

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.

Ashley Siefert Nunes at UCS, asiefert@ucsusa.org
Following a virtual session, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today released the third part of its Sixth Assessment Report, which focuses on mitigating climate change and assesses options for reducing global warming emissions and removing them from the atmosphere. It also builds on the first and second parts of the assessment, which covered the physical science basis for climate change and climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, respectively. Complementing the report is a summary document for policymakers that has been endorsed by governments.
This report is the result of several years of hard work by scientists from around the world, drawing on an exhaustive foundation of peer-reviewed scientific literature in a process that demands intensive scrutiny and consensus. Among its main findings, the IPCC's Working Group III emphasized emissions must be cut sharply within this decade and decline to net zero by roughly 2050 to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, in line with the Paris Agreement. Such an endeavor requires transformative shifts across the economy and society, including ramping up energy efficiency, a complete transition to renewable energy to power homes and businesses, widespread electrification of vehicles, and increased conservation of forests and lands. In addition to the usual information past IPCC reports have covered, the latest iteration increases the inclusion of social science analyses; examines how mounting climate litigation could further climate action; and highlights the growing roles of cities, states, Indigenous Peoples, youth, and businesses in demanding and driving efforts to rein in global warming emissions.
Below is a statement by Dr. Kristina Dahl, a principal climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
"The very first IPCC report found that limiting climate change and its resulting impacts would require nations to cut the majority of their heat-trapping emissions. Thirty-two subsequent years of inaction by policymakers and obstruction by the fossil fuel industry has led us in the opposite direction. This latest IPCC report finds that global emissions are now 54% higher than they were in 1990 and starkly points out that from 2010 to 2019, heat-trapping emissions were higher than ever and are still rising globally across all major sectors.
"To keep the principal goal of the Paris Agreement within reach, countries will need to strengthen their national pledges and decrease global heat-trapping emissions by roughly 40% relative to 2019 levels within this decade. Because we have failed to rein in global warming emissions to date, the choices available to us are no longer ideal. In addition to deep, absolute cuts in heat-trapping emissions, some amount of these emissions will also need to be removed from the atmosphere if nations are to limit planetary warming to 1.5 degrees or even 2 degrees Celsius. Most emissions removal options, however, come with substantial, and in some cases untenable, tradeoffs. On the other hand, surpassing the 1.5-degree Celsius threshold would lead to catastrophic climate impacts--with some so extreme adapting will no longer be feasible--as well as significant loss of life, property, and ecosystems in the United States and around the world. The science of climate change, its consequences, and the solutions to it could not be clearer. The ball is now in the court of world leaders and policymakers, who must act with the utmost urgency to address the global climate crisis."
Below is a statement by Dr. Rachel Cleetus, the policy director and lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS and an official civil society observer to the IPCC Working Group III process.
"This latest IPCC report puts policymakers on notice, yet again, that the current global trajectory of heat-trapping emissions is alarmingly off-track. Their continued inaction is directly responsible for the climate crisis already here, and it has also placed the goals of the Paris Agreement at grave risk. The solutions are obvious and have been for a long time--the world needs to rapidly phase out fossil fuels and accelerate the shift to clean energy. Richer nations, including the United States, bear significant responsibility for action because of their outsize contribution to global warming emissions.
"Fossil fuels are the root cause of climate change, of environmental injustices and--as we are witnessing in Ukraine right now--frequently associated with geopolitical strife and conflict. Transformative changes in how we get and use energy are entirely within our grasp as the costs of wind and solar power, as well as battery storage, tumble while innovation soars. What's urgently needed are robust policies and investments to cut heat-trapping emissions across every sector of the economy by scaling up energy efficiency, renewable energy, clean transportation, and electrification; protecting and restoring forests, soils and ecosystems; and investing in a just transition for communities and workers dependent on fossil fuels.
"Richer nations must also provide funding for low-income countries to make a clean energy transition aligned with sustainable development, yet those financial flows have been significantly lagging. Additionally, public and private financing for fossil fuels still exceed those for addressing climate change. The increased interest in climate litigation also signals the importance of holding fossil fuel companies accountable for the climate damages for which they are responsible.
"Decades of failure in global leadership, combined with fossil fuel companies' single-minded focus on their profits and unsustainable patterns of consumption within the world's richest households, are putting our planet at peril. Continuing down the current path leaves us poised to exceed 1.5 and even 2 degrees Celsius of warming. Every year policymakers choose to selfishly delay action from here on out is a testament to their lack of courage, which future generations will not soon forget. Instead, let's seize this precious, narrow window of opportunity to secure a safer, healthier and more just world."
If you would like to talk with Dr. Cleetus, Dr. Dahl, or another UCS expert on any of the three latest IPCC reports, please contact UCS Climate and Energy Media Manager Ashley Siefert Nunes.
Additional Resources:
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
"Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday implored his Democratic colleagues in Congress not to cave to President Donald Trump and Republicans in the ongoing government shutdown fight, warning that doing so would hasten the country's descent into authoritarianism.
In an op-ed for The Guardian, Sanders (I-Vt.) called Trump a "schoolyard bully" and argued that "anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates."
"This is a man who threatens to arrest and jail his political opponents, deploys the US military into Democratic cities, and allows masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to pick people up off the streets and throw them into vans without due process," Sanders wrote. "He has sued virtually every major media outlet because he does not tolerate criticism, has extorted funds from law firms and is withholding federal funding from states that voted against him."
If Democrats capitulate, Sanders warned, Trump "will utilize his victory to accelerate his movement toward authoritarianism."
"At a time when he already has no regard for our democratic system of checks and balances," the senator wrote, "he will be emboldened to continue decimating programs that protect elderly people, children, the sick and the poor while giving more tax breaks and other benefits to his fellow oligarchs."
Sanders' op-ed came as the shutdown continued with no end in sight, with Democrats standing by their demand for an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits as a necessary condition for any government funding deal. Republicans have so far refused to negotiate on the ACA subsidies even as health insurance premiums skyrocket nationwide.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, is illegally withholding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding from tens of millions of Americans—including millions of children—despite court rulings ordering him to release the money.
In a "60 Minutes" interview that aired Sunday, Trump again urged Republicans to nuke the 60-vote filibuster in the Senate to remove the need for Democratic support to reopen the government and advance other elements of their agenda unilaterally. Under the status quo, Republicans need the support of at least seven Democratic senators to advance a government funding package.
"The Republicans have to get tougher," Trump said. "If we end the filibuster, we can do exactly what we want. We're not going to lose power."
Congressional Democrats have faced some pressure from allies, most notably the head of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), to cut a deal with Republicans to end the shutdown and alleviate the suffering it has inflicted on federal workers and many others.
But Democrats appear unmoved by the AFGE president's demand, and other labor leaders have since voiced support for the minority party's effort to secure an extension of ACA subsidies.
"We're urging our Democratic friends to hold the line," said Jaime Contreras, executive vice president of the 185,000-member Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ.
In his op-ed on Sunday, Sanders asked, "Does anyone truly believe that caving in to Trump now will stop his unprecedented attacks on our democracy and working people?"
"If the Democrats cave now, it would be a betrayal of the millions of Americans who have fought and died for democracy and our Constitution," the senator wrote. "It would be a sellout of a working class that is struggling to survive in very difficult economic times. Democrats in Congress are the last remaining opposition to Trump's quest for absolute power. To surrender now would be an historic tragedy for our country, something that history will not look kindly upon."
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."