View previous stories
	Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger public health and welfare by Union of Concerned Scientists, agencies USA   16 Mar. 2026   War-driven energy price spikes highlight value of renewables: UN climate chief   The disruption of global energy supplies is being felt worldwide, the UN’s top climate change official warned, as conflict in the Middle East drives oil and gas prices sharply higher – echoing the market turmoil triggered by the war in Ukraine.   Speaking at the 2026 Green Growth Summit in Brussels, Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said the volatility underscored the strategic value of renewable energy.   “Renewables turn the tables,” he said during a keynote address to the event, which brings together European climate and environment ministers alongside businesses, investors and other key stakeholders.   “Sunlight doesn’t depend on narrow and vulnerable shipping straits, wind blows without massive taxpayer-funded naval escorts and renewable energy allows countries to insulate themselves from global turmoil and to side-step might-is-right politics.”   Renewable energy delivers on people’s top priorities: security, well-paid jobs, better health and relief from rising living costs, he added.   “Fossil fuel dependency is ripping away national security and sovereignty and replacing it with subservience and rising costs,” he said, adding that the reality is what most voters are demanding, climate action delivers at scale. “Renewables and resilience keep bills down and create far more jobs,” he said.   “Cutting out fossil fuel pollution cleans our air, improving health and quality of life.”   “Some responses to the fossil fuel crisis, incredibly, argue for doubling down on the cause of the problem and slowing the shift to renewable energy even though it is clearly cheaper, safer, and faster to market,”   “This is completely delusional because history tells us, this fossil fuel crisis will happen again and again,” Mr. Steill said, adding that fossil fuel dependency means economies, household budgets and business bottom lines are “at the mercy of geopolitical shocks and price volatility in a chaotic world”.   His message was simple: Meek dependence on fossil fuel imports will leave countries forever lurching from crisis to crisis, with households and industries literally paying the price.   10 Mar. 2026   The Iran war has sent oil and gas prices soaring. Countries invested in renewable energy are better protected. (DW)   Countries that generate more of their power from wind, solar and other renewable sources are better protected from global energy shocks, experts say, as the escalating conflict in the Middle East rattles global markets.   The war has widened since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran more than 10 days ago. Critical infrastructure in the region has come under attack and the risk of Iranian strikes has essentially shut down the Strait of Hormuz,the crucial waterway used to transport 20% of the world's oil and gas.   The disruption means fuel may struggle to reach the countries that depend on it to generate electricity, heat homes, power industry and run transport. The resulting supply squeeze is pushing prices higher around the world and intensifying cost-of-living pressures.   "Energy is the lifeblood of our societies and our industries," said Antony Froggatt, aviation, shipping and energy expert at Brussels-based NGO Transport & Environment. "And we're still highly dependent on fossil fuels."   The world still gets about 80% of its primary energy from fossil fuels, the main source of greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change. In his second term, US President Donald Trump has doubled down on fossil fuels, scrapping Biden-era green energy and climate regulations aimed at cutting emissions.   That dependence makes economies and societies vulnerable to geopolitical shocks, said Rana Adib, executive secretary of the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21).   Countries with a higher share of "homegrown" renewables in their energy mix are "less vulnerable to these shocks," she argued.   "Once you bring the technology into the countries, the fuel you're using is the sun, is the wind, is the heat that is local," Adib told DW. "And this is a reason why renewable energy as a solution for energy production is much more resilient to those global shocks."   Uruguay bets on wind and hydro   After the financial crisis in 2008, unease about a reliance on oil and gas imports was what drove Uruguay to go all in on renewables.   Two decades ago, the small South American country with a population of 3.5 million embarked on a plan to phase fossil fuels out of its power grid by rapidly expanding wind farms.   Today, more than 90% of the country's electricity comes from renewables — mainly wind, solar, hydropower and biofuels. That figure has reached 98% in some particularly wet and windy years.   "It shows us that a 100% renewable electricity grid is fully possible," said Adib, adding that Uruguay has managed to do so without the massive amounts of storage required for when the sun isn't shining and wind isn't blowing.   Adib said the shift to green power helped limit Uruguay's exposure to past energy price surges.   "During the energy crisis linked to the war in in Ukraine, Uruguay energy prices remained stable," Adib said. "This is extremely important because it means that the inflation does not hit this country in the same way as a country that has a high dependence on fossil fuel imports."   Adib said the investment in renewables created 50,000 jobs and has allowed the country to save $500 million in energy import costs annually. Uruguay is now moving to electrify its public transport system and decarbonize industry.   Another country that has significantly reduced reliance on fossil fuels is Denmark. The oil crisis in the 1970s hit the Scandinavian country hard, prompting it to begin developing renewables early.   Today, more than 80% of Denmark's electricity is supplied by green energy, with wind making up almost 60% of that amount, followed by biogas. The country of 6 million has cut its planet-heating emissions by half since 1990 and wants to have a fossil-fuel free electricity system by 2030.   Its district heating systems, which link up more than 65% of homes, have largely phased out coal and are planned to rely 100% on renewable biomethane by 2030.   Froggatt said having renewables dominate the grid keeps prices down, citing an IMF study showing that every 1% increase in the amount of renewables translates on average to the wholesale electricity price falling by 0.6%.   "And that's in normal circumstances. Obviously, when you have vastly inflated gas prices, then the economic advantage of renewables goes up even higher," he added.   He says that consumers will only be protected from rising oil and gas prices when things like transport and heating are fully electrified, for example, with electric vehicles and heat pumps.   High fossil fuel prices and the vulnerability of the commodities to supply bottlenecks make clean energy more competitive and financially attractive, as well as pressuring governments to find alternative solutions, say analysts.   "The current crisis shows again that we need to enter the renewable-based era and leave the fossil fuel-based era behind" if we want societies and economies that are more resilient, said Adib.   Accelerating renewables to secure a more stable energy supply will take greater investment and system change. Though green power sources are now much cheaper than fossil fuels, oil and gas are highly subsidized. Froggatt says making the switch is not just about slowing climate change, but also about energy security.   http://www.dw.com/en/iran-war-sends-oil-prices-soaring-these-countries-are-better-protected-thanks-to-renewables/a-76294122 http://unfccc.int/news/un-climate-chief-in-brussels-fossil-fuel-dependency-is-ripping-away-national-security-and http://news.un.org/en/story/2026/03/1167135 http://coveringclimatenow.org/from-us-story/dont-miss-the-santa-marta-climate-conference/ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/07/iran-war-oil-phase-out-fossil-fuels http://www.fossilfueltreaty.org/santa-marta-events http://transitionawayconference.com/press-releases   19 Feb. 2026   The US Trump regime threatens International Energy Agency funding unless it stops publishing its annual road map for how countries can eliminate their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions by 2050, known as its “net zero scenario.”   Many IEA member nations have urged the agency to pay more attention to rapidly growing energy technologies such as solar panels and electric vehicles, as well highlighting the ongoing risks of increasing global warming.   The Trump regime has been pressuring countries and international organizations to scale back efforts to address climate change and instead to continue to rely on fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal, the main drivers of rising global temperatures.   Mr. Trump has withdrawn the United States from the Paris climate agreement, and in October 2025, successfully pressured countries to halt a global agreement to reduce emissions from cargo ships. Mr Trump has dismissed global warming as a “hoax.”   In contrasting remarks President Emmanuel Macron of France said Europe would keep working to move away from fossil fuels and to expand low-emissions energy sources like wind, solar. “Scientists alert us every day about the dramatic risks of climate change,” Mr. Macron said, adding that an “orderly, progressive transition away from fossil fuels is key.”   Global fossil fuel use is still rising year after year, with the IEA projecting that global oil and gas demand could continue rising for decades.   The net zero scenario underlines the changes needed for countries to phase out fossil fuels rapidly to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere by 2050. Scientists say that doing so is necessary to keep average global warming to around 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), compared with pre-industrial levels, to limit the risks of ever increasing extreme weather events - heat waves, droughts, floods, sea-level rise, species extinctions, compounding food and water insecurity and other disasters.   In a craven response to US fossil fuels lobbying the IEA said it has not decided whether it would continue to offer its recommended net zero scenario.   http://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/19/climate/us-tells-international-energy-agency-to-drop-its-focus-on-climate-change.html http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/02/global-governments-must-use-new-un-general-assembly-resolution-to-turn-icjs-advisory-opinion-on-climate-change-into-robust-action http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11022026/earth-unprecedented-shift-from-warm-to-hot/ http://billmckibben.substack.com/p/were-in-for-some-heavy-weather   Feb. 2026   USA: Donald Trump's regime has repealed the bedrock scientific determination that gives the US government the ability to regulate fossil fuel pollution.   The endangerment finding, which states that the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endangers public health and welfare, has since 2009 allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to limit fossil fuel pollution from vehicles, power plants and other industrial sources.   Former US President Barack Obama said the repeal will leave Americans “less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change – all so the fossil fuel industry can make even more money”.   Former US secretary of state John Kerry said: “Repealing the Endangerment Finding takes Orwellian governance to new heights and invites enormous damage to people around the world”.   The ruling removes the government’s ability to impose requirements to track, report and limit fossil fuel pollution from cars and trucks, with transportation is the largest source of climate pollution in the US.   It does not apply currently to regulations on sources of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and fossil fuel infrastructure, which are regulated under a separate section of the Clean Air Act, but it will open the door to end those standards, too.   Trump’s EPA has separately proposed to find that emissions from power plants “do not contribute significantly to dangerous air pollution” and therefore should not be regulated. Joseph Goffman, who served as EPA air chief under Joe Biden, expects the agency will apply their vehicles-focused arguments to stationary polluters in order to kill the endangerment finding for all sources of greenhouse gas emissions.   “Instead of the entire house of cards of all EPA climate regulation collapsing all at once today, it’s going to be like a row of dominoes falling,” said Goffman, who helped write and implement the Clean Air Act and worked directly on the endangerment finding.   Scientists and environmental advocates have condemned the move as illegal and have promised to take the EPA to court over the rollback, as has the state of California.   “If this reckless decision survives legal challenges, it will lead to more deadly wildfires, more extreme heat deaths, more climate-driven floods and droughts, and greater threats to communities – all while the EPA dismisses the overwhelming science,” Gavin Newsom, the California governor, said in a statement.   Former Vice President Al Gore, a longtime climate advocate, slammed the decision as an “insult” to the American public.   “The Trump Administration’s rollback of the endangerment finding is not only a direct assault on science, knowledge, and public health, it is an insult to the people across the country who are already coping with the disastrous consequences of climate-driven extreme weather events,” said Gore.   Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works said: “The Trump EPA has fully abandoned its duty to protect the American people from greenhouse gas pollution and climate change. This shameful abdication will harm Americans’ health, homes, and economic well-being. It ignores scientific fact and common-sense observations to serve big fossil fuel political donors.”   One analysis from the Environmental Defense Fund found the full repeal of the endangerment finding combined with Trump’s proposal to roll back motor vehicle standards would result in as much as 18bn more tons of planet-warming pollution by 2055 – the same as the annual emissions of China, the world’s top polluter – and would impose up to $4.7tn in additional expenses tied to harmful climate and air pollution.   In the repeal of the endangerment finding, the Trump Administration EPA is claiming that the Clean Air Act is only meant to regulate pollution “that harms health or the environment through local and regional exposure”. But there is overwhelming scientific consensus that by trapping heat in the atmosphere, greenhouse gas emissions are intensifying dangerous extreme weather events, allowing diseases to spread faster, and worsening illnesses from allergies to lung disease.   The EPA rollback comes one month after the Trump administration announced it will withdraw the US from the foundational UN Paris Climate agreement, as well as the world’s leading body of climate scientists - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).   Over the past year, current EPA administrator Lee Zeldin has launched an all-out assault on climate, air, water and chemical protections. The EPA has also removed crucial climate-focused science and data from its webpages.   “This is all part of the Trump administration’s authoritarian playbook to replace facts with propaganda, to enrich fossil fue intrests while harming the rest of us,” said Rachel Cleetus, senior policy director for the climate and energy program at the science advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Administrator Zeldin has fully abdicated EPA’s responsibility to protect our health and the environment.”   Statement by Dr. Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).   “Today, EPA Administrator Zeldin took a chainsaw to the Endangerment Finding, undoing this long-standing, science-based finding on bogus grounds at the expense of our health. Ramming through this unlawful, destructive action at the behest of polluters is an obvious example of what happens when a corrupt administration and fossil fuel interests are allowed to run amok.   “The science establishing harm to human health and the environment from heat-trapping emissions was clear in 2009. More than fifteen years later, the evidence has only mounted as have human suffering and economic damages.   Meanwhile, the continued burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming emissions to rise. The science, the facts and the law are unassailable: EPA has the obligation and the authority to regulate this pollution under the Clean Air Act, an act of Congress it’s now blatantly violating.   “The transportation sector is the single largest source of U.S. global heat-trapping emissions. By scrapping vehicle global warming pollution standards today, the Trump administration has co-signed the release of more than 7 billion tons of planet-warming emissions nationally in the decades ahead.   “Communities across the country are routinely enduring the consequences and costs of climate change, including deadly heat waves, accelerating sea level rise, worsening wildfires and floods, increased heavy rainfall, and more intense and damaging storms. EPA’s attempts to delay climate action come at a time when scientists warn that the world is on the cusp of breaching 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming—a crucial guardrail to help limit some of the worst climate harms.   “Instead of rising to the challenge with necessary policies to protect people’s wellbeing, the Trump administration has shamefully abandoned EPA’s mission and caved to the whims of deep-pocketed special interests. Sacrificing people’s health, safety and futures for polluters’ profits is unconscionable.   We all deserve better and this attack against the public interest and the best available science will be challenged. UCS stands ready to defend the Endangerment Finding in court and beyond.”   UCS filed comments on behalf of its half a million supporters and its network of more than 22,000 scientists to voice strong opposition to repeal of the endangerment finding and vehicle standards. It also submitted a letter to EPA Administrator Zeldin that was signed by more than 1,000 scientists opposing the repeal of the endangerment finding and urging Administrator Zeldin to stop dismantling critical climate regulations and fulfill the mission of the agency to protect public health.   A federal judge recently declared the Trump administration violated federal law when it secretly formed a “Climate Working Group” and tasked it with writing a dangerously slanted report that the administration then used as a basis for its proposal to overturn the Endangerment Finding last year.   * 24 States sue the E.P.A. for renouncing its Power to Fight Climate Change. The suit accuses the agency of illegally repealing the endangerment finding, the scientific assessment that required it to regulate greenhouse gases:   http://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/19/climate/epa-endangerment-states-lawsuit.html http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/mar/19/us-states-trump-climate-crisis-endangerment-finding   http://www.ucs.org/about/news/trump-administration-takes-chainsaw-science-based-endangerment-finding-endangering-us http://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/epa-unravels-climate-protections http://earthjustice.org/press/2026/earthjustice-endangerment-finding-statement http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/06/new-report-warns-trump-epa-undermining-health http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00455-6 http://www.bmj.com/content/392/bmj.s192 http://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/press-releases http://www.nrdc.org/press-releases/epa-dismantles-protections-mercury-and-air-toxics-power-plants http://www.ucs.org/about/news/epa-attacks-health-protections-against-mercury-air-toxics http://www.environmentalprotectionnetwork.org/20260220_mats-repeal-release/   http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11022026/as-the-trump-epa-prepares-to-revoke-key-legal-finding-on-climate-change-what-happens-next/ http://blog.ucs.org/science-blogger/internal-doe-documents-confirm-climate-report-was-created-to-justify-administration-policy/ http://www.nrdc.org/media/year-betrayal-epa-under-lee-zeldin#climate http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19122025/trumps-epa-focus-delay-rescind-dismantle/ http://www.edf.org/media/edf-and-partners-vigorously-oppose-trump-administration-attacks-endangerment-finding-and http://blog.ucs.org/kate-cell/disinformation-undermines-our-right-to-science/   Mar. 2026   USA: Conservative Politicians with no scientific expertise target established climate science used by judges. (Inside Climate News)   Scientists, academics, engineers, lawyers, and other experts sounded the alarm this week over the recent decision to remove a chapter on climate science from an influential reference manual designed to help judges understand complex scientific evidence.   For more than 30 years, US federal judges have turned to the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence for guidance on interpreting complex scientific issues in their courtrooms.   The reference, originally published by the Federal Judicial Center, which was established by Congress in 1994 as a research and education agency for the judicial branch, is now co-published with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.   On Jan. 29, a coalition of 27 Republican attorneys general wrote to the Federal Judicial Center, urging the center to “immediately withdraw” the chapter on climate science from the manual’s fourth edition, claiming it was biased.   Accuracy and impartiality of the manual is vital, West Virginia Attorney General John B. McCuskey, who led the effort, posted. “However, the ‘Reference Manual on Climate Science’ chapter was written by authors who are connected to university climate studies programs that promote legal warfare against States and energy producers to push their left leaning political agendas".   Eight days later, the center informed the Republican attorneys general that it “omitted the climate science chapter” from the reference manual’s latest edition.   Experts who contributed chapters to the more than 1,600-page scientific reference manual, now in its fourth edition, were outraged to see politicians with no scientific expertise target science that didn’t align with their political agendas.   “In February this year, the latest edition of the scientific reference handbook took a troubling turn, in which partisan politics interfered with the latest edition of the handbook,” 28 authors wrote in an open letter.   "The reference manual has been a valuable independent and educational resource for federal and state court judges, who have cited it more than 1,300 times".. “The political attack by the attorneys general on a carefully and rigorously prepared scientific publication should concern us all.”   "The climate science chapter was the target this time, but it doesn’t matter which chapter it is", said Brenda Eskenazi, an environmental health expert at the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health, who co-authored the manual’s chapter on epidemiology.   “If I tell you how much peer review we went through, how much vetting we went through for each of the chapters, and then for some 27 politicians to come in and say, ‘No, we don’t accept this science,’ its just appalling,”   “It’s appalling that this could become something political when it’s really about science, unbiased science.”   Removing the climate science chapter “is absurd,” says Hank Greely, a bioethicist and director of Stanford University’s Program in Neuroscience and Society. “It’s part of the partisan denial that anything about climate change could be real.”   Last week, Democrats in the US Congress wrote a letter to the Federal Judicial Center, calling its “decision to capitulate to right-wing pressure and remove this chapter … unconscionable,” and demanding that it be reinstated.   The climate science chapter’s co-authors, Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton, posted a response to the Republican attorneys general on Feb. 25.   The attorneys general claimed that the climate science chapter would undermine judicial “impartiality” by offering “conclusive opinions on matters of serious dispute,” wrote Wentz, a legal expert at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, and Horton, a Columbia University climate scientist.   Among the findings the attorneys general objected to are that human activities “unequivocally warmed the climate” and that it is “extremely likely” human influence drives ocean warming.   Yet both are direct references to findings issued by authoritative science bodies, including the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.   “Both concluded that there is ‘unequivocal’ evidence that human activities have warmed the climate, resulting in widespread changes to the atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, and cryosphere”.   “Omitting the climate science chapter from the Reference Manual deprives judges of a carefully reviewed baseline explanation of the relevant science,” the experts state.   “If political actors can determine which fields of established science are disfavored and off-limits to judicial education, every scientific discipline relevant to complex litigation becomes vulnerable to the same tactic.”   Extensive vetting goes into publishing a scientific resource like the judges’ reference guide. The chapters have gone through extensive internal and external peer review, Eskenazi said. “It’s not the place of politicians to decide that science is not to their liking.”   http://insideclimatenews.org/news/03032026/scientific-reference-manual-for-judges-erased/ http://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/26919   Sep. 2025   A new report from the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine says the evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute.   The report focuses on evidence gathered by the scientific community since 2009, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that greenhouse gas emissions threaten public health and welfare. The EPA recently gave notice of proposed rulemaking indicating its intention to rescind this finding.   The report says EPA’s 2009 finding was accurate, has stood the test of time, and is now reinforced by even stronger evidence. Much of the understanding of climate change that was uncertain or tentative in 2009 has now been resolved by scientific research, the report says.   “This study was undertaken with the ultimate aim of informing the EPA, following its call for public comments, as it considers the status of the endangerment finding,” said Shirley Tilghman, professor of molecular biology and public affairs, emeritus, and former president, Princeton University, and chair of the committee that wrote the report. “We are hopeful that the evidence summarized here shows the strong base of scientific evidence available to inform sound decision-making.”   To prepare its report, the committee considered widely available datasets that provide information about greenhouse gas emissions, the climate system, and human health and public welfare; a broad range of peer-reviewed literature and scientific assessments.   The report concludes:   Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activities are increasing the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. Human activities, such as the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, cement and chemical production, deforestation, and agricultural activities, emit greenhouse gases, which include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases, into the atmosphere. Total global GHG emissions continue to increase. Multiple lines of evidence show that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the primary driver of the observed long-term warming trend.   Improved observations confirm unequivocally that greenhouse gas emissions are warming Earth’s surface and changing Earth’s climate. Trends observed include increases in hot extremes and extreme single-day precipitation events, declines in cold extremes, regional shifts in annual precipitation, warming of the Earth’s oceans, a decrease in ocean pH, rising sea levels, and an increase in wildfire severity.   Human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting climate change harm the health of people in the United States. Climate change intensifies risks to humans from exposures to extreme heat, ground-level ozone, airborne particulate matter, extreme weather events, and airborne allergens, affecting incidence of cardiovascular, respiratory, and other diseases. Climate change has increased exposure to pollutants from wildfire smoke and dust, which has been linked to adverse health effects.   The increasing severity of some extreme events has contributed to injury, illness, and death in affected communities. Health impacts related to climate-sensitive infectious diseases — such as those carried by insects and contaminated water — have increased. New evidence is developing about additional health impacts of climate change, including on mental health, nutrition, immune health, antimicrobial resistance, kidney disease, and negative pregnancy-related outcomes.   Changes in climate resulting from human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases harm the welfare of people in the United States. Climate-driven changes in temperature and precipitation extremes and variability are leading to negative impacts on agricultural crops and livestock, even as technological and other changes have increased agricultural production. Climate change, including increases in climate variability and wildfires, is changing the composition and function of forest and grassland ecosystems.   Climate-related changes in water availability and quality vary across regions in the United States with some regions showing a decline. Climate-related changes in the chemistry and the heat content of the ocean are having negative effects on calcifying organisms and contributing to increases in harmful algal blooms. U.S. energy systems, infrastructure, and many communities are experiencing increasing stress and costs owing to the effects of climate change.   Continued emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities will lead to more climate changes in the United States, with the severity of expected change increasing with every ton of greenhouse gases emitted. Total global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase, and additional warming is certain. All climate models — regardless of assumptions about future emissions scenarios or estimates of climate sensitivity — consistently project continued warming in response to future atmospheric GHG increases. Applying fundamental physics of the Earth system leads to the same conclusion. Continued changes in the climate increase the likelihood of passing thresholds in Earth systems that can trigger tipping points or other high-impact climate impacts.   http://www.nationalacademies.org/news/national-academies-publish-new-report-reviewing-evidence-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-u-s-climate-health-and-welfare http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan http://lancetcountdown.org/2025-report/ http://www.un.org/en/climatechange/information-integrity http://www.unfccc.int/news/step-back-from-climate-cooperation-will-hurt-us-economy-statement-from-un-climate-chief-on-us http://www.ciel.org/news/trump-executive-order-withdraws-un-climate-pacts http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2026/01/trump-impact-on-global-climate-action/ http://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/over-3000-climate-litigation-cases-are-reshaping-global-climate   http://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2025-was-one-of-warmest-years-record http://climate.copernicus.eu/global-climate-highlights-2025 http://climate.copernicus.eu/rapid-approach-15degc-global-warming-threshold-paris-agreement http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion/ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/11022026/earth-unprecedented-shift-from-warm-to-hot/ http://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(25)00391-4
	Global Corporate Tax Reforms could boost Public Revenues by 50% by Public Services International, ICRICT, agencies   Feb. 2026   New Research shows Global Corporate Tax Reforms would boost Public Revenues by 50%   The research, commissioned by Network of Unions for Tax Justice and the Vienna Chamber of Labour and is the first to model the global impact of unitary taxation; a reform which would see multinationals taxed as single entities with their tax obligations split among states through a formula based on factors such as sales and labour force.   Current rules allow multinationals to use accounting tricks and subsidiaries to artificially shift trillions in profits away from where they are actually generated and into tax havens.   The study is being presented to negotiators currently meeting at the UN in New York to draft a Global Tax Convention.   The reports findings challenge the narrative that reform would harm major economies, instead showing that countries like the US, Germany, the UK, and Australia stand to gain significantly from ending profit shifting. Tax revenues in high-income countries would grow by almost 70%, reflecting the restoration of taxing rights over real economic activity that is currently booked in tax havens.   Haley Quinn Acting Deputy Director for Health Issues at the American Federation of Teachers said: "Healthcare workers faithfully pay their taxes while caring for our most vulnerable populations. So why, then, should wealthy private health corporations be afforded tax havens, all while claiming they can’t afford to pay workers more?"   Tax havens which currently enable multinationals to artificially shift profits would face dramatic losses. Pure tax havens like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands risk losing 80-90% of their tax base under most scenarios, exposing the fragility of economic models built on paper profits rather than genuine economic activity and production.   When employment is weighted more heavily in determining where profits should be taxed, labour-intensive economies gain a fairer share. India's tax base more than doubles, while Indonesia and Brazil see increases of over 40% each — recognition of their substantial but previously under-valued role in global value chains.   This restored fiscal space could fund infrastructure investment, new essential workers such as doctors and teachers and expanded social protections — benefits flowing directly back to workers and communities.   For the vast majority of companies, including small businesses and domestic competitors, the reforms would change nothing while levelling the playing field. Average tax increases for the biggest global multinationals would be around 8%, with the largest jumps concentrated among corporations currently engaged in aggressive profit shifting through tax havens.   Contrary to the myth that cutting corporate taxes creates jobs, recent research shows countries with stronger corporate tax systems achieve better employment outcomes and fairer wage distribution. Meanwhile firms engaging most aggressively in tax avoidance rarely reinvest savings in jobs or productive capacity.   Jayati Ghosh, co-chair of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT):   Multinationals should be taxed in a way that recognises the economic reality that these are single global entities, not a collection of separate units strung together in ways that reduce their tax footprint. Governments must now take action to collect the hundreds of billions of unpaid taxes left on the table in the current system and come up with a fair formula to ensure that companies pay what they owe, where they do business.   Daniel Bertossa, General Secretary of Public Services International:   "Workers pay taxes on their wages where they work - so why should corporations be allowed to dodge taxes where they make their profits. These urgent reforms would chase hidden profits out of offshore havens, into public coffers and onto corporate balance sheets to be invested in better jobs and wages for workers.   Jose Antonio Ocampo, ICRICT commissioner and Professor at Columbia University:   For the first time, we have empirical evidence that shows what many economists have long suspected: getting rid of the broken transfer pricing system would immediately undercut tax havens. A new global tax system must be designed so that countries can tax profits where value is created, which includes where their workers are located. Only when the global tax rules recognise the labour and resources utilised in the South, will our countries get their fair share of tax revenue to support development and public services.   http://publicservices.international/resources/news/our-new-research-shows-global-corporate-tax-reforms-would-boost-public-revenues-by-50-?id=16364&lang=en http://www.icrict.com/international-tax-reform/un-ecosoc-a-blueprint-for-financial-integrity/ http://www.socialprotectionfloorscoalition.org/2026/02/financing-social-protection-a-matter-of-global-justice/ http://www.socialeurope.eu/will-democracy-govern-capitalism-or-be-consumed-by-it http://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/17/un-global-tax-system-undermines-rights-development http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/untaxed-wealth-hidden-offshore-richest-01-surpasses-entire-wealth-poorest-half http://taxjustice.net/reports/the-last-chance/ http://taxjustice.net/topics/un-tax-convention/ http://globaltaxjustice.org/news/march-6-joint-submission/ http://www.ips-journal.eu/topics/economy-and-ecology/its-time-to-settle-up-8954/   The UN Tax Convention could be a game-changer. So why is ambition still stuck in first gear, by Clara Thompson - Global Tax Justice Lead at Greenpeace International.   If you’ve been following global climate and finance politics lately, you’ll have noticed a strange contradiction.   On the one hand, governments keep telling us we need more climate finance, fairer taxation, and new public resources to deal with climate breakdown, inequality and crumbling public services.   On the other hand, when it comes to the one global forum designed to actually fix international tax rules – the UN Tax Convention – that bold ambition doesn’t translate.   These negotiations, currently underway in New York, present a unique chance to hold corporate tax avoiders and polluters accountable, unlocking trillions in public funds for climate action, nature protection, and vital public services. Instead of rising to that moment, however, the process risks failing to deliver the transformative change many countries are calling for.   The latest draft of the UN Tax Convention includes articles on sustainable development and taxing high-net-worth individuals (HNWI). That’s good news. A few years ago, neither would even have made it into the room. But here’s the catch: they’re still written mostly as ‘principles’, not commitments.   The sustainable development article remains declaratory. It acknowledges that tax cooperation should support social, economic and environmental goals, without spelling out how, or what kinds of mechanisms would be needed to deliver them. No change to this article since the Terms of Reference were set out.   The article on high-net-worth individuals has improved on paper (it uses ‘shall’ instead of ‘agree’ now), but still stops short of what’s actually needed to tax extreme wealth effectively and fairly.   In short: governments agree that something should happen, but appear reluctant when it comes to the details of how to actually make it happen. That’s like agreeing to catch smugglers, but banning customs from opening the luggage.   This is where things get awkward. In other international forums (COP30, G20, FfD4 to name a few examples), many of the same governments are already making much bolder statements. For example:   Calling for progressive environmental taxation, Demanding new climate finance sources, Warning about the social and political risks of inequality, and even (occasionally) saying the words ‘tax extreme wealth’ out loud.   In 2025, at the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in Seville, Spain, governments committed to improving tax cooperation and transparency, explicitly referencing progressive taxation to fund social protection and integrate undeclared wealth, and in written submissions, countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Germany, France, Spain and Sierra Leone have explicitly supported stronger cooperation on HNWI taxation in the UN process.   Many African countries, including Zambia and Nigeria, have repeatedly highlighted in their interventions how our broken global tax system undermines development and climate action.   Since the UN Tax Convention negotiations began in 2025, at least 17 countries have made supportive statements for more detail to be added on the issue of sustainable development, several of whom have explicitly endorsed inclusion of environmental taxation and the polluter pays principle.   And yet, when negotiations move from statements to drafting, ambition narrows. Not all elements raised in countries’ submissions find their way into the Chair’s text, and several governments continue to defer to high-level, non-committal language.   Political choices are reframed as technical questions by some countries, while the potential of the Convention to support climate action and sustainable development through tax policy remains underexplored. Issues with clear distributional complexities are quietly treated as beyond the Convention’s scope.   Whenever ambition stalls, one word inevitably appears: sovereignty. We’re told that taxing the super-rich is a domestic issue. That coordinated standards on taxing polluters would infringe national autonomy. That global rules somehow threaten democratic choice.   But here’s the inconvenient truth: there is nothing sovereign about a tax system you can’t enforce. Here’s the problem: in today’s world, money, profits, and assets move faster than national laws, often through loopholes and tax havens, and across borders, while information about these assets does not.   Countries trying to take action alone end up competing with each other, lowering standards, and losing billions in the process. These are funds that could have supported climate finance and sustainable development.   Real sovereignty isn’t the right to say “no” alone. It’s the ability to withstand pressure together to enforce rules that protect public resources and the planet. This is why we need global tax reform.   The old era of club-based tax governance (dominated by a handful of rich OECD countries) is cracking under its own contradictions. At the same time, multilateralism itself is under attack, with institutional deadlock and unilateral action increasingly replacing cooperation, from the UN Security Council to climate negotiations.   That’s precisely why the UN Tax Convention matters. It’s the only forum in international tax governance where every country has a seat, decisions aren’t hostage to unanimity, and tax cooperation can be anchored in sustainable development, not just capital mobility. In short: it’s the one place where we can move from fair taxation by permission to fair taxation by right.   If the Convention is to live up to its mandate, four things need to happen:   Moving beyond “exploring” coordination. On taxing extreme wealth, governments need to commit to developing coordinated approaches including minimum standards, progressive elements and redistributive options, not just endlessly discussing them.   Naming the preconditions. You can’t tax what you can’t see. That means committing to transparency tools like beneficial ownership information, asset registries and effective exchange of information, especially for high-net-worth individuals. It means fair taxing rights based on economic activity. It means true sovereignty.   Agreeing new rules to tax polluters. That starts with a new global agreement that countries will deliver – nationally and internationally – progressive environmental taxation in line with the polluter pays principle and the principle of equity (common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities). From there, new mechanisms can be established, like a global tax on the profits of fossil fuel companies to boost international climate finance.   Embedding the articles in the bigger goal. Taxing the super-rich and corporate polluters aren’t side issues. They are central to funding climate action, protecting nature and rebuilding trust in public institutions. The Convention should say so, clearly.   The tools exist. The political arguments are already being made elsewhere. And the costs of inaction are painfully visible. What’s missing isn’t expertise – it’s alignment.   If governments are serious about climate justice, social cohesion and sustainable development, the UN Tax Convention is not the place to be cautious. It’s the place to be honest.   Because in a world where crises are global and wealth is mobile, collective action isn’t a loss of sovereignty – it’s the only way to reclaim it. And yes, taxing the super-rich and corporate polluters is part of that story.   http://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/81233/the-un-tax-convention-could-be-a-game-changer-so-why-is-ambition-still-stuck-in-first-gear/ http://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/80908/climate-whiplash-understanding-todays-violent-weather-extremes/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories