“Many of us say we love whales, but every threat they face — ship speed, noise, nets — traces back to the same root assumption: that our needs matter more than theirs. This belief has a name: ‘human exceptionalism’. It is the conviction that humans are not just different from other life, but morally superior to it — and therefore entitled to first claim on space, speed, resources, and survival.
“This belief underwrites what we eat and how we raise it; the habitats we clear for housing, highways, and Dollar Generals; the way we extract, ship, and burn; the emissions we send into the atmosphere, warming oceans and melting glaciers. Exceptionalism is so embedded in daily life that we barely feel it operating. It is a system constantly humming in the background — efficient, invisible, yet devastatingly consequential.
“Many cultures have modeled another stance. For the Māori of Aotearoa (New Zealand), people are kin with rivers, mountains and forests through whakapapa (genealogy). The saying ‘Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au‘ – ‘I am the river and the river is me’ – captures that reciprocity. In Lakota philosophy, Mitákuye Oyás’iŋ – ‘all are related’ – frames animals, plants, waters and winds as relatives rather than resources.
“Psychologist Erik Erikson described our human tendency towards pseudospeciation – the desire to split the world into ‘us’ and ‘not us’ – in order to justify mistreatment. Pseudospeciation grants us the psychological distance to degrade other beings we deem inferior without troubling our conscience.
“Humans have long been fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of significant animal intelligence and emotion, or the humility of viewing ourselves as animals. When I asked the environmental writer Ben Goldfarb about human exceptionalism and policy momentum in the United States, he was measured: ‘I see only faint signs of progress … the political and regulatory mainstream still seems to consider the concept threatening’.
“I am ready to admit that humans may not be the sparkling, superior, bright, moral species we believe ourselves to be. We may have to admit that in addition to our better social traits we are also greedy, territorial, tribal and violent. After all, there is only one species recklessly destroying the very planet it needs to survive.”
‘Monetize the rainforest to “protect” it from market pressure
“At the 30th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil, hundreds of Indigenous peoples marched into the conference, clashing with security, and pushing their way through metal detectors while calling on negotiators to protect their lands.
“Global climate summits have generally excluded Indigenous peoples and perspectives. World leaders have attempted to acknowledge this omission: Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said Indigenous voices should ‘inspire’ COP30. But demonstrations like this week’s show even these measures are designed with little input from those affected, garnering criticism.
“Preserving the Amazon rainforest is critical to mitigating climate change and protecting biodiversity. How this is done is one of the key issues being raised at COP30. By some estimates, 13 percent of the original Amazon forest has been lost to deforestation.
“Brazil announced the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, or TFFF, part of a plan to create new financial incentives to protect tropical forest lands. Under the TFFF, Brazil seeks to raise $25 billion in investments from other countries as well as philanthropic organizations — and then take that money and grow it fourfold in the bond market.
“But critics say that TFFF merely represents another attempt to tie the value of these critical ecosystems to financial markets. ‘You cannot put a price on a conserved forest because life cannot be measured, and the Amazon is life for the thousands of beings who inhabit it and depend on it to exist’, said Toya Manchineri, an Indigenous leader.
“‘The TFFF is another false solution to the planetary crises of biodiversity loss, forest loss, and climate collapse’, said Mary Lou Malig, policy director of the Global Forest Coalition. ‘We don’t eat money. We want our territory free’, said Cacique Gilson, a Tupinmbá leader who participated in one protest.”
Extinct species won’t return after Trump is gone
“President Trump’s administration moved Wednesday to roll back protections for imperiled species and the places they live. The proposed changes include the elimination of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s ‘blanket rule’ that automatically protects animals and plants when they are classified as threatened.
“The president has voiced frustration with the landmark 1973 environmental law has been wielded too broadly, to the detriment of economic growth. But environmentalists warned the changes could cause yearslong delays in efforts to save species. Scientists and government agencies say extinctions are accelerating globally because of habitat loss and other pressures.
“Other pending proposals from the administration would revise the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act. Another proposed change tasks officials with analyzing economic impacts when deciding whether habitat is critical to a species’ survival.
“Mr. Trump has made oil and gas production a centerpiece of his presidency and sought to strip away environmental regulations that impede development.
“The Endangered Species Act protects more than 1,600 species in the United States and its territories. In the more than 50 years since the law was enacted, the act has been credited with saving 99% of the listed species.”
China’s renewables build-out dependent on heavy coal pollution
“The meeting I attended [in China] had an ambitious title, ‘Earth-Humanity Reconciliation’. It was a rather large-scale event organized, among others, by UNESCO, the Club of Rome, and the Shanghai University of Engineering Science, [with] researchers from 15 different countries.
“The meeting reinforced my impression that the Chinese are serious about the energy transition. They adopted the concept of ‘Ecological Civilization’, 生态文明 (shēngtài wénmíng), which is now an official government policy, enshrined in the Chinese constitution.
“Just talk? I would say no. When the Chinese set their minds to doing something, they usually do it. It’s not that there is no greenwashing in China. But the Chinese have understood one thing: if they don’t quickly free themselves from fossil fuels, they will not be able to maintain the prosperity they have built through decades of hard work and sacrifice.
“China imports almost all the oil and gas it uses, which is expensive and makes the country strategically vulnerable. They still use coal, which remains the main source of electricity for now (60% of the total power production, against about 40% from renewables), but it is highly polluting and can’t last forever.
“The current government plan for ‘Net Zero’ emissions is to get there by 2060. It may be too late to avoid major damage, but the Chinese are known for exceeding expectations when they put their minds to it. In this, they are being helped by the population having stopped growing, and starting now a slow decline. It will reduce the pressure on resources and generate less pollution.
“China’s success in renewable energy has been nothing short of astonishing. The Chinese industry is now capable of producing photovoltaic systems at costs so low that they beat all other sources, except perhaps wind. Not to mention new, low-cost batteries, electric cars, automation, robots, and the electrification of the economic system in general. These are all areas where China is gaining a technological advantage over the West.”
Self reinforcing feedback that’s melting Antarctica
“The West Antarctic Ice Sheet covers some 760,000 square miles and is up to 1.2 miles thick. If it were to ever melt away entirely, it would add 10 feet to global sea levels. Scientists are finding more and more evidence that Antarctica’s ice is in far more peril than previously believed, with many abrupt changes, like the loss of sea ice, reinforcing one another.
“We can now add underwater “storms” to the troubles unfolding around the frozen continent. A new paper suggests that vortices are drawing relatively warm waters across the underside of the ice shelf floating on the Southern Ocean, potentially accelerating its destruction.
“What’s driving these storms is the gain and loss of ice: When it freezes, it ejects salt, and when it melts, it injects that fresh H2O into the sea. This changes the density of ocean water, creating vortices that draw warmth from the depths. They look exactly like an [atmospheric] storm.
“Researchers are only recently learning these things because it’s exceedingly difficult to see what’s going on down there (advanced robots are now getting the job done). ‘We’re really trying to understand, Where is warm water getting in, how’s it getting in, and what are these processes by which the ice is melting from below?’ said Clare Eayrs, a climate scientist at the Korea Polar Research Institute.”
Know thine enemy
“In order to meet the dire challenges that face us, social movements are going to need new and creative strategies when breakthrough ‘movement moments’ arrive. There is a concept that I think offers a useful provocation for social movements. It is called the ‘innovator’s dilemma’.
“In his influential 1997 book [by that name], Clayton Christensen coined this term, his central insight being that the very strategies that make large, established companies successful are often the same ones that prevent them from adapting to change. Christensen observed that dominant firms tend to focus on refining their existing products for their most profitable customers. In doing so, they ignore newer, cheaper technologies that serve emerging markets.
“But over time, these upstart competitors evolve and improve. Eventually, they overtake the incumbents. And that is the dilemma: what makes dominant firms strong within the current market also makes them structurally resistant to what comes next.
“In social movements, we do need to be just as clear-eyed about where to look for innovation, and about how our movement ecology can make space for it. It is worth looking in more detail at lessons we might apply from the innovator’s dilemma.
“The innovator’s dilemma is not without controversy. Even the book’s author agreed that ‘disruption’ and ‘innovation’ became corporate buzzwords that were sometimes thrown around with careless abandon.
“Nevertheless, my experience is that the idea that established organizations are rarely designed to reinvent themselves is relevant not just for markets, but for movements as well. I am in the camp that believes that we should try to draw strategy insights from diverse sources. When I have used the idea in trainings, I have found that it has produced stimulating and generative conversations.”
AI flush with cash, wants “help” through more subsidies
“Sarah Friar, the chief financial officer of AI behemoth OpenAI has put forth an idea regarding the form of a Washington bailout. Now maybe you are wondering why the hottest industry on the planet that is flush with hundreds of billions of dollars from investors needs a federal bailout.
“It’s revealing that AI expert and commentator, Gary Marcus, predicted 10 months ago that the AI industry would go seeking a government bailout to make up for overspending, bad business decisions, and huge future commitments that the industry is unlikely to be able to meet. The OpenAI CEO, Sam Altman, got tetchy when asked how a company with only $13 billion in annual revenues, and that is running losses, will somehow fulfill $1.4 trillion in spending commitments over the next few years.
“In what appears to be damage control, Altman wrote on his X account that OpenAI is not asking for direct federal assistance, and then later outlines how the government can give it indirect assistance by building a lot of data centers of its own (that can then presumably be leased to the AI industry).
“Lest you think that the industry has so far moved forward without government handouts, the AP noted that subsidies are offered by more than 30 state governments to attract data centers. Not everyone is happy with having data centers in their communities. And, those data centers have also sent electricity rates skyward. Effectively, current electricity customers are subsidizing the AI data center build-out.”
AI’s myriad, negative, overlooked impacts
“Most states offering incentives to data centers don’t disclose which companies benefit. At least 36 states have crafted subsidies specifically for data center projects. But only 11 of those states — Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin — disclose which companies receive those incentives.
“In a new study by Good Jobs First, those projects often employ nondisclosure agreements, project code names, and subsidiary names that hide the firms behind the new server farms. Good Jobs First specifically examined sales and use tax exemptions that benefit data centers. The study does not account for local property tax abatements, corporate income tax credits, and discounts on electricity and water rates.
“The Kansas Corporation Commission approved a large-load tariff for new Kansas businesses with demanding electricity requirements. The Missouri Public Service Commission approved a large-load tariff to ensure large power users are responsible for paying their fair share.
“According to the New York Times, nearly all 50 states have introduced AI-related bills over the past year (Kansas has not), targeting issues such as consumer privacy, AI-generated child sexual abuse material, and deepfake videos of political candidates.
“AI’s environmental footprint is a growing concern. Data centres, which power AI computations, consume vast amounts of electricity, often sourced from fossil fuels, leading to significant carbon emissions. Beyond energy consumption, the production of AI hardware, such as graphics processing units (GPUs), involves mining rare earth metals and energy-intensive manufacturing processes, further contributing to environmental degradation. Additionally, data centres require substantial water for cooling, placing strain on local water resources.
“All 50 states have introduced various AI-related legislation in 2025 on AI regulation. Four aspects of AI in particular stand out from a regulatory perspective: government use of AI, AI in health care, facial recognition, and generative AI.
“Potential algorithmic harms posed by AI systems used for government services include racial and gender biases. AI-related health bills include insurers’ use of AI and clinicians’ use of AI. 15 states in the U.S. had enacted laws to limit the potential harms from facial recognition. There are concerns from lawmakers in many states to clearly disclose when individuals and organizations are using generative AI systems to interact with someone.”
