News
UN climate negotiations end on shaky geopolitical ground, but I see reasons for hope
Shannon Gibson, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
The 2024 United Nations climate talks wrapped up two days late, with an ending fitting that of a geopolitical reality TV show, complete with walkouts and recriminations.
Countries agreed on a new climate finance target on Nov. 24, 2024, promising to provide at least US$300 billion annually by 2035 to help developing countries build clean energy systems. But it was far less than the $1.3 trillion vulnerable countries were calling for.
The conference also delayed a debate over how to move forward on a 2023 agreement for all countries to contribute to “transitioning away from fossil fuels” and to submit climate pledges aligned with the 1.5C limit.
Some people may be ready to write the epitaph for global progress against climate change. But as someone who teaches global environmental politics and has followed international climate talks for years, I see both practical and moral reasons to remain hopeful.
The battle to keep the 1.5 C goal alive
In 2015, the world’s nations agreed as part of the Paris climate accord to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), with an aspirational target of 1.5 C (2.7 F). This target is important, but sometimes confusing. It is rooted in science, but it is not a singular “tipping point.”
As the planet warms beyond 1.5 C, multiple large-scale climate shifts will become more likely.
Ocean circulation is already slowing, coral reefs face increasingly common mass bleaching events as the oceans heat up, and Arctic permafrost is thawing, releasing greenhouse gases that further fuel climate change. Rising temperatures are also fueling increasingly frequent and more damaging heat waves, droughts, wildfires and flooding that put human lives and livelihoods at risk.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/mRX0t/1
Recognizing these risks, the Paris Agreement was widely heralded, and many countries have made progress in lowering their emissions in the decade since. However, not all countries are pulling their weight.
In 2023, the U.N. acknowledged that the countries’ current commitments for addressing climate change, known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, would still result in a catastrophic 2.5 C to 2.9 C (4.5 F to 5.2 F) of warming by 2100.
The World Meteorological Organization issued a “red alert” in November 2024 that the world is on track to overshoot the 1.5 C goal this year. It notes that this overshoot can be temporary – if countries take greater action.
How the world can still meet the Paris goals
Countries can still turn the tide on climate change.
The outcomes of the 2023 climate talks provided a road map for countries to increase their efforts toward net-zero emissions:
- Triple renewable energy capacity globally.
- Accelerate a phasedown of coal power.
- Transition away from fossil fuels.
- Accelerate zero-emissions and low-emissions technologies.
- Cut methane and other noncarbon dioxide emissions.
- Reduce emissions from road transport.
- Phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
Many countries are making progress on this transition.
Among developed countries, Norway is on track to phase out of fossil fuel vehicle sales in 2025. China has become a leader in renewable energy. It pledged in 2020 to double its renewable energy capacity by 2030, and, thanks to solar power deployment, it expects to complete that goal in half the time.
Other nations, including the U.K., Greece and Denmark, have embarked on major efforts to scale down coal power, with Portugal being the first to hit zero coal.
An important mechanism of the Paris Agreement is the expectation that countries will ratchet up their commitments every five years. The deadline for these new climate goals is early 2025, and some countries have gotten a head start.
Brazil announced its new climate commitments during the climate conference, pledging to reduce emissions 67% by 2035. The United Arab Emirates submitted a commitment to reduce its emissions by 47% compared with its 2019 baseline emissions. Other countries signaled their intentions in high-level statements. Belgium announced a doubling of its climate finance contribution.
These new announcements are a good sign of continued global support for the Paris Agreement goals.
Additionally, the conference made progress on agreements to reduce non-CO₂ emissions, namely methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons – also known as climate change “super pollutants” because of their extreme global warming potential.
Why the Paris Agreement will survive a second Trump presidency
There is no doubt that Donald Trump returning as U.S. president will pose significant roadblocks to efforts to slow climate change. As a candidate, he talked about throttling back U.S. efforts, including cutting funding for clean energy and eliminating regulations on the fossil fuel industry.
But efforts to deal with climate change are bigger than one person or even one country.
While Trump has declared that he will pull the U.S. out of the international Paris Agreement again, influential people are advising him to reconsider. Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods argued that a U.S. withdrawal would leave a hole at the global negotiating table.
Even if Trump does pull the U.S. out of the treaty, which he can do after a one-year waiting period, that doesn’t mean pro-climate actions in the U.S. will simply stop or that the agreement will fall apart.
There are commonsense business reasons to push climate efforts forward, starting with the fact that clean energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels in much of the world. Nearly 1 in 5 vehicles sold in 2023 globally were electric. In the U.S., heat pump sales are beating gas furnaces for the third straight year. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/levelized-cost-of-energy?tab=chart
A withdrawal from the Paris Agreement also does not prevent states and cities from continuing their progress against climate change.
In fact, after Trump announced he would withdraw the U.S. from the agreement in 2017, several U.S. states doubled down on their climate commitments. Hawaii, for example, passed legislation to be “Paris compliant” and get to net-negative emissions, meaning it will sequester more emissions than it emits.
California continues to report falling emissions even with a growing economy. The state sued several large oil and gas companies for deceiving the public about climate change.
Moreover, a U.S. retreat from the Paris Agreement would not be an embargo on individual actions. Engineers and scientists will continue to create innovative technology to reduce emissions and slow climate change, and corporations will reap the economic benefits of energy efficiency and clean energy market leadership.
This acknowledgment has given rise to calls for a blend of optimism and pragmatism.
Looking ahead to 2025
Next year’s COP30, to be held in Brazil, is important because countries face a deadline for setting new targets. Overall, their current policies still fall short of the 1.5 C goal.
Calls for greater commitments are not just optimistic, they are economically and morally compelling.
For one, the future cost of inaction now is greater than the cost of action, so concerted decisions to delay emissions cuts now will only harm countries in the future.
Morally, the international community has a responsibility to mitigate suffering. This is the very nature of long-held international norms and laws, such as the “responsibility to protect,” and reiterated in Pope Francis’ calls for global environmental responsibility.
While the climate will breach the 1.5 C warming limit, every fraction of a degree matters. I believe it is crucial that countries, states, business leaders and people everywhere continue the shift toward cleaner energy to minimize the impact.
Researchers Emerson Damiano and Lauren Segal, students in environmental studies at the University of Southern California, contributed to this article.
Shannon Gibson, Associate Professor of International Relations and Environmental Studies, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Travel Advisory
Traveling to Mexico this spring? Here’s what to know about current advisories
Traveling to Mexico this spring? Visitors should be aware of state-specific travel advisories, as safety concerns in one region do not affect major resort areas like Cancun and Los Cabos, currently rated Level 2, which encourages increased caution. Monitoring official updates is essential for informed travel decisions amidst evolving conditions.
Last Updated on March 30, 2026 by Daily News Staff
Traveling to Mexico this spring? Here’s what to know about current advisories
(Tiffany Miller for ALG Vacations) For some travelers counting down to spring break, recent headlines about violence in parts of Mexico have sparked a new question: Should I cancel my trip? Travel advisors say they are seeing a surge in calls and emails from clients trying to determine whether developments in one region affect major resort areas elsewhere.
The questions follow several days of unrest in parts of Mexico after security operations targeting organized crime leaders prompted temporary flight disruptions and shelter-in-place guidance for U.S. government personnel in areas including Puerto Vallarta and Guadalajara. In this article, ALG Vacations explains what current travel advisories mean for spring break travelers heading to Mexico.
The U.S. State Department evaluates Mexico state by state, not as a single destination, and advisory levels vary by region. Many major beach destinations, including Cancun, Riviera Maya, Tulum and Los Cabos, are currently under a Level 2 advisory, which encourages travelers to exercise increased caution. It does not discourage travel.
Part of the confusion stems from geography. Puerto Vallarta, on the Pacific coast, is roughly 1,300 miles from Cancun and the Riviera Maya on the Caribbean side, about the distance between New York and Miami. Because advisories are assigned state by state, developments in one region do not automatically alter another.
In recent days, that uncertainty has translated into additional inquiries about whether specific resort areas are experiencing disruptions. U.S. Embassy security alerts issued this week indicate that temporary shelter-in-place guidance affecting Puerto Vallarta was lifted and that flight operations resumed. The advisory level for the Mexican state of Quintana Roo remains unchanged.
Some clients are asking about alternatives, advisors say, but many are continuing with their plans after reviewing official updates. Travel patterns often shift in response to breaking headlines, they add, before stabilizing as clearer information becomes available.
The State Department assigns travel advisories on a four-tier scale ranging from Level 1, exercise normal precautions, to Level 4, do not travel. While Level 2 encourages increased awareness, Level 3 and Level 4 carry stronger language discouraging or restricting travel.
Advisories are reviewed regularly and can be updated as conditions evolve. The State Department’s Mexico advisory page breaks down conditions by state, reflecting the country’s federal structure rather than issuing a single national designation. Travelers can also enroll in the State Department’s Smart Traveler Enrollment Program, which provides real-time security updates and allows U.S. officials to contact citizens in an emergency.
Embassy notices state that airports, hotels and tourism services in Quintana Roo are operating normally. Security conditions across Mexico vary widely by state, with some regions carrying higher advisories and others designated Level 1. Most destinations popular with U.S. travelers are currently classified as Level 2.
As spring break approaches, advisors say informed decision-making depends on reviewing the advisories assigned to a specific destination and monitoring official updates, rather than reacting to national headlines alone. Travel decisions ultimately depend on individual comfort levels, they add, but advisory levels are assigned regionally and should be evaluated accordingly.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
SOURCE:
Welcome to the Consumer Corner section of STM Daily News, your ultimate destination for savvy shopping and informed decision-making! Dive into a treasure trove of insights and reviews covering everything from the hottest toys that spark joy in your little ones to the latest electronic gadgets that simplify your life. Explore our comprehensive guides on stylish home furnishings, discover smart tips for buying a home or enhancing your living space with creative improvement ideas, and get the lowdown on the best cars through our detailed auto reviews. Whether you’re making a major purchase or simply seeking inspiration, the Consumer Corner is here to empower you every step of the way—unlock the keys to becoming a smarter consumer today!
https://stmdailynews.com/category/consumer-corner
Community
McDonald’s First Job Confessional Turns Career Stories Into Free Meal Opportunity
McDonald’s is launching First Job Confessional, a campaign inviting fans to share first job stories for a chance to receive a $15 gift card in select cities.
First Job Confessional
McDonald’s is putting first jobs in the spotlight with a new campaign that asks fans to share the real-world skills they gained early in their working lives. Launched on National Employee Appreciation Day, the brand’s First Job Confessional invites people to reflect on how those first roles helped shape their careers — and, in some cases, earn a free meal in the process.
The campaign is built around a simple idea: first jobs often teach lasting skills that deserve more recognition. Whether someone learned problem-solving while babysitting, communication during a lunch rush, or teamwork behind a counter, McDonald’s is framing those experiences as valuable career foundations. The company says those are the same kinds of skills employers continue to prioritize as workplace demands evolve.
How the First Job Confessional Works
In select cities, McDonald’s is setting up confessional booths designed to look like ordering kiosks. But instead of placing a meal order, participants can record a story about their first job and the skills they picked up along the way. Those who take part in person will have the opportunity to receive a $15 McDonald’s gift card, while supplies last.
Fans who cannot attend in person can still join online by posting their stories using #FirstJobConfessional. McDonald’s says selected videos may also be featured on its YouTube channel, extending the campaign beyond the live events.
External Related Links
- McDonald’s corporate article: McDonald’s is Asking Fans to Get Real About Their First Job Skills in Exchange for Free Meals
- McDonald’s 1 in 8: First Job Confessional
- McDonald’s 1 in 8 home page
- Marketing Dive coverage of the campaign
- Parade coverage of the First Job Confessional tour
Source Links
- Original PRNewswire press release from McDonald’s USA, LLC
- McDonald’s official corporate story
- McDonald’s 1 in 8 First Job Confessional page
- McDonald’s 1 in 8 official website
The Bridge is a section of the STM Daily News Blog meant for diversity, offering real news stories about bona fide community efforts to perpetuate a greater good. The purpose of The Bridge is to connect the divides that separate us, fostering understanding and empathy among different groups. By highlighting positive initiatives and inspirational actions, The Bridge aims to create a sense of unity and shared purpose. This section brings to light stories of individuals and organizations working tirelessly to promote inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Through these narratives, readers are encouraged to appreciate the richness of diverse perspectives and to participate actively in building stronger, more cohesive communities.
https://stmdailynews.com/the-bridge
Artificial Intelligence
As OpenAI attracts billions in new investment, its goal of balancing profit with purpose is getting more challenging to pull off
Last Updated on March 23, 2026 by Daily News Staff
Alnoor Ebrahim, Tufts University
OpenAI, the artificial intelligence company that developed the popular ChatGPT chatbot and the text-to-art program Dall-E, is at a crossroads. On Oct. 2, 2024, it announced that it had obtained US$6.6 billion in new funding from investors and that the business was worth an estimated $157 billion – making it only the second startup ever to be valued at over $100 billion.
Unlike other big tech companies, OpenAI is a nonprofit with a for-profit subsidiary that is overseen by a nonprofit board of directors. Since its founding in 2015, OpenAI’s official mission has been “to build artificial general intelligence (AGI) that is safe and benefits all of humanity.”
By late September 2024, The Associated Press, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal and many other media outlets were reporting that OpenAI plans to discard its nonprofit status and become a for-profit tech company managed by investors. These stories have all cited anonymous sources. The New York Times, referencing documents from the recent funding round, reported that unless this change happens within two years, the $6.6 billion in equity would become debt owed to the investors who provided that funding.
The Conversation U.S. asked Alnoor Ebrahim, a Tufts University management scholar, to explain why OpenAI’s leaders’ reported plans to change its structure would be significant and potentially problematic.
How have its top executives and board members responded?
There has been a lot of leadership turmoil at OpenAI. The disagreements boiled over in November 2023, when its board briefly ousted Sam Altman, its CEO. He got his job back in less than a week, and then three board members resigned. The departing directors were advocates for building stronger guardrails and encouraging regulation to protect humanity from potential harms posed by AI.
Over a dozen senior staff members have quit since then, including several other co-founders and executives responsible for overseeing OpenAI’s safety policies and practices. At least two of them have joined Anthropic, a rival founded by a former OpenAI executive responsible for AI safety. Some of the departing executives say that Altman has pushed the company to launch products prematurely.
Safety “has taken a backseat to shiny products,” said OpenAI’s former safety team leader Jan Leike, who quit in May 2024.
Why would OpenAI’s structure change?
OpenAI’s deep-pocketed investors cannot own shares in the organization under its existing nonprofit governance structure, nor can they get a seat on its board of directors. That’s because OpenAI is incorporated as a nonprofit whose purpose is to benefit society rather than private interests. Until now, all rounds of investments, including a reported total of $13 billion from Microsoft, have been channeled through a for-profit subsidiary that belongs to the nonprofit.
The current structure allows OpenAI to accept money from private investors in exchange for a future portion of its profits. But those investors do not get a voting seat on the board, and their profits are “capped.” According to information previously made public, OpenAI’s original investors can’t earn more than 100 times the money they provided. The goal of this hybrid governance model is to balance profits with OpenAI’s safety-focused mission.
Becoming a for-profit enterprise would make it possible for its investors to acquire ownership stakes in OpenAI and no longer have to face a cap on their potential profits. Down the road, OpenAI could also go public and raise capital on the stock market.
Altman reportedly seeks to personally acquire a 7% equity stake in OpenAI, according to a Bloomberg article that cited unnamed sources.
That arrangement is not allowed for nonprofit executives, according to BoardSource, an association of nonprofit board members and executives. Instead, the association explains, nonprofits “must reinvest surpluses back into the organization and its tax-exempt purpose.”
What kind of company might OpenAI become?
The Washington Post and other media outlets have reported, also citing unnamed sources, that OpenAI might become a “public benefit corporation” – a business that aims to benefit society and earn profits.
Examples of businesses with this status, known as B Corps., include outdoor clothing and gear company Patagonia and eyewear maker Warby Parker.
It’s more typical that a for-profit business – not a nonprofit – becomes a benefit corporation, according to the B Lab, a network that sets standards and offers certification for B Corps. It is unusual for a nonprofit to do this because nonprofit governance already requires those groups to benefit society.
Boards of companies with this legal status are free to consider the interests of society, the environment and people who aren’t its shareholders, but that is not required. The board may still choose to make profits a top priority and can drop its benefit status to satisfy its investors. That is what online craft marketplace Etsy did in 2017, two years after becoming a publicly traded company.
In my view, any attempt to convert a nonprofit into a public benefit corporation is a clear move away from focusing on the nonprofit’s mission. And there will be a risk that becoming a benefit corporation would just be a ploy to mask a shift toward focusing on revenue growth and investors’ profits.
Many legal scholars and other experts are predicting that OpenAI will not do away with its hybrid ownership model entirely because of legal restrictions on the placement of nonprofit assets in private hands.
But I think OpenAI has a possible workaround: It could try to dilute the nonprofit’s control by making it a minority shareholder in a new for-profit structure. This would effectively eliminate the nonprofit board’s power to hold the company accountable. Such a move could lead to an investigation by the office of the relevant state attorney general and potentially by the Internal Revenue Service.
What could happen if OpenAI turns into a for-profit company?
The stakes for society are high.
AI’s potential harms are wide-ranging, and some are already apparent, such as deceptive political campaigns and bias in health care.
If OpenAI, an industry leader, begins to focus more on earning profits than ensuring AI’s safety, I believe that these dangers could get worse. Geoffrey Hinton, who won the 2024 Nobel Prize in physics for his artificial intelligence research, has cautioned that AI may exacerbate inequality by replacing “lots of mundane jobs.” He believes that there’s a 50% probability “that we’ll have to confront the problem of AI trying to take over” from humanity.
And even if OpenAI did retain board members for whom safety is a top concern, the only common denominator for the members of its new corporate board would be their obligation to protect the interests of the company’s shareholders, who would expect to earn a profit. While such expectations are common on a for-profit board, they constitute a conflict of interest on a nonprofit board where mission must come first and board members cannot benefit financially from the organization’s work.
The arrangement would, no doubt, please OpenAI’s investors. But would it be good for society? The purpose of nonprofit control over a for-profit subsidiary is to ensure that profit does not interfere with the nonprofit’s mission. Without guardrails to ensure that the board seeks to limit harm to humanity from AI, there would be little reason for it to prevent the company from maximizing profit, even if its chatbots and other AI products endanger society.
Regardless of what OpenAI does, most artificial intelligence companies are already for-profit businesses. So, in my view, the only way to manage the potential harms is through better industry standards and regulations that are starting to take shape.
California’s governor vetoed such a bill in September 2024 on the grounds it would slow innovation – but I believe slowing it down is exactly what is needed, given the dangers AI already poses to society.
Alnoor Ebrahim, Thomas Schmidheiny Professor of International Business, The Fletcher School & Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The science section of our news blog STM Daily News provides readers with captivating and up-to-date information on the latest scientific discoveries, breakthroughs, and innovations across various fields. We offer engaging and accessible content, ensuring that readers with different levels of scientific knowledge can stay informed. Whether it’s exploring advancements in medicine, astronomy, technology, or environmental sciences, our science section strives to shed light on the intriguing world of scientific exploration and its profound impact on our daily lives. From thought-provoking articles to informative interviews with experts in the field, STM Daily News Science offers a harmonious blend of factual reporting, analysis, and exploration, making it a go-to source for science enthusiasts and curious minds alike. https://stmdailynews.com/category/science/
