In the quest for civic success stories, the very last place to look might appear to be climate news. The best efforts of the United Nations Climate Change Conference will not be enough to avert the worst effects of warming, scientists say.
Little wonder youth climate activist Greta Thunberg has dismissed the COP26 global summit in Glasgow as "a green wash festival" and "a failure." But the derision of Thunberg and thousands of other young COP26 protesters is precisely what makes the summit a potential turning point. Shifting politics and coalitions, new players and new narratives all cut against the inevitable parade of stories predicting climate doom.
Here are a few pieces of good climate news worth noting, for the sake of building the political will to press ahead with the real solutions that remain within reach. As former President Barack Obama cautioned at the summit, even as he acknowledged that the future can look bleak, "cynicism is the recourse of cowards. We can't afford hopelessness."
The politics of hope
Scientists have been the first to throw cold water on the lofty pledges made in Glasgow, pointing out that world leaders' commitments to zero out emissions are not ambitious or immediate enough to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. That is the target considered essential to avoid disastrous sea-level rise, heat waves and ecosystem collapse.
Yet even scientists have derived hope from changing climate politics. At the first U.N. climate summit in 1995, The Washington Post noted, Green parties were written off as fringe activists. Green parties in Europe are now mainstream, having won about 10 percent of seats in the European Parliament's most recent elections. In the United States, 60 percent of people now call climate change a major threat, a near-20-point shift since 2013.
Today, as the world reels from unrelenting natural disasters, "no one is questioning the science, no one is questioning that the crisis is happening," Annika Hedberg, who leads sustainability research at the European Policy Center, told The Post. "The debate is around what can be done and at what speed. This is a positive thing — we're not questioning the science but the measures."
Youth power
Youth climate activists' speeches were "the best part"of the COP26 summit, according to the sustainability news site Green Matters, and arguably the most important. Youth activists who made their voices heard in Glasgow included Mikaela Loach, a U.K.-based activist who said climate and justice cannot be separated, Vanessa Nakate, who described how decreased rainfall has devastated crops in her native Uganda, and Kenya-based Elizabeth Wathuti, who warned that Africa's deadly heat waves, wildfires and floods are just beginning.
All three dramatized their stories with emotional appeals, a tactic that legendary conservationist Jane Goodall calls crucial to environmental activism. "Being angry and pointing fingers, you won't get anywhere," Goodall has said. "You just have to reach people's hearts. And the best way I know is to tell stories. My job now is to try and help people understand every one of us makes a difference. And cumulatively, wise choices in how we act each day can begin to change the world."
A commanding coalition
Young people may have the most at stake in the climate debate — the average 6 year old will live through triple the number of climate disasters as their grandparents, a recent study found — but they were hardly the only ones protesting in Glasgow. Indeed, the climate movement is becoming a political force building coalitions across causes from economic inequity to civil rights.
The estimated 100,000 protesters who gathered in Glasgow were joined by activists in Paris, London, and some 200 other locations around the world. Among the most visible and vocal were youth activists with "Fridays for Future," the international movement built around school walkouts launched by Thunberg when she was just 15. But now Thunberg is 18, and she and her fellow students are poised to win fresh influence as adult voters and soon-to-be influence leaders.
And as the climate movement comes of age, it is becoming something of an umbrella campaign for a broad array of progressive causes. Activists in Glasgow included Black rural residents in Brazil concerned about how mining is affecting indigenous communities, vegan activists and social justice advocates opposed to police brutality.
A potent partnership may be emerging between climate activists and labor organizers, who have gained new leverage in this season of strikes and wage demands. Stuart Graham, a Glasgow trade union official and one of the protest organizers, told The New York Times that his top concerns include improving the city's housing stock and boosting free public transportation. "It's critical that we have a civil society with a powerful voice to hold these leaders to account," Graham said.
The shared interests of environmental and labor activists may hold the key to whether global leaders step up the pace on climate action in time to avert disaster. Too often, environmental debates have descended into fights over jobs versus conservation. Obama urged protesters in Glasgow to "stay angry," but also to "build the broad-based coalitions necessary for bold action." The Glasgow protests, in a final bit of good news, hint at the potential to bridge the longstanding worker-environmentalist divide.












Ben Droz
Ben Droz







U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.