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.
Over three-quarters in a new survey endorsed the idea that the "future is frightening" and 62.9% agreed that "humanity is doomed."
More than half of young people in the U.S. are "very or extremely worried" about the climate crisis and an even larger percentage are motivated to do something about it, including at the ballot box.
The data came from a poll published on Thursday in The Lancet Planetary Health, which found that concerns about the climate crisis were impacting young people's decisions about their personal and public lives, with 52.3% saying they were "hesitant to have children" and 72.8% planning to vote for candidates who back ambitious climate policies.
"Climate change is causing widespread distress among U.S. youth and affecting their beliefs and plans for the future," the study authors concluded. "These effects may intensify, across the political spectrum, as exposure to climate-related severe weather events increases."
"There was no state sample where the endorsement of climate anxiety came in less than 75%."
The study was based on an online survey conducted between July 20 and November 7 of 2023. In what authors believe to be the largest of its kind to date, the survey considered 15,793 answers from young people aged 16 to 25 in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
The vast majority of respondents, 85%, were at least moderately worried about climate change, while 57.9% were very worried. Nearly two-thirds reported feeling anxious, powerless, afraid, sad, and angry about the climate crisis, while 51.2% felt despair. A smaller but significant number said that climate change was impacting their mental health and that worries about climate change were having a negative impact on their daily lives, at 42.8% and 38.3% respectively. Over three-quarters endorsed the statement, "The future is frightening," and 62.9% agreed that "humanity is doomed."
Many respondents anticipated the crisis to alter the trajectory of their lives, with 69.4% expecting it to impact where they would live, 66% expecting it to menace their health, 63.5% saying it would impact their future plans overall, and 65.5% saying it would outright make their lives worse.
However, many planned to take proactive steps to address climate change. In addition to voting, 68.2% said they would decrease their or their family's contribution to climate change, 67.4% said they would work for more sustainable employers, and 61.4% said they would join or back climate advocacy groups.
The climate crisis also shaped the respondents' thoughts and opinions, with 89.4% blaming corporations and industry for the emergency, 86% blaming the U.S. government, and 85.5% blaming other wealthy nations. Similar percentages put the onus on corporations, the U.S., and other wealthy governments to fix the problem. A full 71.9% of respondents agreed with the statement, "I don't want to participate in a social and economic system that harms the planet."
The survey results were consisted with past polls of young people. An earlier global poll, also published in The Lancet, found that 75% of U.S. respondents were moderately worried about the climate crisis and 46% were very worried. However, one thing that stood out in the most recent survey was how consistent the results were across state and party affiliation.
"One of the most striking findings of the survey was that this was across the political spectrum," lead author Eric Lewandowski, a clinical psychologist and associate professor at New York University's Grossman School of Medicine, told The Guardian. "There was no state sample where the endorsement of climate anxiety came in less than 75%."
In past surveys on U.S. climate attitudes, whether someone is a Republican, Democrat, or Independent has had a strong influence on how concerned they are about climate and whether or not they think the government should act on it.
However, the study authors noted, "Compared with these past reports, greater proportions of Republicans in this survey endorsed negative emotions and thoughts about climate change and the response of the U.S. government, and plans to vote for political candidates who support aggressive climate policies."
For example, while 92.6% and 86.5% of Democrats and Independents respectively said they were at least moderately worried about climate change, 73.5% of Republicans also said they were. While 83% of Democrats and 76.1% of Independents wanted the U.S. government to carry out a "plan to prevent the worst impacts of climate change," 69.1% of Republicans also did. And 62.3% of Republicans surveyed said they would vote based on a candidate's climate ambition, compared with 85.5% of Democrats and 74.5% of Independents.
Another factor that influenced respondent's climate feelings was whether or not they had experienced an extreme weather event, and this effect was not impacted by party affiliation.
"Despite baseline differences by political party, as respondents across the political spectrum perceived the impact of a greater array of severe weather events in their area, their distress related to climate change and their desire and plans for action increased," the study authors wrote.
Coming weeks after the devastation of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, the survey indicates that young people's mental health and well-being will consider to suffer as the climate crisis intensifies. This can be offset somewhat by giving these young people a chance to discuss and act on climate in their communities, schools, workplaces, and government. However, as with all climate impacts, the distress of young Americans has one overarching solution: rapidly phasing out fossil fuels to reduce emissions.
"These findings reinforce a theme identified in other research that climate change-related distress will continue to increase while climate change remains insufficiently addressed," the study authors concluded. "Accordingly, the response to address this distress must be for industries, governments, and policymakers to act at the necessary scale."
"These companies are endangering my constituents, and I believe New York prosecutors should act accordingly," one state assembly member said.
Several New York City and state elected officials endorsed a memo published Thursday outlining how New York City prosecutors could charge major fossil fuel companies and their CEOs with reckless endangerment for knowingly contributing to the climate crisis that has worsened deadly, destructive storms like Sandy and Ida.
The memo, published by Public Citizen and Fair and Just Prosecution, argues that the reckless endangerment case against Big Oil is strong enough for New York prosecutors to launch an investigation.
"Big Oil's conduct was not just immoral. It was criminal," Aaron Regunberg, the senior policy counsel with Public Citizen's Climate Program, said in a statement. "Reckless endangerment occurs when someone engages in reckless conduct that risks injuring or killing another person. That's exactly what these companies and their CEOs have done by knowingly creating the climate crisis that is causing extreme—and extremely dangerous—weather events."
"The findings in this memo are clear—fossil fuel companies have knowingly put New Yorkers' lives at risk."
2021's Hurricane Ida, for example, damaged 3.3% of the buildings in New York City and killed more than a dozen people when it dumped nine inches of rain in less than 24 hours. Nearly a decade earlier, Superstorm Sandy killed 44 city residents, damaged nearly 70,000 residential buildings, and temporarily displaced thousands.
"Hurricane Sandy destroyed my home," said Rachel Rivera of New York Communities for Change. "My family deserves justice. That disaster didn't just happen—it was done to us by oil and gas companies. They made trillions of dollars, while we lost so much."
The memo names as possible defendants ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, Occidental, BHP, and Peabody and possibly some of their CEOs. These companies have emitted 15.37% of all industrial-era climate pollution since 1965, the year the industry became "unquestionably aware" that oil, gas, and coal were heating the planet. Even earlier, at a 100th birthday bash for the U.S. oil industry in 1959, Edward Teller warned the guests that a 10% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide could raise temperatures enough to "submerge New York."
Yet the fossil fuel industry and its leaders have continued to pump climate-warming products and spread misinformation about the harm they cause, delaying action that could have prevented or mitigated storms like Sandy and Ida.
"If I committed a crime like that against a corporation, you can bet I'd get prosecuted," Rivera said. "So why shouldn't they be held accountable? Isn't that why we have a criminal justice system?"
Amy Fettig, co-executive director of Fair and Just Prosecution, said that charging the fossil fuel majors would mark an important reevaluation of the meaning of public safety.
"We are spending millions of dollars and using violent force to target minor crimes like fare evasion, while Big Oil corporations and their billionaire CEOs continue to accelerate a climate crisis that is actively putting residents in real, concrete danger," Fettig said.
Several New York elected officials have embraced this strategy. The memo earned statements of support from New York State Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Brad Hoylman-Sigal, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, New York State Senator Kristen Gonzalez, New York State Assembly Member Emily Gallagher, New York City Council Member Sandy Nurse, and New York City Council Member Carmen De La Rosa.
"We rarely include corporate crimes in our 'tough on crime' rhetoric and public safety strategies, but that's the crime truly threatening our communities," Gallagher said. "Because of Big Oil, so-called 'one-in-1,000 year' storms are becoming regular occurrences, and these dangers are only getting worse. These companies are endangering my constituents, and I believe New York prosecutors should act accordingly."
Reynoso added, "The findings in this memo are clear—fossil fuel companies have knowingly put New Yorkers' lives at risk."
He continued: "By willfully ignoring and concealing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with their products, these corporations have contributed to a dramatic uptick in extreme weather events, which hit Brooklyn's most vulnerable populations the hardest. This is more than an environmental issue, it is a matter of public safety and equity across our borough, and those responsible for perpetuating the climate crisis in the pursuit of profit should be held accountable."
Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media welcomed the state and city leaders' words.
"WHOA! New York officials are calling for Big Oil to be 'criminally prosecuted' for climate disasters," Henn wrote on social media. "They say the oil companies have engaged in 'reckless endangerment' by fueling and lying about the climate crisis. It's time to #MakePollutersPay."
The latest memo is part of a broader movement to hold the fossil fuel industry legally accountable for climate harms. Henn is also advocating for legislation that would make planet-warming companies pay into a fund for disaster relief and climate adaptation. Vermont became the first state to pass such a Climate Superfund Act in May, and a similar effort in New York is awaiting the signature of Gov. Kathy Hochul.
Public Citizen is also developing a wider strategy for holding the fossil fuel industry accountable. In an earlier memo, the watchdog group outlined how local and state authorities might charge oil, gas, and coal companies with "climate homicides."
"We're building the case for criminal prosecution of Big Oil brick by brick," Public Citizen climate counsel Clara Vondrich wrote on social media of the latest effort. "Here is the first 'prosecution memo' that lays out the case for filing, and winning, criminal charges for 'reckless endangerment.' The law is clear. Barriers are only political."
While Thursday's memo focuses on New York, Public Citizen said it could be relevant to any localities that experience climate disasters and have reckless endangerment statutes on the books.
"This discussion is the starting point for any prosecutor who wants to build a case to protect their constituents from climate harms that are threatening public safety in communities across the country," the memo authors wrote.
Major insurers are denying legitimate claims following extreme weather events while underwriting fossil fuels and lining their CEOs’ pocketbooks.
Do you know that you’re in good hands with Allstate? Or how about State Farm? Do you know that, like a good neighbor, State Farm is there? Of course you do. Insurance companies have been blasting slogans like these at us for years now. In 2022 alone, Allstate spent $617 million on advertising. State Farm spent an even more whopping $1.05 billion.
But if insurance giants like State Farm truly rated as our “good neighbors,” they’d be behaving—in real life—quite a bit differently than their award-winning advertising suggests.
In hurricane-plagued Florida, for instance, State Farm last year denied 46.4% of homeowner claims, refusals that directly impacted over 76,000 households.
Another reform approach might more quickly catch the attention of top insurance industry boards of directors: tying an insurance company’s tax rate to the ratio between that company’s CEO pay and the paychecks of the firm’s workers.
“Property insurers who deny legitimate claims,” notes Martin Weiss, the founder of the nation’s only independent insurer rating agency, “are sending the implicit message, ‘If you don’t like it, sue us.’”
To add injury to that insult, Weiss adds, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis had just before last year signed into law new legislation that makes policyholder lawsuits against insurers “far more difficult.”
For recently retired State Farm CEO Michael Tipsord, insurance industry lobbying victories along that Florida line have helped him pocket some stunning personal rewards. Tipsord pulled down $24.4 million in compensation two years ago, almost $4 million more than his industry’s second-highest 2022 CEO pay total. Tipsord had pocketed even more, $24.5 million, in 2021.
“CEOs are living high on the hog while increasing insurance premiums for people living paycheck to paycheck,” the Consumer Federation of America’s Michael DeLong charged last October. “Insurers are telling regulators that ordinary consumers have to pay much more for auto and home insurance because the companies are struggling with inflation and climate change, but they are quietly handing CEOs gigantic bonuses.”
Overall, DeLong’s Consumer Federation reports, the chief execs at America’s ten largest personal insurance lines collected over a quarter-billion dollars in CEO compensation for their services in 2021 and 2022.
If we really had a “good neighbor” at State Farm—or any other insurance giant—those companies wouldn’t have been spending recent years denying relief to the victims of climate change. They would have been insisting instead that lawmakers crack down on the fossil-fuel corporate giants doing so much to foul our planet.
Top insurers did make an early feint in that direction over a half-century ago. Way back in 1973, notes Peter Bosshard, the global coordinator of the U.S.-based Insure Our Future campaign, “the insurance industry first warned about climate risks.” But that warning, in the years to come, wouldn’t stop insurers from “underwriting and investing in the expansion of fossil fuels.”
Giant insurance companies that actually took climate science seriously, Bosshard observes, would have been “suing fossil fuel companies, to make polluters pay for the growing costs of climate disasters and keep insurance affordable for climate-affected communities.”
Insurers haven’t been doing any of that.
”Insurers talk a lot about their climate commitments and supporting their clients through the energy transition, but this is plain greenwashing,” charges Ariel Le Bourdonnec, a Reclaim Finance insurance activist. “They are still profiting from providing cover that allows companies to develop new fossil fuel projects. Insurers could be a force for change, but instead they are undermining climate action.”
Other critics are emphasizing that insurance industry execs have gone beyond “greenwashing” to “bluelining,” as Lilith Fellowes-Granda, a Center for American Progress associate director, points out. These execs are increasing prices and withdrawing services “from regions they perceive to be at high environmental risk.” These moves typically hit hardest on the “communities most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.”
Climate activists are advocating for a variety of policy changes to reverse these dynamics, everything from making sure property insurers must share the risks they cover to ensuring underserved communities access to affordable insurance.
Another reform approach might more quickly catch the attention of top insurance industry boards of directors: tying an insurance company’s tax rate to the ratio between that company’s CEO pay and the paychecks of the firm’s workers.
Inside the insurance industry, as in every other major U.S. economic sector, that ratio between CEO and worker has soared over recent decades.
In 2023, the chief executive at Chubb Ltd., Evan Greenberg, took home $27.7 million, enough to make him that year’s top-paid American property and casualty insurer. Those millions added up to 452 times more than the annual pay of the typical Chubb employee. In 2022, Greenberg pocketed a mere 346 times his company’s typical employee pay.
Back in 1965, the Economic Policy Institute noted last month in its latest annual CEO pay report, the top execs at major U.S. corporations only averaged 21 times what typical American workers earned. Nearly a quarter-century later, in 1989, CEOs were still only averaging 61 times worker pay.
How could we restore greater equity to corporate compensation and, at the same time, give top corporate executives an incentive to care about more than simply maximizing their own personal compensation? Lawmakers at the state and federal levels have over recent years advanced dozens of proposals that tie corporate tax rates to the size of the gap between top executive and worker pay.
In all these proposals, the higher a corporation’s CEO-worker pay ratio, the higher that corporation’s tax rate.
The Institute for Policy Studies has compiled an exhaustive guide to these CEO-worker pay gap proposals. Maybe the winds of Hurricane Milton will help give these moves the momentum they need to turn into law—and give top execs a reason to care about something more than the size of their own personal pay.