Showing posts sorted by date for query AIR POLLUTION. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query AIR POLLUTION. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, September 05, 2026

 

Origins of COPD may lie in how some children’s lungs develop, but only when they are exposed to polluted air





European Respiratory Society

Dr Carla da Silva Sena 

image: 

Dr Carla da Silva Sena

view more 

Credit: Carla da Silva Sena / European Respiratory Society





Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a serious, incurable lung disease that is common in older people. However, researchers are learning that the origins of the disease may lie decades earlier in how children’s lungs grow and develop.

 

New research, presented at the European Respiratory Society (ERS) Congress in Barcelona, Spain [1], suggests that babies born with higher genetic risk for COPD showed reduced lung function growth between birth and six years, which could place them on a path to developing the disease. However, researchers only saw this pattern in children who were exposed to higher levels of air pollution.

 

The research was presented by Dr Carla da Silva Sena from University Children's Hospital Basel UKBB, University of Basel, and Bern University Hospital, Switzerland. She said: “COPD develops through a combination of genetic factors and environmental exposures across the lifespan, leading to an accelerated decline in lung function. While COPD is often associated with smoking, growing evidence suggests that genetic and environmental factors in early life may also contribute to the foundations of the disease, particularly during lung development in infancy and childhood.

 

“We believe that COPD can result from lung function ‘trajectories’ established early in life. For example, COPD can develop because the lungs do not reach their full growth potential during childhood or because lung function declines faster than expected later on. Studying these trajectories from the earliest stages of life is key to understanding how COPD develops.”

 

The research included 484 children who were taking part in the Basel-Bern Infant Lung Development (BILD) study. This is an ongoing Swiss birth cohort study that follows children born between 1999 and 2020.

 

Children’s lung function was assessed in the first month of life using the infant tidal breathing test, which records a baby's natural breathing while they sleep. At age six, children took part in a spirometry test, where lung function is assessed by taking a deep breath and blowing out as hard as possible. Researchers estimated each child’s exposure to outdoor air pollution, including fine particles (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), from birth until age six.

 

Researchers also collected genetic information from children’s blood samples. COPD is not caused by a single gene, but the risk of developing COPD has been linked to many small genetic differences that can be combined into a measure known as a ‘polygenic risk score’. The researchers examined whether this polygenic risk score, which has been established by studying adult COPD patients, shows an effect on how lung function develops in healthy newborns, even before they display any symptoms.

 

The researchers found that this genetic risk for developing COPD was aligned with a lower lung function growth in children between birth and six years old, but only in the children who grew up in areas with the highest PM2.5 air pollution (average 15.3 μg/m³). In children from areas with lower air pollution, this effect was much weaker. Researchers found a similar pattern between lung function growth and higher levels of nitrogen dioxide (average 28.3 μg/m³).

 

Dr da Silva Sena said: “These findings suggest that some babies may be born with a higher genetic risk for COPD, and this risk may already begin to show up as differences in lung function growth in early childhood, but only in those who grow up in areas with higher air pollution.

 

“This study adds to the evidence that early-life environment matters for lung health, and not just for children who already have breathing problems, but potentially for how lungs develop over time in seemingly healthy children. It reinforces that protecting air quality in early life may benefit children’s long-term health.”

 

Researchers plan to follow the children into adolescence and adulthood to see whether the differences they see in the children’s lung function persist or grow over time.

 

A limitation of the study is that it is not possible to use the same lung function test in babies and school-age children. To overcome this problem, the researchers used statistical techniques to make the results comparable between the different tests. The study also relied on a genetic risk score that was developed based on populations of European ancestry. This means the findings may not directly apply to children from other backgrounds.

 

Professor Barbara Hoffmann, Chair of the European Respiratory Society’s Advocacy Council, based at the University of Düsseldorf, Germany, who was not involved in the research said: “This study reveals a genetic risk pathway for COPD that only became apparent when researchers looked at the effects of air pollution in seemingly healthy children. This shows how genes and environment in the early years can combine to set children on a path to lung disease much later in life.

 

“These findings fit with a broader shift in how COPD is understood, reflected in a 2022 Lancet Commission, which argued that COPD is shaped by risk pathways across life, not just by adult smoking. It may help explain why COPD can also occur in non-smokers.

 

“Given the potential long-term benefits for children's lung development, this research strengthens the case for clean air policies. Air pollution, unlike genetic risk, is something that can be addressed through the right policy and regulation.”

Thursday, September 03, 2026

Federal Panel Halts What Would Be First Data Center on Public Lands

“The Trump administration is pulling out all the stops to let tech companies build massive data centers on our public lands. This tremendous victory proves communities have the power to fight back and win.”


A stretch of desert near Boulder City, Nevada 
(Photo by Judit Dombovari/Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Sep 01, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Environmental groups are celebrating on Tuesday after a federal panel halted construction of what would be the first artificial intelligence data center to be built on US public lands.

The Interior Board of Land Appeals, an appellate body within the US Department of the Interior, put a temporary stay on the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) approval of the proposed 80-acre Townsite Data Center near Boulder City, Nevada, which environmental groups warned would jack up electricity demand and water usage and threaten local species.

The board sided with the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), and the local government of Boulder City, which argued that the BLM had not conducted the legally required review of the plan’s environmental impacts.

The BLM had approved the site based on a review of a proposed solar power plant, but had not reevaluated the impacts of a data center.

The board said that the environmental groups were “likely to prevail” in their case that the BLM had acted illegally “because the two projects are not ‘substantially the same.’” It also ruled that continuing the project without a proper review was likely to cause “irreparable harm” to the landscape—including soil disruption, habitat loss for species like the Mojave desert tortoise, and construction activities that pollute the air.

The temporary stay blocks the data center project from continuing while the board considers the environmental groups’ appeal.




While it was not a final ruling on whether the project will be built at all, Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director at the CBD, said the group was “thrilled that this data center has been stopped dead in its tracks.”

Townsite has been described as a test case as BLM considers approving other data center proposals on federal lands, including in Nevada, where 80% of the land is federally managed.

Building data centers on federal lands is a major priority of the Trump administration’s “AI Action Plan,” which was published by the White House in 2025 and directs US agencies to identify public lands “well-situated for large-scale data centers.”

Under the plan, the US Department of Energy announced in July 2025 that it had identified at least four other sites around the country for potential development, including the Idaho National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky, and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

Donnelly said Tuesday’s ruling had shown BLM would not be able to approve these and other sites without conducting the appropriate environmental reviews.

“The Trump administration is pulling out all the stops to let tech companies build massive data centers on our public lands,” he said. “This tremendous victory proves communities have the power to fight back and win.”

Boulder City is one of many locales around the country where plans for large data centers have received public backlash. For months, the project faced protests at City Hall from residents who raised concerns about energy and water use, light pollution, and impacts on the local desert habitat.

Public anger ultimately led the Boulder City Planning Commission to turn against the project, voting in May against adding data centers to the city’s land management process. To bypass the city, BLM approved the same project on adjacent federal lands. Boulder City responded by joining environmental groups’ appeal against the project.

“The BLM essentially, sweepingly, approved a new land use without following processes in federal law, which include a meaningful engagement process with the city,” City Attorney Brittany Walker told the Nevada Current in July, after the City Council unanimously voted to appeal.

Olivia Tanager, director of the Sierra Club Toiyabe chapter, called Tuesday’s ruling “a victory for democracy, public participation, and the principle that our public lands should serve the public.”

“The people of Boulder City have made clear that they do not want a data center on public lands, and this ruling gives their voices the weight they deserve,” she said. “Data centers do not belong on public lands, and we will continue to fight unfettered data center development.”

Townsite is just one of several data center proposals being considered on federal lands in Nevada. In June, BLM officials told local leaders that it had received four applications for data centers on public lands around Silver Springs, a small community east of Reno in Lyon County, which has eight facilities planned in total, according to the US Data Center Map.

The sudden explosion of data center planning in the area has led many residents to push for a moratorium on new data center approvals.

Brynn deLorimier, a Boulder City resident who joined the appeal, said she hopes her city’s victory will help to protect neighboring communities from unaccountable data center growth.

“We love our community and our desert, and we’re so grateful to our friends and neighbors for working hard to protect both,” she said. “We’re also grateful to the Interior Board of Land Appeals for recognizing that this case matters far beyond Boulder City and could set an important precedent for public lands in Nevada and across the country.”

Trump Commerce Secretary Once Said Data Centers ‘Suck Water,’ Now Scoffs That Such Concerns Are Just ‘Propaganda’

“Data centers don’t use water,” laughed Howard Lutnick during an interview. In fact, across seven states, they rely on about 3.4 trillion gallons of it per year.


US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick attends a meeting with President Donald Trump and Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban in the Cabinet Room of the White House on November 7, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)

Stephen Prager
Sep 02, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


President Donald Trump’s commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, told a brazen lie on Wednesday while trying to defend the administration’s support for rapid data center expansion amid growing public backlash from voters concerned about their extreme electricity and water use.

Asked on CNBC’s “SquawkBox” about how politicians in both parties were responding to voter outrage, Lutnick laughed the concerns off.

“One of my favorite things is when people talk about data centers using water,” Lutnick chuckled. “The number one product in America that uses water is cattle.”

“I mean, data centers don’t use water,” Lutnick continued. “This is propaganda by our adversaries to try to slow us down.”




Lutnick is correct that beef cattle production—which uses about 6 trillion gallons per year, according to the US Department of Agriculture—involves much greater amounts of water consumption than data centers.

But the contention that data centers “don’t use water” is egregiously false. A report out Tuesday from the Pacific Institute, a nonprofit water policy research organization, found that data centers in the US directly use anywhere from 270 to 3.9 million gallons of water per day.

About 74% of that water, which is withdrawn from local sources near the data center, is consumed rather than returned to the same watershed, the report found.

The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimated that in 2023, US data centers directly consumed about 17 billion gallons of water. Since then, data center capacity in the US has more than doubled, according to the commercial real estate firm CBRE.

Water directly consumed by data centers also only represents a fraction of their overall demand. Most of the water being used is not directly pumped into the centers to cool servers, but is used for the power generation that supplies the centers.

A report out last month from the corporate sustainability organization Ceres found that across the seven US states that host about half of all US data centers—Virginia, Texas, California, Illinois, Georgia, Ohio, and Arizona—the facilities depend on 3.4 trillion gallons of freshwater for electricity generation per year.

Lutnick’s comparison of national water use between data centers and cattle farming also overlooks that the effects are often concentrated heavily in the areas where data centers are located.

In Newton County, Georgia, for instance, families told The New York Times that shortly after Meta broke ground on a $750 million data center project in 2018, their taps began to run dry, and water rates soared. According to Meta’s environmental data, the center withdrew about 146 megaliters, or 38.6 million gallons, of water in 2024.

In Fayette County, Georgia, residents complained of low water pressure only to find that a QTS data center had covertly used about 29 million gallons of water without paying for it, far exceeding the amount agreed upon during the planning process. The company was ultimately required to pay back nearly $150,000.

In New Carlisle, Indiana, about a dozen residents reported that their wells had gone dry during the construction of Amazon Web Services’ massive data center campus. One resident told the Indy Star that she’d gone 18 months without running water and had to bathe using bottled water from the store.

Lutnick’s claim doesn’t just contradict the facts, but his own statements from just over a year ago on Fox News, as MeidasTouch senior digital editor Acyn Torabi noted.

Attempting to promote data centers as a vehicle for job growth, the secretary emphasized that “these AI things suck water” and that they will “need a plumber.”

The Trump administration has made the rapid expansion of data centers central to its “AI Action Plan.” But Trump and his team have struggled to sell the vision to voters, including in their own party.

A national survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center last month found that 61% of voters oppose the construction of new data centers in their area. That included 69% of Democrats, but also 54% of Republicans, and 53% of independents.

Critics described Lutnick’s dismissive remarks about voters’ concerns as a sign of how out of touch the administration was with the public on this issue and how much their data center PR push is failing.

Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI) said it showed that “our government is being run by morons.”

Voters in Missouri City Overwhelmingly Vote to Recall Councilman Who Approved Data Center


“It’s so sad what’s happened in our city, to see people being robbed of what they thought they had,” said one data center opponent.


Demonstrators wave signs during a nationwide protest against AI data center expansion in Imperial, California on July 18, 2026.
(Photo by Sandy Huffaker/AFP via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Sep 02, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Residents in Independence, Missouri on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to recall a city councilman—apparently over his vote to approve tax incentives for an artificial intelligence data center in the community.

In total, 68% of voters in the city’s District 1 voted to recall Councilman John Perkins, with just 32% voting to let him stay in office.

According to KMBC News 9, Perkins had originally been elected to serve through June 2028, but he will now be forced to step down as soon as the results of the Tuesday election are certified.

The election marked the first time in Independence’s history that a councilperson has been successfully recalled.

In an interview with Spectrum News Kansas City, Perkins expressed no regrets about his decision to approve the data center even though it led to him getting soundly rejected by voters.

“I still have a 40-hour-a-week job, I cut meat for Price Chopper,” Perkins explained. “I’ve laid some really good foundation, so it was time to pass the baton.”



Perkins was targeted by the recall campaign after he was one of five council members who voted to approve a $150 billion Nebius AI data center that is projected to take up 2.25 million square feet of land in the city.

Two other council members, Bridget McCandless and Jared Fears, were also voted out of office in April after voting in favor of tax incentives for the project.

Independence resident Elisa Breitenbach, an opponent of the planned data center, grew emotional during an interview with Fox 4 Kansas City when explaining her support for the recall campaign.

“It’s so sad what’s happened in our city,” said Breitenbach, “to see people being robbed of what they thought they had.”

Perkins’ recall is just the latest sign of a nationwide backlash against AI data centers, which have been criticized for being major sources of pollution and for raising local utility bills by consuming so much power.

A poll conducted by Embold Research and published by Heatmap Pro last month showed that 75% of Americans now oppose building AI data centers in their area, including 61% registering strong opposition.

Data centers do have an ally in President Donald Trump, however, as he warned Americans this week that their communities will “end up being backwards and poor” if they reject the power-hungry AI facilities.

But McKenna Cobb, a resident who led the recall effort, said people in Independence had spoken loud and clear about their views on the data center—and were ignored by Perkins and other council members.

“There are hours of public testimony,” she told KMBC News, “and they still voted in favor of billions of dollars in tax incentives.”

Israel Faces Toxic Blowback From Its Genocide in Gaza

by | Sep 3, 2026

Reprinted from Andy Worthington’s website.

Many thanks to Dr. Dianne Woodward, a former lecturer in Biological Sciences, and a manager at the Galilee Foundation, a UK charity empowering Palestinian youth since 2007, for writing a compelling article for Al Jazeera, “Toxic waste of war on Gaza reached Israel”, highlighting how the ecocidal impact of Gaza’s genocidal and ongoing 34-month assault on the Gaza Strip is creating a monstrous public health crisis, not just for the Palestinians, but also for the Israelis themselves.

An illustration by Fourate Chahal El Rekaby, a French-Lebanese filmmaker, writer, and illustrator based in Beirut, accompanying an article, “Ecocide, Imperialism and Palestine Liberation”, published by the Dutch-based Transnational Institute in September 2025.

Typically, Israel’s leadership was blinded by its own genocidal fury and its appalling supremacism to such an extent that it never dawned on them that, by bombarding Gaza, its immediate neighbour, with more deadly weapons than have ever been dropped anywhere on earth on an area of comparable size, and by deliberately destroying its entire infrastructure, including the whole of its sewage system, it was paving the way for the impact of this frenzy of unforgivable depravity to, literally, wash up on its own shores.

As Dr. Woodward explained:

Gaza shares the Mediterranean, coastal ecosystems and coastal aquifers with Israel. The destruction of its electric power and sanitation infrastructure forces over 100,000 cubic metres of raw, untreated sewage into the Mediterranean Sea or on land every day. Because in this part of the Mediterranean currents move primarily from south to north, this waste is carried straight up the coast into Israeli waters.

The Ashkelon desalination plant in southern Israel has been forced to shut down multiple times due to high faecal bacteria contamination from Gaza’s wastewater. Raw sewage also triggers toxic algae blooms blocking and damaging desalination filtration systems, as well as creating dead zones where fishing would normally happen.

Wastewater toxins, heavy metals and pathogens are absorbed by local marine life. Because fish migrate across maritime boundaries, contaminated seafood poses a direct health hazard to Palestinian as well as Israeli consumers. Raw sewage carries the same pathogens afflicting Gaza into the shared marine environment. Its northward drift directly impacts Israeli coastal cities.

Although pathogens can persist and migrate under certain conditions, pathogen contaminated groundwater is unlikely to feed into Israeli municipal water supplies, but can still affect the shared aquifer and surrounding environment.

Salts and other chemical contaminants can travel much farther and are often a bigger long-term aquifer concern. They can contaminate a shared groundwater system and reduce the quality and usability of the aquifer over time for irrigation, agriculture and drinking.

Dr. Woodward noted that, earlier this month, the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and representatives of the Board of Peace established under Donald Trump to, ostensibly, oversee a new Palestinian-led administration in Gaza, “agreed to set up a working group on sanitation and public health affecting both Israel and Gaza”, although its “membership and detailed operating structure” have not been made public.

It’s a rare example of Israel showing any interest in the Board of Peace, whose UN-backed mandate to entrust the day-to-day running of Gaza to a Palestinian technocratic committee, supported by an international peacekeeping force, has been persistently thwarted by Israel, which perhaps shows how serious the health crisis is.

Dr. Woodward also noted how, ironically, while trying to erase evidence of its genocide, Israel was importing from Gaza, “into undisclosed locations inside Israel and the West Bank”, some of “the estimated 60 million tonnes of rubble from Gaza”, without seeming to be aware that, in doing so, it is “potentially transferring the pollutants in that rubble directly to disposal or storage sites” that will also affect the public health of Israelis.

She noted how, recently, the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor “tracked some 100 Israeli trucks daily leaving the Gaza Strip with debris”, which I wrote about at the time, in a post on Substack entitled, “How Israel is seeking to erase evidence of its genocide in Gaza.”

Israel endangers its own people while seeking to erase evidence of genocide

The Euro-Med article highlighted how Israeli contractors have been removing crucial evidence of the genocide from the two-thirds of the Gaza Strip under the control of the Israeli military, as it has steadily increased the amount of land in Gaza under its control from the 50% that was agreed at the time of the ceasefire last October.

As they explained, “Israel is acting unilaterally within closed areas under its military control by demolishing remaining buildings and then crushing, mixing, and transporting the rubble before forensic teams, evidence experts, and unexploded ordnance specialists can examine, document, and preserve the sites, along with the evidence and human remains.”

They also suggested that “at least 10 million tonnes of rubble have been removed, crushed, or moved from their original sites”, and assessed that “approximately 400 heavy pieces of excavation, demolition, crushing, and transport machinery, operated by Israeli civilian companies under military protection, are active across eastern and southern Gaza”, which “demolish remaining structures, crush rubble from destroyed neighbourhoods, and load the debris onto trucks for transportation away from the original sites” into Israel itself, or to locations in the West Bank, although, as they also noted, the Israeli authorities “have not provided details on the quantities removed, the routes taken, the destination sites, or how the material is utilized.”

Israel’s efforts to conceal its genocidal crimes by removing the evidence is truly shocking, and adds to its grotesquely long list of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but, as with the impact of its destruction of Gaza, Israel’s leadership again seems to have been blithely unconcerned about how its actions would create a health crisis within Israel itself.

As Dr. Woodward explained:

Transferred pollutants may include heavy metals, such as lead, mercury, cadmium and traces of other metals or residues from specialised munitions, as well as white phosphorus particulates, unspent explosives, industrial chemicals, and widespread asbestos fibres from pulverised older buildings. Heavy metals present in dust and rubble may exhibit carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic, nephrotoxic and bioaccumulative properties, posing long-term human health and environmental risks.”

The rubble also contains biological matter, pathogens and fluids from decomposing human remains and accumulated organic waste, as well as insects, rodents, and other disease vectors. Airborne transmission of hazardous dust particles, asbestos fibres and particulate matter degrades the quality of the air while hidden unexploded ordnance in the debris can cause a detonation risk and soil toxicity.

When managing highly contaminated disaster debris, international agencies such as the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and regional environmental authorities like the Gaza Debris Management Working Group (DMWG) stipulate transfers must follow strict protocols and operational procedures to isolate hazards, including an immediate freeze on all operations if human remains are detected. Moving these materials across borders or jurisdictions should also trigger legal frameworks and rigid groundwater protection standards.

As she added, summing up this sickening demonstration of a unique combination of crime scene destruction and toxic threat, “Critics have pointed out that bulldozing sites that contain mass graves is destroying key evidence of genocidal crimes. But apart from that, this transfer of debris in disregard of international rules and regulations is putting at risk the health of people around collection and disposal sites.”

She continued, “If the aim of this structural disparity is to keep Israeli groundwater zones tightly protected and shift the long-term burden of aquifer and soil pollution onto Palestinian communities in the West Bank, it ignores the risks to the Israeli transfer personnel and to all people living there, which includes 700,000 illegal settlers.”

As she also explained, this is not a problem that has been created through the genocide of the last 34 months, although the impact is much more severe than anything that has happened before. She noted how environmental groups, like EcoPeace, “have long warned that the shared environment creates total interdependence, meaning humanitarian and sanitation crises in Gaza directly compromise Israel’s public health”, and referred to an occasion in 1990 when “the former Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek candidly admitted that his administration had done little for East Jerusalem beyond extending basic water and sewage lines out of fear that cholera outbreaks in neglected Arab neighbourhoods would spread to West Jerusalem.”

Her conclusion was stark. “Even if Israel is morally incapable of meeting its human rights responsibilities as occupiers to solve the sanitation crisis”, she wrote, “it should understand that if it does not strictly follow environmental protocols, its own population will endure the same consequences as the Palestinians whose welfare it callously and criminally disregards.”

No sympathy for Israel

It’s impossible to feel any sympathy for the Israelis, who have created this ecological disaster through their genocidal arrogance and their inability to recognize that, as Dr. Woodward described it, “the shared environment creates total interdependence, meaning humanitarian and sanitation crises in Gaza directly compromise Israel’s public health.”

This, after all, is a nation state in which numerous officials and pundits, after October 7, were so carried away with their vengeance that they called for a nuclear bomb to be dropped on Gaza, oblivious to the fact that doing so would cause nuclear fallout that would also be almost indescribably devastating for Israel.

Israel’s far-right Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, a member of Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power party, was reprimanded by Benjamin Netanyahu and suspended from cabinet meetings after he said, on November 5, 2023, that “one of Israel’s options in the war against Hamas could be to drop a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip”, as the Times of Israel described it, although Netanyahu was probably more concerned not by his statement, but by how it would be received in the west, and also because it revealed the existence of the nuclear arsenal that Israel possesses, but which it always denies having.

Similar statements were made by the journalist Shimon Riklin, who asked, on October 7, “Why exactly do we have an atomic bomb?”, and by Eliyahu’s father, Rabbi Shmuel Eliyah, the Chief Rabbi of Tzfat, who said, on November 14, 2023, “A nuclear bomb on Gaza is indeed an option! They will not fire me, they wanted my son, but they will not fire me.”

Shamefully, however, although Israel is facing toxic blowback that it deserves, the cost for the Palestinians is immeasurably higher. A devastating analysis of the long-term damage to Gaza was published by the UN Environment Programme last September, just before the ceasefire began, which contained “30 recommendations for reversing the damage to Gaza’s environment”, including “the rapid reconstruction of water and sewage infrastructure, a systemic testing of Gaza’s soil for contamination, the removal — and to the extent possible recycling — of debris and the safe disposal of munitions.”

Estimates for the timescale of reconstruction focus on decades, rather than years, while, in July, an Oxfam-led assessment, “Building Gaza Anew”, estimated that $71.4 billion is needed to rebuild Gaza, which is “seven times the combined cost of reconstruction after every major Israeli military offensive there over the past two decades.”

The UN assessment concluded that “Gaza’s environmental recovery will hinge on careful, inclusive and science-based planning”, but, despite a ceasefire of sorts, absolutely no expert-led programs of land clearance and beginning to deal with the chronic environmental degradation have been allowed by Israel, just as the genocidal oppressor has also defied its obligations, as part of the ceasefire deal, to even allow in sufficient humanitarian aid, including food, water, fuel and medicine, to address the still-unfolding human catastrophe.

Two weeks ago, when I posted How Can the Genocidal State of Israel Be Brought to an End?, my definitive condemnation of Israel’s depravity, I summed up the situation as follows: “As I write this, the surviving Palestinians are still living, permanently and precariously, on the edge of death, beleaguered, bombed and besieged, still half-starved, deprived of almost all necessary medical supplies, and forced to live in medieval squalor in the destroyed remains of their homeland.”

As the journalist Tamer Nahed wrote from Gaza just last week, “Gaza is not coming back to life … we are simply trying not to die.”

With just five weeks to go until the third anniversary of the genocide, and the first anniversary of the porous and largely meaningless ceasefire, it is shameful beyond belief that the world has largely forgotten Gaza, that Israel is still allowed to continue its slow genocide of the Palestinian people, and that the human and ecological devastation — which includes the immense and almost entirely overlooked carbon footprint of the weapons used by Israel — continue to be ignored.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer (of a photo-journalism project, ‘The State of London’, which ran from 2012 to 2023), film-maker and singer-songwriter (the lead singer and main songwriter for the London-based band The Four Fathers, whose music is available via Bandcamp). He is the co-founder of the Close Guantánamo campaign (see the ongoing photo campaign here) and the successful We Stand With Shaker campaign of 2014-15, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo”, which you can watch on YouTube here.

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s new Substack account, set up in November 2024, where he’ll be sending out a weekly newsletter, or his RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, The Complete Guantánamo Files, the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, and the full military commissions list.  Please also consider joining the Close Guantánamo campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation via PayPal or via Stripe.

On the Heuristics of Fear: The Ecological Catastrophe Scenario

If the right decisions are not made in the coming years and drastic systemic changes are not implemented, the destruction of planetary habitats can no longer be stopped.



Volunteers and firefighters work to extinguish a forest fire burning in the mountains of the rural area of Epuyen, in the Patagonian region of Chubut province, Argentina, on February 1, 2026.
(Photo by Gonzalo Keogan / AFP via Getty Images)

Klaus Moegling
Sep 02, 2026
Common Dreams


The escalation of the current crisis-ridden conditions in the areas of climate change, the economy, international security, and the development of democracy—leading to dystopian future scenarios—need not occur in this form. However, there is a real possibility that they could occur if humanity fails to bring about a paradigm shift, makes the wrong decisions, and continues its destructive behavior toward the planet.
Learning from the ‘Anticipated Danger’

The construction of negative scenarios in the sense of an anticipated possibility of dystopian development can certainly serve a constructive purpose.

In his book The Imperative of Responsibility, the philosopher Hans Jonas developed what he called a “heuristics of fear,” by which he meant that potential undesirable developments should be recognized in all their severity and menace and described in drastic terms commensurate with their presumed magnitude. According to Jonas (1979/2015, 7), this enables a society to look the potential risks squarely in the eye and thereby resolve to acknowledge its own responsibility for the planet and the fate of future generations:
What can serve as a compass? The anticipated danger itself! In its flash of lightning from the future, in the foreshadowing of its planetary scope and its human depth, the ethical principles from which the new duties of new power can be derived first become apparent.

Of course, this negative vision must be compatible with the developments already analyzed; it must not, therefore, be plucked out of thin air, even if not all the information needed for an assessment is yet available. Heuristics is a creative thought process based on estimates, assumptions, and calculations.

Immersing oneself in a likely future situation and sensing the potential of a future catastrophe can provide insights for preventive action. It is possible that the fear of a catastrophic planetary scenario could lead to a systemic shift in course and to responsible decisions.

The Inadequacy of the Paris Climate Agreements

From the spectrum of multiple crises—which are certainly interconnected—this article will focus on the disrupted relationship between humanity and nature and heuristically develop it into a negative scenario.

David Spratt and Ian Dunlop (2019, 6) predict that even if the 2015 Paris Climate Agreements were fully implemented, stable climate conditions would still not be expected. In particular, climatic feedback effects would render the Earth largely uninhabitable for human civilization by the end of the century. Even if the Paris climate targets were met, a warming of 5°C would be expected by the year 2100, with devastating consequences for life on Earth.

It must also be taken into account that not all countries have accepted the Paris Agreements or, in some cases—such as the U.S. under Trump—have since withdrawn from them.

Fires, Storms, Overheating, and Floods

A worst-case scenario for such an increasingly hot biosphere must anticipate a rise in wildfires. Vast areas of the Earth will begin to burn. Fire walls driven by massive gusts of wind will devour everything in their path: trees and bushes, houses, animals, and people. Such firestorms are beyond human control and cannot be fought; they depend on heavy rainfall, and it is unclear whether such rain will fall in the burning regions at all due to climate shifts. The result will be the desolation of entire regions, leading to humanitarian, ecological, and financial problems on a global scale. The fires of 2025 and 2026 are already offering a glimpse of what lies ahead for humanity.

Future average temperatures in the Persian Gulf are projected to reach 50-60°C, meaning that for the average person, human life here will no longer be possible—or will only be possible in artificially cooled spaces. Even in the countries of the Global North, mass mortality is beginning due to overheated living environments. Initially, this will affect older people and those who are already ill, and will then spread to people who would otherwise be considered healthy. Circulatory shock, overheating, and dehydration will then also affect younger people.

It is undisputed that sea levels will rise due to the melting of the poles, the warming of seawater, and the accompanying melting of Arctic ice.

However, a potential average rise of 2.5 meters by 2100 does not represent the extreme level of sea-level rise. During storm surges in particular, the rise in sea level can be several times this value and lead to flooding deep into continental areas. This will also affect the Global North.

Islands, coastal regions, and low-lying inland areas will be flooded, destroying living conditions there and, in turn, triggering migration. Not only will island groups disappear, but large parts of countries such as Bangladesh and India will also be flooded, triggering mass exoduses. In this context, the rise in sea level, combined with the monsoon rains in this region—which are already becoming increasingly devastating—will have a particularly dangerous effect.

The thawing of Arctic and Siberian permafrost, through the associated release of carbon dioxide and methane, will lead to a massive increase in global warming and abruptly intensify all related processes.

In other parts of the world, climate shifts are causing air masses with extremely different temperatures to collide, resulting in devastating storms such as tornadoes and hurricanes. Houses, cars, animals, and people are swept up into the air and smashed to pieces. Skyscrapers collapse, and the infrastructure—including electricity, water, and gas lines, as well as the internet—is irreparably destroyed. Radioactivity is released from destroyed nuclear power plants; it circulates in the Earth’s atmosphere, falls as rain, and will lead to increased rates of cancer and birth defects in humans and animals.

Catastrophic Impact on Social and Political Development on a Global Scale


Massive migration—in the form of mass exoduses or mass migrations—will be triggered by climate change. Migration to date should be viewed, at best, as the tip of the iceberg in this context, as billions of people will set out as refugees if global warming continues unchecked. It is not difficult to imagine the conflicts—including military confrontations—that will arise from these upheavals in the struggle for ecologically intact regions.

Global warming will lead to massive crop failures and associated famines. The global agricultural food system will collapse. The struggle for food and survival will lead to massive price increases, looting, and military conflicts. The call for a heavy hand, for authoritarian leaders, and for police-state methods will grow louder even in democracies.

Far-right governments will attempt, in the interests of their constituencies, to deny climate change and continue to rely on the exploitation of fossil fuels.

The struggle for drinking water will intensify, on the one hand due to increasing periods of drought and, on the other, due to the growing trend toward profit-driven privatization of water sources. Privatized water sources will be guarded by militarized security forces against raids by groups of thirsty people. In drought-stricken areas, people will die of thirst—especially those who no longer have the financial means to purchase water, a scarce and therefore increasingly expensive commodity.

Spratt and Dunlop (2019, 9) describe the societal consequences of climate change even at the 3°C level. States and societies will be overwhelmed and will face extreme collective stress:
The flooding of coastal communities around the world—particularly in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China—has the potential to call regional and even national identities into question. Armed conflicts between nations over resources such as the Nile and its tributaries are likely, and a nuclear war is possible. The societal consequences range from heightened religious zeal to utter chaos. In this scenario, climate change triggers a lasting change in humanity’s relationship with nature.

Furthermore, if a UN in need of strengthening fails to dissuade unscrupulous governments from the generationally selfish destruction of the rainforest for the purposes of livestock ranching, soybean cultivation, the search for mineral resources, or land speculation, then this, too, will not only destroy the Earth’s lungs but also bring about a drastic climate shift.

Wars raging globally and emissions from explosions and fires exacerbate climate change while simultaneously preventing the affected regions from taking effective measures against this climatic dystopia. The military in active service is becoming the largest institutional global destroyer of the climate.

These are just a few of the developments addressed so far. Threats such as temperature changes and the resulting diversion of the Gulf Stream, the narrowing of the temperature difference between the North Pole and the equator—which leads to a weakening of the jet stream—the release of methane trapped in the seabed, insect die-offs due to the increased use of pesticides in agriculture, the destruction of clean drinking water due to overfertilization of fields, as well as plastic pollution in the oceans and the demise of all life in increasingly larger marine regions are likely to represent additional ecological tipping points that will further exacerbate the massive problems already mentioned.

When Will the “Point of No Return” Be Reached?

The question is when the global situation will reach a point from which there will be no return to ecological balance for many generations to come.

The progression of overpopulation, coupled with unchecked economic growth and rampant consumerism, leads to increased ecological exploitation of the Earth system under the conditions of an increasingly overcrowded planet.

However, it is to be expected that population pressure is not primarily responsible for environmental destruction, but rather, in particular, the irresponsible consumption of resources by the wealthier segment of the world’s population (Roettig 2021).

The “point of no return” is likely to be crossed soon. Once the biosphere’s planetary responses develop an uncontrollable momentum of their own that turns against human civilization and the conditions necessary for all life on Earth, it will be too late—both for prevention and for mitigation.

Over the past 20 years, the planet’s resilience has reached its breaking point; in some areas, it has demonstrably been exceeded.

The Doomsday Clock makes this clear. According to the Doomsday Clock—founded and calculated in 1947 by Albert Einstein, among others—we are already 85 seconds away from the destruction of the planet’s foundations as of February 2026. In 1991, we were still 17 minutes away from destruction.

Eco-Imperialist and Systemic Causes


Violent competition over the use of resources is intensifying as more people’s basic needs—and, in particular, their luxury needs—must be met. Not only the struggle for clean drinking water and food, but also the struggle for lithium, cobalt, uranium, etc., is leading to violent conflicts between different groups of people and regions. German political scientist Hans-Jürgen Burchardt criticizes the fact that the rich industrialized nations are the main contributors to climate change, yet the Global South bears the brunt of its consequences.
Thus, following the phase-out of nuclear power, Germany’s energy transition is also made possible by cheap coal imports from Colombia. There, mining takes place in highly environmentally damaging open-pit mines; entire communities are forcibly displaced for this purpose, and human rights violations are commonplace. Even the much-lauded green economy, which relies on electric mobility, would not be possible without the lithium reserves in the Andes. Locally, however, lithium mining robs residents of their livelihoods.

The war in Ukraine, too, must be viewed not only from a geostrategic perspective but also through an eco-imperialist lens, in which Russia and the US are attempting to divide up Ukraine’s natural resource deposits among themselves.


Conclusion: The Need for a Positive Vision of Social Development

The outline presented here of a dystopia of planetary development—based on a negative ecological scenario—should have made it very clear: If the right decisions are not made in the coming years and drastic systemic changes are not implemented, the destruction of planetary habitats can no longer be stopped. If, in addition to a biosphere in decline, further stressors arise—such as potentially runaway generative AI, authoritarian and aggressively acting nation-states at war with one another, and the threat of a nuclear inferno—this will likely spell the end of humanity. No more and no less.

The ecological dystopia outlined here does not have to come to pass. Everything depends on how responsibly and competently the current generation—which is currently active in the global centers of power—will act, and on the corrective influence that civil society resistance can exert in this regard.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Klaus Moegling
Prof. Dr. Klaus Moegling is a political scientist, sociologist, and author of the book "Realignment. A peaceful and sustainably developed world is (still) possible." Which you can read here: https://www.klaus-moegling.de/international-edition/