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.

Miyoko Sakashita, Center for Biological Diversity
(415) 436-9682 x 308 or (510) 845-6703 (cell)
In response to a petition and threatened litigation by the Center
for Biological Diversity, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has agreed to review how ocean acidification should be addressed
under the federal Clean Water Act. Ocean acidification, the "other CO2 problem," results from the ocean's absorption of excess CO2
in the atmosphere, which increases the acidity of the ocean and changes
the chemistry of seawater. The primary known consequence of ocean
acidification is that it impairs the ability of marine animals to build
and maintain the protective shells and skeletons they need to survive.
The Center sought to compel EPA to impose stricter pH standards for
ocean water quality and publish guidance to help states protect U.S.
waters from ocean acidification. The pH water-quality criterion is
relevant to preventing ocean acidification because it is the measure of
seawater acidity against which many states gauge the need to impose
regulations on pollution.
EPA's formal response to
the Center's petition sets out a public process to evaluate ocean
acidification's impacts on water quality, as well as to determine
whether the current water-quality criterion for pH should be modified
to address ocean acidification. EPA also agreed to develop biological
assessment methods and other technical guidance relating to evaluation
of the health of coral reefs, which are particularly threatened by
ocean acidification.
"Global warming's evil twin,
ocean acidification, is the most insidious threat to our ocean
ecosystems," said Miyoko Sakashita, an attorney with the Center for
Biological Diversity's oceans program. "EPA's commitment to review its
water-quality criterion in light of ocean acidification marks an
important step toward taking action under the Clean Water Act to begin
to address this perilous threat."
Ocean
acidification is emerging as a primary threat to our oceans. In the
past few decades, the oceans have absorbed approximately 30 percent of
the CO2 released by human activities. The world's oceans store about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, and most CO2 released into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels will eventually be absorbed by the ocean. As the ocean absorbs CO2
from the atmosphere it changes the chemistry of seawater by lowering
its pH. Surface ocean pH has already dropped by about 0.1 units on the
pH scale from 1750-1994 - a rise in acidity of about 30 percent.
Ocean acidification is already degrading seawater quality with adverse
impacts on marine ecosystems. For example, it threatens to erode away
coral reefs within our lifetime. Scientists have also found that some
plankton, which form the base of marine food webs, suffer from weaker
and thinner shells due to ocean acidification. Nearly every marine
animal with a shell is vulnerable to the impacts of ocean acidification.
"In just a few decades, ocean acidification will unravel a delicate
balance of underwater diversity that took millions of years to build,"
said Sakashita. "Absent quick regulatory action to address ocean
acidification, we will likely see catastrophic impacts on our ocean
ecosystems, including the near-complete loss of coral reefs."
In 2007, the Center filed a formal petition
asking EPA to impose stricter pH standards for ocean water quality and
to publish guidance to help states protect U.S. waters from ocean
acidification. The federal Clean Water Act requires the EPA to update
water-quality criteria to reflect the latest scientific knowledge.
However, the agency has not updated its pH criterion since 1976. Now it
has agreed to reevaluate this pH criterion in light of the new
information on ocean acidification.
If the EPA
strengthens the pH water-quality criterion for oceans, then the Clean
Water Act requires states to adopt a water-quality standard at least as
protective as the one established by the EPA. Moreover, states are
required to designate water bodies that do not meet water-quality
standards as "impaired" and take action to limit their pollution. Here,
stronger water-quality standards for pH could translate into measures
that regulate CO2 pollution, the primary cause of ocean acidification.
"Existing laws such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act are
our most important tools for immediately addressing the related threats
of ocean acidification and global warming," said Sakashita. "We need
not, and must not, wait till new laws are passed before taking action."
More information, including the Center's petition and EPA's response is available from the Center for Biological Diversity at https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/ocean_acidification/index.html.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252"In just four weeks, thousands have lost their lives, including first responders and humanitarian workers," said the world-renowned aid group. "Hundreds of thousands have been uprooted."
Nearly a full month into US President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice in Iran, the International Committee of the Red Cross issued a statement Thursday expressing horror at the humanitarian catastrophe the deadly conflict has unleashed across the Middle East, with millions of civilians trapped in the crossfire.
"One month of hostilities has upended the lives of millions and sent shockwaves far beyond the region at a scale and speed that threatens to overwhelm the humanitarian response," said the world-renowned organization, a three-time winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. "In just four weeks, thousands have lost their lives, including first responders and humanitarian workers. Hundreds of thousands have been uprooted. Essential infrastructure critical for the supply of energy, water, and health care has been damaged or destroyed. The use of heavy explosive weapons with wide area impact in urban settings has caused suffering and fear."
The war, said the organization, is "eroding the foundations of civilian life in the Middle East."
Without naming any countries in particular, the ICRC condemned "the way hostilities have been waged" with no "respect for the rules of war" that the humanitarian group helped establish and works to uphold.
"At a time of escalating needs and tightening humanitarian budgets, the ICRC and other organizations are being forced to adapt to disrupted supply chains that are undermining their operations," the group said Thursday. "Meanwhile, several countries already burdened by humanitarian crises must now also contend with rising fuel prices and increasing operational costs.
"Respect for the rules of war reduces the consequences for civilians, especially during military operations," the organization added. "All parties, regardless of the side they are on, are bound by international humanitarian law (IHL), and all states have an obligation to respect and ensure respect for IHL, even if their adversary does not."
"Those who survive the bombardment are waking up to a dire humanitarian reality. We are seeing families fleeing with only the clothes on their backs."
The Red Cross statement came as aid groups and human rights organizations assessed the state of the US-Israeli war on Iran—and the Iranian government's retaliatory attacks on Gulf nations—one month after Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the joint military assault, and as fears of an imminent US ground invasion of Iran mount.
Human Rights Watch said in a statement delivered to the United Nations Human Rights Council on Friday that it is "alarmed by attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure across the conflict, including schools and hospitals, and other harms to children including as a result of mass displacement."
Save the Children estimated that one in every five kids in Lebanon has been forced to flee their home since Israel intensified its aerial and ground assault on southern Lebanon in conjunction with the war on Iran.
“No child should have to run for their life in the middle of the night. Yet in Lebanon today, it’s happening to family after family - children fleeing, terrified,” Inger Ashing, the group's chief executive officer, said Friday. "Lebanon’s children are being pushed past their limits. They are exhausted, traumatized, and losing the very foundations of childhood. The world cannot look away—we need action, and we need it now."
Marcoluigi Corsi, the UN Children's Fund representative in Lebanon, said Friday that "the human cost of this escalation is shocking."
"Those who survive the bombardment are waking up to a dire humanitarian reality. We are seeing families fleeing with only the clothes on their backs, forced to move multiple times within days as repeated displacement orders are issued," said Corsi. “Meanwhile, essential civilian infrastructure—including hospitals, schools, bridges, and water and sanitation systems—upon which children depend to carry on with their lives have been consistently attacked, damaged, or destroyed."
In Iran, more than 1,900 people—including women and children—have been killed by US-Israeli attacks, and at least 20,000 have been injured, according to the latest estimate from the Iranian Red Crescent Society.
"The humanitarian situation is rapidly deteriorating," Maria Martinez, head of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, warned on Friday.
"First Trump ordered 2,500 more American ground troops to the Middle East. Then it was doubled to 5,000," wrote one analyst. "Now Trump may literally double down again."
The Trump administration is reportedly considering sending 10,000 additional US troops to the Middle East amid mounting fears of an invasion of Iran, which is mobilizing its forces ahead of a possible ground assault.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the new US troop deployment "would likely include infantry and armored vehicles" and "would be added to the roughly 5,000 Marines and the thousands of paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division who have already been ordered to the region." The US Central Command has said roughly 50,000 American troops are currently stationed in the Middle East.
Lawmakers in the US have not authorized any attack on Iran, but legislative efforts to withdraw American forces from the war have thus far failed to pass either chamber of Congress. House Democratic leaders opted to punt a vote on a new Iran war powers resolution until mid-April despite apparently having enough support for passage, and the Senate isn't planning to hold its first public hearing on the war until after lawmakers return from spring recess.
"Sure am glad the US Congress thoroughly debated the merits of this war and the American public had a chance to weigh in regarding this expenditure of blood and treasure before the legislative branch ultimately decided it was worthwhile and voted to authorize it," Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, wrote sardonically in response to reports of the new troop deployment plans.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, warned that the rapidly expanding troop deployments are "like a mathematically simplified escalation trap hypothetical come to life."
"First Trump ordered 2,500 more American ground troops to the Middle East. Then it was doubled to 5,000," wrote Williams. "Now Trump may literally double down again by deploying an additional 10,000 ground troops."
The Times of Israel reported Thursday that an unnamed official "from one of the countries mediating between the US and Iran" believes President Donald Trump "appears to be leaning toward ordering a US ground operation against Iran." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said publicly that a "ground component" is necessary in Iran, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly pushed Trump behind the scenes to launch a ground assault.
According to The Times of Israel, "the official intimately familiar with the mediation efforts says the US privately recognizes that Iran is not likely to agree to the concessions presented in Washington’s 15-point plan and has dispatched thousands of troops to the region in order to capture Tehran’s Kharg Island on Trump’s orders."
Kharg Island is Iran’s primary oil export hub. Among those urging Trump to seize the island is former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who wrote Thursday that "on the strategic chessboard of this war, Kharg Island is the next piece."
"Yes, there are risks," wrote Gallant, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza. "Any operation to seize Kharg would require thousands of troops, sustained air and naval support, and detailed intelligence, and it would carry a real and expected cost in human life."
"President Trump has set up the US for this option. By signaling willingness to explore a diplomatic agreement with Iran, he has shown both the American people and the international community that he is prepared to compromise if Iran meets core demands," Gallant added. "In giving Iran days, not months, to meet these conditions, he buys time for US forces and their allies to prepare and finalize operational plans."
"The president has actively harmed the well-being of seniors and broken his promises... to stop inflation, not touch Social Security, and leave Medicaid alone."
US Sen. Kirsten Gillbrand on Wednesday unveiled a report detailing how President Donald Trump's attacks on Social Security, Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and other programs are harming the very senior citizens whose strong support was so instrumental in his reelection.
The report—which was authored by the minority staff of the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging at the direction of Gillibrand (D-NY), its ranking member—states that Trump "was tasked with leading a nation that is rapidly aging and facing critical decisions about the policies and resources needed to support a sizable demographic change."
"The United States must decide how to ensure the independence of its seniors, how to support caregivers, and how to assist entire aging communities," the publication continues. "After one year in office, President Trump has failed at his obligations to America’s seniors. In fact, the president has actively harmed the well-being of seniors and broken his promises to them—such as his promises to stop inflation, not touch Social Security, and leave Medicaid alone."
Trump has FAILED at his obligations to America’s #seniors. The president has actively broken his promises to stop inflation, not to touch #SocialSecurity, and to "leave #Medicaid alone." READ the minority report of the Senate Committee on Aging HERE::: www.gillibrand.senate.gov/wp-content/u...
[image or embed]
— NCPSSM (@ncpssm.bsky.social) March 26, 2026 at 9:56 AM
Gillibrand said in a statement introducing the report that it "shows that instead of fighting for seniors, the president has attacked the very programs that help them stay afloat."
Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law last July, ushered in the biggest cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in US history.
Gillibrand's report "focuses on eight harms that represent the Trump administration’s failure to support seniors during his first year in office."
According to the publication, Trump:
Other Democratic members of Congress including Sens. Patty Murray (Wash.) and Tammy Duckworth (Ill.) and Reps. Melanie Stansbury (NM) and John Larson (NJ) pointed out how Trump administration policies—including those mentioned in this piece and others like the billion-dollar-per-day war on Iran—are harming seniors by spending money that could have been allocated for their benefit or, in the case of Stansbury, by noting GOP attacks on mail-in voting, upon which many seniors rely.
"Seniors today are having a very hard time getting their benefits.Why?Social Security has pushed out 7,700 workers since Trump took office."
[image or embed]
— Social Security Works (@socialsecurityworks.org) March 26, 2026 at 9:03 AM
"'America first' was bullshit," Duckworth said on Bluesky. "With the $200 billion Trump wants for Iran, we could fund a decade of free, universal preschool; provide seniors with Medicare dental, vision, and hearing coverage for three years; build 2 million+ affordable homes. He promised to end wars."