In these trying times for the environmental movement, it can sometimes feel impossible to find the (solar-powered) light. However, on September 16th for International Day of Preservation of the Ozone Layer (or World Ozone Day), we remember one of the world’s greatest environmental victories — the Montreal Protocol, 

Adopted 38 years ago today, this landmark agreement regulates the production and use of man-made chemicals known as ozone depleting substances (ODS), such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), after scientists found a correlation between their release into the atmosphere and ozone layer decay. The ozone layer is the Earth’s natural protective shield against intense ultraviolet radiation from the sun. 

This global response stands as a testament to genuine international cooperation, one that was driven by science, guided by a willingness to set aside national interests for the greater good, and grounded in a shared commitment to a brighter future. In honor of this spirit of scientific discovery and global collaboration, here are three times we’ve joined together for much needed environmental action. 

#1 The Montreal Protocol (1987)

In 1985, scientists released a report detailing a significant hole in the stratospheric ozone layer that allowed dangerous ultraviolet radiation (UVB) to reach the Earth’s surface. The depletion of the ozone layer would lead to serious consequences for both the environment and human health. UVB rays are considered to cause non-melanoma skin cancers and are associated with the development of malignant melanoma. UVB radiation also reduces agricultural yields and disrupts marine life. Repairing the hole required global action.

After two years of debate, negotiation, and compromise, the international community came together, proving that humanity can — despite political and cultural divisions — unite to solve pressing environmental problems. The result was the 1987 Montreal Protocol, a landmark international agreement where parties agreed to regulate nearly 100 ozone-depleting substances. 

The ozone repair process was gradual but decisive, driven by a universal recognition of the ozone hole as an existential threat. Phase-out of ozone-depleting substances happened progressively, with different targets for developed and developing countries. As new scientific data on ODS emerged, nations came together to adjust targets, agreeing to accelerate the phase-out of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) which have a global warming potential 2000 times greater than carbon dioxide. 

The protocol has been astonishingly successful. The 2022 UN Scientific Assessment Report on Ozone found that ozone levels are estimated to return to 1980 levels at around 2066 in the Antarctic, around 2045 in the Arctic, and around 2040 globally. Additionally, the report found that measures taken to reduce ozone-depleting substances have simultaneously helped prevent an extreme global warming scenario of an estimated 0.5 – 1 °C by mid-century which could have occurred if ODS emission rates increased uncontrollably beyond 1980 levels. 

Today, the healing of the ozone layer serves as a beacon of hope. It demonstrates the potential for collective action to address even the most daunting environmental challenges as long as we maintain a unified front.

#2 Acid Rain (1990-1999)

Acid rain sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie, but it was a very real problem for the lakes, streams, forests, and wildlife across the northeastern United States and much of Europe from the 1950s through the 1980s. 

When power plants, vehicles, and factories release sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides into the air, these pollutants react with water vapor to form acidic compounds which make acid rain. This acid rain lowers the pH of lakes, rivers, and soils, creating highly acidic conditions that are harmful to aquatic life: fish eggs often fail to hatch below pH 5 aquatic insects can die from acid exposure, and plants essential to food chains may decline . 

In soils, acid rain leaches important nutrients, like calcium and magnesium, and releases toxic aluminum, harming trees and plants. Trees at higher altitudes may also be damaged by acidic clouds and fog which strip nutrients from leaves and needles, weakening them against disease, pests, and cold weather. 

In the United States, acid rain gained national attention after a senior research associate in the Department of Natural Resources, Carl Schofield, reported the presence of acidic cold water lakes making them uninhabitable in the Adirondack region of northeastern New York State, in the U.S. 

Scientists quickly realized that emissions from fossil-fuel-burning power plants in the midwestern United States and regional wind currents were responsible for the phenomenon. In response to growing concerns, the United States’ government passed amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990, establishing the Acid Rain Program, which created an innovative emissions trading system (cap-and-trade). 

This program set strict limits on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants and allowed them to buy and sell emissions allowances, incentivizing cost-effective reductions. This market-based approach was groundbreaking and led to significant reductions in acid-rain-causing pollutants in the following decades.

The act effectively eliminated the threat of acid rain in the United States, proving that science and policy can go hand-in-hand. In 2022, the EPA Long Term Monitoring program (LTM) examined wet sulfate deposition, a form of acid rain. It is a common indicator of acid rain, and compared deposition from 2021-2022 with data from 1989-1999. Scientists found an encouraging over 70% decrease in sulfate levels. 

In 1999, this can-do attitude went international when the United Nations amended the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air-Pollution (LRTAP) to include the Gothenburg Protocol, making it the first international agreement to adopt a multi-pollutant approach  and recognize the combined impact of various air pollutants. Today, more than 51 countries have joined the convention and are committed to keeping the air we breathe and the water we drink clean.

# 3 The Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)

Today, it’s easy to go online to visit national government websites or the Red List and see a (slightly terrifying) list of endangered species. But, those resources weren’t always available. It wasn’t until 1964 that the first list of rare and threatened species was published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. The original list included 204 mammals and 312 birds. It created an international base-line for at risk species and helped spark global conservation efforts. 

A cornerstone of those efforts is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Adopted at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the Convention on Biological Diversity, grew from the understanding that biological diversity is an asset for current and future generations. Since then,196 nations have ratified the convention, and parties continue to meet biennially to adjust targets and set new goals. 

One of those goals is the expansion of protected areas worldwide. Target 11 from the  2010 Aichi Biodiversity Targets aimed to protect at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020. While the marine goal was not fully met, the terrestrial target was, with the 2024 Protected Planet Report sharing that 17.6% of the world’s land is now under some form of protection. 

Building on this progress, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF),  incorporated under the CBD in 2022, set an even more ambitious “30×30″ target to conserve 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030. Progress so far has been slow, but financially, the convention is on firm footing for future growth. In June, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) — the financial mechanism for the CBD and other international treaties — committed more than $261 million in funding for various environmental projects. 

How You Can Use Your Voice to Protect the Planet? 

There’s always more work to be done, but these successes show that progress is always possible. When we trust science, look ahead to future generations, and are unafraid to set ambitious targets, change happens. With a strong history of environmental action to stand on, let’s keep moving forward to tackle the climate crisis. 

Sign our Renewable Energy Petition today to demand that global leaders commit to renewable energy investments, phase out fossil fuels, and stick to the goals established by the Paris Climate Agreement. Plus join us at EARTHDAY.ORG in standing up for the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA faces attacks that could weaken protections for clean air and safe drinking water, putting our communities and future generations at risk. If you are in the U.S., we need your voice. Add your name to our public comments on the EPA’s intentions to gut the agency’s ability to regulate pollution due to climate change, also known as the Endangerment Finding.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post The World Unites in the Face of Crisis appeared first on Earth Day.

As the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, INC-5.2, draws to a close in Geneva, Switzerland, hopes for a breakthrough have dimmed.

The session, intended to finalize a legally binding global plastics treaty, has ended without agreement, with negotiations marred by bitter divisions between countries pushing for ambitious measures to curb plastic production and those seeking to limit the treaty’s scope to mitigate plastic pollution and waste management. 

The latest draft fails to include production caps or strong chemical controls, instead leaning heavily on voluntary commitments and recycling, which is a stance decried by over 100 “high ambition” nations as dangerously inadequate. Fossil fuel–aligned states, backed by a heavy industry presence, resisted upstream limits, reflecting a widening gap between scientific urgency and political will. 

Geneva, in turn, has become a vivid illustration of both the intractability of global environmental diplomacy and the stakes for ecosystems, human health, and economies.

From fossil fuel and plastic lobbyists crowding negotiation halls to civil society staging bold acts of protest, the dynamics inside and outside the Palais des Nations reveal the forces shaping the treaty’s fate. Below are seven critical developments that capture the stakes, the players, and the pivotal decisions that could define the world’s response to the plastics crisis for decades to come. 

1. Aminah Taariq-Sidibe: EARTHDAY.ORG’s Observer In the Eye of the Storm

Aminah, EARTHDAY.ORG’s Manager of the End Plastics Initiative was stationed at the Palais des Nations, serving as our organization’s on-site observer to track real-time developments at this historic moment. This session is the culmination of a multi-year process, building upon five prior negotiation rounds, from Punta del Este (INC-1) through Busan (INC-5.1), now converging in Geneva for what could be the decisive stage of talks. From her vantage point inside the UN complex, Aminah witnessed the tension between the procedural grind and the high-stakes urgency hanging over the room. 

Outside the halls, the “Thinker’s Burden” sculpture by Benjamin Von Wong greets delegates and visitors alike. A six-meter figure inspired by Rodin’s The Thinker sits atop Mother Earth, surrounded by a DNA helix and gradually being engulfed by real plastic waste over the course of the negotiations, serving as a haunting reminder of the mounting burden of delay and inaction.

Plastics, microplastics and their additive chemicals are linked to human infertility, heart disease, cancers, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and more. Yet the plastic industry is fighting every step of the way to take accountability and to limit human exposure. 

2. The Fossil Fuel and Plastic Lobby Vastly Outnumbered Public Interest Voices

Lobbyists from fossil fuel, petrochemical, and plastics sectors — numbering over 234 — dominated Geneva. They outnumber scientists, Indigenous delegates, and even the entire European Union (EU) delegation, with 19 embedded directly within national delegations. 

This creates a corporate capture of the treaty process, as these lobbyists often push for weaker language and voluntary commitments that protect industry profits.

Industry representatives have been particularly active in contact groups dealing with financial mechanisms and national action plan language, which are areas where a single watered-down clause can dramatically blunt the treaty’s enforcement potential. 

The imbalance has alarmed advocates, who say the voices of those most impacted by plastic pollution, such as coastal communities, waste pickers, and Global South nations, are being drowned out.

3. Critical Omissions: No Production Caps & No Chemical Controls 

The Chair’s draft, released on August 13, strips away two of the most important upstream measures: binding plastic production caps and controls on toxic plastic chemicals of concern. Instead, it prioritizes end-of-pipe measures like recycling, which we know has failed to address  the plastic problem for over 50 years, ‘redesign’, and voluntary waste management schemes.

This framing mirrors the preferred position of the petrochemical plastic producers and major oil-exporting nations, which see plastic production as a critical growth market. 

The absence of production caps ignores scientific consensus that curbing virgin plastic output is the single most effective way to reduce plastic pollution and safeguard human health. Omitting controls on harmful plastic additive chemicals, many of which are linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, and developmental harm, undermines the treaty’s ability to safeguard public health.

4. High Ambition Coalition Pushes for Lifecycle Mandates

More than 100 countries, including the European Union (EU), Canada, Colombia, and several small island developing states, are pressing for a treaty that tackles plastics across their entire lifecycle. This means not only waste management, but also limiting plastic production, banning harmful chemicals, and holding producers, ultimately the polluters,  truly accountable.

These nations have repeatedly invoked the “triple planetary crisis” of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, framing plastics as a cross-cutting threat. They are also calling for a robust financial mechanism to support developing countries in implementing treaty obligations. 

EU delegates have stressed that without upstream measures, plastic production could triple by 2060, locking in decades of additional pollution.

5. Creative, Disruptive Activism Gains Momentum Outside the Halls

While negotiators debate commas and clauses inside, activists outside are making their own kind of history. Greenpeace scaled UN buildings to unfurl banners calling for “Cut Plastic Production Now.” The evolving “Thinker’s Burden” sculpture has drawn daily media attention, as it accumulates more plastic waste each day. Swiss oceanic activists handed out bars of soap engraved with the words “No Dirty Tricks” to protest industry interference.

These actions are timed to coincide with key moments in the negotiations, ensuring delegates feel public pressure in real time. Civil society groups have also coordinated press conferences to counter industry talking points and provide journalists with alternative, ambition-focused narratives.

6. On the Last Day Talks Hung by a Thread 

By Day 4, negotiators faced over 370 unresolved brackets in the draft text, which was a sign of deep division. Contentious issues included definitions of “problematic and avoidable plastics,” the scope of national action plans, and whether measures would be mandatory or voluntary.

Certain procedural maneuvers, like reopening already-agreed text or shifting contentious issues to future “technical expert groups,” was used to dilute ambition without outright rejecting proposals. Observers described the mood as tense and fatigued, with some delegates openly questioning whether a meaningful agreement was still possible within the deadline.

7. “This Is Not a Treaty”

One of the most forceful rebukes of the Chair’s draft, declared that this “is not a treaty” but rather “a collection of voluntary national measures” that won’t make any difference in tackling the escalating plastics crisis.They argued that without binding global targets, chemical bans, and accountability mechanisms, the agreement will be little more than a symbolic gesture.

This criticism was echoed by many NGOs and members of the High Ambition Coalition, who see the current text as a capitulation to industry interests. They warned that the credibility of the entire INC process, and the hope of a plastic-free future, hangs in the balance.

Geneva Is At a Crossroads and Your Voice Still Matters

The decisions in Geneva will define not just negotiation history—but the future of plastic governance itself. The evidence, science, and on-the-ground reporting are clear: only bold, legally binding, full-lifecycle protections will do. 

You can take action now by signing the Global Plastics Treaty petition to support an enforceable, production-to-disposal framework. You can also urge lawmakers to defend the EPA, vital for bringing any treaty home with force. Geneva is the moment. Let’s rise.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post On the Ground in Geneva: 7 In-Depth Insights from the Final Push of the Global Plastics Treaty appeared first on Earth Day.

It seems that every time you turn on the news lately, a different crisis has erupted somewhere in the world. With so much instability and insecurity, countries from every corner of the globe are having to face the reality of how they can produce their own energy. 

There is a solution that is not too far out of reach: clean energy. Clean energy sources — such as wind, solar, geothermal and tidal — can not only bolster a country’s national security by making them more energy independent, but also create millions of new jobs as the energy grid transitions to a more sustainable future.

Even as far back as 1972, the United States’ National Science Foundation (NFS) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recognized the importance of clean energy in maintaining a country’s national security and advancing its international interests.

According to the authors, there was a clear national interest in decreasing reliance on other countries for a steady energy supply. With just ten countries – the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, China, Iraq, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, and Kuwait – producing almost three quarters of the world’s oil, switching to renewable energy is one of the few ways to decrease reliance on other countries and to develop a robust domestic energy sector. This sort of energy independence brings clear security benefits.

For example, imagine how different some European nations might feel today, if they had energy grids powered by renewable energy instead of relying on Russian oil. They would not be facing energy threats but instead could have assured domestic energy independence and security by having a steady supply of power.

Will Clean Energy = Long Term Peace?

Well, it depends on who you ask.

According to research by the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, there are two leading schools of thought on clean energy’s impacts on global energy security. 

The first, called the “renewed conflict” camp, argues that clean energy does not actually increase energy independence since the machines that produce clean energy require constant maintenance and upgrades. 

They claim that, instead of getting rid of security threats, the threats could migrate to other  ‘battle grounds.’ For example, the struggle to control other important resources, such as rare minerals (copper, lithium, etc.) could increase global conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa or South America.

The other school of thought, known as the “reduced conflict” camp, on the other hand, argues that democratizing energy production would reduce energy competition and increase self-reliance, thus leading to fewer conflicts between countries. This camp imagines a world in which each country’s energy grid is powered by domestic energy production.

As previously mentioned, the renewed conflict camp bases many of its arguments on the idea that renewable energy will simply redirect the source of energy crises. 

Another important point is that a transition to more renewable energy would minimize what the study calls “energy-insecurity anxiety,” or the precautionary steps countries may take to reduce future energy crises, such as forcing other countries to set aside critical resources or creating unnecessary stock piles through aggressive purchasing. By reducing this anxiety, states can redirect their resources to other national security concerns and focus on maintaining domestic peace. 

Is a transition even possible?

Making the transition to a completely clean energy system will demand real commitment, but it is not impossible. For example, 95-98% of Costa Rica’s electricity is generated from renewable sources, like wind and solar. While Costa Rica’s GDP – occupying a relatively low 70th spot in global Gross Domestic Product rankings (a measure of overall economic activity in a country) – it has still managed to create a clean energy grid due to its nation-wide focus on conservation, education, and health.

In Europe, as well, Norway has emerged as a global leader in clean energy with 98% of all electricity being generated from renewable energy sources. 

All in all, any country can make the transition to a cleaner energy system, regardless of its economic or political status, which strengthens their chances of maintaining peace and security. To make it happen though there must be a societal understanding that clean energy is essential to long-term prosperity and then to demand better from our governments and leaders. Make your voice heard on this important issue – look into organizing events at local, regional, national, and even international levels because each plays a key part in shaping the future and transforming energy policy. 

This change will require government action. So, if you are located in the US, you can contact your representative through EARTHDAY’S website. But you should also assure that you are registered to vote. Check out our Vote Earth page to check your registration status, register to vote, or be informed of important upcoming elections. 

If you live anywhere else in the world, make sure you take part in Earth Action Day 2025! Additionally, look more into what local laws and regulations could be changed to start pushing for a cleaner future. 

No matter what, it will take all of us. So roll up your sleeves and get ready to make a change!

The post Changing Climate and Changing Times: Why We Need Greener Energy for a Safer Future appeared first on Earth Day.

Everyone’s talking about tariffs lately, but do you know what they mean for green energy? Tariffs are taxes imposed on imported goods and services. If you major in economics or have taken a Principles of Economics course in college, you might know that it is a tax imposed on imported goods. It is usually designed to raise tax revenue, reduce imports, or protect domestic industries from foreign competition. 

There are two types of tariffs: ad valorem tariff and specific tariff. An ad valorem tariff is charged as a percentage of the product’s price and is typically used for imported goods with fluctuating prices. 

A specific tariff is based on the quantity of goods and is commonly used for items like food and beverages. All the percentage-based tariffs in the news lately are almost always referring to ad valorem tariffs. 

The calculation for ad valorem tariffs is simple, as it is measured with a fixed percentage of the assessed commercial value of the goods. For example, a 10% tariff on a car imported from outside the United States costing $10,000 would mean a tariff of $1,000. 

So, who pays these tariffs? Domestic companies pay for them when they import foreign goods and these are then nearly always passed onto consumers. In the United States, the tariffs are collected by Customs and Border Protection as goods enter the United State and they recently told CNBC they had  collected more than $500 million since April 5, 2025,  under the current administration. 

Clean energy industries are also affected by the new tariffs, as many rely on imported components—particularly from China, which remains the leading global supplier of solar panels, batteries, and other renewable technologies.

Good or Bad for Green Energy? 

So here’s the real question: Are tariffs helping or hurting the global transition to green energy? At first glance, they might seem harmful to the environment by raising the cost of clean technology. But the real answer is a little more complicated.

As seen in recent headlines, tariffs create challenges for companies that rely on importing materials or products from outside the United States. For these firms, tariff increases their production costs, particularly marginal cost, which is the expense of producing one additional unit. However, by raising the barrier to cheaper imports, tariffs can also encourage domestic production and support the growth of local industries. This trade-off raises important questions about the balance between economic protectionism and environmental progress.

The Solar Tariff Dilemma

Tariffs on solar panels are not a new thing. In 2012, the Obama administration imposed tariffs on Chinese solar manufacturers under its anti-dumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) laws. ‘Dumping’ is when a company sells products in another country at prices lower than in its own country, often to gain more market share. 

On April 21, the U.S. government significantly expanded tariffs to cover solar panels from Southeast Asia, imposing duties as high as 3,521%. This move stems from long standing concerns raised during the Biden administration, when major U.S. solar manufacturers sought protection against unfair competition. The new tariffs target companies in Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam—countries accused of serving as conduits for Chinese subsidies and flooding the market with artificially low-priced products.​

Protecting Domestic Solar Manufacturing

Over the past decade, U.S. policy on solar panel imports has aimed to protect domestic manufacturers, and during that time, the solar industry has grown significantly — averaging  28% annual growth in deployments. By 2023, the industry supported nearly 280,000 American jobs across more than 10,000 companies nationwide and attracted over $70 billion  in private investment.

Despite this progress, China still dominates the global solar panel market, producing over 80% of the world’s supply. Chinese solar products are typically 20% cheaper than American-made alternatives, largely due to their control of the polysilicon supply — the primary material used in solar panels. In 2023, 93% of the world’s polysilicon was produced by Chinese firms.

China’s cost advantage is further amplified by its reliance on coal-powered energy and supportive government policies, which allow manufacturers to produce solar panels at lower prices — but with a higher carbon footprint. This creates a paradox: while solar energy is a solution to climate change, the coal-intensive methods used to produce many of the world’s panels undermine their environmental benefits.

This makes the debate over tariffs complex. On one hand, tariffs help strengthen the U.S. solar industry and reduce reliance on coal-powered imports. On the other hand, they risk slowing the global adoption of clean energy by making solar panels more expensive in the short term. In balancing economic resilience and climate progress, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer.

Let’s Support Green Energy

Despite these complexities, one thing is clear: the world needs more clean energy — fast. Solar panels remain one of the most effective ways to cut down carbon emissions and reach zero carbon emissions goals. If you’re passionate about driving this global change, support us by signing the Our Power, Our Planet Renewable Energy Petition! This campaign urges stronger commitments to clean energy, and your signature will amplify our message to the United Nations at COP30 in November 2025. Every signature makes a difference.

Want to go a step furtherSpeak up for climate action by sending a letter to your Lawmakers and State Lawmakers. Let’s stand together to push back against rollbacks and promote renewable energy in our communities.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post What Do Rising Tariffs Mean for Green Energy? appeared first on Earth Day.