Experts issue warning over increasing threat to millions of vulnerable people: 'A fight for global justice'
According to a report by the Daily Observer, some of the poorest communities, often the least responsible for carbon pollution, are facing harsher living conditions, economic instability, and even displacement.
Climate-related poverty happens when major environmental changes make it harder for people to meet their basic needs. Rising sea levels and disasters like hurricanes, floods, and wildfires can significantly impact resources, disrupt livelihoods, and result in economic hardships.
And when flash floods wash away entire villages or droughts cripple food production, it's the poorest communities — the ones that don't have enough to recover on their own — that struggle the hardest.
An example of climate-induced hardship is 2013's Typhoon Haiyan, which displaced millions of Filipinos and destroyed homes and livelihoods. In another part of the world, long droughts and desertification in Africa's Sahel wiped out farms, leading to food insecurity and malnutrition.
The growing crisis strains healthcare, infrastructure, and government resources — problems already visible in areas battling severe drought and water shortages. Even regions once safe from extreme weather are now seeing displacement risks as the climate changes.
While investing in solutions requires significant resources, ignoring the problem costs far more. Rising hunger, mass migration, and global conflicts are already warning signs. Tackling climate-induced poverty today is not only smart but also necessary. Fighting it is also "a fight for global justice," as the Daily Observer noted.
At-risk nations can invest in drought-tolerant crops and solar-powered irrigation to safeguard food supplies. They can also build flood defenses, permeable pavement, and early warning systems to help protect their communities from future disasters.
Switching to renewable energy can reduce dependence on dirty energy sources, which account for the bulk of the human-caused pollution warming our climate, as NASA notes.
Meanwhile, programs aimed at bolstering local resilience are essential to make climate change solutions more accessible for all. By investing in sustainable strategies now, we can protect vulnerable communities and help foster a safer future for everyone.
Do you think America has a plastic waste problem?
Definitely
Only in some areas
Not really
I'm not sure
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
an hour ago
- Scientific American
Strong Support for NASA and Project Artemis Will Advance the U.S.
During President Trump's first term in office, he signed Space Policy Directive 1, signaling the administration's desire to bring American astronauts back to the moon. This directive, and similar ones, later became Project Artemis, the lunar campaign with broader ambition to get the U.S. on Mars. But will we get to the moon, not to mention Mars? As the space race against China barrels forward, the White House first proposed $6 billion in total cuts to NASA funding, a roughly 24 percent reduction that experts said would be the largest single-year cut to agency funding in history. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. But in the aftermath of President Trump signing the ' One Big Beautiful Bill,' which did reintegrate certain funds for Project Artemis, Congressional appropriations committees have continued to push back against the administration's myriad cuts to NASA, which for the space agency's science unit alone was a 47 percent reduction to approximately $3.9 billion. The Senate committee's bill kept NASA science funding, integral to the support of Artemis and its mission, roughly at their current levels, while the House draft halved the cuts proposed by the White House. The Senate appropriations committee also firmly rejected the president's original proposal to terminate Project Artemis's Space Launch System and Orion Spacecraft after the conclusion of the Artemis III mission. This conflict and dizzying back and forth regarding America's moonshot project suggests a question: Are we committed to Artemis and the broader goal of understanding space? Or to put it another way: Do we want to win this new race to the moon? The current administration owes us an answer. There's more than just a soft-power victory over China's taikonauts at stake. This endeavor is about cementing the U.S. as a technological superpower, a center for understanding space and our solar system, and in due course, setting us up to be the first to live and work on the moon. Americans support this goal. A recent CBS News poll shows broad support for sending astronauts back to the moon. But it will be hard for the administration to reconcile its anti-government spending message with a full-throated support of Artemis and related missions. This isn't the first time the U.S. has faced such a debate. In the winter of 1967, Senator Clinton P. Anderson and his space committee initiated an inquiry into the disastrous Apollo 1 fire that killed three American astronauts. Letters flooded into Congress. Concerned citizens across the country offered their theories about the cause of the conflagration. But others asked a more poignant question that was at the center of national debate: Why are we going to the moon in the first place? 'I want to say here and now that I think the moon project is the most terrible waste of national funds that I can imagine,' wrote James P. Smith of Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. in a letter housed at the Legislative Archives in Washington D.C. 'Let [the Russians] go to the moon and let us use our money to end the war in Vietnam and raise our standards of living.' Others pressed their representatives to not give up their support of the Apollo program. Julius H. Cooper, Jr., of Delmar, Md., said in his letter to Anderson's committee: 'Should a manned landing by the Soviets occur on the moon first make no mistake about it the political and scientific repercussions will be tremendous.' Today's America, in many ways, is the same. Social discord, financial struggles, and conflicts abroad continue to consume our country's time, energy and resources. But the value of Project Artemis goes beyond the scientific discoveries and technological advancements that await. The success of this new moonshot will at the very least prevent space dominance from adversaries, including Russia and China, which have partnered together on their own International Lunar Research Station. Both countries have declined to sign onto the Artemis Accords, a worrying sign that these nations don't agree with our approach to the 'peaceful' exploration and use of space. To be clear, this Artemis isn't just a jobs program. Although the work created by these missions will bring a positive economic impact, the reality is that humankind's future is among the stars. Our government should be the one to orchestrate the path there while inspiring the next generation to continue exploring the depths of space. But instead of leaning into the benefits of Project Artemis, the administration is creating hurdles for the moon bound mission. To start, NASA has no permanent leadership. The administration withdrew its nomination of tech billionaire and civilian astronaut Jared Isaacman to lead the space agency, so despite the recent appointment of Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy as interim administrator, NASA will continue for months without a leader pushing Project Artemis forward. And despite Duffy's assurance that Artemis is a critical mission, the message runs hollow if word from the Oval Office doesn't match. Again, the president initially called for the end of the program's Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule following the Artemis III mission for more cost-effective commercial systems. Trump's initial budget also called for the termination of the Gateway station, the planned lunar outpost and critical component of Project Artemis's infrastructure. This would effectively kill the program that President Trump championed with his initial space policy directive. Congress did ultimately provide funding for additional Artemis missions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but it remains to be seen whether that reflects a sustained change in the administration's commitment. The success of Artemis requires extended support, not preemptively phasing out critical mission components or funding for NASA's incredibly valuable science missions. Artemis and NASA's science programs contribute an extraordinary amount toward America's technological might, so funding shouldn't be framed as an 'either/or' proposition. Now is the time to brush away uncertainty and put Artemis on a track forward. As critics have pointed out, it is unclear whether NASA has a tangible plan for getting to the moon and back. The lunar landing system is still in the concept stage. This is a chance for the president to show leadership by stepping in and pushing his government to achieve a monumental task, one that he might compare to the success of Operation Warp Speed during his first term. The administration needs to move fast and nominate a leader for NASA who will prioritize Artemis and its core mission. It needs to walk back plans to slim down government that are causing 2,000 senior officials to leave NASA at a time when leadership matters more than ever before. In short, Project Artemis requires financial certainty. The success of the program will come from the willingness of this administration to fully commit to it. In Air & Space magazine's June/July 1989 issue commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, author Andy Chaikin opined on why America hadn't yet gone back. 'One of the lessons of Apollo is that the decision to 'go someplace' can't come from anyone in NASA, or from moon advocates, or from the Mars advocates,' he wrote. 'It's got to come from the top.' If President Trump supports this moonshot, Americans deserve a clear justification straight from the Oval Office. Americans need to buy into the message from the top, whether it's one of technological or political superiority, a desire to discover the unknown, or something else. Ultimately, Senator Anderson's 1967 space committee recommended that the Apollo program continue, with the caveat that improvements needed to be made. Today, boxes of letters sent into the Apollo 1 investigatory committee sit in the Center for Legislative Archives in Washington, D.C., serving as a time capsule of one of America's most contentious debates. Inside one of these boxes there's a handwritten letter from a woman named Ruth B. Harkness, of Wataga, Ill., inquiring about the U.S.'s determination to get to the moon. It distills down the very question we're struggling with now. 'May I ask, Why?' she wrote. Tell us, Mr. President.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bid to relocate US Space Shuttle Discovery faces museum pushback
Tucked inside President Donald Trump's flagship tax and spending bill last month was a little-noticed provision to relocate the iconic Space Shuttle Discovery from a museum outside Washington to Houston. The plan now faces legal uncertainty, with the Smithsonian Institution arguing Congress had no authority to give away what it considers private property -- even before accounting for the steep logistical and financial challenges. "The Smithsonian Institution owns the Discovery and holds it in trust for the American public," the museum network, which receives substantial federal funding yet remains an independent entity, said in a statement to AFP on Friday. "In 2012, NASA transferred 'all rights, title, interest and ownership' of the shuttle to the Smithsonian," the statement continued, calling Discovery one of the museum's "centerpieces" that welcomes millions of visitors a year. The push to move Discovery from the Air and Space Museum's site in northern Virginia began in April, when Texas Senator John Cornyn, a Republican who faces a tough primary challenge next year by state attorney general Ken Paxton, introduced the "Bring the Space Shuttle Home Act," naming Discovery. The legislation stalled until it was folded into the mammoth "Big Beautiful Bill," signed into law on July 4. Its passage allocated $85 million for the move, though the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has projected a far higher cost of $325 million, adding that the NASA administrator's power over non-NASA entities is "unclear." To comply with Senate rules, the bill's language was modified such that Discovery is no longer named directly. Instead, the bill refers to a "space vehicle," though there is little doubt as to the target. NASA's administrator -- currently Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, serving in an acting capacity -- was given 30 days to identify which spacecraft is to be relocated, a deadline coming up on Sunday. - End of an era - NASA's Space Shuttle program ended in 2011, after a 30-year run that carried America's post-Apollo space ambitions. The four surviving orbiters -- Atlantis, Endeavour, prototype Enterprise, and Discovery -- were awarded to Florida, California, New York, and Virginia through a ranked selection process. Discovery, the most flown, was chosen as a vehicle-of-record in a near-complete state, intended for study by future generations. "There was not a lot of support within Houston to want a shuttle," space historian Robert Pearlman told AFP, adding that a proposal to house it at Space Center Houston was relatively weak. But after the announcement, Texas -- home to the Johnson Space Center, which oversees NASA's human spaceflight -- felt snubbed, and allegations of political interference by then-president Barack Obama swirled. A NASA inspector general probe found no evidence of foul play. - Enormous challenges - Relocating Discovery now would pose major technical hurdles. NASA had modified two Boeing 747s to ferry retired shuttles -- one is now a museum piece, and the other is out of service. That leaves land and water transport. "The nearest water entrance to the Potomac River is about 30 miles away," Pearlman said -- but it may be too shallow for the orbiter and required barge, requiring a 100-mile journey instead. A water transport would require a massive enclosed barge, he added. The US government owns only one such vessel, controlled by the military. Loaning it to a civilian agency would require another act of Congress, and the alternative would involve building one from scratch. Dennis Jenkins, a former shuttle engineer who oversaw the delivery of retired orbiters to their new homes, told the Collect Space outlet he could see costs reach a billion dollars. Nicholas O'Donnell, an attorney at Sullivan & Worcester with expertise in art and museum law, told AFP that assuming Smithsonian has valid paperwork, "I don't think Secretary Duffy or anyone in the federal government has any more authority to order the move of Discovery than you or I do." The government could invoke eminent domain -- seizing private property for public use -- but it would have to pay fair market value or try to sue. The Smithsonian is unlikely to want a court battle, and while it's legally independent, its financial reliance on federal funds leaves it politically vulnerable, said O'Donnell. ia/jgc
Chicago Tribune
20 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Russian and US space chiefs meet to discuss continued cooperation
MOSCOW — Russia's space chief has visited the United States to discuss plans for continued cooperation between Moscow and Washington on the International Space Station and lunar research with NASA's acting chief, the first such face-to-face meeting in more than seven years. Dmitry Bakanov, the director of the state space corporation Roscosmos, met Thursday with NASA's new acting administrator, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, on a visit to attend the planned launch of a U.S.-Japanese-Russian crew to the space station. The launch was delayed by weather until Friday, when it blasted off successfully. Roscosmos said Bakanov and Duffy discussed 'further work on the International Space Station, cooperation on lunar programs, joint exploration of deep space and continued cooperation on other space projects.' Once bitter rivals in the space race during the Cold War, Roscosmos and NASA cooperated on the space station and other projects. That relationship was beset with tensions after Moscow sent troops into Ukraine in 2022, but Washington and Moscow have continued to work together, with U.S. and Russian crews continuing to fly to the orbiting outpost on each country's spacecraft. Plans for broader cooperation, including possible Russian involvement in NASA's Artemis program of lunar research, have fallen apart. As Russia has become increasingly reliant on China for its energy exports and imports of key technology amid Western sanctions, Roscosmos has started cooperation with China on its prospective lunar mission. Speaking to Russian reporters after the talks with Duffy, Bakanov said that they agreed to keep working on keeping the space station in operation to the end of the decade. 'Our experts will now start working on those issues in details,' Bakanov said, praising Duffy for giving a green light for those contacts 'despite geopolitical tensions.' The Russian space chief added that he and Duffy will report the results of the meeting to Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump to secure their blessing for potential space cooperation. 'In view of the difficult geopolitical situation, we will need to receive the necessary clearance from the leaders of our countries,' Bakanov said. He added he invited Duffy to visit Moscow and the Russia-leased Baikonur launch facility in Kazakhstan for the launch of another Russia-U.S. crew to the space station scheduled for November. 'I will put my efforts into keeping the channel of cooperation between Russia and the U.S. open, and I expect NASA to do the same,' Bakanov said.
