A gas station in Los Angeles on March 10. Mike Blake/Reuters

Life at $4 a gallon

	By Claire Brown

Average U.S. gasoline prices hit $3.98 per gallon on Tuesday, according to AAA, on the cusp of a level that was last hit when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.

The last month has seen the second-largest gas price spike in three decades, with average prices climbing more than 30 percent since the war in Iran effectively shuttered the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway that conveys up to a fifth of the world’s oil.

Though there’s no hard and fast rule that dictates exactly what choices consumers make at $4, $5, and $6 per gallon, higher gas prices are already stressing household budgets. At $4 per gallon, more than half of Americans said they’d change their driving behavior, according to a 2022 survey by AAA. More recent data has also shown that Americans are delaying some forms of spending.

The energy shock has hit Asia hardest: The Philippines declared a state of emergency on Tuesday, and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said grounding planes because of a jet fuel shortage was a “distinct possibility.” South Korea is urging citizens to ride bicycles instead of driving.

Transportation, of course, is the single-largest source of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and a big contributor globally. Here’s what we know about how a long period of high gas prices could change how willing people are to drive gas-powered vehicles, both here and abroad.

Driving less, window-shopping

Already, Americans are looking for ways to cut back. In New Orleans, drivers are lining up at gas stations with the best prices. Michele Tafoya, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota, encouraged people to take “one less trip to Starbucks.” The state of Georgia has implemented a fuel tax holiday, waiving a 33-cent-per-gallon tax.

When gas prices spike, drivers tend to respond by cutting out unnecessary trips, by car-pooling and using public transportation, according to AAA. Spending on discretionary expenses like plane tickets and restaurant meals has fallen, too, as transportation costs eat up a bigger share of household budgets.

Yet while plenty of people who own electric vehicles have been boasting about their fuel savings on social media over the last few weeks, gas prices would have to stay high for a much longer period of time to trigger a broader shift away from gas-powered vehicles, according to Stephanie Valdez Streaty, research and development director at Cox Automotive, a research firm.

Still, the war in Iran appears to have driven a modest uptick in E.V. curiosity among U.S. drivers, according to the car shopping site Edmunds. If high prices persist, more people may feel the urge to hop off what Jessica Caldwell, the head of insights at Edmunds, called the “gas price roller coaster.”

New E.V.s in the U.S. are still more expensive than gas-powered cars, but the gap is closing for used vehicles. In February, the average listing price for a used E.V. was $34,821, about $1,300 more than a gas-powered car, Valdez Streaty said.

Hundreds of thousands more used E.V.s could enter the market this year as leases expire, Valdez Streaty said. “Consumers are going to have a lot of good options at a lower price point,” she said.

The global E.V. tipping point

If you’re curious about buying whether the economics of buying an E.V. are in your favor, The Times has a calculator that can help. The math looks very different abroad, where gas price shocks have been more intense and E.V.s are often far more affordable than in the U.S.

The scales could tip fastest in countries with access to inexpensive Chinese E.V.s, like Brazil, parts of Asia and soon, Canada, wrote David Brown, the director of energy transition research at Wood McKenzie.

In Vietnam, for example, gas prices have risen by around 30 percent since the start of the conflict. But the increase coincides with a rapid increase in the share of electric cars sold each year as government incentives meet affordable options from local manufacturers.

In December, the Vietnamese E.V. maker VinFast broke records when it reported the highest monthly sales volume ever recorded by any automaker in the country. Its best-selling car last year, the VF 3, hit the market in 2024 at just under $13,000.

VinFast has begun offering discounts of 3 to 5 percent to people switching from gas-powered cars and scooters, Reuters reported.

The post Climate: Life at $4 a gallon DO WE NEED GASOLINE??? www.pausetheworldforpeace.org appeared first on Good News!.

	By Claire Brown

Nearly two weeks into the conflict, the war in Iran has triggered “the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market,” the International Energy Agency said on Thursday. That comes despite an agreement among world leaders on Wednesday to release some 400 million barrels of oil from their strategic reserves. Here’s what else to know:

Oil price warnings. A spokesperson for Iran’s military command warned on Wednesday that oil could reach $200 barrel, far exceeding previous records. The U.S. energy secretary, Chris Wright, said that’s unlikely.

President Trump shrugged off concerns about rising prices, pointing out on social media that the United States is the largest oil producer in the world. “When oil prices go up, we make a lot of money,” he wrote Thursday morning.

A crucial shipping lane remains largely closed. On Thursday, Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, vowed to continue blocking the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow body of water that conveys about 20 percent of the world’s oil supplies. Two oil tankers were set ablaze early on Thursday, leading Iraq and Oman to close oil terminals.

The environmental consequences. In Iran, damage to fossil fuel infrastructure has caused black rain and thick smoke over Tehran, prompting concerns that tanks of mazut, a bottom-of-the-barrel oil residue product used in power plants, have caught on fire, releasing huge quantities of sulfur and other toxic pollution into the air.

Will all this upheaval push governments around the world to pick up the pace of renewable energy installations? Not necessarily, Brad Plumer and Lisa Friedman write. And in the short term, some countries are likely to burn more coal.

What questions do you have about the environmental fallout of the war in Iran or its effects on the world’s energy supplies? Email us at climateforward@nytimes.com and we’ll answer your questions in future newsletters.

Kicked out of the Sierra Club

	By David A. Fahrenthold David Fahrenthold is an investigative reporter based in Washington who covers nonprofit organizations.

Last year, the Sierra Club’s national magazine honored Delia Malone as a “changemaker” — an activist to inspire other activists — for her yearslong campaign to reintroduce wolves to wild areas of Colorado.

A year later, the Sierra Club kicked her out.

In February, the club sent Malone, 71, a letter saying she had committed “serious violations of Sierra Club Member Obligations.” The letter listed seven rules that she had violated, including provisions requiring members to be respectful of each other, and to represent the club positively in public.

“You are no longer a member of Sierra Club,” said the letter, which was signed by the club’s office of general counsel. “Revocation of your status as a member of Sierra Club is permanent, meaning that you will no longer be eligible for any form of Sierra Club membership.”

What the letter did not say was what Malone actually did to deserve this rare punishment — which the club says is for members whose misconduct is “beyond repair.”

Malone said she believed that she was targeted in part because she talked to The New York Times last year, a claim the organization denies. She was quoted in a Nov. 7 article about how the Sierra Club had embraced social-justice issues far removed from its traditional environmental goals.

In that article, Claire Brown and I reported that the nonprofit organization’s shift was followed by years of internal strife and declining membership, leaving the group weakened just as the Trump administration has ramped up its attacks on environmental protections.

Delia Malone, an ecologist and activist, was expelled from the Sierra Club last month. Kristin Braga Wright for The New York Times

‘I had no idea’

In an interview, Malone said the club had not notified her that she was facing this punishment, had not told her what she was accused of doing and did not give her a chance to defend herself.

“I had no idea this was going on,” Malone said.

An ecologist by training, she had been a volunteer for the Sierra Club for 12 years and had previously served as one of the Colorado chapter’s statewide leaders. She helped lead the club’s efforts to campaign for a 2020 ballot measure authorizing the reintroduction of wolves to the state. It passed narrowly, and now the state says at least four packs of wolves live in Colorado.

In the November article, Malone had said she had once been scolded by a Sierra Club staffer for saying that the club should lobby the Colorado Legislature for more protections for wolves.

“One of the staff said, ‘That’s fine, Delia. But what do wolves have to do with equity, justice and inclusion?’” Malone said then. After that, Malone said she had heard from an investigator hired by the club, who had asked her questions but declined to say what she was being investigated for. The Colorado chapter of the Sierra Club told us last year that “no one was investigated or accused of values misalignment on the basis of wolf conservation efforts.”

A month after the Times story came out, the Sierra Club’s Colorado chapter removed Malone from her unpaid role as “Wildlife Chair.” It cited the same section of the club’s rules that the Sierra Club’s national leaders later cited to strip her membership.

Malone said she believed the Times article helped trigger both punishments. “It gave them a specific reason to say, ‘She’s not abiding by the rules,’” she said.

A day earlier, the Sierra Club had also voted to strip membership from another former leader of the Colorado chapter, Kent Abernethy.

In an interview, Abernethy, 64, said he had been a Sierra Club member for 40 years and had until recently led a local branch of the Colorado chapter. He said his letter from the club was identical to Malone’s: it described the rules he had violated, but not how he had violated them.

The future of the Sierra Club

Abernethy said he believed his dismissal was also rooted in the broader debate over the Sierra Club’s direction. The Colorado chapter has been a center of that debate: in 2022, the Sierra Club’s national leaders ousted the chapter’s elected leaders for fostering what it called a “harmful and non-inclusive management culture.” It replaced them with an unelected “steering committee” approved by the club’s national leaders, an arrangement that continues today.

Abernethy had recently emailed his local Sierra Club branch to criticize the club’s leaders for stifling dissent and punishing Malone.

The Sierra Club has defended its shift in focus, saying that its embrace of social justice is necessary to build a broader coalition. A spokesman for the club, Jonathon Berman, declined to describe what Malone and Abernethy had done to trigger their punishment, but said “the decision was not made as a result” of the Times article.

Berman said that the club encouraged debate among its members: “Any claim that an action taken to protect our members and staff is meant to silence dissent is false.”

Malone now leads her own environmental group, ColoradoWild, and Abernethy sits on its board. Both said they would continue their environmental work outside the Sierra Club. Malone said she looked back fondly on her work with the organization.

“There’s families of wolves thriving in Colorado,” Malone said. “That’s amazing.” She said the Sierra Club’s national leadership at the time had provided crucial help: “They were very supportive, up until they weren’t.”

The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee advises the E.P.A.’s leadership on the latest scientific evidence on soot, smog and other hazardous pollutants. Meridith Kohut for The New York Times

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

Eye doctor named to air pollution advisory board draws pushback

The Trump administration has tapped an eye doctor with no background in air pollution science to advise the Environmental Protection Agency on what levels of air pollutants are safe to breathe.

The E.P.A. named Brian Joondeph, a Colorado-based ophthalmologist and political commentator, on Monday to the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, an influential panel that advises the agency’s leadership on the latest scientific evidence on soot, smog and other hazardous pollutants.

Dr. Joondeph has never published a peer-reviewed paper dealing with air pollution. He has coauthored a handful of peer-reviewed papers about eye diseases, as well as dozens of opinion pieces in conservative publications, many of which praised President Trump’s style of governing and foreign policies.

It was the government’s latest move to sideline or shun scientific expertise, drawing criticism from past members of the advisory panel. — Maxine Joselow

Read more.

The post Climate: The largest oil disruption in history appeared first on Good News!.

A personal question to our community from Ingmar Rentzhog, Founder of We Don’t Have Time: The Bigger Question Behind the Aviation Debate Ingmar Rentzhog wearing the “Make Science Great Again” hat while speaking on the “Decarbonising Businesses” stage at Economist Sustainability Week in London on March 3. Climate solutions require open dialogue and a science based approach to replacing fossil fuels with better alternatives. Photo: The Economist. Last week, I shared a story about flying with my family after ten years of avoiding flights. It was a very personal and somewhat fragile story for me to share publicly. The discussion that followed reveals a deeper question facing the climate movement today: how do we accelerate the phase-out of fossil fuels while still allowing people the freedom to travel, connect, and explore the world? For this trip, we chose a non-fossil alternative by purchasing Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) that matched the flight’s full fossil fuel use. On We Don’t Have Time, the discussion has been constructive, thoughtful, and respectful. Many people have also written very encouraging messages, saying they appreciate that I dare to talk openly about solutions that already exist in aviation, even if they are not yet perfect. On social media, outside our platform, some reactions have been much harsher. There has been strong criticism, and in some cases, personal attacks directed not only at me, but also at my family. That kind of tone does not move the climate conversation forward. At We Don’t Have Time we believe in dialogue. Solving the climate crisis will require many perspectives, honest conversations, and the ability to respectfully disagree while still working toward the same goal. At the same time, the intensity of the reaction tells us something important. When discussions about real solutions create strong emotions, it often means we are touching on one of the defining questions of the transition. Most people who care about the climate agree on the destination. But we do not always agree on the best path to get there. Different people who care deeply about the climate often come to different conclusions about the best path forward. The transition away from fossil fuels is not a simple or black-and-white question. That is exactly why open dialogue matters. So instead of talking past each other, let us ask the question openly. What do you think is the best way forward? 1. Reduce first We should sharply reduce consumption and mobility across society, phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible, and accept major lifestyle changes and sacrifices in the short term. Only once fossil fuels are largely eliminated should we scale technologies that allow higher levels of consumption again. ­ Vote ­ 2. Technology first We should focus primarily on scaling clean technologies as fast as possible. Innovation and markets will replace fossil fuels without requiring major limits on people’s lifestyles. ­ Vote ­ 3. Both together We should phase out fossil fuels while at the same time embracing and scaling non fossil solutions, even if they are not perfect yet. Regulation and innovation should move in parallel. ­ Vote ­ Vote and share your reasoning in the comments. We will publish the results next week. The goal is not that everyone agrees on every step. The goal is that we move forward together toward the same destination: a prosperous and fossil free future where humanity has learned to live within the planetary boundaries. Thanks for being part of the We Don’t Have Time community. This Debate Didn’t Start Last Week Neste, the world’s leading producer of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), has started producing SAF at its renewable products refinery in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The refinery has been modified to enable Neste to produce up to 500,000 tons of SAF per annum. As a result, Neste’s global SAF production capability has increased to 1.5 million tons (around 1.875 billion liters) per annum. Six months ago I wrote an op-ed in Sweden responding to a column celebrating record levels of air travel in Europe. My argument then was simple: the problem is not that people want to travel. The problem is that we still travel on fossil fuels. We don’t need to stop travelling. We need to stop travelling on oil. That requires phasing out fossil fuel subsidies while scaling fossil-free alternatives such as Sustainable Aviation Fuel, e-fuels, and electric aviation. You can read the English version of that article here: “Should We Really Celebrate Aviation’s Fossil Record?” Looking back, the debate we are having today is really about the same question: How do we replace fossil fuels fast enough while maintaining the freedom to travel and connect with the world? ­ Read the op-ed ­ ­ Join the campaign #MoveTheTravel ­ Energy Security Is Incompatible with Fossil Fuels Israeli fighter jets on their way to attack Iran in mid-June 2025. Photo credit: IDF Spokesperson’s Unit/Wikimedia Commons The U.S.-Israel war on Iran has unleashed chaos on the global energy market. Historically, such shocks have triggered a rush to stockpile fossil fuels and backsliding down the energy ladder. On a longer timescale, however, they have pushed world leaders toward greater investment in energy independence. This latest crisis comes at a unique time for climate diplomacy:  André Corrêa do Lago, following up on commitments made during COP30, has just called for stakeholder contributions to the much anticipated roadmap for a transition away from fossil fuels. It is expected that these contributions will feed directly into the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, to be held in Colombia this April. We’ve seen many energy shocks before but this time a diplomatic infrastructure exists that could guide the world to the only long-term solution to the never-ending energy crises: leaving fossil fuels for good. Click below to read our full analysis. ­ The Last Energy Crisis ­ ­ COP30 Presidency Consultations on Roadmaps ­ ­ First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels ­ Centering Women’s Voices to  End the Fossil Fuel Era Speakers at the WECAN Press Conference “Indigenous Women from the Amazon: Calls for Urgent Action on the Path to COP30” held at COP29 in Baku, 2024.  Photo Credit: Katherine Quaid / WECAN International As the world lurches toward a reckoning with fossil fuels, the question of who shapes that transition will determine how just it proves to be. With that in mind this International Women’s Day, we are thrilled to be part of a vital convening of women’s climate leadership. On March 31, the Women’s Momentum Assembly for a Just Fossil Fuel Phaseout will bring together over 20 global leaders, including former Irish President Mary Robinson, Indigenous Brazilian congresswoman Célia Xakriabá, and youth climate leader Mitzi Jonelle Tan, in a free virtual gathering to build momentum ahead of the Colombia conference. With real-time interpretation in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese, it’s a truly global conversation open to all. The need for women’s leadership at this moment couldn’t be clearer. The UN estimates that by 2050, climate change could push 158 million more women and girls into poverty. Historically, multilateral negotiations have underrepresented the communities bearing the greatest costs of fossil fuel dependence. And research consistently shows that climate policies shaped by those most affected produce stronger, more durable outcomes. Women aren’t waiting to be invited into this conversation. They’re organizing it. ­ Learn more about the Women’s Momentum Assembly ­ ­ Register to attend for free ­

­ Some highlights from last week:    Why 99% of glass eels are gone and how we can save them When the far-right governs, climate risk rises – 2026 French Municipal Elections  Sodium ion batteries: Right facts, wrong conclusion!   Greece approves Prinos CO2 storage project  EU codifies 90% decarbonization goal Scotland legalises water cremation   Portugal fined £8.7 million for failing to protect biodiversity Blackwater lakes in the Congo Basin are emitting ancient stored carbon Take a deep breath Events & Broadcasts    Mar 10–12: The Launch of the Nature for Life Hub Learning Journeys  Mar 11–25: Klimatsoffan – election interviews with all Swedish parties  Mar 31: Women’s Momentum Assembly for a Just Fossil Fuel Phaseout

­ Follow us ­ ­ © 2026 We Don’t Have Time, PO Box 141, SE-118 72, Stockholm, Sweden www.wedonthavetime.org info@wedonthavetime.org ­ We Don’t Have Time is the world’s largest media platform for climate action—with a mission to democratize knowledge about climate solutions and inspire and mobilize global action toward a prosperous, fossil-free future. Boasting a community of 100,000+ climate professionals and influencers in 180 countries, and partnerships with 350+ companies, government- and civil society organizations, We Don’t Have Time reaches 200 million people each month on social media. Headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden, with offices in Washington, D.C., and Nairobi, Kenya. ­ This email was sent to paul.sladkus1@gmail.com. Read our integrity policy.

The post What do you think is the best way forward? appeared first on Good News!.

isten to “Here is our conversation with Lessa Carter-Jones, President and CEO of Captain Planet Foundation. Green Heart STEM Challenge Launches…” on Spreaker.

ATLANTA, GA — The Captain Planet Foundation recently announced the launch of the 2026 Green Heart STEM Challenge, welcoming its largest cohort to date with nearly 5,000 students, 132 educators, and 71 schools across 11 states participating. 

The Green Heart STEM Challenge is delivered through a hybrid model, with in-person programming in metro Atlanta, Houston, and Miami, alongside virtual participation that enables schools in additional states to engage fully. This structure supports deep, place-based learning in core communities while expanding national access.

Designed for students in grades 6–9, the Challenge blends STEM learning with real-world problem solving, guiding students to identify environmental challenges in their communities and develop practical, implementable solutions. It follows a rotating, four-year cycle focused on EARTH, WIND, FIRE, and WATER, ensuring students explore a broad range of environmental systems and solutions over time.

The 2026 Challenge features EARTH, with students exploring issues such as soil health, tree canopy, composting, and food waste. Educators onboard students to the Challenge platform, where teams form, research, and begin building solutions rooted in local needs.

“What sets this Challenge apart is that students are mentored and funded to implement their winning ideas,!” said Leesa Carter-Jones, President and CEO of Captain Planet Foundation. “They’re not just learning about environmental challenges, they’re designing solutions and being held accountable for real outcomes.”

Since its launch, the Challenge has shown growing, measurable impact. In recent cycles, hundreds of student teams have progressed from ideas to formal project plans, with an increasing percentage advancing to implementation. Past winners have secured additional funding, expanded beyond their schools, and built long-term community partnerships, including teams in Atlanta and Houston continuing work well beyond the Challenge timeline. Across cohorts, student-led projects have tackled composting and food waste, erosion control and reforestation, water quality, repair-and-reuse systems, and circularity efforts reducing fast fashion and single-use waste.

The Challenge is supported by Accenture, Amazon, Delta Air Lines, Georgia Natural Gas, Green Mountain Energy, and Susan J. Klein, among others. Accenture employees also serve as volunteer mentors and project managers, helping student teams refine ideas, develop budgets, and prepare for implementation through the Challenge’s Idea Incubator.

Entering its fourth year, the Green Heart STEM Challenge continues to show what’s possible when students are trusted with real responsibility, and supported to turn ideas into action.

About Captain Planet Foundation
Captain Planet Foundation is an award-winning U.S.-based nonprofit that empowers young people to be problem-solvers for the planet. Over the past 35 years, more than 1.7 million children have directly participated in CPF programs, supporting more than 3,700 projects and impacting 11.4 million young people worldwide. Founded in 1991 by Ted Turner and Barbara Pyle, CPF advances environmental education through programs including Project Learning Garden, Planeteer Alliance, and the Green Heart STEM Challenge. Learn more at www.captainplanetfoundation.org.

The post Here is our conversation with Lessa Carter-Jones, President and CEO of Captain Planet Foundation. Green Heart STEM Challenge Launches 2026 Program, Engaging Nearly 5,000 Students in Community-Driven Climate Solutions appeared first on Good News!.

#SanFrancisco #Market #Ferries #SanFranciscoMarketFerries

The post Sustainable Display at San Francisco Market and Ferries appeared first on Good News!.

A warming Arctic can stretch the polar vortex, a high-altitude air ribbon, one says. The “wobble” can disrupt the jet stream, causing extreme cold in the East.

Pedestrians walked the snow-covered streets of Jersey City, N.J., during last month’s winter storm. Some scientists say there is a link between a warming planet and the recent frigid temperatures. Credit…Aristide Economopoulos for The New York Times

The post Arctic Warming and Cold Weather appeared first on Good News!.

https://shorturl.at/ZYsi5

At the Davos forum in recent years, the focus on climate change and stopping biodiversity loss has taken a back seat to issues like cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and geopolitics. Fabrice Coffrini/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Dire warnings at Davos, pushed to the periphery

	By David Gelles

All week at the World Economic Forum’s annual gathering in Davos, Switzerland, talk about climate change and renewable power has been relegated to the sidelines.

That changed on Wednesday, when President Trump used his speech at this gathering of the world’s top business leaders and policymakers to attack clean energy.

“There are windmills all over Europe,” he said. “There are windmills all over the place and they are losers.”

That was just one snippet from a speech in which Trump assailed the “green new scam,” promoted fossil fuels and made inaccurate statements about China’s use of coal.

Trump’s assault on renewable energy struck a discordant note at an event that was once a center for the corporate climate movement. But since Trump’s re-election Davos has strained to retain an idealistic, optimistic spirit.

For years, Davos was where chief executives and heads of state came to make high-minded pledges about how they would use their power to transform the world for the better and reduce dangerous planet-warming emissions.

Recently, however, the focus on climate change and stopping biodiversity loss has taken a back seat to issues like cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and geopolitics. Instead, talk about sustainability efforts and climate action is now largely relegated to the scientists and activists.

Jennifer Morris, chief executive of The Nature Conservancy, told me that the dialogue in Davos had some glaring blind spots. “We’re not talking enough about oceans here,” she said, citing one example.

“Water is not woke,” she added.

Corporations are suddenly silent

The explanation for Davos’s pivot is simple. Climate change is no longer center stage in Davos because, in large measure, corporations have gone quiet on the issue.

“The Davos programming is a reflection of what chief executives want to talk about, ultimately,” said Sebastian Buckup, who runs the World Economic Forum’s center for nature and climate.

And what C.E.O.s want to talk about has changed.

Six years ago, Larry Fink, the chief executive of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, used his time in Davos to rally Wall Street to combat climate change, promising to “transform finance.”

In an article I published last week, I explained how Fink sparked a movement that came to encompass most of the major banks, asset managers and asset owners in the world, which pledged to used their trillions of dollars to try and blunt global warming.

But in the face of pushback from Republicans, the fallout from the war in Ukraine and the return of President Trump to the White House, Wall Street has largely abandoned its climate pledges. Many of the alliances designed to make finance more sustainable have fallen apart. Investors have withdrawn tens of billions of dollars each quarter from E.S.G. funds.

Even though Fink is now co-chair of the World Economic Forum and took a strong hand in shaping this year’s program, which features hundreds of panels and speakers scattered across giant convention halls and small meeting rooms, discussion of climate change was largely missing from the most prominent programs — with the exception of Trump’s remarks.

Warnings from scientists

On the rare occasions when there was frank talk about the dangers posed by our rapidly warming world, the warnings were more stark than ever.

Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, delivered a presentation on Tuesday in which he showed dozens of ways in which the planet’s natural systems are under severe strain.

“The human pressure on the planet has now reached a crisis point,” he said. “The era where we can continue with economic growth without putting the stability of planet at risk has come to an end.”

Rockström added that “these pressures on the planet are now at risk of causing irreversible, potentially catastrophic tipping points.”

On Wednesday, I moderated a panel about why it was in companies’ own interest to protect nature.

“If you don’t have good land and good soil, you can’t have sustainable supply chains,” Kirsten Schuijt, director general of WWF International told me.

Schuijt said that more corporations were working to address these threats, but not fast enough. “It’s moving way too slow, because we’re losing biodiversity in basically every place we care about,” she said.

Then on Thursday, I hosted a discussion about how much economic activity was tied to the oceans, which are warming rapidly regardless of whether you think talking about it is “woke.”

For much of the conversation, the speakers put forward a rosy vision of continued economic growth that somehow didn’t pollute the planet. Then, during a remarkably candid moment, an executive acknowledged a notion that until recently had been gospel at Davos.

“The biggest adversary to nature might be humans,” said Boudewijn Siemons, chief executive of the Port of Rotterdam, the largest harbor in Europe. “The problem is us.”

The post Dire warnings at Davos, pushed to the periphery appeared first on Good News!.

The World’s Largest Media Platform for Climate Action

The post Start 2026 With Climate Action Paul H. Sladkus appeared first on Good News!.

#ClimateChange

The post The impact of climate change on the economy appeared first on Good News!.

The post What’s up with China? appeared first on Good News!.