April, 23 2009, 01:06pm EDT
Ashley Judd, Jeff Corwin Call on Congress to Help Wildlife Survive Global Warming
Actress, celebrity biologist testify about need to fund measures to safeguard natural resources
WASHINGTON
Actress Ashley Judd, and biologist and TV personality Jeff
Corwin, spoke to Congress this morning about the need for substantial, dedicated
funding to help safeguard America's wildlife and natural resources from the
impacts of global warming.
Testifying before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior,
Environment and Related Agencies, Corwin and Judd urged Congress to ensure that
comprehensive climate and energy legislation addresses not only the carbon
pollution that causes global warming, but also the effects that are already
being seen on the ground.
"I had the good fortune to grow up in three states - Kentucky, Tennessee and
California - that are blessed with stunning, diverse and productive landscapes,"
said Judd. "Those landscapes have shaped my life and my values, and I am deeply
worried that in an era of global warming - evidence of which we experience on
our own farm - future generations of Americans will have fewer natural resources
to draw upon than do we, and their opportunities will therefore be less than our
own."
"I worry deeply about what kind of world awaits my two young daughters if we
fail to address this threat," said Corwin. "In the lifetime of my young daughter
Marina, born just last year, twenty to thirty percent of the world's plant and
animal species will be on the brink of extinction if we do not act now to curb
global warming."
Read the full text of
Corwin and Judd's remarks: Jeff Corwin's testimony Ashley Judd's testimony
Read more about Defender's work on wildlife and global warming
Defenders of Wildlife is the premier U.S.-based national conservation organization dedicated to the protection and restoration of imperiled species and their habitats in North America.
(202) 682-9400LATEST NEWS
Trump Offers Key Pentagon Job to Billionaire Whose Firm Trained Khashoggi's Murderers
Stephen Feinberg is co-CEO of Cerberus Capital Management, which owns a company that provided training to members of the hit squad that murdered Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Dec 04, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump has reportedly offered the number-two Pentagon job to a secretive billionaire investor with close ties to the military-industrial complex, potentially introducing additional conflicts of interest to an incoming administration that is set to be rife with corporate executives and lobbyists.
Stephen Feinberg is co-founder and co-CEO of the private equity behemoth Cerberus Capital Management, which owns a firm that provided paramilitary training to members of the elite team that murdered Saudi journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.
Trump drew global outrage for publicly defending the Saudi regime in the wake of the assassination, even after U.S. intelligence agencies established that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman authorized Khashoggi's murder.
The New York Timesreported in 2021 that four Saudis who took part in the 2018 Khashoggi assassination "received paramilitary training in the United States the previous year under a contract approved by the State Department." Tier 1 Group, an Arkansas-based company financed by Cerberus, provided the training.
"The instruction occurred as the secret unit responsible for Mr. Khashoggi's killing was beginning an extensive campaign of kidnapping, detention, and torture of Saudi citizens ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, to crush dissent inside the kingdom," the Times noted.
"Having this revolving door of people who sit on boards of major defense contractors and then cycle in and out of the Pentagon is a problem that did not begin with Trump, but is a problem nonetheless."
It's not yet clear whether Feinberg intends to accept Trump's offer to serve as deputy defense secretary, but news of the choice prompted speculation that Feinberg could be elevated to the top Pentagon spot as Fox News host Pete Hegseth—the president-elect's nominee for the role—faces skepticism from senators amid new details of the sexual assault allegations against him. (Update: The Times reported Wednesday morning that Trump's support for Hegseth is "wobbling" and he is "openly discussing other people for the job, including Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.")
Citing an unnamed person familiar with his thinking,
Politicoreported that Feinberg is expected to accept the job offer for deputy defense secretary. Feinberg would also have to be confirmed by the Senate.
The Washington Post, which first reported Trump's offer on Tuesday, noted that the private equity billionaire is a major donor to the president-elect and has "investments in defense companies that maintain lucrative Pentagon contracts." The Post observed that Cerberus "has invested in hypersonic missiles" and "previously owned the private military contractor DynCorp."
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), told the Post that "having this revolving door of people who sit on boards of major defense contractors and then cycle in and out of the Pentagon is a problem that did not begin with Trump, but is a problem nonetheless."
"Is he going to be listening to a whole range of constituencies or primarily business constituencies?" Duss asked of Feinberg.
If he accepts the president-elect's offer, Feinberg would join a number of conflict-of-interest-ridden nominees for high-level positions in the incoming Trump administration.
Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, characterized Trump's Cabinet picks so far as "chaotic evil" and warned that their conflicts of interest could bring horrible consequences for the American public.
"Corruption is not only bad in and of itself," Hauser told the Institute for Public Accuracy on Tuesday. "It's also a bad thing that makes other terrible things more likely to happen. If you corrupt the enforcement of environmental protection laws, people will be poisoned by the water they drink and air they breathe. If you corrupt the Department of Labor, workplace safety will collapse over time and wage protections will disappear."
"That's what happened under the last Trump administration. This is going to be worse," Hauser warned. "Food safety issues, automobile safety with driverless cars, rail safety—these are all risks that the Trump team will be taking with the lives of ordinary people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
For Wall Street-Fueled Philanthropy Industry, Every Day Is Giving Tuesday
"The financial industry aggressively markets DAFs for uncharitable reasons: advantages as tax avoidance vehicles, especially for complex assets; no payout requirements—and secrecy to donors and grantees alike," said one of the report's authors.
Dec 03, 2024
A new report released on this year's philanthropic holiday known as Giving Tuesday details how the "profit motives of the financial services sector have increasingly and disastrously warped how charitable giving functions."
The analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies—titled "Gilded Giving 2024: Saving Philanthropy from Wall Street"—shows how donor-advised funds (DAFs) increasingly serve the economic interests of donors and the Wall Street firms that manage the funds, rather than the interests of nonprofit charities.
Rather than donate to a cause directly, wealthy people have the option to donate to foundations or DAFs, which can be sponsored by for-profit wealth management firms like Fidelity Investments or Charles Schwab. Firms like Fidelity Investments, in turn, benefit from being able to offer this type of service to wealthy clients.
"At last count," according to the report's authors, "DAFs and foundations together take in 35 percent of all individual giving in the U.S." If they continue to grow at the rate they have for the past five years, they're expected to take in half of all individual giving in the country by 2028.
Why is this a problem? For one thing, according to the report, some of the money that's intended for donation is scraped up by the DAFs and foundations, meaning that dollars meant for a cause are diverted elsewhere.
"With each passing year, an additional 2 cents of each dollar donated by individuals is funneled into intermediaries and away from working charities. Assuming that their assets will grow at the same rate they have over the past five years, the assets held in DAFs and foundations will eclipse $2 trillion by 2026," according to the report's authors.
What's more, there is no requirement that DAFs disburse their assets, according to the report's authors—meaning there's no guarantee the money is given to charity, and in practice the money in these accounts tends to move slowly, often generating gains instead of being dispersed.
DAFs also facilitate anonymous giving, because donations from them need only be credited to their sponsors, not the original person directing the contribution, according to Inequality.org, a project of IPS.
The report's authors argue that DAFs are part of a wider “wealth defense industry” — tax lawyers, accountants, and wealth managers whose interests are more geared towards helping their clients increase assets, minimize taxes, maximize wealth transfer to descendants, and net some of those assets for themselves in the form of fees, as opposed to supporting charitable causes.
DAFS are used strategically in this way, for example, by giving donors the ability to dispose of noncash assets, according to the report. In practice, this means that DAF donors can give stocks, real estate and other noncash assets directly to DAFS when markets are doing well, meaning they are able to get income tax deductions from their contribution while side stepping paying capital gains tax on appreciation of those assets.
"The financial industry aggressively markets DAFs for uncharitable reasons: advantages as tax avoidance vehicles, especially for complex assets; no payout requirements—and secrecy to donors and grantees alike," said Chuck Collins, co-author of the report and director of the Charity Reform Initiative at IPS.
Other key insights from the study include:
- Tech companies are offering DAF-related platforms, apps, and widgets in order to make DAF granting, and by extension charitable giving, more "frictionless." Yet, these companies, also promote DAFs to advisors and donors in terms of tax efficiency and their ability to help investment advisors "maintain AUM"—or assets under management.
- That the financial industry is "blurr[ing] the distinction between investment and philanthropy." Investors will talk about philanthropy as part of a wider portfolio of financial behaviors, as opposed to something fundamentally different—"something that, by its nature, requires individuals to relinquish personal interest and control."
The report recommends a number of reforms in order to take back philanthropy from Wall Street, including enacting regulations that would ensure donations reach working charities on reasonable timelines, undertaking {agreement} reforms to eliminate "shell games and tax dodges that financial advisors craft to diminish and delay the flow of funds to qualified charities," organizing a coalition of interested partners that would apply pressure on Congress and state governments to take action, and uplifting good examples of DAF sponsors who facilitate steady and generous giving despite gaps in the law.
Keep ReadingShow Less
CFPB Wants to Rein In Predatory Data Brokers—But Can't If Musk 'Deletes' Agency
"This rule would be a major win for the privacy rights of Americans and is the kind of bipartisan, commonsense action that should be protected and encouraged by politicians in both parties."
Dec 03, 2024
Considering billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk's concerns about data privacy, advocates on Tuesday suggested he should welcome the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's newly proposed rule that would stop data brokers from selling people's personal information.
"But they can't do it if you 'delete CFPB,'" grassroots group Demand Progress warned Musk in a post on social media, referring to his remark last week that the bureau is one of the "duplicative regulatory agencies" that he plans to dismantle as the head of a proposed government agency under President-elect Donald Trump.
Demand Progress applauded CFPB Director Rohit Chopra's announcement on Tuesday of a proposed rule that would limit the sale of personal information like Social Security numbers and phone numbers to ensure data brokers don't sell sensitive data to scammers.
Under the rule, the CFPB would clarify that when data brokers sell certain consumer data they are acting as "consumer reporting agencies" as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which requires them to comply with accuracy requirements and maintain safeguards.
"Until now," said Demand Progress, "data brokers have been able to sell our personal information to the highest bidder—including scammers, blackmailers, and stalkers."
Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director for Demand Progress Education Fund, said the agency "should be applauded for standing up to data brokers and working to rein in the sale of sensitive information about us, which can also end up in the hands of foreign governments."
"This groundbreaking rule offers a needed solution for Americans who are sick and tired of being inundated by scam texts, calls, and emails—often from fraudsters who have been able to buy our data for mere pennies," said Peterson-Cassin. "If finalized, this rule would be a major win for the privacy rights of Americans and is the kind of bipartisan, commonsense action that should be protected and encouraged by politicians in both parties."
Demand Progress was also among the groups that tied the announcement to a recent comment by Musk about a report that data brokers sell data about military personnel to unknown buyers for as little as 12 cents.
Musk called the report "concerning" in a Nov. 17 post on X.
"Good news, Elon!" said the organization, informing him of the proposed rule—before warning that Musk's own plan to gut the CFPB would embolden the very data brokers he expressed concern about.
"Guess which federal agency just proposed a rule cracking down on those data brokers selling the data of U.S. military personnel?" added the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The CFPB said its proposal would also address other "critical threats from current data broker practices," including:
- The ability of countries such as China or Russia to purchase detailed data about government employees, enabling governments to create "detailed dossiers for potential espionage, surveillance, or blackmail operations";
- The targeting of vulnerable consumers like senior citizens and financially distressed people by identity thieves and scammers, who purchase detailed financial profile and use the data to steal retirement savings or commit fraud;
- Violence, stalking, and personal safety threats to domestic violence survivors, judges, or government employees, who can "face grave dangers when their current addresses and phone numbers are readily available for purchase through data brokers."
The CFPB introduced the rule after finding that "data brokers routinely sidestep the FCRA by claiming they aren't subject to its requirements."
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who for years has called on the CFPB to address the threats of data brokers, toldThe Washington Post that he has concerns the rule won't go into effect once Trump takes office.
"Unfortunately," said Wyden, "it will be up to Trump's CFPB to finalize this."
Bartlett Naylor, a financial policy advocate for Public Citizen, said the proposed protections would protect Americans from the $250 billion-per-year data sales business.
"All of us leave our financial fingerprints everywhere, every day, between credit card swipes, internet communications, and more. Thieves, loan sharks, stalkers, even foreign espionage agents can exploit gaping holes in credit reporting enforcement that the CFPB is rightly proposing to repair," said Naylor.
"A Republican-led congressional committee investigated this last year, a reminder that this isn't a partisan issue," Naylor added. "No one should side with data predators."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular