SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Today's challenges of access to food will be exacerbated by production challenges tomorrow. We are not on track to meet future food needs. Not even close," according to a letter published Tuesday.
A group of some of the world's foremost thinkers is sounding the alarm on the globe's looming "hunger catastrophe" and are calling for "moonshot" efforts to stave off the crisis, according to an open letter published Tuesday that was signed by 153 winners of the Nobel Prize and World Food Prize.
The luminaries who signed the letter include the economist Joseph Stiglitz; the spiritual leader the 14th Dalai Lama; the Nigerian playwright and political activist Wole Soyinka; and Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna, who discovered the CRISPR/Cas9 genetic scissors.
The letter notes that there are 700 million people worldwide who are currently food insecure and "desperately poor"—and about 50% of them don't know where they can expect their next meal. Some 60 million children under five are cognitively and physically impaired for life from nutritional deficiencies.
As hard as those numbers are to fathom, it's about to get worse, according to the letter. Due to climate change, the world is expected to experience a decrease in the productivity of most major food staples, even though the planet is projected to add another 1.5 billion people to its population by 2050. "For maize, the major staple for much of Africa, the picture is particularly dire with decreasing yields projected for virtually its entire growing area," according to the letter.
Extreme weather and weather events linked to climate change will threaten crop productions, as will additional factors like "soil erosion and land degradation, biodiversity loss, water shortages, conflict, and policies that restrict innovation."
In sum, according to the letter, "today's challenges of access to food will be exacerbated by production challenges tomorrow. We are not on track to meet future food needs. Not even close. While much can and needs to be done to improve the flow of food to those in need, food production and accessibility must rise sharply and sustainably by mid-century, particularly where hunger and malnutrition are most severe."
The appeal was coordinated by Cary Fowler, joint 2024 World Food Prize Laureate, who is also the outgoing U.S. special envoy for global food security at the State Department. He is also known as the "father" of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.
"We know that agricultural research and innovation can be a powerful lever, not only for food and nutrition security, but also improved health, livelihoods and economic development. We need to channel our best scientific efforts into reversing our current trajectory, or today's crisis will become tomorrow's catastrophe," Fowler said in a statement Tuesday.
The efforts the group is calling for include investment and prioritization in agricultural research and development, as well as other potential moonshot initiatives such as enhancing photosynthesis in crops such as wheat and rice, transforming annual to perennial crops, creating nutrient-rich food from microorganisms and fungi, and more.
Mashal Hussain, the incoming president of the World Food Prize Foundation, said in a statement: "If we can put a man on the moon, we can surely rally the funding, resources, and collaboration needed to put enough food on plates here on Earth. With the right support, the scientific community can deliver the breakthroughs to prevent catastrophic food insecurity in the next 25 years."
The letter will be discussed during a Senate Committee event in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday.
A 17-year-old plaintiff commended the federal lawmakers for "using their voices to weigh in on the importance of our rights to access justice and to a livable climate."
Dozens of members of Congress on Monday submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting 21 youth plaintiffs who launched a historic constitutional climate case against the federal government nearly a decade ago.
Since Juliana v. United States was first filed in the District of Oregon in August 2015, the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations have fought against it. Last May, a panel of three judges appointed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by President-elect Donald Trump granted a request by President Joe Biden's Department of Justice to dismiss the case.
After the U.S. Supreme Court in November denied the youth plaintiffs' initial request for intervention regarding the panel's decision, their attorneys filed a different type of petition last month. As Our Children's Trust, which represents the 21 young people, explains on its website, they argued to the justices that federal courts are empowered by the U.S. Constitution and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA) "to resolve active disputes between citizens and their government when citizens are being personally injured by government policies, even if the relief is limited to a declaration of individual rights and government wrongs."
The Monday filing from seven U.S. senators and 36 members of the House of Representatives argues to the nation's top court that "the 9th Circuit's dismissal of the petitioners' constitutional suit for declaratory relief has no basis in law and threatens to undermine the Declaratory Judgment Act, one of the most consequential remedial statutes that Congress has ever enacted."
The Supreme Court "should grant the petition to clarify that declaratory relief under the DJA satisfies the Article III redressability requirement," wrote the federal lawmakers, led by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). "Doing so is necessary because Congress expressly authorized declaratory relief 'whether or not further relief is or could be sought.'"
"The 9th Circuit's jurisdictional holding, which prevented the district court from even reaching the question whether declaratory relief would be appropriate, conflicts with this court's holding that the DJA is constitutional," the lawmakers continued. "It also conflicts with this court's holding that Article III courts may not limit DJA relief to cases where an injunction would be appropriate."
In a Monday statement, Juliana's youngest plaintiff, 17-year-old Levi D., welcomed the support from the 43 members of Congress—including Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as well as Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
"After 10 years of delay, I have spent more than half of my life as a plaintiff fighting for my fundamental rights to a safe climate. Yet, the courthouse doors are still closed to us," said Levi. "Five years ago, members of Congress stood by me and my co-plaintiffs on the steps of the Supreme Court. Today, as the climate crisis worsens and hurricanes ravage my home state of Florida, they are still with us, using their voices to weigh in on the importance of our rights to access justice and to a livable climate."
"The recent win in Held v. State of Montana and historic settlement in Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation showed the world that young people's voices, my voice, and legal action are not just symbolic, but they hold governments accountable to protect our constitutional rights," Levi added. "Now, it's our turn to be heard!"
The lawmakers weren't alone in formally supporting the young climate advocates on Monday. Public Justice and the Montana Trial Lawyers Association filed another brief that takes aim at the government's use of mandamus—a court order directing a lower entity to perform official duties—to deny the Juliana youth a trial.
"The government's sole argument to justify mandamus is the Department of Justice's past and anticipated future litigation expenses associated with going to trial. That argument is firmly foreclosed by precedent," the groups argued. "And even if it wasn't foreclosed by precedent, the argument trivializes the extraordinary nature of mandamus and would improperly circumvent the final judgment rule."
The organizations urged the high court to grant certiorari to uphold the mandamus standard set out in Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2004. Plaintiff Miko V. said Monday that "I'm incredibly grateful to Public Justice and the Montana Trial Lawyers Association for standing with us in our fight for justice."
"We're not asking for special treatment; we're demanding the right to access justice, as our constitutional democracy guarantees," Miko stressed. "The recent victory in Held v. State of Montana demonstrates the power of youth-led legal action, and the urgent need for courts to recognize that our generation has the right to hold our government accountable. Every day that the government prevents us from presenting our case, we all lose more ground in the fight for a livable future. It's time for the judiciary to open the courthouse doors and allow us a fair trial."
The briefs came just a week before Big Oil-backed Trump's second inauguration and on the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected attempts by fossil fuel giants to quash a Hawaiian municipality's lawsuit that aims to hold the climate polluters accountable, in line with justices' previous decisions. Dozens of U.S. state and local governments have filed similar suits.
"It's outrageous that Trump and House Republicans are threatening to withhold recovery aid if their conditions aren't met," said a leader in the Working Families Party.
The deputy national director of the Working Families Party had sharp words for a group of House Republicans and President-elect Donald Trump, who, according to Politicoreporting published Monday, discussed tying fire relief for California to the politically charged issue of increasing the debt ceiling.
The reporting comes as California continues to battle fires in the Los Angeles area that have consumed tens of thousands of acres and left over 20 people dead. The scale of the destruction could make them, collectively, the costliest wildfire disaster in U.S. history, a climate scientist told the Los Angeles Times last week.
"The Palisades wildfires have destroyed homes, schools, and businesses and left thousands of families without a roof over their heads. It's outrageous that Trump and House Republicans are threatening to withhold recovery aid if their conditions aren't met," said Working Families Party deputy national director Joe Dinkin in a statement Monday.
"Every Republican should be on the record denouncing this abominable plan," he added.
Per Politico, nearly two dozen House Republicans attended a dinner at Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club over the weekend where the option was discussed.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Fla.), who was not a part of the conversation but did later confirm the conversation, must deal with the looming debt cliff, which is set to be reached sometime in mid-January, and he faces obstacles within his own party. In December, fractures appeared in the GOP when fiscal hawks refused to back legislation that Trump supported that would have raised the debt limit.
Johnson has also said he would try to lift the debt limit by including it in a reconciliation bill full of President-elect Donald Trump's legislative priorities, though this could run afoul with those same fiscal hawks. Some House Republicans reportedly brought up the pitfalls of this option during discussions at Mar-a-Lago over the weekend.
Of the potential move to link fire relief to the debt ceiling, Politico reported: "The Sunday night discussions prove Republicans are desperately looking for a plan before the nation is due to exhaust its borrowing authority—though Democrats and some Republicans are sure to balk at the prospect of linking disaster relief dollars to a politically charged exercise like extending the debt limit."
Congress recently passed a spending bill that included funding for natural disaster relief, but scope of the destruction in California has some officials wondering if more may be needed, Politico reports.
"We've done this because there's no hope for the world, really," said one of the activists who participated.
Two activists with the group Just Stop Oil on Monday used orange spray chalk paint to write "1.5 Is Dead" on the gravestone of Charles Darwin—the scientist most famous for developing the theory of evolution by natural selection.
In a statement released Monday, Just Stop Oil, a British group demanding an end to fossil fuel use, said that the action was taken in order to "demand that the U.K. government works with others to phase out the extraction and burning of fossil fuels by 2030."
The BBCreported that Met Police were called to the incident in Westminster Abbey in Londonand said two women were arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage.
The message "1.5 Is Dead" is in reference to the news on Friday that 2024 was "the first year with an average temperature clearly exceeding 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level," according to the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S). 2024 was 1.60°C warmer than the pre-industrial level.
Signatories to the Paris climate agreement pledged to reduce their global greenhouse gas emissions with the aim of keeping global temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC, well below 2°C above preindustrial levels. According to the United Nations, going above 1.5ºC on an annual or monthly basis doesn't constitute failure to reach the agreement's goal, which refers to temperature rise over decades—however, "breaches of 1.5°C for a month or a year are early signs of getting perilously close to exceeding the long-term limit, and serve as clarion calls for increasing ambition and accelerating action in this critical decade."
The news comes as California is reeling from multi-day wildfires that have consumed tens of thousands of acres of Los Angeles County and killed over 20 people.
"We've done this because there's no hope for the world, really," said one of the activists who was arrested, Di Bligh. "We've done it on Darwin's grave specifically because he would be turning in that grave because of the sixth mass extinction taking place now," the activist said, according to the BBC.
The other protestor, Alyson Lee, said she did not think Darwin would be unhappy with their act of climate protest: "I believe he would approve because he was a good scientist and he would be following the science, and he would be as upset as us with the government for ignoring the science."
Two Just Stop Oil activists were arrested in England last summer after they sprayed an orange powder on the monoliths at Stonehenge. According to a statement released at the time from Just Stop Oil, the protestors "decorated" Stonehenge to demand that the U.K. government commit to "working with other governments to agree an equitable plan to end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030."