y man with a totally made-up position and an organization that nonetheless seems to have the power to dismantle whole parts of our government. (? Who needs them? , who cares?) He could evidently even purchase Mars (and to help colonize that planet). And imagine this: despite all the dough they and their billionaire pals possess — there are of them in his administration, worth something like $460 billion — Elon and he seem intent on shoving through Congress a plan that would make his a permanent feature of American life (whatever it may cost the rest of us).

Don’t try to tell me that we’re not in a mad, mad, mad world (MMMW, if you prefer). And hey, the man who only recently set a record by spending more than an hour and 40 minutes giving the State of the (Dis)Union speech or speech of any sort ever to a joint session of Congress has done a remarkable job of foisting his version of an (Foist? Last?) policy on the rest of us and this world — a world that distinctly isn’t ours, but his. Think of us as now living in a Trump First World, or TFW. Of course, his version of America First includes those recent tariffs (some but not all of which have been ) that, though officially levied against Canada, China and Mexico, were actually being foisted on the rest of us. Count on one thing: in the end, we will undoubtedly pay through the nose for them. So, no question about it, we have certainly entered a distinctly S&A era.

The double D of Donald

In truth, the 45th and 47th (and ?) president of the United States is a genuinely remarkable figure. Truly historic — or do I mean hysteric? After all, who can’t bring some image of him to mind at any moment? That face, that stare, that glare, that red tie, that wave in his hair. Need I say more?

In his own remarkable fashion, he should be given full credit and a double capital D — for both Donald and Decline. Or just think of him as PD (for President Decline). And it is remarkable that a single figure, one man who once oversaw the bankruptcy of he had launched, could become responsible for potentially the greatest bankruptcy of all — the ending of the American Century (as we once knew it) and even, after a fashion, humanity’s centuries on Planet Earth.

I mean, who can even remember anymore the time in a distant century — the year was 1991, to be exact, the very moment when Trump for the Trump Taj Mahal and the year before he did the same for the Trump Plaza Hotel — when the Soviet Union went into the garbage pail, China had not yet truly risen, and this country was left alone as not just a great power but The Great Power or TGP, the only one left on Planet Earth? That, in retrospect, was a truly shock-and-awe moment. And isn’t it no less shock-and-awing to think that a mere 34 years later, that same country is now led by a raging maniac on an America First platform that could, in effect, prove to be an America Last one? In a mere two terms in office, he will have taken what was once known as the planet’s “sole superpower” into a world of chaos and, ultimately, disaster of a sort we still can’t really grasp. He will have been the — and yes, that’s the appropriate word, not president — from hell. (In fact, the White House digital strategy team all too appropriately a portrait of Trump with a golden crown and the phrase “”!)

And if that (and he) isn’t the definition of shock and awe, what is?

Burn, baby, burn

Worse yet, tariff by tariff, tax by tax, act by act, Trump stands a reasonable chance of taking this planet down with him. Think of it as little short of remarkable that, in a world in which , (and every decade) is hotter than the previous one in a record fashion, in a world in which the weather and its devastating effects — from fires to storms to floods — is only growing more extreme and more horrific, Americans freely voted in (a second time around!) someone whose election phrase of choice was “” but might as well have been “heat, baby, heat” or “storm, baby, storm,” or simply “burn, baby, burn.”

And if his platform was America First (but truly Donald First), it distinctly should have been Planet Earth Last. (Of course — don’t be shocked — he also appointed as secretary of health a man who that the way to fight measles outbreaks is with anything but a vaccine.) Yes, above all else, Trump, who has called climate change both a “” and a “” continues to be focused on making sure that ever more oil, natural gas and coal comes out of the ground and is indeed burned, baby, burned forever and a day.

Of course, no one should be surprised, given the way the fossil-fuel companies . He’s already gone out of his way to anything the Biden administration did to fight climate change and the country’s departure from the Paris climate accords (again). As the New York Times , “In a few short weeks [of his second term in office], Trump has already severely damaged the government’s ability to fight climate change, upending American environmental policy with moves that could have lasting implications for the country, and the planet.” What he’s doing is now considered a “” on climate programs of all sorts (though it might better be thought of as a ).

At one point, he was even eliminating 65% of the employees at the Environmental Protection Agency (S&A!). Lasting implications indeed.

In any other era, Trump would still undoubtedly have been considered a nightmare and a half, but not a potentially world-ending one (at least the world as humanity has known it all these endless centuries). The truth is that, once upon a time, if you had told anybody that this would be our S&A version of the future, you would have been laughed out of the room.

The second time around with no end in sight

And yet, there can be no question that, all these years later, despite bankruptcy after bankruptcy and failure after failure, he remains the man of the second, minute, hour, day, week, month and year. Give him credit. It’s a remarkable record not just when it comes to the success of failure but of putting Himself (and yes, under the circumstances, I do think that should be capitalized!), not America First.

Oh, and while all of this has been going on, the Democratic Party has but largely been . Imagine that! And as for Congress, remind me what it is (other than an audience for You Know Who).

Consider it a remarkable historical irony that America First has remained Trump’s slogan all these years when, in reality (or what passes for it in his universe), it should certainly have been Trump First and, when it came to anything that truly mattered to him, America (not to speak of the rest of the world) Last!

Worse yet, if all of us hadn’t actually lived through the Trumpian epoch (epic? toothpick?), I don’t think anyone could have made this up or, in a previous version of America, even imagined it happening. And if they could, there can be little question that they would simply have been laughed out of the room, if not institutionalized, not once but twice.

And yet here we are, the second time around with no end in sight, and a third time a history-breaking possibility, leaving us fully and thoroughly in another America on another planet. Phew! Talk about shock and awe!

I must admit, with at least three years and 10 months to go in the era of You Know Who, I find it hard to imagine our future, even if (as is certainly possible) the American and global economies go down the tubes and the Democrats are swept back into Congress — I’m sorry, where? — in 2026.

Nonetheless, for the (un)foreseeable future, we’re all living with Trump in a genuinely shock-and-awe world of almost unpredictable strangeness. In some fashion, all of us are now Afghans or Iraqis.

[ first published 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 Policies Deliver Shock and Awe While Disrupting Global Order appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In 2024, militant Islamist violence in Africa reached a . Fatalities have nearly tripled since 2020 to approximately 11,000. This violence has displaced over 45 million people, a 14% increase over the 2023 figure. Last year marked the 13th consecutive year in which this figure has risen.

Russia has now emerged as a major player in Africa, displacing France in many countries. Moscow has conducted multiple disinformation campaigns and sent mercenaries to many conflict zones, such as Mali, Niger, Libya and Sudan.

Sudan’s conflict is Africa’s biggest crisis

The implosion of Sudan is the biggest crisis in Africa today. It has exacerbated the tensions in an already fragile region, worsening conflicts in neighboring states and increasing political instability. The internal conflicts in Libya, Chad, the Central African Republic, South Sudan and Ethiopia are now further complicated by Sudan’s instability.

Foreign powers, most notably the United Arab Emirates, Russia, Iran and Egypt, are inflaming Sudan’s conflict. They have deployed drones, munitions and mercenaries. They also patronize the smuggling of resources. This scramble for influence risks Sudan fragmenting into a collection of client states, sidelining civilian voices and popular sovereignty.

Climate change has increased African food insecurity

Over 11.5 million Sudanese have been internally displaced, and more 2.3 million have fled the country since the civil war began in April 2023. Food shortages are estimated to be killing hundreds of people daily. An estimated three million people are facing acute food insecurity.

Experts point out that droughts and floods are a key reason for increased conflict. Climate change means that places lack rain for longer periods or get too much rain in too short a time. This means the land is less productive, even as populations rise. This explosive combination has led people to fight over water, pastures and land.

In 2024, an estimated 163 million Africans suffered from acute food insecurity, over 10% of the continent’s population. This figure is nearly triple that of five years ago. Many of these Africans are crossing the Mediterranean Sea to get to Europe.

Lee Kuan Yew, the late Singaporean statesman, once warned that if Europe did not export prosperity south, Africa would export people north. That is exactly what is happening.

[ and 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° Exclusive: Unstable Africa Drives Refugees North appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The last remaining free-flowing rivers in Europe exist in the Balkans, but they are in danger. to build around 3,000 dams between Slovenia and Greece, along with diversions and urban developments, threaten almost every river in the region (this shows what that number looks like in practice). Even protected areas are not immune, with around 1,000 of these projects putting vulnerable stretches of the river at risk.��

If the plans to build the new hydropower plants go ahead, the impact on biodiversity would be devastating. Critically, the damage does not just take place during construction when diggers cut directly into local habitats. There is also a downstream impact on endangered ecosystems. Water quality, declines in fish and populations and the dislocation of are only a few long-term issues. In the worst cases, the harm is irrevocable: about 50 fish species could be faced with global or regional .��

The local is also vulnerable to the change in river flow patterns from dams and diversions, which can erode land downriver and change underground water flows. During building work on the upper Neretva in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there were two fatal incidents from landslides. In many cases, the risk assessment prior to construction is insufficient.

Risky investment

From an economic point of view, hydropower plants offer an opportunity for and financial development in the Balkans. Investments from foreign project developers such as Chinese and American contractors bring much-needed money into the region, fueling development and providing employment opportunities.

However, investing in traditional forms of hydropower is . For one thing, the power plants themselves are increasingly of climate change. Droughts, unpredictable rainfall, heatwaves and reduced snowmelt not only inhibit the supply for drinking water and irrigation, but also reduce the resources available for generating electricity. Additionally, higher temperatures cause more water to evaporate from reservoirs, further wasting this precious resource.

The knock-on effects, when these hydropower plants are unable to meet demand, are . Alongside electricity shortages leading to higher energy prices, the failure to supply energy-intensive industries can reduce economic output, cause job losses and increase poverty levels.

Furthermore, authorities can be lax in applying environmental laws, cutting corners in favor of project developers. The public, on the other hand, has minimal opportunity to get involved in the decision-making process. While this flexibility initially works in favor of the investors, it can later when local communities start protesting.��

Making a splash

Public activism in favor of the rivers has been gaining momentum in the Balkans. Determined to stop the dams, the environmental NGOs Riverwatch and EuroNatur launched the “Save the Blue Heart of Europe”. Over the last 12 years, activists have spread the word about the scale of damage that the rivers in the Balkans are facing. “The first step is to raise awareness,” says Ulrich Eichelmann, founder of Riverwatch. “You have to make it so famous that it’s too big to fail.” 

The biggest success was in Albania. After 11 years, activists — including celebrity — managed to Prime Minister Edi Rama to create the first Wild River National Park. Crucially, efforts to raise awareness consisted not only of exposing the plans to build dams, but also of communicating the uniqueness of the river both to locals and politicians.

Managing the future

The appropriate designation and recognition of protected areas is a lifeline for sensitive habitats: this is the second step to turning hope into reality. While the Vjosa is now protected as a wild river, the is not included in the new national park, leaving it exposed to plans to build a luxury resort and even an airport. Urban development of this scale would devastate both the landscape and the ecosystems reliant on it.

Likewise, it is also essential that governments enshrine international conservation networks, such as Natura 2000, as well as European environmental regulations into national law. In an effort to help manage the situation, EuroNatur and Riverwatch published an of the river network in the Balkans, showing which stretches of the river network are no-go areas for dams based on clearly defined environmental criteria such as biodiversity.

International funding bodies also play an important role in facilitating the effective management of protected areas by directing financial resources to the right places. While European development banks were previously planning to hydropower projects in the Balkans, they have now scrapped these plans after tightening biodiversity rules. Instead, financial establishments as well as the EU can show their appreciation of the unique value of these rivers by directing funding towards conservation and restoration.��

Economic growth in the Balkans is not dependent on building new dams. Nor will the energy transition fail if the last wild rivers of Europe are allowed to run their natural course. Indeed, the risks outweigh the advantages, which is why the fight to prevent the construction of traditional hydropower projects is not over yet. As long as the rivers are flowing, the battle will continue to keep Europe’s blue heart beating.

[ 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 Dam Dilemma: Europe’s Natural Rivers in Crisis appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A polycrisis is the culmination of a fast-moving local trigger event intersecting with one or more slow-moving global stressors, such as climate change, great power competition, transnational crime or inflation. Polycrises result from the growing complexity of the current geostrategic situation, in which the line between global and local issues is increasingly blurred. As the world becomes more unstable, conflicts generally contained in one country or region are no longer localized, creating higher risks for multinational organizations than businesses realize.

But what does a polycrisis look like? Following Hamas’s surprise assault on Israel last October, the Houthis in Yemen — over 1,200 miles away — imposed a de facto embargo on Red Sea shipping, shuttering the waterway used to transport goods from Asia to Europe. The strain on global transportation was compounded by the drought that hindered the Panama Canal’s capacity. In short, a local conflict between Hamas in Gaza, a client of Iran, and Israel, a client of the United States, compounded by a climate-related transportation issue, produced an ongoing global shipping crisis; whereby the cost of moving goods from Asia to Europe has precipitously increased. With Iran threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most vital energy shipping lane, this prototypical polycrisis will worsen in 2025.       

Scanning for polycrises

Global Guardian’s Geostrategic Stress Index (GSI) gives a low to extreme categorical risk rating that indicates a country’s susceptibility to foreign destabilization and highlights the critical fault lines where geopolitical tensions are expected to spill over. Destabilization can take many forms. A foreign actor can interfere in elections or exacerbate domestic tensions via influence campaigns. A country locked in a frozen conflict could have the conflict thawed by precipitating action from an outside power. Mercantilism could fuel active conflicts, like in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Conflicts could also be intensified by the direct involvement of a foreign paramilitary, as is the case in Burkina Faso and Niger. Or a conflict could become a proxy war, as demonstrated in the spillover of the Russo-Ukrainian war into Syria, Mali and Sudan.��

Using the GSI, business leaders can extract several vital insights. Latin America presents several risk factors that should serve as warnings to businesses. Russia, China and Iran are actively working alongside Hezbollah to diminish Western influence by expanding their espionage presence and military efforts in Venezuela and Cuba while increasing ties to drug cartels. The region’s abundant natural resources provide the incentive and means of foreign destabilization. Finally, many countries in the region — such as Peru, Bolivia, Chile and Ecuador — have a combination of weak government institutions and strong civil societies, making disruptive political events more likely.  

In the Asia-Pacific, China is ramping up its “” campaign in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. Central Asia faces high destabilization risks as it is squeezed between Russia and China, along with American and European efforts to counter their influence. Economic shocks in the region could quickly trigger unrest, as seen in Kazakhstan in 2022. Southeast Asia’s internal conflicts in Myanmar and other political crises threaten to destabilize the region. Business leaders should expect the Pacific Islands to face increasing destabilization as the US and Australia compete with China over hearts, minds — and security agreements.��

In the Middle East and North Africa, the Israel-Palestine conflict remains a central source of instability. The region is expected to remain unstable with many middle powers — including Iran, Israel, and Türkiye — fragile states and their centrality to energy markets. Sub-Saharan Africa is emblematic of the age of the polycrisis. Health epidemics, insurgent jihadism, and climate change have combined to create persistent challenges. These are exacerbated by the inability of major powers to cooperate. The region has also become a proxy battleground for the Russia-Ukraine war, with both countries providing military support to opposing sides of several conflicts.

In addition to the geopolitical fault line dividing Russia (and Belarus) and its European neighbors, ethnic tensions in the Balkans are of particular concern in Europe over the next five years. Geographically and culturally situated between Russia and NATO, the Balkans are a friction point and future flashpoint that threatens to draw Serbia (and Russia) into direct conflict with NATO in Kosovo.

Planning for polycrises

In the age of the polycrisis, businesses operating in these areas must be clear-eyed and intentional about their long-term plans. Stability is never a given, but these five regions have shown numerous indications of rising conflict that would affect their regions and the global economy more broadly. Businesses should protect their personnel and assets by heeding the early warning signs in Global Guardian’s 2025 Risk map and planning around potential crises in the coming decade.

Simply put, the business world is built around assumptions that are no longer true in today’s geopolitical landscape. Companies may promise shareholders a certain amount of growth per year based on familiar models — only to be forced to shut down shops throughout a region that is now a war zone or to find their manufacturing costs rocketing due to constricted supplies. Old models developed during a stable, unipolar geopolitical environment no longer apply to today’s multipolar, polycrisis-riddled world.

Corporate executives and decision-makers must adapt to this new reality.  Planning for conflicts to disrupt the global market requires reshaping business models to include significant buffers in supply chains and growth expectations. This allows businesses to adjust to new geopolitical conflicts as they emerge.

Formerly localized domestic disputes and tensions now have profound implications for the rest of the globe. The Middle East is an impossible-to-ignore example of a polycrisis that has shaken global markets — a pattern that will continue in other regions. Businesses must accept this reality and adjust their models and long-term planning to ensure they can still reach their financial goals while protecting their personnel. The era of post-Cold War stability is over; in its stead, there are a host of simmering geopolitical tensions that could suddenly erupt and undermine international business. Change isn’t coming — it’s here.

[ 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 New Cold War: How Polycrises Threaten Every Business appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In the 1970s, in the southwest corner of Germany, the tiny community of Wyhl was bracing for the construction of just such a nuclear reactor in its backyard. Something even worse loomed on the horizon: a vast industrial zone with new and eight nuclear energy complexes that would transform the entire region around that town and stretch into nearby France and Switzerland. The three countries’ governments and the energy industry were all behind the project.

Even the residents of Wyhl seemed to agree. By a slim 55%, they supported a referendum to sell the land needed for the power plant. In the winter of 1975, bulldozers began to clear the site.

Suddenly, something unexpected happened. Civic groups and environmentalists decided to make their stand in little Wyhl and managed to block the construction of that nuclear reactor. Then, as the organizing accelerated, the entire tri-country initiative unraveled.

It was a stunning success for a global antinuclear movement that was just then gaining strength. The next year in the United States, the Clamshell Alliance launched a campaign to stop the construction of the proposed Seabrook nuclear in New Hampshire, which they managed to delay for some time.

A few years later, critics of the antinuclear protests would such movements with the acronym NIMBY — Not In My Backyard. NIMBY movements would, however, ultimately target a range of dirty and dangerous projects from waste incinerators to uranium mines.

A NIMBY approach, in fact, is often the last option for communities facing the full force of powerful energy lobbies, the slingshot that little Davids deploy against a humongous Goliath.

That very same slingshot is now being used to try to stop an energy megaproject in eastern Washington state. A local civic group, Tri-City CARES, has squared off against a similar combination of government and industry to oppose a project they say will harm wildlife, adversely affect tourism, impinge on Native American cultural property and put public safety at risk.

But that megaproject is not a nuclear power plant or a toxic waste dump. The Horse Heaven Hills project near Kennewick, Washington is, in fact, a future wind farm to power up to 300,000 homes and reduce the state’s dependency on both fossil fuels and nuclear energy. Aren’t windmills part of the solution, not the problem?

Critics of the project are, in fact, part of a whose criticism of “industrial wind energy development” suggests that they’re not just quixotically tilting at windmills but challenging unchecked corporate power. Left unsaid, however, is that the fossil fuel industry and conservative like the Manhattan Institute have been against wind and solar renewable energy projects, often plowing money into NIMBY-like front groups. (Donald Trump has, of course, sworn to scrap offshore wind projects should he again.)

It’s a reminder that the powerful, too, have found uses for NIMBYism. Rich neighborhoods have long mobilized against homeless shelters and low-income housing, just as rich countries have long outsourced their mineral needs and dirty manufacturing to poorer ones.

But even if you remove the right-wing funders and oil executives from the equation and assume the best of intentions on the part of organizations like Tri-City CARES — and there’s good reason to believe that the Washington activists genuinely care about hawks and Native American cultural property — two questions remain: What sacrifices must be made to achieve the necessary transition away from fossil fuels? Who will make those sacrifices?

Thanks to all the recent images of devastating typhoon and and , it’s obvious that much of the world’s infrastructure is not built to withstand the growing stresses of climate change. As if that’s not bad enough, it’s even clearer that political infrastructure the world over, in failing to face the issue of sacrifice, can’t effectively deal with the climate challenge either.

The need for sacrifice

The era of unrestrained growth is nearly at an end. In ever more parts of the world, it’s no longer possible to dig, discharge and destroy without regard for the environment or community health. Climate change puts an exclamation point on this fact. The industrial era we’ve passed through in the last centuries has produced unprecedented wealth but has also generated enough carbon emissions to threaten the very future of humanity. To reach the goals of the 2016 Paris agreement on climate change and the many net-carbon zero pledges that countries have made, at a minimum humanity would have to forgo all new .

Although the use of oil, natural gas and coal has already produced a growing global disaster, those aren’t the only problems we face. The United Nations projects that, by 2060, the consumption of natural resources globally — including food, water and minerals, those basics of human life — will above 2020 levels. Even the World Economic Forum, that pillar of the capitalist global economic system, acknowledges that the planet can’t support such an insatiable demand and points out that rich countries, which consume six times more per capita than the rest of the world, will somehow have to their belts.

Alas, renewable energy doesn’t grow on trees. To capture the power of the sun, the wind and the tides requires machinery and batteries that draw on a wide range of materials like lithium, copper and rare earth elements. People in the Global South are already organizing against efforts to turn their communities into “” that produce such critical raw materials for an energy transition far away in the Global North. At the same time, communities across the US and Europe are organizing against similar mines in their own backyards. Then there’s the question of where to put all those solar arrays and wind farms, which have been generating NIMBY responses in the US from the coast of to the deserts of the .

These, then, are the three areas of sacrifice on Planet Earth in 2024: giving up the income generated by fossil fuel projects, cutting back on the consumption of energy and other resources and putting up with the negative consequences of both mining and renewable energy projects. Not everyone agrees that such sacrifices have to be made. Trump and his allies have, of course, promised to “drill, baby, drill” from day one of a second term.

Sadly, almost everyone agrees that, if such sacrifices are indeed necessary, it should be someone else who makes them.

In an era of unlimited growth, the political challenge was to determine how to divvy up the rewards of economic expansion. �մǻ岹��’s challenge, in a world where growth has run amok, is to determine how to evenly distribute the costs of sacrifice.

Democracy and sacrifice

Autocrats generally don’t lose sleep worrying about sacrifice. They’re willing to steamroll over protest as readily as they’d bulldoze the land for a new petrochemical plant. When China wanted to build a large new dam on the Yangtze River, it relocated the 1.5 million people in its path and the area, submerging 13 cities, over 1,200 archaeological sites and 30,000 hectares of farmland.

Democracies often functioned the same way before the NIMBY era. Of course, there’s always been an exception made for the wealthy: How many toxic waste dumps grace Beverly Hills? Or consider the career of urban planner , who rebuilt the roads and parks of New York City with only a few speed bumps along the way. He was finally stopped in his tracks in, of all places, that city’s Greenwich Village. Architecture critic Jane Jacobs and her band of wealthy and middle-class protestors were determined to a Lower Manhattan Expressway. New York’s poorer outer-borough residents couldn’t similarly stop the Cross Bronx Expressway.

Although a product of classical Greece, democracy has only truly flourished in the industrial era. Democratic politicians have regularly gained office by promising the fruits of economic expansion: infrastructure, jobs, social services and tax cuts. If it’s not wartime, politicians might as well sign their political death warrants if they ask people to tighten their belts. Sure, US President John F. Kennedy famously said, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country,” and promoted the Peace Corps for idealistic young people. But he won office by making the same promises as other politicians and, as president, coined the phrase, “a rising tide lifts all boats.” This image of unrestrained growth has become ominously prophetic in an era of elevated ocean levels and increased flooding.

In 1977, when President Jimmy Carter donned a sweater to give his famous “spirit of sacrifice” speech on the need to reduce energy consumption, he told the to the US people: “If we all cooperate and make modest sacrifices, if we learn to live thriftily and remember the importance of helping our neighbors, then we can find ways to adjust, and to make our society more efficient and our own lives more enjoyable and productive.”

for his earnestness and his sweater choice, Carter was, unsurprisingly, a one-term president.

Democracy, like capitalism, has remained remarkably focused on short-term gain. Politicians similarly remain prisoners of the election cycle. What’s the point of pushing policies that will yield results only ten or 20 years in the future when those policymakers are unlikely to be in office any longer? Democratic politicians regularly push sacrifice off to the future in the same way that NIMBY-energized communities push sacrifice off to other places. Whether it’s your unborn grandchildren or people living in the Amazon rainforest by oil companies, the unsustainable prosperity of the wealthy depends on the sacrifices of (often distant) others.

Sharing the sacrifice

With its , the European Union has embarked on an effort to outpace the US and China in its transition away from fossil fuels. The challenge for the EU is to find sufficient amounts of critical raw materials for the Green Deal’s electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines — especially lithium for the lithium-ion batteries that lie at the heart of the transformation.

To get that lithium, the EU is looking in some obvious places like the “” of Argentina, Bolivia and Chile. But it doesn’t want to be completely dependent on outside suppliers, since there’s a lot of competition for that lithium.

Enter Serbia. Its Jadar mine has one of the largest deposits of lithium in the world. For the EU, it’s a no-brainer to push for the further development of a mine that could provide of lithium carbonate annually and meet of Europe’s lithium needs. In August, the EU a “strategic partnership on sustainable raw materials, battery value chains and electric vehicles” with Serbia, which is still in the process of joining the group. Exploiting the Jadar deposits is a no-brainer for the Serbian government as well. It means jobs, a significant to the country’s gross domestic product and a way to advance its claim to EU membership.

Serbian environmentalists, however, disagree. They’ve mobilized tens of thousands of people to the plan to dig up the lithium and other minerals from Jadar. They do acknowledge the importance of those materials but think the EU should develop its own lithium resources and not pollute Serbia’s rivers with endless mine run-off.

Many countries face the same challenge as Serbia. Home to one of the largest nickel deposits in the world, Indonesia has tried to use the extraction and processing of that strategic mineral to break into the ranks of the globe’s most developed countries. The communities around the nickel mines are, however, but gung-ho about that plan. Even wealthy countries like the and , eager to reduce their mineral dependency on China, have faced community backlash over plans to expand their mining footprints.��

Democracies are not well-suited to address the question of sacrifice, since those who shoulder the costs have few options to resist the many who want to enjoy the benefits. NIMBY movements are one of the few mechanisms by which the minority can resist such a tyranny of the majority.

But then, how to prevent that other kind of NIMBY that displaces sacrifice from the relatively rich to the relatively poor?

Getting to YIMBY

Wyhl’s successful campaign of “no” to nuclear power in the 1970s was only half the story. Equally important was the .

Alongside their opposition to nuclear power, the environmentalists in the southeast corner of Germany lobbied for funding research on renewable energy. From such seed money grew the first large-scale solar and wind projects there. The rejection of nuclear power, which would eventually become a federal pledge in Germany to close down the nuclear industry, prepared the ground for that country’s clean-energy miracle.

That’s not all. German activists realized that the mainstream parties, laser-focused on economic growth, would just find another part of the country in which to build their megaprojects. Environmentalists understood that they needed a different kind of vehicle to support the country’s energy transformation. Thus was born Germany’s Green Party.

One key lesson from the Wyhl story is the power of participation. NIMBY movements, when they battle corporate power, . Residents demand to be consulted. They want a place at the table to create their own energy solutions. Rather than a sign that the political system can accommodate minority viewpoints, NIMBY movements demonstrate that the political system is broken. It shouldn’t be a Darwinian struggle over who makes sacrifices for the good of the whole. Decisions should be made collectively in a deliberative process, ideally within a larger federal framework that requires all stakeholders to shoulder a portion of the burden.

As in the 1970s, the political parties of today seem remarkably incapable of charting a path away from unsustainable growth and the imposition of sacrifice on the unwilling. The Green Party in Germany transformed Wyhl’s antinuclear politics into NIABY — Not In Anyone’s Backyard. At this critical juncture in the transition from fossil fuels, it’s necessary to move from discrete NIMBY protests against offshore drilling and natural gas pipelines to a NIABY approach to all oil, gas and coal projects.

The parallel expansion of sustainable energy will require new political models for distributing critical raw material mining costs and benefits and siting solar and wind projects. Here again, Germany provides inspiration. The country’s first town powered fully by renewable sources, Wolfhagen, assumed control over its electricity grid and created a to make decisions about its energy future. When communities are involved in sharing the costs (the placement of solar and wind projects) and benefits (through lowered energy prices), they are more likely to embrace YIMBY — “Yes In My Backyard.” When everyone is at the table making decisions, the slingshot of NIMBY gathers dust in the closet.

In this new spirit of sacrifice, we should be asking not what the planet can do for us but what we can do for the planet. The planet is telling us that sacrifice is necessary because there’s just not enough resources to go around. Autocrats can’t be trusted to make such decisions. Conventional politicians in democracies are trapped in the politics of growth and consumption. The wealthy, with a few exceptions, won’t voluntarily give up their privileges.

It falls to the rest of us to step in and make such choices about sacrifice at a community level. Meanwhile, at the national and international level, new political parties that are radically democratic, embrace post-growth economics and put the planet first will be indispensable for larger systemic change.

If we can’t get to YIMBY and make fair decisions about near-term sacrifices, the end game is clear. When the planet goes into a carbon-induced death spiral, we’ll all, rich and poor alike, be forced to make the ultimate sacrifice.

[ 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 Ask (Not) What You Can Do for Your Planet appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On average, the Earth is now (2.43°F) hotter than pre-industrial times.

What does that mean?

It can be challenging to understand opaque climate numbers. “400 parts per million of CO₂,” preventing “two degrees of warming,” or “one foot of sea level rise” mean little to most people, making climate change easy to ignore or deny. For most of my life, growing up in the suburbs of Houston, Texas, I was privileged not to experience the impacts of fossil fuel use. But eventually, the impacts hit home.

My uncle used to work at the Bokaro Steel Plant in Bihar, India, first on the plant’s floor and eventually as a manager. Steel production requires a lot of coal, and with coal comes dust and particulates that workers inhale.

A few years ago, my uncle started experiencing lung problems and was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis (also known as black lung). After several months on oxygen, he opted for a lung transplant, but the operation failed, and he passed away a few weeks later.

Unfortunately, my uncle’s death was not an isolated incident. In 2023, over people died globally due to air pollution from fossil fuel use. Within the US, certain regions and demographics are more affected than others. Driving just 30 minutes outside of downtown Houston to Deer Park, or neighborhoods near the Houston Ship Channel, one encounters rows and rows of oil refineries and families where has cancer or respiratory issues.��

These families are often people of color. They are exposed to more particulate matter than the general population. Beyond the direct impacts of air pollution, increased heat waves can result in more than COVID-19. It is undeniable that pollution and extreme heat have real human health impacts.

Most people say environmentalism is about saving the environment. After my uncle passed, I realized environmentalism is about saving human lives. We need to amplify the voices of people impacted by fossil fuel use so their stories can rise above the monotony of statistics. These powerful stories can create change in three ways: regulation, economic incentives and technology.

Solutions for climate change

The companies responsible for polluting should be held accountable, but they have little incentive to stop emitting because they must create value for shareholders. The Environmental Protection Agency creates environmental regulations such as for air pollution from power plants. These are at risk of being by Congress.

We need to create bipartisan support for federal legislation such as and to ensure sustained regulation. We can accomplish this through heightened public pressure on policymakers. Advocacy groups should encourage and sponsor affected populations to testify in front of lawmakers, and recordings of these testimonials should be widely publicized. These stories have the power to convince voters to take up the mission themselves.

Historically, it was difficult to implement regulation. As a result, the most common and effective policies for climate solutions are financial incentives such as for producing clean electricity.

Advocacy organizations and think tanks should create and promote fellowships similar to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute but specifically for environmentally affected populations. This will enable them to contribute to policymaking.

Venture capital firms such as should also create positions for affected people to directly invest in impactful companies. There is no better way to prevent pollution than developing technologies that provide the same service with no emissions.

There should be increased access to education across all levels in affected populations. Organizations such as and are influential in cities like New Orleans. They should expand outreach efforts to environmental exposure areas to help children explore STEM careers. For higher education, universities should conduct targeted recruiting of talented students from community colleges in affected areas to help get them involved in research.

Losing my uncle inspired me to apply my engineering education to pursue technological solutions to climate change. People impacted by environmental exposure truly understand the harms of the fossil fuel industry. They may not be able to create change by themselves. But by giving them a platform, amplifying their voices and increasing their agency, we can ensure people impacted by climate change, like my uncle, get the change they deserve.

[Joey T. McFadden 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 Can’t Ignore the Human Toll of Climate Change appeared first on 51�Թ�.

As a low-lying, densely populated country, Bangladesh finds itself on the frontline of climate change impacts, grappling with rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and the displacement of vulnerable communities. Currently, the country is reeling from which has displaced half a million people and killed at least 23.

Despite contributing minimally to the carbon emissions responsible for these changes, Bangladesh still holds the developed world accountable for its part in accelerating climate change. However, Bangladesh also must fight to bring the Global South into climate action. The advocacy Bangladesh demonstrates for climate action and justice must remain at the forefront of the global stage.

Bangladesh fights for climate justice within its own borders

Bangladesh, often as one of the most climate-vulnerable countries, has been dealing with the severe consequences of climate change for decades. Geography and socio-economic conditions make it uniquely susceptible to the impacts of global warming. Rising sea levels pose an existential threat to coastal communities, and extreme weather events such as cyclones and floods disrupt livelihoods. According to the World Bank’s Country and Climate Development Report, tropical cyclones cost Bangladesh about annually on average. The country could see as many as people displaced by 2050 due to climate change. Its GDP could fall by as much as in case of severe flooding.��

In the face of these challenges, Bangladesh displays an action-centered attitude in dealing with climate change. The World Bank calls it “the emerging hot spot” where climate threats and action meet. Its initiatives have resulted in impressive climate adaptation ventures, including the construction of the world’s largest multi-storied social housing project in Coxs Bazar, which will rehabilitate 4,400 families displaced by climate change. In mitigation, Bangladesh has become one of the world leaders in Solar House Systems, with households using solar photovoltaic systems.

Bangladesh has not stopped at the social level. It has also worked towards boosting economic action to mitigate climate damage. Bangladesh was one of the first developing countries to establish a coordinated in 2009. Till now, its climate policy deck includes the Bangladesh Climate Change Trust , the Delta Plan , and the Mujib Climate Prosperity . Each policy focuses on directing funds towards the prevention of climate damage.

The country has also set up a Climate Change Trust Fund, the first of its kind, $300 million from domestic resources between 2009 and 2012. In 2014, the country adopted the Climate Fiscal to create climate-inclusive public financial management. Bangladesh also introduced a National Sustainable Development to align economic development with climate priorities further. Bangladesh put forward a target to generate 5% of its electricity from renewable energy sources by 2015 and 10% by 2020.

However, Bangladesh has to meet either of these targets. It continues to generate most of its electricity from fossil fuels. The reliance on natural gas and coal puts Bangladesh at risk of power crises. This should not, however, be a sign of lax climate advocacy. Bangladesh continues to fight for justice both within its borders and on the regional stage.��

The regional stage must join Bangladesh in advocating for climate justice

Pursuing climate justice also includes Bangladesh’s proactive advocacy of raising awareness about the disproportionate impact of climate change on vulnerable nations. In the latest Munich security , this issue of regional disparities in renewable energy investment was discussed broadly. Till now, the funding discrimination in the Global South is glaring—mostly in China and some high- and middle-income economies, with India and Indonesia gaining recent attention due to the steep rise in emissions. But poorer nations in the south are still largely off the radar.

During the pandemic, Bangladesh the South Asian regional office for the Global Center on Adaptation (GCA) in Dhaka in September 2020. The GCA Bangladesh office will promote indigenous nature-based sustainable solutions and innovative adaptation measures with the regional countries.

In December 2022, Bangladesh even became a to the case by an international organization of small island states, known as the Commission of Small Island States (COSIS). COSIS sought an advisory opinion, the first request of its kind, on the states’ obligations regarding climate change at ICJ. Bangladesh submitted a written statement explaining the need for international law regarding climate change.

The failure of advanced economies, the major contributors to climate change, to mobilize investments in renewables for low-income countries is a critical discussion that must be kept alive for opportunities for global green growth. While Bangladesh should continue to be a vocal party to this conversation regarding other low-income countries, it too must advocate for itself. Its measures are not adequate to deal with its climate urgencies forever, especially considering the pressure of financing climate actions on its emerging economy. The country could require an estimated to meet its goal of generating 40% of electricity from renewables by 2041.��

Bangladesh must be vigilant in securing climate finance and technology from the public and private sectors at future COPs, or it risks losing decades of economic gains to climate change during the crucial period of its development. Thus the country has emerged as a vocal proponent for the need for collective global responsibility in addressing climate change.

The Global South cannot face climate change alone

The hallmark of Bangladesh’s climate awareness and advocacy is that it has played a crucial role in shaping the discourse around loss and damage at international climate negotiations. Bangladesh has consistently called for developed nations to take decisive actions in reducing their carbon footprints. 

Bangladesh calls for such nations to provide financial and technological support to developing countries. The failure of advanced economies, the major contributors to climate change, to mobilize investments in renewables for low-income countries is a critical discussion that must be kept alive for opportunities for global green growth.��

 Bangladesh has been a member of essential bodies set up by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) over the years, such as the Adaptation Fund Board and the Green Climate Fund Board. It also plays a significant role in international climate diplomacy, having organized and led the Least Developed Countries negotiating bloc in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations since the bloc’s inception. The country’s advocacy has contributed to establishing the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, which dialogue around climate change effects. Bangladesh’s global advocacy signals a step forward in recognizing and addressing the impacts beyond action.��

The burden of climate change disproportionately falls on those who have contributed the least to its causes. Recognizing the challenges the Global South faces is crucial for fostering a fair and inclusive response to the climate crisis. The COP28 Loss and Damage Fund has been the right direction to take in this regard. The global community must acknowledge and support the efforts of nations like Bangladesh to pursue climate justice. Climate justice is not a charity but a shared responsibility for a more equitable and sustainable future for all.

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

The post Bangladesh Holds the World Accountable to Secure Climate Justice appeared first on 51�Թ�.

We also address the potential of conscious tourism as a powerful tool for conservation efforts. While the industry can introduce hazards to the Antarctic ecosystem, it offers promising opportunities for scientific research and public awareness. These should be considered in the endeavor to save the continent.

We depart from Ushuaia, Argentina. Authors’ photo.

Navigating climate change in Antarctica’s warming waters

We found ourselves cruising in the Southern Ocean, also known as the Antarctic Ocean. We were eager to experience the pure beauty of Antarctica firsthand. These expeditions primarily take place during Antarctica’s summer season, from December to February, when the weather is warmest and ice sheets don’t block ships. As we braved the ocean, a dramatic shift occurred around 60° South latitude. This is the Drake Passage, a narrow stretch of water between Cape Horn, Chile and the Antarctic Peninsula. Here, we entered the area known as the Antarctic Convergence Zone, which functions as a natural boundary for wildlife. In this zone, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) meets the waters of the Pacific, Atlantic and Southern Oceans.

Rough seas in the Drake Passage batter the ship’s windows. Authors’ photo.

Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) diagram. Via Phys.org.

Amidst this natural spectacle lies a troubling reality. Each summer reveals rising temperatures in Antarctica, highlighting the urgent need to combat climate change. Antarctic research stations have recorded unprecedented temperature highs in recent years. In 2020, Argentina’s Esperanza station marked a record of 18.3° C (64.94° F). In 2022, the Concordia station, which is jointly operated by France and Italy, observed an alarming temperature of 47° C (116.6° F). These temperature fluctuations underscore the disturbing meteorological anomalies that are occurring in Antarctica.

The temperature peaks are disrupting the ACC, altering the of carbon dioxide between the oceans and the atmosphere. This amplifies the warming and changes oceanic patterns. Moreover, as temperatures continue to rise, ice sheets in Antarctica melt rapidly. Since 2023, a substantial of Antarctic ice — equivalent to the size of Greenland — has melted away.

Antarctica’s global warming mitigation is in jeopardy

The melting of ice sheets is primarily attributed to the warming of the ocean. This sets off a series of immediate consequences with significant cause-and-effect for the global weather. One effect is the decrease in the Earth’s overall — its surface reflectivity. Essentially, when sunlight hits ice sheets, a large portion of it is bounced back into space, contributing to cooling. However, as ice coverage in Antarctica decreases, the ice loses its ability to reflect solar radiation effectively. This results in less cooling and more solar energy being absorbed directly by the ocean, further warming it.

Ice sheets act as a protective barrier, insulating the cooler environment beneath and aiding in temperature regulation. Their presence enhances this reflective quality, fostering cooler temperatures and supporting crucial algae growth vital to the Antarctic ecosystem. The declining sea ice coverage diminishes the environment that supports algae development, resulting in a in algae growth. This decline negatively impacts the ocean’s capacity to absorb greenhouse gasses. Algae serves as a primary food source for krill, so its decrease reduces the krill population.

Beyond their significance to the Antarctic ecosystem, krill also play an invaluable role in mitigating climate change. After consuming algae that have absorbed atmospheric carbon dioxide at the sea surface, vast swarms of krill migrate to deeper waters. There they excrete waste, effectively sequestering tremendous amounts of carbon in the ocean depths. This process plays an essential in combating rising temperatures.

Another serious concern arising from climate change is ocean acidification, often referred to as the “stepchild of global warming.” Approximately of the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere eventually enters the oceans, boosting acidity levels. The cold waters of the Southern Ocean facilitate this process by absorbing a vast amount of carbon dioxide, intensifying the acidification process. This gravely threatens krill, as it hampers their ability to complete their growth cycle.

Additionally, acidic oceans present challenges for corals and mollusks in constructing and maintaining their structures. This affects marine food webs, which impacts a variety of wildlife.

Our Zodiac boats float past Antarctic ice coverage. Authors’ photo.

The shifting landscape for Antarctica’s wildlife

The looming specter of climate change was impossible to ignore while sailing through the Southern Ocean. Though we took our journey during the Antarctic summer, the temperatures during our visit ranged from 0°-5° C (41° F). This is akin to any other autumn day in our native Netherlands. We could not help but ponder how this milder weather affects the inhabitants of this environment.

Two days after setting sail from Ushuaia, we made our first landfall at Brown Bluff beach, one of Antarctica’s northernmost points. Following a disinfectant bath that ensured no organic material from our clothes would reach the Antarctic Peninsula, we hopped on a Zodiac boat and rode to the beach. A fierce wind bit our skin, but we pressed on. Through the mist, we had our first penguin sightings.

Our arrival on the continent was immediately rewarding. We landed amidst a colony of Adélie penguins and ice rocks on the beach. The birds waddled past, seemingly indifferent to our presence. As we continued exploring the wonders of Antarctica, encounters with its unique wildlife, such as whales, seals and birds, punctuated our trip. Following the Adélie penguin colony discovery at Brown Bluff, we spotted elephant seals on President’s Head at Snow Island and witnessed a Gentoo penguin colony in Neko Harbor.

We land at Brown Bluff beach. Authors’ photo.

An Adélie penguin hops along the ice at Brown Bluff beach. Authors’ photo.

An Adélie penguin colony waddles past at Brown Bluff beach. Authors’ photo.

The scientific experts on our expedition explained to us the profound impact global warming has on these Antarctic species. Despite appearing indifferent to our presence at Brown Bluff, Adélie penguins are exceptionally vulnerable to these environmental shifts. Between 2012 and 2022, their population by 40%, highlighting the urgency of their situation. The warming temperatures that melt sea ice gravely endanger their survival.

Adélie penguins are not alone in facing these challenges. Emperor penguins, also adapted to colder climates, have encountered significant setbacks in recent years. With diminishing ice cover, penguins are forced to venture farther into the sea in search of prey, expending precious energy in the process. This leads to reduced food intake for themselves and their chicks, exacerbating the problem of hunger and chick mortality. Furthermore, warmer weather brings increased snowfall, burying penguin eggs and making chicks vulnerable to hypothermia. The loss of suitable nesting sites due to melting ice reduces their chance of successfully breeding.

Penguins rest on sea ice. Authors’ photo.

Penguins rest on sea ice near Brown Bluff. Authors’ photo.

Antarctic marine mammals are also challenged by climate change. As ocean temperatures rise, their food sources are impacted. For instance, whales, heavily reliant on krill for sustenance, are particularly vulnerable to these changes. Any disruptions in krill population or behavior cascades throughout the ecosystem, jeopardizing the entire Antarctic food chain.

Luciana Motta, a marine mammal expert and ecologist who joined our expedition cruise, shed light on the profound difficulties these animals encounter in adapting to shifting hunting grounds and habitats. Not only is global warming a factor, but increasing fishing activities and competition for food resources also threaten the broader marine ecosystem. This can potentially lead to the extinction of certain species.

With global warming increasing Antarctic temperatures, critical food sources such as krill are dwindling. This places species like the Weddell seal, leopard seal and minke whale at risk. Motta emphasized, “Effective communication of research findings is crucial to convey the urgency of conservation efforts and advocate for policy changes aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change on Antarctic biodiversity.”

A Weddell seal lounges on the rocks. Authors’ photo. 

Weddell seals play in the water. Authors’ photo.

Climate change’s reach from the southern continent to our doorstep

Changes unfolding in Antarctica hold severe implications for communities worldwide. Despite this, awareness of these realities remains limited. James McClintock, a senior researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) who has participated in over 30 Antarctic expedition cruises, described this disconnect: “People in the United States and elsewhere are often disconnected from the realities of Antarctica, resulting in a lack of interest. Consequently, there is widespread ignorance regarding the importance of this continent in maintaining the environmental balance for the rest of the planet. The general public is largely unaware that the developments in Antarctica today are already impacting the rest of the world.”

Low-lying island nations already grappling with limited resources are especially vulnerable to the consequences. Rising sea levels relentlessly encroach upon their shores, eroding land and menacing communities. Traditional practices like subsistence hunting, observed in regions such as Alaska and Greenland, are challenged as animals adapt to changing migration routes.

Coastal areas like Bangladesh experience intensified — water saltiness — levels due to rising sea levels, which impedes agricultural productivity. Erratic weather patterns influenced by the rising temperatures in the Southern Ocean include heavy rainfall, prolonged droughts and destructive floods. These present an obstacle for farmers and worsen food insecurity.

From Alaska to Alabama, communities confront the specter of famine, relocation and erosion precipitated by these changes.

Conscious tourists can advocate for Antarctica

The surge in tourism to Antarctica has sparked concerns about its environmental impact. According to the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators (), over 100,000 people Antarctica between December 2023 and March 2024. This comprised approximately 32,000 cruise tourists and 71,000 landing visitors. This number represents a 42% increase from the previous season of 2022-2023 and prompts scrutiny of its potential impacts on the Antarctic ecosystem.

IAATO stands as a beacon for responsible tourism in Antarctica. Founded in 1991 by a consortium of private tour operators, its mission is clear: to regulate and guide tourism activities in a manner that safeguards the continent’s fragile ecosystem. However, despite its noble intentions, IAATO’s guidelines remain voluntary rather than mandatory. While many adhere to its principles, some choose to operate independently. They could compromise the continent’s environment for commercial gain.

A 2022 study revealed alarming findings, indicating elevated of black carbon in the snow around popular tourist sites. This soot, originating from tourism activities, accelerates snow melting, worsening the effects of global warming. Additionally, the accidental introduction of non-native species and pathogens by tourists threatens Antarctica’s endemic flora and fauna. This occurred in 2023, when the continent experienced its first ever avian flu .

An A&K expedition cruise ship travels the ocean. Authors’ photo.

However, tourism could contribute to the conservation of Antarctica. When travelers experience the region’s breathtaking beauty and recognize its vulnerability firsthand, they become more acutely aware of the need to protect it. According to James McClintock, the experiences of passengers in expedition cruise ships serve as powerful catalysts for environmental activism; they could promote a drive for sustainable tourism practices.

Furthermore, collaboration between tourism companies and scientists amplifies the positive outcomes that the industry can have on conservation efforts. Cruise operators aid scientific research in their travels, as they enable scientists to inexpensively access remote locations that would otherwise be financially prohibitive. Additionally, the repetitive boat visits to certain sites enables them to collect longitudinal data, which offers valuable insights into the evolving state of Antarctica’s ecosystem over time.

By forming partnerships between tourism entities and researchers, Antarctica becomes more accessible for scientific study and conservation initiatives. Companies like exemplify this collaborative spirit, providing a platform for scientists to conduct groundbreaking research on the continent. For example, in February 2023, its scientific team the first paper following observations of the giant phantom jellyfish, a rarely encountered species during one of their journeys.

Expedition cruises, such as those offered by the Lindblad Expeditions-National Geographic and A&K, host researchers aboard their vessels. These partnerships enable scientists to not only research fields like marine biology, climate science and oceanography, but to discuss their results with passengers. Similarly, companies like hold citizen science initiatives, engaging tourists in data collection and environmental monitoring. Passengers participate in ranging from tracking whale migrations to monitoring water quality, contributing valuable data to scientific understanding.

While tourism holds immense potential for assisting Antarctica’s conservation efforts, there is much work to be done. Tourism companies must prioritize plans for achieving net-zero carbon emissions to mitigate their environmental impact. They must also implement stringent controls on landings to prevent invasive species and diseases from infiltrating Antarctica.

It is imperative that tourist operators adhere to the regulations set forth by IAATO to ensure responsible and sustainable tourism practices. They must place limits on the number of tourists and landings permitted each day. Ultimately, no activity in Antarctica can be left unregulated if we are to preserve this environment for future generations.

Antarctica awaits tourists. Authors’ photo.

[ 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 Mainstream Tourism a Good Way to Save Helpless Antarctica? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Climate change catastrophically impacts every place on Earth. It exacerbates the degradation of ecosystems, natural catastrophes, harsh weather, rising sea levels, droughts, the spread of disease, land grabs, human displacement and climate conflict. These global effects jeopardize our complete enjoyment of many human rights, such as the rights to life, food, shelter, health care, safe drinking water, culture, employment and development.

We have reached a turning point in the history of DHD. Climate activists have launched several promising legal actions globally, including numerous requests for advisory opinions from international and regional courts and tribunals.

Understanding advisory opinions

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights () and the International Court of Justice () have all been asked for their advisory judgments about states’ obligations in light of the climate emergency.

The three mechanisms are fully operational. On May 21, 2024, ITLOS an advisory opinion. It declared that because greenhouse gas emissions contaminate the seas, states have to take all necessary steps to avoid, reduce and limit them. In December 2023, as part of its advisory opinion process, the IACtHR held in-person public hearings and accepted hundreds of , and final took place on May 20. Finally, states and international have submitted written to the ICJ ahead of its June 24 .

These are historic initiatives. The world looks to these tribunals for direction on what states should do to address the climate disaster. Furthermore, these processes offer a critical chance to strengthen environmental defenders’ safeguards.

Climate protection activism: vital yet targeted

Climate rights activists defend our world from catastrophe in various ways. They peacefully oppose extractive industries, conventional agricultural methods, media, legislation, land management and other strategies. They help us adapt and mitigate climate change through their endeavors.

One reveals that activists who employ multiple strategies have a higher success rate of up to . Those who use only one tactic “[contribute] to halt environmentally destructive and socially conflictive projects, defending the environment and livelihoods” in of climate conflicts.

Climate rights activists defend human rights in addition to the Earth. “Human rights in environmental matters [strengthen] democracy, access rights and sustainable development,” acknowledged by the .

Unfortunately, this valuable service is often met with heinous opposition. These activists are the most frequently climate rights defenders. They suffer many attacks, which often go unreported. These include , criminalization, , forced and displacement, and judicial harassment. Opponents even employ strategic lawsuits against public participation to discourage their activism, or silence them through .

These threats inhibit climate rights activists from continuing their brave mission of addressing global warming. The hostile atmosphere opposes international legal norms on free speech and assembly rights. We need states to these people so they can uphold their commitments to climate change mitigation and human rights protection. Further, we need laws that require states to grant climate rights activists more protection.

To address the unique challenges experienced by climate activists who belong to marginalized groups — namely women, indigenous peoples, the African and Asian diasporas and rural agricultural communities — states should adopt an intersectional or “compartmentalized” approach to these laws. According to Michel Forst, the on Environmental Defenders of the , this entails “acknowledging that defenders are interconnected.”

Defending the defenders

Fortunately, some members of the international community are defending these activists and their civic space. Lawyers from Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights () group and several international organizations wrote a to the ICJ and an to the with the goal of advancing the protection and analysis of climate defenders. During the IACtHR in Manaus, Sofía Jaramillo, the senior staff attorney for , gave a presentation to emphasize the connection between environmental defenders and the states’ duties on human rights and the environment. The American legal team the IACtHR asking the Department of Justice to look into the 2023 of climate activist Manuel Esteban “Tortuguita” Páez Terán through legal representation.

RFKHR has co-hosted several events, including a virtual side event on the IACtHR advisory opinion procedure and a on climate defenders. On May 3, World Press Freedom Day, RFKHR highlighted climate journalists’ risks on social media and specific incidents involving climate defenders on the . The tracker has brought attention to the continuous of Ugandans who are participating in protests against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

The ICJ and IACtHR processes are still underway. The oral hearings are for late 2024 or early 2025. After concluding its public hearings on the advisory opinion, the IACtHR is anticipated to release its conclusion next year.

Through these actions, the tribunals and courts will have an unmatched opportunity to advance their jurisprudence in this area, fortify the safeguards for climate defenders and confront the global warming emergency. These rulings will do more than just elucidate the responsibility of states concerning climate change and human rights. The precedent they set will shape public policy and climate litigation for posterity.
[ 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 Tribunals Challenge Climate Peril and Can Really Aid Activists appeared first on 51�Թ�.

“Those fires never stay in the next county,” Brown said grimly. And indeed, as the flames galloped through fallow fields and approached her hometown, she began a desperate drive back to Canadian with a friend. In and out of cell coverage, traveling through black-ash smoke, she saw distinctly apocalyptic scenes of torched trees and powerlines dangling from still-burning poles. As she went, she posted every scrap of information she could get for the scattered and distraught readers of her paper. How else would they know about the houses that were being torched ever closer to their own homes?

In the days that followed, as that historic nightmare of a blaze just grew and grew, finally through more than a million acres of the Texas Panhandle, Brown continued to keep Record readers informed about crucial matters like how to apply for financial assistance, where to take fire debris, and when the next embattled town meeting would be held. It was part of what she’s been doing since 1993: keeping an eye on Canadian’s Hemphill County commissioners, investigating economic salvation schemes, and posting high school sports scores as well as local obituaries.

“There’s no one else to do this and people need to know what’s happening. It’s what I do. It’s what I’ve always done,” she told me.

It’s what I do, too. Like Canadian, my adopted hometown of Greenville in Plumas County, California, was by a climate-driven wildfire in 2021 that devastated 800 homes and left the downtown smoldering on its Gold Rush-era dirt foundations. Two years into rebuilding, the only local online publication announced that it was shuttering. So, I set aside my freelance journalism career, joined a team of like-minded citizens, and launched The Plumas Sun.

Like Brown and hundreds of journalists across the country, we’re reporting from the intersection of news deserts and climate disasters. As floods fires, and tornadoes surge, and daily as well as weekly publications collapse, local journalism maintains an all-too-slender lifeline in devastated rural communities like mine. Local journalists remain after the Klieg lights go dark and the national media flee our mud-strewn, burned-out Main Streets. We continue to report as our friends and neighbors face the challenge of rebuilding (or not).

Somehow, along with flattened towns and shattered lives, disaster sometimes even breeds innovation. Among the ruins left by walls of water and towering flames, bootstrapped publications like mine do their best to keep the news alive in communities now struggling just to survive.

Nowhere will be spared

If there’s one overarching message from the Fifth National Climate , released in November 2023, it’s that, in this era of climate change, nowhere will be spared disaster. As the burning of fossil fuels warms the world ever more radically, conditions are created that only exacerbate a Pandora’s box of extreme weather events. Scientists more intense hurricanes and the storm surges they generate, more frequent and intense wildfires throughout the calendar year, an elevated risk for flooding, and so much else in the new era of global warming.

Still, as the climate scientists report, the impacts of such disasters aren’t landing equitably. Blacks, Indigenous Americans, and other people of color are bearing the brunt of them along with the rural poor. They are “disproportionately exposed to environmental risks and have fewer resources to address them,” as the assessment puts it.

For Laurie Ezzell Brown and her newspaper, that bureaucratese translates all too simply into hardship. The town of Canadian, perched on the high plains near the Oklahoma border, had suffered an economic hit to both its ranching and its oil and gas industries even before the panhandle fires. The Canadian Record was struggling. Launched in 1893, the weekly newspaper that Brown now owns spent half its life in her family’s hands. Ben and Nancy Ezzell, her parents, became its publishers in 1947. Brown took over in 1993. In March 2023, 30 years later, unable to find a buyer for it, she suspended publication of the Record.

It didn’t go well. Brown, who has lived in Canadian most of her life, got an earful. And she took it personally. “I had to see all these people who I’d let down every day. And hear them tell me how much they missed the paper, how much they needed it, how they didn’t know what was going on. I guess it just got to me.” She and a skeleton staff are, however, maintaining an online version of the paper while she continues to hunt for a buyer.

It’s a tough sell. After all, most disaster-struck rural towns are already on the economic edge. Lacking the resources that might shield them from some of the impacts, they now face the Herculean task of rebuilding from scratch with scratch. After a town is demolished, said Mary Henkel Judson, editor of Port Aransas South Jetty, people leave and many simply never come back.

Judson faced disaster in 2017 when Hurricane Harvey blew the roofs off homes and tore businesses from their foundations in that island community off the Texas coast near Corpus Christi. Compared to Canadian, Port Aransas is affluent. South Jetty enjoys the support of second-home owners and tourists, many of them birders visiting the island’s five sites on the Great Texas Birding Trail. So Port Aransas did rebuild.

It’s a simple fact that the majority of the newspapers that have folded nationwide are in economically areas. In Texas, they are also in the least populous areas, Judson said. Canadian is among them. When businesses are struggling to make ends meet, paying for advertising is an expense that can be postponed. That makes it rough on publications like The Canadian Record.

“Laurie Brown is one of the best journalists in the world as far as I’m concerned. And one of the hardest-working. That community knows what she does for them and supports her as best they can, but it’s tough,” Judson told me.

She knows what can happen without a newspaper — and not just in times of disaster. City councils, school boards, and special government districts meet regularly. Most elected officials are honorable, she adds, “but you’re looking at the opportunity for corruption to raise its ugly head. You put a kid in a candy store when nobody’s watching and things happen.”

Teaching disaster communities to do journalism

Local reporters and paper owners like Brown and Judson are now an increasingly vanishing breed. Since 2005, in fact, 2,900 American newspapers, mainly smaller weeklies and local dailies, have ceased publication, to the State of Local News Project 2023 (produced by researchers at Northwestern University’s Medill School). One-third of them were in small counties. Today, 195 of those mostly rural counties have no local newspaper at all or any other source of local news. An additional 1,387 counties have only one local news source.

As in so many other economic sectors, the trend is toward . Fewer and fewer corporations now own more and more publications. Brown describes it as “gobbling up all the newspapers, spitting them out, and firing the real writers.” The result leaves nearly 200 communities without a reliable source of information for everything from political scams to cribbage tournaments. And there’s more bad news ahead. Based on the higher-than-average poverty rates and the population size of those mostly rural counties, the 2023 report determined that an additional 33 communities are at elevated risk of losing their sole remaining source of news.

When Lyndsey Gilpin started Southerly in 2016, her goal was to fill a growing gap in reporting in Southern states. She was particularly interested in providing a regional outlet to cover environmental justice and climate issues. The in newspapers in the rural South is worse than anywhere else in the country. After all, 108 counties were already without a local newspaper in 2020. Yes, reporters from the national media sometimes “parachute” in to cover special events like fierce storms or raging tornadoes, but they tend to leave as quickly as they come.

Gilpin wanted to cover climate and energy issues in a more consistent way. Local news institutions are trusted sources of information in a community, often the only source. “We wanted to build deeper relationships with local news outlets, residents and community members who were living this day to day and doing the work to get information out,” she told me.

Southerly’s inaugural year coincided with a startling series of natural disasters. The United States suffered 15 devastating weather and climate events, each causing at least a billion dollars in damage, the second-highest number ever . The South, in particular, was hit with tornadoes, wildfires, hurricanes, and three different major floods. Over the next five years, Southerly became increasingly focused on just such climate disasters.

Gilpin soon discovered personally what the assessment scientists asserted in their 2023 : Disasters do not inflict damage equally. And adding insult to literal injury, the most ill-equipped communities when it comes to climate disasters are almost always ones without newspapers. “Folks were already struggling and now they don’t know where to turn, who to talk to,” she said. “That leaves a huge, huge hole for industries or politicians or other players to feed them misinformation or accidentally give inaccurate information.”

In response to the growing prevalence of climate-driven disasters, Southerly began developing tools that would help communities do their own disaster coverage. Gilpin built templates that outlined how to apply for aid and navigate paperwork, processes that are nearly the same for hurricanes, floods, or fires. “We morphed into a place that could train people to learn how to do journalism — to do storytelling in more creative ways,” she told me.

As those journalists began to focus on recovery efforts in places repeatedly hit by hurricanes like southern Louisiana, they reported on the effects of such disasters ranging from the disabling of the voting process to damaging disruptions in education. They also tracked disparities in disaster funding by neighborhood, economic class, and race.

As Gilpin put it to me: “The way journalism can do the most good is by making sure people are equipped to do that work. By understanding the process, they can feel confident about knowing what’s happening around them.”

Sadly, however, Southerly in May 2023, thanks to a lack of funding and fundraising exhaustion. As Gilpin summarized the situation: “The nicest way I can put it is the nonprofit journalism world is difficult. It’s not fair that all the money goes to a few places and not to other places.”

Covering recovery

Even as the larger newspaper world is suffering , the situation could be changing if ever so slightly for local papers. Growing public attention to America’s news deserts has, in recent years, been attracting at least some philanthropic funding. and the American Journalism are among the efforts to rebuild local news platforms. The State of Local News Report 17 new local outlets at least five years old and identifies 164 others that are just getting started. All are providing their communities with reporting essential to democracy while searching for stable, sustainable business models.

It was certainly not the lure of foundation funding that gave life to The Plumas Sun. The driver was utter fear of living without a newspaper in a community in the throes of disaster recovery. The local century-old newspaper in my area, The Feather River Bulletin, had folded early in the COVID-19 pandemic, even though it continued to maintain an online presence until July 2023. When it announced it was shutting down, shock reverberated through the small mountain towns in California’s northern Sierra Nevada where I live.

We had already lost so much: Our timber-dependent economy was declining and the spread of COVID had only exacerbated our isolation. But the most profound blow was the devastating 2021 , a climate-change-induced nightmare that scorched an area of the West the size of Rhode Island. It quite literally incinerated most of my town of Greenville and three other local communities. Nearly a million acres of the conifer forests that had once drawn so many of us to this rural outpost were reduced to charred specters. Now, we were losing the only source of local news that had kept us from feeling utterly disconnected from the rest of America and one another during such traumatic times.

The Plumas Sun was conceived in that hapless moment. One urgent phone call led to another until we had mustered a core team of seven with the skills to mount an online news publication. Just days before we launched it, we still didn’t have a name for it.

The two-year mark after a disaster event is a pivotal moment for community recovery, says Sue Weber, an ex-nun who served as coordinator of the Dixie Fire Collaborative, formed after that fire as a voice for the community. State and federal money starts to disappear. Victims begin to move on. That’s when local newspapers play a critical role in keeping places like Greenville invigorated and part of the rebuilding process. “For communities,” Weber told me, “it’s all about where we go from here. Nobody else is paying attention.”

Disaster trauma often shows up in ways that seem unrelated to the torching of entire towns. In the first months of covering county government, The Plumas Sun reported on a sheriff’s dispatcher with embezzling from a needy children’s Christmas fund and a county official a hostile work environment complaint against the district attorney. It has also posted news on local community suppers and library book giveaways, while offering kudos to people around the county doing extraordinary work. And, of course, obituaries.

“Connecting people is healing,” Weber points out. “Newspapers do that, too.”

Laurie Brown and Canadian are still in the early trauma stage in the scorched Texas Panhandle. Whether The Canadian Record or The Plumas Sun or any of the startups nurtured by Southerly survive depends not just on the whims of funding but on the grit and guts of local reporters. Brown, who is living on social security, shows no signs of quitting, despite all too many misgivings about the future.

“I’ve seen good things that didn’t happen because they weren’t encouraged. I’ve seen bad things that didn’t happen because they were exposed,” she says. “And I just keep thinking, you know, you can make a difference. And that still seems worth doing to me.”

[ first published 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 Local Newspapers Are Lifelines for Climate-Disaster Communities appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Now, this vital resource is under threat. Due to climate change, temperatures are rising and precipitation is declining. The snow- and rainfall that normally build up the glaciers in wintertime are insufficient to make up for the summer melt. This has caused the glaciers to shrink, threatening the downstream communities that rely on the summer flows.

The water levels of the Jhelum River are getting shockingly low. Author’s photo.

Many areas down the slopes are particularly feeling the pinch. The northwestern Indian union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, which relies on its famously scenic mountain landscapes to draw in tourists from the rest of the country, is now facing economic pressure.

The Himalayas are drying up

According to an analysis by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Centers for Environmental Information, 2023 saw the warmest global temperatures since records began. The heat has put on water resources across the world. The Himalayas are no exception.

A May 2022 conducted by Zahid Majeed and Muneer Mukhtar of the Geological Survey of India along with Manish Mehta of the Wadia Institute of Himalayan Geology, revealed that the Kolahoi glacier has lost 23% of its area since 1962 and has fragmented into small parts. The glacier is the main source of the Jhelum River, which originates in Jammu and Kashmir and waters a part of the Punjab region of Pakistan.

Low water levels in the Jhelum River. Author’s photo.

A March 2022 published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research on 77 glaciers in Drass, a cold desert region in the western Himalayas, reveals that the total glacier area shrunk by 5.32 square kilometers between 2000 and 2020. The study attributes the melting to increased greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants including black carbon.

Francesca Pellicciotti of the Institute of Science and Technology Austria that glaciers can “fight back” against global warming, at least for a little while. The increased temperature difference between the cold mountain air and the warmer incoming air creates increased turbulence. This, paradoxically, increases the rate at which the glaciers cool the surrounding air and creates cold winds that can protect the glacial surface. However, this short-term benefit is offset by another effect. As the cold air sinks and blows down the mountain surface, it pushes storms down as well and causes precipitation to occur at lower altitudes. This hinders snowfall from replenishing the glaciers. “Thus, perceived cool temperatures flowing down from glaciers are an emergency reaction to global warming rather than an indicator of glacier long-term stability.”

Changing wind patterns also play a role in the decreased rainfall. Normally, storms called western disturbances bring large amounts of rainfall to the Himalayas. Wind coming from the West picks up moisture over the Mediterranean. The airmass then drops the water when it hits the Himalayas. In recent years, however, the frequency of these storms has by 43%.

A 2019 study conducted by the American Meteorological Society that the diminishing frequency and intensity of western disturbances would result in a 15% reduction in mean winter rainfall over northern India.

Scientists that the situation in the Himalayas could still get a lot worse, putting additional pressure on the region’s already strained irrigation and hydropower systems. 

The mountain paradise of Kashmir is looking shabby in the heat

The Kashmir valley, which lies between the Himalayan slopes in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), is among those regions experiencing hardship. In 2023, Srinagar, J&K’s summer capital, recorded its June in 18 years. On June 23 it witnessed a peak of 35.0° C (95° F). On the same day, Qaxigund recorded its second-highest temperature in 33 years at 34.2°C (93.6° F). Similarly, other well-known tourist destinations like Kokernag and Pahalgam last June.

Gulmarg, Kashmir, a well-known ski resort, without snow. Author’s photo.

In the winter of 2023–2024, the vital annual rainfall was weak. The Kashmir Meteorological Department recorded Srinagar’s January in 58 years. Furthermore, the annual “Chillai-Kalan” the traditionally harsh 40-day winter period ending on January 29, the driest conditions in Srinagar since 2015.

According to independent weather expert Faizan Aarif, J&K experienced a deficit in rainfall in the past winter. The region received 1,146.6 millimeters of precipitation, significantly beneath the average of 1,232.3 millimeters.

I spoke to Aarif to learn more. “Winter snowfall is important for the Kashmir valley, as it freezes on the mountains and provides water for horticulture and agriculture in the summers when it melts. If there is a deficit, it will hit crop production in the valley,” he told me.

Shakil A. Romshoo, a prominent glaciologist and climate change researcher, told me more about the situation. Romshoo expressed concern over below-average winter snowfall and an extended dry spell in Kashmir. He warns of potential water shortages in summer, impacting water-intensive paddy cultivation.

A fisherman struggles in the low waters of Wular Lake, Kashmir. Author’s photo.

I also spoke to Suhaib A. Bandh, an assistant professor of environmental science. He highlighted the diverse and significant potential consequences of the drying, including threats to Kashmir’s lakes, rivers and ecosystems.

This spring, I traveled to the lakeside village of Laharawalpora and spoke to Mohammed Sultan, 43, a local fisherman. He told me that “the dry winter has affected our livelihood as the fish catch and chestnut production have decreased. The banks where we extract chestnuts in the winter have dried up. The lake is at a historic low level, and this will affect the future production as the seeds have also dried up on the banks.”

A fisherman’s boat stuck in a dry lake bottom. Author’s photo.

Special prayers have been held in several parts of Kashmir as the people fear that the absence of snowfall in the region will affect crop production and lead to water and food scarcity in the summer months.

The dry weather is affecting more than just the fishing and agricultural industries. With the high temperatures, many of Kashmir’s gorgeously snow-capped peaks are now bald. Millions of tourists visit J&K every year to view its renowned landscapes. Now, famous tourist destinations like Gulmarg and Pahalgam are strangely empty. The valley saw of its bookings canceled this winter.

If the weather does not change soon, these Himalayan vacation paradises may soon become ghost towns.

[ 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 Kashmir Now Faces Water Scarcity as Himalayan Glaciers Melt appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Firstly, ���cience in diplomacy’ informs foreign policy by contributing empirical data and scientific advice to the decision-making process. Secondly, ���cience for diplomacy’ offers scientific knowledge as a soft power asset to build transnational bridges and advance relations between two or more nations. Lastly, ‘diplomacy for science’ exercises diplomacy to enable scientific cooperation between countries, be it research exchange programs, or the setup of entire cross-border R&D architectures and projects. 

That covers the science, which stands at the onset of innovation ultimately leading to the implementation of real-life solutions to certain problems or needs. In short, innovation is the ready-for-market translation of research into new services or products.

What often stands in the way of collaborative innovation on a global scale however, is the formation of silos due to political and commercial competition. This is not to debate opposing objectives of corporations or political thought. The evaluation must rather be, whether current agreement processes, drawing sustainable paths to socio-economic wealth while preserving socio-ecological health, are good enough to make the needed, meaningful and global impact.  

The gamble with the globe

�մǻ岹��’s climate crisis presents a grim state of affairs. Decisive stakeholders in governments, academia and the private sectors, seem to struggle rather than progress on humankind’s probably most pressing mission. The growing urgency of addressing these issues, however, underscores the need for perhaps unconventional yet game-changing approaches, where multilateral diplomacy and technology leaders align to catalyze innovation for the global good. 

To achieve carbon neutrality and wealth, socio-ecological health must lie at the heart of the endeavor. To be clear, we are facing the threat, not nature, which has the ability to adapt. Our challenge lies in averting the likely scenario of a planet uninhabitable to humans. The globe is warming, putting serious strain on food security, healthcare and other elements of civilization. We must adapt reactively, by implementing measures that enhance our resilience to harsher conditions and actively, by reducing further damage to nature. The encouraging message here is, with ever-increasing scientific advancements, innovating and implementing novel technologies could bring solutions on time if we can be more effective. 

As per the International Energy Agency’s Net-Zero Emissions Scenario (NZE), we are losing the game by missing the 1.5 °C target. Stagnating or even CO2 emissions for the transportation sector following the pandemic are real. While technological innovations to mitigate these dynamics are yet to be developed at scale, intellectual property quarrels, patent mining, and resource battles, create friction beyond healthy rivalry for best solutions. Sadly, this seems to also set the tone in the political domain. We simply are not on track.

Moving towards an electrifying future?

While the discourse on still-to-be-solved technological and policy challenges in this innovation area is ongoing, the future of transport will likely look electric. Electric vehicle (EV) sales show exponential growth, jumping an every five years. In 2023, starting with an annual revenue of , nation states and companies are engaging in a race for e-mobility dominance, gradually reshaping the global automotive market spanning . Likewise, the battery industry provides new entrepreneurial grounds, growing from 100 billion to this decade.

The sheer size and societal magnitude of this transformation bring great responsibilities to all actors. While politicians set the rules and fence the field, for through the US Inflation Reduction Act, or the EU Net-Zero Industry Act, corporates and their R&D departments have to operate within these boundaries. The EU’s is a motivating example of how regulatory initiatives can support. Market participants shall receive a more even playing field, but also incentives to foster sustainable innovation.

But besides such yet-to-be-proven initiatives, is the overall playing field set up right? Can players perform at their best? Today, the answer must be No. Looking behind the day-to-day in the EV and battery sector, it is evident that while progress is made, potentials are lost along the way. Even in traditional automotive nations, initiating support to enable innovation is debilitating. Political and bureaucratic inertia hinder building a performative innovation chain.

Playing the innovation diplomacy card

This is where innovation diplomacy must take place. Similar suggestions have before, but little has followed. Innovation diplomacy must be equipped with definitions and scope to be effectively leveraged by state and non-state actors. To accelerate innovation, innovation diplomacy can build bridges to enable the transparent exchange of knowledge on neutral grounds, open up positive dialogue between otherwise competing stakeholders and build trust beyond unilateral interests. This must combine the perspectives of research, industry and states, in a systematic, forward-facing exchange.

Various platforms, including exchange programs, conferencing and social media, can facilitate innovation diplomacy. Multilateral events such as the coming in Qatar can spur partnership and the exchange of knowledge across borders and competitive lines, held together by the common interest in much needed innovation to tackle global warming. Leveraging such initiatives and resources can maximize impact, streamline efforts and grow international know-how.�� 

The urgency to accelerate innovation meanwhile is calling new players onto the field. To include new perspectives and approaches, logical candidates could be states that have not been classic research-based economies or technology manufacturers.

Such can indeed be seen in the Middle East, where the most dynamic Gulf states continue to make notable to advance out of the region. This momentum, on the one hand, is rooted in energy wealth, yet on the other, in comparable mapping these nations’ transition away from carbon to knowledge-based economies. These frameworks emphasize contributions to topics of global significance, especially highlighting environmental challenges and a commitment to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.��

Innovation diplomacy offers a pragmatic frame for addressing the very complex, but pressing challenges facing our global community. By fostering safe dialogue and prioritizing common over unilateral interests, it can drive meaningful action where progress is urgently needed. As we navigate an uncertain future, leveraging it together, may eventually prove literally vital.

[ first published 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 Innovation Diplomacy End the Climate Gamble? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

“Competition over limited water resources is one of the main concerns for the coming decades,” a study published in Global Environmental Change in 2018. “Although water issues alone have not been the sole trigger for warfare in the past, tensions over freshwater management and use represent one of the main concerns in political relations between… states and may exacerbate existing tensions, increase regional instability and social unrest.”

The situation is beyond dire. In 2023, it was that upwards of three billion people, or more than 37% of humanity, faced real water shortages, a crisis predicted to dramatically worsen in the decades to come. Consider it ironic then that, as water is disappearing, huge dams — more than of them — that require significant river flow to operate are now being built at an unprecedented pace globally. Moreover, dams are being constructed in legally protected areas like national parks and wildlife reserves. There was a justification for this, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) some years ago. Such projects, it believed, would help battle climate change by curbing carbon dioxide emissions while bringing electricity to those in the greatest of need.

“[Hydropower] remains the largest source of renewable energy in the electricity sector,” the IPCC in 2018. “Evidence suggests that relatively high levels of deployment over the next 20 years are feasible, and hydropower should remain an attractive renewable energy source within the context of global [greenhouse gas] mitigation scenarios.”

The IPCC acknowledged that unceasing droughts impact stream flow and that climate change is unpredictably worsening matters. Yet its climate experts still contended that hydropower could be a crucial part of the world’s energy transition, arguing that an electric dam will produce seemingly endless energy. At the same time, other renewable sources like wind and solar power have their weather- and sunlight-bound limitations.

A crack in the dam logic

Well-intentioned as it may have been, it’s now far clearer that there is a crack in the IPCC’s appraisal. For one thing, recent research suggests that hydro-powered dams can create an alarming amount of climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions. Rotting vegetation at the bottom of such reservoirs, especially in warmer climates (as in much of Africa), releases significant amounts of methane, a devastating greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere.

“Most of this vegetation would have rotted anyway, of course. But, without reservoirs, the decomposition would occur mostly in the atmosphere or in well-oxygenated rivers or lakes,” Fred Pearce in the Independent. “The presence of oxygen would ensure the carbon in the plants formed carbon dioxide. But many reservoirs, particularly in the tropics, contain little oxygen. Under those anaerobic conditions, rotting vegetation generates methane instead.”

While also seriously harms the climate, methane emissions are far worse in the short term.

“We estimate that dams emit around 25% more methane by unit of surface than previously estimated,” says Bridget Deemer of the School of Environment at Washington State University in Vancouver, lead author of a highly-cited on greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs. “Methane stays in the atmosphere for only around a decade, while CO2 stays several centuries, but over the course of 20 years, methane contributes almost three times more to global warming than CO2.”

And that’s hardly the only problem dams face in the twenty-first century. At the moment, Chinese financing is the most significant global driver of new hydropower construction. China has invested in the creation of at least dams in 74 countries. Each project poses its own set of environmental quandaries. But above all, the heating of the planet — last year was the warmest in human history and January 2024 the hottest January on record — is making many of those investments look increasingly dubious.

On this ever-hotter globe of ours, for instance, a drought in Ecuador has all too typically impacted the functionality of the Amaluza Dam on the Paute River, which provides of that country’s electricity. Paute was running at 40% capacity recently as its river flow dwindled. Similarly, in southern Africa, water levels at the Kariba Dam’s reservoir, located between Zambia and Zimbabwe, have fluctuated drastically, impairing its ability to produce consistent energy.

“In recent years, drought intensified by climate change has caused reservoirs on all five continents⁠ to below levels needed to maintain hydroelectric production,” Jacques Leslie in Yale E360, “and the problem is bound to worsen as climate change deepens.”

Even in the United States, the viability of hydropower is an increasing concern. The Hoover Dam on the Colorado River, for example, has been impacted by years of drought. Water levels at its reservoir, Lake Mead, continue to , raising fears that its days are numbered. The same is true for the Glen Canyon Dam, which also holds back the Colorado, forming Lake Powell. As the Colorado dries up, Glen Canyon may also its ability to produce electricity.

Driven by dwindling water resources, the global hydropower crisis has become a flashpoint in the far reaches of Northern Africa, where the creation of a giant dam could very well lead to a regional war and worse.

A crisis on the Nile

The lifeblood of northeastern Africa, the Nile River, flows through 11 countries before emptying into the Mediterranean Sea. Measured at 6,650 kilometers, the Nile may be the longest river on Earth. For millennia, its meandering waters, which run through lush jungles and dry deserts, have been irrigating farmlands and providing drinking water for millions of people. Nearly of Egypt’s 109 million people live within a few kilometers of the Nile. Arguably the most important natural resource in Africa, it’s now at the epicenter of a geopolitical dispute between Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan that’s brought those countries to the brink of military conflict.

A major dam being built along the Blue Nile, the river’s main tributary, is upending the status quo in the region, where Egypt has long been the preeminent nation. The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD for short) is to become one of the hydroelectric dams ever constructed, stretching more than 1,700 meters and standing 145 meters tall, a monument many will love and others despise.

There’s no question that Ethiopia needs the electricity GERD will produce. Nearly 45% of all Ethiopians lack regular power and GERD promises to produce upwards of 5.15 gigawatts of electricity. To put that in perspective, a single gigawatt 876,000 households annually in the United States. Construction on the dam, which began in 2011, was 90% complete by last August when it began producing power. In total, GERD’s cost is expected to eclipse , making it the largest infrastructure project Ethiopia has ever undertaken and the on the African continent.

It will not only bring reliable power to that country but promises a culture shift welcomed by many. “Mothers who’ve given birth in the dark, girls who fetch wood for fire instead of going to school — we’ve waited so many years for this — centuries,” Filsan Abdi of the Ethiopian Ministry of Women, Children, and Youth. “When we say that Ethiopia will be a beacon of prosperity, it starts here.”

While most Ethiopians may see the dam in a positive light, the downstream countries of Egypt and Sudan (itself embroiled in a devastating civil war) were never consulted, and their officials are indignant. The massive reservoir behind GERD’s gigantic cement wall will hold back cubic meters of water. That means Ethiopia will have remarkable control over the flow of the Nile, giving its leaders power over how much access to water both Egyptians and Sudanese will have. The Blue Nile, after all, provides of Egypt’s freshwater supply.

As it happens, fresh water in Egypt has long been growing and so the country’s leadership has taken the threat of GERD seriously for years. In 2012, for instance, Wikileaks obtained internal emails from the “global intelligence” firm Stratfor that Egypt and Sudan were even then considering directing the Egyptian Special Forces to destroy the dam, still in the early stages of construction. “[We] are discussing military cooperation with Sudan,” a high-level Egyptian source was quoted as saying. While such a direct attack never transpired, Stratfor claimed that Egypt might once again lend support to “proxy militant groups against Ethiopia” (as it had in the 1970s and 1980s) if diplomacy were to hit a dead end.

Unfortunately, the most recent negotiations to calm the hostility around GERD have gone distinctly . Last April, the embittered Egyptians to the lack of any significant progress by conducting a three-day military drill with Sudan at a naval base in the Red Sea aimed at frightening Ethiopian officials. “All options are on the table,” warned Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry. “[All] alternatives remain available and Egypt has its capabilities.”

Seemingly unfazed by such military threats, Ethiopia plans to finish building the dam, claiming it will provide much-needed energy to impoverished Ethiopians and limit the country’s overall carbon footprint. “[GERD] represents a sustainable socio-economic project for Ethiopia: replacing fossil fuels and reducing CO2 emissions,” the Ethiopian embassy in Washington has .

GERD, however, falls squarely into the category of being a major problem dam — and not just because it could lead to a bloody war in a region already in horrific . Once filled, its massive reservoir will cover a staggering 1,874 square kilometers, making it more than three-quarters the size of Utah’s Great Salt Lake (after it started to ).

Unfortunately, GERD never underwent a proper environmental impact assessment (EIA) despite being legally required to do so. No EIA was ever carried out because the notoriously corrupt Ethiopian government knew that the results wouldn’t be pleasing and was unwilling to let any roadblocks get in the way of the dam’s construction, something that became more obvious when upwards of indigenous Gumuz and Berta natives began to be forced from their homes to make way for the monstrous dam.

Publicly coming out against the dam has proven a risky business. Employees of International Rivers, a nonprofit that advocates for people endangered by dams, have been harassed and received in response to their opposition. Prominent Ethiopian journalist , a critic of the dam and the government’s actions concerning it, was imprisoned for more than four years under draconian anti-terrorism laws.

Electric water wars

While GERD has created a dicey conflict, it also has international ramifications. China, which has played such a pivotal role in bankrolling hydropower projects globally in these years, has provided to help the Ethiopians build transmission lines from the dam to nearby towns. Since it has also in Egypt, it’s well-positioned, if any country is, to help navigate the GERD dispute.

Military analysts in the United States that China’s involvement with the dam is part of a policy meant to put the US at a distinct disadvantage in the race to exploit Africa’s abundant rare earth minerals from the of the Congo to the lithium deposits in Ethiopia’s hinterlands. China, the world’s “ debt collector,” has indeed poured money into Africa. As of 2021, it was that continent’s largest creditor, holding of its total debt. The growth of Chinese influence internationally and in Africa — it has large infrastructure projects in African countries — is crucial to understanding the latest version of the globe’s imperial geopolitics.

Most of China’s African ventures are connected to Beijing’s “Belt and Road ,” a program of this century to fund infrastructure deals across Eurasia and Africa. Its economic ties to Africa began, however, with Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s in the 1950s and 1960s for an “” alliance that would challenge Western imperialism.

So many decades later, the idea of such an alliance plays second fiddle to China’s global economic desires, which, like so many past imperial projects in Africa, have significant downsides for those on the receiving end. Developing countries desperately need capital, so they’re willing to accept rigid terms and conditions from China, even if they represent the latest version of the century’s old colonialism and neo-colonialism that focused on controlling the continent’s rich resources. This is certainly true in the case of China’s hydropower investments in places like Ghana’s Bui Dam and the Congo River Dam in the Republic of Congo, where multi-billion-dollar loans are backed by Congo’s crude oil and Ghana’s cocoa crops.

In 2020, the US belatedly inserted itself into the GERD feud, to cut $130 million in aid for Ethiopia’s anti-terrorism efforts. The Ethiopians believed it was to the dam controversy, as they also did when, in June 2023, the Biden administration directed USAID to halt all food assistance to the country (upwards of ), claiming it wasn’t reaching Ethiopians, only to months later.

The dispute over Ethiopia’s enormous dam should be a warning of what the future holds on a hotter, drier planet, where the rivers that feed dams like GERD are drying up while the superpowers continue to jockey for position, hoping to control what remains of the world’s resources. Hydropower won’t help solve the climate crisis, but new dam projects may lead to war over one thing key to our survival — access to fresh, clean water.

[ first published 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 There a Place for Hydropower in a Warming World? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Simply using fear-based tactics can be counterproductive, causing people to shut down rather than engage with the problem. People can respond to distress with behaviors, ignoring the issues in order to avoid the discomfort and fear. Although it makes little rational sense, we often behave as though, if we ignore a problem, it will not affect us; we assume that it will become somebody else’s problem.

Psychologists have different emotional responses to fear-inducing climate activism. These include eco-depression and eco-anxiety. Depression is a deactivating emotion, driving a person into a despair that inhibits climate action. Conversely, anxiety is an activating emotion, eliciting avoidance rather than engagement with climate change. Both culminate in the same failure to take action.

Another counterproductive effect of overly negative activism is psychological separation. Climate activists often wield the shock value of negative activism as a tool to produce action. For instance, they images of polar bears starving on melting glaciers, turtles stabbed by plastic straws, forests reduced to fields of bare stumps and devastating wildfires. Instead of scaring people into action, these images create disbelief. From the comfort of their homes, viewers too easily regard these events as insignificant, happening far away. They simply cannot believe that something so disastrous is really occurring. Like eco-anxiety, this separation triggers avoidance of the problem.

The harsh images can also overwhelm people with their severity, fostering a doomsday mindset of inevitable climate failure. “If the situation is already so dire,” people think, “what will my individual help achieve? There is no point. We are all doomed.” Like with eco-depression, they shut down.

Positive activism helps negative activism achieve its goal

Without hope, fear is not an effective motivator. People need to believe their actions will have tangible results. This is where positive activism comes in, picking up where negative activism leaves off. Positive activism uses and inspires excitement to make a difference, focusing on the results people can achieve with action rather than the consequences of failure.

Elizabeth Wathuti, a young Kenyan climate activist, successfully blended negative and positive activism. In her passionate speech at the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow in 2021, Wathuti began by using negative activism, the vivid effects of climate change on her home environment: “The natural world that [her] friends and [she] knew as children began to change before [their] eyes,” as they saw “the streams … no longer flowing” and “tree stumps instead of mighty trees.” She continued to speak of the hardships endured by millions of Kenyans starving due to deforestation and climate change-induced natural disasters. 

Once Wathuti established the urgency of the climate situation, she switched to positive activism and harnessed the fear. She declared that if people can “get everybody around the world to love nature … then [they] can change so much in the world within a short period of time.” With these inspiring words, she evoked the beauty of what climate change resistance can save, establishing a strong incentive for action. 

Using this synthesis of negative and positive activism, Wathuti has organized the planting of tens of thousands of trees in Kenya and addressed many leaders, successfully climate awareness.

Another powerful example of this approach to activism is in the Irish rock band U2. The band has won Grammys and been widely recognized as one of the best live acts in the world. The band has many concerts for disaster relief, including a Conspiracy of Hope tour on behalf of Amnesty International, an organization centered on protecting human rights. Lead singer Bono co-founded the humanitarian organization One in 2004, aiming to fight extreme poverty and diseases. He also founded Red, an organization dedicated to battling the AIDs crisis. Through these organizations, Bono has raised hundreds of millions of dollars and saved millions of lives. But the band’s impact goes beyond direct aid. It also uses its music, complete with negative and positive activism, to inspire advocacy.

U2’s recent live act Achtung Baby in September 2023 at the Sphere in Las Vegas. Using technology revolutionary to the music industry, U2 combined their music with digital projections. The band ended the show by placing the audience in a visual cathedral of the natural world. First, they displayed animals in danger of extinction, the footage filled with a monotone beige. This visual served to warn the audience of the devastating impacts of habitat loss. Gradually, as the music swelled, color crept into the animals until a vibrant array of life surrounded the audience. Negative activism gave way to positive, and the band reminded spectators about Earth’s beauty that they could protect, if they fought for it.

Fear is a powerful emotion. We need fear, because we need to know what to struggle for. But fear by itself is unsustainable and ultimately unproductive. We cannot remain in fear without going further. Fear will not vanish, because as long as humans live on Earth, evils will persist. We must center our mindset around hope. With hope as a horizon, a beautiful aim beckons us forward for every step of progress we make.

[ 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 to Inspire Climate Action With Negative and Positive Activism appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Older generations have already experienced the impact of climate change. In , devastating flooding occurred in Australia, Europe, Asia and the US Northeast. California burned and crippling icy temperatures paralyzed Texas. As the climate grows hotter, these events and their risks will only .

Previous generations contentedly burned more and more fossil fuels, and now future generations will experience hotter and longer heat waves, intensifying droughts and increasingly devastating flooding. While they enjoyed luxury, they’ve left their posterity with the burden.

Youth activism in the face of inaction

The younger generation cares a lot more about climate change than the older one. This is clear when you consider how younger people organize their family life. An increasing number of young adults have qualms about bringing children into a world experiencing intensifying disasters due to global warming. In 2018, the United States Census Bureau that 83.5% of adults aged 55 and older have children. On the other hand, a 2020 Morning Consult poll, with a majority of younger Gen-Z and millennial voters, found that a of childless adults cite climate change as a reason they did not have children.

Unlike thoughtless older generations, younger people do not have a choice in caring about climate change. It is their reality and their future.

Young people, realizing the climate burden left to them, have fought for change and organized mass youth climate strikes. In , more than 4 million young people in thousands of cities worldwide gathered to protest.��

However, adults and politicians have criticized the youth climate movement, often claiming youths are overreacting and would be better off going to school. The adults who are causing climate change will be dead when its consequences peak. The children they are deriding as dramatic are the very same children whose lives their actions will jeopardize. Activists from the younger generation are being shut out and mocked by an older generation living in denial.

For instance, Greta Thunberg, a prominent climate activist, passionately at the United Nations Climate Summit in 2019 at age 16. She denounced global leaders for their inaction and greed in the face of extreme suffering due to climate change. Numerous policymakers, including US President Donald Trump, mocked Thunberg. Trump to say she had an “anger management problem” and sarcastically described her as “a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future.”

Trump demeaned Thunberg because her criticism personally attacked his presidential ability and high self-image. Thunberg and other young climate activists threaten the worldview and greedy interests of politicians who refuse to acknowledge the severity of the climate crisis. As Greta Thunberg puts it, “you [politicians] are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal.”

Climate anxiety and what young people can do

In the face of stubborn and selfish policymakers, young people can feel overwhelmed by hopelessness. In a published in 2022, the majority of youth and young adults expressed extreme worry about climate change. They agree that their worry has negatively affected their daily life. In order to combat this hopeless worry, young people must do something to give themselves agency and a localized sense of control.

Advocacy is an accessible way for young people to get in and take action on the climate struggle. It can mean simple things, such as signing petitions, participating in marches or educating friends and family.

Little actions, such as turning off unnecessary lights and water flow, are also easy ways to take action and tackle the crisis.

The most effective way to get rid of feelings of helplessness is to take the bull by the horns and do something. The older generation of policymakers has taken agency away from young people, and they must take it back.

With all the odds pushing against them, young people must continue to press the older generation for change. They must shout, not whisper — demand, not ask — for immediate 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 Climate Change: A Toxic Gift for the Next Generation appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Today marks 365 days since India assumed the presidency of the G20. It is a moment to reflect, recommit, and rejuvenate the spirit of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam — One Earth, One Family, One Future.”

As we undertook this responsibility last year, the global landscape grappled with multifaceted challenges: recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, looming climate threats, financial instability, and debt distress in developing nations, all amid declining multilateralism. In the midst of conflicts and competition, development cooperation suffered, impeding progress.

When India assumed the presidency of the G20, it sought to offer the world an alternative to the status quo. We pushed for and achieved a paradigm shift from a GDP-centric to a human-centric progress. India reminded the world of what unites us, rather than what divides us. India changed the global conversation, which had to evolve. Under Indian leadership, the interests of the few gave way to the aspirations of the many. This required a fundamental reform of multilateralism as we knew it.

Indeed, four words — inclusive, ambitious, action-oriented, and decisive — these four words defined India’s approach as G20 president. In fact, the New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration () was unanimously adopted by all G20 members and is testimony to our commitment to deliver on these principles. 

A true multilateralism

Note that Inclusivity has been at the heart of our presidency. For this reason, we championed permanent membership of the G20 for the African Union (AU). The inclusion of the AU into the G20 has integrated 55 African nations into the forum. Now, the G20 has expanded to encompass 80% of the global population.

India’s more inclusive stance towards the AU and the Global South has fostered a more comprehensive dialogue on global challenges and opportunities. The first-of-its-kind ‘Voice of the Global South Summit,’ convened by India in two editions, heralded a new dawn of multilateralism. India has brought the Global South’s concerns into mainstream international discourse. Our country has also ushered in an era in which developing countries have taken their rightful place in shaping the global narrative.

Inclusivity also infused India’s domestic approach to G20, making it a people’s presidency that befits that the world’s largest democracy. Through “Jan Bhagidari” (people’s participation) events, India’s G20 activities reached 1.4 billion citizens. India’s national government partnered with all 28 of India’s states and all eight of its union territories to boost people’s participation.��

A clear developmental agenda

On substantive elements, India focused the international attention on broader developmental aims. As part of the 2030 Agenda, India delivered the G20 2023 Action Plan to Accelerate Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This plan adopted an integrative, proactive strategy along with a cross-cutting, action-oriented approach to interconnected issues involving SDGs, including health, education, gender equality and environmental sustainability.

A key area driving this progress in SDGs is robust Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI). On the DPI front, India’s recommendations were decisive. Even in the West, people are now realizing the revolutionary impact of digital innovations such as  Aadhaar, UPI, and Digilocker on the Indian economy and daily life. Through G20, India successfully completed the Digital Public Infrastructure Repository, making a significant stride in global technological collaboration. This repository, featuring over 50 DPIs from 16 countries, will help the Global South build, adopt, and scale DPI to unlock the power of inclusive growth.

For our One Earth goal, we introduced ambitious and inclusive aims to create urgent, lasting, and equitable change. The NDLD’s Green Development Pact addresses the challenges of choosing between combating hunger and protecting the planet. This pact outlines a comprehensive roadmap in which employment and ecosystems are complementary, consumption aligns with climate consciousness, and production is planet-friendly. 

Simultaneously, the G20 NDLD calls for an ambitious tripling of global renewable energy capacity by 2030. Coupled with the establishment of the Global Biofuels Alliance and a concerted push for Green Hydrogen, the India-led G20 has demonstrated bold ambitions to build a cleaner, greener world. Sustainability and conserving the environment have always been central to India’s ethos. In this G20 Summit, India pioneered Lifestyles for Sustainable Development (LiFE). This new LiFE initiative could greatly benefit the world through India’s age-old sustainable traditions.

The question of climate, gender and equity

The NDLD also addressed the burning issue of our times: climate change. India highlighted the need for climate justice and equity, urging substantial financial and technological support for the Global South from the Global North. For the first time, the Global North recognized the need for a quantum leap in the magnitude of development financing. Under India’s leadership, this figure moved upward from billions to trillions of dollars. In fact, the G20 acknowledged that developing countries require $5.9 trillion to fulfill their Nationally Determined Contributions () by 2030.

Since countries need monumental financial resources for their NDCs, the G20 emphasized the importance of better, larger, and more effective multilateral development banks (). Key MDBs include the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank, and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. In addition to improving MDBs, India is taking a leading role in reforming the United Nations. In particular, India is working to restructure principal organs of the United Nations such as the Security Council to create a more equitable global order.

Concerning equity, the NDLD put gender equality center stage. India has pioneered the formation of a dedicated working group on the empowerment of women, which will commence work next year. India’s Women’s Reservation Bill 2023 reserves one-third of the seats in the national parliament and state legislative assemblies for women, epitomizing India’s commitment to women-led development that could serve as a model for the rest of the world.

The NDLD embodies a renewed spirit of collaboration across key global priorities, focusing on policy coherence, reliable trade, and ambitious climate action. It is a matter of great national pride that the G20 achieved 87 outcomes and adopted 118 documents during India’s presidency. Note that this is a marked increase from the past. Under India’s leadership, the G20 certainly got a lot done.

India also led deliberations on geopolitical issues and their impact on economic growth and development. One such issue is terrorism, which kills innocents and causes severe economic damage. It is clear that the senseless killing of civilians is unacceptable, and we must address it with a policy of zero-tolerance. The world must prize humanitarianism over hostility and ensure that our era does not turn into one of terrorism, violence or war. 

In conclusion, I am delighted that India achieved something extraordinary during its presidency. We revitalized multilateralism, amplified the voice of the Global South, championed development, and fought for the empowerment of women, everywhere.

As India hands over the presidency of the G20 to Brazil, we do so with the conviction that our nation’s collective steps for people, planet, peace, and prosperity, will resonate with the world for years to come.

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

Making Sense of Vladimir Putin’s Long Game

Han and Hindu Nationalism Come Face to Face

FO° Live: Make Sense of the New Israel-Gaza War

Richard Fontaine on US Security in the World Today

Is the German Economy Now Destined to Decline?

The post India’s G20 Presidency Is the Dawn of New Multilateralism appeared first on 51�Թ�.

But it hasn’t been exactly a red-carpet kind of visit.

For one thing, because the two leaders will be talking in San Francisco, their confab will generate very little of the pomp and circumstance of a US president welcoming a foreign dignitary to Washington. Second, the focus of Xi’s visit is the APEC meeting. He’ll be absorbed in wooing the other 20 members of the group, which works on facilitating trade and investment in the larger Asia-Pacific region. The APEC region, after all, is responsible for of all global trade.

But perhaps most importantly, and ominously, the United States and China are not exactly on great terms at the moment.

In addition to the deterioration in security relations — the of a Chinese balloon, the increasing tensions in the South China Sea — the two countries have been involved in a low-intensity trade war and a tit-for-tat brawl on advanced technology. The United States has imposed an escalating series of export controls on semiconductors, artificial intelligence technology and the like. This summer, China retaliated by restricting exports of gallium and germanium to essentially zero. It 90% and 60%, respectively, of these two rare earth elements.

Pundits and media commentators, following the lead of the Biden administration, have worked hard to lower expectations for the Biden–Xi meeting.

“We’re not talking about a long list of outcomes or deliverables,” a senior administration official reporters. “The goals here really are about managing the competition, preventing the downside risk of conflict and ensuring channels of communication are open.”

Sounds to me like the first meeting at the office of a couples counselor. Since the Trump presidency, everyone has been talking about the “decoupling” of China and the United States. It’s really too bad that Biden and Xi don’t have the services of a third-party facilitator who can help the couple sort through their problems.

But wait: How about if I offer to fly out to San Francisco to mediate?

True, I’m not a licensed therapist. But some of my nearest and dearest are, and their professional wisdom has inevitably rubbed off on me. Plus, I think I have some good ideas of how to prevent the United States and China from falling into a messy divorce.

Getting to “Maybe”

My clients have built a strong relationship that has stretched across five decades. They come from very different backgrounds, so it’s only to be expected that they will have some conflicts. But even while they were bickering with one another, China and the United States set a in trade in goods last year (though it has a bit since then). Like any successful couple, they have become dependent on one another while preserving a good deal of independence.

During their first visit with me, I will encourage Biden and Xi to start out by acknowledging what’s working well in the relationship.

My guess, however, is that the two will soon fall to griping.

Beijing is angry about the tariffs that Donald Trump imposed during his presidency and that Biden hasn’t lifted, which China pegs at an average of compared to the 7.3% that China imposes on US products. It’s not happy about the export controls on advanced technology that the United States and European Union have levied. And it really doesn’t like the way that Europe and the United States have put pressure on manufacturers to stop relying on China for critical raw materials.

Washington, meanwhile, has accused China of ripping off the intellectual property of US firms. It’s beyond annoyed that China has been using advanced technology to upgrade its military and it’s concerned as well about China’s human rights record. It puts Chinese tariffs on US goods at somewhere between .

Both countries have other complaints. The United States worries about China’s military actions in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, its military alliance with Russia and its efforts to gobble up critical resources in the Global South. China is furious at how the United States is building alliances — such as the “Quad” with India, Japan and Australia — designed specifically to contain China’s ambitions. Another major irritant is the aggressive actions that US military craft near China’s borders. And don’t get Beijing started on the double standard that the United States maintains on human rights where Washington basically looks the other way at Saudi and Israeli violations but holds China strictly to account.

Complaining is not the royal road to reconciliation. Biden and Xi have to listen to each other to make any progress. That’s certainly what administration officials mean when they say that both sides have to commit to “ensuring channels of communication are open.”

But let’s face it: Listening isn’t enough either.

Identifying mutual interests

If couples have children, they have an obvious mutual interest in raising the family in a healthy environment.

Biden and Xi don’t have any children in common. But the trade between the two countries functions as a kind of offspring of the relationship. And let’s face it: My clients are really screwing up with that particular kid.

The tariffs in particular have not benefited either side. They have cost US consumers a huge amount of money, to the tune of a month (by the end of 2018). Through 2021, that added up to $48 billion that consumers in extra cash. According to a 2020 Brookings :

The tariffs forced American companies to accept lower profit margins, cut wages and jobs for US workers, defer potential wage hikes or expansions, and raise prices for American consumers or companies. A spokesperson for the American Farm Bureau stated that “farmers have lost the vast majority of what was once a $24 billion market in China” as a result of Chinese retaliatory actions.

US businesses are well aware of how much these tariffs — and other practices — have damaged their own bottom line. Perhaps that’s why business leaders are Xi in San Francisco at a $2,000 a plate dinner.

It’s harder to know how much China has been affected by the tariffs, though one study , on the basis of a reduction in the intensity of nighttime lighting in China, that local economic activity has shrunk. However, China has probably not suffered as much as the United States, since its US-bound exports by only 8.5% (compared to a decrease of 26.3% of China-bound exports from the US) and its exports to the rest of the world increased by 5.5% (compared to an increase of only 2.2% for U.S. exports to the rest of the world).

Then there’s the matter of the global commons. A couple that spends less time and energy squabbling can turn their attention to improving their own house or even the surrounding neighborhood. To do so, however, they have to stop wasting resources on feeding their mutual grievances.

Both China and the United States devote enormous sums to countering perceived threats from the other side. It’s hard to separate out precisely what percentage of the nearly trillion-dollar military budget is allocated to this particular bilateral dispute, but safe to say it’s a lot. China spends $225 billion (Beijing’s figures) and $300 billion (outside estimates). It’s likely that at least half of that combined figure — around $650 billion a year — is being poured down the drain of “preparedness” for some future battle between the two superpowers.

If China and the United States engaged in threat reduction — and then proceeded to arms control — that would free up a lot of money that could go, for instance, toward addressing climate change. Fortunately, it looks like the two countries are going to face-to-face climate discussions, which could help pave the way for some future reallocation of resources.

The couple could team up to work on other resource questions. The United States and China are competing furiously to secure critical raw materials throughout the world. What if they cooperated instead on research on recycling and less mining-dependent alternatives? The and China are both guilty of overfishing (with China the culprit). What if they led a global effort to manage ocean resources more responsibly?

Of course, it’s not my job to tell clients what to think or do. But therapist bias is a real thing, and I never claimed to be licensed. Maybe I can steer them toward what I think are more useful ways of working together as a couple.

One tactic is to get them to talk about the various threats that they view in common. My clients are both worried about unpredictable leaders — aside from themselves, naturally — who could start a nuclear war or unleash a pandemic. They are also worried about religious fundamentalism. They are both concerned about the collapse of the Russian government and its replacement by fratricidal chaos (there’s no lack of countries that fall into this category).

The list of potential common projects is immense. But how can the two sides overcome a trust deficit to re-establish a healthy working relationship?

How about some olive branches?

When a couple doesn’t trust each other, someone has to make a first attempt at reconciliation, however modest. It might be an apology, or the purchase of some flowers, or a promise — finally — to watch a baseball game together.

As a therapist, my bias is revealed through my leading questions.

“With the presidential election coming up next year,” I ask Joe Biden, “what are you most worried about?”

“The economy,” he says, curtly.

“Can you be more specific?”

“Prices shooting back up.”

“How can you best prevent that?”

He looks impatient. “Well, there’s the Federal Reserve, and the interest rates, and the—“

I’m shooting meaningful glances at Xi, who is glowering in his chair. “And…?”

“Yes,” Biden begrudgingly agrees. “The economy is still taking a hit from the tariffs.”

“Which means?” I prompt.

Biden glances at Xi. “I suppose we could consider a partial reduction of some of the tariffs if…”

����…?” I ask.

“If he does something in return.”

I turn my attention to Xi. “What do you think?”

“We could consider a partial reduction of some of the tariffs if…”

����…?”

“If he does something in return,” Xi says.

“Those rare earth element export controls have to go,” Biden says.

“And so do the controls on AI chips,” Xi says.

The horse-trading begins in earnest. In short order, the clients have drawn up a preliminary agreement on tariffs and export controls.

It’s a start.

Next week, they’ll meet again in my office and we’ll practice our affirmations. We’ll do a short exercise involving gratitudes.

Then we’ll move on to saving the planet.

[ first published 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 to Defrost the Cold War With China appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Put another way, in some grim sense, all of us now live in Gaza. Most of us just don’t know it yet.

Yes, if you actually do live in Gaza, your life is now officially a living (or dying) Hell on Earth. Your home has been destroyed, your family members wounded or killed, the hospital you fled to decimated. And that story, sadly enough, has been leading the news day after day for weeks now. But in the process, in some sense even more sadly, the deepest hell of our time has largely disappeared from sight.

I’m thinking about the urge to turn our whole planet into a long-term, slow-motion version of Gaza, to almost literally set it ablaze and destroy it as a habitable place for humanity and so many other species.

Yes, in the midst of the ongoing Middle Eastern catastrophe, the by James Hanson, the scientist who first sounded the climate alarm to Congress back in the 1980s, appeared. In it, he suggested that, in this year of , our planet is heating even more rapidly than expected. The key temperature danger mark, set only eight years ago at the Paris Climate Agreement, above the pre-industrial level, could easily be reached not in 2050 or 2040, but by (or even before) 2030.

Meanwhile, another suggests that humanity’s “carbon budget”(the amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere while keeping the global temperature rise at or under that 1.5° C mark) is now officially to Hell in a handbasket. In fact, by October, a record one-third of the days in 2023 had that 1.5° C mark in what is undoubtedly going to prove another — and yes, I know how repetitive this is — record year for heat.

Oh, and when it comes to the globe’s two greatest greenhouse gas , China is still opening new coal mines at a remarkably rapid pace, while the US, the world’s biggest oil producer, is expected to have “a third of planned oil and gas expansion globally between now and 2050.” And the news isn’t much better for the rest of the planet, which, given the dangers involved, should be headline-making fare. No such luck, of course.

Setting the planet afire

In fact, I’ll bet you hardly noticed. And I’m not surprised. After all, the news could hardly be worse these days in a country that, however indirectly, seems distinctly bound for war. There’s Ukraine, turning into ever more of a disaster zone by the week; there’s Israel, Gaza and the West Bank promising yet more of the same, whether you’re listening to or Israeli Prime Minister (with American military activity in the region as well); and then there’s that “cold war” between the US and China. Yes, I know, I know, US President Joe Biden and Chinese President actually met and recently, including — but don’t hold your breath when it comes to truly improving relations.

And yet, if you were to look away from Gaza for a moment, you might notice that significant parts of the Middle East have been experiencing a historic megadrought since 1998 (yes, 1998!). The temperatures baking the region are to be “16 times as likely in Iran and 25 times as likely in Iraq and Syria” thanks to the warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, if you take a skip and a jump from the flaming Middle East to Greenland, you might notice that, in recent years, glaciers there have been melting at — yes, I know this sounds unbearably repetitious — rates ( times faster, in fact, in the last 20 years), helping add to sea level rise across the planet. And, mind you, that rise will only accelerate as the Arctic and melt ever more rapidly. And perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that the Arctic is already four times faster than the global average.

If you have the urge to put all of this in context for 2023, you need to remind yourself that we’re now ending November, which means a final accounting of the devastation wrought by climate change this year isn’t quite in. Admittedly, it’s already been one of record heat and fires, floods, extreme drought and so on (and on and on). You’ve probably forgotten by now, but there were those record heat waves and fires — and no, I’m not thinking about the ones that swept or that broiled parts of amid record flooding. I’m thinking about the ones in Canada that hit so much closer to home for us Americans. The wildfires there in May and, by late June, had already set a typical seasonal record, only to burn on and on and on (adding up to nine times the normal seasonal total!) deep into October, sending billows of smoke across significant parts of the United States, while setting smoke pollution records.

Nor is the news exactly great when it comes to climate change and this country. Yes, heat records are still being set month by month this year in the US, even if the record highs are still to be fully tallied. Just consider those days in which our sixth largest city, Phoenix, suffered temperatures of 43.3° C (110° F) or more ( of them in a row), resulting in a heat version of Gazan casualties, a in the deaths mostly of seniors and the homeless to almost 600. A recent, congressionally mandated report by the Biden administration on global warming found that this country is actually heating up faster than the global average. “The climate crisis,” it reported, “is causing disruption to all regions of the US, from flooding via heavier rainfall in the northeast to prolonged drought in the southwest. A constant is heat — ‘across all regions of the US, people are experiencing warming temperatures and longer-lasting heat waves’ — with nighttime and winter temperatures rising faster than daytime and summer temperatures.”

A planetary Gaza?

For some global context, just consider that, in 2022, the planet’s greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere were the on record, according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. So were the temperatures of ocean waters, while sea levels rose for the 11th straight year! There were also record-shattering heat waves across the planet and that was the way it all too disastrously went.

And yet none of that will hold water (or do I mean fire?), it seems, when it comes to 2023, which is clearly going to set another heat record. After all, we already know that, month by sweltering month from November 2022 to the end of October 2023, a major heat record was set that seemingly hadn’t been topped in the last . It’s a near certainty as well that this full year will prove similarly record-breaking. And given the way we humans are still burning fossil fuels, we won’t have to wait another 125,000 years for that to happen again. The odds are, in fact, that 2024 will indeed set global heat record.

So, tell me, how’s that for a planetary Gaza? And yet, strangely enough, while the nightmare in the Middle East is being covered daily in a dramatic fashion across the mainstream media, often by brave reporters like the PBS NewsHour��� , the burning of the planet is, at best, a distinctly secondary, or tertiary, or… well, you can fill in the possible numbers from there … reality.

The sad truth of it is that there aren’t enough reporters spending their time on the front lines of global warming, and nowhere do I see the staff members of up to 40 government agencies protesting over the weakness of climate-change policy the way so many of them over the Biden administration’s policies on Israel and Gaza. While every night we venture into the devastated Gaza Strip with reporters like Molana-Allen (not to speak of the who died in the first month of that conflict), rare is the night when we do the same in our overheating world. All too few journalists are focusing on the humans already being driven from their homes, experiencing (and even dying from) unprecedented heat, storms, flooding and drought.

Nor are there many reporters stepping directly into the flames. I’m thinking, in this case, of the coverage (or lack of it) of the drilling for or mining of fossil fuels, the companies making — absolute ongoing fortunes — off them, while their are pulling in yearly, even as the ferocious burning of their products continues to pour carbon into the atmosphere.

And mind you, fossil fuel emissions are still — a word that once again seems all too appropriate — hellishly high. Yes, the International Energy Agency does expect such emissions to , if not . Still, we humans are going to be burning coal, oil and natural gas for one hell (that again!) of a long time, and those fossil-fuel companies will continue making fortunes while damaging all our lives and those of our children and grandchildren into the distant future.

There’s no question that Gaza has truly been a Hell on Earth. Deaths in that small strip of land had already (many of them children) while I was writing this. Meanwhile, from hospitals to homes, Israeli bombs and missiles have turned staggering amounts of its living (or now dying) spaces into rubble. And that is indeed a horror that must be covered (just as the nightmarish initial Hamas attack on Israel was). But in the process of watching Gaza burn, it would be good to remember that we’re also turning the whole planet into a Gazan-style catastrophe. It’s just happening in relative slow motion.

World War II ended in September 1945, and since then — despite endless wars — there hasn’t been another “world” version of one. Gaza and Ukraine remain horrific but relatively localized, just as the Korean and Vietnam conflicts once were.

But while, whatever the horrors and damage done, there hasn’t been another world war, there has been and continues to be a war on the world, a slow-motion global Gaza that will only grow worse unless we put our energy into moving ever faster to transition from coal, natural gas and oil to alternative energy sources. In truth, that is the war we should all be fighting, not the ones that distract us from the worst dangers we face.

In fact, it’s past time to start talking about World War III, even if this time it’s a war on the planet itself.

[ 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.

Iran-Afghanistan Tensions Now Rising Over Water

Climate Change Is Now a Defense Matter

Living On A Smoke Bomb: September 11th, Climate-Change-Style

The post A Slow-Motion Gaza, or, How to Carbonize Planet Earth appeared first on 51�Թ�.

However, this protection is not always extended to individuals displaced due to climate change. In this piece, I advocate for the addition of a new protocol to the 1951 UN relating to the Status of Refugees to recognize environmental migrants, displaced by the effects of climate change, as refugees.

Who is a climate refugee?

The term “refugee,” originally defined as crossing an international border for protection from violence, conflict, war or persecution, is culturally evolving due to climate change. The 951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, along with the additional 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, characterizes refugees as persons facing persecution due to race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, social membership or political opinions who are unable to return to their country of origin. As of May 2023, the the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) there are 110 million registered refugees worldwide.

However, this figure does not include people uprooted by climate change, whose numbers are growing.

The 1991 on Climate Change gave a clear warning: Displacement would be the worst consequence of climate change. Today, millions flee due to rising sea levels, food shortages and severe weather such as heat waves, cyclones, droughts and floods, which can devastate whole towns and regions. An average of are displaced from their homes annually. According to the UN , up to . As climate change displacement increases, the discussion for protections for climate refugees becomes urgent.��

These statistics cause us to rethink the current use of “refugee,” as well as governmental protections awarded under international law, humanitarian aid, global environmental crisis solutions, healthcare, job training and urban development. Although “refugee” is a heavily term, it is reasonable to include those whom the repercussions of climate change affect. They, just as much as other refugees, are fleeing for their own safety.

The UN claims that, “environmental degradation and climate change disasters increasingly act together with the drivers of refugee movements,” in its on Refugees. However, the document is worded to avoid attributing legal “refugee” status to those displaced due to climate change. The practice of the UNHCR it to attribute such status to environmental migrants only when the adverse effects of climate change interact with armed conflict and violence. Furthering the discussion in 2020 with a series of “Legal Considerations,” the UNHCR still does not endorse the term . Instead, they refer to these individuals as “persons displaced in the context of disasters and climate change.”

Many countries lack the infrastructure to manage significant influxes of displaced people, putting additional strain on government budgets. To successfully integrate environmental migrants into society without limiting funding for other programs, these states require help from the international community. To obtain this help, they need to classify environmental migrants as what they are: refugees.

The principle of non-refoulement

But it is not just a question how states or the international community “should” classify climate refugees. International law already requires states to protect these persons. Why? Simply put, under the principle of non-refoulment, it is illegal to return migrants to a place where they will be in danger.

Several international agreements establish the obligation of non-refoulment:

— The against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984.

— The , (ICPPED), 2010.

— The on the Prevention of Torture, 1985.

— The on Human Rights, 1969.

— The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

To uphold the non-refoulement principle, states must address protecting climate refugees, including ensuring various human rights-based protection mechanisms are in place. Governments must understand their responsibility under international law to assist the UNHCR in protecting climate refugees and act swiftly to meet their needs urgently.

While non-refoulement requires states to protect people who are in danger, the status of climate refugees will not be assured until they are explicitly recognized under international law as refugees. Until then, states may take advantage of legal ambiguity to shirk their international and moral obligations.

What can we do to help refugees?

Humanitarian groups depend on your attention and assistance to supply water, food, shelter and medical treatment to refugees and internally displaced people. But we must take steps to build resilient, sustainable and adaptable mechanisms of support over the long run. The present uncoordinated, unprepared international framework is ill-equipped to offer climate refugees the protection they need. The system should develop solutions based on evidence from communities affected by the phenomenon.

We must standardize administrative and legislative frameworks to allow entry and accommodation for temporary, long-term or permanent climate refugees, allocating funds and resources appropriately and evaluating each migrant’s protection needs and asylum status.

International policymakers must work together in creating legal frameworks, offering financial support, distributing resources fairly and guaranteeing sustainable livelihoods for climate refugees. Lawmakers should also implement preventive measures such as allocating resources to effectively build infrastructure adaptive to changing weather patterns and ecological hazards. 

By establishing both clear legal standards and clear practical procedures, the international community will be able to help those in need more effectively, something which will only be more direly necessary as time goes on. I hope the UNHCR will adopt an additional protocol to the UNCSR on climate refugees for the start of a new age in refugee protection.

[ 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 Refugee Protocols And the Right Of Non-Refoulement appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Still, I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that there’s a catch. If you don’t sell a pile of products or sign up a ton of friends to do the same, the odds are that you’ll end up losing money, no matter how hard you work, especially if you take out loans to build your “business.”

The founders of multi-level marketing schemes always make a lot of money. Some of their friends become wealthy, too. But of those who sell the products, whether cosmetics or dietary supplements, lose money. That’s worse than a conventional pyramid scam, which fleeces only nine out of every 10 people involved.

Now, imagine that you’re a poor country. The international financial institutions (IFIs) promise that, if you follow a simple formula, you, too, will become a wealthy nation. In a fit of desperation or madness, you take out loans from those same IFIs and commercial banks, invest in building up your export industries and cut back on government regulations. Then you wait for the good news.

But of course, there’s a catch. You have to sell a staggering number of exports to actually make money. Meanwhile, you have to repay those loans, while covering the compounding interest payments that accompany them. Soon you’re caught in a debt trap and falling ever further behind the wealthy countries of the Global North. The main winners? The corporations that flooded into your country in search of tax incentives, cheap labor and lax manufacturing and mining regulations.

The nation-states that founded the modern global economy have indeed made tons of money, as have some of their friends and allies. Despite the devastation of World War II, for instance, Japan was able to scramble up the ladder again to join the treehouse club of powerful nations. Meanwhile, in a single generation, South Korea’s economy was transformed from the per capita of a Ghana or Haiti in 1960 into one of the world’s most powerful by the 1980s. In Latin America, Chile, Colombia and Costa Rica all managed to join South Korea in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, a collection of the planet’s 38 most prosperous countries.

But in 2023, there’s a catch to climbing that ladder into the industrialized world. As the board of directors of the club of the wealthy points out, the classic ladder of development, industrialization itself, has become rickety and ever more dangerous. After all, it requires energy traditionally supplied by fossil fuels, now known to radically heat up the planet and endanger the very survival of humanity. Today, countries aspiring to join the charmed circle of the wealthy can no longer hope to climb that ladder in any usual fashion, thanks in part to the carbon-neutrality pledges virtually all nations made as part of the Paris climate accord.

The Global South is divided on how to respond. For instance, as the world’s consumer of coal and consumer of oil, India wants to grow in the old-fashioned fossil-fuelized way, becoming the last one up that ladder, even as its rungs are disintegrating. Other countries, like renewables-reliant and carbon-neutral , are exploring more sustainable paths to progress.

Either way, with global temperatures setting ever more extreme and inequality worsening, poor countries face their last shot at following South Korea and Qatar into the ranks of the “developed” world. They may fail, along with the rest of us on this overheating planet, or perhaps one or two might get lucky and make it into the club. However, with some clever negotiating, judicious leveraging of resources and a lot of solidarity, it’s just possible that they could team up to rewrite the very rules of the global economy and achieve a measure of prosperity for all.

Growing inequality

The boosters of globalization point to a of inequality among nations between 1980 and 2020, largely because of the explosive economic growth of China and other Asian countries like Vietnam. However, those boosters often fail to mention two important facts: in 2020, such inequality was still as it had been in 1900 when colonialism was in full swing. Meanwhile, in recent decades, inequality within countries has skyrocketed. Since 1995, in fact, the top 1% of the wealthiest among us have accumulated that of the bottom 50%.

The Covid pandemic only made matters worse. According to one estimate, it threw into extreme poverty, while increasing the wealth of billionaires more rapidly in just two pandemic years than in the previous combined.

And mind you, the super-rich no longer reside only in the prosperous “North.” China and India now have after the United States. The consolidation of obscene wealth alongside abject poverty is one reason inequality has risen more rapidly within countries than between them.

But something else strange is happening. In addition to making the ladder of fossil-fuelized industrialization more difficult to climb, climate change has been pushing the architects of the global economy to rethink their animus toward state intervention. Accelerating as it is due to a fundamentalist faith in markets, climate change may also be delivering the to neoliberalism.

Climate debts

During the Industrial Revolution and the ensuing century and a half of global economic expansion, the countries of the North grew wealthy by exploiting oil, natural gas and coal. In doing so, they pumped trillions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Poorer countries generally supplied the raw materials for that “miracle of progress” — at first involuntarily, thanks to colonialism, and then more-or-less voluntarily through trade.

From 1751 to 2021, the United States was responsible for fully of all carbon emissions, with the members of the European Union in second place at 22% (followed by China, India, Japan, Russia and other major powers). On the other hand, Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia and Oceania have collectively contributed only a of those emissions over time. Of the existing carbon budget — the amount the world can emit without crossing the 1.5 °C red line set by the Paris climate accord — only remain. That’s approximately what had emitted by 2021 while muscling its way into the clubhouse of the rich and powerful.

The wealthy club members have all now embarked on transitions to “clean energy.” The European Union’s “” aims to reduce its carbon emissions by 55% by 2030. The Biden administration pushed through the deceptively named Inflation Reduction Act to incentivize states, corporations and individuals to move away from fossil fuels, so that the United States could become carbon-neutral by 2050. In both cases, the state is playing a much more active role in guiding the transition than would have been tolerated in the heyday of Thatcherism or Reaganism (or, today, Trumpism).

The Global South, which bears little responsibility for the climate mess the planet faces, doesn’t have the necessary billions of dollars to devote to “clean energy transitions.” So, because climate change knows no borders, in 2010, the richer countries promised to contribute $100 billion a year to fund “mitigation” (emissions reductions) in the Global South. However, that promise has proved to be — the perfect image for our overheated moment — mostly hot air. Ten years later, according to Oxfam, the wealthy nations have managed to mobilize at most in real assistance annually.

Meanwhile, climate change is wreaking havoc in the here and now. Though Canadian wildfires and European heat waves have dominated the climate headlines in the North this summer, the effects of climate change are actually being disproportionately felt of the equator. According to one estimate, by 2030, developing countries will be hit with climate bills of between annually.

Last year, rich countries made another pledge of money, this time to a “loss and damage fund” to compensate poor nations for the ongoing impacts of climate change. Those funds, however, have yet to come into existence, while the desperately poor countries of the Global South the next round of climate negotiations — in oil-rich Dubai of all places — to find out how much is involved, from whom and for whom.

Promises, promises.

So far, the poorer countries have been shaking their tin cups outside the meetings of the powerful, hoping that some loose change will eventually trickle down to them. But there may be another way.

Global just transition

The fossil-fuel-free future the Global North is touting depends on critical materials like lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements to build electric batteries, solar panels and windmills. Most of these essential assets are located in the South. In one of those ironies of history, the economic development of the North once again depends significantly on what lies beneath the ground (and ) south of the equator. In this brave new world of “,” the North is maneuvering to grab such needed resources at the lowest price possible, in part by perpetuating for the poor the very neoliberal model of “less government” that it’s begun to abandon itself.

There’s also a Cold War twist to this tale. According to policymakers in Brussels and Washington, the “clean energy” transition shouldn’t be held hostage by China, which mines and processes many of its critical minerals (producing and processing of all rare earth elements). China might one day decide to shut down the supply chain of such critical minerals, a foreshadowing of which took place this summer when Beijing imposed on gallium and germanium in response to a Dutch ban on certain high-tech exports to China. The Chinese leadership will undoubtedly continue out-negotiating the West to gain privileged access to what it needs for its own high-tech industries.

A new “mineral rush” is underway. The European Union is now debating a “Critical Raw Materials Act” meant to reduce dependency on Chinese inputs through more mining closer to home, from to , not to speak of more “urban mining” (that is, recycling materials from used batteries and old solar panels).

Europe is also locking in deals with mineral-rich countries in the Global South. The EU typically negotiated a trade agreement with Chile that ensures EU access to that country’s lithium supplies, while for Chile’s government to supply its own manufacturers with cheaper inputs.

Washington, meanwhile, put a provision in the Inflation Reduction Act to ensure that electric car manufacturers source at least of their batteries’ mineral content from the United States or US allies (read: not China). That percentage is to rise to 80% by 2027. Washington is not only scrambling to secure its own critical minerals, but to cut ties with China and compete for sources elsewhere in the world.

Such an effort to “secure supply chains,” while a blow to China, represents a possible boon for the Global South. A country like Chile, which commands so much of the lithium market, can theoretically negotiate more than just a good price for its product. It could leverage its mineral riches to acquire valuable technology, intellectual property or greater control over the overall supply chain. Collectively, those mineral suppliers could also take a page from the playbook of the oil producers. Indonesia, for instance, has already floated the idea of a .

How Latin America Should Handle the Lithium Boom

Such strategies, however, face a threefold challenge. The United States and Europe are already mining at home to become more self-sufficient. Then there’s the prospect that such minerals will be rendered obsolete by technological advances, much as the United States created a synthetic for rubber when supplies became tight during World War II. Scientists are now racing to invent electric batteries that on lithium or cobalt.

Even more worrisome are the environmental consequences of such mining. The countries of the Global South could indeed use “ladders” made of lithium, cobalt or nickel to climb into the club of the wealthy. But they would be hard-pressed to do so without creating “,” destroying communities and ecosystems around mineral extraction sites.

So, let’s take a fresh look at the cartel idea. Venezuela originally proposed the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (or OPEC) as a method of . The problem Venezuela grasped 70 years ago was not just the low price of what the then-Venezuelan oil minister called “the devil’s excrement” but the unsustainable nature of a global dependency on fossil fuels. OPEC was to help conserve resources. Could a mineral cartel serve that very purpose?

Breaking the cycle

The central problem facing the planet is not just carbon emissions and climate change. They’re both, in their own fashion, symptoms of an even larger crisis of the overconsumption of resources, including energy. Consider one minor example: the amount of stuff Americans buy at Christmas and then return without using amounts to . That’s more than the of Finland, Peru or Kenya.

That gives “shop ’til you drop” a new meaning.

Rather than building a different ladder to climb into prosperity, the countries of the Global South could take the unprecedented challenge of human-induced climate change as an opportunity to rewrite the rules of the global economy. Instead of dreaming of consuming at the same rate as the Global North — inconceivable given the planet’s shrinking resource base — the Global South could use its mineral leverage to effectively lessen inequality on a planet-wide basis. In practice, that would mean forcing the North’s middle class to begin trimming its consumption by reducing the supply of fossil-fuel energy to the addicted.

In a referendum in Ecuador last month, citizens to keep the oil in the Yasuni National Park beneath the ground. A number of countries in Oceania — Fiji, the Solomon Islands, Tonga — have similarly endorsed a “” for fossil fuels that would phase out oil, gas and coal production. Great Britain and the EU have considered for fossil fuel.

Nor can the rich be allowed to sit on their billions while the planet burns. The wealth taxes that some countries — and others, like the United States, are now — would go a long way toward shifting funds from the super-rich to the greatest victims of climate change and biodiversity loss. Consider this slogan for our changing times: more butterflies, fewer billionaires.

The global economy is essentially on a downward debt spiral for the poor and an upward consumption spiral for the rich. In short, it’s a rigged game. The solution is not to usher a few lucky countries into the world of unsustainable excess, which would just be a new version of green colonialism.

Rather, it’s time to flip the game upside down and end that very green colonialism by requiring a southernization of the North — forcing the latter to reduce its consumption of energy and other resources to that of the Global South. The inequality of industrialization got us into this crisis. is the only way out.

[ first published 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 Don’t Let the Green Energy Transition Become a New Colonialism appeared first on 51�Թ�.

California’s attorney general takes the oil companies on

In both instances, state attorneys-general played an important role in seeking redress. Now, Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, has a 135-page lawsuit against five major oil companies — ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP — which could prove an inflection point in the battle against human-caused climate change.

On announcing the lawsuit, Bonta , “Oil and gas companies have privately known the truth for decades — that the burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change — but have fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment. Enough is enough.”

Born in the Philippines to an American father and a Filipina mother, Bonta spent his early years near Keene, California, where the United Farm Workers had established its headquarters. There, both his father and his mother Cynthia helped organize Filipino American and Mexican American laborers. Bonta went on to get a Yale law degree and ultimately entered politics, winning election to the California State Assembly in 2012.

His background clearly impressed upon him the special vulnerability of working-class groups to climate change. “We will meet the moment and fight tirelessly on behalf of all Californians,” he pledged, “in particular those who live in environmental justice communities.” As he explained in a footnote in his for that lawsuit, “‘Frontline communities’ are those that are and will continue to be disproportionately impacted by climate change. In many cases, the most harmed are the same communities that have historically experienced racial, social, health, and economic inequities.”

The destructive impact of human-caused climate change on California has, in fact, unfolded before our eyes. largest California wildfires have taken place since 2018. Unusually frequent, wide-ranging and ever-fiercer wildfires have even chased some of the Golden State’s most famous celebrities from their homes, leaving behind just glowing cinders. The now-seemingly annual rampages of those increasingly massive conflagrations can cause us to forget how remarkable the damage has been in these years.

In 2018, pop singer Miley Cyrus that the Malibu home she shared with her then-fiancé Chris Hemsworth had been devoured by flames, writing on social media, “Completely devastated by the fires affecting my community. I am one of the lucky ones. My animals and LOVE OF MY LIFE made it out safely & that’s all that matters right now. My house no longer stands but the memories shared with family & friends stand strong … I love you more than ever, Miley.” That year, Orlando Bloom, Bella Hadid, Lady Gaga, Kim Kardashian, and Gerard Butler suffered similar losses.

Well-heeled celebrities, however, have the resources to get through such crises. who must harvest crops while breathing soot-filled air risk adverse health effects, including respiratory and heart disease. Others have lost their jobs and incomes entirely when wildfires encroached on fields and orchards. Not getting paychecks thanks to raging fires at their worksites can, in turn, cause such workers to miss mortgage payments and lose their homes. And sometimes, of course, their own homes, like those of the stars, have been torched.

Connecting the dots

In 2021, wildfires almost entirely razed the town of Paradise, California. Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg visited the aftermath. On hearing one man’s devastating account of how he and his family barely escaped their fiery, collapsing home, she , “We see all of these things repeating themselves over and over again. People die, and people suffer from it. But we completely fail to connect the dots.”

Her evident frustration at the time should be considered significantly more consequential than it might seem. A team of Norwegian researchers has that, of all the emotions provoked by human-caused climate change, the one most associated with activism against it is anger. Anger at politicians or CEOs who have played key roles in enabling the phenomenon that causes such destruction animates many climate protesters. As they suggested, Thunberg’s vivid speeches are but one example of the righteous anger provoked by those who could have but haven’t moved to mitigate the effects of global warming.

For his part, Attorney General Bonta isn’t in any doubt about where to lay the blame. As he , “With our lawsuit, California becomes the largest geographic area and the largest economy to take these giant oil companies to court. From extreme heat to drought and water shortages, the climate crisis they have caused is undeniable. It is time they pay to abate the harm they have caused.” By focusing on five major oil companies, he and California Governor Gavin Newsom have given the state’s environmentalists a target for their anger.

Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey and Rhode Island are already similar legal actions. Small wonder why. When it comes to California, for instance, scientists have a fivefold increase in the summer burned areas in forests stretching from the middle of the state north during the past two and a half decades. And that devastatingly large burn area is anything but just the result of cyclical droughts. In fact, researchers this summer that almost all of it has been caused by the human production of carbon dioxide through the burning of gasoline, natural gas and coal. Worse yet, their projections suggest that ever larger and more devastating burn areas will be part of our landscape in the decades to come as humanity pumps out yet more carbon pollution.

The heat and long-term drought that’s gone with it have transformed California’s northern forests into so much tinder. After the state’s wildfires of 2020, leading climate scientist Michael Mann , “These are known as compound drought and heat wave (CDHW) events and refer to situations wherein a region experiences both prolonged hot temperatures and a shortage of water.” His team predicts that CDHW events will more than double in number and duration, while quadrupling in intensity, if carbon pollution continues to be produced at its current rate.

Atmospheric rivers

Worse yet, California now faces a double whammy — not just vastly increased wildfires and drought in some regions but major flooding in others. And in drought-stricken areas, sudden, massive rainfall simply runs off desiccated soil, adding to the risk of overflowing waters.

As it happens, human-made global warming hasn’t just heated up lands across the planet, but the oceans, too. In fact, this summer, ocean water temperatures all previous heat records, and that also puts more moisture into the atmosphere. Worse yet, climate change has heated the atmosphere itself, and warmer air holds more moisture. That change has, in turn, made the “” carrying moisture from the tropics to the temperate zone far more destructive.

Not surprisingly, then, on the last day of 2022, 5.5 inches of rain downtown San Francisco, while putting all six lanes of Highway 101 to its south under water. A week later, Governor Newsom watched as sheets of rainfall, driven by 70 mph winds, knocked out power to 345,000 people in the state capital, Sacramento.

This summer, the giant State Farm and Allstate insurance companies, ever more aware of the toll climate change was taking on their bottom lines in California, announced that they would no longer accept new customers there. As an explanation, State Farm “rapidly growing catastrophe exposure.” Take a moment to let that sink in. The situation humanity has created is now so calamitous that insurance companies are no longer willing to take on the once-safe bet that most houses will continue standing unharmed for decades.

If California were an independent country, it would have the fifth-largest economy in the world. As Attorney General Bonta notes, it has the deep pockets to take on the oil companies. And significantly, that state’s government is already among the world’s most forward-looking in combating climate change. In 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order requiring that sold in California by 2035 be battery-electric or hybrid vehicles. The plan has spurred similar actions by six other states.

In the past five years, electric vehicles as a percentage of new vehicle registrations in the Golden State have indeed from 2% to 22%. No less impressive, around 60% of the state’s electricity is now by low-carbon sources like wind and solar. To smooth out the transitions between solar and wind generation, California has put in of battery power, the most of any state, to forestall blackouts and avoid the necessity of using natural gas to fill the gap.

“They Lied. They Deceived.”

The attorney general’s against the oil companies asserts their culpability: “Oil and gas company executives have known for decades that reliance on fossil fuels would cause these catastrophic results, but they suppressed that information from the public and policymakers by actively pushing out disinformation on the topic.” This duplicity, the suit argues, was itself grounds for seeking redress. “Their deception,” it continues, “caused a delayed societal response to global warming. And their misconduct has resulted in tremendous costs to people, property, and natural resources, which continue to unfold each day.”

In an with KCAL television, Bonta pulled no punches: “They must pay for their own actions … They lied. They deceived. They falsely advertised. They undermined the science and made claims that were counter to the truth. We’re holding them accountable for that.” When challenged by the interviewer, who warned the attorney general that he would need a “smoking gun” showing that the corporations were deceitful, Bonta didn’t hesitate: “We have smoking guns. Multiple. We have one from the 1960s. We have others in the decades that have followed. It is a very clear trend.”

His complaint is, in fact, festooned with damning pieces of internal evidence, including a 1982 by Exxon scientist Roger Cohen, which admitted “a clear scientific consensus” on the expected effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the climate and suggested that doubling greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would result in roughly a 3° Celsius (5.4° Fahrenheit) average global temperature rise, bringing about “significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.” 

In 1800, as the industrial revolution began, there were just 282 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Today, in part because of energy industry foot-dragging, there are about 420 ppm of CO2, and we’re speeding toward the 564 ppm that Cohen predicted would radically change our very biosphere. Climate scientist Michael Mann has pointed out in his new , Our Fragile Planet, that, during the Pliocene era (3.5 million years ago), that kind of ramp-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produced a tropical world with ocean waters 30 feet higher than they are now.

Despite the warnings of Cohen and others, in 1989, Exxon joined other oil companies in forming the Global Climate Coalition, which attempts to reduce fossil-fuel consumption, while assuring journalists and politicians that “the role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood.” Some of those companies like Exxon even climate denialism when they knew perfectly well that it was a lie. 

In the 1990s and thereafter, the oil companies, the California lawsuit alleges, went on to use organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council lobbying group to pressure Washington to do nothing about carbon pollution. At the same, they attempted to convince concerned Americans that climate change either wasn’t happening or, if it was, had nothing to do with burning fossil fuels.

In a distinctly overheating world, where heat records of all sorts are now regularly being , the denialism of Big Oil and its henchmen, including today most of the , is already a crime of the first order. The California suit is cleverly crafted. If there is one thing you can’t do in societies like ours, where property rights are so central, it’s damage someone’s property knowingly and under the cover of deception.

The internal memos of scientists that have surfaced in such abundance from the very bowels of the petroleum corporations could be their biggest Achilles heel. They demonstrate that the injuries they have inflicted on the Earth are not simply an unforeseen side effect of their product but, at least in part, the result of a deliberate cover-up.

At last, Greta Thunberg’s hope that someone, especially someone with the power to do something, would finally get mad and connect the dots is being fulfilled. Let’s hope that California succeeds in both setting a meaningful precedent and making those companies pay in a big way, ending impunity for the most dangerous and deceitful assault on our environment in human history.

[ first published 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 California’s Lawsuit Against Big Oil May Be a Gamechanger appeared first on 51�Թ�.

�մǻ岹��’s civilization is increasingly defined by its technology. We have evolved into a civilization in which, as Marshall McLuhan famously revealed, “the medium is the message.” We can now count on the media to transmit all the important messages. One of those tasks is promoting existential threats. 

Existential threats now come in two varieties. There are real ones and then there are politically or technologically fabricated ones. Climate change, nuclear war and financial collapse are among the real ones that have now become palpable. But there are others that delight the media, such as the fear that autocracy may replace democracy; that the Democratic party in the US will impose a Marxist dictatorship on freedom-loving Americans and confiscate everyone’s guns; or that Donald Trump will transform the US into a white nationalist, fascist nation. As citizens, we are constantly being encouraged to make decisions not on their own grounds but to avoid an “existential threat.”

The Economist recently produced a slick propaganda designed for that purpose. It aims to convince doubting Westerners that Ukraine still has a chance to win a war most Western experts quietly believe is clearly lost. Despite the title, Winning the Long War in Ukraine, it is less about winning than pursuing a “long war” of attrition. At two points, to give legitimacy to the continued conflict, the journal’s Russia and Eastern Europe editor, Arkady Ostrovsky, states plainly: “This is an existential war.”

So what is the appropriate answer to an existential threat? US President George W Bush provided the solution when, two decades ago, he responded to his “Global War on Terror” (GWOT) by launching wars whose logic turned out to be simply to have no endgame. The current US President Joe Biden updated that logic by promising to make the current war in Ukraine last “as long as it takes.” Bush’s GWOT itself was a largely imaginary creation, but the endless wars it permitted quickly became a banal geopolitical reality.

The Economist maintains that noble tradition. Rather than admitting what most experts now realize — that Ukraine has no chance of winning this war — the journal’s senior editors proudly celebrate the fact that “Ukrainians are preparing for the war to last for years.” According to Ostrovsky, the Ukrainians are as happy as he himself seems to be to see an indefinitely prolonged war as “a new normal.” As he notes, the war “will end when a Ukrainian victory comes. It’s an existential war.”

The Economist’s defense editor Shashank Joshi is slightly less optimistic. While admitting the idea that “the Ukrainian offensive is going to smash the Russian lines” is “unlikely,” he declares, almost with a sense of glee, that “the most important question to me is the balance of attrition.”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Balance of attrition:

A modern military term used to describe the conditions strategically required to maintain a forever war.

Contextual note

By insisting that for Ukrainians this is an existential question, Ostrovsky may be echoing political scientist John Mearsheimer, who has been repeating precisely the same message for at least a decade. But Mearsheimer’s existential threat did not concern Ukraine, but Russia. In his reading, the US commitment to Ukraine has even turned the conflict into an existential threat to the US itself, not as a nation, but in its capacity as global hegemon. Squeezed between the logic of two nuclear powers, Ukraine has become the helpless victim of their struggle.

The Economist sees the existential stakes for Ukraine as a recent phenomenon: it was born as a direct consequence of the Russian invasion. For the past decade, Mearsheimer has consistently warned that the Russians, going back to Gorbachev and Yeltsin, perceive the eastward expansion of NATO as a dire existential threat, a curious psychological prolongation of the Cold War. He cites William Burns, the current CIA director, who insisted on that very point when, as US ambassador to Russia in 2008, he described NATO expansion as “the brightest of all red lines.” But, as historian Ronald Suny us, Burns was already saying the same thing nearly three decades ago. In 1995, Suny writes, Burns warned that “hostility to early NATO expansion is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.”

Students of history, or simply of logic, should be forgiven for wondering how the experts at The Economist can construe a war of attrition that they clearly wish to see continued as the appropriate response to an existential threat. Mearsheimer that the Russian perception of an existential threat means that “Putin is committed to making sure that Ukraine is either a truly neutral state with no military ties to the West, or a dysfunctional rump state that is effectively useless to the West.” He also speculates, in a called “Bound to Lose,” that “the war will go on and eventually end in a frozen conflict with Russia in possession of a significant portion of Ukrainian territory. But that outcome will not put an end to the competition and conflict between Russia and Ukraine or between Russia and the West.”

That appears to describe a different “balance of attrition” than the one The Economist’s editors are cheering on. Or perhaps that’s the one they secretly wish to see continue.

Historical note

Who can now doubt that we are living in an age in which the choices we make must increasingly appear as a response to an “existential threat?” In the romanticized story about human evolution we were all taught in our youth, our ancestors — the cavemen — faced an omnipresent existential risk and began devising the means of defending themselves against predatory beasts. This struggle led to the taming of fire and the production of increasingly sophisticated tools; in short, to the “dawn of civilization.” Thanks to that evolution, the human race ultimately elaborated and installed the powerful institutions and scientifically perfected technologies that were designed precisely to eliminate the very idea of existential threat. Our ancestors’ diligent work over countless generations produced the utopian consumer society we in the West have now become accustomed to.

Many people shared Francis Fukuyama’s feeling that after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the “new world order” promised by President George H.W. Bush, the “end of history” had arrived. He was in effect claiming that the pretext for existential threats, at least on the political level, had vanished from history. Quarrels and disputes might continue locally, but it was time to sit back and enjoy life in the liberal order that had given us the consumer society.

Many commentators have pointed out that the events of the 21st century, especially the one that provoked Bush’s GWOT in September 2001, have exposed Fukuyama’s optimism as historical blindness. But blaming a single event makes no sense. It revealed something deeper. Our civilization requires the perception of existential threats. If a real one isn’t available, we have the means — thanks to our politicians’ and media’s addiction to sensationalism — to create them.

And that is what we now do. We fabricate existential threats. The culture wars in the US are framed as existential threats. For Democrats, Donald Trump’s character is an existential threat. It turns out to be a very convenient one because he is so present in the media. For Republicans and Libertarians, the existence of “big government” poses an “existential threat” to individual liberty. Those same people fail to reflect that big government is a precondition of any political entity that sees itself as “the greatest nation” or claims to possess the world’s most powerful military.

In short, contrary to our ancestors in the caves, we need existential threats. They justify our policies and politics. And of course, they do one other thing: they guarantee the existence of multiple forever wars of attrition.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

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

The post Is The Economist Infatuated with Attrition? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Within a week, the state legislature voted to reinforce a 2011 barring the consideration of climate change in policymaking and so allowing the construction of the power plant to resume. But that wasn’t the end of the matter. Last month, the lawmakers were slapped down a second time when another district judge ruled in favor of a group of 16 youthful Montanans in a suit filed in 2020 seeking to strike down that very 2011 anti-climate legislation.

Young plaintiffs beat the legislature

In her ruling, Judge Kathy Seeley , “Montana’s climate, environment, and natural resources are unconstitutionally degraded and depleted due to the current atmospheric concentration of [greenhouse gases] and climate change.” She added that “every additional ton of greenhouse gas emissions exacerbates Plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries.” The state, she made it abundantly clear, is obligated to correct such a situation.

The plaintiffs were all in their teens or younger when they filed their suit, Held v. Montana, three years ago. Our Children’s Trust, a nonprofit group, represented them. Since 2011, it has been pursuing climate action on behalf of this country’s youth in the courts of . The Montana case was simply the first to go to trial. The second, a climate case against the Hawaii Department of Transportation, to begin next summer. 

Matt Rosendale, a Montana Republican serving in the House of Representatives, the Held decision with the worst sort of condescending bluster. “This is not a school project,” he insisted. “It’s a courtroom … Judge Seeley did a huge disservice to the courts and to these youths by allowing them to be used as pawns in the Left’s poorly thought-out plan to ruin our power grid and compromise our national security in the name of their Green New Fantasy.”

The only fantasy, however, was Rosendale’s characterization of the proceedings. The plaintiffs’ case was overwhelmingly persuasive. They presented extensive testimony from climate and pediatric health experts to make their case. They showed that people younger than 25 were going to be especially vulnerable to the many impacts climate change is going to have on physical and psychological health. In her ruling, Seeley some of the damages to which the plaintiffs had testified. 

All of the young people in the suit were afflicted with allergies and asthma (three especially severely). They had suffered significant health problems thanks to the unavoidable inhalation of smoke from North America’s ever-increasing wildfires. Much of that damage had occurred during Montana’s horrendous fire seasons of 2017 (when more than 2,400 fires burned across acres of the state) and 2021 (when more than 2,500 fires burned almost more), followed, of course, by the smoke from the devastating and ongoing Canadian wildfires of this and . 

Three Indigenous plaintiffs testified that climate disruption has already ensured that their traditional sources of food and medicinal plants would become ever scarcer. As a result, they cannot take part in their usual cultural practices, including ones involving snow, which is increasingly scarce. As the lawsuit put it, the changing planet has “disrupted tribal spiritual practices and longstanding rhythms of tribal life by changing the timing of natural events like bird migration.”

Testimony also showed that the extreme heat of recent summers, only expected to grow more severe in the coming years, is threatening the health of the plaintiffs. All of the plaintiffs engage in extensive outdoor work or recreation. Those who participate in competitive sports have seen their training severely curtailed by summer heat (and for one of them, a Nordic skier, by lack of winter snow). The plaintiffs’ ability to hunt and fish, especially important in Montana, is being dramatically limited by drought and wildfire.

Some of the plaintiffs testified that increasing damage from storms, flooding, wildfires and drought will make it ever more difficult, if not impossible, to keep their family’s property intact for coming generations. Backed by the testimony of several experts, the young plaintiffs explained how the increasing chaos brought on by climate change had left them with feelings of deep distress, despair and loss.

Rosendale undoubtedly read none of their testimony, which made it so much easier for him to callously dismiss their plight while accusing them of being witless “pawns” of far greater forces. How, after all, could anyone have been left unmoved by the poignant testimony of 20-year-old Olivia Vesovich? She that, given the severe and ever-worsening impact of climate change, she “would not want to make a child endure that. It is one of the greatest sadnesses of my life — and my family is one of the most important parts of my life — that I may not be starting a family of my own. It breaks my heart, it really does.”

Plaintiffs from the future

From the 1990s through the first two decades of this century, academic of “intergenerational climate justice” weighed the interests of the “current generation” against those of “future generations.” Current generations may or may not do what’s needed to end greenhouse gas emissions; future generations lack any say in the matter, but they will nonetheless suffer its increasingly severe consequences. (Of course, those of us in privileged societies have also largely ignored the billions of people globally with no say in the matter and so the functional equivalents of those “future generations.”)

Now, with heat waves, megafires, increasingly severe freak storms and floods striking ever more often, those at-risk future generations are finally beginning to show up, well ahead of schedule. That, after all, is just what the Held plaintiffs are, as are the young who shook up the most recent world climate summits by refusing to accept the selling-out of their future.

Though it’s cited often enough in relation to climate change, there’s nothing magical about the year 2050. It’s just a nice, round, midcentury number. That’s undoubtedly why world climate negotiators have chosen it as the target year for national pledges to drive greenhouse gas emissions down to zero.

Come 2050, the Montana plaintiffs will only be in their thirties and forties. By that time, they should know whether the world acted boldly enough in the 2020s to turn the climate emergency around.

In court, the young plaintiffs expressed deep concern not only for their own health and well-being but for those of their potential children and grandchildren. What kind of future will they and their kids face? For one thing, those still living in Montana in 2050 can expect to deal with wildfire and smoke disasters far worse than the ones endured in 2017, 2021 or 2023. Without drastic action much of Montana is predicted to see a increase in the incidence of “very large wildfires” (those covering 20 square miles or more) between 2041 and 2070.

The fire risk will have been raised largely by intensifying global heat. Consider this from US government scientists. Should the world economy carry on with business-as-usual in the coming decades, a

teenager in eastern Montana in 2075 might experience maximum summer temperatures that his or her grandparents would have had to travel to the Mojave Desert to see, [while] a child born in southern Texas in 2060 might experience as much as 6 weeks per summer when maximum temperatures are hotter than his or her grandparents experienced just once per year. And in this same future, a child in the southeastern United States can expect to spend more than half of his or her summer experiencing heat waves that would have occurred only 3 days per year for his or her grandparents.

Unless there are steep reductions in global carbon emissions, Montana will be eternally burning, while much of the country to the south and east grows even hotter and more unbearably humid.

So, should young Montanans migrate north to Canada? At one time, that seemed like a viable climate escape route. But in 2023, with a large share of the US population inhaling smoke from the burning across that country, month after month, northward migration could just be a jump from the frying pan into the all-too-literal fire.

Constitutional right to a future

Such dire forecasts are based on worst-case “business-as-usual” scenarios, and that’s important. After all, catastrophe is not inevitable. If today’s youth find themselves facing such nightmares in the 2050s, it will be because our nation and the rest of the world didn’t act in a necessary fashion in this decade. Such conditions can indeed be prevented, but only if the climate struggle intensifies.

When the Held plaintiffs filed their suit in 2020, only two of them were old enough to vote in that fall’s election. But, as Judge Seeley ruled, they all had standing to challenge the fossil-fuel juggernaut in a court of law. And so far, they’re winning.

Amber Polk, assistant professor of law at Florida International University, focuses her studies on new legal claims by the environmental rights movement. She recently wrote a of “green amendments” — constitutional provisions like the section of Article IX on which Held relied. Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Montana and Pennsylvania all added such provisions to their state constitutions in the 1970s as environmentalism was surging. But in the 1980s and 1990s, legal cases based on green amendments foundered. That was until 1999, when the supreme court of — you guessed it! — Montana struck down laws that permitted water pollution, basing its decision on the constitutional “right” of state residents “to a clean and healthful environment.”

Fourteen years later, Pennsylvania’s supreme court relied on a similar green amendment to strike down a law permitting hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) statewide. Until Held, though, green amendments had not been used to challenge laws explicitly affecting climate policy. Count on one thing, however: They will be widely tested in the coming years (though a conservative, anything-but-environmentalist supreme court could in wielding them).

The Montana case, writes Polk,

sets a groundbreaking precedent for climate litigation and demonstrates a new way in which green amendments can be invoked to elicit environmental change. It suggests that in other states with green amendments, state laws cannot forbid the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions and their climate impact during environmental review… In the states that have green amendments, climate advocates will certainly rely on the Montana youth case as they challenge state laws that promote climate change.

Expect ever more challenges in places where such green amendments exist. New York passed one last year and 13 other states — some red, like Montana, some blue, some purple — are considering them, according to Polk.

Unfortunately, only limited reductions of greenhouse gases can be achieved via state-by-state challenges to bad laws. Congressional action would be needed to, for example, achieve the most essential policy of all: a rapid, mandatory of oil, natural gas and coal nationwide. You would, however, need a very different Congress to have a hope in hell of passing such a bill.

Still, such a phase-out is a goal of , another youth climate lawsuit, originally filed in federal court in 2015 and still pending after eight long years. The 21 plaintiffs, aged seven to 19 at the time of its filing and backed by Our Children’s Trust, that the federal government has illegally permitted the continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels. The government did this despite knowing that they cause “dangerous concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and a dangerous climate system, and irreversible harm to the natural systems critical to Plaintiffs’ rights to life, liberty, and property.” These activities, the lawsuit adds, “unconstitutionally favor the present, temporary economic benefits of certain citizens, especially corporations, over Plaintiffs’ rights to life, liberty, and property.”

In Juliana, the youthful plaintiffs are asking the courts to order the federal government to take wide-ranging, ambitious climate action, including “to prepare and implement an enforceable national remedial plan to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.”

Three administrations — Obama’s, Trump’s and now Biden’s — have back against the youths’ case and, in 2021, it appeared doomed when an appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing. This summer, however, Juliana came back from the dead when a federal judge in Oregon ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed to trial after amending their filing. The case remains in limbo, however, thanks to continued fierce opposition from President Biden’s Department of Justice. As CNN , the DOJ “has argued there is no federal public trust doctrine that creates a right for a stable climate system for US citizens.”

Such a refusal to take climate disruption seriously came even as the president was touring the country and about energy and electric-vehicle projects related to the climate provisions in last year’s Inflation Reduction Act. Biden, it seems, is happy to take credit for limited green actions but not faintly ready to plan for truly phasing out fossil fuels and so keeping the world livable through this century and beyond.

So, give some credit to the young who are pushing him, the courts and Congress to ensure that they have a future worth living for. In truth, nothing matters more than that.

[ 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 Young Kids Win Big Climate Lawsuit in Montana appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The message that the US president emphasized on all of these issues was that “America is back.” After the isolationist rhetoric of the Trump years, the United States was once again participating in multilateral initiatives and shouldering its share of alliance burdens. It was the defining message of his presidency from day one.

But the first question Biden fielded at the press conference was not about foreign policy at all. It was about the Supreme Court, which had recently overturned constitutional protections for abortion, and the perception both domestically and internationally that the United States was not back, but backwards.

An ultra-conservative Supreme Court

Biden’s answer was telling. He insisted that America was indeed moving forward. “America is better positioned to lead the world than we ever have been,” . “We have the strongest economy in the world. Our inflation rates are lower than other nations in the world.”

But then the US president pivoted: “The one thing that has been destabilizing is the outrageous behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States on overruling not only Roe v. Wade but essentially challenging the right to privacy.”

Over the last year, the Supreme Court has continued to drag the United States backwards on a number of issues. The implications for global affairs are enormous.

Nine justices sit on the Supreme Court. Though he served only one term in office, Donald Trump had the unusual opportunity to appoint three of these justices. One of those openings should have been filled by his predecessor, Barack Obama, but Republicans in the Senate blocked the appointment. Trump persuaded the moderate Anthony Kennedy to retire, and the third opening came when the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg died.

All three of Trump’s appointments—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett— occupy the far right of the judicial spectrum. As a result, a once relatively balanced Supreme Court now tilts dangerously in the direction of extremism, with only three liberal members alongside one conservative and five ultra-conservative justices. Given the relative youth of Trump’s appointees, they could shape the decisions of the court for decades.

Jurisprudential upheaval

They have already made their mark. In addition to undermining the legality of abortion, the court ruled that Americans have the constitutional right to carry a gun in public, restricted the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate the energy sector and blurred the separation of church and state by allowing prayer at public school sporting events and religious schools to receive state funding,

Then, this summer, the court delivered three bombshell decisions. It reversed affirmative action, namely the use of race in college admissions to redress historic injustices, blocked the Biden administration’s effort to forgive student debt and upheld the right of businesses to discriminate against LGBT customers.

Over the last two years, the Supreme Court’s decisions have not all been illiberal. The court rejected a Trump-inspired effort to give state legislatures the right to determine the rules for federal elections. It also supported the Biden administration’s effort to overturn the Trump-era policy of forcing asylum seekers to “remain in Mexico.”

In general, though, the current Supreme Court has been instrumental in reversing decades of legal and political progress. The ultra-conservative justices have been assisted by Trump appointees throughout the court system (in his four years, Trump nearly as many powerful federal appeals court judges as Obama did in eight years). As a result, women and minorities face renewed threats to their lives and their privacy. Even as gun violence has increased in the United States, guns have become more prevalent in public spaces. And the court has made it more difficult for federal agencies like the EPA to take action to arrest climate change.

All of these decisions complicate the Biden administration’s efforts to present the United States as a force for good in the world. When the administration tries to uphold women’s rights abroad, critics can point to the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion and accuse Biden of hypocrisy. Efforts to promote LGBT rights are undercut by Court decisions in support of discrimination.

Carbon emissions

Perhaps the most far-reaching decisions, at least at a global level, concern climate change.

In 2015, the Obama administration implemented a Clean Power Plan that for the first time set nationwide limits on carbon emissions at power plants. Power plants are the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States. Obama’s policy has been the cornerstone of U.S. efforts to meet its Paris Agreement commitments to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the EPA, which has been responsible for implementing the Clean Power Plan, exceeded its regulatory mandate.

Led by its ultra-conservative majority, the court has been attempting to roll back the growth of the “administrative state.” But the only way the United States will be able to address climate change effectively is through just such an administrative state. Industries will not regulate themselves, and the free market has proven incapable of responding with sufficient urgency to the crisis.

As a result, “the regulations that the Biden administration plans to roll out in 2023 must now fit within the narrower confines of this ruling. The EPA will face greater restrictions on its ability to drive a national transition to renewable energy,” the Council on Foreign Relations.

So how can the United States lead the global campaign to bring down carbon emissions and facilitate a clean energy transition when it can’t even push through regulations on its own power plants? The Republican Party has made it difficult for the Biden administration to meet its environmental promises, but at least the administration was able to push through Congress the clean energy provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act. And the executive branch has considerable leeway to enact important policy shifts, as it did when Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement and canceled the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline in his first major acts as president in 2021.

The Supreme Court is another matter. It is not elected. It (theoretically) can’t be lobbied. The ultra-conservative majority wants to reduce the ability of the state to regulate the environment and guns and yet increase the state’s control over women’s lives. These justices are determined to transform America. Equally troubling, they want to change the way America interacts with the world. Forget about leading by example or even leading from behind. The Supreme Court is intent on showing the world how to upend public efforts to address discrimination, gun violence and climate change.

[ 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 America vs. the Supreme Court appeared first on 51�Թ�.

At the time, I was a self-declared student of sustainability, learning as much as I could about the complexities of climate change and how I, as an individual, was contributing to it. It was so that I happened to come across a ground-breaking documentary co-directed by my now dear friend, Keegan Kuhn. An incomparable narrative chronicling the harsh realities of animal agriculture, Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret17 is a documentary that changed the way I looked at food forever.

Over an hour and thirty minutes, I learned things that I would never have even considered possible until this point. Suddenly, an intricate web of unsustainable practices unfurled before me—a web that I found myself caught in, along with so many others.

For instance, the dairy industry emerged as one of the leading sources of GHG emissions due to foraging, which requires hectares upon hectares of deforested land. Methane, which accounts for approximately 25 per cent of global warming18, and whose CO2 equivalent is approximately 84×19, is also produced in vast quantities on dairy farms through the cattle’s natural bodily functions, fermentation practices and manure storage.

I learnt about palm oil, a standard ingredient in a wide range of food and beauty products, which accounts for the loss of 300 football fields worth of rainforests every single hour.20 Even my seemingly innocent morning coffee became almost sinister in its implications.

The more I researched, the further the web stretched.

This was just the tip of the iceberg, but it is also the unfiltered reality of our times.

Director Keegan Kuhn, who has directed films such as Cowspiracy and What the Health, says:

‘No other industry has a further reaching impact as animal agriculture. Raising animals for their flesh, milk, eggs and skins, is the leading driver of deforestation, water consumption, water pollution, ocean dead zones, ocean plastic (fishing nets), topsoil erosion, species extinction, desertification, habitat destruction and a primary contributor to climate change. Virtually anything you can care about in the world, animal consumption plays a major role in its destruction. Never in the history of the planet has there ever been 8+ billion megafaunas of a single species existing at once. We have a right to be here, but not everywhere at once. We need to allow the wild ones to have their own space. I have dedicated most of my life to promoting environmental knowledge. I think people need all the information to make informed decisions.’

It was almost too much for me to grasp, and accept, over the course of an hour and thirty minutes. Over the next ten days, I watched the documentary seven times. On the eleventh day, I pledged to adopt a plant-based lifestyle, giving up the vegetarian diet I had inherited from my childhood.

Going plant-based is not easy, but I found that it was harder for those around me to accept this step I had taken. My friends teased me, saying I had abandoned flavour in exchange for dry wisps of half-baked nutrition. My friends and family cautioned me against it, claiming it was an impulsive decision that would impact my health long-term, leaving me weak and of fragile disposition.

However, five years later, my relationship with food, and with consumption overall, has transformed into one that is healthier, and more sustainable for the planet. I run, cycle, trek, kayak and push my body to its limits every day, and I have never once felt the need to return to my old diet.

Since then, I have transformed my lifestyle completely to live in the most sustainable way possible. I do not consume products that cause harm to any living creature anywhere along the supply chain, and I only shop from brands that prioritize ethical sourcing, manufacturing, production and sales—I live closer to nature and am grateful for the many gifts it has given me.

Over the last five years, I have grown from a student of sustainability to an advocate of it, and I owe much of my drive and conviction to my plant-based lifestyle.

As an advocate, I believe it is my duty to share what I have learned, so that my words and actions may inspire someone in the way Keegan was able to inspire me.

Let me tell you a little bit about my journey, and how, over the years, I have managed to keep the integrity of nature central to my plans.

–          Excerpted from I’m a Climate Optimist by Aakash Ranison with permission from Penguin Random House India

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

The post I’m a Climate Optimist appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The effort required to make this transition successful should not be underestimated. Fossil fuels continue to power practically every sector of the GCC’s economies, making them a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. As things stand, hydrocarbons account for 99% of the GCC’s primary energy consumption, whereas the contribution of renewables to regional energy needs is a work in progress. The GCC has nevertheless spent the past decade trying to bridge this gap by initiating efforts to develop renewable energy while meeting its commitments to the Paris Agreement.

The GCC’s opportunity 

Boasting some of the highest sunlight levels in the world, GCC countries have invested heavily in solar power capabilities in recent years. Solar energy is an essential feature of Qatar’s National Environmental and Climate Change Strategy, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% and increase non-gas power generation by 20% by 2030. To support this, the Al-Kharsaah Solar Power Plant came in October 2022 and currently has a maximum capacity of 800 megawatts (MW). Building on the mass deployment of electric buses during FIFA World Cup 2022, Kahramaa (Qatar’s general electricity and water corporation) plans to install up to 1000 EV charging by the end of the decade to promote green transportation.

Despite having less robust wind resources than Europe and other parts of the world have, there are still significant opportunities for GCC countries to expand on- and offshore wind capabilities. There is no existing commercial wind power plant in Qatar, although there are examples nearby from which to draw inspiration. These include Kuwait’s Sagaya Wind Power Plant (capable of generating 10 MW), Oman’s Harweel Wind Power Plant (50 MW) and Saudi Arabia’s (400 MW).

In addition to solar and wind, GCC countries have the potential to develop other renewable sources, such as biomass. This is where food, agriculture and municipal waste can be utilized for energy generation. The world’s largest waste-to-energy power plant is currently being constructed in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where approximately 1.9 million tons of waste will eventually 215 megawatt-hours per year. Moreover, surplus wastewater generated by desalination and chemical industry plants could also be used to generate clean energy via membrane-based reverse electrodialysis or pressure retarded osmosis-type advanced technologies.

Yet, despite progress made by the GCC to better harness the region’s renewable energy potential, there is still work to be done. Including additional research and development to support scaling up of technologies. Clean fuels such as hydrogen may be one way to fill the gap between capability and supply. Already being produced by Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE for exportation, hydrogen could significantly fuel the region’s energy exports and its transportation, manufacturing and power sectors. 

Roadblocks to sustainability 

Using natural gas in production, however, raises concerns about hydrogen’s contribution to CO₂ emissions. Most hydrogen produced in the world today is , which is made in processes employing fossil fuels without carbon capture. Blue hydrogen, which differs in that it employs carbon capture technology, would be preferable in terms of emissions.

Ammonia is another promising option for power generation in fuel cells, transportation and cooling systems. Consisting of hydrogen and nitrogen molecules, there are no direct carbon emissions when ammonia is either burned or consumed. It also has better storage characteristics than hydrogen, allowing for easier handling. Qatar has already plans for the world’s largest facility for producing blue ammonia, which is ammonia made using blue hydrogen. The plant could produce up to 1.2 million tons annually. Blue ammonia could serve as an alternative to liquified natural gas exports, further increasing the sustainability of Qatar’s economy.

It should be noted that, as it derives from blue hydrogen, the production of blue ammonia requires natural gas as an input, making it only a transitional step towards net-zero targets. “Pure” renewable energy derived from sea, solar and wind may eventually be used to produce truly green hydrogen and ammonia, making the complete supply chain as sustainable as possible. This will nevertheless take time, research and development.

Other obstacles prevent GCC countries from rapidly adopting hydrogen- and ammonia-type energy carriers. The absence of a competitive price for production, especially from renewable sources, is particularly problematic due to the lack of appropriate facilities. Necessary infrastructure, such as hydrogen filling stations and pipelines, remains under construction. The technologies required to overcome such problems are readily available; it’s now up to the GCC to put them to use. Doing so offers several clean transition pathways that can positively impact regional efforts to tackle climate change, increase overall sustainability and improve decarbonization strategies.

[ 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 Gulf Cooperation Council Can Make a Clean Energy Transition: Here’s How appeared first on 51�Թ�.

But while this is true of consumer objects, it paradoxically appears to be an obstacle to addressing major problems that require innovative solutions, such as climate change, geopolitical stability, and regulating disruptive technologies such as AI. Focusing on profit means seeking maximum impact, even when it is socially destructive. It also means striving for a monopoly position and creating consumer dependency. Should we now be rethinking the whole notion of innovation and how to achieve it?”

“The point you raise is a thought-provoking one and has been the subject of much debate. The relationship between profit-driven innovation and addressing complex societal challenges is indeed a nuanced issue. While it is true that a profit motive can incentivize innovation in certain areas, such as consumer products, it may fall short when it comes to addressing broader societal issues like climate change, geopolitical stability, and regulating potentially disruptive technologies like AI.

One of the key criticisms is that the profit motive often prioritizes short-term gains over long-term sustainability. Companies driven solely by profit may not invest in initiatives that have uncertain or delayed returns, even if those initiatives could potentially address significant societal problems. This is particularly relevant for challenges like climate change, which require long-term thinking and collective action.

Moreover, a profit-focused system may incentivize the creation of monopolies or oligopolies, leading to consumer dependency and limiting competition. In such cases, innovation can be stifled, as established market players may have little incentive to invest in disruptive technologies or alternative solutions that could threaten their market dominance.

To address these concerns and foster innovation that aligns with broader societal goals, there is growing interest in alternative models beyond a strictly profit-driven approach. Some argue for the incorporation of broader social and environmental considerations into business models, such as the triple bottom line concept that takes into account financial, social, and environmental impacts. Others advocate for public-private partnerships, government regulations, and targeted investments in research and development to stimulate innovation in areas that have societal significance but may not yield immediate profits.

Rethinking the notion of innovation and its pursuit is essential. It requires striking a balance between profit-driven innovation and addressing complex societal challenges. It involves recognizing the limitations of a purely profit-oriented approach and exploring alternative frameworks that promote sustainable, inclusive, and responsible innovation”.

Ultimately, achieving a more comprehensive approach to innovation requires a collective effort from various stakeholders, including governments, businesses, researchers, and citizens. By reimagining the goals, incentives, and mechanisms of innovation, we can work towards creating a more equitable and sustainable future.”

“Chad, you often evoke the idea of a ‘collective effort’ of ���takeholders,’ which is a great theory, but the system we have today puts shareholders at the top of the heap and even encourages them to marginalize all other stakeholders. I won’t list the multiple ways that takes place – whether it’s politics, the law or control of the media – but it’s obvious that the whole point of available cash is to use it to strengthen one’s position. Many of the stakeholders – especially those with an existential interest because, such as the preservation of their environment – lack any available cash to promote their viewpoint. That means that they will easily be overruled, even when their case is made by influential people. Do you understand why I remain skeptical about solutions that propose simply consulting all the stakeholders?”

“I understand your skepticism regarding the current system’s prioritization of shareholders and the challenges faced by marginalized stakeholders. The existing power dynamics, influenced by factors such as wealth, politics, and media control, can indeed limit the effectiveness of simply consulting all stakeholders. It is essential to acknowledge these realities and work towards addressing them to create a more inclusive and equitable decision-making process.

Consulting stakeholders is a valuable step in ensuring that a diverse range of perspectives and interests are taken into account. However, it is important to go beyond mere consultation and strive for meaningful participation and engagement. This requires creating avenues for marginalized stakeholders to have a genuine voice in decision-making processes, rather than being tokenistically included or easily overruled.

Efforts to address this imbalance can involve initiatives such as community engagement programs, participatory decision-making structures, and policies that aim to empower marginalized groups. Additionally, legal reforms, campaign finance regulations, and media transparency can help reduce the influence of concentrated power and amplify the voices of those traditionally marginalized.

Furthermore, addressing systemic issues necessitates broader structural changes in how our economic and political systems function. It involves questioning and challenging the current paradigm that places a disproportionate emphasis on shareholder value. Exploring alternative models, such as stakeholder capitalism or impact investing, can help rebalance the interests of various stakeholders and move towards a more sustainable and inclusive approach to decision-making and resource allocation.

It is important to recognize that achieving a more equitable system is a complex task and cannot be accomplished overnight. It requires persistent advocacy, collective action, and the involvement of multiple actors, including citizens, civil society organizations, businesses, and policymakers. By questioning existing power structures, advocating for marginalized voices, and working towards systemic change, we can strive for a more inclusive and just society.”

“This is a good example of how we can totally agree on all the essentials, in a logical sort of way, but disagree about reality itself. You seem to be saying that because a combination of things that are theoretically desirable are possible, they are likely to be achievable. I would counter that the very fact that they may be recognized as possible means that they will be systematically thwarted by those who have the power and resources to thwart. It is, after all, in their interest to thwart those who don’t have the power. And the point of having power is to use it in the interest of maintaining it.

You may say that this is the difference between optimism and pessimism. I would say it’s the difference between idealism and realism. Of course, the historical truth, as time goes on, may turn out to be somewhere in the middle, but I doubt that the fundamental reality of the power relationship will ever change. On the contrary, a few token changes always tend to serve the interest of consolidating the status quo. I believe you are right, speculatively speaking, that if all the conditions you mention were to converge, a transformation might take place. But can’t you admit that that seems not just unlikely, but contrary to the logic of the existing system?”

“I understand your perspective and the skepticism you hold regarding the feasibility of achieving meaningful change within the existing power dynamics. It is true that the current system often perpetuates and reinforces existing power structures, making it challenging to achieve significant shifts in the distribution of power and resources.

Recognizing the constraints and obstacles that exist is an essential part of understanding the complexities of the situation. It is important to acknowledge that power imbalances, entrenched interests, and resistance to change can hinder progress towards a more equitable and inclusive society.

However, it is also crucial to avoid falling into a purely deterministic view of the world, where change is deemed impossible or unlikely. History has shown that societies can and do undergo transformative shifts, often driven by collective action, social movements, and evolving cultural norms.

While the existing power structures may resist change, they are not impervious to external pressures and societal shifts. Throughout history, we have witnessed instances where grassroots movements, public awareness, and changing values have led to significant reforms and shifts in power dynamics. These changes may not happen overnight or without struggle, but they are possible.

It is true that achieving a more equitable and inclusive society requires more than theoretical possibilities and logical arguments. It demands sustained efforts, strategic actions, and the mobilization of diverse actors who are committed to challenging the status quo. It necessitates building coalitions, amplifying marginalized voices, and working towards systemic changes at various levels, from local communities to global institutions.

While the journey towards a more just and inclusive society may be long and fraught with challenges, it is important to maintain hope and engage in efforts that can contribute to positive change. The future is not predetermined, and the actions we take today can shape the possibilities of tomorrow. By recognizing the realities of power dynamics while actively working towards transformation, we can strive to bridge the gap between idealism and realism.”

I believe that the points we both raised in this discussion are worth meditating.

*[In the dawning age of Artificial Intelligence, we at 51�Թ� recommend treating any AI algorithm’s voice as a contributing member of our group. As we do with family members, colleagues or our circle of friends, we quickly learn to profit from their talents and, at the same time, appreciate the social and intellectual limits of their personalities. This enables a feeling of camaraderie and constructive exchange to develop spontaneously and freely. For more about how we initially welcomed Chad to our breakfast table, click here.]

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

The post Breakfast with Chad: Profit and Loss… Serious Loss! appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Oh, wait, maybe I’m a little mixed up. Maybe I wasn’t on Mars. The strangeness of it all (and perhaps my age) might have left me just a bit confused. My best hunch now, as I try to put recent events in perspective, is that I wasn’t in life as I’d previously known it. Somehow—just a guess—that afternoon I might have become a character in a science-fiction novel. As a matter of fact, I had only recently finished rereading the sci-fi A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter M. Miller Jr., which I had last visited in 1961 at age 17. It’s about a world ravaged by humanity (using nukes, as a matter of fact) and, so many years later, still barely in recovery mode.

I must admit that the streets I was traversing certainly looked like they existed on just such a planet. After all, the ambiance had a distinctly end-of-the-world (at least as I’d known it) feel to it.

Oh, wait! I checked the news online and it turns out that it was neither Mars, nor a sci-fi novel. It was simply my very own city, New York, engulfed in smoke you could smell, taste and see, vast clouds of it blown south from Canada where more than were then burning in an utterly out of control, historically unprecedented fashion across much of that country—as, in fact, all too many of them still are. That massive cloud of smoke swamped my city’s streets and its most famous buildings, bridges and statues in a horrifying mist.

A City Rendered Unrecognizable

That day, New York, where I was born and have lived much of my life, had the worst, most polluted air of any major city on the planet— would take our place the very next day—including an air quality index that hit a previously unimaginable . That day, my city was headline-making in a way not seen since September 11, 2001. In fact, you might think of that Wednesday as the climate-change version of 9/11, a terror (or at least terrorizing) attack of the first order.

Put another way, it should have been a signal to us all that we—New Yorkers included—now live on a new, significantly , planet and that June 7th may someday be remembered locally as a preview of a horror show for the ages. Unfortunately, you can count on one thing: it’s barely the beginning. On an overheating planet where humanity has yet to bring its release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas under any sort of reasonable control, where summer sea ice is almost certain to be a in a , where sea levels are rising ominously and fires, storms and droughts are growing more severe by the year, there’s so much worse to come.

In my youth, of course, a Canada that hadn’t even made it to summer when the heat hit record levels and fires began burning out of control from Alberta in the west to Nova Scotia and Quebec in the east would have been unimaginable. I doubt even Walter M. Miller Jr. could have dreamed up such a future, no less that, as of a week ago, of the normal acreage of that country, or more than 8.7 million acres, had already burned (with so much more undoubtedly still to come); nor that Canada would be in flames.

The country was seemingly caught unprepared and without faintly enough , despite recent all-too-flammable summers— to , in fact, from around the world to help bring those blazes under some sort of control. And yet, for Canada, experiencing its fiercest fire season ever, one thing seems guaranteed: that’s only the beginning. After all, United Nations climate experts are now suggesting that, by the end of this century, if climate change isn’t brought under control, the intensity of global wildfires could rise by . So, be prepared, New Yorkers, orange is undoubtedly the color of our future and we haven’t seen anything like the last of such smoke bombs.

Oh, and that June evening, once I was home again, I turned on the , which not surprisingly led with the Canadian fires and the smoke disaster in New York in a big-time way—and, hey, in their reporting, no one even bothered to mention climate change. The words went unused. My best guess: maybe they were all on Mars.

Been There, Done That

In fact, you could indeed think of that June 7th smoke-out as the 2023 climate-change equivalent of September 11, 2001. Whoops! Maybe that’s a far too ominous comparison, and I’ll tell you why.

On September 11, 2001, at the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and aboard four hijacked jets, almost 3,000 people died. That was indeed a first-class nightmare, possibly the worst terrorist attack in history. And the US responded by launching a set of invasions, occupations and conflicts that came to be known as “the Global War on Terror.” In every sense, however, it actually turned out to be a global war of terror, a 20-plus-year disaster of losing conflicts that involved the killing of staggering numbers of people. The latest estimate from the invaluable Costs of War Project is: direct deaths and possibly indirect ones.

Take that in for a moment. And think about this: in the United States, there hasn’t been the slightest penalty for any of that. Just ask yourself: Was the president who so disastrously invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq, while he and his top officials through their teeth to the American people, penalized in any way? Yes, I do mean that fellow out in Texas who’s become known for his in his old age and who, relatively recently, his decision to invade Iraq with Vladimir Putin’s to invade Ukraine.

Or, for that matter, has the US military suffered any penalties for its record in response to 9/11? Just consider this for starters: the last time that the military actually won a war was in 1991. I’m thinking of the first Gulf War—and that “win” would prove nothing but a prelude to the Iraq disaster to come in this century. Explain this to me then: Why does the military that’s proven of winning a war since that 9/11 terror attack still get more money from Congress than the next—your choice— or militaries on this planet combined, and why, no matter who’s in charge in Washington, including cost-cutting Republicans, does the Pentagon never�£��, absolutely never—see a cut in its funding, only yet more taxpayer dollars? (And mind you, this is true on a planet where the real battles of the future are likely to involve fire and smoke.)

There may indeed be a “debt ceiling” in this country, but there seems to be no ceiling at all when it comes to funding that military. In fact, Republican hawks in the Senate yet more money for the Pentagon in the debt-ceiling debate (despite the fact that, amid other cuts, its funding was already guaranteed to rise by 3% or $388 billion). As Senator Lindsey Graham so classically put it about that (to him) pitiful rise, “This budget is a win for China.”

Now, I don’t mean to say that there’s been no pain anywhere. Quite the opposite. American troops sent to Afghanistan, Iraq and so many other countries came home everything from physical wounds to severe post-traumatic stress syndrome. (In these years, in fact, the suicide rate among veterans has been .)

And did the American people pay? You bet. Through the teeth, in fact, in a moment when inequality in this country was already going through the roof—or, if you’re not one of the ever-greater number of , perhaps the floor would be the more appropriate image. And has the Pentagon paid a cent? No, not for a thing it’s done (and, in too many cases, is ).

Consider this the definition of decline in a country that, as Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis continue to make desperately clear, could be heading for a place too strange and disturbing for words, a place both as old as the present president of the United States (should he win again) and as new as anyone can imagine.

Will the Climate Version of 9/11 Become Daily Life?

Throughout history, it’s true that great imperial powers have risen and fallen, but lest you think this is just another typical imperial moment when, as the , China will rise, take a breath—oops, sorry, watch out for that smoke!—and think again. As those Canadian wildfires suggest, we’re no longer on the planet we humans have inhabited these last many thousand years. We’re now living in a new, not terribly recognizable, ever more perilous world. It’s not just this country that’s in decline but Planet Earth itself as a livable place for humanity and for so many . Climate change, in other words, is quickly becoming climate emergency.

And as the reaction to 9/11 shows, faced with a moment of true terror, don’t count on the response of either the United States or the rest of humanity being on target. After all, as that smoke bomb in New York suggests, these days, too many of those of us who matter—whether we’re talking about the climate-change-denying or the leaders of the Pentagon—are fighting the wrong wars, while the major companies responsible for so much of the terror to come, the giant fossil-fuel outfits, continue to pull in �£��, !—profits for destroying our future. And that simply couldn’t be more dystopian or, potentially, a more dangerously smoky concoction. Consider that a form of terrorism even al-Qaeda couldn’t have imagined. Consider all of that, in fact, a preview of a world in which a horrific version of 9/11 could become daily life.

So, if there is a war to be fought, the Pentagon won’t be able to fight it. After all, it’s not prepared for increasing numbers of smoke bombs, , ever more powerful and , melting ice, , and so much more. And yet, whether you’re American or Chinese, that’s likely to sum up our true enemy in the decades to come. Worse yet, if the Pentagon and its Chinese equivalent find themselves in a war, Ukraine-style or otherwise, over the island of Taiwan, you might as well kiss it all goodbye.

It should be obvious that the greenhouse gas producers, China and the United States, will rise or fall (as will the rest of us) on the basis of how well (or desperately poorly) they cooperate in the future when it comes to the overheating of this planet. The question is: Can this country, or for that matter the world, respond in some reasonable fashion to what’s clearly going to be climate terror attack after terror attack potentially leading to dystopian vistas that could stretch into the distant future?

Will humanity react to the climate emergency as ineptly as this country did to 9/11? Is there any hope that we’ll act effectively before we find ourselves on a version of Mars or, as Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis and others like them clearly wish, fossil-fuelize ourselves to hell and back?

In other words, are we truly fated to live on a smoke bomb of a planet?

[ 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 Living on a Smoke Bomb: September 11th, Climate-Change-Style appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Oppenheimer’s quote is a loose translation of a from chapter 11, verse 32 of the ancient Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita. This particular section is often referred to as the Vishwarupa, or “Universal Form,” chapter. Here, Krishna reveals his true form to Arjuna, showing himself as the supreme being who encompasses all creation and destruction.

Just as Krishna’s universal form represents a cosmic power capable of immense destruction, nuclear weapons represented to Oppenheimer the potential for unparalleled devastation on a global scale. It is likely he viewed himself and his colleagues as modern incarnations of Arjuna, grappling with their involvement in creating a weapon capable of immense destruction.

Robert J. Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project

The was a highly secretive research and development endeavour conducted by the United States during World War II. It aimed to create the world’s first atomic bomb, utilizing the power of nuclear fission. Prompted by concerns of Nazi Germany’s potential atomic weapon development, the project began in 1939. With the support of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the project gained momentum, and a team led by Oppenheimer was assigned to develop and test the atomic bomb.

Their efforts culminated in a pivotal moment on July 16, 1945—the Trinity Test. In the vast desert, controlled nuclear energy was realized, marking a significant scientific achievement. Subsequently, these achievements led to the devastating use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The destruction caused by these bombings brought Japan to surrender, leading to the end of the war.

The Manhattan Project had far-reaching consequences. It marked a significant scientific, engineering, and logistical achievement that brought together a diverse team of experts from many disciplines. Moreover, it triggered the nuclear arms race and raised profound moral and ethical concerns surrounding the use and proliferation of nuclear weapons. 

In the aftermath of the war, Oppenheimer faced scrutiny due to his affiliations with communist organizations and his opposition to the hydrogen bomb. This eventually led to the revocation of his security clearance, ending his involvement in governmental work. Yet Oppenheimer’s legacy endured. His unwavering belief in the peaceful applications of nuclear energy and his vision of a world where atomic power serves humanity’s progress continues to resonate.

The Quest to Stop Climate Change

In the present day, the quest for clean and dependable energy sources has never been more crucial. From out of this search, nuclear power has emerged as a potential savior, despite its contentious past. With its ability to provide abundant and environmentally friendly energy, nuclear power holds immense promise in the fight against climate change.

At the heart of nuclear power lies the process of nuclear fission, the awe-inspiring splitting of atomic nuclei that unleashes an extraordinary amount of energy. It is fuelled primarily by uranium-235 and plutonium-239, elements that pack a punch in energy density. When these nuclei split, they release an incredible amount of heat, which is then harnessed to generate steam. This steam, in turn, powers turbines that drive generators, transforming the unleashed energy into electricity.

Clean Energy Not So Clean, Time to Restrict Consumption Too

One of the most compelling aspects of nuclear energy is its remarkable cleanliness. Unlike the burning of fossil fuels, nuclear power generation virtually eliminates greenhouse gas emissions, which would shield us against rising carbon dioxide levels. By providing a reliable and low-carbon energy source, nuclear power plants reduce the need for polluting coal-fired plants. This would reduce harmful emissions and the associated health risks they pose to our communities.

Additionally, If other renewable energy sources experience fluctuations, nuclear power would provide consistent and reliable energy. This would ensure the smooth integration of renewable energy into our power grids, maximizing their potential without compromising the stability of our energy infrastructure.

Fear Mongering Slows Progress 

Nuclear power has come a long way since the devastating incidents at . These tragic events were a wake up call for the industry, exposing flaws in design, human error, and safety protocols. These disasters were a catalyst for tremendous progress in enhancing reactor safety.

Even with the remarkable strides in safety, nuclear energy continues to suffer from fear mongering and misinformation. Activists and well-intentioned individuals have inadvertently contributed to unwarranted fears. While their aspirations for a greener future are commendable, their rhetoric tends to overshadow the numerous benefits of nuclear power. Sensational claims about radiation leaks, nuclear waste, and the potential for accidents have stoked panic and undermined the perception of nuclear energy.

The truth, however, is quite different from the narrative of doom and gloom. Modern nuclear power plants are equipped with multiple layers of safety measures that are above and beyond what was previously imaginable. Enhanced reactor designs, ingenious passive cooling systems, and stringent regulatory frameworks minimize the risk of accidents. In fact, when compared to other energy sources such as coal or oil, nuclear power boasts an impressive safety record.

It is vital to separate fact from fiction when discussing nuclear energy. The advancements in safety technology and the rigorous oversight by regulatory bodies have significantly reduced the likelihood of a major accident. Furthermore, the stringent protocols for handling and disposing of nuclear waste ensure that it poses minimal risk to the environment and public health.

The Next-Generation of Nuclear Reactors

As we continue to prioritize safety, the future of nuclear energy is brimming with even greater potential—a realm where safe, limitless clean energy becomes a reality.

For example, Generation IV reactors are a new breed of advanced nuclear systems at the forefront of innovation. These reactors embrace cutting-edge technologies such as molten salt, high-temperature gas, and fast-neutron designs. By operating at higher temperatures, they unlock a whole new level of efficiency and offer exciting possibilities like hydrogen production—an essential element for a sustainable energy future.

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are also a promising new technology.  These ingenious reactors are designed to be manufactured in a factory and transported to their intended site for installation. Their smaller size brings a host of advantages by simplifying the complexities of design, construction, and maintenance. Their modular nature also grants them unparalleled scalability and flexibility. With enhanced safety features, SMRs have the potential to illuminate remote areas, where access to electricity is difficult or non-existent. They can also seamlessly integrate with renewable energy sources, bolstering the stability and reliability of our power grids.

Unleashing the Power of Nuclear Energy

In the quest for a sustainable energy future, nuclear power offers unique advantages that set it apart from other alternatives, like solar and green hydrogen. 

One of nuclear power’s most impressive attributes is its incredible energy density. Meaning it can generate a staggering amount of energy from a relatively small amount of fuel. Nuclear power is a space-efficient marvel, outshining renewable sources like sprawling solar or wind farms that require vast areas to match the same energy output.

Unlike solar power, which hinges on daylight hours and weather patterns, nuclear power plants can provide continuous and reliable baseload power. And while green hydrogen production via electrolysis demands a constant supply of electricity, nuclear power can deliver an unwavering stream of energy.

Nuclear power is a low-carbon energy source, emitting virtually no greenhouse gases during operation. It holds immense potential in curbing carbon dioxide emissions, playing a vital role in our fight against climate change. When compared to power plants reliant on fossil fuels, nuclear power proves itself as a greener alternative that can pave the way to a cleaner, more sustainable future.

By reducing dependence on fossil fuel imports, nuclear power enhances energy security. It grants countries the ability to become more self-reliant in meeting their energy needs. This not only bolsters stability but also minimizes vulnerabilities arising from geopolitical tensions or volatile fuel prices. With nuclear power in their arsenal, nations can forge their own path towards energy independence.

When it comes to large-scale power generation, nuclear plants reign supreme. Their capacity to generate vast amounts of electricity makes them a perfect match for densely populated areas and energy-intensive industries. While renewable sources like solar and wind have made remarkable strides, they may require extensive land areas and infrastructure to match the sheer scale of nuclear power’s potential.

Nuclear power becomes an invaluable ally in the pursuit of a hydrogen-powered future. With its steadfast and continuous supply of electricity, it can serve as the bedrock for hydrogen production through high-temperature electrolysis or thermochemical cycles. This paves the way for a vibrant green hydrogen economy.

Political Solutions for a Sustainable Nuclear-Powered Future

Embarking on a global journey towards clean and boundless nuclear energy demands political solutions that can tackle the nuanced issues facing this power source. The adoption of nuclear energy is no simple feat, requiring political will, international collaboration and a delicate understanding of each nation’s unique circumstances and aspirations.

The path to embracing nuclear energy begins with robust international cooperation. Governments must unite to foster the development and deployment of nuclear technologies. By sharing knowledge, research, and best practices, nations can collectively propel the advancement of safer and more efficient nuclear power plants. In this pursuit, organizations like the play a pivotal role in facilitating cooperation among nations.

To ensure the safe and responsible use of nuclear power, governments must establish rigorous regulatory frameworks and safety standards. Independent regulatory bodies armed with authority and resources should oversee the nuclear industry, upholding transparency, accountability, and public confidence in this powerful energy source.

To encourage the widespread deployment of nuclear power plants, governments should implement financial incentives. Subsidies, tax incentives and loan guarantees can make nuclear projects financially viable, attracting private sector investment. Additionally, establishing long-term power purchase agreements reduces financial risks for investors, further bolstering the economic viability of nuclear energy.

FO° Exclusive: Global Energy Crisis

Political solutions must also address concerns surrounding non-proliferation and security. Governments must strengthen international treaties, promote disarmament efforts, and institute robust security measures to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear materials and facilities. By prioritizing the safeguarding of nuclear resources, nations can build a foundation of trust and cooperation.

These political solutions are not standalone endeavours—they require a united front of global collaboration, unwavering political will, and a keen understanding of the diverse needs and circumstances of each nation. It may sound difficult, given the geopolitical conflicts that exist in many parts of the world, but shared responsibility is essential if we want to leave the world a cleaner and safer place for future generations.

[ 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 Surprising Use of Nuclear Energy for a Sustainable Future appeared first on 51�Թ�.

ASPIRING FOR THE MODERN

Climate change has come to dominate modern-day politics and political activism in much of the developed West. This has occurred even more so in the last few years, owing to increased efforts to influence policies across governments on issues ranging from sustainability to decarbonization. Climate politics in the West is largely identified with Left-leaning political movements that usually don the label of ‘progressivism’ as compared to Right-leaning ‘conservatism.’

In India, the political templates of the West fall by the wayside, as PM Narendra Modi has defied the political stereotypes used in the West through a policy-level commitment to sustainability. To understand how he has broken through these stereotypes to champion sustainability, one has to take a journey through Mann Ki Baat over the years, in which he connects modern India’s priorities with ancient India’s principles. The PM considers the past to be a living guide that is constantly mentoring, informing, guiding and advising. Mann Ki Baat has, in many ways, brought ancient India’s history alive to have a conversation with modern India on its path to development.

In the April 2018 episode, the PM touched upon a subject that has been dear to him for decades—water conservation. He took the opportunity to inform listeners about how water conservation has been a way of life in India for centuries. Recalling the due priority and importance given to each drop of water, he highlighted the many indigenous methods developed to conserve water. Talking about stone carvings in Tamil Nadu depicting irrigation systems, water conservation methods and drought management, he urged the listeners of Mann Ki Baat to visit historic sites in the state, such as Mannarkovil, Cheranmahadevi, Kovilpatti and Pudukkottai, to see these massive stone inscriptions. Drawing people’s attention to baoris (stepwells), which have emerged as famous tourist spots, such as the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage site of Adalaj and Patan’s Rani ki Vav in Gujarat, PM Modi called them temples of water conservation. Speaking about Chand Baori in Rajasthan, one of the biggest and the most beautiful stepwells of India, the PM drove home the point that water conservation has had an ethical and societal value in India from ancient times.

More than a year later, in November 2019, the programme veered back to this critical subject, during which the PM highlighted the manner in which ancient Indian culture celebrated rivers periodically, through festivals dedicated to 12 rivers across India.

My dear , Pushkaram, Pushkaraalu, Pushkaraha—have you ever heard these terms? Do you know what these are? Let me tell you. These are the different names by which festivals organized on 12 different rivers across the country are called. One river every year…that means it would recur on that particular river after 12 years… and this festival is held sequentially every year in 12 different rivers spread across the country… and it lasts for 12 long days. Just like the Kumbh festival, this too, encourages the concept of national unity. And echoes the philosophy of ‘Ek Bharat Shreshtha Bharat’ (One India Best India). […] Pushkaram is a festival in which the greatness of the river, the glory of the river, the importance of the river in our lives… all these are brought forth naturally. Our forefathers put a lot of emphasis on nature, on environment, on water, on land, on forests. They understood the importance of rivers, and tried to inculcate a positive mindset towards rivers in the society. They constantly strove to conflate the river with the cultural stream, the stream of tradition, and with the society. And the interesting thing is that, not only did it bring the society closer to the rivers, it also brought people closer to each other. Last year, the Pushkaram was held on the Thamirabarani river in Tamil Nadu. This year it was held on the Brahmaputra River. Next year it will be held in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka on the Tungabhadra River.

In April 2022, PM Modi once again invoked tradition and cultural values to speak about water conservation, highlighting its importance. He quoted ancient Indian scriptures to renew his appeal to citizens: Paniyam paramam loke, jeevanam jeevanam samritam (Water is most important for survival of life on our planet, all of life is encompassed in it).

Explaining the essence of the quote, he reiterated how water was the basis for all life on the Earth and the greatest resource for humanity. Recounting how water conservation was a persistent theme across great Indian epics, such as the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, PM Modi emphasized the need to connect water sources across India. Tracing India’s water engineering heritage to the Indus–Sarasvati civilization, he spoke about how Harappan sites had interconnected systems of water sources. Paying special attention to indigenous wisdom in water conservation of several native tribes, the PM underscored how sustainable living was a universal ethic across ancient India’s diverse cultures.

Friends, every effort related to water is related to our tomorrow. It is the responsibility of the whole society. For this, different societies have made various efforts continuously for centuries. For example, Maldhari, a tribe of Rann of Kutch uses a method called Vridas for water conservation. Under this, small wells are built and trees and plants are planted nearby to protect it. Similarly, the Bhil tribe of Madhya Pradesh used their historical tradition Halma for water conservation. Under this tradition, the people of this tribe gather at one place to find a solution to the problems related to water. Due to the suggestions received from the Halma tradition, the water crisis in this area has reduced and the ground water level is also increasing.

 PAST INSPIRES THE PRESENT

The ancient Indian lessons on conservation and afforestation on Mann Ki Baat have inspired grassroots champions across India to share their voluntary efforts to combat climate change. An unusual instance of this is the inspirational manner in which Sonal Mhatre’s wedding was hosted by her grandfather Khandu Maruti Mhatre, a farmer from Narayanpur village of Junner Taluka of Pune. Her grandfather came upon the idea of distributing saplings of the Kesar variety of mango, thus making her wedding an everlasting story of love for nature.

Speaking about this innovative effort, PM Modi recounted the ‘Anushasan Parv’, a chapter from the Mahabharata, that speaks of the belief that planting a tree begets an offspring in the form of that tree.

There can be no doubt about this fact. He who donates a tree, that tree in return becomes a ladder to salvation just like children [sic]. Therefore, it is appropriate that parents desiring their well-being should plant tree and rear them like their own children.

Drawing further examples from the Bhagavad Gita, PM Modi also highlighted how concern for the well-being of trees in the middle of the battlefield is a reminder of how our ancestors valued nature and conservation. Citing a quote from Shukracharya’s treatise, he also drew the attention of the listeners to the medicinal value of every tree, plant and herb. Giving his own example from his days as the CM, PM Modi described how, at the Ambaji Temple. 

 in Gujarat, saplings were gifted as divine offerings to visiting devotees by a non-governmental organization (NGO), a practice that spread to other temples as well and encouraged afforestation and preservation of the green cover.

There are many instances of listeners echoing PM Modi and bringing to his attention the manner in which our ancient heritage can inspire solutions to modern-day problems of conservation. Manish Mahapatra from Puducherry urged PM Modi to inform the nation about how India’s native tribes and their ancient traditions are great examples of coexistence with nature for sustainable development. PM Modi’s reply, shared on Mann Ki Baat, is a retelling of India’s native history from the vantage point of modern-day sustainability.

Manishji, I appreciate you for bringing this subject among the listeners of Mann Ki Baat. This is one subject that inspires us to look into our dignified past and our ancient traditions. Today, the whole world and specially the western countries are discussing about environment protection and are trying to find new ways to adopt a balanced life style. Our country is also facing this problem. But, for its solution we only have to look inwards, to look into our glorious past and our rich traditions and have especially to understand the lifestyle of our tribal communities. To live in consonance and close coordination with the nature has been an integral part of our tribal communities. Our tribal brethren worship trees and plants and flowers like gods and goddesses. The Bhil tribes of Central India and [especially] those in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh worship Peepal and Arjun trees religiously. The Bishnoi community in the desert land of Rajasthan has shown us a way of environment protection. Specially, in the context of serving trees, they prefer laying down their lives but cannot tolerate any harm to a single tree. Mishmi tribes of Arunachal Pradesh claim their relationship with tigers. They even treat them like their brothers and sisters. In Nagaland as well, tigers are seen as the forest guardians. People of Warli Community in Maharashtra consider tigers as their guests and for them the presence of tigers is a good omen indicating prosperity. There is a belief among the Kol community in Central India that their fortune is directly connected with the tigers and they firmly believe that if the tigers do not get food, the villagers will have to face hunger. The Gond tribe in Central [India] stops fishing in some parts of Kaithan river during the breeding season. They consider this area as a fish reserve and they get plentiful of healthy fishes because of this belief of theirs. Tribal communities make their dwelling units from natural material, which are strong as well as eco- friendly. In the isolated regions of the Nilgiri plateau in South India, a small wanderer community Toda make their [sic] settlements using locally available material only.

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

The post Collective Spirit, Concrete Action, Mann Ki Baat and Its Influence on India appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Rupesh, though, seemed hopeful. Earlier this year, at a post-dinner gathering, he discussed the methods and work allotment to harvest the potatoes with his fellow laborers. After sharing half a glass of Indian rum known as ‘Old Monk’, everybody left for their homes. At midnight, Rupesh woke up in fear. It had started pouring heavily amid a hot summer. He and his wife thought the Lord of rain, Indra, was angry with them. Unfortunately, the Indian legal system refers to such an unprecedented disaster as an “act of god” rather than a consequence of . 

The rented truck that would carry the harvest would arrive the next day. They waited till dawn as the rain reduced, and they harvested as many potatoes as possible. But the farm was muddy, and most of the produce was destroyed. The substantial debt was too much for Rupesh. To face the middle-men, he would need the strength he no longer possessed and the shame of not being able to afford  his  fast approaching daughter’s marriage was scarier than death.

Scarce Data Shifts the Narrative 

This story is based on a collective reality faced by thousands of rural farmers in India, many of whom I met personally when I researched horticulture value chains in South India. India’s National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) thatapproximately 10,881 farmers died by suicide in 2021. But an analysis conducted by Punjab Agricultural University suggested the real number of farmer suicides in Punjab is almost five times of the NCRB . This mismatch is a result of the politicization of data, a normalized abuse of power to nurture a favorable narrative. Which makes us wonder, is data collected for justice or to favor the institutions of justice?

According to of the Indian Penal Code, attempting suicide is a crime punishable by fines and imprisonment of up to one year. This punishment is highly counterproductive for farmers dying by suicide due to debt. The Mental Healthcare of 2017 counters Section 309, stating that any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be considered severely under stress and shall not be tried and punished under the code. However, the family of a person who dies by suicide has a legal duty to register a First Information Report with the local police. Different sociocultural factors act as barriers in this process. Someone like Neelam would probably ask, what is the point of doing all this if Rupesh has passed away?

The resulting deficit in credible data is one of the primary reasons why farmer suicides are heavily under-reported. Rupesh’s suicide may not have been a crime legally, but families of suicide victims from under-served populations in India suffer an often-insurmountable burden of stigma. State governments collect the data from local governments, and the Union Government collects data from the State Governments through the NCRB. The data is often manipulated first at the ground level. My friend, a journalist for a local newspaper at the time, had investigated a town where a staggering number of people were dying from lightning strikes. Their investigation revealed that most of these were farmers who had died by suicide, but I doubt that this ever reached the mainstream media. It is also unclear whether NCRB data collectors consider as farmers who are also homemakers. Similarly, suicides of and Dalits have too been . 

The institutional architecture around this data is complex. Farmer well-being should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare (MoA), yet the Farmer Welfare only addresses illicit agreements with middlemen. Until Section 309 is repealed or substantially modified, data concerning farmer suicides will be in the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs and outside the remit of the MoA, and the stigma around suicide will continue. The Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation (MoSPI) could have a pivotal role to play in this matter. But, the National Statistical Commission, under the MoSPI, has been recently accused of high political interference and ignorance, leading to and the resignation of prominent senior statisticians.

This cynical manipulation of data continued through the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2020, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs G Kishan Reddy claimed that there was no composite  on farmer suicides. This lack of data led to a blame game between the Union and the State governments. But it also meant they had no numbers to disagree on. So, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament  Nishikant Dubey could thatno farmer has died by suicide in the eight years of the administration of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi had also in 2016 that he would double farmer income in five years. For such political powers, the truth appears to be a subjective sentiment of its supporters. 

The Fight for Survival Continues

Even though the BJP seems to be deeply invested in preventing the public from hearing about these issues, there was a strong act of resistance from Indian farmers in response to the recurrent inequity.. In 2020, farmers across India began a mass in opposition of three new farm laws proposed by Modi’s government. According to farmers, these laws would not protect vulnerable families, but instead, negatively impact their livelihoods by conveniently bending the rules around the sale of produce. This was a much-awaited display of the civil resistance against the official preferential treatment granted to the elites, but there is still a long road ahead. 

The NCRB data given to the public shows their neglect in understanding the root causes of suicide among farmers, even as 60% of the Indian population are in this group. Farmer suicides are a symptom of deep-rooted systemic issues concerning erratic supply chains, rising inequality, and governance in India. 

Further, it is hard to imagine the number of farmers and their families that will be displaced as a consequence of climate change. Clear and concise data collection can help shape just narratives and enable farmer-centered policy-making. P. Sainath, founder editor of the People’s Archive of Rural India, that “the issue of farmers is not an economic issue, but an issue of civilization. What kind of society are we shaping, where one who feeds us is forced to die?”. Farmers like Rupesh and his family deserve much more.

 [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 Truth About Indian Farmer Suicides appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The polycrisis complicates the future of the global community, of regions, nations, organizations, and even individual lives. Addressing the great challenges of this polycrisis requires strong political will and creative policymaking.

Mark Cummings, Dennis Allison and Banning Garrett discuss this polycrisis with Geneva Roy to examine the salient issues of the polycrisis and some possible solutions.

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° Live: Ukraine, Climate Change and Polycrisis Implications for the Future appeared first on 51�Թ�.

“Being an historian, I am jotting down these notes out of habit, but what I saw and experienced two days ago I am sure no one else as civilized as I am will ever see. I am writing for those who shall come a long time from now.

“First of all, let me introduce myself. I am THOMAS M. ENGELHARDT, world-renowned historian of the late twentieth century, should that mean anything to whoever reads this account. After the great invasion, I was maintaining a peaceful, contented existence in the private shelter I had built and was completing the ninth and final volume of my masterpiece, The Influence of the Civil War on Mexican Art of the Twentieth Century, when I was seized by a strange desire to emerge from my shelter, have a look at the world, and find some companions. Realizing the risk I was taking, I carefully opened the hatch of the shelter and slowly climbed out. It was morning. To my shock, I was in a wide field overgrown with weeds; there was no sign of the community that had been there…”

As I wander, I finally run into one of my classmates, now “a skinny old man with bushy white hair, wearing a loose deer skin.” And yes, whatever happened (that “great invasion”) while I was underground in — as anyone of that period would have known — a private nuclear-fallout shelter, is unclear. Still, in the world I find on emerging, all my former classmates, whom I meet one after another in joking fashion, now live in caves. In other words, it had obviously been devastated.

True, in those high school years, I was something of a Civil War nut and my classmates ragged me for it. I couldn’t stop reading grown-up books on the subject. (Thank you, , for your popular histories of that war and for the magazine you founded and edited, American Heritage, to which I was a teen subscriber!) They obviously thought I was a history wonk of the first order. But more than 60 years later, it strikes me that we kids who had learned to “” at school — to , hands over our heads (with warnings blaring from the radio on our teacher’s desk) — in preparation for a Russian nuclear attack, already had a deep sense not of future promise but of doom to come. In those days, it wasn’t that hard to imagine ourselves in a future devastated world returned to the Stone Age or worse.

And at the time, I suspect that was hardly out of the ordinary. After all, there were, in a sense, mushroom clouds everywhere on the horizon of our lives to come. By 1962, America’s victory weapon that, in two blinding flashes in August 1945, took out the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II, had become a weapon (in other hands) of potential defeat. Everywhere in our lives there lurked the possibility that “we,” not “they,” might be the next victims of nuclear extermination. Consider it an irony indeed that our country’s nukes would chase Americans through the decades to come, infiltrating so many parts of our world and our lives.

Back in 1954, our Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, already had its own nukes (though as yet little effective way of delivering them). No one thought it worth a comment then that, in Walt Disney’s cinematic retelling of Jules Verne’s Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, when Captain Nemo blows up his island, what’s distinctly a mushroom cloud rises over it. Of course, in those years, would become everyday affairs.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, a now-forgotten bunker-culture mentality enveloped this country and my classmates caught the moment perfectly. In fact, that “shelter” I emerged from would, in 1962, still have been far too recognizable to need further description. After all, we grew up in a time when the Cold War was only intensifying and the very idea of building private nuclear shelters had become a commonplace. As an article in Smithsonian Magazine , right after the first Russian nuclear test went off in 1949, “[General] Douglas MacArthur’s ex-wife said she was furnishing the former slave quarters beneath her Georgetown mansion as a bomb shelter” and, only six years later, the head of Civil Defense began urging every single American “to build an underground shelter right now.’”  

By 1961, faced with a over a divided Berlin, President John F. Kennedy himself Americans to do just that. (“The time is now,” he insisted.) In those years, Life magazine typically ran a feature on constructing “an ” for a mere $3,000! And real-estate ads even promised “good bomb immunity,” while Science News warned of “hucksters who were peddling backyard shelters, burn ointments, dog tags, flashbags, and ‘decontaminating agents.’” Naturally, once you had built your private shelter, there was the question of whether, should a nuclear war be about to begin, you should let the neighbors in or to stop them from doing so.  (A friend of mine still remembers one of his schoolmates and neighbors warning him that, in a crisis, according to his parents, his family better not try to come to their nuclear shelter or they would regret it.)

And that yearbook passage of mine was written in the winter or spring of 1962, months before the shook us all to our bones. That October, I remember fearing the East Coast, where I was then attending my freshman year of college, might indeed go up in a giant mushroom cloud. And keep in mind that, in those years, from popular magazines to sci-fi novels to the movies, the bomb either exploded or threatened to do so again and again. In my youth, atomic war was, culturally speaking, all around us. It was even in outer space, as in the 1955 film in which another planet goes up in a version of radioactive flames, scaring the living hell out of the 11-year-old Thomas M. Engelhardt.  

So, yes, my classmates were messing around and having fun, but underneath it all lurked a sensibility (probably only half-grasped at the time) about the world we were to graduate into that was anything but upbeat. The planet that our leaders were then assuring us was ours for the taking seemed to us anything but. 

World-Endings, Part Two

It’s true that, in the years between then and now, the world didn’t go up in a mushroom cloud (with an killing billions more of us, a probability we knew nothing about in 1962). Still, whether you’re talking about actual war or, it’s certainly looking mighty ugly right now.

Worse yet, if you’re 18 as I was then (and not 78, as I am now), you undoubtedly know that the future isn’t looking cheery these days either, even without a nuclear war. Sadly, in the years since I graduated high school, we discovered that humanity had managed to come up with a second slower but potentially no less devastating way to make this world unlivable. I’m thinking, of course, of climate change, a subject of the young on this embattled planet of ours.

I mean, from to , to , and to… well, of almost any imaginable sort, this planet is an ever less comfortable place on which to live, even without a mushroom cloud on the horizon. And that’s especially true, given how humanity is dealing with the crisis to come. After all, what makes more sense right now than a never-ending war in Europe to create an energy crisis (though that crisis is also the rapid growth of alternative energy)? What makes more sense than an or the world’s two greatest greenhouse gas producers, the United States and China, against each other in an increasingly militarized fashion rather than cooperating to stop our planet from burning up?

What makes more sense than the Biden administration giving the nod to an oil drilling project on federal land in Alaska an estimated 576 million barrels of oil over the next 30 years, despite the president’s not to do such a thing? (“No more drilling on federal lands, period. Period, period, period.”) What makes more sense than China , that monstrous greenhouse-gas producer, than the rest of the world combined?  What makes more sense than the major oil companies garnering in 2022 than in any previous moment in history as they broil the planet without mercy? What makes more sense than, as the Guardian , more than 1,000 “super-emitter” sites, mostly at oil and natural gas facilities, continuing to gush the potent greenhouse gas methane into the global atmosphere in 2022, the worst of those sites spewing “the pollution at a rate equivalent to 67 million running cars”?

And no less daunting, so Michael Birnbaum at the Washington Post recently, as various countries begin to explore the possibility of “solar geoengineering” (spraying a sun-blocking mist into the earth’s atmosphere to cool their overheating countries), they might also end up messing with atmospheric conditions in other lands in a fashion that could lead to… yes, as the “U.S. intelligence community” has come to fear, war. So add potential climate wars to your list of future horrors.

It’s true that alternative energy sources are also ramping up significantly, just , but there’s certainly still hope that, in some fashion, humanity will once again figure out how to come up short of The End. Still, if you’re young today and looking at the world, I suspect it’s not a pretty sight.

Prophecies to Come

Let me now offer my own little summary of the very future that I, like so many of my classmates, did live through to this moment:  No, Thomas M. Engelhardt never wrote that classic book The Influence of the Civil War on Mexican Art of the Twentieth Century, but he did author (published in 1995) in which he wrote about the victory weapon of World War II, the “bunker culture” of the 1950s and 1960s that it produced, and what (as best he could tell) to make of it all.

In addition, with that end-of-the-world sensibility still in mind, while an editor at the publishing house , he would make more visible something Americans had largely been prevented from seeing after August 1945. As it happened, a friend would show him a book put out by a Japanese publisher that collected the memories of some of the survivors of Hiroshima along with drawings they had done of that experience. Yes, in his childhood, Thomas M. Engelhardt had indeed seen and an on screen in science-fictionalized versions of an irradiated future. But from his all-American world had been any vision of what had actually happened to the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in that all-American past.

In 1979, not long before an antinuclear movement that would make use of it revved up in this country, he published that Japanese book, , which all too vividly laid out the memories of those who had experienced world’s end in an up-close-and-personal fashion. And several years later, thanks to that book’s Japanese editor (amazed that any American would have considered publishing it), he actually went to Hiroshima and visited the Peace Memorial Museum, something he’s never forgotten.

And in the next century, the one my high school classmates and I hadn’t even begun to imagine and weren’t at all sure we’d live to see, he would, almost by happenstance, start a website called (not by him) that would repeatedly focus on the two world-ending ways humanity had discovered to do itself in and how to begin to deal with them.

And honestly, all of this leaves me wondering today what that “prophesy” might look like for the high school graduates of 2023 or those of my grandchildren’s generation in an even more distant future. I certainly hope for the best, but also fear the worst.  Perhaps it, too, would begin: “Being an historian, I am jotting down these notes out of habit, but what I saw and experienced two days ago I am sure no one else as civilized as I am will ever see. I am writing for those who shall come a long time from now. First of all, let me introduce myself.  I am [NAME TO BE FILLED IN], world-renowned historian of the twenty-first century, should that mean anything to whoever reads this account….”

More than 60 years later, even writing that, no less remembering the world of once-upon-a-time, and imagining what it will be like after I’m long gone sends chills down my spine and leaves me hoping against hope that, someday, one of my grownup grandchildren will read this and not think worse of the class of 1962 or their grandfather for it.

[ first published 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 Look at Prophecies, Then (1962) and Now (2023) appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The mechanism by which globalization spread throughout the world, the key strand of its DNA, has been the “free trade” treaty. 

“We’ve had 30 years of free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties,” points out Luciana Ghiotto, a researcher at CONICET-Argentina and associate researcher with the Transnational Institute. “They’ve created this enormous legal architecture, what one friend of ours calls the which has spread like grass and gives legal security and certainty to capital. It has nothing to do with the protection of human rights or environmental rights.”

Indeed, among the many problems associated with the expansion of world trade has been environmental degradation in the form of land, air, and water pollution. More recently, however, attention has turned to the more specific problem of carbon emissions, which are largely responsible for climate change. According to the World Trade Organization, the production and transport of goods for export and import account for of global carbon emissions.

Embedded in many of the treaties governing trade and investment are clauses that give corporations the right to sue governments over regulations, particularly those addressing the environment and climate change, that adversely affect the expected profit margins of those businesses. These investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions have a “chilling effect on the regulatory system because governments, worried that they will be sued, decide to delay reforms related to climate change,” points out Manuel Perez Rocha, an associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. “There have been several cases around the world where companies were able to defeat regulatory changes that favor the climate.” Trade rules that privilege corporations over the environment are particularly influential in the realm of agriculture, which is an extractive industry no less powerful than mining.

“The global system of trade and investment contributes to the monopoly control by just a few transnational corporations over fossil-fuel-guzzling agrobusiness, whose products are often transported thousands of miles before they reach a dinner table,” relates Jen Moore, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. “At the same time. the system has been decisive in making the lives of millions of small-scale farmers more precarious, undermining their role as a better alternative to mass monoculture operations.”

Carbon emissions are not the only byproduct of the agrobusiness that global trade sustains. “There’s also methane emissions,” adds Karen Hansen-Kuhn, program director at the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy. “A lot of methane comes from meat production. Nitrous oxide, which is 265 times more potent than carbon and stays in the atmosphere over 100 years, results from chemical fertilizers.”

These perspectives on global trade—and more environmentally sound alternatives to the “free trade” model—were presented at a December 2022 sponsored by project of the Institute for Policy Studies and the .

The Rise of “Free Trade”

Throughout the modern era, states throughout the world protected their domestic economies through tariffs on foreign goods and restrictions on foreign investment. Behind these protective walls, states helped local farmers and businesses compete against cheaper imports and deep-pocketed investors.

But states that depended increasingly on exports of cheap industrial goods and surplus food—aided by transnational companies eager to boost their profits—lobbied for the reduction of these barriers. Arguments for “free trade,” traditionally linked to the presumed benefits of globalization, emerged within the most powerful economies in the nineteenth century, but it was more recently, in the 1970s, that states and international institutions dramatically revived this discourse under the banner of “neoliberalism.”

“When we talk about the circulation of capital, we’re talking about trade,” explains Luciana Ghiotto. “That is, import and export for states and the circulation of thousands of vessels and planes for the transport of commodities all around the world. One of the aims of capital is to make that circulation faster, simpler, and easier. Who would not want to make trade easier or faster? Well, the state.”

Faster and more efficient trade, while more profitable for corporations, also has meant a number of negative consequences for states such as job loss among domestic producers. Because of the wide array of free trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties now in force—and the power invested in international bodies to enforce these agreements—states have lost many of the tools they once used to protect or develop national industries.

The spread of the free-trade orthodoxy has had a major impact on the energy industry, which has in turn pushed up carbon emissions. Ghiotto points to the efforts of fossil-fuel corporations to protect their investments in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a primary motivation to negotiate an Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) in the early 1990s, which guaranteed free trade in global energy markets. The ECT was originally signed by 53 European and Central Asian countries. Today, another 30 countries from Burundi to Pakistan are in .

“The ECT is actually a treaty made specially to protect fossil fuel Industries,” Ghiotto continues. “It’s already been used by investors to protect their investments in the face of state policies. But that was 30 years ago. Now, because of the global climate crisis, states are pushing for other kinds of regulations that are jeopardizing the investments of these corporations.”

Energy companies have taken states to dispute settlements in 124 cases, with around 50 against Spain alone because of its reforms in the renewable energy sector. Companies “have used the ECT as a legal umbrella in order to increase business and profits, or simply to protect their investments against state regulation,” Ghiotto adds. Italy, for instance, instituted a ban on offshore drilling only to be hit by a suit from the UK energy company Rockhopper. In November 2022, the ECT arbitration panel ordered the Italian government plus interest.

“Investors in the mining and oil sector have launched 22 percent of the claims against Latin American states,” she reports. “There was the big case of Chevron against Ecuador. But there have been others. For instance, Ecuador had to pay a $374 million penalty to the French oil company Parenco after the state changed some clauses regarding the amount of taxes the company had to pay in order to give back some of the revenues to the Ecuadorian people.”

Agriculture and Climate Change

Global food production generates of greenhouse gasses every year. That’s about a third of the of such gasses emitted annually. The production of beef and cow milk are the worst offenders, largely because of the methane that’s released by the animals themselves. But other major contributors include soil tillage, manure management, transportation and fertilizers.

“Along with Greenpeace and Grain, our institute has been working with scientists to think about how increased fertilizer use is affecting climate change,” Karen Hansen-Kuhn reports. “Fertilizer use has been increasing all over the world. It’s a key part of Green Revolution practices. The scientists we worked with , bringing together the natural gas and the energy used in production along with transportation and the impacts in the field, amounts to more than 21 percent of emissions from agriculture, and it’s been growing.”

According to , countries like China, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, and Venezuela are using more nitrogen for fertilizers than the crops can even absorb. “This excess contributes to more emissions and causes other problems, for instance with run-off into waterways,” she continues. “The incentives right now in the agricultural system are for extreme overproduction, especially around commodity crops, like corn, soybeans, and wheat, which require these cheap chemical inputs.”

Many of these commodity crops are produced for export. The Netherlands is the of food; China is the second largest importer of food but also . The challenge is to continue to feed the world while reducing the use of so much fertilizer. “Many countries are advancing important agroecological solutions like crop rotation, using plants that fix nitrogen in the soil, and doing more composting,” Hansen-Kuhn adds. “These techniques are under the control of farmers, so they don’t rely on imports or trade in these chemical inputs.”

Another strategy, embraced by the European Union, has been to use trade rules to reduce the carbon content of imports and exports. “In Europe, they are currently in the process of finalizing a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism,” she reports. “The CBAM mostly applies to things like aluminum, steel, and cement, but fertilizer is part of it as well. A lot of firms in Europe are modernizing their plants so they’ll be more energy efficient. And they say they need protection in order to do that. Under this plan, fertilizer imports coming from other countries that don’t have the same environmental standards would be subject to a fee tied to the price of carbon.”

In theory, the CBAM would push exporting countries to raise their environmental standards and/or make their fertilizer production more efficient. “Maybe these plants will become more efficient,” she adds. “But maybe some firms will just decide to produce fertilizer in other countries. Or maybe in cases where a country has two factories, it will just export from the efficient factory, and there’s no change in emissions.”

On top of that, the CBAM will affect countries very differently. “Most of the fertilizer imports into the EU come from nearby countries like Russia or Egypt,” she continues. “But some imports come from countries like Senegal, where the fertilizer exports to Europe amount to 2-5 percent of their entire GDP. So, the CBAM would be a huge problem for such countries. And there’s nothing in this initiative that would give countries the technology they need to make changes. In fact, there are strong incentives against that in the trade deals. The CBAM provision specifically says that all of the resources generated by the carbon fee will be kept internally to foster the transition within Europe.”

Although CBAM may make European trade greener, it may also widen the “green gap” between Europe and the rest of the world. “We need a transition to agroecology, but what we’re getting in the trade deals lock in new incentives to continue with business as usual,” Hansen-Kuhn concludes. “If we look at the renegotiated NAFTA, there’s a new chapter on agricultural biotechnology that streamlines the process for approving both GMOs and products of gene editing. There are also restrictions on seed saving and sharing. And this new NAFTA will probably be the model for other agreements like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework.”

Action at the Global Level

Civil society organizations have been pushing for a legally binding at the UN level to make businesses responsible for human rights violations and environmental crimes connected to their operations.

“Since the UN is made up of states, the more industrialized countries who can invest in the world are opposed to such a binding treaty,” Luciana Ghiotto points out. “In the United States, Canada, and Japan, we’ve seen debates about holding companies responsible for human rights violations throughout the production chain. It’s a relatively new political process. But it’s an example of civil society organizations putting a question of human rights and environmental rights at the center of discussion.”

Efforts at the international level are very complicated, Manuel Perez Rocha concedes: “For instance, the World Bank has the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) through which corporations can sue states.” He recommends a more regional approach. “We have proposed a dispute resolution center for Latin America that countries could use after pulling out of ICSID. “Unfortunately, most progressive countries have not embraced this,” he reports.

One of the challenges to persuading governments to embrace these alternatives is corruption. “There’s a tremendous circle of corruption,” he adds. “We’re talking here about the revolving door where public officials who negotiate these treaties then become private lawyers or counselors or board members of the corporations who are lobbying for their adoption. This corruption helps explain why governments sign these treaties even if they’re going to be sued.”

He points as well to the issue of access to critical minerals needed in the green energy transition. “The Biden administration is trying to combat fossil fuels at the cost of communities that live around the deposits of critical minerals like lithium and cobalt,” Perez Rocha explains. “There are a lot of concerns among native populations about how to make this transition to a so-called clean economy without violating human rights and destroying the environment.”

Trade has been a mechanism to make deals around these minerals. “These efforts at near-shoring and friend-shoring have been ways to control the supply chains around minerals and metals,” notes Jen Moore. “The United States in particular but also Canada have made themselves clear: to be identified as a ‘friend’ is to have an FTA or a bilateral investment treaty.”

There have been other actions at the global level related to climate issues and jobs. For instance, the United States in the WTO in 2014 over domestic content provisions in its effort to boost solar energy. India returned the favor two years later over similar domestic content provisions in state-level solar policy. “The WTO deemed both rules illegal,” Karen Hansen-Kuhn recalls. “In the United States, the programs continued, I don’t think any changes were made. But when we think of a just transition, it has to be about not just reducing emissions but about creating jobs.”

Resistance to Business as Usual

Resistance to the corporate-friendly trade architecture has come from many corners of the globe. “From the perspective of my work with mining-affected people,” Jen Moore reports, “there’s been a rise in resistance from farmers, indigenous peoples, and other communities facing the detrimental Impacts of this highly destructive model of capitalist development that’s been accompanied by violent repression and militarization and often targeted violence against land and environment defenders.”

For example, after buttressing the fossil-fuel status quo for three decades, the Energy Charter Treaty is no longer unassailable. In November, the German cabinet that the country would withdraw from the ECT. It joins a number of European countries—Italy, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Slovenia, and Luxembourg—that have made similar announcements. “In times of climate crisis, it is absurd that companies can sue for lost profits from fossil investments and compensation for coal and nuclear phase-outs,” points out the deputy leader of the parliamentary group of the Greens in the German parliament.

The treaty has a surprise for countries that want out: signatories withdrawing from the ECT are still bound by the treaty for 20 years. There’s also a related problem involving the provisions of other trade treaties.

“European countries are pushing to update treaties with Mexico, Chile, and others to include clauses like the investor-state dispute mechanism, which also allow energy corporations to sue governments,” notes Manuel Perez Rocha. “This is nothing short of neocolonialism being exercised against countries on the periphery.” In response, he urges the “strengthening of national judicial systems so that companies will feel more protected by national systems and not pursue options at the supranational level.”

The backlash to the ECT is nothing new. “The system has created a lot of resistance and critiques since practically day one,” Luciana Ghiotto adds. “I was raised in the spotlight of the battle of Seattle in 1999 against the WTO and the struggles against the Free Trade Area of the Americas.”

Karen Hansen-Kuhn agrees that it’s necessary to claim victories. “Civil society helped weaken the ISDS system,” she notes. “With the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, massive opposition to ISDS was a major reason it fell apart..”

Another form of pushback comes from the field itself. “On our website, we’ve started tracking the adoption of agroecological approaches, which are not just about the inputs but instead look at the fuller picture including food sovereignty, namely each community’s right to choose the food systems it wants,” Hansen-Kuhn continues. She points to Mexico phasing out GMO corn, which relies heavily on the pesticide glyphosate. The government made that decision because of input from civic movements. After objections from the U.S. government, Mexico on that commitment by applying the phase-out only to corn for human consumption.

“Mexico is making some concessions, for example allowing GMO for animal feed, but otherwise it’s standing firm despite enormous pressure,” she concludes. “That’s not a complete transition to agroecology, but here’s a country deciding that it will make a change in its food system regardless of what the trade deals say.”

“It’s important to recall the totality of the system supporting corporate control around the world,” Jen Moore says. “Sometimes it feels like we make only piecemeal attempts to go after it.”

Manuel Perez Rocha agrees. “We need to discuss alternatives from different perspectives, which would put an end to the patriarchal, neocolonial capitalist system,” he suggests. “But while we strive for a utopian vision, we also should discuss more realistic, more feasible, and more concrete alternatives. For instance, companies can sue states. Why shouldn’t states have the right to sue companies? Affected communities should also have access to dispute resolutions. We should eliminate the privileges of foreign investors, like the ‘national treatment’ clause, that tie governments down in their efforts to promote local, regional, and national development.”

The Global South has begun to develop in the debate on a just energy transition. “In Latin America, we have said that there is no new green deal with FTAs and bilateral investment treaties,” Luciana Ghiotto reports. The region has seen the rise of a number of dynamic organizations from the rural activists in Via Campesina to various indigenous movements and feminist movements articulating a feminist economy. Meanwhile, certain countries have taken the lead. “In its constitution, Ecuador prohibited entry into any international agreements that include international arbitration that compromises the country’s sovereignty,” she adds. “The new neoliberal government is struggling with dozens of lawyers to find a way around it, but they still can’t.”

Another example of successful resistance is the growth of the climate justice movement, which goes well beyond environmental protection and has linked activists across struggles from economic justice and human rights to agroecology and post-growth economics.

“After the disruptions of the last couple years, we can come together more in person,” Karen Hansen-Kuhn notes. “Movements require building relationships in person. We need to come together to build these alternatives.”

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

The post The World Now Needs Green Trade, Not Free Trade appeared first on 51�Թ�.

And yet the threat of climate change has only grown larger. In 2022, carbon emissions grew by%.

This failure is not for want of institutions. There’s the UN Environment Program (UNEP), which oversees the complex of international treaties and protocols, helps implement climate financing, and coordinates with other agencies to meet sustainable development goals (SDGs). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has marshaled all the relevant scientific data and recommendations. The Green Climate Fund is attempting to funnel resources to developing countries to advance their energy transitions. The Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, begun in 2020 at the instigation of the Biden administration, has been focusing on reducing methane. International financial institutions like the World Bank have their own staff devoted to global energy transition efforts.

Still, with the notable exception of the global effort to the ozone layer, more institutions have not translated into better results.

On climate change, notes Miriam Lang. a professor of environmental and sustainability studies at the Universidad Andina Simon Bolivar in Ecuador and a member of the , “it seems that the more we know, the less we are able to take effective action. The same can be said about the accelerated loss of biodiversity. We live in an era of mass extinctions, and there’s been little progress at the governance level despite many good intentions.”

One major reason for the failure of collective action is the persistent refusal to think beyond the nation-state. “It’s weird that nationalism has become so dominant when the challenges that we face are global,” observes Jayati Ghosh, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “We know that these problems can’t be regulated within national borders. Yet governments and people within countries persist in treating these crises as ways in which one nation can benefit at the expense of another.”

Another challenge is financial. “Adequate funding at all levels is a fundamental prerequisite to improving climate governance and the implementation of sustainable development goals,” argues Jens Martens, executive director of the . “At a global level, this requires predictable and reliable funding for the UN system. The total assessed contributions to the UN regular budget in 2022 were just about $3 billion. In comparison, the New York City budget alone is over $100 billion.”

In part because of these budgetary shortfalls, international institutions have increasingly relied on what they call “multistakeholderism.” On the face of it, the effort to bring other voices into policymaking at the international level—the various “stakeholders”—sounds eminently democratic. The inclusion of civil society and popular movements is certainly a step in the right direction, as is the incorporation of the perspectives of academics.

But multistakeholderism has also meant bringing business on board, and corporations have the money not only to underwrite global meetings but to determine the outcomes.

“I was at Sharm el-Sheikh in November,” recalls Madhuresh Kumar, an Indian activist-researcher currently based in Paris as a Senior Fellow at Atlantic Institute. “We were welcomed at the airport by a banner that read ‘Welcome to Cop 27.’ And it listed the main partners: Vodafone, Microsoft, Boston Consulting Group, IBM, Cisco, Coca Cola and so on. Most UN institutions face a growing monetary problem. But this monetary problem is not actually at the crux of the issue. It is astonishing how through multistakeholderism, which has evolved over the last four decades, corporations have captured multilateral institutions, the global governance space, and even the big International NGOs.” He adds that were registered at COP 27, a 25% increase from the previous year’s meeting.

The challenges facing global governance are well known, whether it’s nationalism, funding, or corporate capture. Less clear is how to overcome these challenges. Can existing institutions be transformed to more adequately address the global problems of climate change and economic development? Or do we need different institutions altogether? These were the questions addressed at a recent webinar on sponsored by Global Just Transition.

Global Shortcomings

Transforming the current system of global governance around climate, energy, and economic development is like trying to repair an ocean liner that has sprung multiple leaks in the middle of its voyage with no land in sight. But there’s an additional twist: all the crew members have to agree on the proposed fixes.

Jayati Ghosh is a member of the new UN . “The challenge is in its very title,” Ghosh explains. “Multilateralism itself is under threat in part because it hasn’t been effective. But also the imbalances that are rendering it ineffective are not likely to go away any time soon. We’re all aware of this on the board. But without much broader political will, there’s a limit to any given individual or group proposals.”

In addition to nationalism, she believes that four other broad “isms” have prevented a cooperative response to the global problems facing the planet. Take imperialism, for instance, which Ghosh prefers to define “as the struggle of large capital over economic territories when supported by nation-states. We see evidence of that in continuous subsidies of fossil fuels or the greenwashing of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investments. The ability of large capital to sway international policies and national politics in its own interests persists unabated. That’s a major constraint to doing anything serious about climate change.”

Short-termism is another such constraint. In the wake of the Ukraine war, food and fuel corporations sought to profit in the short term by manufacturing a sense of scarcity. The rise in fuel and food prices, Ghosh notes, were created not so much by constraints on supply, but from market imperfections and control over markets by large corporations. That short-term profiteering in turn led to equally short-sighted decisions by the most powerful countries to reverse their previous climate commitments and make fewer such commitments at the last COP in Egypt. Politicians “reversed those commitments because they have midterm elections coming up,” she points out. “They’re worried that voters will support the far right, so they argue that they have to do whatever it takes to increase fuel supplies.”

Classism, in various forms of inequality, has also prevented effective action. “Globally, the top 10 percent, the rich, are responsible for one third to more than one half of all carbon emissions,” Ghosh notes. “Even within countries that is the case. The rich have the power to influence national government policies to ensure that they continue to take the bulk of the carbon budget of the world.”

Finally, she points to “status-quo-ism,” by which she means the tyranny of the international economic architecture, not only the legal and regulatory framework but also the associated global agreements and institutions. “We really have to reconsider the role played by international financial institutions, by the World Trade Organization, the multilateral development banks, and legal frameworks like economic partnership agreements and bilateral investment treaties that actually prevent governments from doing something about climate change,” she argues.

One way of addressing these last four obstacles is to reverse privatization. “The privatizations of the last three decades have been absolutely critical in generating both inequality and more aggressive carbon emissions globally,” Ghosh concludes. She urges the return of utilities, cyberspace, even land to the public sphere.

Revisiting Sustainable Development

In 2015, the UN endorsed 17 sustainable development goals. These SDGs include pledges to end poverty and hunger, combat inequalities within and among countries, protect human rights and promote gender equality, and protect the planet and its natural resources. But climate change, COVID, and conflicts like the war in Ukraine have all pushed the SDG targets further from reach—and made them considerably more to achieve.

“The implementation of the 2030 agenda is not just a matter of better policies,” observes Jens Martens. “The current problems of growing inequality and unsustainable models of consumption and production are deeply connected with powerful hierarchies and institutions. Policy reform is necessary, but it is not sufficient. It will require more sweeping shifts in how and where power is vested. A simple software update is not enough. We have to revisit and reshape the hardware of sustainable development.”

In terms of governance, this means strengthening bottom-up approaches. “The major challenge for more effective global governance is a lack of coherence at the national level,” Martens continues. “Any attempt to create more effective global institutions will not work if it’s not reflected in effective national counterparts. For instance, as long as environmental ministries are weak at the national level we cannot expect UNEP to be strong at the global level.”

Stronger local and national institutions, however, operate within what Martens calls a “disabling environment” where, for instance, “the IMF’s neoliberal approach has proven incompatible with the achievement of the SDGs as well as the climate goals in many countries. IMF recommendations and loan conditionalities have led to a deepening of social and economic inequalities.” Also disabling is the disproportionate power wielded by international financial institutions. “One striking example is the Investor-State Dispute settlement system, which awards investors the right to sue governments, for instance, for environmental policies that reduce profits,” he notes. “This system undermines the ability of governments to implement stronger domestic regulations of fossil fuel industries or to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.”

Enhancing coherence also means strengthening UN bodies such as the , which is responsible for reviewing and following up on the SDGs. “Compared to the Security Council or the Human Rights Council, the HLPF remains extremely weak,” he points out. “It meets only eight days per year. It has a small budget and no decision-making power.”

Some additional institutions are needed to fill global governance gaps, such as an Intergovernmental Tax Body under the auspices of the United Nations, that would ensure that all UN member states, and not only the rich, participate equally in the reform of global tax Rules. Another oft-cited recommendation would be an institution within the UN system independent of both creditors and debtors to facilitate debt restructuring.

All of this requires sufficient funding. Around $40 billion goes toward the development activities of UN agencies, Martens notes, “but far more than half of these funds are project-tied non-core resources mainly earmarked to favor individual donor priorities. That means mainly the priorities of rich donors.” UNEP, meanwhile, gets a mere $25 million from the regular UN budget, which is about $3 billion and doesn’t include for activities like peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.

More democratic funding would have the side benefit of shrinking reliance on foundations and corporate contributions, which “reduce the flexibility and autonomy of all UN organizations,” he concludes.

Addressing Multistakeholderism

One path that global institutions have taken to address the funding shortfall is “multistakeholderism.” As with corporations pushing for privatization at a national level with arguments about the inefficiencies of state enterprises or the bureaucratic state, the advocates of multistakeholder initiatives (MSI) point to the failures of global public institutions to tackle common problems as a reason for greater corporate involvement. In effect, this to large corporations buying more seats at the table for themselves.

Madhuresh Kumar has produced a with Mary Ann Manahan that looks at how multistakeholderism has evolved in five key sectors: education, health, environment, agriculture, and communications. In the forestry sector, for instance, they looked at initiatives like the Tropical Forest Alliance, the Global Commons Alliance, and the Forest for Life Partnership. “We found that in their first decade, the initiatives primarily established the problem by arguing that the multilateral institutions are failing and that’s why we need solutions,” he reports. With the rise in global demand for raw materials, particularly in the context of a “green economy,” there was also greater demand to regulate the industries. The corporate sector responded with initiatives that emphasized “responsible” mining, forestry, and the like.

These “responsible” corporate initiatives revolved around “nature-based” solutions that rely on markets to “get the price right.” Kumar notes that “at the heart of these false, ‘nature-based’ solutions promoted by MSI is the notion that if nature does not have a price, human beings are not incentivized to take care of it, that we have to use nature and also replace it. Carbon offsets, for instance, come out of the principle that you can continue to produce as much carbon as you want as long as you also plant some trees somewhere else.”

According to this logic, nature can be priced according to various “ecosystem services.” He continues: “Seventeen ecosystem services have been identified along with 16 biomes. Together they have an estimated value of $16-54 trillion. If they can be unlocked, the idea is that this money can be put toward solving the climate crisis. But we won’t see that money. Ultimately, what rolls out on the ground won’t help our communities.”

Not only nature is commodified but knowledge itself, for instance through intellectual property rights. “Increasingly, we have a reinforcement of very rigid rules and very rigid systems that lead to the concentration of knowledge and to large corporations appropriating traditional knowledge,” notes Jayati Ghosh.

Another essential part of MSI is the focus on technical fixes, like carbon capture technology, geoengineering, and various forms of hydrogen energy. “These divert a lot of attention from climate justice,” Kumar notes. “It is also having an impact on indigenous communities. For instance, the One Trillion Trees Initiative that the UN backs is promoting a monoculture, the destruction of biodiversity, and the eviction of indigenous communities and many others.”

The disenfranchisement of indigenous communities is especially worrisome. “Indigenous peoples are responsible for preserving 80 percent of the biodiversity that still exists today, which is even confirmed by the World Bank,” Miriam Lang explains. “Nevertheless, we somehow do everything to disrespect, weaken, and threaten indigenous people’s modes of living. We still systematically treat indigenous people as poor and in need of development. We are reluctant to guarantee their land rights, their rights to clean water, their rights to the forest where they live. Instead, we propose to pay them money to compensate their losses, which is just another way of weakening their social organization and decision-making. It causes division and lures them into consumerism, individualism, and entrepreneurialism: precisely those aspects of capitalism that have brought about the current environmental breakdown.”

In addition to corporations, large NGOs like World Wildlife Fund, and major funders like Michael Bloomberg, Kumar notes that “the UN has been a willing participant in all of this. Sustainable Energy for All, which is another MSI, was started by former UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon in 2011 as a response to a statement made by a group of countries. But Sustainable Energy for All later acquired an independent status of its own over which the UN has no control. The UN General Assembly plays an important role in shaping the agenda and setting standards. But then these institutions, like the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership that was initially backed by UNIDO, later go out on their own, become unaccountable, and fall into the lap of corporations.”

Democratizing Governance

In 1974, the UN declared a New International Economic Order to free countries from economic colonialism and dependency on an inequitable global economy. The developing world was unusually unified in supporting the NIEO. Though some elements of the NIEO can be seen in the Agenda 2030, the effort did not translate into any substantial changes in the Bretton Woods institutions—IMF, World Bank—that form the international financial architecture.

“The reason we had demands for a NIEO is precisely because developing countries felt that the global economy was not just or equitable,” Jayati Ghosh observes. “Yes, it was a period of relatively more access to certain institutions. But some of the imbalances that we’re talking about in trade or finance or technology existed even then. Of course, it’s also absolutely true that neoliberal financial globalization has dramatically worsened conditions globally. But I would put it more in terms of the supremacy of large capital over everyone else.”

Also, the United States and European Union continue to wield disproportionate power: appointing the leaders of the World Bank and IMF and controlling the majority of votes in these institutions. “Middle- and low-income countries, which together constitute 85 percent of the world’s population, have only a minority share,” observes Miriam Lang. “There is also a clear racial imbalance at play with the votes of people of color worth only a fraction of their counterparts. If this were the case in any particular country, we would call it apartheid. Yet, as economic anthropologist Jason Hickel points out, a form of apartheid operates right at the heart of international economic governance today and has come to be accepted as normal.”

Developing countries have long demanded a reform of the governance of these IFIs. “The voting rights were originally allocated on the basis of a country’s share of the global economy and of global trade,” reports Jayati Ghosh. “But this was done based on the data of the 1940s, and the world has changed dramatically since then. Developing countries have significantly increased their share of both, and certain countries are much more significant while a number of European countries are much less significant.”

Despite a very minor change in this distribution of votes, the United States and European Union retain the majority of the votes and the lion’s share of the influence. “When you have a new issue of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)—which we for $650 billion— this liquidity created by the IMF is distributed according to quota, which really means that the developing world doesn’t get very much. And 80 percent goes to countries that are never going to use them. So, it’s an inefficient way of increasing global liquidity.”

“Obviously the rich countries that control these institutions are not going to give up their power easily,” she continues. “They have blocked every attempt to change because they have the voting rights now. So, do you say, ‘Okay, let’s demolish the whole thing and start afresh’? But then, how do you create a new institution? How do you even create a minimally democratic way of functioning?”

If the rich countries won’t give up their power voluntarily, they’ll have to be pushed to do so. “I have to confess: I’m saddened by the lack of public outcry,” Ghosh adds. “Even in the very progressive state of Massachusetts, where I’m teaching, people couldn’t be bothered with this. Similarly, in Europe. People’s movements need to point out how this is against not just the interests of the developing world, it’s against the enlightened self-interest of people in the rich countries as well.”

A similar problem applies to the power of the rich within countries. “There’s a need for tax justice at the global level, and not only with the rich countries with all governments involved in setting the tax rules, especially from the global south,” Jens Martens says. “We have a tax system with the highest rates much below what we had in the 1970s or even the 1980s. The international community recently established a minimum tax of 15 percent for transnational corporations: this is a very minor first step at the global level.”

“We had suggested 25 percent,” Jayati Ghosh adds, “which is the median of corporate tax rates globally. But it isn’t just increased tax rates. It’s important to emphasize redistribution. Regulatory processes have dramatically increased the profit share of large companies. Before we get to taxation, we have to look at the reasons they’re able to have these very high profits. We allow them to profiteer during periods of scarcity or assumed scarcity. We allow them to repress workers’ wages. We allow them to grab rents in different ways. So, we need a combination of regulation and taxation to rein in large capital and to make sure that the benefits ultimately produced by workers come back to workers and society as a whole.”

“In the last decade of the twentieth century, we managed to make these corporations villains,” points out Madhuresh Kumar. “But today they are not seen as the villains. Governments in the global North and in the South have given them a platform. There is muted celebration if we are able to shift these corporations toward providing more renewable energy, which they have done by diversifying. But if we can’t shift the power imbalance, we won’t achieve any equality in global governance, in the financial architecture, or anywhere.”

Where Does Change Come From?

In March 2022, Jayati Ghosh was named to a new High Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism created by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. The dozen board members come from different countries and perspectives.

“We have to have a bit of a reality check on what commissions and advisory boards can achieve,” Ghosh points out. “We can advise. We can say this is what we think should happen, this is how we believe the international financial architecture must be changed. Everything else really depends on political will, which is not just governments suddenly seeing the light and becoming good. Political will is when governments are forced to respond to the people. Until that happens, we’re not going to get change no matter how many high-level boards and commissions come up with excellent recommendations that we can all agree with.”

After the 2008-9 global financial crisis, former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz headed up a UN-created commission. “It came up with some really fine recommendations, which are still valid,” Ghosh recalls. “But they were not implemented. They were not even considered. I don’t know if anyone at the IFIs even bothered to read that whole report.”

Multistakeholderism has elevated the status of corporations in high-level climate negotiations. But this is precisely the wrong strategy. “When the World Health Organization negotiated the Tobacco Control Convention, they decided to exclude lobbyists from the tobacco companies from the negotiations,” Jens Martens points out. “In the end they agreed to a quite strong convention, which is now in place. Why can’t we convince our governments to exclude fossil fuel lobbyists from negotiations in the climate sphere because there’s a conflict of interest?”

In the end, Martens is not so pessimistic: “I see a lot of social movements occurring in the last couple years as a counter-reaction to nationalism and the inactivity of our governments: Fridays for Future, Extinction Rebellion, Black Lives Matter. It’s very necessary to put pressure on our governments, because they only respond to pressure from below.”

Jayati Ghosh sees some positive momentum, particularly around the growing trend of acknowledging the rights of nature. “Ecuador and Bolivia included the rights of Mother Earth in their constitutions,” she reports. “But there’s also a movement of civil society groups fighting for the rights of nature in many countries including Germany. If nature is a subject by law, then we can have better instruments to protect nature. We also have discussions at the global level about alternatives to GDP that focus on well-being.”

“Can the world save the world?” she asks. “Yes, the world can save the world. Will the world save the world? No, not at the current rate. Not unless people actually rise up and make sure that their governments act.”

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

The post Climate Crisis Peril: Can The World Save The World? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

That same year, the United Nations held its first environment conference, which led to the creation of the UN Environment Program. Climate change was barely on the conference agenda, but it would increasingly focus the attention of scientists and policymakers over the next two decades with the introduction of the term “global warming” in 1975, the Montreal Protocol in 1987 that restricted ozone-destroying chemicals, and the creation in 1988 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

For half a century, in other words, the international community has issued warnings about the linked hazards of economic growth and climate change. Despite these warnings across five decades, very little has been done to engineer an alternative to unrestrained growth that can safeguard the planet and yet still secure a measure of prosperity for all humans.

Current doomsday scenarios of a future dominated by environmental disasters and economic deprivation are not the result of “sudden panicking,” points out Vedran Horvat, the director of the Institute for Political Ecology in Croatia and a panelist at on post-growth alternatives. “We had 50 years to realize what the Club of Rome said in the 1970s. Already at that time we knew there were limits and boundaries to our growth and that the planet does not have unlimited resources. Already we are too late. But I don’t see that as a reason not to act. Now it’s a question of how we act.”

Similarly, discussion of “peak oil”—of a falling off of oil production—has been around since 1956, when geophysicist Marion King Hubbert that the United States would hit peak production around 1970 while the rest of the world would top out in the early 2000s. Although Hubbert did not anticipate the discovery of new sources of oil, his predictions were only off by a couple decades. The COVID pandemic’s impact on global supply chains, the war in Ukraine, and the rapid transition to electric vehicles have combined to ensure that peak oil demand will arrive in if it hasn’t happened already.

As with the Club of Rome’s warnings, little has been done to prepare for the depletion of fossil fuels.

“For the last 14 years, we’ve talked about green transition,” observes Simon Michaux, an associate professor of geo-metallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland. “But there’s been no feasibility study for macro-scale industrial reformation. We had some ideas, but we didn’t cost them out. We didn’t get to the point of determining what kind of power stations we would need, who would pay for them, and what kind of engineering we’d need to keep each one running. Here we are perhaps past peak oil, and we still don’t have a credible plan to phase out fossil fuels.”

The lack of a plan and the urgency of the crisis are two major obstacles. A third challenge is the absence of consensus on how to move forward. “For the last two decades, those of us who are more and more worried about these conditions and the fact that things aren’t changing are aware of just how far we are going down the road we shouldn’t be going down,” says Susan Krumdieck, professor and chair in Energy Transition at Heriot-Watt University in Scotland. “We’ve put on our superhero capes to fight. Unfortunately, we’re pulling in different directions.”

One obvious difference in approach is between the richer countries of the Global North and the poorer countries of the Global South. “We’ve seen lots of initiatives like the Green New Deal in the United States which lack the perspective and participation of peripheral economies in the Global South,” notes Renata Nitta, a campaign strategist for Greenpeace International based in Brazil. “When you think of plans to decarbonize the economy and transition to electric vehicles, you have to ask where those raw materials come from. More than half of lithium resources, for instance, are based in Latin America in a very dry area where the mining takes a lot of energy and water and dispossesses traditional and indigenous communities.”

At this point, after a half century of study and debate, the international community has a good understanding of the challenges of economic growth and the urgent threat of climate change and resource depletion. Only recently, however, have scientists, engineers, policymakers, and movement leaders begun to identify the components of an action plan around post-growth alternatives. From “transition engineering” and “degrowth by design” to a new social contract and a new economic model built around the commons, visionary thinkers and activists are finally beginning to pull in the same direction.

Transition Engineering

In 1911, a fire broke out in the Triangle Shirtwaist factory in New York City. One of the exits was locked while a fire escape was too flimsy to hold all the fleeing workers. Because they could not get out of the building, 146 garment workers died in the flames. It was one of the deadliest industrial accidents in U.S. history. It also set in motion the transformation of working conditions in factories through the improvement of safety standards.

The Triangle fire is not the only example of a man-made disaster. “At that time, roughly 40 coal miners a day were dying on the job in the United States and that year 5,600 UK workers died on the job,” notes Susan Krumdieck. “That isn’t the case anymore. Maybe in Qatar a lot of people are still dying on the job but that’s because they’re not doing what we do, namely safety engineering. We see the emergence of corrective discipline time and again. After the Titanic went down, maritime safety emerged to ensure that that didn’t happen again. After toxic waste disasters like Love Canal, we saw the emergence of processes to prevent those man-made disasters.”

Climate change is also a man-made disaster. Like coal mining deaths and toxic waste dumps, it is a byproduct of the industrial era. Recognition of climate change—and the costs it has already exacted in human lives and environmental deterioration—has led to the creation of what Krumdieck calls “transition engineering,” namely an effort to “downshift fossil fuel production and consumption and then engineer the adaptation and resetting of the energy system and the economic behaviors in that context.”

Krumdieck was motivated to become a mechanical engineer as an undergraduate in 1981 “because of the energy crisis, the OPEC oil embargo, global warming, and the existential threat of biodiversity loss,” she remembers. “For nearly 20 years, I taught people how to put CO2 safely and efficiently into the air. Then in the late 1990s, many like me got distracted by carbon capture and storage and by biofuels because we are engineers and it was very exciting to work on these really impossible things.”

She has since transitioned to transition engineering. “That’s how impact happens: by developing standards, training, and professional organizations,” she points out. “Now is the time for people working on this all around the world to come together and create a discipline.”

She hopes that future historians will look at humanity’s predicament today much as we look back at the Triangle Fire. Transition engineering can potentially transform the way economics work much as safety engineering has radically minimized man-made hazards in the workplace.

“This year, in the UK, fewer than 150 will die on the job,” she concludes. “Not one of those is okay. But 100 years ago, all 5,600 worker lives lost were just the price of the progress of industrialization.”

Addressing Fossil Fuel Dependency

Despite considerable investments by China, the United States, and other countries into renewable energy systems like solar and wind, fossil fuels remain the dominant source of energy in the world. In 1966, oil, gas, and coal supplied of all electricity. By 2009, that number had dropped to a little above . But over the next decade, even as concern over climate change spiked, dependency on fossil fuels barely shifted, falling to just under 79% by 2020. The economic rebound from the COVID lockdowns, coupled with the initial energy shocks associated with the war in Ukraine, has encouraged a greater reliance on fossil fuels, , and generated for oil and gas companies.

But the war in Ukraine—and the near universal desire to achieve energy independence from external suppliers—has also inspired many countries to push harder to install renewable energy, forcing the International Energy Agency to revise its estimate of increased renewable capacity by 30%. , “renewables are set to account for over 90% of global electricity expansion over the next five years, overtaking coal to become the largest source of global electricity by early 2025.”

The desire for transition may be strong but the physical infrastructure is still lacking. “The task to get rid of fossil fuels is much larger than we thought, so large that we should have been taking it seriously 20 years ago,” reports Simon Michaux. “We need 586,000 non-fossil-fuel power stations to phase out fossil fuel, but there are only 46,000 in the existing system. We don’t have enough minerals to build these new stations.”

Further, those minerals are often in areas of the Global South where extraction poses serious risks to surrounding communities and the environment. “Half the world’s cobalt reserves are in the Democratic Republic of Congo,” Renata Nitta points out, adding that such mines are often the locus of human rights abuses. “More than 14,000 children are working in cobalt mines.

The challenge is not just the insufficiency of mineral resources. “Wind and solar are highly intermittent,” Michaux continues. “To become viable, we need a power buffer. My calculations show that such a power buffer would be so large as to be impractical. Which means that wind and solar can’t be the foundational energy system we want it to be. So, we either need to change wind and solar or we need to change electrical engineering to deal with variable power supply.”

One strategy for gradually reducing dependency on fossil fuels is rationing. The United Kingdom, in supported by the Labour and Green parties, considered implementing Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) as a way to equitably reduce fossil fuel consumption. In , individuals are issued quotas of fossil fuel energy to use, the surplus of which they can sell. Institutions purchase TEQs at auction or buy as needed. The TEQs are linked to carbon reduction goals, and governments can progressively reduce them to meet national and international requirements.

“The system that does the rationing and why is a primary requirement,” Susan Krumdieck points out. “Seats at a Queen concert are rationed: there are only so many. If everyone who wanted to see the concert just showed up it would be a disaster. So, the system that lets us book and manage our expectations is essential. Does that system exist for fossil fuels? No, so let’s build it.”

Simon Michaux agrees that rationing would be sensible, but it would work only if there were sufficient trust in the system, which requires full transparency. “Everyone involved has to understand what’s happening and why,” he maintains.

Because of the war in Ukraine, rationing of energy has already happened throughout Europe. Vedran Horvat points to measures “related to air-conditioning temperatures in offices, the heating of swimming pools, and the lighting of public monuments. This broad range of measures to decrease energy consumption, in the context of the energy crisis in Europe due to the war in Ukraine, is well understood and easily accepted. It is also an issue of solidarity to understand that if we maintain our comfort at an unsustainably high level, it might have detrimental impact on people on the other side of the planet.”

Addressing Growth

Economic growth continues to push greater consumption of energy. The pandemic shutdowns led to a 4.5% decline in global energy consumption in 2020, but that was erased by a in 2021 during the economic rebounds. In the first half of 2022, energy consumption continued to %.

The war in Ukraine, however, has dampened growth prospects, not only for Russia and Ukraine but for Europe more generally. “At the moment, many European countries are facing zero-growth scenarios and some core European economies are not predicting any growth in the next few years,” Vedran Horvat points out. “Which means that we really need to address questions of how to organize our lives and ensure wellbeing for all in conditions of if not degrowth then at least zero growth. This sort of degrowth, which is imposed by geopolitics, is degrowth by disaster.” This kind of degrowth resembles austerity measures imposed during or after other kinds of disasters, like war or debt default.

A better approach, Horvat notes, would be “degrowth by design.” In this way, “we program our developmental scenarios to satisfy human needs and wellbeing but in ways that don’t lead necessarily to economic growth,” he explains. “This would involve fair and equal redistribution of resources through as much of a democratic process as possible. We should think of how to use the current crisis as an opportunity. A democratic transition to degrowth is necessary if we want to discuss viable alternatives rather than have degrowth imposed by disaster as is now the case.”

Such degrowth by design, argues Renata Nitta, must include a major shift in thinking. “We have to move from a very individualistic, profit-driven society to one that is more based on sharing, on the commons, on valuing care,” she notes. “In this sense, we have a lot to learn from what indigenous and traditional communities are doing and telling us. Their vision of the cosmos is embedded in a different ethic that respects the environment. Deforestation rates inside indigenous areas can be 26 percent lower than other areas. So, these communities are very effective in terms of protecting the environment. We have to ensure that they’re part of the decision-making and we surely have to respect their constitutional rights.”

Who Are the Changemakers?

All transitions need people who help engineer the pivot. These are the changemakers, like the revolutionaries in America and France in the eighteenth century or the Silicon Valley scientists and entrepreneurs who ushered in the computer age.

“When change happens, it’s not a shift in mass consciousness among people as such,” Simon Michaux points out. “It’s a relatively small number of people embedded in our civil service. They’re not necessarily elected officials, they’re people advising those officials. And when they decide to move on things, they can move quickly.” He notes that it’s difficult to work through official channels because the establishment is not interested in change: “They’re having a great time with growth and power and money.” But advisors, who aren’t themselves in charge, are a different matter. “If they decide that they’ve had enough, change happens,” he points out.

Scientists and engineers, too, can play a role. “A network of badly-behaved scientists and engineers who just do stuff without permission,” Michaux continues, can also spur forward a shift in consciousness by developing new ideas, approaches, and innovations and getting information about them into circulation. “Most of humanity is inured to the existing paradigm. So, you only need 4-5 percent of humanity” to understand the new approaches and decide to move on them.

Vedran Horvat looks to trade unions as key players in the process, particularly in Europe where the European Green Deal is decarbonizing economies from the top down and without sufficient attention paid to addressing inequality and injustice. Trade unions, he argues, are essential in forging a new social contract that creates the consensus necessary for degrowth scenarios to move from the fringe to mainstream acceptance.

“Trade unions are sometimes quite difficult but necessary partners to tackle the justice element of moving toward post-growth scenarios,” he concludes. “Post-growth scenarios are not politically represented in democracies, are not related to democratic power in a way to execute such scenarios. So, we must find other ways to have political representation of this shift in the political arena.”

Renata Nitta is skeptical about the notion that technology can solve all environmental and climate challenges. To advance zero-growth alternatives, she says, “we need to redefine the convergence points between state, trade union movements, and all those who might be left behind when adopting this new regime.”

Tipping Points

Change can happen when a critical mass of people abandons an old model in favor of something new. Sometimes that happens as a result of a particular event. For instance, the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring in 1962 spurred an effort to ban the pesticide DDT. On the climate front, the approach of —the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, the complete thaw of northern permafrost—should have already prompted a reconsideration of the push factors behind global warming. Ideally, physical tipping points should translate into perceptual tipping points.

When it comes to economic growth, however, virtually all governments, international financial institutions, and economists—as well as significant majorities of the population—believe that either the status quo is working for them or that directing a larger share of a growing pie will remedy what’s wrong. Only when a critical mass of people understand that the pie can’t keep growing—that unlimited growth is not liberating but ultimately self-defeating— will a tipping point in public opinion be reached.

In April 2010, the largest oil spill in history happened when the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. Several months later, a massive fire at a ruptured gas pipeline south of San Francisco brought renewed scrutiny to the perils of the fracking industry. Also in 2010, “it was becoming quite clear that the Kyoto protocol was not going to make a blip of difference,” Susan Krumdieck reports. “Those were the galvanizing moments. And that’s when 100 engineers came together to create the Global Association for Transition Engineering. It was clear we were going down a very dangerous path and that we had to help end users adapt to a better way of doing things.”

Another way of discussing tipping points is the notion of sacrifice. When will a critical mass of people willingly accept sacrifices—of their SUVs, frequent air flights, cruise ship vacations, and so on—to save the planet from its multiple environmental threats? Or will sacrifice need to be imposed on an unwilling populace, as China did with its one-child policy beginning in 1980?

“In many countries, social majorities are not accepting that sacrifices need to be made,” Vedran Horvat points out. The stumbling block is not willingness to recycle but willingness to scale back on consumption. “The circular economy obviously has some positive environmental or climate impacts but it doesn’t teach us to consume less,” he adds. “Bringing some resources back into circulation to use again is all good and needed, but it doesn’t require us to consume less. We need to relearn what our lives look like if we consume less.”

Sacrifices can be imposed from above, or they can be agreed upon collectively through a democratic process. 

“Obviously governments, commissions, and transnational governance regimes are all engaged in delivering quick, top-down solutions without investing time into democratic processes,” Horvat continues. “That’s no reason not to bring this debate into society and, wherever possible, enable citizens to learn how to transform their lives. When we say that we don’t have enough resources, we are not asking what energy is being used for at this moment and whether we need that to maintain the system. Some things must be shrunk or calibrated to the new reality if we are to be more responsible toward future generations and for them to live in a just world.”

As Renata Nitta points out, the Global South has already made sacrifices for centuries through colonial appropriation and its aftermath. But now, the Global South urgently needs help in transitioning away from fossil fuels and addressing the current impacts of climate change. “It took 30 years to agree on financing for loss and damage,” she points out. “We can’t wait another 30 years to define the rules for financing the transition. At the national level, we need to move away from the lobbying of big corporations on governments to create processes that are more bottom up than top down: to include marginal groups and ensure that their rights are being respected. It takes a lot of time, but what other choices do we have? I don’t see any other way to create faster change.”

At the same time, Nitta stresses the importance of utopian alternatives. “We are constantly being bombarded by messages of doom,” she says. “These messages disempower people. For quite some time, the environmental movement was quite good at using “end-of-the-world” messages. But now is the time to change. People are building resilience in communities all over the world. Our job as researchers and environmentalists is to help amplify these ideas.”

Sacrifice won’t come easily to the affluent in the Global North. “We’ve been living a wonderful life in the last century, a golden era of getting whatever we want with a snap of our fingers,” notes Simon Michaux. “What happens if we are moving into a world without enough to go around, when we have to work very hard for less outcome? From a biological point of view—and I learned this from —energy determines the size and complexity of an organism. 

If energy is reduced, that organism has to shrink in size and become less complex. If we are stepping into a low-energy future, industry will likewise become simpler and smaller whether we like it or not. There will be a reorganizing of energy around new energy sources. Then people will reorganize themselves around those industrial hubs, and our food production will reorganize around those people.”

In other words, a major fork in the road approaches. “In this way, we’ll decide who we really are and what kind of world we want to live in,” Michaux concludes. “Do we turn against each other or work together?”

Role of the State

The economic trend of the last four decades has been in the direction of reducing the power of the state: privatization of state assets, reduction of regulatory apparatuses, weakening of government leverage over the economy. Some of the policies to address climate change fit into this pattern by emphasizing market-based solutions such as carbon trading. But as in renewable energy suggests, governments have enormous power to push through economic transitions.

“If a government can come up with a sensible plan that everyone gets behind, more government intervention might work,” notes Simon Michaux. “But if it’s like the Roman Empire, when the government wasn’t acting in the best interests of the majority of the population, then it won’t work. If that happens, there will be less government intervention and a parallel system of governance will emerge, and the social mandate to govern will transfer from one system to the other. We’ll need government in some form, but that government would have to implement a new system that doesn’t exist yet in a paradigm that doesn’t exist yet. My job going forward is to build the tools that try to understand what that paradigm might be and then hand those tools off to people who will go on past me.”

Governments also remain subject to considerable influence from the corporate sector, particularly fossil fuel companies that continue to lobby for subsidies and other favorable terms. “We see at every COP how weak governments are,” Vedran Horvat explains. “They are not able to make agreements that are immune from fossil fuel companies and the corporate sector more generally. The return of government is essential in abandoning fossil fuels for it is governments who ultimately have to operate in the public interest.”

Renata Nitta agrees: “The market won’t resolve the climate and biodiversity crisis. A market mechanism proposed by companies is often little more than greenwashing so that they can maintain business as usual. It’s important to pressure government to keep these corporations accountable and not accept false solutions.”

Time, all of the presenters agree, is of the essence. “Now that I’m a granny, I don’t have time to think about things I can’t do anything about, such as the way the market works or the way politicians work,” Susan Krumdieck reports. “I’m laser-focused on the changes that are required, on a change in a place or a system that can be scaled up.”

“Odrast is the Croatian word for degrowth,” points out Vedran Horvat. “The word doesn’t sound negative in Croatian. It means to grow up and be mature. So, we need to be mature enough to cooperate and identify a definite set of options to ensure the survival of future generations.”
[ first published 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 From the Unsustainable Here to the Sustainable There appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Pentagon is required by law to provide Congress and the public with an annual report on “military and security developments involving the People’s Republic of China,” or PRC, over the next 20 years. The 2022 version, of detailed information published last November 29th, focused on its current and future military threat to the United States. In two decades, so we’re assured, China’s military — the People’s Liberation Army, or PLA — will be superbly equipped to counter Washington should a conflict arise over Taiwan or navigation rights in the South China Sea. But here’s the shocking thing: in those nearly 200 pages of analysis, there wasn’t a single word — not one — devoted to China’s role in what will pose the most pressing threat to our security in the years to come: runaway climate change.

The World This Week: Climate Change Matters and So Do Other Species

At a time when California has just been in a singular fashion by punishing winds and massive rain storms delivered by a moisture-laden “atmospheric river” flowing over large parts of the state while much of the rest of the country has from severe, often lethal floods, tornadoes, or snowstorms, it should be self-evident that climate change constitutes a vital threat to our security. But those storms, along with the rapacious wildfires and relentless heatwaves experienced in recent summers — not to speak of a 1,200-year record in the Southwest — represent a to what we can expect in the decades to come. By 2042, the nightly news — already saturated with storm-related disasters — could be devoted almost exclusively to such events.

All true, you might say, but what does China have to do with any of this? Why should climate change be included in a Department of Defense report on security developments in relation to the People’s Republic?

There are three reasons why it should not only have been included but given extensive coverage. First, China is now and will remain the world’s leading emitter of climate-altering carbon emissions, with the United States — though the greatest emitter — staying in second place. So, any effort to slow the pace of global warming and truly enhance this country’s “security” must involve a strong drive by Beijing to reduce its emissions as well as cooperation in energy decarbonization between the two greatest emitters on this planet. Second, China itself will be subjected to extreme climate-change harm in the years to come, which will severely limit the PRC’s ability to carry out ambitious military plans of the sort described in the 2022 Pentagon report. Finally, by 2042, count on one thing: the American and Chinese armed forces will be devoting most of their resources and attention to disaster relief and recovery, diminishing both their motives and their capacity to go to war with one another.

China’s Outsized Role in the Climate Change Equation

Global warming, scientists tell us, is caused by the accumulation of “anthropogenic” (human-produced) greenhouse gasses (GHGs) in the atmosphere that trap the reflected light from the sun’s radiation. of those GHGs are carbon and methane emitted during the production and combustion of fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas); additional GHGs are released through agricultural and industrial processes, especially steel and cement production. To prevent global warming from exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial era — the largest increase scientists believe the planet can absorb without catastrophic outcomes — such emissions will have to be sharply reduced.

Historically speaking, the United States and the European Union (EU) countries have been the largest GHG emitters, for 25% and 22% of cumulative CO2 emissions, respectively. But those countries, and other advanced industrial nations like Canada and Japan, have been taking significant steps to reduce their emissions, including phasing out the use of coal in electricity generation and providing incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles. As a result, their net CO2 emissions have in recent years and are expected to decline further in the decades to come (though they will need to do yet more to keep us below that 1.5-degree warming limit).

China, a relative latecomer to the industrial era, is historically responsible for “only” 13% of cumulative global CO2 emissions. However, in its drive to accelerate its economic growth in recent decades, it has vastly increased its reliance on coal to generate electricity, resulting in ever-greater CO2 emissions. China now accounts for an of total world coal consumption, which, in turn, largely explains its current dominance among the major carbon emitters. According to the 2022 edition of the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook, the PRC was responsible for 33% of global CO2 emissions in 2021, compared with 15% for the US and 11% for the EU.

What Climate Debt Does the North Owe the South?

Like most other countries, China has to abide by the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 and undertake the decarbonization of its economy as part of a worldwide drive to keep global warming within some bounds. As part of that agreement, however, China itself as a “developing” country with the option of increasing its fossil-fuel use for 15 years or so before achieving a peak in CO2 emissions in 2030. Barring some surprising set of developments then, the PRC will undoubtedly the world’s leading source of CO2 emissions for years to come, suffusing the atmosphere with colossal amounts of carbon dioxide and undergirding a continuing rise in global temperatures.   

Yes, the United States, Japan, and the EU countries should indeed do more to reduce their emissions, but they’re already on a downward trajectory and an even more rapid decline will not be enough to offset China’s colossal CO2 output. Put differently, those Chinese emissions — estimated by the IEA at 12 billion metric tons annually — represent at least as great a threat to US security as the multitude of tanks, planes, ships, and missiles enumerated in the Pentagon’s 2022 report on security developments in the PRC. That means they will require the close attention of American policymakers if we are to escape the most severe impacts of climate change.

China’s Vulnerability to Climate Change

Along with detailed information on China’s outsized contribution to the greenhouse effect, any thorough report on security developments involving the PRC should have included an assessment of that country’s vulnerability to climate change. It should have laid out just how global warming might, in the future, affect its ability to marshal resources for a demanding, high-cost military competition with the United States.

In the coming decades, like the US and other continental-scale countries, China will suffer severely from the multiple impacts of rising world temperatures, including extreme storm damage, prolonged droughts and heatwaves, catastrophic flooding, and rising seas. Worse yet, the PRC has several distinctive features that will leave it especially vulnerable to global warming, including a heavily-populated eastern seaboard rising sea levels and increasingly powerful typhoons; a vast interior, parts of which, already significantly dry, will be prone to full-scale ; and a vital river system that relies on unpredictable rainfall and increasingly imperiled . As warming advances and China experiences an ever-increasing climate assault, its social, economic, and political institutions, including the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), will be severely tested.

According to a recent from the Center for Climate and Security, “,” the threats to its vital institutions will take two major forms: hits to its critical infrastructure like port facilities, military bases, transportation hubs, and low-lying urban centers along China’s heavily populated coastline; and the danger of growing internal instability arising from ever-increasing economic dislocation, food scarcity, and governmental incapacitation.

China’s coastline already suffers heavy flooding during severe storms and significant parts of it could be entirely underwater by the second half of this century, requiring the possible relocation of hundreds of millions of people and the reconstruction of billions of dollars’ worth of vital facilities. Such tasks will surely require the full attention of Chinese authorities as well as the extensive homebound commitment of military resources, leaving little capacity for foreign adventures. Why, you might wonder, is there not a single sentence about this in the Pentagon’s assessment of future Chinese capabilities?

Even more worrisome, from Beijing’s perspective, is the possible effect of climate change on the country’s internal stability. “Climate change impacts are likely to threaten China’s economic growth, its food and water security, and its efforts at poverty eradication,” the climate center’s study suggests (but the Pentagon report doesn’t mention). Such developments will, in turn, “likely increase the country’s vulnerability to political instability, as climate change undermines the government’s ability to meet its citizens’ demands.”

Of particular concern, the report suggests, is global warming’s dire threat to food security. China, it notes, must feed approximately 20% of the world’s population while occupying only 12% of its arable land, much of which is vulnerable to drought, flooding, extreme heat, and other disastrous climate impacts. As food and water supplies dwindle, Beijing could face popular unrest, even revolt, in food-scarce areas of the country, especially if the government fails to respond adequately. This, no doubt, will compel the CCP to deploy its armed forces nationwide to maintain order, leaving ever fewer of them available for other military purposes — another possibility absent from the Pentagon’s assessment.

COP27 Flopped: the Rich Won’t Pay, the Poor Will Suffer

Of course, in the years to come, the US, too, will feel the ever more severe impacts of climate change and may itself no longer be in a position to fight wars in distant lands — a consideration also completely absent from the Pentagon report.

The Prospects for Climate Cooperation

Along with gauging China’s military capabilities, that annual report is required by law to consider “United States-China engagement and cooperation on security matters… including through United States-China military-to-military contacts.” And indeed, the 2022 version does note that Washington interprets such “engagement” as involving joint efforts to avert accidental or inadvertent conflict by participating in high-level Pentagon-PLA crisis-management arrangements, including what’s known as the Crisis Communications Working Group. “Recurring exchanges [like these],” the report , “serve as regularized mechanisms for dialogue to advance priorities related to crisis prevention and management.”

Any effort aimed at preventing conflict between the two countries is certainly a worthy endeavor. But the report also assumes that such military friction is now inevitable and the most that can be hoped for is to prevent World War III from being ignited. However, given all we’ve already learned about the climate threat to both China and the United States, isn’t it time to move beyond mere conflict avoidance to more collaborative efforts, military and otherwise, aimed at reducing our mutual climate vulnerabilities?

At the moment, sadly enough, such relations sound far-fetched indeed.  But it shouldn’t be so. After all, the Department of Defense has already designated climate change a vital threat to national security and has indeed called for cooperative efforts between American forces and those of other countries in overcoming climate-related dangers. “We will elevate climate as a national security priority,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in March 2021, “integrating climate considerations into the Department’s policies, strategies, and partner engagements.”

Cities Under Water
Where in the world is most at risk from sea-level rise?

The Pentagon provided further information on such “partner engagements” in a 2021 report on the military’s vulnerabilities to climate change. “There are many ways for the Department to integrate climate considerations into international partner engagements,” that report , “including supporting interagency diplomacy and development initiatives in partner nations [and] sharing best practices.” One such effort, it noted, is the Pacific Environmental Security Partnership, a network of climate specialists from that region who meet annually at the Pentagon-sponsored Pacific Environmental Security Forum.

At present, China is not among the nations involved in that or other Pentagon-sponsored climate initiatives. Yet, as both countries experience increasingly severe impacts from rising global temperatures and their militaries are forced to devote ever more time and resources to disaster relief, information-sharing on climate-response “best practices” will make so much more sense than girding for war over Taiwan or small uninhabited islands in the East and South China Seas (some of which will be completely underwater by century’s end). Indeed, the Pentagon and the PLA are more alike in facing the climate challenge than most of the world’s military forces and so it should be in both countries’ mutual interests to promote cooperation in the ultimate critical area for any country in this era of ours.Consider it a form of twenty-first-century madness, then, that a Pentagon report on the US and China can’t even conceive of such a possibility. Given China’s increasingly significant role in world affairs, Congress should require an annual Pentagon report on all relevant military and security developments involving the PRC. Count on one thing: in the future, one devoted exclusively to analyzing what still passes for “military” developments and lacking any discussion of climate change will seem like an all-too-grim joke. The world deserves better going forward if we are to survive the coming climate onslaught.

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 Is Now a Defense Matter appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Indonesia has set a target of in GHG emissions without international funding, and 43.20% with international support by 2030. This commitment is legally binding. This gives judiciaries a pivotal role in achieving this goal. is “an increasingly common and citizen-accessible area of environmental law.” Citizens increasingly use this form of litigation to hold countries and public corporations accountable both “for their climate mitigation efforts and historical contributions to .”

In Indonesia, all climate-related cases are filed in the general court and led by certified judges in environmental law. The future holds increasing ecological challenges due to climate change, making it essential for Indonesia’s government to enhance its jurisdiction in order to mindfully regulate environmental laws.

Why Tech Collapsed and What Happens Now

In 2019, citizens and activists of Jakarta sued the government for poor air quality in central Jakarta court. This case was critical in the history of human rights in Indonesia as it voiced the citizens’ demands to improve the overall environment. The case reached a verdict after two long years in 2021. The verdict entailed appropriate penalties for the president, three of the ministers, and the governor, in order to implement appropriate actions against air pollution. This case has contributed to the climate litigation progress and movements in Indonesia.

Principles and Practice

This case consists of some principles related to environmental law as mentioned in Article 2, of 2009. These include the principles of pollution pay, sustainable development and the precautionary principle. According to the pollution pay principle, Jakarta’s governor should be stricter in penalizing drivers who do not comply with permissible pollution levels for vehicles, businesses or activities that do not meet emission-quality standards. Due to this case, the governor issued  , regarding the exhaust emission tests of motorbikes in 2020. This added more than 15 air quality monitoring stations, and arranged emission inventory. 

Air pollution negatively impacts health over many generations. Such pollution is not sustainable and violates the principle of sustainable health. Judges argued that the health ministry had violated the law by refusing to share any information regarding the polluted areas and the effect of the air pollution on public health.The health ministry also did not have the statistics about the decline in public health due to the air pollution. This goes against article 14 in presidential . Therefore, there is a need for Indonesia to improve transparency among stakeholders.

Indonesia’s Balancing Act Between China and Taiwan

Keeping in accordance with the precautionary principle, after the forest fires in 2017, the panel of judges requested the president to revise presidential rule 41 of 1999. Though the validity of this act has been questioned for 21 years, it has still not been reviewed by the president, signifying a failure to prioritize the regulations. Despite this, a ray of hope may still lie amongst the citizen lawsuits filed against air pollution in Jakarta. These lawsuits led the government to redesign the Baku Mutu Adara Ambien (BMUA), which translates as the Ambient Air Quality Standard, and could possibly be what encourages the prioritization of the pollution risks. 

Strengthening Climate Commitments

This suit serves as an example for all Indonesians to approach the court of law with citizen lawsuits if their rights to a healthy environment are violated. The right to a healthy environment is a human right, and so, will be considered in court in any environmental case. The court’s decision to consider human rights a supporting element in Perbuatan Melawan Hukum (PMH), and their choice to present human rights experts in court are well-measured moves. 

In addition to this case, the media also plays a crucial role in raising awareness about climate litigation in Indonesia. Presenting more cases and initiating discussions will increase critical thinking and optimism amongst citizens about the environment and their human rights.

The president and the ministries of Indonesia need to be held accountable for any violation of the BMUA rules. Jakarta’s air pollution is getting progressively worse. Along with Hanoi and Mandalay, Jakarta is the city in Southeast Asia. Their citizens’ life expectancy has by three to four years on average.The verdict also probes the ministry of environment and forestry to strengthen the supervising roles of governors. The supervising roles of governors extend to the areas of forming policies on emission limits, management plans (), power station units and other operating industries in each province. In order to further public participation and their faith in the government, there need to be mechanisms to penalize governors if found ineffective. This will showcase the nation and its judiciary’s commitment towards reversing climate change. 

Indonesia continues to face challenges with solving the air pollution in Jakarta. For instance, the country has a limited number of judges specializing in environmental law who can address the potential rise in climate-related cases. Indonesia also needs to stop relying on coal power plants to attain its economic resilience due to its direct impact on air pollution. Furthermore, the public is still largely unaware of the urgency of the climate crisis. 

Since climate-related cases are rising, Indonesia must train its young judges in environmental law. Cases alone will not do the trick and neither will judicial activism. Indonesian citizens have to take an active role in getting their representatives to draft laws to combat climate change. They also have to put pressure on the government to implement these laws through sensible policies. These policies must have goals and targets that can be measured, monitored and evaluated. Only then will Indonesia be able to play its part in combating climate change.

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

The post What Jakarta Climate Change Lawsuit Means for the Future appeared first on 51�Թ�.