Thursday, January 15, 2026

 

Study finds ocean impacts nearly double economic cost of climate change



The “blue” social cost of carbon provides a more complete measure of the monetary harm caused by global climate damages




University of California - San Diego

King tides in San Diego, Calif. 

image: 

Kind tides impact the Mission Beach boardwalk in San Diego, Calif. in 2023.  Image: Scripps Institution of Oceangraphy/UC San Diego. 

view more 

Credit: Image: Scripps Institution of Oceangraphy/UC San Diego.




For the first time, a study from researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego integrates climate-related damages to the ocean into the social cost of carbon— a measure of economic harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions. 

When ocean damage from climate change, dubbed the “blue” social cost of carbon, is calculated, the study finds that the global cost of carbon dioxide emissions to society nearly doubles. Until now, the ocean was largely overlooked in the standard accounting of the social cost of carbon even though the degradation of coral reef ecosystems, economic losses from fisheries impacts and damage to coastal infrastructure are well documented and adversely impact millions around the globe.

“If we don't put a price tag on the harm that climate change causes to the ocean, it will be invisible to key decision makers,” said environmental economist Bernardo Bastien-Olvera, who led the study during a postdoctoral fellowship at Scripps Oceanography. “Until now, many of these variables in the ocean haven’t had a market value, so they have been absent from calculations. This study is the first to assign monetary-equivalent values to these overlooked ocean impacts.”

The research team’s findings were published January 15 in the journal Nature Climate Change. 

Social cost of carbon is considered a more accurate accounting of harm than the calculations commonly used as the basis of carbon credits or carbon offsets offered to travelers. These calculations have been used by state governments and organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy to inform analyses of proposed policy actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Human-generated carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere cause damage by warming ocean temperatures, altering the chemistry of the oceanreducing the ocean’s ability to hold oxygen necessary for species survival while increasing the severity of extreme weather, as rising temperatures provide more energy to feed extreme storms. These changes are altering the distribution of species and damaging ecosystems like coral reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds and kelp forests. There are also impacts to infrastructure like ports, which can be damaged from increased flooding and storms.

Calculating how societies depend on oceans for trade, nutrition, leisure and more  

To develop the accounting, the study looked at straightforward market use values such as decreased fisheries revenue or diminished trade. It also accounted for non-market values such as health impacts of reduced nutrition availability from impacted fisheries and recreational opportunities at the ocean. Additionally, iIt considered intangibles such as the value of the inherent worth humans get from the enjoyment of ecosystems and biodiversity, which the researchers call non-use or existence value.

Researchers plugged the estimates into an economic model calibrated to varying greenhouse gas emission trajectories. Without ocean impacts included, the social cost of carbon is $51 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. When the model is run with ocean impacts, study authors calculated an additional $46.2 per ton of carbon dioxide, reaching $97.2 total per ton of carbon dioxide, a 91% increase. For a sense of scale, in 2024, global carbon dioxide emissions were estimated to be 41.6 billion tons, according to the Global Carbon Budget analysis — implying nearly $2 trillion in ocean-related damages associated with one year of global emissions, damages that are currently missing from standard climate cost estimates.

Overall, market damages are projected to be the largest cost to society, totaling global annual losses of $1.66 trillion in the year 2100. Damages in non-use values, the inherent worth we derive from enjoyment of ocean ecosystems, amount to $224 billion and non-market use values such as decreased nutrition from impacted fisheries adds up to $182 billion in annual losses. 

But Bastien-Olvera, now an assistant professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, notes that a dollar of market damage is not the same as a dollar of cultural loss. These benefits are not perfectly substitutable, meaning that losses in one category cannot be fully offset by gains in another, so each category of damage carries a different meaning for society.

How the “blue” social cost of carbon will be an important tool for environmental decision makers 

Study co-author Kate Ricke, a climate scientist and associate professor at Scripps Oceanography and the School of Global Policy and Strategy, notes that social cost of carbon is a tool used in cost-benefit analysis, which is important for environmental decision makers. Cost-benefit analysis is used by government agencies for policy design and by members of the private sector for risk management analysis and financial planning. 

“Protecting the environment can have high up-front costs, so we need methods for thinking about the trade-offs we are making as a society,” said Ricke, who led a 2018 study that estimated country-level contributions to the social cost of carbon. “There are things that people value and benefit from that aren’t easily monetized and the ocean is particularly challenging to assign monetary values. The blue social cost of carbon is a new framework to recognize these values.”

An unequal distribution of harm across the globe 

Study authors also found the distribution of impacts is highly unequal across the world, with islands and small economies being disproportionately affected. Given these areas' dependence on seafood for nutrition, they stand to suffer increased health impacts to their populations. The study accounted for how ocean warming reduces the availability of key nutrients in seafood — including calcium, omega-3 fatty acids, protein and iron. This loss in nutrients can be linked to increases in disease risk and additional deaths that could then be attributed to such nutrient losses. 

Bastien-Olvera said the study was only possible thanks to shared expertise from scientists across disciplines — fisheries experts, coral reef and mangrove researchers, biological oceanographers, and others. The hope now is that policymakers and industry will use this framework to support decision making. 

“The social cost of carbon can help you contextualize the costs of climate change,” said Bastien-Olvera. “When an industry emits a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as a society we are paying a cost. A company can use this number to inform cost-benefit analysis — what is the damage they will be causing society through increasing their emissions?”

The study was funded through the Scripps Institutional Postdoctoral Fellowship. Additional study authors include Octavio Aburto-Oropeza from Scripps Oceanography; Luke Brander from Leibniz University; William WL Cheung from the University of British Columbia; Johannes Emmerling, Francesco Granella and Massimo Tavoni from European Institute on Economics and the Environment; Chris M Free from UC Santa Barbara; and Jasper Verschuur from the University of Oxford. 

Read the full paper, “Accounting for Ocean Impacts Nearly Doubles the Social Cost of Carbon.” 


 
Mangroves 

Mangrove loss can lead to economic consequences as tracked in a new study. Image credit: Octavio Aburto/Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego. 

Credit

Image credit: Octavio Aburto/Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

Trump’s Icebox: Has the President Gone MAD?


by  | Jan 15, 2026 |

When it comes to the national security front, Donald Trump is flat out loosing it. After all, WTF was he thinking with respect to –

……A $1.5 trillion defense budget?

……Kidnapping the president of a sovereign nation?

……Putting Mexico and Columbia on deck for the next drug fumigation?

……Essentially promising to militarily enable regime change in Iran?

…..Enforcing freedom of religion in Nigeria with more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles?

…..Taking Greenland….. the hard way?

All of this is the work of an unlearned, unread, blow-hard, know-it-all narcissist, who rattles around the White House in the dead of night dreaming up barking idiocy that none of the craven weaklings (e.g. JD Vance), boot-licking sycophants (e.g. Marco Rubio) and mentally-warped, xenophobic fanatics (e.g. Stephen Miller) surrounding the Oval Office are about to resist.

But the last of the listed items – annexing Greenland – surely takes the cake for risible humbugery.

Check the record. Among the most recent American officials to advocate the taking of Greenland was, well, Secretary of State William Seward. In the second half of the 1860s!

This statesman of “Seward”s Icebox” fame feared England would take control of Greenland, thereby further thwarting the plans of his “manifest destiny” crowd to annex Canada.

Some eight decades later, there was also the original cold war monger, Secretary of State James Byrnes, who offered Denmark $100 million for Greenland—the better to keep the Ruuskies off of the icebergs. Instead, Washington eventually settled for a rent-a-base at Thule, Greenland that actually made sense as a radar warning station at the time, and which we remember quite well.

To wit, during 1954-1957 the US set up a chain of radar stations called the DEW Line, stretching from Alaska across northern Canada to Greenland, providing systematic capacity for long-range detection of incoming Soviet bombers. It was a key part of the continental defense network integrated into NORAD and we were mightily impressed when we read all about it in our Weekly Reader as a 4th grader in 1955.

Since he is now our same age at 79 years, the Donald undoubtedly read about the DEW Line in his Weekly Reader, too. But apparently he never got over the wonder of it.

After all, back then the maximum cruising speed of the Soviet Tupolev TU-16 was about 500 mph. So if any attacking Soviet bombers were detected by the radar station at Thule they were still 5 hours and 15 minutes from Washington DC, which is about 2,600 miles away. The US strategic command thus had plenty of time to scramble an extensive fleet of Air Force fighters and interceptors to bring the Soviet bombers down long before reaching targets in the USA.

No more. Today’s Russian hypersonic Oreshnik missiles can easily travel at peak speeds of mach 10 and average speeds of mach 5 or about 4,000 miles/per hour. This means that they could get from Thule to the nation’s capital in barely 40 minutes.

But even then the 40 minutes of “warning” time from Greenland-based radar isn’t what it might appear to be. That’s because there is no existing or even conceptually likely defense system against hypersonic missiles that would effectively protect American military and civilian targets – especially if these hypersonic missiles were camouflaged with swarms of decoys. In effect, warning time is irrelevant because effective anti-hypersonic missile defensive counter-measures are nonexistent.

Besides, even today’s 40 minutes by hypersonic missile from Greenland to the White House isn’t all that. It’s actually about 10 minutes.

That’s because in the case of a totally implausible Russian first strike (see below), the latter would be led by a hypersonic missile attack on Thule, which is exactly 10 minutes from Russia’s Olenegorsk Air Base on the Kola Peninsula. Of course, the Thule base has no reliable anti-missile defense, in any event, and would therefore be obliterated before they even got the President out of bed in the White House.

That is to say, in today’s world there is no meaningful warning time for traditional defensive measures to protect the airbase at Thule. It’s essentially a sitting duck aircraft carrier on an iceberg, equivalent to Washington’s equally worthless $40 billion carrier battle groups, which also sit out on the blue waters waiting to be obliterated by a hypersonic missile attack.

In short, it is not merely that we don’t need to own Greenland in any way, shape or form – we don’t even need the Thule base any longer, either. It should be given back to the people of Greenland at a savings to Uncle Sam of upwards of $500 million per year. Perhaps rather than being ruled from Washington the 57,000 or so Greenlanders would prefer to make an Arctic-region museum/theme park out of Thule in order to attract adventure tourism.

The Donald’s entire Greenland folly, however, reminds you that Trump does not understand in the slightest that America’s security in the nuclear age – for better or worse – rests on strategic deterrence or the so-called doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). If he understood MAD, in fact, he would not be stumbling and bumbling around with the equally idiotic ideas of a $1.5 trillion defense budget and a Golden Dome missile defense for the entirely of America’s land mass from sea-to-shining-sea.

The fact is, the Donald is so full of misplaced self-confidence and so unlettered when it comes to the great matters of national security that he undoubtedly thinks America’s nuclear security specifically and homeland security generally can be assured by just a larger version of Israel’s successful Iron Dome defense. But that has been successful only against the slow-moving, primitive rockets and drones confected in the tunnels of Hamas or the 300 or so low-tech projectiles Iran threw at Israel in the spring of 2024, which were also successfully intercepted by the Iron Dome.

The latter attack was mostly comprised of about 250 slow-moving Shahed-136 loitering munitions (i.e. kamikaze drones), which fly at subsonic speeds of 120-180 MPH or about 2% of the speed of a hypersonic missile. The Iranian barrage also included 30 or more low-flying, terrain-hugging subsonic cruise missiles of the Soumar or Hoveyzeh type that follow a relatively flat, direct path which is easier to intercept and shoot down – unlike the high ballistic arc of the hypersonic Oreshnik weapon.

While Iran also launched a few high-arcing ballistic missiles which were more difficult to intercept, Israel’s defense against its primitive regional military opponents simply doesn’t relate to or scale to America’s strategic nuclear defense challenges.

That’s why the fundamental truth – especially since the misguided failure of Ronald Reagan’s proposed Star Wars missile defense shield back in the mid-1980s – is that the technology of offensive strategic nuclear weaponry will always stay one step ahead of ABM type defensive systems. Accordingly, maintaining an unassailable nuclear deterrent is the essence of the true America First Homeland defense.

And we already have all we need of the latter – purchased and paid for over the years in the form of the nation’s triad nuclear deterrent. Accordingly, neither a Golden Dome nor $1.5 trillion super-defense budget is remotely necessary. In fact, these latest Trumpian hobby horses are downright nutty – to say nothing of comprising a fiscal albatross the would literally break Uncle Sam’s bank account once and for all.

To remind, therefore, the nation’s triad strategic deterrent is composed of land, air and sea-based capacity to deliver upwards of 1700 nuclear warheads in a retaliatory second strike against the territory of any attacker. This force is designed to obliterate virtually every city, every factory, every transportation node, every food supply warehouse and actually, nearly every living person, in the country of an adversary who attempts to strike first.

That’s called a retaliatory second strike, and the apocalyptic threat of it had kept the peace for more than 40 years until the Soviet Union disappeared into the dustbin of history in 1991; and has continued to do its job for the last 35 years against the far, far less capable and/or motivated current regimes in Moscow and Beijing.

That is to say, MAD works because even the leaders of countries demonized by Washington are not now and never have been suicidal.

Moreover, the US doesn’t need bases in Greenland to support or enhance this kind of nuclear deterrence in any case. That’s because America now has more than a dozen satellites in geostationary orbit that can actual do the job far more effective by detecting any Oreshnik missile launch within seconds of lift-off due to the intense heat from the rocket boosters.

This system is called the US “Space-Based Infrared System” (SBIRS). It is designed for near-real-time global coverage, spotting a missile launch “as soon as it’s off the pad” via infrared sensors in geostationary (GEO) and highly elliptical (HEO) orbits. Given the 4,000 to 5,000 kilometer distance between the US and the nearest Russian launch sites, the President would have plenty of time – 23-30 minutes – to authorize the massive retaliatory strikes that are already pre-programmed and which thereby keep the peace under MAD.

To be sure, a comprehensive international nuclear disarmament arrangement would be far, far preferable, and would finally lift the Nuclear Sword of Damocles from the heads of mankind. But until then, MAD is the only real nuclear defense available – so the very last thing that Washington should be doing is actively attempting to destabilize MAD with a massive military spending increase and something as fantastical as the Golden Dome.

The latter, in fact, would drastically undermine America’s nuclear security because ever since the 1950s clear thinkers have fully understood that the availability of a total ABM shield is dangerously destabilizing. That’s because it could induce a foreign adversary to believe that Washington was capable of a Nuclear First Strike, owing to an anti-missile shield that could blunt any retaliatory second strike. And, therefore, such an adversary could conclude that it had no choice except to launch its own preemptive First Strike.

Avoidance of that destabilizing risk was the very foundation of Nixon’s ABM treaty with the Soviet Union in the early 1970s. And it is only the inveterate warhawks, neocons and arms contractors who have ever questioned it.

So to fully appreciate the marginality of Thule, it is essential to delve deeper into the mechanics of nuclear deterrence and the triad’s structure. Deterrence theory, pioneered by thinkers like Thomas Schelling in the post-World War II era, posits that stability arises from the rational calculation of costs and benefits. An adversary must believe that the U.S. can absorb a first strike and still deliver unacceptable punishment.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the U.S. nuclear triad is designed exactly to that deterrence purpose and comprises a brilliantly diversified arsenal of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers. Among these, the sea-based component, particularly the approximately 1,000 warheads deployed across the Ohio-class submarines scattered in the vasty ocean deeps, represents the most survivable and thus the most potent element of deterrence.

The land-based leg of the triad, consisting of about 400 Minuteman III ICBMs housed in hardened silos across states like Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming, serves as a rapid-response force. These missiles can launch within minutes of an order, providing a “prompt” capability that pressures enemies to think twice. And although their fixed locations make them vulnerable to precision strikes, they do force an attacker to allocate significant warheads to ensure destruction—hence their role as a “sponge” to dilute enemy resources.

The air-based component, including the stealthy B-2 Spirit bombers (20 in service) and the aging but versatile B-52 Stratofortress (76 total, with about 44 nuclear-capable), adds flexibility. Bombers can be recalled mid-flight, offering a de-escalation option, and carry gravity bombs or cruise missiles like the AGM-86 ALCM.

Finally, the 14 Ohio-class SSBNs, each displacing 18,750 tons submerged and capable of continuous patrols lasting 70-90 days, form the triad’s “invisible hand.” Typically, @10-12 are at sea at any time, patrolling vast ocean basins where detection is near-impossible due to acoustic stealth, deep diving (up to 800 feet), and unpredictable routes.

Each boat carries 20 Trident II D5 missiles (down from actual capability of 24 under New START treaty limits), and each missile can deliver 4-5 warheads on average, yielding roughly 80-100 warheads per sub. Multiplied across the deployed fleet, this equates to about 1,000 warheads ready for launch at any point in time – enough to obliterate hundreds of targets with yields from 100 kilotons (W76) to 475 kilotons (W88) per warhead.

The Ohio-class’s survivability is incontestable: Subs like the USS Henry M. Jackson or USS Alabama can remain undetected for months, emerging only for resupply. In an enemy launched first-strike scenario, even if ICBM silos are cratered and bombers downed, these “boomers” ensure retaliation. A single sub could target major cities like Moscow or Beijing, inflicting casualties in the tens of millions and crippling infrastructure.

In short, this “assured second strike” is what deters and keeps the nuclear peace: No foreign leader would risk it, knowing their own personal survival is at stake. In this robust framework, Thule’s radar – scanning for incoming threats over the Arctic – offers only a tiny layer of enhancement, if any at all.

To be sure, the remnants of the Greenland matters crowd, who somehow got their vestigial arguments to the Donald, argue that the Thule capability bolsters deterrence by enabling “launch on warning” (LOW). Thule’s data is presumed to be crucial for verification – distinguishing real attacks from false alarms or decoys.

However, the existing space-based SBIRS system with 6 GEO satellites and 4 in HEO, plus backups from the Defense Support Program (DSP) and emerging HBTSS/PWSA constellations (totaling 10-15 active early warning birds), offer “birth-to-death” tracking. That is, from plume detection to reentry. Upgrades, such as adding AI for trajectory prediction or expanding to 100+ LEO sensors, could further refine this at costs far below Greenland’s price tag.

To repeat, hypersonic missiles, like Russia’s Kinzhal (Mach 10+) or China’s DF-17 (Mach 5+ with glide vehicles), could strike Greenland from thousands of miles away in under 15 minutes, while maneuvering to dodge defenses. A salvo of 5-10 such weapons – launched from bombers, subs, or ground sites – could thus saturate Thule, destroying its radar arrays, runways, and support infrastructure before any meaningful alert is issued.

Finally, the financial argument seals the case against Thule. Acquiring Greenland – “Trump’s Ice Box” – for even $50 billion would buy access to Thule but not resolve any of its self-evident vulnerabilities. Instead, bolstering satellites offers far better bang for the buck.

Upgrading the current 10-15 dedicated warning satellite to Next-Gen OPIR (5 new GEO birds by 2028) and PWSA Tranche 1 (28+ LEO sensors) could cost $15-25 billion over several years, thereby providing resilient, global coverage immune to fixed-base risks. These enhancements – adding hypersonic tracking via multi-spectral sensors or AI analytics – would eclipse Thule’s capabilities, freeing resources for triad modernization (e.g., Columbia-class subs).

In short, for pure nuclear security, annexing Greenland would amount to hideous overkill, save for the fact that it might actually destroy NATO once and for all!

Still, if deterrence holds, satellites suffice; if it fails, Thule’s a goner anyway.

As it happens, the average annual cost of the nation’s triad deterrent is estimated by CBO at $75 billion per year or only a tiny fraction of the existing bloated $1.0 trillion defense budget – to say nothing of the Donald’s plan for an utterly insensible increase to $1.5 trillion per year.

And even if you throw in another $400 billion for defense of America’s coast lines and air space against an utterly inconceivable conventional attack by a 21st century Spanish Armada, the most generous estimate of a true Fortress America defense budget is about $500 billion per year.

What his means, of course, is that the Donald is fixing to waste a trillion dollars per year that Uncle Sam absolutely doesn’t have and shouldn’t ever get in order to fund the multiple equivalents of this “Trump Icebox” in the Arctic.

And that would be pure, unhinged madness, if there ever was such a thing.

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He’s the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution FailedThe Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America, TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring It Back, and the recently released Great Money Bubble: Protect Yourself From The Coming Inflation Storm. He also is founder of David Stockman’s Contra Corner and David Stockman’s Bubble Finance Trader.

I Used to Be a Critic of the Two-Party System – Now I Wish We Had One


I am told that if I don’t like what “my government” is doing, I should write “my representative.” So I dropped Senator Adam Schiff a note about the US war on Venezuela.

The senator’s reply, with my translations of his Washington-speak (in italics) provided in brackets, is as follows:

I have been opposing the administration’s unlawful use of force against targets [a sovereign country] in the region…the U.S…conducted an operation [act of war] on January 2-3, 2026, to capture [kidnap] the illegitimate [lawful] leader [president] of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro. Maduro is a thug [not Trump] who has terrorized and oppressed [defended] the Venezuelan people for far too long [Trump should have done it sooner], and he will now face trial in a New York [foreign jurisdiction] court.

The senator then criticized Trump’s “military action” – aggression, by any other name – for lacking congressional approval, noting that it was problematic because it “risks embroiling us in another war.” This concern, however, does not extend to US war actions in Palestine and Ukraine, which Schiff finds especially wonderful – along with Iran, Nigeria, Iraq, Somalia, etc.

Last year, Schiff sponsored a War Powers resolution to block US “boat strikes” without explicit congressional authorization. It failed. More recently, he joined Senators Tim Kaine and Rand Paul in advancing yet another War Powers resolution requiring congressional approval for future actions.

The resolution is purely symbolic. It must pass the Senate, the House, and then receive Trump’s signature. This theater allows Democrats to strike a pose of disapproval toward Trump while continuing to support bipartisan regime-change aggression against Venezuela.

Schiff and company are not genuinely interested in international law. They fully support unilateral coercive measures designed to strangle (“pressure” in Washington-speak) the Venezuelan economy. This illegal form of collective punishment, euphemistically called “sanctions,” has resulted in more than 100,000 excess deaths in Venezuela, according to a UN special rapporteur.

But Venezuelan deaths, like Palestinian ones, remain invisible to respectable lawmakers.

Schiff’s letter lauds “US service members [who] conducted the operation with great skill and courage.” Yet the senator does not acknowledge the bravery – let alone the supreme sacrifice – of the roughly 100 killed in Venezuela defending against a military force orders of magnitude greater than their own.

The “targeted” bombing killed civilians along with Venezuelan and Cuban military personnel. According to reports from Venezuela, the sites targeted included dialysis medication warehouses of the Venezuelan Social Security Institute, scientific facilities at the Venezuelan Institute for Scientific Research, key power plants supplying Caracas, and residential neighborhoods.

What Schiff and his colleagues are really upset about is that Trump committed a splendid act of war and didn’t let them share in the glory. Both parties demonize Nicolás Maduro with moral fervor, justifying his kidnapping. Never mind that, under international law, a sitting head of state enjoys immunity regardless of how unpleasant Washington finds him.

The partisan charade boils down to a question of appearances. For Democrats, Trump is not guilty of war crimes so much as bad manners, crassly admitting that he is after the oil. Better to put lipstick on the pig and claim the empire is “promoting democracy.”

All the whining is about Congress being left out of the action. Democrats are apoplectic about not getting to see the unedited snuff videos of the US blowing up small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.

Adding insult to injury, Trump boasted that he notified oil company executives but not the people’s so-called representatives in Congress before attacking Venezuela. And that makes perfect sense in a system dedicated to serving corporate interests rather than voters.

Once upon a time, there existed a species in Congress known as a “liberal,” who favored peace over endless wars of imperial domination. Dennis Kucinich was one of the last of that breed. Before losing his seat in 2013 for insufficient bloodlust, he challenged presidents Clinton over Serbia, Bush over Iraq, and Obama over Libya.

Kucinich deserves recognition though not commendation. He simply reflected public opinion, which opposed these imperial adventures. Today, roughly 70% oppose the US war on Venezuela. Congress does not.

Now relegated to posting on Substack, Kucinich warns: “The long-term consequences of US actions in Venezuela demolish laws which hold together the United States, and the International legal order. This is not academic. The US Constitution and the UN Charter must not become confetti showering an authoritarian fantasy victory parade.”

His remedy is simple: cut funding for unauthorized wars and enforce the law in court. If we had an actual two-party system, this might happen. Instead, as Kucinich puts it, the US empire has “set the stage for a war of all against all.”

Roger D. Harris is a founding member of the Venezuela Solidarity Network and is active with the Task Force on the Americas and the SanctionsKill Campaign. The author is currently trying to find a way to visit Venezuela with flights from the US cancelled. Read other articles by Roger.