SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Katie Renshaw/Kathleen Sutcliffe, Earthjustice, (202) 667-4500
Citizens in communities affected by cancer-causing air pollution
from vinyl manufacturers went to court today to ask the federal
government to regulate the host of toxins released from these plants.
The nonprofit public interest law firm Earthjustice filed the lawsuit
today in federal district court in Washington, DC, on behalf of the
Sierra Club and two community groups in Louisiana -- Mossville
Environmental Action Now (MEAN) and Louisiana Environmental Action
Network (LEAN).
Each year, PVC plants pump some 500,000 pounds of vinyl chloride --
a known human carcinogen -- and many other toxins into the atmosphere.
In spite of the documented effects of these cancer-causing chemicals,
the federal government has bowed to pressure to keep the PVC industry's
air emissions largely unregulated.
Mossville, Louisiana, with its four vinyl production facilities,
including two major vinyl chloride manufacturers, is considered the
unofficial PVC capitol of America. Mossville residents Edgar Mouton and
Dorothy Felix have spent much of the past decade fighting to protect
their families from the cancer-causing chemicals raining down upon
their community.
"We're being hit from the north, south, east, and west. Every time
the wind changes, we get a lungful of pollution from some other plant."
said Edgar Mouton, a Mossville resident and retired chemical plant
employee. "These chemicals end up in our water, our gardens, our
children's bodies. Each day we hear about someone in our community
being diagnosed with cancer or another illness. We're taking legal
action so that we might live to see some improvements for ourselves and
our community."
Louisiana is home to six of the nation's 21 plants manufacturing
polyvinyl chloride, commonly known as PVC or vinyl. Six more plants are
located in Texas. The remaining plants are found in New Jersey,
Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Oklahoma.
"Air pollution from PVC plants is a serious problem in Louisiana. In
Baton Rouge alone, we have four of these plants and they're talking
about building a fifth," said Gary Miller an engineer with Louisiana
Environmental Action Network. "This is one of our region's most toxic
industries. It only makes sense that it be subject to correspondingly
strong rules."
A 2004 federal court ruling in a case brought by Earthjustice on
behalf of MEAN and Sierra Club found the EPA's lax approach to
regulating air pollution from PVC plants violated the law and threw out
the insufficient standards. Four years later, the agency has yet to
develop any new standards and dangerous pollution continues to spew
from PVC plant smokestacks.
Today's lawsuit was filed to force the agency to comply with the
Clean Air Act's requirement to issue lawful standards for all hazardous
pollutants emitted from PVC plants. If successful, the suit would
trigger protections against a host of harmful pollutants.
"You won't often hear an attorney use a word like 'heartbreaking.'
But what is happening to the people who live in the shadow of these
plants is, quite simply put, heartbreaking." said Earthjustice attorney
Katie Renshaw who filed today's lawsuit. "We're going to court to see,
once and for all, that limits are placed on the dangerous chemicals
raining down on communities from PVC plants."
The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to
set emission standards for each hazardous air pollutant PVC plants
emit. But the EPA in 2002 decided to set standards for just one: vinyl
chloride.
This leaves plants' emissions of dioxins, chromium, lead, chlorine,
and hydrogen chloride -- substances associated with a wide variety of
serious adverse health effects including cancer -- entirely unchecked.
Further, the sole standard adopted, for vinyl chloride, did not require
plants to reduce emissions of this known human carcinogen for which no
level of exposure is known to be safe. Air monitoring conducted by the
EPA has shown that PVC plants have emitted concentrations of vinyl
chloride at more than 120 times higher than the ambient air standard.
"EPA has turned a blind eye to a heavily polluting industry and
they've turned a deaf ear to citizen's reasonable requests for
meaningful limits on air pollution from PVC plants," said Marti
Sinclair, Chair of Sierra Club's National Air Committee. "We're left
with little choice but to bring this matter before a judge."
Perhaps the most striking example of the need for stronger
protections is in Mossville, where health studies found blood levels of
dioxin rivaling those seen in workers involved in industrial accidents.
Randomly tested residents had levels nearly ten times the national
average, with some individuals showing dioxin levels 100 times the
national average. Toxicologists studying these results called them some
of the highest levels ever reported in the United States from an
environmental exposure.
A 1998 study by the Medical Branch of the University of Texas,
Galveston found that 99 percent of Mossville residents suffered from at
least one disease or illness related to toxic chemical exposure.
PVC is used in a range of plastic products from vinyl siding,
plumbing, carpet backing, and appliances to raincoats and seat covers.
The industry is projected to grow in coming years, but several
manufacturers have come under fire in the past for irresponsible
practices:
Read the lawsuit (PDF)
Map showing locations of PVC plants nationwide
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."