The world’s environmental crises are growing more urgent and interconnected by the day, according to a sweeping new United Nations report and a chorus of environmental experts calling for a radical rethink of global policies. On December 9, 2025, the United Nations released its quadrennial Global Environment Outlook, urging governments, industries, and citizens to abandon piecemeal fixes and instead tackle climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, and pollution as a unified front. The stakes, as the report and global advocates warn, are nothing short of the future health and security of people and the planet.
The UN report, described as the most comprehensive global environmental assessment ever undertaken, was unveiled during the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya. Nearly 300 scientists from 83 countries contributed to its findings, which paint a stark picture: emissions of greenhouse gases hit a new high in 2024, despite decades of international negotiations and agreements. The world, the report warns, is on track to warm by 2.4 degrees Celsius by 2100—far overshooting the Paris Agreement’s target of 1.5 degrees and risking catastrophic consequences.
“You can’t think of climate change without thinking of biodiversity, land degradation and pollution,” said Bob Watson, one of the report’s lead authors and a former top NASA and British climate scientist, as quoted by the Associated Press. “You can’t think of biodiversity loss without thinking about the implications of climate change and pollution.” According to Watson, these crises are “all undermining our economy,” worsening health and poverty, and threatening food, water, and even national security.
Numbers from the report are sobering: up to 40% of global land area is now degraded; more than one million plant and animal species face extinction; and pollution is responsible for an estimated nine million deaths each year. The report’s authors argue that only by recognizing the deep linkages among these issues can the world hope to reverse course. That means transforming every aspect of society—from how governments set policy, to how industries operate, to the choices made by everyday citizens.
The economic argument is as compelling as the moral one. Achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and restoring biodiversity will demand about $8 trillion in global investment each year. Yet, the report projects, starting in 2050, the economic benefits will outpace the spending—reaching $20 trillion annually by 2070 and a staggering $100 trillion per year thereafter. Watson emphasizes that nations must look beyond traditional metrics like gross domestic product, which fail to account for sustainability or environmental harm. The report recommends a “circular economy” that recognizes the planet’s finite resources and rewards sustainable practices.
But the world is not just facing a climate crisis in the abstract. The environmental and human toll of mineral extraction, for instance, is becoming clearer—and more alarming—by the day. According to an opinion piece distributed by Project Syndicate and written by Johanna Sydow and Nsama Chikwanka, roughly 60% of Ghana’s waterways are now heavily polluted due to gold mining along riverbanks. In Peru, weakened environmental protections and suspended regulatory controls have contaminated water sources, including the Rímac River, which supplies Lima, the capital. The Global Atlas of Environmental Justice documents more than 900 mining-related conflicts worldwide, with about 85% involving water pollution.
Major economies are also scrambling to secure the minerals needed for electric vehicles, renewable energy, and digital infrastructure—sometimes at the expense of environmental and humanitarian considerations. The United States, for example, is working to reduce its dependence on China, which dominates rare-earth element processing, even as it faces criticism for sidelining environmental protections. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, is positioning itself as a new power in the minerals sector, forging partnerships with the US while reportedly undermining progress at multilateral forums like this year’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Brazil and the ongoing pre-negotiations of the UN Environment Assembly.
In Europe, powerful industry groups and fossil-fuel companies such as ExxonMobil, TotalEnergies, and Siemens have lobbied for deregulation, sometimes using misleading tactics to undermine new mechanisms designed to protect the rights of communities in resource-producing regions. The risks of ignoring local voices are real: in Serbia, a backlash against Rio Tinto’s Jadar lithium-mining project—fueled by public mistrust and concerns over sustainability—halted development entirely and left the company facing steep losses.
The lesson, according to Sydow and Chikwanka, is that only robust legal frameworks—backed by effective enforcement—can create the conditions for stable and rights-respecting development. That means safeguarding Indigenous rights, ensuring free, prior, and informed consent for all affected communities, protecting water resources, and conducting independent, participatory, and transparent social and environmental impact assessments.
Despite mounting evidence and the urgent tone of the UN report, international cooperation remains elusive. The United States did not attend most of the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, only joining on the final day and expressing disagreement with the report’s findings. “Some countries might say if the US is not willing to act, why should we act?” Watson noted, according to the Associated Press. Even so, he remains optimistic that some nations will press forward, even if others—including the US—fall behind.
Meanwhile, mineral-rich countries are beginning to push for collective action. A resolution introduced by Colombia and Oman at December’s UN Environment Assembly, and co-sponsored by nations like Zambia, calls for a binding minerals treaty that would raise global standards, protect Indigenous rights, and address the dangers posed by mining waste. By placing responsibility on resource-consuming countries, the proposal aims to ensure that the burden of reform does not fall solely on mineral-producing economies.
Climate scientists and advocates are clear-eyed about the challenges ahead, but also about the necessity of rapid, systemic change. “What we’re saying is we can become much more sustainable, but it will take unprecedented change to transform these systems,” Watson said. “It has to be done rapidly now because we’re running out of time.” Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy, summed up the stakes: “It is not about saving the planet. The planet will be orbiting the sun long after we’re gone. The question is, will there be a healthy, thriving human society on that planet? And the answer to that question is very much up for grabs at this point.”
With glaciers melting, clean water growing scarcer, and agriculture increasingly under threat, the world is at a crossroads. The coming years will test whether governments, industries, and citizens can finally unite around the scale of action the crisis demands—or whether business as usual will continue to endanger the very ecosystems that sustain all life on Earth.
