Columns

What if there were a non-divisive public policy change that would save the country billions and benefit the average American worker?

What if there were a non-divisive public policy change that would save the country billions and benefit the average American worker? Well, there is one, and it is ripe for action: The enactment of legislation that restricts how Social Security Disability Benefits may be used by private insurers to “offset” their own financial obligations.

When most of us think of Social Security, we think of retirement benefits. The Social Security Act is a Depression-era law whose original purpose was to protect widows and children when the family’s provider died.

Over time, Social Security’s scope of coverage expanded. It became a primary retirement plan while continuing to provide death benefits to minor children. It also expanded to protect workers who became permanently disabled with the creation of the Disability Insurance Benefits program, known as SSDI. It is this SSDI coverage that has been exploited by the disability insurance industry.

Here’s how:

The typical employee with disability insurance is often covered through their employer’s group long-term disability plan, often an ERISA-qualified plan. If this employee becomes seriously ill or is hurt, they can file a claim with the employer’s disability insurer. When a claim is filed, the insurer sends the employee a packet of forms that includes a contract requiring them to file a claim with Social Security and simultaneously claim disability benefits from the federal government.
The insurer will condition the payment of benefits on the claimant’s filing an application with Social Security and pursuing all avenues of appeal. Some insurers will even provide the disabled employee with legal representation to pursue a Social Security claim. This is done right when the claim is filed.

The problem is that, in most cases, Social Security’s legal standard of disability is much stricter than what a private disability contract requires. A private disability contract may pay a benefit if an employee cannot do their own job. Social Security requires proof of an inability to perform any job in the national economy.

So, already, the private disability insurer is forcing an employee to file a claim for benefits paid by the federal government when that same employee has a private contract of insurance. And, worse still, the insurer is requiring the filing of an SSDIB claim when the employee may not yet be eligible.

The reason for this is that the private disability insurer receives a dollar for dollar offset (or credit) for any monies paid by Social Security.

To illustrate this point, take the case of a 40-year-old female with two minor children earning $75,000 per year. If the employer’s disability contract pays her a benefit equal to 60% of her salary, she would be entitled to a monthly payment of $3,750 per month or $45,000 per year.

If she were required to apply for SSDI, and her monthly Social Security benefit was $1,600 and $750 for each of her two children, the government would be paying her $3100. If she is awarded that amount from Social Security– voila – the insurance company’s responsibility drops to $650 per month.

During the period of “own occupation” benefits, typically two years, the insurer’s $90,000 obligation drops to $15,600, and the U.S. Taxpayer is now responsible for paying the claimant $74,400, even though, in our example, the employee had private insurance.

Given the original purpose of the Social Security Act, even with its subsequent amendments, it seems inappropriate to require the U.S. Taxpayer to pay for a benefit where a person has private insurance and may not even qualify for SSDI.

There are, of course, exceptions. In the case of a seriously injured or ill person or the victim of, for example, a stroke, an early claim seeking Social Security benefits is entirely appropriate. And Social Security claimants also received Medicare benefits. So, there are other considerations. But in those cases where an individual’s illness or injury has not yet risen to the level of a permanent disability, this practice seems to benefit no one but the insurance industry.

So, what can be done?

State insurance commissioners have been ineffective at combatting this practice, so the Social Security Act or the ERISA statute could be amended and updated to curb these practices. Here are three suggested reform propositions that could be added:

1) A disability insurer could not require a disabled employee to file a claim for Social Security Disability benefits any earlier that the first 36 months of continuous disability unless the employee wishes to do so voluntarily.

2) A disability insurance company would not be permitted to take an offset for Social Security for any period where the insurer denied a claim for disability benefits; and

3) If a private disability claim in “approved” status is later terminated and then reinstated, no Social Security offset could be claimed for any period where the private contract benefits were not paid.

These are common sense reforms that would bring about real and meaningful change in the lives of the occupationally disabled worker. They would save the federal government billions in actual benefit and administrative costs. And, as a bonus, these changes would clean up questionable claims-handling practices within the disability insurance industry.

—————

John Joseph (J.J.) Conway is an employee benefits and ERISA attorney and litigator and founder of J.J. Conway Law in Royal Oak.

Population growth and global warming are two of the “biggies” we discussed in previous columns.

This column is the fourth in a series of articles on the environment.

Population growth and global warming are two of the “biggies” we discussed in previous columns.

But there are numerous other environmental challenges that threatened a habitable Earth. Each one foretells an ominous future.

These include: pollution of air, water, soil, noise, radiation, light and thermal; soil degradation; dying coral reefs, depletion of natural resources; waste disposal; ocean acidification and hundreds of “dead zones” in which fish can no longer breed because of pollution; plastic suffocation; overfishing, nuclear waste disposal and acid rain. And there are others -- many others.

Given the space limitations of newspaper columns, we cannot examine each one in depth although all deserve extensive analysis.

Thus, we will only cover a few with a paragraph or two. Most of the following comes from Earth.org, a leading environmental news website.

Biodiversity

The populations of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians have experienced a decline of an average 68 percent between 1970 and 2016. More than 500 species of land animals are on the brink of extinction and are likely to be lost within 20 years.

Up to 1 million of the estimated 8 million plant and animal species on Earth are at risk of extinction — many of them within decades — according to scientists and researchers who produced a sweeping U.N. report.

Without human destruction of nature, this loss would have taken thousands of years.

Plastics

In 1950, the world produced about 2 million tons of plastic. By 2024, this annual production grew to 445 million tons, and it is expected to reach 540 million tons by 2050.  If you are having trouble grasping these figures you are not alone.  What’s more, 91 percent of all plastic that has ever been made has not been recycled. Plastic presents us with one of the most significant environmental dangers “of our lifetime,” says Earth.org.

We are being strangled by plastics on land and the seas. There are huge patches of plastics on oceans, some larger than twice the size of the state of Texas, and oceans bottoms are covered with microplastics which fish ingest.
A study in February found microplastics in 99 percent, or 180 out of 182 seafood samples, either from store bought fish or from fishing boats in Oregon.

In another study made public in early February, scientists reported that tiny microplastics are making their way into the human brain.

The new study, published in Nature, found that brain samples collected in 2024 contained significantly more microplastics than those taken eight years earlier. The amount of plastic in the brain has increased by about 50 percent -- the equivalent of an entire plastic spoon in weight.

Deforestation

Given the degree of deforestation every day, every hour, by the year 2030, the planet might only have 10 percent of its forests left. All forests could be gone in less than a century.

Most of the deforestation occurs in three countries: Brazil, The Democratic Republic of Congo and Indonesia. The Amazon, the world’s largest rain forest, is home to about three million species of plants and animals. Rain forests are also vital, as mentioned in a previous column, because they absorb CO2.

Air Pollution

Between 4.2 and 7 million people die from air pollution worldwide every year and 9 out of 10 people breathe air that contains high levels of pollutants. In Africa, 258,000 people died as a result of outdoor air pollution in 2017, up from 164,000 in 1990.

 More than half a million people in European countries died from heath issues directly linked to toxic pollutants exposure in 2021.

Melting Ice Caps/Sea Level Rise

The Artic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet. As a result, sea levels are rising more than twice as quickly as they did for most of the 20th century.

In 2019, Greenland lost a record amount of ice -- an average of a million tons per minute throughout the year. In the summer of 2020, 60 billion tons of ice were lost in Greenland. The Greenland ice sheet, the second largest ice sheet in the world, is cracking more rapidly than ever before, scientists reported in early February.

This melting is causing record sea level increases, threatening floods in coastal areas that are home to 340 to 480 million people. Five Solomon Islands have “disappeared” because of rising seas and another 20 are expected to sink around the world by the end of the century. Experts predict that by 2100 seas will rise enough to sink eight U.S. cities on the East Coast.

Agriculture/Clean Water

The global food system is responsible for up to one-third of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions with 30 percent caused by livestock and fisheries. Projections by experts warn that global food demand may increase by 70 percent by 2050.  

About 1.1 billion people worldwide lack access to water, and 2.7 billion find water scarce for at least once a month.

Fashion and Textile Waste

This is one category, I am confident, no one reading this series ever thought would be a threat to the planet.  Yet, it accounts for 10 percent of global carbon emissions. It produces more greenhouse gas emissions than aviation and shipping combined.  

The world generates an estimated 101 million tons of textiles waste every year, and that number is expected to increase to 147 million tons by 2030.

I have not even given any space to the following in this series: Dying coral reefs, nuclear waste disposal, overfishing, ocean acidification, soil degradation or garbage disposal (yes, garbage disposal is a horrendous problem).
Again, none of this tells the full story, and I almost feel like apologizing for reporting all this bad news.  But we need to understand the problem in order to solve it.

If you believe these problems or the others discussed in previous columns, can be fixed, then you don’t want to read my conclusion, the next and final column in this series on the environment.


—————

Berl Falbaum is a political author and journalist and the author of several books.

The Earth reached an historic milestone at year-end 2023 which should have been met with a woeful outcry but instead was greeted with a deafening silence.

The Earth reached an historic milestone at year-end 2023 which should have been met with a woeful outcry but instead was greeted with a deafening silence.

The world population of 7.9 billion slipped over the 8 billion mark. Worse, projections are that we will hit 9.1 billion by 2050, just 25 years away. This addition of another 1.1 billion people will require huge supplies of clean water, land, shelter, food, and energy, and it will further invade wildlife habitats.

Not only was this growth greeted with a yawn, but those who reported on the growth discussed it in entirely economic terms. Hardly a word was said about what it meant in terms of our environmental future.

Just one “minor” example: The New York Times in April 2023, reported that India will soon pass China in population, writing: “With size -- a population that now exceeds 1.4 billion -- comes geopolitical, economic and cultural power…And with growth comes the prospect of a ‘demographic dividend’.’’

The Times devoted three pages analyzing this development. There was not one word on what this meant to the environment.

Now, you don’t have to be a climate change expert, scientist or scholar to know that growth requires resources. We will now need more land for shelter, food, water, and energy -- resources which are already at a minimum. We are already using resources faster than the Earth can replenish them.

The dire warnings regarding population growth are not new; many experts in the past have tried to get the attention of the world on the threat that population growth poses to our existence.

For instance, the United Nations has estimated the planet will need twice as much food by 2050 than we are producing now. Its Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has reported we will need to increase world food production by 60 to 70 percent to feed 9 billion people.

In 2006, when former Vice President Al Gore released his award-winning book and movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which warned about the environmental challenges we face, the world population stood at 6.6 billion. We have witnessed an increase of 1.4 billion people or a 21.2 percent jump in just 19 years.

In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich, and his wife, Anne Howland Ehrlich, two Stanford University researchers, warned in their book, “The Population Bomb,” that the Earth cannot sustain the growth it was experiencing.
The population at the time: a mere 3.5 billion.

In 2016, Edward Osborne Wilson, a biologist known as the Darwin of the 21st century who won two Pulitzer Prizes, warned in his book, “Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life,” that to survive, mankind needs to reserve half the Earth for wildlife. He also warned in his studies that the Earth has only the capacity to support 9 to 10 billion people.

In the early 1970s, a small group of scientists created a computer model called World3 which analyzed population growth.  Its findings were published in a book, “The Limits to Growth.” The conclusion?

“…humanity was despoiling nature so fast that civilizational collapse would occur sometime within the next one hundred years.”

To give these abstract forecasts some meaning let’s look at Kenya. In 1971, it had a population of 11 million which grew to 53.7 million by 2021. In 1971, the country had 160,000 elephants and 20,000 black rhinos. By 2021, those numbers dropped to 35,000 elephants and 1,000 black rhinos and only two white rhinos (both female.) The same scenario is playing out throughout the world.  (I chose Kenya as an example because I visited the country on a photo safari in 1996. It was an experience of a lifetime.)

Let’s focus on a place closer to home: Oakland County. Every time friends would point to a beautiful new subdivision, I would reply, “that’s pollution” because it took habitat from insects, bees, deer, coyotes, skunks, racoons, etc., all essential to the “circle of life.” Of course, the growth also created problems of water supply and pollution in the county’s many lakes.

When I was in my teens in the 1950s (yes, I’m old), much of where I now live, West Bloomfield, was farmland. I paid a farmer a couple of bucks to go horseback riding. It was a win-win for the farmer. He earned a few dollars and I exercised his horses. Now, when I sit in a traffic jam at Orchard Lake Road and Maple, I wish I was back in the saddle again.  

I doubt there is much land left on which to expand in my suburb. Space is, after all, finite.

The problem: by the time the world understands the meaning of the emergency flashes on the radar and tries to respond appropriately, it will probably be too late.  

The NATO Review, reported under the headline, “Population Growth, the Defining Challenge of the 21st Century:”

“Without taking action now, billions of people across the world will face thirst, hunger, slum conditions and conflict in response to droughts, food shortages, urban squalor, migration and ever depleting natural resources, while capacity tries to catch up with demand.”

The Population Center wrote:

“Slowing down, stopping and eventually reversing human population growth ---these are ethical imperatives that will help improve the chances for future generations establishing living scenarios with the planet. The most ethical gift we can give people and creatures of the last 21st century and early 22nd century is a chance.”

Regrettably, we are not living up to our moral and ethical obligation.

(Editor’s Note: This is the second in a series of five columns on the environment.)

—————

Berl Falbaum is a political author and journalist and the author of several books.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), enacted on February 12, 1925, has been a cornerstone of American dispute resolution for a century.

Lisa W. Timmons
Lisa W. Timmons, PLLC, Arbitrator and Mediator

Introduction

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), enacted on February 12, 1925, has been a cornerstone of American dispute resolution for a century. It transformed arbitration from a seldom-used alternative into a central feature of the U.S. legal system. Over the past 100 years, the FAA has evolved through legislative amendments, judicial interpretations, and policy shifts, establishing arbitration as a preferred method for resolving disputes in commercial, labor, and consumer contexts, as evidenced by the widespread inclusion of arbitration clauses in contracts across these sectors. This article explores the origins of the FAA, its legislative history, and recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that may shape its future.

Historical Origins of the FAA

A. Pre-FAA: Hostility Toward Arbitration in Early America

Before the FAA's enactment, arbitration faced significant resistance in the United States. Influenced by English common law, the U.S. legal system was often hostile toward arbitration agreements, viewing them as attempts to bypass judicial authority. Courts frequently refused to enforce arbitration clauses, compelling parties to litigate despite prior agreements to arbitrate disputes.

This reluctance was rooted in concerns that arbitration lacked procedural safeguards and the belief that private dispute resolution should not supplant formal judicial processes. Many state laws rendered arbitration agreements unenforceable, making arbitration an impractical alternative to litigation.

B. The Need for Reform: Rise of Commercial Arbitration

In the early 20th century, the rapid expansion of commerce and industry in the U.S. led to increased litigation, congesting court dockets and creating inefficiencies in contract enforcement. Business leaders and trade organizations advocated for arbitration reform, viewing it as a more efficient and cost-effective method for resolving commercial disputes.

The American Bar Association (ABA) and the New York Chamber of Commerce spearheaded efforts for federal legislation to ensure the enforceability of arbitration agreements. These efforts culminated in the drafting of the United States Arbitration Act, later known as the Federal Arbitration Act.
Passage of the Federal Arbitration Act

A. Congressional Sponsors and Presidential Signing

The Federal Arbitration Act was enacted on February 12, 1925, and became effective on January 1, 1926. It was introduced by Senator Charles L. Bernheimer, who was also a dry goods merchant in Manhattan, and supported by members of Congress who viewed arbitration as essential for American commerce. President Calvin Coolidge signed the Act into law, marking a significant shift in the legal landscape regarding arbitration agreements. The FAA aimed to:

1. Make arbitration agreements legally enforceable, preventing courts from arbitrarily invalidating them.

2. Reduce judicial hostility toward arbitration.

3. Promote efficiency and finality in dispute resolution by diverting disputes from congested courts.

Initially, the FAA applied primarily to maritime and commercial contracts, leaving employment and consumer arbitration largely unregulated at the time. This changed gradually over the decades, largely due to judicial interpretation rather than legislative amendments. The expansion of the FAA’s reach, particularly into employment contracts, occurred through a series of Supreme Court decisions that broadened its scope beyond its original intent. Examples include:

1.    Gilmer v. Interstate/ Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) – Employment Arbitration Expansion. In Gilmer the Supreme Court ruled that employment arbitration agreements were enforceable under the FAA unless Congress had explicitly stated otherwise. This decision marked a significant shift in how the FAA applied to workers, effectively allowing employers to compel arbitration of employment disputes.
The ruling encouraged employers across industries to adopt mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts.

2.    Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001) – Narrowing the FAA's Employment Exemption. Held that the FAA contains a transportation worker exemption in 9 U.S.C. § 1, excluding “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

3.    AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011)– Consumer Arbitration Expansion. In AT&T Mobility the Supreme Court held that the FAA preempted state laws that prohibited mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. This ruling overturned state laws that had attempted to restrict forced arbitration, leading to widespread enforcement of arbitration agreements in consumer contracts. After this case, businesses increasingly included class action waivers in arbitration agreements, limiting consumers' ability to bring collective lawsuits.

4. Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497 (2018)– Class Action Waivers Upheld. The Supreme Court ruled that employers could enforce arbitration clauses that require employees to waive their right to collective or class action lawsuits. This decision further strengthened employer-controlled arbitration, limiting workers' ability to pursue legal claims collectively.

Legislative inaction also played a key role in the expansion of arbitration, as Congress has not amended the FAA to limit its scope, effectively allowing the courts to determine its application. Additionally, pro-business policy shifts contributed to this expansion, as arbitration became increasingly favored by businesses due to its cost-effectiveness and efficiency compared to litigation. Finally, preemption of state laws further solidified arbitration’s dominance, with the Supreme Court consistently striking down state attempts to restrict arbitration agreements in employment and consumer contracts.

B.    Worker Exemptions Under the FAA

Certain classifications of workers are exempt from the FAA, despite its broad applicability to most private-sector employees. Among these exemptions, transportation workers, seamen, federal government employees, and independent contractors in the transportation industry are notably excluded from FAA provisions due to industry-specific regulations and legal precedents. These exemptions highlight a congressional intent to exclude certain workers reach of the FAA due to the presence of other statutory frameworks that govern their labor rights, such as the Railway Labor Act (RLA) (railroad and airline employees), Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA)(federal employees), and 9 U.S.C. § 1(seamen and maritime workers).

C. Restoring Choice: The End of Forced Arbitration in Sexual Misconduct Cases

On March 3, 2022, President Joseph Biden signed into law the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFASHA). This landmark legislation amended the FAA rendering pre-dispute arbitration agreements unenforceable for claims involving sexual assault or sexual harassment. The Act empowers survivors to choose between pursuing their claims in court or through arbitration, rather than being compelled into private arbitration proceedings. Notably, the law applies to any dispute or claim that arises on or after its enactment date, regardless of when the underlying conduct occurred. This ensures that individuals who experience such misconduct have the autonomy to decide the forum in which to seek justice.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court Cases Impacting the FAA

• Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411(2022): Clarified that a party does not have to prove prejudice when arguing that another party has waived their right to arbitration.

• Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (2022): The Supreme Court ruled that California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims can be subject to arbitration, limiting employees’ ability to
bring representative labor law claims.

• Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 (2023): Held that when a federal district court denies a motion to compel arbitration, the losing party has a statutory right to an interlocutory appeal. 9 U.S.C.S. § 16(a).
The district court must stay its pre-trial and trial proceedings while an interlocutory appeal is ongoing.

Then in 2024 alone, the Supreme Court issued several significant decisions regarding arbitration:

• Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472 (2024): The Court unanimously held that under Section 3 of the FAA, federal courts are required to stay proceedings when a dispute is referred to arbitration, rather than dismissing the case. This decision emphasizes the mandatory nature of staying proceedings pending arbitration, ensuring that parties can return to court, if necessary, after arbitration concludes.

• Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 602 U.S. 143 (2024): The Court stressed the contractual foundation of arbitration agreements, ruling that disputes over the applicability of arbitration clauses should be resolved based on traditional contract principles. The decision underscores that parties are bound by the terms to which they have mutually agreed, reinforcing the importance of clear and explicit arbitration provisions in contracts. The Court also ruled that when parties have agreed to two contracts, one that sends arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other either explicitly or implicitly sends arbitrability disputes to the courts, a court must decide which contract governs.

• Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. 246 (2024): In a unanimous decision, the Court clarified that transportation workers do not need to be employed within the transportation industry to qualify for the FAA's exemption. This ruling broadens the scope of workers who can seek exemption from mandatory arbitration under the FAA, focusing on the nature of the work performed rather than the employer's industry classification.

Conclusion

For the last century, the Federal Arbitration Act has shaped the way Americans resolve disputes. Initially enacted to promote efficiency and fairness in commercial transactions, the FAA has since expanded to nearly all areas of law, including employment, consumer rights, and international commerce. As arbitration continues to evolve, debates over its fairness and accessibility remain at the forefront. The next century will determine whether arbitration remains dominant or faces greater regulation. As we mark its 100th anniversary, the FAA’s legacy remains unparalleled in American law.

—————

Lisa W. Timmons, Esq., has over 27 years of experience in alternative dispute resolution (ADR). She is the chair of the ADR Section of the Michigan State Bar, and the Executive Director of the Mediation Tribunal Association. Timmons serves as an arbitrator, mediator, and case evaluator of labor, employment, and commercial cases with the American Arbitration Association (AAA), FMCS, USPS, MERC, FINRA, and several other public and private arbitration and mediation panels.

Michigan’s Republican House majority and Democratic Senate majority face an early test of whether they can agree with each other.

Mackinac Center for Public Policy

What lawmakers are discussing is not whether the state will have a minimum wage or mandate paid sick leave benefits. The question is how to do it, whom it applies to, and how much the state will require.

I thought long and hard on how to start this series to get the attention of readers.  And I don’t mean just to “tickle” their interest in the subject so they read it but with the hope they understand the ominous message about the future we face.

(EDITOR’S NOTE:  With this column, we begin to publish a five-part series on the environment written by our contributing political columnist Berl Falbaum, a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.  The columns will appear over the next few weeks.  Berl has studied the issue for the last two decades, including writing a book, “Code Red! Code! Red!  How Destruction of the Environment Poses Lethal Threat to Life on Earth.” We welcome your comments.)

I thought long and hard on how to start this series to get the attention of readers.  And I don’t mean just to “tickle” their interest in the subject so they read it but with the hope they understand the ominous message about the future we face.

Full disclosure: I am a journalist, not a scientist. I did not conduct any independent research. My reporting comes from researching the research done by world experts.

In these articles, I did not attribute every statistic, conclusion, prediction or finding because I thought that would be awkward and annoying to readers.  But it all comes from authoritative sources. In my book, I list more than 100 references.

This series is not recreational reading. There is no good news to report.

With that warning, here goes.

David Wallace-Wells, who has written extensively on the environment, did it by starting his book with the following eight words: “It is worse, much worse, than you think.”

I will try it with the following: The Earth is becoming uninhabitable for humans much faster than many experts predicted. And it may well be too late to stop the environmental deterioration on numerous fronts, not just global warming that receives most of the attention.

Scientists are warning we are on the cusp of the Earth experiencing its sixth extinction, the first one caused by humans -- you and me.

The last extinction, the fifth, happened 65 million years ago when an asteroid crashed into the Earth, wiping out the dinosaurs.

There is not an inch of land, or a body of water on the planet, no matter how small or isolated, which is not being impacted by environmental issues. Yes, including your beautiful gated subdivision.

The following comes from a story, published by The Guardian, on a report written by renowned environmental experts:

“Many of Earth’s ‘vital signs’ have hit record extremes, indicating that the future of humanity hangs in the balance….

“More and more scientists are now looking into the possibility of societal collapse… [The report] assessed 35 vital signs in 2023 and found that 25 were worse than ever recorded, including carbon dioxide levels and human population. This indicates a ‘critical and unpredictable new phase of the climate crisis.’”

Consider the following: Patagonia, which sits on the western side of South America, is one of the least populated regions on the planet. With an area of one million square kilometers, Patagonia is larger than 80 percent of countries on Earth. It has less than five percent of the population of both Chile and Argentina, making it a sparsely populated region.

Yet, it is being severely impacted by polluted air and water carried by currents of both and it is inundated with microplastics.

Or consider this: A scientist testing a submarine took it to the deepest depths of the oceans, some 36,000 feet. What did he find? Plastic garbage bags and candy wrappers.

Even the shape of the Earth is being affected. You read that correctly.

Scientists at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, published a report in the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. that the moon’s gravitational pull has steadily lengthened days, but polar melting is redistributing water closer to the equator.

This makes the Earth more oblate -- or fatter -- slowing the rotation of the planet and lengthening the day faster than the lunar effect alone.  

While we should be addressing environmental dangers, the deadly threats have been met with apathy and/or denial. We should be discussing the environment as we did COVID at its peak. Instead, raging fires, floods, melting glaciers, soaring temperatures, plastic contamination, air and water pollution, nuclear waste disposal, deforestation --- and so much more -- are met with a sentence or two in news reports. Like in, “By the way…”

Jonathan Watts, The Guardian’s global environment editor, wrote: “…weather catastrophes have become so commonplace that they risk being normalized.  Instead of outrage and determination to reduce the dangers, there is a sense of complacency: these things happen. Someone else is responsible. Somebody else will fix it.”

The Guardian, incidentally, publishes four stories on the environment every day and they contain mostly negative news.

In one opinion piece The Nation wrote during the Los Angeles fire calamity:

“These mega-fires have called forth a mega-failure by much of the news media. A review of coverage to date shows that most journalism is still not accurately representing how the climate crisis is upending our civilization by driving increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather.

“Too much of the [Los Angeles fire] coverage has simply ignored the climate crisis altogether, an inexcusable failure when the scientific link between such mega-fires and a hotter, dryer planet is unequivocal.”

—————

Berl Falbaum is a political author and journalist and the author of several books.