Experts sound the alarm over global inaction on critical issues: 'We have seen virtually nothing'
Governments involved knew the initial targets set in 2015 weren't going to cut it, so they agreed to submit updated goals (see them at the Climate Target Update Tracker) by early 2025 that would better align with the limit set by the Paris Agreement. However, a press release from Climate Action Tracker reports that the 2035 target updates fall alarmingly short.
According to the press release, most of the proposals submitted don't present a credible pathway to limit global temperature increases to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels. Experts have warned that these insufficient commitments could accelerate environmental damage and make it increasingly difficult to avert catastrophic climate shifts.
"The public is entitled to expect a strong reaction from their governments to the fact that global warming has now reached 1.5° for an entire year, but we have seen virtually nothing of real substance," said Bill Hare, CEO of Climate Analytics.
Out of the six countries mentioned, only one — the UK — set acceptable targets. And while the U.S. submitted its proposal in December 2024, the Trump administration has since pulled out of the Paris Agreement and walked back on some climate actions.
The scientific community has overwhelmingly agreed that human activity, like burning dirty energy resources like oil and coal, contributes to pollution heating the planet, which supercharges extreme weather events and rising sea levels. This affects everyone, causing floods, fires, and storms that destroy communities and harm people. If sea levels continue to rise because of climbing global temperatures, coastal areas like New York and California could disappear into the ocean.
Scientists have already debunked the "overshoot myth," which claims we'll have more advanced tech in the future to fix the problems we cause today. So there is an urgency attached to these targets if we want to avoid devastating long-term impacts of our planet overheating.
While most countries that submitted targets fell short, others are still pending, including big contributors to pollution, such as the EU, China, and India. Experts have set guidelines for the key elements needed to make climate targets stronger — ambition, finance and fairness, credibility, and transparency.
"Every fraction of a degree matters, and we expect governments to use the remaining time to submit ambitious 2035 NDCs and update their 2030 targets that align with the 1.5°C goal and commit to real, transformative action," said professor Niklas Höhne of the NewClimate Institute.
Should the government be able to control how we heat our homes?
Definitely
Only if it saves money
I'm not sure
No way
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Individuals can be part of the solution by learning more about critical climate issues. Voting for pro-climate candidates also helps support stronger, more ambitious climate policies at the national level.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
William Watson: Government-managed trade is sure to fail again
Those are some trade deals Donald Trump is shaking hands on — but so far not releasing details about. The U.S. gets tariff-free access to other countries while other countries pay stiff across-the-board tariffs going into the U.S. The U.K. pays 10 per cent, the EU and Japan 15 per cent, Indonesia and the Philippines 19 per cent and Vietnam 20 per cent. What China will pay remains to be determined. It typically pushes back more in response to Trump's jibes and jabs. Perhaps President Xi Jinping read the sections of the Art of the Deal about the need to stand up to bullies. Silly question: If a virtue of tariffs is that they're clean and simple, as the U.S. president always says, wouldn't it be a lot easier to have the same across-the-board rate for all countries? And whatever happened to 'reciprocity,' which the White House was big on a couple of months ago? Tariffs of 10-20 per cent for other countries' goods going into the U.S. but zero for American goods entering other countries are hardly 'reciprocal.' Yes, the rates chosen supposedly reflect the amount of procedural protectionism or non-tariff barriers (NTBs) that countries impose on U.S. goods. Except that no systematic study of that in fact much-studied problem has produced numbers that look like the pattern the deals reveal. And of course the U.S. itself is no stranger to NTBs and procedural protectionism. Just ask our softwood lumber industry. What the emerging regime looks like most is affirmative action for American businesses. They evidently can't compete with wily foreigners deploying unfair practices against them. And they're unwilling to abide by the (presumably rigged) decisions of international trade tribunals set up, under U.S. leadership actually, to make sure governments discriminate as little as possible against one another's firms. Even as the Trump administration abolishes affirmative action from U.S. society in general, it imposes it in international trade. Also strange are the commitments by other countries to invest given dollar amounts in the U.S. and to buy given amounts of U.S. goods, especially Boeing aircraft. Japan's going to buy 100 Boeing planes (not clear yet whether doors will be extra) and invest $550 billion in the U.S., with the U.S. somehow getting 90 per cent of the profit on this investment. Details to follow. When we economists teach international trade theory we customarily talk about (to cite the classic example) Portugal selling wine to the U.K. in return for wool. But in the real world, the non-communist parts of it at least, countries generally don't buy and sell goods and services to each other. Rather, people and companies in their millions and billions decide what goods and services to buy and their accumulated choices generate the trade flows we see. That type of trade system accords very well with the traditionally very American view that governments should not run economies, people and businesses should, with the government restricting itself to policing property rights and providing good public services at a reasonable tax price. But now governments, America's included, apparently want to manage the intricate details of the supply chain. In support of the Trump tariffs, some American politicians say it's simply not efficient for car parts to cross the Canada-U.S. or U.S.-Mexico border several times before cars are complete, as sometimes happens. But who are they to say? Since 1965's Canada-U.S. Auto Pact car companies have decided, free of tariffs, how best to put cars together. If it made economic sense to make and assemble all the parts in one location — if that's what maxed out their profits — you can bet that's what they'd do. If they don't do that, it's because that isn't the most efficient way to do things, given costs, technologies and transportation costs. Politicians should stick to matters such as Jeffrey Epstein and let car companies figure out how best to make cars. Why have Americans traditionally resisted government micro-management of the economy? Have a listen to the soundtrack of Hamilton. Because they abhor the concentration of power in a politico-industrial complex. Because not even a stable genius in the White House — not to suggest that's what we have now — would be smart enough to outsmart the combined intelligence and creativity of the entire American population when channelled through price- and efficiency-revealing markets. And, finally, because the invisible hand of competition is the best way to restrain the grasping hand of corruption. Corruption is not unknown in the private sector, of course. Humans are humans everywhere and always prey to temptation. But if you have competition — which in a small country like Canada is often provided by imports and foreign investors — companies or individuals that go astray get punished in the marketplace. And decisions don't get made for political reasons. Donald Trump always says he wants Canadian auto jobs to move to Michigan and Ohio, which, no coincidence, are two battleground states. Every president, not just the transparently venal, will favour places he wants his party to win in the next election, whenever that is. The only way to avoid such corruption is to remove power from politicians and vest it in markets. William Watson: All checks, no balances here in Nastyland William Watson: Our better-funded military will need to be more lethal I do understand such arguments are in disfavour at the moment. I bet the future vindicates them, as it always does. But the process won't be fun. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How California draws congressional districts, and why it might change in a proxy war with Trump
The potential redrawing of California's congressional district lines could upend the balance of power in Washington, D.C., in next year's midterm congressional election. The unusual and unexpected redistricting may take place in coming months because of sparring among President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Redrawing these maps — known as redistricting — is an esoteric practice that many voters tune out, but one that has an outsized impact on political power and policy in the United States. Here is a breakdown about why a process that typically occurs once every decade is currently receiving so much attention — and the potential ramifications. What is redistricting? There are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, each of whom is supposed to represent roughly the same number of constituents. Every decade, after the U.S. Census counts the population across the nation, the allocation of congressional representatives for each state can change. For example, after the 2020 census, California's share of congressional districts was reduced by one for the first time in state history. Read more: California to lose a congressional seat, according to new census data After the decennial census, states redraw district lines for congressional and legislative districts based on population shifts, protections for minority voters required by the federal Voting Rights Act and other factors. For much of the nation's history, such maps were created by state legislators and moneyed interests in smoke-filled backrooms. Many districts were grossly gerrymandered — contorted — to benefit political parties and incumbents, such as California's infamous 'Ribbon of Shame,' a congressional district that stretched in a reed-thin line 200 miles along the California coast from Oxnard to the Monterey County line. But in recent decades, political-reform organizations and some elected officials, notably former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, called for independent drawing of district lines. In 2010, the state's voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure requiring California congressional maps to be drawn by a bipartisan commission, which it did in 2011 and 2021. Read more: Latino political power is a big winner in California's new congressional map Why are we talking about this? President Trump recently urged Texas lawmakers to redraw its congressional districts to increase the number of GOP members of the House in next year's midterm election. Congress is closely divided, and the party that does not control the White House traditionally loses seats in the body two years after the presidential election. Trump has been able to enact his agenda — from deporting undocumented immigrants to extending tax breaks that largely benefit the wealthy to closing some Planned Parenthood clinics — because the GOP controls the White House, the Senate and the House. But if Democrats flip Congress, Trump's agenda will likely be stymied and he faces the prospect of being a lame duck during his last two years in office. What is Texas doing? Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called his state's Legislature into special session last week to discuss the disastrous floods that killed more than 130 people as well as redistricting before the 2026 election. Trump and his administration urged Abbott to redraw his state's congressional lines with the hope of picking up five seats. Read more: Texas Republicans aim to redraw House districts at Trump's urging, but there's a risk Abbott has said that his decision to include redistricting in the special session was prompted by a court decision last year that said the state no longer has to draw 'coalition districts' that are made up of multiple minority communities. New district lines would give Texans greater opportunity to vote for politicians who best represent them, the governor said in interviews. Democrats in the Lone Star state's Legislature met with Newsom in Sacramento on Friday to discuss the ramifications of mid-decade redistricting and accused Trump of trying to rig next year's midterm election to hold onto power. Republicans 'play by a different set of rules and we could sit back and act as if we have some moral authority and watch this 249-, 250-year-old experiment be washed away,' Newsom said of the nation's history. 'We are not going to allow that to happen.' Democratic lawmakers in Texas have previously fled the state to not allow the Legislature to have a quorum, such as in 2021 during a battle over voting rights. But with the deadly flooding, this is an unlikely prospect this year. Why is California in the mix? The Golden State's congressional districts are drawn by an independent commission focused on logical geography, shared interests, representation for minority communities and other facets. If the state reverts to partisan map drawing, redistricting experts on both sides of the aisle agree that several GOP incumbents in the 52-member delegation would be vulnerable, either because of more Democratic voters being placed in their districts, or being forced into face-offs with fellow Republican members of Congress. There are currently nine Republican members of the delegation, a number that could shrink to three or four, according to political statisticians. Read more: California Democrats may target GOP congressional districts to counter Texas Strange bedfellows These dizzying developments have created agreement among rivals while dividing former allies. Sara Sadhwani, a member of the 2021 redistricting commission and longtime supporter of independent map drawing, said she supports Democratic efforts to change California's congressional districts before the midterm election. "I stand by the work of the commission of course. We drew fair and competitive maps that fully abided by federal laws around the Voting Rights Act to ensure communities of color have an equal opportunity at the ballot box," said Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College. "That being said, especially when it comes to Congress, most certainly California playing fair puts Democrats at a disadvantage nationally." She said the best policy would be for all 50 states to embrace independent redistricting. But in the meantime, she supports Democratic efforts in California to temporarily redraw the districts given the stakes. "I think it's patriotic to fight against what appears to be our democracy falling into what appears to be authoritarian rule," Sadhwani said. Charles Munger Jr., the son of a late billionaire who was Warren Buffet's right-hand man, spent more than $12 million to support the ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission and is invested in making sure that it is not weakened. "He's very much committed to making sure the commission is preserved," said someone close to Munger who requested anonymity to speak candidly. Munger believes "this is ultimately political quicksand and a redistricting war at the end of day is a loss to American voters." Munger, who was the state GOP's biggest donor at one point, is actively involved in the California fight and is researching other efforts to fight gerrymandering nationwide, this person said. The state Democratic and Republican parties, which rarely agree on anything, agreed in 2010 when they opposed the ballot measure. Now, Democrats, who would likely gain seats if the districts are redrawn by state lawmakers, support a mid-decade redistricting, while the state GOP, which would likely lose seats, says the state should continue having lines drawn by the independent commission once every decade. "It's a shame that Governor Newsom and the radical Left in Sacramento are willing to spend $200 million on a statewide special election, while running a deficit of $20 billion, in order to silence the opposition in our state," the GOP congressional delegation said in a statement on Friday. "As a Delegation we will fight any attempt to disenfranchise California voters by whatever means necessary to ensure the will of the people continues to be reflected in redistricting and in our elections." What happens next? If Democrats in California move forward with their proposal, which is dependent on what Texas lawmakers do during their special legislative session that began last week, they have two options: State lawmakers could vote to put the measure before voters in a special election that would likely be held in November — a costly prospect. The last statewide special election — the unsuccessful effort to recall Newsom in 2021 — cost more than $200 million, according to the secretary of state's office. The Legislature could also vote to redraw the maps, but this option would likely be more vulnerable to legal challenge. Either scenario is expected to be voted on as an urgency item, which requires a 2/3 vote but would insulate the action from being the subject of a referendum later put in front of voters that would delay enactment. The Legislature is out of session until mid-August. Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
Ebooks are on the line as Congress considers future of library funding
Like checking out library ebooks? Congress, Trump could make it harder by cutting federal funding for libraries. CROFTON, Maryland ‒ Claire Holahan, 34, takes her toddler to the library once or twice a week for story time, so she can play with other children and the library's toys. It's not until after bedtime that she has time to click open her own ebook, downloaded from the library. "I don't want to have a collection (of paper books). It seems kind of wasteful … I'd rather just take it out from the library and then somebody else borrows it and gets to enjoy it," she said. Holahan is among millions of Americans who could lose ebook access from their local library under the budget bill the House is currently considering. At Trump's request, it eliminates federal funding for libraries and museums, which is often used to fund ebooks among other services. Without ebooks through the local library "I would have a hard time reading as many books as I do," Holahan said. States' libraries to lose as much as half their funding The Institute for Museum and Library Services, a tiny, little known federal agency, provides grants to states, accounting for between 30% and 50% of state library budgets, according to the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies. For decades it has distributed hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally approved funds through grants to state libraries in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. and to library, museum and archives programs. It serves 35,000 museums and 123,000 libraries across the country, according to its website. The impact of losing the money will be different in each state because each one spends its portion of the funding differently. Some will have to fire staff and end tutoring and summer reading programs. Others will cut access to electronic databases, end intra-library loans or reduce access to books for the deaf and blind. Many will have to stop providing internet service for rural libraries or ebook access statewide. With the expectation that Congress won't buck Trump and fund the IMLS, the future of these backbone "compassionate" library services is now under discussion across the nation, said John Chrastka, founder of EveryLibrary, a nonprofit that organizes grassroot campaigns for library funding and blocking book bans. It isn't clear whether states will be able to fill the gap left if federal funding ends, especially with other responsibilities the Trump administration is passing off to the states, like requiring them to pick up a larger share of Medicaid costs and a percentage of food assistance benefits for the first time, along with changing education and disaster funding. 'We cannot possibly at the State Library save our way out of an $8 million hole,' said California State Librarian Greg Lucas. 'The state's budget isn't in real great shape on its own and so the badness is compounded by these actions by the federal government. It's kind of: OK, where are we going to go? There aren't any easy answers to this.' The institute 'shall be eliminated' On March 14 Trump issued an executive order eliminating the Institute of Museum and Library Services 'to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.' The order states that the Institute must be reduced to its "statutory functions.' It also requires that 'non-statutory components and functions … shall be eliminated.' The proposed budget would cut federal funding for libraries and museums from nearly $300 million to $5.5 million. The agency's budget justification says the remaining money is for "sunsetting" or ending the agency. Requests for comment about the cuts sent to an IMLS spokesperson and to the Labor Department where acting IMLS Director Keith Sonderling is Deputy Secretary of Labor were not answered. After the majority of IMLS staff were laid off in late March, state libraries in California, Connecticut and Washington were abruptly told that their state grants had been canceled and received almost no other information. Panicked, Mississippi temporarily halted ebook lending so it wouldn't be accountable for the cost while the future of funding was in doubt. The state grants for California, Connecticut and Washington were restored May 5. Then came another letter from IMLS telling states that they were only getting 50% of their allocated funding. To get the rest, they needed to fill out a questionnaire about how the libraries were complying with Trump's executive orders on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, how they were supporting American's education needs and America's 250th anniversary. On April 4, 21 states sued in federal court saying that Trump can't end the agency without permission from Congress. The judge ordered IMLS to reinstate grants and staff until the case is heard. Congress, which must approve the agency's shutdown, had been scheduled to discuss its funding in late July, but pushed it off until after their summer recess ends in September. Struggling to afford ebooks, despite 'huge appetite from the public' Losing the money for ebooks would be particularly hard for states, Hoboken (New Jersey) Public Library Director Jennie Pu told USA TODAY. Interest in ebooks spiked during the pandemic, she said, but digital copies of books cost far more than paper and licensing agreements come with strings. Libraries pay three to five times as much for an ebook than what they cost in a private sale. Anecdotally, Pu said, some cost $70 per title. Some major publishers lease ebooks to libraries for two years, with the limit that only one patron can check out each digital copy at a time. Other licensing agreements expire after a set number of checkouts or are a mix of the two methods. 'We're spending more and more money in our budgets towards ebooks. There is a huge appetite from the public,' said Pu, adding that her library saw a 20% increase in ebook usage this year. 'We are so committed to meeting that need from the public and our challenge is we don't have an unlimited source of funds." In May, the Connecticut legislature passed a law aimed at reducing the cost of ebooks to libraries. New Jersey and other states have introduced similar legislation. California hopes to spend as much of its remaining federal funding as possible putting more ebooks into its 300,000-item statewide catalog, Lucas, the state librarian, said. The goal is to make sure that the 8,700 people in Modoc County, one of the least populous places in the state, have access to the same ebooks and audio books that are available to the 9.6 million people in Los Angeles County ‒ home to the second largest library system in the country, Lucas said. Part of what the State Library still needs to do is figure out how to pay the yearly $146,000 in platform fees to keep providing access to the ebooks and audiobooks it has. And, it's hoping to save some of the other services normally funded by the federal grant, like the California Revealed program, which digitizes audio, video, photos and newspapers to preserve state history, Lucas said. Because federal money is distributed based on population, his state has the most to lose ‒ roughly $15 million, according to Lucas. 'We're operating under the assumption there'll be no federal money to support us," he said. 'Always on his Kindle' At the Crofton Community Library in Maryland, patrons are greeted by boxes of free fresh vegetables. Dozens of house plants decorate the shelves and window sills, absorbing the light from windows that run from the tops of bookshelves to the ceiling. A buzz fills the room from kids working on an art activity for the summer reading program, which Maryland's State Library helps fund with its federal grant. Adult patrons talk with the librarians or with one another at broad wooden tables. Amanda Kelly, 30, of Crofton told USA TODAY that every time her family moves to a new Air Force station she immediately finds the local library to begin building their new community. Her children played in a garden outside as they waited for a summer reading event to start. Her husband is "always on his Kindle" reading library eBooks, she said, while she prefers paper copies. "I don't agree with cutting funding for libraries at all, never," she said. "That stinks." Other patrons said they check out audio books for friends, use the library for its social aspects or attend classes there, ranging from chair yoga to how to avoid online scams. Only one of the dozen people who spoke to USA TODAY knew that the federal library funding might be cut. Marquita Graham, 42, of Upper Marlboro told USA TODAY she often brings a group of children, including several with special needs, to the Crofton library for story time, as well as to use the computers and read-along audio books. "I'm shocked," she said. Ending library services "would be sad." We want to hear from people affected by or who have knowledge of the Trump administration's efforts to reshape the government, including actions by DOGE. Know something others should? Reach out at swire@ or Signal at sarahdwire.71
