Thomas Friedman, a renowned journalist and author, discusses the negative consequences of the US and Israeli attacks on the Shahran oil depot in Iran, which resulted in fuel tankers and vehicles becoming unusable. He also highlights the rearmament of the Global North and the underinvestment in climate adaptation, leading to increased military spending and deepening the climate crisis.
Thomas Friedman on Trump's Iran War : It's Bad... Now Let's Make It Worse Fire breaks out at the Shahran oil depot after US and Israeli attacks, leaving numerous fuel tankers and vehicles in the area unusable in Tehran, Iran on March 8, 2026.
Reinvesting just 15% of global military spending, roughly $387 billion, would be more than enough to cover the annual costs of climate adaptation in developing countries. The money exists. The will does not.the United Nation's Green Climate Fund that it would halve the contribution it pledged just two years ago, not because thehas eased, but because it is spending more on weapons. The move was framed as a "hugely difficult decision," not ideological, and necessary to deliver whatdecision.
It is part of a choice being made across the Global North: to rearm, to retreat from development commitments, and to leave the countries least responsible for the climate crisis to deal with its worst consequences on their own.in 2025, pushing the global military burden to 2.5% of GDP, its highest level since 2009. Europe's alone surged 14% to $, roughly $387 billion, would be more than enough to cover the annual costs of climate adaptation in developing countries.
The money exists. The will does not. More conflict and more military spending will only deepen the crisis and make millions more people vulnerable to it. The UK's Green Climate Fund cut does not happen in a vacuum; the US has refused to deliver any further money to the GCF under President, with the highest historical emissions and the highest per capita carbon footprints, are the ones least bothered by any of this.
, the signal being sent today is unmistakable: The nations least responsible for the climate catastrophe bearing down on them will have to bear its consequences largely alone, watching the world burn while the architects of that burning pivot to missiles and military budgets. The prospect of just and equitable climate finance from the developed world is beginning to look not merely uncertain, but futile.in 2026, nearly $37 million more per day than in 2025, with total projected profits across the six companies reaching approximately $94 billion for the year.
None of that windfall is going toward the energy transition. BP hasits planned low-carbon investment by a third, and TotalEnergies has declined to adopt a transition plan aligned with 1.5°C of warming. If a handful of fossil fuel corporations are posting billions in profits in a single year, profits made possible by geopolitical instability, then holding them liable through regulation andis not radical but logical.
Windfall profit taxes on fossil fuel companies, long discussed and rarely enacted, could generate precisely the kind of revenue that developed governments claim they no longer have for climate finance.by Climate Action Network Europe shows the framework already exists, recommending a differentiated corporate tax on fossil fuel profits with revenues recycled directly into the energy transition and international climate finance.makes the same case, calling for a Rich Polluter Profit Tax and an equity-based road map that reflects the historical responsibility and financial capacity of different states. The United States and Europe built their wealth on fossil fuels.
Many countries in the Global South remain dependent on them not by choice, but by circumstance. Demanding they exit on the same timeline is neither fair nor realistic. The tools and the arguments exist. What is missing is political will, and the Global South cannot afford to keep waiting for it.
The path forward lies in demanding structural reform of the international tax regime that allows fossil fuel super profits and billionaire fortunes to escape accountability; of the debt architecture that forces climate-vulnerable nations to choose between servicing loans and financing adaptation; and of the COP process itself, which has too long allowed wealthy nations to treat climate finance pledges as suggestions rather than obligations. , floods, and disasters, while thousands lose lives and livelihoods, one thing is becoming painfully certain: More conflict and more military spending will only deepen the crisis and make millions more people vulnerable to it.
The Global South did not start these wars. It should not be made to pay for them, not with its people, its economies, or its climate. It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits.
It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do.
Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today.
It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever.
We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong.
But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Jawad Khalid is a Pakistan-based climate finance and political economy analyst. He writes on climate justice, policy, and geopolitics with bylines in publications such as The Interpreter, Common Dreams, Asia Times, and CounterPunch.the United Nation's Green Climate Fund that it would halve the contribution it pledged just two years ago, not because thehas eased, but because it is spending more on weapons.
The move was framed as a "hugely difficult decision," not ideological, and necessary to deliver whatdecision. It is part of a choice being made across the Global North: to rearm, to retreat from development commitments, and to leave the countries least responsible for the climate crisis to deal with its worst consequences on their own.in 2025, pushing the global military burden to 2.5% of GDP, its highest level since 2009.
Europe's alone surged 14% to $, roughly $387 billion, would be more than enough to cover the annual costs of climate adaptation in developing countries. The money exists. The will does not. More conflict and more military spending will only deepen the crisis and make millions more people vulnerable to it.
The UK's Green Climate Fund cut does not happen in a vacuum; the US has refused to deliver any further money to the GCF under President, with the highest historical emissions and the highest per capita carbon footprints, are the ones least bothered by any of this. , the signal being sent today is unmistakable: The nations least responsible for the climate catastrophe bearing down on them will have to bear its consequences largely alone, watching the world burn while the architects of that burning pivot to missiles and military budgets.
The prospect of just and equitable climate finance from the developed world is beginning to look not merely uncertain, but futile.in 2026, nearly $37 million more per day than in 2025, with total projected profits across the six companies reaching approximately $94 billion for the year. None of that windfall is going toward the energy transition. BP hasits planned low-carbon investment by a third, and TotalEnergies has declined to adopt a transition plan aligned with 1.5°C of warming.
If a handful of fossil fuel corporations are posting billions in profits in a single year, profits made possible by geopolitical instability, then holding them liable through regulation andis not radical but logical. Windfall profit taxes on fossil fuel companies, long discussed and rarely enacted, could generate precisely the kind of revenue that developed governments claim they no longer have for climate finance.by Climate Action Network Europe shows the framework already exists, recommending a differentiated corporate tax on fossil fuel profits with revenues recycled directly into the energy transition and international climate finance.makes the same case, calling for a Rich Polluter Profit Tax and an equity-based road map that reflects the historical responsibility and financial capacity of different states.
The United States and Europe built their wealth on fossil fuels. Many countries in the Global South remain dependent on them not by choice, but by circumstance. Demanding they exit on the same timeline is neither fair nor realistic. The tools and the arguments exist.
What is missing is political will, and the Global South cannot afford to keep waiting for it. The path forward lies in demanding structural reform of the international tax regime that allows fossil fuel super profits and billionaire fortunes to escape accountability; of the debt architecture that forces climate-vulnerable nations to choose between servicing loans and financing adaptation; and of the COP process itself, which has too long allowed wealthy nations to treat climate finance pledges as suggestions rather than obligations.
, floods, and disasters, while thousands lose lives and livelihoods, one thing is becoming painfully certain: More conflict and more military spending will only deepen the crisis and make millions more people vulnerable to it. The Global South did not start these wars. It should not be made to pay for them, not with its people, its economies, or its climate.
War Spending Like This as the Climate Emergency Grows Is a Global Nightmare ›Jawad Khalid is a Pakistan-based climate finance and political economy analyst. He writes on climate justice, policy, and geopolitics with bylines in publications such as The Interpreter, Common Dreams, Asia Times, and CounterPunch.the United Nation's Green Climate Fund that it would halve the contribution it pledged just two years ago, not because thehas eased, but because it is spending more on weapons.
The move was framed as a "hugely difficult decision," not ideological, and necessary to deliver whatdecision. It is part of a choice being made across the Global North: to rearm, to retreat from development commitments, and to leave the countries least responsible for the climate crisis to deal with its worst consequences on their own.in 2025, pushing the global military burden to 2.5% of GDP, its highest level since 2009.
Europe's alone surged 14% to $, roughly $387 billion, would be more than enough to cover the annual costs of climate adaptation in developing countries. The money exists. The will does not. More conflict and more military spending will only deepen the crisis and make millions more people vulnerable to it.
The UK's Green Climate Fund cut does not happen in a vacuum; the US has refused to deliver any further money to the GCF under President, with the highest historical emissions and the highest per capita carbon footprints, are the ones least bothered by any of this. , the signal being sent today is unmistakable: The nations least responsible for the climate catastrophe bearing down on them will have to bear its consequences largely alone, watching the world burn while the architects of that burning pivot to missiles and military budgets.
The prospect of just and equitable climate finance from the developed world is beginning to look not merely uncertain, but futile.in 2026, nearly $37 million more per day than in 2025, with total projected profits across the six companies reaching approximately $94 billion for the year. None of that windfall is going toward the energy transition. BP hasits planned low-carbon investment by a third, and TotalEnergies has declined to adopt a transition plan aligned with 1.5°C of warming.
If a handful of fossil fuel corporations are posting billions in profits in a single year, profits made possible by geopolitical instability, then holding them liable through regulation andis not radical but logical. Windfall profit taxes on fossil fuel companies, long discussed and rarely enacted, could generate precisely the kind of revenue that developed governments claim they no longer have for climate finance.by Climate Action Network Europe shows the framework already exists, recommending a differentiated corporate tax on fossil fuel profits with revenues recycled directly into the energy transition and international climate finance.makes the same case, calling for a Rich Polluter Profit Tax and an equity-based road map that reflects the historical responsibility and financial capacity of different states.
The United States and Europe built their wealth on fossil fuels. Many countries in the Global South remain dependent on them not by choice, but by circumstance. Demanding they exit on the same timeline is neither fair nor realistic. The tools and the arguments exist.
What is missing is political will, and the Global South cannot afford to keep waiting for it. The path forward lies in demanding structural reform of the international tax regime that allows fossil fuel super profits and billionaire fortunes to escape accountability; of the debt architecture that forces climate-vulnerable nations to choose between servicing loans and financing adaptation; and of the COP process itself, which has too long allowed wealthy nations to treat climate finance pledges as suggestions rather than obligations.
, floods, and disasters, while thousands lose lives and livelihoods, one thing is becoming painfully certain: More conflict and more military spending will only deepen the crisis and make millions more people vulnerable to it. The Global South did not start these wars. It should not be made to pay for them, not with its people, its economies, or its climate.
War Spending Like This as the Climate Emergency Grows Is a Global Nightmare › The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%.
Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported.
Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising.
No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in?
Thomas Friedman Trump's Iran War Global Military Burden Climate Adaptation Climate Finance Green Climate Fund United Nations Global North Global South Climate Crisis Climate Finance Pledges Climate Finance Obligations Climate Finance Framework Climate Finance Tools Climate Finance Arguments Climate Finance Reform Climate Finance Architecture Climate Finance Process Climate Finance Demands Climate Finance Escape Accountability Climate Finance Billionaire Fortunes Climate Finance Corporate Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Super Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Super Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits Climate Finance Fossil Fuel Profits
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Iran latest: US-Iran ceasefire remains shaky as both sides signal readiness to fight againSigns of strain in the ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran seemed to arise over the weekend, ranging from a new threat by President Donald Trump to Iranian state TV presenters going on-air armed.
Read more »
Trump Administration Settles Trump Lawsuit With $1.8B Fund For Trump AlliesPresident Trump’s supporters have won Donald Trump’s legal fight against the Trump-controlled Justice Department. Congrats to everyone.
Read more »
Iran latest: Hostilities on hold as US, Iran enter 'serious negotiations'The United States intended to attack Iran sometime Tuesday, but those plans were put on hold on the eve of the expected assault after a last-minute intervention by other Middle Eastern leaders, President Donald Trump explained in a social media post.
Read more »
Iran latest: Iran showing strength as War Powers Resolution loomsA congressional push to force President Donald Trump to win lawmakers' approval to continue with the war in Iran was given a major boost Tuesday and could receive an even bigger one on Wednesday.
Read more »