Friday, April 29, 2022

Rachel Levine calls state anti-LGBTQ bills disturbing and dangerous to trans youth

April 29, 20225:00 AM ET
SELENA SIMMONS-DUFFIN
NPR

Rachel Levine, U.S. assistant secretary for health, says, "The language of medicine and science is being used to drive people to suicide." Political attacks against trans young people are on the rise across the country.
Caroline Brehman-Pool/Getty Images

The highest ranking transgender official in U.S. history will give a speech in Texas Saturday, urging physicians-in-training to fight political attacks against young trans people and their families.

Adm. Rachel Levine, the U.S. assistant secretary for health, will make a speech in Fort Worth at the Out For Health Conference at Texas Christian University.

In prepared remarks shared exclusively with NPR, she writes: "Trans youth in particular are being hounded in public and driven to deaths of despair at an alarming rate. Fifty-two percent of all transgender and nonbinary young people in the U.S. seriously contemplated killing themselves in 2020. Think about how many of them thought it was better to die than to put up with any more harassment, scapegoating and intentional abuse."

Political attacks against trans young people are on the rise across the country. Over 100 anti-trans bills have been introduced in state houses this year, according to an analysis by Freedom for All Americans and the Guardian. Many of these legislative attacks use scientific language to justify their political aims, she says. In her prepared remarks, she concludes: "The language of medicine and science is being used to drive people to suicide."

Levine is a pediatrician and adolescent medicine specialist by training. "I'm not a political person," she tells NPR. But in this context, she says, when young trans people are being attacked by their own governments, she thinks medical professionals "need to stand up and be more vocal — and that's exactly what I'm going to do."

NPR spoke to Levine before she flew to Texas about what many Americans still don't understand about sex and gender, how federal policy can counterbalance anti-trans legislation in the states, and how she sublimates personal attacks to drive her advocacy.

This interview has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

You will be speaking at Texas Christian University on Saturday at the Out For Health Conference, which was founded and organized by medical students. Why this event and what is the message of your speech?

I think it's a tremendous opportunity to speak with young professionals about health equity, diversity and inclusion.

One of the biggest messages I have at this time is really to speak about the challenges that the LGBTQI+ community face, particularly youth. The challenges come from very disturbing – and frankly discriminatory – laws and actions that many states are taking that are potentially dangerous, and costing the lives of young people. I think it's a very important message to give young physicians in training.

In your prepared remarks, you write, "Anyone who believes that words are not the same as actions, who believe that LGBTQI people should just toughen up, should walk a mile in our shoes." What would people learn from walking a mile in your shoes?

For some people, I think that these issues of gender identity are beyond their experience. They don't understand it, and so they fear it, and that fear can lead to negative feelings and emotions. My goal is to educate about the LGBTQ+ community in general, and to educate about the trans community – that we are people just like everyone else.


SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
Make Space, Listen, Offer Hope: How To Help A Child At Risk Of Suicide

We are doctors, we are lawyers, we are business people, we are teachers, we function in every part of society and we're all just doing our part and living our lives and working towards the common good. And that might help dispel some of this fear and some of this discrimination.

"To walk in our shoes" is to have empathy for other people. I am such a big fan of diversity in all of its different aspects. I think diversity helps society. It helps any community. It helps any business, school, governmental agency. We have this beautiful tapestry of diversity in the United States. And so I think that it really is incumbent upon us to have empathy and compassion for those that are different from us.

Pew did a survey in 2021 that found that most Americans think that whether someone is a man or woman is fixed at birth. Most Americans also say they don't know anyone who is trans. There's a gap of understanding. Is there a role for the federal government in closing that gap?

I think there's a role for community, medical and public health organizations to educate the public about these issues.

[Most people's] experience might be that there is a simple binary of male and female, but it is actually much more complicated.

There is sex. You might think that that is simple, but it is not. There's chromosomal sex, there are [primary] sex characteristics, secondary sexual characteristics. Of course, there are individuals as part of our LGBTQ+ community who are intersex. And so it is multi-dimensional.

Then there's gender. Gender is really that self-concept in terms of your gender that is also multidimensional. There are sex roles, which have changed tremendously in our society over the last 50 to 70 years. And then there's sexual orientation – whom one is attracted to and wants to have intimate relations with – and that is also multidimensional. We want to educate people about those somewhat complex features and help them understand our rainbow family.

Texas has been one of the loudest states in going after trans kids and families. The state has investigated the parents of trans kids for child abuse. Families have moved out of the state because they felt unsafe, and the state attorney general attacked you recently on Twitter. As a trans person, how are you thinking of all that as you head to Texas?

I use all of those challenges and sublimate that into my work. Those egregious actions, one might say insidious actions, that are politically motivated and really harm trans and gender-diverse youth and their families – I take my feelings about that and I put it into my advocacy and our policy work to support trans youth and their families.

We have a president, President Biden, who sees us and supports us. We have a vice president, Vice President Harris, who sees us and supports us. Secretary Becerra of the Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary Cardona of the Department of Education – really across the administration in the federal government, it is just remarkable how supportive they are to the LGBTQ+ community.

But we are seeing in many states – including Texas – laws and actions which are discriminatory, politically motivated and they need to be fought against.

How?

So, for example, [the federal HHS] Office for Civil Rights has issued a formal interpretation of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, where it says you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex, and that includes sexual orientation and gender identity.


SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
'Whiplash' Of LGBTQ Protections And Rights, From Obama To Trump

People who feel that they are being discriminated against can contact the Office for Civil Rights, and they will open a case and investigate. And so we encourage trans and gender-diverse youth and their families [who] are feeling they are being discriminated against in Texas or any other state [to] contact our office.

In addition, [federal agencies] are looking at Title IX – particularly in the Department of Education and the Department of Health – in terms of support for sexual and gender minorities. We are going to be looking – throughout the administration – at policies that, again, support, affirm and empower our community.

Prior to this role, you were the secretary of health in Pennsylvania. A lot of people might not realize that you in HHS are not in charge of, say, the Florida Department of Health. That's not how it works. Do you think that is a problem in the case of trans youth?

We have a republic in which the states have a lot of individual power. One thing we learned through the pandemic is how important it is to coordinate between local, state and federal public health authorities. When they're not coordinated, that makes our work very difficult.

These negative and discriminatory actions and laws are politically based. It's not public health-based. It's not medically based in any way.

[In medicine], there is an evidence-based standard of care for the evaluation and treatment of trans individuals, whether they're youth or adults. That standard is set by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, or WPATH. The last formal standards of care were [released] in 2011, and we expect the new standards of care in 2022.

There are many other standards set by organized medicine, for example, he Endocrine Society, which is an international organization of hormone specialists – endocrinologists – has a standard of care. There have been comments from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, from the [American Medical Association], from the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association – [all] in support of evidence-based standards of care for [gender-affirming] treatment.

So when, for example, the surgeon general of Florida puts out a statement based upon political considerations, that is not appropriate. We need to stand against that both from a medical and public health point of view.

As you mentioned, the Florida Department of Health published a fact sheet last week about trans health and cited many studies (although many groups have refuted its claims). When your office in March published a fact sheet, it also cited many studies. Where is the research on this? Is there a dispute?

I will disagree that there are many studies cited in the Florida statement – there are a few studies. I've looked at them. A lot of them say that we need more research. We agree. This is no different from any other medical field in which there's a research base that might inform a standard of care for treatment of other conditions, whether that's diabetes or hypothyroidism or other hormonal endocrine conditions – those change over time as the research changes.

When you look at the forthcoming WPATH standards of care and you see the hundreds and hundreds of articles, you will be able to see the difference between the research base for the standards of care and the few studies cited by Florida.

There is no argument among medical professionals – pediatricians, pediatric endocrinologists, adolescent medicine physicians, adolescent psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. – about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care.

Idaho, Alabama, Arizona and other states have introduced more than 100 bills related to trans kids this year. There are bills about what can be taught in schools related to sexuality and gender – the so-called "Don't Say Gay" bills. Some limit gender-affirming treatment to young trans people. Others limit trans kids' participation in sports. What do you think is happening in these states with all of these bills?

I think that they're all related in terms of their political motivation, and trying to stigmatize a vulnerable community — and particularly to stigmatize LGBTQ+ youth. We have a mental health crisis in this country, particularly among our young people, with increasing rates of depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, suicidal behavior. Our surgeon general, Vice Admiral Vivek Murthy, highlighted that in a surgeon general's advisory in December of 2021.


POLITICS
Not just Florida. More than a dozen states propose so-called 'Don't Say Gay' bills

One of the most vulnerable groups of young people are LGBTQI+ youth, and particularly – the focus of many of these issues – trans youth. We need to affirm them. We need to empower them because they are at risk, and they have a very high rate of suicidal thought and we have to act to prevent them from harming themselves. [We have] to support those young people and their families.

You said on a podcast recently that "being trans doesn't have to define who I am." I've heard from trans friends and colleagues that it can be exhausting to have to explain your personal experience and talk about gender all the time. How do you think about this part of your job and your role?

I am honored to be the assistant secretary for health, and a four star admiral and the leader of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. I recognize that I am the first openly transgender person to be confirmed by the Senate and to have these roles. It is a privilege. I want to use that – how fortunate I am to be in these roles – to work toward the common good in all of the different medical and public health issues that we've been discussing and more.

I understand the significance of my role to stand up and be counted as a very open and proud LGBTQ+ individual and openly transgender woman. And to use that to support more of our vulnerable LGBTQ+ community in all ways that I can.

[Talking about it] doesn't bother me. I mean, I've been in these [public] positions for seven, eight years now, and so it doesn't surprise me. I'm used to it.


If you or someone you know may be considering suicide, contact the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (En EspaƱol: 1-888-628-9454; Deaf and Hard of Hearing: 1-800-799-4889) or the Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 74174

Why the "groomer" smear is terrible for LGBTQ mental health

After years of progress toward acceptance, an attack on LGBTQ people fueled by social media makes them targets of hate.

By Rebecca Ruiz on April 29, 2022
MASHABLE

The "groomer" smear against LGBTQ people along with anti-LGBTQ legislation have a profound effect on well-being.
Credit: Vicky Leta / Mashable

One of the most pervasive, damaging ideas that exists about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people is that their sexual orientation or gender identity is a perversion. In recent years, that stereotype faded in pop culture and politics as large swaths of the public embraced progress toward equality like the Supreme Court's decision legalizing same-sex marriage as well as high-profile visibility of transgender people like actress Laverne Cox.

Such acceptance can make a critical difference for people's mental health: When stigma and discrimination recede, LGBTQ people may experience less psychological distress.

Yet with progress comes backlash, and we have arrived at a terrifying moment. LGBTQ youth have increasingly become the target of conservative policies designed to deny transgender children gender-affirming healthcare and participation in school sports and discourage open discussion of LGBTQ identities and experiences in the classroom.

Some advocates of these policies use extremist rhetoric labeling LGBTQ people and those who support them as "groomers," resurrecting the painful trope of perversion and supercharging it. As New York Times columnist Frank Bruni recently recounted, it was just decades ago that gay people were routinely treated as predators, particularly. By once again embracing a term that describes the manipulation of a child for sexual abuse, conservative activists demonize LGBTQ people. What's different now is that strategy plays into the mainstreaming of a far-right QAnon conspiracy theory that a cabal of powerful liberal pedophiles run the world.

Fox News, for example, has repeatedly featured the Libs of TikTok Twitter account, which reposts social media content from LGBTQ creators that it views as evidence of efforts to indoctrinate and "groom" children to become LGBTQ. In just a few months, the "groomer" smear became socially and politically permissible on the right.

Hateful accusations and discriminatory policies aren't new to the LGBTQ community, but they are horrifying. The Trevor Project, a nonprofit that provides crisis resources to LGBTQ youth, has seen a rise in contacts from callers and texters worried about bills targeting children like them in Texas, Florida, and Alabama. The organization is also hearing from youth in other states worried about whether their lawmakers are coming for them next.

When the The Trevor Project surveyed more than 800 LGBTQ youth in January, two-thirds of respondents said the debates over state laws restricting the rights of transgender people had negatively impacted their mental health. That number jumped to 85 percent of all 318 transgender and nonbinary youth polled. Fear about discrimination can lead to hypervigilance around being bullied and rejected, along with stress, anxiety, depression, and suicidal feelings.
"To watch your own identity on a screen be used as the boogeyman has an impact."

Sam Ames, director of advocacy and government affairs for The Trevor Project, recalls what it felt like to be transgender and queer while watching televised debates over California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in 2008 and was later found unconstitutional.

"To watch your own identity on a screen be used as the boogeyman has an impact," says Ames.

To truly protect the health and well-being of LGBTQ youth, Ames says legislators should consider bills like requiring school districts to adopt model suicide-prevention policies and mandating the inclusion of LGBTQ history in classroom curriculum. Ames argues that both measures could improve mental health and reduce suicidal feelings for LGBTQ youth, who are already at heightened risk for anxiety, depression, and suicide. These proposals are likely nonstarters for conservatives who've arguably made transgender youth a wedge issue designed to draw a fervent base to the polls in the midterm elections, but they certainly draw a striking contrast between an approach that treats children as political props and another that embraces them for who they are.

SEE ALSO: How to support the fight for transgender safety in Texas

No policy, however, can fully mitigate the damage of extremist rhetoric that dehumanizes LGBTQ people. Last year, the Libs of TikTok account labeled The Trevor Project a "grooming organization" in a since-deleted Tweet, just one indication of its extremist views.

Though some advocates of "grooming" language say they're against violence, telling the public that LGBTQ people and their allies are child predators sets the stage for brutality. It's no mistake that, in 2016, a gunman showed up at a Washington, D.C., pizzeria looking for a child sex ring featured in far-right conspiracy theories promoted online. "Grooming" rhetoric is also an undeniable signal that LGBTQ people aren't safe in certain quarters, that they should hide their identity, and live in fear. Reprehensibly, it aims to undermine the ability of caring adults to publicly support youth just coming to understand their sexual orientation and gender identity. This is no way for more than 20 million adults and children in the U.S. to live, and such messages will affect their well-being in profoundly negative ways.

Ames is convinced that justice will prevail for LGBTQ people, but they worry that some children will feel unvalued by society and be at risk of suicide as a result. While many factors lead to suicide, LGBTQ youth who feel accepted by at least one adult are less likely to report attempting suicide. Warning signs of suicide amongst youth include hopelessness, losing interest in the future, saying goodbye to important people, and having a plan to die.

"What [youth] are telling us is that when they watch these debates, they are more than sad or angry or stressed — all of which they are — they are scared," says Ames.

If you want to talk to someone or are experiencing suicidal thoughts, The Trevor Project can be reached 24/7 at 1-866-488-7386 and via chat. Crisis Text Line provides free, confidential support 24/7. Text CRISIS to 741741 to be connected to a crisis counselor. Contact the NAMI HelpLine at 1-800-950-NAMI, Monday through Friday from 10:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. ET, or email info@nami.org. You can also call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255. Here is a list of international resources.
No ‘parents bill of rights’ or ban on trans athletes: Kansas House fails to override veto

2022/4/28 
© The Kansas City Star
The Kansas State Capitol in Topeka, Kansas. - Steven Frame/Dreamstime/TNS

TOPEKA, Kan. — Efforts to ban transgender athletes from girls sports and establish a “parents bill of rights” failed in the Kansas Legislature on Thursday, but Republicans have pledged to make the issues a hallmark of campaigns this August and November.

The Kansas House failed to override Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto on both issues, falling short of the needed two-thirds majority.

The Senate easily passed the overrides on Tuesday, but attempts in the House were a long shot. The House’s original votes on the bills fell several votes short of the needed majority.

Earlier this week, House Speaker Ron Ryckman, an Olathe Republican, told reporters he wouldn’t have enough votes if the decision came this week. On Thursday, he said that day would be the chamber’s best chance; they had 85 Republican members present and needed 84 votes for the override. The chamber is allowed to reconsider the votes Thursday or the next day the body meets.

Proponents of the bill banning transgender athletes from girls sports have focused on the argument that those athletes have an unfair advantage over cisgender athletes — those who were assigned the female gender at birth. But the discussion has strayed into the validity of transgender identities in recent days.

“That is a mental health issue,” Rep. Barbara Barbra Wasinger, a Hays Republican, said during a GOP caucus meeting Thursday. “I feel greatly and deeply for these young people and all people that are confused.”

Last week, Rep. Cheryl Helmer, a Mulvane Republican, said in an email to her constituent that she was uncomfortable sharing a restroom with her transgender colleague, Rep. Stephanie Byers. She went on to falsely claim transgender people are attacking women and children in restrooms.

Opponents have called that rhetoric evidence that the bill is motivated by an underlying fear and hatred of LGBTQ Kansans.

“If the events of this past week do not demonstrate that this is not about athletics, I’m not sure what does,” Byers, a Wichita Democrat and Kansas’ first transgender lawmaker, said.

“We’re targeting someone, and by extension an entire community.”

Both issues have been hallmarks of Republican campaigns over the past two years, and the Kansas bills mirror legislation pushed by conservative think tanks nationwide.

Similar “parents bill of rights” legislation passed the GOP-controlled Missouri House last week on a 85-59 vote. The bill outlines a set of rights parents may employ over their child’s education, including reviewing curriculum and visiting classes during school hours. It would allow parents to sue school districts that violate the bill’s rules.

The legislation is now in the Missouri Senate, where it’s expected to undergo minor changes.

“They will be major campaign issues, a lot of money from both sides,” Ryckman said. “That shows the difference between Republicans and Democrats.”

When Kelly vetoed both bills, she said they were harmful to Kansas and “came from politicians trying to score political points.”

The bill banning trans athletes from girls sports, Kelly said, would prevent businesses from coming to Kansas while the “parents bill of rights” would imbue more division into schools and result in lawsuits. The bill requires districts to allow parents to inspect and challenge material in schools.

School districts and teachers have consistently said parents already have access to curriculum information and can raise concerns. Rep. Valdenia Winn, a Kansas City Democrat, claimed the bill was born out of a “national manipulation of parent anxiety.”

But Republicans insisted the legislation was needed to help parents who feel ignored by their schools.

“Do you want the government raising your children?” Rep. Stephen Owens, a Hesston Republican, said.

“It’s an issue that’s going to come into play in this election cycle,” Rep. Steve Huebert, a Valley Center Republican, said as he urged lawmakers on the House floor to override the veto.

Kelly’s likely November opponent, Attorney General Derek Schmidt, has said he would have signed the bill banning transgender athletes from sports if he was governor.

His campaign has placed a focus on education curriculum and transparency issues, pushing for policy banning from Kansas schools critical race theory — a complicated legal theory on institutional racism that is not taught in Kansas schools. Republicans nationwide have successfully capitalized on frustration from parents over classroom curriculum and COVID-19 protocol in schools.

Kelly’s veto has been pointed to in the campaign as proof of her allegiance to teachers unions rather than parents.

“From shutting down schools for the year earlier than any other state to vetoing legislation that would protect a parent’s role in their children’s education, Democrat Laura Kelly has told voters repeatedly the parent’s concerns don’t matter,” Republican Governors Association spokeswoman Joanna Rodriguez said in a statement after the vote.

____

The Star’s Kacen Bayless contributed to this report.
Top Global Brands and Asset Managers Still Lack Adequate Anti-Deforestation Policies, Report Finds


“Most companies and financial institutions with the greatest ability to halt deforestation are doing little or nothing,” said Niki Mardas, Executive Director at Global Canopy, which conducted the research.




April 29, 2022
 DeSmog 

Heinz, Jimmy Choo and BlackRock are among hundreds of household names doing “little or nothing” to end deforestation, a major new report has found.

The new Forest 500 report, published today by environmental group Global Canopy, assessed 350 top companies and 150 financial institutions that fund them, finding that a third of companies have no policies in place at all to ensure their products are not driving deforestation.

The world’s three biggest asset managers, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, had no commodity-specific policy to address deforestation risks in their portfolios, the report also found.

Of the 150 financial institutions providing over $5.5 trillion in finance to companies in “forest-risk” supply chains, 93 lacked a deforestation policy covering their investments.

The findings come just two months after world leaders pledged to bring an end to deforestation at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, committing to “work collectively to halt and reverse forest loss and degradation by 2030”, prompting concern from campaigners about the challenge ahead.

Pressure was now mounting on governments to “bring up the laggards” through implementing stricter legislation, the report said.

“Last year saw unprecedented political action as more than 140 governments recognised the urgent need to protect forests, yet most companies and financial institutions with the greatest ability to halt deforestation are doing little or nothing,” said Niki Mardas, Executive Director at Global Canopy.

“As major consumer governments start to translate these commitments into hard and fast legislation, businesses which have not taken deforestation seriously are woefully unprepared and face real risks.”
Deforestation Risk

Global Canopy used publicly-available data to assess companies and financial institutions on their commitments to tackle tropical deforestation in their supply chains and portfolios, ranking the strength of their commitments for six major forest-risk commodities: palm oil, beef, leather, soy, timber, and pulp and paper.

Around three quarters of global deforestation is driven by agriculture, according to Our World in Data. This is a key driver of climate change and can have a devastating impact on wildlife, ecosystems, and the lives of Indigenous peoples.

Some of the worst offenders named in the report included French dairy companies Groupe Lactalis and Groupe Savencia, whose brands encompass PrƩsident and Saint Agur and the Versace, Jimmy Choo and Michael Kors fashion brands, owned by luxury fashion giant Capri Holdings.

Kraft Heinz, which produces Heinz mayonnaise, was found to have a commitment for palm oil but none of the other supply chains listed. While luxury fashion giant Capri Holdings, responsible for brands Versace and Jimmy Choo, had no commodity policies in place.

Financial institutions were assessed separately on their exposure to deforestation risks, through their loans and investments to companies that produce, trade or use “soft” commodities, including soy, beef and palm oil.

While 22 of the 150 had made net zero commitments, including BlackRock, HSBC, and BNP Paribas, this didn’t usually equate to a robust deforestation policy, the report found.

BlackRock, which was found to have no commodity policies in place, scored just 3.2 percent for reporting and implementation, while Vanguard was awarded zero.
‘Slow Progress’

“I’m unsurprised by the disappointing results, as we’ve grown accustomed to very slow progress year on year,” Global Canopy’s Niki Mardas told DeSmog.

“But I am also seeing the rankings in a very new light. Important pledges were made by world leaders on deforestation at COP26 and there is significant legislation coming into force in major consumer markets like the EU and the UK.

“This looks set to force action by even the worst performers, who the Forest 500 identifies clearly. We hope this information will help governments play a more effective role in driving change, both in consumer countries and also in tropical forest regions.”

DeSmog last year revealed the ties of board members leading the world’s top banks to a range of high-carbon sectors, including agribusiness.

Veronica Oakeshott, Head of Forests Policy and Advocacy at human rights organisation Global Witness, said that relying on voluntary policies from companies and financial institutions had “abjectly failed to rein in forest destruction”.

“These policies, where they exist at all, are generally extremely weak or poorly implemented,” she told DeSmog. “In the meantime, big financiers are making huge sums of money off the back of their deals with some of the world’s worst deforesters, as our recent investigation showed.”

“If global leaders are serious about tackling deforestation, as they claimed to be at COP26, governments must introduce strong legislation that makes it illegal for all businesses, including banks and investors, to continue fuelling deforestation. Otherwise, they will continue to profit with impunity as forests are razed, communities are devastated and the climate crisis worsens.”

PrƩsident, Kraft Heinz, Versace, Capri Holdings, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street were all contacted for comment.

Phoebe Cooke is Senior Reporter at DeSmog. She previously trained as a news reporter across local titles in Essex and East London, with her work since appearing in the Independent, Evening Standard, The Sun Online, Deutsche Welle, and The Local and Prospect Magazine.



This post was previously published on DeSmog.

To Govern the Globe


 
APRIL 29, 2022
Facebook

In early April, a desperate plea from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of leading scientists working with UN patronage, went largely overlooked. “It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5ĀŗC (2.7ĀŗF),” wrote Jim Skea, the co-chair of IPCC’s Working Group III. “Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors it will be impossible.”[1] While global warming of 1.5ĀŗC above pre-industrial levels may sound marginal, it is already a compromise. The situation also now looks to be far worse than initially estimated and is expected to occur much sooner. By 2040, there will likely be “significant coastal flooding, even more intense storms, fierce droughts, wildfires, and heat waves causing damages worth $54 trillion.” Absent truly staggering carbon-reduction, the IPCC estimates that warming may reach an apocalyptic 4.0ĀŗC above preindustrial temperatures by 2100.[2]

The Pentagon recently requested a defense budget of $813 billion for FY 2023. Adjusted for inflation, this figure exceeds spending at the heights of both the Korean and Vietnam wars, and, as William Hartung, senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute, notes, is “$100 billion more than peak spending during the Cold War.”[3] Unsurprisingly, the U.S. spends more on its military than any other country in the world. It has been continuously at war for decades, is currently engaged in counterterror operations in more than 80 countries, and maintains approximately 750 far-flung military bases across the globe.

There is a stark contradiction between the embedded inertia of U.S. military-industrial predominance and the epochal challenges that lay ahead. The tools that enshrined Washington’s world order at the dawn of the American Century—a globe-spanning military footprint, liberal international principles, and free market capitalism—can no longer guarantee its continuation. In fact, the same strategic architecture that elevated the U.S. as a singular world power may be its undoing. Failure to effectively respond to the pressing realities of climate change and complex international conflict bears grim consequences for both U.S. dominion and the fate of human life on this planet.

In To Govern the Globe: World Orders & Catastrophic Change, Alfred W. McCoy, Fred Harvey Harrington Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, offers a kaleidoscopic and timely analysis of the present U.S. decline, contextualizing it among a succession of empires and world orders across the past millennium. Empires are ephemeral, McCoy writes, but the world orders within which empires ebb and flow are enduring. If an empire’s habits can both create new and shape existing world orders, a world order, in contrast, is deeply rooted and can even “survive the decline of the global hegemon that created it.”[4] Emerging from historical hinge points—at the intersections of catastrophes like the Black Death and innovations in energy achieved through the use of slave labor or fossil fuels—world orders structure the relations among nations and the conditions of life for their peoples.[5] Importantly, McCoy argues that world orders are often undone by a “distinctive duality” that exists between their power and principle.[6]

Looking back some seven centuries, it is evident that the core contradictions now running through Washington’s world order are neither unique nor unprecedented. Spain and Portugal ruled in the Iberian age, both utilizing advances in navigation and shipbuilding as well as novel geopolitical concepts, to craft intercontinental empires. Through territorial conquest and extractive slave labor, the Spanish and Portuguese crowns amassed great fortunes. Yet they squandered their riches on lavish excess at the expense of their cities and local manufacturers, accruing extensive foreign debt.[7] With little fanfare, the Iberian empires collapsed, no longer able to bear the weight of their lumbering kingdoms and challenged culturally by the burgeoning Protestant Reformation.

However, by 1700 the “hallmarks of the Iberian age, slavery and imperial conquest,” had survived.[8] Britain infused these Iberian holdovers with the market logic of merchant capitalism and, through the “barely visible tendrils of trade, capital flows, and naval patrols radiating from London,” compromised the sovereignty of peoples across the globe.[9] The industrial revolution played a key role in the growth of Britain’s “informal empire,” the population of which ballooned from 12.5 million in 1750 to 200 million by 1820 and peaked at nearly 700 million on the eve of the Second World War.[10] Steam, fossil fuels, and, later, electricity radically increased the productive potential of its economy, grew its military, and accrued massive wealth. Despite its material prosperity, the dissonance between Britain’s domestic freedoms and colonial injustices, along with its failure to build a stable system of international alliances, wrought chaos upon its dominion.

Thus, in the wake of two devastating wars, European economic decline, and widespread social upheaval across the formerly colonized world, the U.S. ascended as global hegemon. Presciently, Britain’s world order crumbled owing to the duality of its “global power that balanced a liberal world order with a self-aggrandizing empire.”[11] It also pioneered the energy transition towards fossil fuels and the global exploration for oil, soon to be double-edged cornerstones of Washington’s rule.

By 1945, with just a small fraction of the world’s population, the U.S. accounted for 60% of its industrial output, generated 46% percent of its electrical power, and held 59% of its proven oil reserves. U.S. casualties in World War II totaled 416,000, a costly figure that nonetheless paled in comparison to the 19 million lives lost across Europe, 20 million in China, and 24 million in the Soviet Union. With a standing military of more than 12 million active-duty members, 1000 warships, and some 39,000 aircraft, President Harry Truman remarked that the U.S. was “the most powerful nation, perhaps, in all history.”[12]

Such raw industrial and military strength buttressed newly established U.S.-led international governmental and financial institutions. At Bretton Woods in 1944 and San Francisco in 1945, the U.S. and other Allied nations created the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and UN. Though couched in liberal internationalist rhetoric, the U.S. ensured that these organizations would accommodate the excesses of its empire, advance its global dominion, and, importantly, safeguard its wealth and power.[13] Indeed, George Kennan, the American statesman and author of the “Long Telegram,” which asserted the necessity of communist containment, put the realpolitik of postwar-U.S. empire bluntly:

We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only about 6.3 percent of its population…Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit U.S. to maintain this disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all…high-minded international altruism.[14]

With a “formidable four-tier apparatus—economic, military, diplomatic, and clandestine,” McCoy writes, the U.S. set out to govern the globe.[15]

To maintain its wartime advantage and grow the global capitalist system for which it was now responsible, the U.S. required untrammeled access to oil and other strategic resources. However, the quest for and profligate expenditure of fossil fuels were not without consequences. Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. frequently compromised its claims to moral leadership: covert coups and interventions subverted surging Third World nationalism, exposing self-interested and short-sighted foreign policy. State department-funded development initiatives also ensured that modernization was sympathetic to U.S. interests. American officials justified many of these programs using prevailing ideas about nature. As historian Megan Black argues in The Global Interior: Mineral Frontiers and American Power, the U.S. Department of the Interior, having outgrown continental expansion, set its sights abroad in the postwar years. Interior “offered that resources were global and thus belonging to all…and were dangerously misunderstood and undervalued by people across the globe.”[16] This twin thrust recast U.S. extraction as both natural and righteous. In sustaining its empire and superpower status, the U.S. engendered a climate that was at once destructive and self-perpetuating—the chaotic volatility it introduced into host societies would give rise to conflict, decades down the road.

Simultaneously, scientists were beginning to theorize the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate. During the Cold War, the Pentagon endeavored to research extreme climates, such as the Arctic, in order to maintain its military edge in adverse conditions. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers created the Snow, Ice, and Permafrost Research Establishment (SIPRE) in 1950 to generate data that could be “used as a basis for increasing the efficiency of military operations.”[17] Buried beneath Greenland’s icesheet at Camp Century, SIPRE set about extracting ice-cores, thousands of meters long, as documented by Kristina and Henry Nielsen in Camp Century: The Untold Story of America’s Secret Arctic Military Base Under the Greenland Ice. Analyzing the carbon content in sections of the ice-cores, SIPRE scientists Chester Langway and Willi Dansgaard discovered climate variations in response to changes in atmospheric content across vast swaths of time, a finding with troubling implications for the fossil fuel-dependent U.S.

In a case of great historical irony, Camp Century also provided cover for Project Iceworm, a secretive nuclear deterrence program.[18] Iceworm entailed the construction of a sprawling rail network under the frozen surface, “spanning several thousand square kilometers…the aim being to enable the hidden transportation, by train, of 600 missiles equipped with nuclear warheads” to launch sites aimed at the Soviet Union.[19] The uncomfortable intimacy between the doomsday potential of Cold War atomic strategy and cutting-edge climate science at Camp Century encapsulated the contradictions at the heart of Washington’s world order—at once aware of the deleterious effects of its power, but neither willing nor able to change course.

Allowed to compound throughout the twentieth-century, McCoy argues that the “production, delivery, and consumption of fossil fuels” that has underwritten Washington’s rule now constitutes the “world’s most extensive, and the most expensive, web of energy-intensive infrastructures.”[20] Neta Crawford, co-director of the Costs of War Project based at Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University, writes that the Department of Defense is now the largest consumer of energy in the U.S., and is moreover the single largest institutional consumer of fossil fuels in the world.[21] And consumption begets emissions. To demonstrate the singular toll U.S. military operations take, consider a 2017 strike on Islamic State targets in Libya: two B-2 Stealth Bombers flew nearly 12,000 miles, emitting 1,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases.[22] By comparison, the average passenger vehicle typically emits just 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide in an entire year.

Instead of altering costly practices, the Pentagon has remained stubbornly committed to its standard operating procedures. In the recent past, policy makers and advisers felt that the civilian branches of government were incapable of meeting the threats posed by climate change and sought to “securitize” the federal response.[23] However, Nils Gilman, a former consultant to the Department of Defense on climate, recalls that the Pentagon used this as an opportunity “demand more, rather than to act differently.”[24] Military budgets have continued to climb in order to maintain activities that were concerns long before climate change was on anyone’s mind. Conspicuously, Gilman writes, neither the Pentagon’s 2021 Climate Risk Analysis report nor its accompanying Climate Adaptation Plan “proposed a single reordering of the defense and foreign policy establishments strategic priorities, with the one exception of plans (eventually, one day) ‘to include consideration of the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions in applicable cost-benefit analysis decisions.’”[25] In an executive order signed in December 2021, President Biden called on government agencies to transition to 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2050, as well to eliminate climate pollution from federal buildings and vehicles. The military, however, will be exempted across the board.[26]

As it currently stands, national security comes at the cost of high levels of emissions. Yet climate change promises to compromise national and global security. It is often described as “existential threat,” in that it fundamentally alters our conceptions of human history and existence, while changing our relationships with both the planet and other people.[27] But the Center for Climate and Security has also referred to climate change as a “threat multiplier.”[28] Too often, climate change is pigeonholed as an environmental issue when it is concerned with economics, security, geopolitics, and society at large. Climate change will undoubtedly affect “physical infrastructure on which economic activity depends,” affect resource disputes as melting sea ice changes access to oil reserves, affect migration as refugees follow shifting food and water sources, and, importantly, affect social stability, thereby increasing the likelihood of future unrest and conflict.[29] Given that mitigating climate change would serve strategic objectives—as well as stave off end-times predictions—it should be surprising that the U.S. is not currently taking drastic action.

Cutting military fossil fuel consumption would have cascading positive effects. The first is an overall decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and promotion of carbon sequestration. If the military were to become less oil-dependent, it could reduce the political and fuel resources used to defend its access to oil, particularly in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. could then shrink its global military presence and decrease its dependence on oil-rich states, reevaluating Faustian relationships with current allies. Finally, scaling back operations would entail smaller defense budgets, freeing up precious resources to be invested in economically productive activities and transferred to agencies better equipped to fight climate change.[30] Each of these would also contribute to the long-term prevention of multi-level threats stemming from climate-related natural disasters, famines, and the like.

The U.S. remains militarily involved across the globe because of the many vested interests and careers that now depend on its perpetual foreign adventures. A systematic policy of restraint—along with climate policies that reduce many of the root causes of military conflict—would render thousands of people and institutions obsolete.[31] Failure to act by the U.S. military-industrial establishment is, in no small part, an act of class-preservation.

The climate crisis has also been exacerbated by neoliberal economic globalization. For much of the twentieth-century, Washington’s world order was defined against its perceived antithesis in the Soviet Union. The presence of an external and existential foe allowed it to neglect its own mounting contradictions. However, following the implosion of the Soviet system and Cold War drawdown, the U.S. unleashed a “two-tier strategy to open the world to unchecked capital flows.”[32] With the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, and broad financial deregulation, it engendered an ideal business climate for multinational corporations. U.S. foreign investment increased tenfold “from $700 billion in 1990 to $6.3 trillion in 2014.”[33] At the same time, Washington set out to bring former Soviet satellite states into its orbit, weaponizing the concepts of human rights and democracy promotion in doing so.[34]

The open and globalized world economy came at the detriment of domestic social safety nets and produced staggering inequality. Largely insulated from public opinion—and with the momentum of a runaway freight train—the ascendant ruling class pursued top-down capital accumulation with little regard for social, environmental, or political stability. “U.S. elites,” McCoy laments, “failed to craft a shared vision to replace the Cold War’s anti-communist containment,” leading to increasingly fragmented and insufficiently ameliorative policies.[35] There is a case to be made that the U.S. has become “parastatal” in this way; its power is decentralized and divided among corporations and self-interested lobby groups not subject to democratic oversight.

To return to the central question of To Govern the Globe: Can this liberal international system survive the ongoing erosion of U.S. global power and the potentially catastrophic heating of the planet?[36] According to McCoy, the answer is uncertain. But without serious reflection and immediate action, the contradictions baked into Washington’s world order will likely bring about its downfall. Past paradigms for U.S. engagement with the world are no longer feasible. Entrenched militarism expends excessive resources, prevents collective action, and, significantly, wastes what little time there is to act. Uni- and bilateral foreign policy must also be eschewed in favor of multilateralism and “great power engagement”—to do otherwise, the U.S. risks inhibiting international diplomacy and cooperation on pressing, existential issues like climate change.[37] The current global system is characterized by “strong nation-states and weak global governance,” McCoy writes. “Any world order based on primacy of the nation-state will probably prove incapable of coping with the political and economic crisis likely to arise from the appearance of some 275 million climate change refugees by 2060 or 2070.”[38] Since the end of the Second World War, U.S. global primacy has taken on a quality of inevitability. However, as humanity teeters on the precipice of cataclysmic change, it is imperative to both imagine its end and the emergence of new forms of global governance.

Notes

1. Molly Taft, “‘It’s Now Or Never’: We Have 3 Years to Reverse Course, Major Climate Report Finds,” Gizmodo, April 4, 2022, https://gizmodo.com/it-s-now-or-never-we-have-3-years-to-reverse-course-1848745616

2. Alfred W. McCoy, To Govern the Globe: World Orders & Catastrophic Change (Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books, 2021), 305-306. 

3. William Hartung, “Biden’s new Pentagon budget request is too damn high,” Responsible Statecraft, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, April 10, 2022, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/03/28/bidens-new-pentagon-budget-request-is-too-damn-high/

4. McCoy, To Govern the Globe, 15. 

5. I have borrowed the term “hinge points” from historian Daniel Bessner, who has used it describe moments in history that mark decisive breaks with the past, https://jsis.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/sites/25/2017/04/v5n2-Bessner.pdf

6. McCoy, To Govern the Globe, 14. 

7. Ibid., 75. 

8. Ibid., 83. 

9. Ibid., 132. 

10. Ibid., 133. 

11. Ibid., 188. 

12. Ibid., 215. 

13. Ibid., 220. 

14. Ibid., 219. 

15. Ibid., 220. 

16. Megan Black, The Global Interior: Mineral Frontiers and American Power (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2018), 120. 

17. Kristian H. Nielsen and Henry Nielsen, Camp Century: The Untold Story of America’s Secret Arctic Military Base Under the Greenland Ice (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2021), 200. 

18. Ibid., 255. 

19. Ibid. 

20. McCoy, To Govern the Globe, 260. 

21. Neta C. Crawford, “Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War,” Costs of War

Project, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University, updated and revised November 13, 2019. 

22. Andrea Mazzarino, “The Costs of (Another) War When We Could Be Fighting Climate Change,” Tom Dispatch, March 29, 2022, https://tomdispatch.com/the-costs-of-another-war/

23. Nils Gilman, “The Guns of Warming: How Treating Climate Change as a Security Issue Backfired,” The Breakthrough Institute, March 29, 2022, https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-16-spring-2022/the-guns-of-warming

24. Ibid. 

25. Ibid. 

26. Adam Aton, “Military Exempt from Biden order to cut federal emissions,” ClimateWire, E&E News, December 22, 2021, https://www.eenews.net/articles/military-exempt-from-biden-order-to-cut-federal-emissions/

27. Andrew Moseman and Kieran Setiya, “Why do some people call climate change an “existential threat”?’, MIT Climate Portal, July 12, 2021, https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-some-people-call-climate-change-existential-threat

28. Caitlin E. Werrell and Francesco Femia, “Climate Change as Threat Multiplier: Understanding the Broader Nature of the Risk,” The Center for Climate and Security, BRIEFER No. 25, February 12, 2015, https://climateandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/climate-change-as-threat-multiplier_understanding-the-broader-nature-of-the-risk_briefer-252.pdf

29. Ibid. 

30. Crawford, “Pentagon Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War.” 

31. Nils Gilman, Twitter post, August 29, 2021, https://twitter.com/nils_gilman/status/1431967061631127556

32. McCoy, To Govern the Globe, 237. 

33. Ibid. 

34. Ibid. 

35. Ibid. 

36. Ibid., 6-7. 

37. Richard Hanania, “‘Great Power Competition’ as an Anachronism,” Defense Priorities, November 23, 2020, https://www.defensepriorities.org/explainers/great-power-competition-as-an-anachronism

38. McCoy, To Govern the Globe, 316-17. 

Jesse Robertson holds a degree in history and ethnic studies from Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon. His research focuses on the history of the United States in the world, the American West, and how imperial encounters shape politics and culture.