Monday, November 18, 2024

Billionaires, frequent flyers, oil and gas: Who could fund COP29’s $1tn finance target?

Activists participate in a demonstration for climate finance at COP29.
Copyright AP Photo/Peter Dejong
By Euronews Green
Published on 

“It makes common sense to tax mega polluters and the mega-rich to ensure that we have the money needed for climate action at home and globally” according to one campaigner.

Who should foot the climate finance bill - from loss and damage funds to new funding targets - has become an enduring controversy at recent COPs.

Experts have said that at least $1 trillion (€948 billion) needs to flow to developing nations by 2030 and a new climate finance goal known as the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) hangs in the balance in Baku.

Rich countries are calling for the pool of contributors to be widened. As developing nations deal with the growing frequency and scale of climate disasters, the urgency for these funds increases.

There are big gaps that rich nations will need to fill with innovative forms of finance. From levies on high carbon activities to wealth taxes, what are some of the alternative ideas on the table for raising this cash?

Simple solutions or difficult diplomacy?

A study published by civil society group Oil Change International in September found that rich countries could raise five times the money developing nations are demanding in climate finance with a series of what it calls “simple measures”.

According to the study, a combination of wealth and corporate taxes, taxes on fossil fuel extraction and a crackdown on subsidies could generate $5 trillion (€4.7 trillion) a year - five times what developing nations say they need.

Stopping fossil fuel subsidies alone could free up $270 billion (€256 billion) in rich countries and a tax on fossil fuel extraction could raise $160 billion (€152billion). A frequent flyer levy could total $81 billion (€77 billion) a year from the rich world and increasing wealth taxes on multimillionaires and billionaires would raise a staggering $2.56 trillion (€2.43 trillion). In total, the list of measures it proposes would raise $5.3 trillion (€5.02 trillion) a year.

Some of these options are likely to be easier to implement than others. While adding a levy for frequent fliers doesn’t seem that controversial, money talks and strong opposition from billionaires could stop a wealth tax in its tracks.

Another proposal, redistributing 20 per cent of public military spending to raise $260 billion (€246 billion), could also prove tricky in a world of growing geopolitical instability.

Could a billionaire tax help pay the climate finance bill?

In July, a meeting of G20 finance ministers in Rio agreed to a "dialogue on fair and progressive taxation, including of ultra-high-net-worth individuals”. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is hoping to progress talks on this potential billionaire tax at the G20 meeting this week.

The baseline proposal from the finance ministers of Brazil, Germany, Spain and South Africa earlier this year recommended a 2 per cent tax on roughly 3,000 individuals with a net worth of more than $1 billion (€946 million). This would raise around €230 billion a year to fight poverty, inequality - and the climate crisis.

It has broad public support in G20 nations with an Ipsos poll from June showing that 70 per cent of people back the idea that wealthy people should pay higher income tax rates. But as G20 leaders meet in Brazil this week, there are reports that negotiators from Argentina’s new right-wing government are trying to undo progress made on this agreement.



A coin reading "Tax billionaires, tax polluters, $$$ for climate" 
on Leblon beach as part of a protest to draw attention to climate
 issues on the sidelines of the G20 Summit
AP Photo/Dhavid Normando

“There is huge popular support in the G20 countries for a tax on the super-rich and it is important that the European countries in the G20 rally behind the Brazillian President to protect the unprecedented agreement on taxing extreme wealth achieved by the finance ministers in July,” says Kate Blagojevic, associate director of Europe campaigns at 350.org.

“It makes common sense to tax mega polluters and the mega-rich to ensure that we have the money needed for climate action at home and globally, which can prevent and repair damage from extreme weather like we have seen in Spain and in Central America over the last few weeks.”

Other countries have not been keen to criticise the proposal in public but many fear that announcing such a tax would cause these ultra-wealthy individuals to flee to nations with more attractive tax policies.

Spain's economy minister Carlos Cuerpo urged countries on Monday before the G20 meeting to "be brave" and "do things that you are convinced are right".

Could taxing big oil help pay the climate finance bill?

A small tax on just seven of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies would grow the UN’s Loss and Damage fund by more than 2,000 per cent, according to a new analysis published today by Greenpeace International and Stamp Out Poverty.

It says that introducing what it calls a Climate Damages Tax across OECD countries could play an essential role in financing climate action. This is described as a fossil fuel extraction charge applied to the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of each tonne of coal, barrel of oil or cubic metre of gas produced.

A tax starting at $5 (€4.74) - and increasing year-on-year - per tonne of carbon emissions based on the volumes of oil and gas extracted by each company would raise an estimated $900 billion (€853 billion) by 2030, it finds. The two groups say this money would support governments and communities around the world as they face growing climate impacts.


Who should pay? This is fundamentally an issue of climate justice and it is time to shift the financial burden for the climate crisis from its victims to the polluters behind it.
Abdoulaye Diallo
Co-head of Greenpeace International’s Stop Drilling Start Paying campaign

“Who should pay? This is fundamentally an issue of climate justice and it is time to shift the financial burden for the climate crisis from its victims to the polluters behind it,” says Abdoulaye Diallo, co-head of Greenpeace International’s Stop Drilling Start Paying campaign.

Diallo adds that the analysis lays bare the scale of the challenge posed by the requirement for loss and damage funding “and the urgent need for innovative solutions to raise the funds to meet it”.

Could taxing frequent fliers help Europe raise climate finance funds?

In Europe, a tax on frequent fliers could raise €64 billion and slash emissions by a fifth, according to a report from environmental campaign groups Stay Grounded and the New Economics Foundation (NEF) published in October.

Currently, regardless of how many times a year you fly, you pay the same amount of aviation tax. But the report proposes an increasing level of tax for each flight a person takes in a year.

It would be added to all trips departing from the European Economic Area (EEA) and the UK, excluding the first two journeys. There would also be a surcharge on the most polluting medium and long-haul flights as well as business and first-class seats.

For the first and second flights taken in a year, a €50 surcharge would be applied to medium-haul and €100 to long-haul, business and first-class flights. For the third and fourth flights, a €50 levy would be added to every ticket plus an additional €50 surcharge for medium-haul and €100 for longer distances and comfort classes.

For fifth and sixth flights, the levy would rise to €100 per flight, plus the additional surcharges. For seventh and eighth flights the levy would be €200, rising to €400 for every flight thereafter.

In a way, this is also a kind of wealth tax. Five per cent of households earning over €100,000 take three or more return flights a year versus just 5 per cent of households earning less than €20,000.

A portion of these funds, according to senior researcher at NEF Sebastian Mang, should be ringfenced for the EU’s contribution to lower and middle-income countries dealing with the sharp end of the climate crisis.

 

Tax on world's wealthiest billionaires faces resistance at G20

Activists from a Brazilian Indigenous movement during a protest aimed at drawing the attention on the global climate crisis to leaders attending the G-20 summit.
Copyright Bruna Prado/Copyright 2024 The AP
By Paula Soler
Published on 

G20 leaders are meeting in Brazil on Monday and Tuesday to agree on a global tax on the world’s 3,300 richest individuals, which could raise up to $250 billion.

Brazil's plan for a new tax on the world's wealthiest billionaires is facing some last-minute opposition at a two-day meeting of G20 leaders in Rio de Janeiro.  

In remarks made to reporters ahead of the meeting, Brazil's Environment Minister Marina Silva said there were "some objections on issues related to the climate agenda, the financial agenda and especially the tax on the super-rich," as she attempts to pull together a common declaration.

At a July meeting also held in Rio, all 20 finance ministers recognised that wealth and income inequalities undermine economic growth and social cohesion.

They agreed for the first time to “engage cooperatively to ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed” – but that commitment still needs to be firmed up and translated into action.

Silva did not name which countries are now raising qualms, but there are reports that Argentina's President Javier Milei is taking an increasingly hardline stance on the issue.

Faced with such a scenario, Brazil could adjust the wording of the 20-country joint communiqué, or sign it on behalf of 19 countries with a paragraph explaining the dissenting country's position, sources close to negotiations told Euronews.    

Argentina has already refused to sign a ministerial declaration on women's empowerment at the G20, and withdrew on the third day of the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan.

Countries such as Spain, which alongside France and South Africa have been the main public supporters of Brazil's proposal, are putting pressure on other leaders to show courage on the issue.

"There is this moment where you have to be brave and where you just have to do things that you are convinced are right," Spain's finance minister Carlos Cuerpo urged his counterparts during a visit to London on Monday.

“There is an element here of redistribution of wealth that, if we listen carefully to the results of many of the elections that have taken place over the last years, has been demanded by our citizens. So we have to somehow respond," he added.

Cuerpo has previously stressed that the first step would be to create a database of the income and assets of individuals considered internationally to be ultra-rich.  

The plans to tax the world's 3,000 richest billionaires are based on a proposal made last year by French economist Gabriel Zucman, who argues that closing the loophole via a 2% wealth levy could raise as much as $250 billion (€230 billion).   

Oxfam estimates that the top 1% in the G20 countries now account for 31% of total wealth, up from around a quarter (26%) two decades ago. 

“Leaders at the Rio Summit can end the decades-long assault on taxation that’s been waged by the ultra-rich. Only then can we begin to heal the rifts of inequality tearing apart our societies,” Oxfam Brazil Executive Director Viviana Santiago said ahead of the meeting.


 

CU Anschutz study shows association between climate change and eye maladies



A rare study focusing on the effects of climate change on the eyes reveals clinical visits increased when particulate matter from air pollution was prevalent



University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

         




AURORA, Colo. (Nov. 15, 2024) – Clinical visits by patients suffering ocular surface eye conditions more than doubled during times when ambient particulate matter from air pollution was in the atmosphere, signaling a possible association between climate change and ocular health, according to a new study from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus.

The study, published Wednesday in the journal Clinical Ophthalmology, is among the first to look into how climate change may affect the eyes.

“The World Health Organization has declared climate change to be “the single biggest health threat facing humanity,” said the study’s lead author Jennifer Patnaik, PhD, MHS, assistant professor of epidemiology and ophthalmology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. “Yet there are limited studies on the impact of climate change-related air pollution on ocular health.”

The researchers, including Associate Professor Katherine James, PhD, who directs the Climate & Human Health program at the Colorado School of Public Health,  examined the associations between ocular surface irritation and allergy-related daily outpatient office visits with daily ambient particular matter (PM) levels in the Denver Metropolitan area.

They obtained data of PM concentrations that were 10 micrometers or less and 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter. The researchers found 144,313 ocular surface irritation and allergy visits to ophthalmic clinics during the study period. The daily visit counts were 2.2 times higher than average when PM10 concentrations were 110. The clinic visit rate ratio increased as daily concentrations increased.

The study reported that conjunctivitis was the second most common eye disease among the clinic visits in the study, representing exactly one-third of all the visits. The prevalence of ocular allergic conjunctivitis has increased worldwide and varies across regions. Socioeconomic and environmental factors such as temperature, humidity and air pollution have been proposed as reasons for the increase.

Patnaik said the health risks of air pollution and climate change span a wide range of outcomes including infectious disease, weather-related morbidity and a variety of lung, kidney and cardiovascular maladies.

“Less studied chronic diseases such as dementia have also been shown to be associated with temperature and air pollutants,” she said. “Research on the topic of ocular conditions and climate is still in its early stages; therefore, more studies are needed to better understand how climate and air pollutants impact eye health.”

James agreed.

“This study highlights the systemic health impacts of climate stressors including air quality, wildfires, temperature, and drought conditions and the continued need to for transdisciplinary research,” she said.

The researchers hope to build and expand on these initial discoveries, said the study’s senior author Malik Kahook, MD, professor of ophthalmology at the CU School of Medicine. 

"These findings open the door to a deeper understanding of how environmental factors affect eye health. From a clinical standpoint, we’re now seeing more evidence suggesting that particulate matter in the air isn't just affecting respiratory or cardiovascular health but also directly impacting ocular surface health,” Kahook said. “Our next steps are to investigate how other air pollutants might influence eye health and to expand our focus to areas outside of Colorado. By doing so, we aim to identify preventive strategies and consider new treatment protocols tailored to address these environmental influences, ultimately protecting the most vulnerable patients in areas heavily affected by pollution."

Amy Dye-Robinson, from the Department of Biostatistics & Informatics at CU Anschutz, is a study co-author.

About the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

The University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus is a world-class medical destination at the forefront of transformative science, medicine, education and patient care. The campus encompasses the University of Colorado health professional schools, more than 60 centers and institutes, and two nationally ranked independent hospitals - UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital and Children's Hospital Colorado - that treat more than two million adult and pediatric patients each year. Innovative, interconnected and highly collaborative, the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus delivers life-changing treatments, patient care and professional training and conducts world-renowned research fueled by over $705 million in research grants. For more information, visit www.cuanschutz.edu.

 

###

 

 

Amid record year for dengue infections, new study finds climate change responsible for 19% of today’s rising dengue burden



Second study reveals how one Brazilian city escaped a historic outbreak this year by deploying mosquitoes carrying the Wolbachia bacteria that interferes with dengue transmission



American Society of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene





NEW ORLEANS (November 16, 2024) — Climate change is having a massive global impact on dengue transmission, accounting for 19% of the current dengue burden, with a potential to spark an additional 40%-60% spike by 2050 — and by as much as 150%-200% in some areas — according to a new study presented today at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (ASTMH).

The findings from researchers at Stanford and Harvard Universities offer the most definitive evidence to date that climate change is a big factor driving a global surge in the mosquito-borne disease. Countries in the Americas alone have recorded almost 12 million cases in 2024 compared to 4.6 million in 2023, and locally acquired infections have been reported in California and Florida. The study also carries warnings of even sharper increases to come.

“We looked at data on dengue incidence and climate variation across 21 countries in Asia and the Americas and found that there is a clear and direct relationship between rising temperatures and rising infections,” said Erin Mordecai, PhD, an infectious disease ecologist at Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment and the study’s senior author. “It’s evidence that climate change already has become a significant threat to human health and, for dengue in particular, our data suggests the impact could get much worse.”

While some dengue infections produce only mild symptoms, others cause excruciating joint pain (earning dengue the nickname “breakbone fever”), and severe cases can lead to bleeding complications and shock. There are no drugs to treat the disease and while there are two licensed dengue vaccines available, some dengue experts have pointed to challenges with both that could limit widespread adoption.

The study finds that amid dengue’s growing threat, moderating global warming by reducing emissions would also moderate climate impacts on dengue infections. The analysis shows that with sharp cuts in emissions, areas now on track to experience a 60% increase would instead see about a 40% rise in dengue infections between now and 2050. However, with global climate models predicting that temperatures will continue to increase even with large reductions in emissions, the researchers found that 17 of the 21 countries studied still would see climate-driven increases in dengue even under the most optimistic scenarios for carbon cuts.

Mordecai said the study was inspired by laboratory tests that found mosquitoes that carry dengue progressively churn out more and more virus as temperatures rise within a specific range. She said this temperature-induced bump starts at about 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit), then intensifies before peaking at about 28 or 29 C (about 82 F).

Her team then looked at 21 dengue endemic countries, including Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, Vietnam and Cambodia, which regularly collect data on infection rates. They also looked at other factors that can affect dengue infection rates — like rainfall patterns, seasonal changes, virus types, economic shocks and population density — in order to isolate whether there was a distinct temperature effect.  

Mordecai said that dengue-endemic areas that are just now entering that 20 C to 29 C sweet-spot for virus transmission — parts of Peru, Mexico, Bolivia and Brazil — could face the biggest future risks, with infections over the next few decades rising 150% to 200%.

Meanwhile, the study found that areas already on the high end of the temperature range, like southern Vietnam, will experience little additional climate impacts and potentially a minor decrease. Overall, the analysis revealed that there are at least 257 million people now living in places where climate warming could cause dengue incidence to double in the next 25 years.

Mordecai said the study probably underestimates the climate-related dengue threat. That’s because researchers were unable to predict potential climate impacts on dengue-endemic areas that have not consistently tracked infections, which includes large parts of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Also, Mordecai said they were unable to quantify future impacts for areas like the southern regions of the continental United States, where dengue is just starting to emerge as a local threat. “But as more and more of the U.S. moves into that optimal temperature range for dengue, the number of locally acquired infections will likely rise, though it’s too early to say how that will affect the global burden,” she said.

A Possible Solution: A Second Study Credits Common Bacteria with Protecting Brazilian City from Dengue Storm

With climate change acting as an accelerant fueling dengue’s surge, new findings presented at the ASTMH Annual Meeting provide some of the best evidence to date that releasing mosquitoes that carry a common bacteria called Wolbachia may offer a powerful tool to fend off intense outbreaks of the disease.

The study by researchers from the World Mosquito Program found that in 2024, as Brazil battled its largest dengue outbreak on record, there was only a small rise in Niterói, a city of half a million people close to Rio de Janeiro. The study credits the fact that five years ago, a partnership between the World Mosquito Program and Brazil’s Ministry of Health blanketed three-quarters of Niterói with mosquitoes infected with Wolbachia, a naturally occurring bacteria that has been shown to inhibit a mosquito’s ability to transmit dengue and other viruses. Deployments into the remaining areas were completed in May 2023.

“We already saw infections essentially flatline in Niterói after the Wolbachia deployment, and while there was a small increase in 2024, the caseload was still 90% lower than before the deployment — and nothing like what was happening in the rest of Brazil,” said Katie Anders, PhD, director of impact assessment at the World Mosquito Program, which has been leading a global effort to fight dengue with Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes. “The fact that Wolbachia has sustained itself in the mosquito population for years now and remained effective during a record year for dengue outbreaks shows that Wolbachia can provide long-term protection for communities against the increasingly frequent surges in dengue that we’re seeing globally.”

Anders said that since Wolbachia has been rolled out across Niterói, dengue incidence has dropped to an average of 84 cases per 100,000 people per year, compared to an average rate of 913 cases per 100,000 people per year in the 10 years pre-Wolbachia. The 1,736 dengue cases reported in Niterói from January to June 2024 represent a rate of 336 per 100,000 in 2024. That’s compared to a rate of 3,121 nationwide and 1,816 in Rio de Janeiro state during the same period. Overall, in 2024, Brazil has recorded 9.6 million dengue cases — more than twice as many as in 2023 — and 5,300 dengue-related deaths. 

Other trials spearheaded by the World Mosquito Program, including large-scale releases in urban areas of Colombia and Indonesia, have reported significant reductions in dengue. They also have shown that Wolbachia is safe for humans, animals and the surrounding environment. But Anders said the protective effect documented in Niterói stands out for occurring amid such an intense wave of disease. 

“In Brazil, we’re in the process of moving past Wolbachia as an experimental measure to its use as a cornerstone of dengue control,” said Luciano Moreira, PhD, the World Mosquito Program project lead in Brazil. “We’ve partnered with the Brazilian government to build a Wolbachia mosquito production facility that will enable deployment in multiple cities simultaneously — with the goal of protecting many millions of people.”

Anders noted that the production facility in Brazil is a significant step because one the biggest barriers to using Wolbachia on a large scale is that it requires releasing a large number of infected mosquitoes to spread the bacteria into the local mosquito population. She also said that governments and donors must be willing to invest with an understanding that Wolbachia is a preventative measure, not a tool for combating an ongoing outbreak — it requires a couple of years to implement and reach full effectiveness.

However, Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes transmit the bacteria to their offspring, which, according to Anders, means its protective effect could persist in a local population for many years. She said that evidence from the site of a 2011 release of Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes in Northern Australia showed the bacteria was still present in 90% of the local mosquito population more than 10 years after releases finished.

###

About the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

The American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, founded in 1903, is the largest international scientific organization of experts dedicated to reducing the worldwide burden of tropical infectious diseases and improving global health. It accomplishes this through generating and sharing scientific evidence, informing health policies and practices, fostering career development, recognizing excellence, and advocating for investment in tropical medicine/global health research. For more information, visit astmh.org.

World’s 1.5C climate target ‘deader than a doornail’, experts say



















Scientists say goal to keep world’s temperature rise below 1.5C is not going to happen despite talks at Cop29 in Baku


Oliver Milman
Mon 18 Nov 2024
THE GUARDIAN

The internationally agreed goal to keep the world’s temperature rise below 1.5C is now “deader than a doornail”, with 2024 almost certain to be the first individual year above this threshold, climate scientists have gloomily concluded – even as world leaders gather for climate talks on how to remain within this boundary.

Three of the five leading research groups monitoring global temperatures consider 2024 on track to be at least 1.5C (2.7F) hotter than pre-industrial times, underlining it as the warmest year on record, beating a mark set just last year. The past 10 consecutive years have already been the hottest 10 years ever recorded.


Although a single year above 1.5C does not itself spell climate doom or break the 2015 Paris agreement, in which countries agreed to strive to keep the long-term temperature rise below this point, scientists have warned this aspiration has in effect been snuffed out despite the exhortations of leaders currently gathered at a United Nations climate summit in Azerbaijan.

“The goal to avoid exceeding 1.5C is deader than a doornail. It’s almost impossible to avoid at this point because we’ve just waited too long to act,” said Zeke Hausfather, climate research lead at Stripe and a research scientist at Berkeley Earth. “We are speeding past the 1.5C line an accelerating way and that will continue until global emissions stop climbing.”

Last year was so surprisingly hot, even in the context of the climate crisis, that it caused “some soul-searching” among climate scientists, Hausfather said. In recent months there has also been persistent heat despite the fading of El Niño, a periodic climate event that exacerbated temperatures already elevated by the burning of fossil fuels.

“It’s going to be the hottest year by an unexpectedly large margin. If it continues to be this warm it’s a worrying sign,” he said. “Going past 1.5C this year is very symbolic, and it’s a sign that we are getting ever closer to going past that target.”

Climate scientists broadly expect it will become apparent the 1.5C target, agreed upon by governments after pleas from vulnerable island states that they risk being wiped out if temperatures rise further than this, has been exceeded within the coming decade.

Despite countries agreeing to shift away from fossil fuels, this year is set to hit a new record for planet-heating emissions, and even if current national pledges are met the world is on track for 2.7C (4.8F) warming, risking disastrous heatwaves, floods, famines and unrest. “We are clearly failing to bend the curve,” said Sofia Gonzales-Zuñiga, an analyst at Climate Analytics, which helped produce the Climate Action Tracker (Cat) temperature estimate.


However, the Cop29 talks in Baku have maintained calls for action to stay under 1.5C. “Only you can beat the clock on 1.5C,” António Guterres, secretary general of the UN, urged world leaders on Tuesday, while also acknowledging the planet was undergoing a “masterclass in climate destruction”.

Yet the 1.5C target now appears to be simply a rhetorical, rather than scientifically achievable, one, bar massive amounts of future carbon removal from as-yet unproven technologies. “I never thought 1.5C was a conceivable goal. I thought it was a pointless thing,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at Nasa. “I’m totally unsurprised, like almost all climate scientists, that we are shooting past it at a rapid clip.
You shouldn’t ask scientists how to galvanize the world because clearly we don’t have a fucking clueGavin Schmidt

“But it was extremely galvanizing, so I was wrong about that. Maybe it is useful; maybe people do need impossible targets. You shouldn’t ask scientists how to galvanize the world because clearly we don’t have a fucking clue. People haven’t got a magic set of words to keep us to 1.5C, but we have got to keep trying.

“What matters is we have to reduce emissions. Once we stop warming the planet, the better it will be for the people and ecosystems that live here.”

The world’s decision-makers who are collectively failing to stem dangerous global heating will soon be joined by Donald Trump, who is expected to tear down climate policies and thereby, the Cat report estimates, add at least a further 0.04C to the world temperature.

Despite this bleak outlook, some do point out that the picture still looks far rosier than it did before the Paris deal, when a catastrophic temperature rise of 4C or more was foreseeable. Cheap and abundant clean energy is growing at a rapid pace, with peak oil demand expected by the end of this decade.

“Meetings like these are often perceived as talking shops,” said Alexander De Croo, the Belgian prime minister, at the Cop29 summit. “And yes, these strenuous negotiations are far from perfect. But if you compare climate policy now to a decade ago, we are in a different world.”

Still, as the world barrels past 1.5C there lie alarming uncertainties in the form of runaway climate “tipping points”, which once set off cannot be halted on human timescales, such as the Amazon turning into a savanna, the collapse of the great polar ice sheets, and huge pulses of carbon released from melting permafrost.

“1.5C is not a cliff edge, but the further we warm up the closer we get to unwittingly setting off tipping points that will bring dramatic climate consequences,” said Grahame Madge, a climate spokesman at the UK Met Office, who added that it would now be “unexpected” for 2024 to not be above 1.5C.

“We are edging ever closer to tipping points in the climate system that we won’t be able to come back from; it’s uncertain when they will arrive, they are almost like monsters in the darkness,” Madge said.

“We don’t want to encounter them so every fraction of a degree is worth fighting for. If we can’t achieve 1.5C, it will be better to get 1.6C than 1.7C, which will be better than getting 2C or more.”

Hausfather added: “We aren’t in for a good outcome either way. It’s challenging. But every tenth of a degree matters. All we know is that the more we push the climate system away from where it has been for the last few million years, there be dragons.”
Trump picks Big Tech critic who wrote ‘Project 2025’ chapter to lead FCC

Republican Brendan Carr has accused major tech platforms of operating a ‘censorship cartel’.

B
rendan Carr listens during a committee hearing to examine the Federal Communications Commission on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 24, 2020 [Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post via AP]

Published On 18 Nov 2024

United States President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Brendan Carr, a Republican known for his criticism of Big Tech, to lead the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Carr, who has served as an FCC commissioner since 2017, will end the “regulatory onslaught” that has held back job creators and innovators, and ensure that the communications agency delivers for rural areas, Trump said in a statement on Sunday.

Recommended Stories

“Commissioner Carr is a warrior for free speech, and has fought against the regulatory lawfare that has stifled Americans’ freedoms, and held back our economy,” Trump said.

Carr, who has echoed Trump’s concerns about censorship by social media platforms, reiterated the need to prioritise free speech following the president-elect’s announcement.

“We must dismantle the censorship cartel and restore free speech rights for everyday Americans,” Carr said in a post on X.

While the FCC regulates radio and TV as well as broadband internet services, Carr has called for the agency to adopt a broader remit that includes overseeing big tech companies such as Google, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft.

In a chapter of “Project 2025,” a blueprint for overhauling the federal government produced by The Heritage Foundation, Carr argued that Section 230 of the Communications Act should be limited to crack down on what conservatives say is widespread viewpoint discrimination by tech platforms.

In a statement congratulating Trump on his election victory earlier this month, Carr said the agency would have an important role to play “reining in Big Tech” and “ensuring that broadcasters operate in the public interest”.

Before the election, Carr made headlines when he accused NBC of violating “equal time” rules by inviting Democratic Party nominee Kamala Harris onto Saturday Night Live.

In an interview with Fox News, he called on his fellow FCC commissioners to investigate NBC and said that “every single remedy”, including licence revocations, should be on the table for networks that commit “egregious” violations of broadcasting standards.

“Whether it’s to benefit Republican or Democrat, that doesn’t matter to me. We have rules on the books, we have to uphold them,” he said.

Liberals have expressed alarm at Carr’s views, expressing concern that he intends to politicise the FCC and arguing that Section 230, which shields internet providers from liability over the content they carry, is essential to a free and open internet.

“When people tell you what they plan to do, you should believe them. Brendan Carr has clearly stated that he plans to attack Section 230 and force online platforms to carry sludge,” Adam Kovacevich, CEO of the centre-left trade group Chamber of Progress Founder, said in a statement.

“That’s why Democrats need to defend Section 230, which protects content moderation and keeps the Internet from becoming a cesspool.”

Max Burns, a Democratic strategist, said that Carr was aligned with Trump’s plans to use the FCC as a “weapon against news networks the president doesn’t like”.

“Get ready,” Burns said in a post on X.

The five-member FCC currently has three Democratic appointees, but Trump will have a chance to tilt the body in favour of Republicans when Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel’s five-year term ends next year.

Source: Al Jazeera
The US Election: How Can We Move Forward While Staring Negativity in Its Face?


International Marxist-Humanist Organization
November 8, 2024
Length:1172 words


Summary: Based on remarks at a panel on “Developing Revolutionary Perspectives at a Turning Point,” sponsored by the International Marxist-Humanist Organization on the eve of the Historical Materialism Conference, Conway Hall, London, November 6, 2024 – Editors


The second election of Donald Trump to the US presidency and of the Trumpist Republican Party on November 5 represents nothing less than a new era of fascism. We may not be in 1933, but we are certainly in something similar to the 1920s after Mussolini seized power and the concomitant rise of fascist movements at a global level. At present, the neofascist National Rally in France has been receiving over 30% of the vote, the further-to-the-right Alternative for Germany well over 20%, and even in places like Brazil, where the moderate left has won recent elections (or California in the US), a turn toward the right in public opinion is evident.

Many sectors of global capitalism are joining in or at least accommodating themselves to the fascist turn, as seen not only in individual figures like Elon Musk but in global phenomena like the surge in financial markets on the day Trump’s election became apparent. Over the months preceding the US election, many key players decided to remain neutral in the face of Trumpism, from media like Facebook, the LA Times, and the storied Washington Post, to universities like Harvard declaring themselves neutral in social justice matters,


Causes and Context

Since Trumpism’s rise in 2015, the US and global left have been discussing its causes, most of which have become too well known to detail too much here. But here is a basic list. First comes the wrenching economic crisis of 2008 and nearly 50 years of economic stagnation, which has left the working people in the broadest sense facing worsening conditions of life and labor. Second, comes the exhaustion of US imperialism and its allies after more than two decades of war in the Middle East with no end in sight, while on the other hand, some sectors are now under the illusion of an opening for Israel and the US against the Palestinians, Lebanon, and Iran that could spark a regional conflagration. Third, we have seen the rise, often manipulated by powerful forces, of anti-immigrant xenophobia, racist appeals over crime, and perceived disorder, all amid the demagoguery of Trump and his ilk.Fourth, we have witnessed the most virulent misogyny, both in political rhetoric and policy, from a stream of demeaning statements against women and sexual minorities to actions like abortion and transgender bans. Fifth, we are probably underestimating the ongoing effects of the COVID pandemic, not only in how its necessary “social distancing” tore at social solidarity, but also in how neofascists developed a whole new ideology of “freedom” around attacks on science in general, on vaccines in particular, and the closing down of schools and workplaces in the name of return to the “normal” capital accumulation regime as quickly as possible. These events have seemed to spur some leading capitalists (Musk et al.), public figures (Robert Kennedy, Jr.), and intellectuals (Giorgio Agamben, Carl Boggs) to shift way to the right on a “libertarian” basis. Sixth, we have experienced unprecedented attacks on environmental science and policy, as seen in expressions like “punitive ecology” even amid the floods and fires of the 2020s. Finally, the liberal and slightly anti-racist and anti-sexist wing of the dominant classes has over the past year forged a new type of unity with the far right in their joint and unstinting support for Israel’s genocide and, inside the US, repression of the student movement against that genocide.


Beyond Mere Causality: What to Do?

The dialectical concept of second negativity teaches us never to stop at the analysis of the gravity of a new form of reaction and retrogression, but to go also the subjective level, to the state of the forces of liberation and opposition, and how to move them forward.

First and foremost, here is to avoid denial, to stare negativity in the face as the young Hegel once articulated, and to consider with utmost soberness the gravity of our situation. The world’s largest economic and military power, to a great extent because of its relative decline, has embarked upon the reckless path of neofascism. It appears at this writing that the Trumpists will control not only the presidency but also both chambers of the legislative branch, while they will continue to control the third branch of government via the Supreme Court. We should also be under no illusions about “constitutionally” minded military officers being willing to carry out Trump’s orders.

But it is equally important to avoid despair and especially to forget that a real alternative to capitalism exists: a society based upon the elimination of value production and freely associated labor as articulated by Marx over a century ago and put forward as a core concept for the global left by Marxist-Humanists over the past decade. Such concepts of the alternative are deeply practical. As reported recently by the sociologist Edgar Morin, who joined the French resistance to the Nazi occupation in his youth, what was lacking above all in 1940 was not so much leftwing organization or support for resistance among some sectors of the population, but any sense that an alternative to the new fascist order existed. People would not risk their lives merely to restore the corrupt, Nazi-appeasing Third French Republic.

Thus, while we need to defend the democratic republic everywhere vs. neofascism, campism, and the like, and this is no small matter amid a plethora of ultra-leftist sects, we need to be utterly merciless in our critique of the centrist and slightly left-of-center forces that have brought us the Gaza genocide, larger military and police budgets, already draconian restrictions on immigration, burgeoning economic inequality, and now an ignominious defeat in the 2024 US election that has allowed a neofascist triumph.

To help us grasp what has happened and where to go from here, we need to reorganize our thinking at a theoretical and philosophical level. We need to dive once again and with new energy and creativity into the dialectic, into the concept of the alternative to capitalism, and into the dialectics of class, race, and gender in the form of an intersectional, liberationist, and humanist Marxism. Here we can of course draw on the writings of Karl Marx, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Frantz Fanon, Raya Dunayevskaya, and our own studies of their writings over the past decade, which have become widely recognized far outside our immediate circle as major contributions to revolutionary thought.

In the coming weeks, we must hit the streets to mount the largest and strongest popular resistance we can muster. To this end, we need also to form coalitions of the type of left that opposes all forms of capitalism, imperialism, and sub-imperialism, from the US to Russia to Israel, while also recognizing the racist, sexist, heteronormative, and climate-destructive nature of the present global capitalist order in ways that both unite with the working class while also opposing any form of class reductionism. Specifically, we need to defend both Palestine and Ukraine. Such a left pole can form a vital part of the anti-fascist resistance to Trumpism and its counterparts all over the world.