

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.

Ileene Anderson, Center for Biological Diversity, (323) 654-5943
Kim Delfino, Defenders of Wildlife, (916) 201-8277
Bill Corcoran, Sierra Club, (213) 387-6528 x 208
Jeff Kuyper, Los Padres ForestWatch, (805) 617-4610
Monday a federal judge ruled
that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service violated the Endangered Species Act in preparing the biological
opinions for the four Southern California forest plans. The ruling
covers each of the four Southern California national forests
- the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino, which cover
more than 3.5 million acres of lands in Southern California. These
forests are recognized as one of the most biologically rich areas on
the planet, and were established to provide clean drinking water to the
region.
"This ruling is a great victory for the
rare and endangered species that call the Southern California forests
home," said Ileene Anderson, a biologist with the Center for Biological
Diversity. "These rare plants and animals are all currently moving
toward extinction, and they need help - help that the federal agencies
should have provided but chose not to during the Bush administration.
We can now start making sure they're properly protected."
The Forest Service revised the Forest Plans for these four national
forests in 2005. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service provided "biological opinions" on the revised Forest
Plans that failed to include required protective measures to minimize
harm to the already endangered wildlife species. The agencies also
failed to include any mechanism to track the level of harm to
endangered species or establish limits on the amount of harm for each
species to trigger the reinitiation of consultation on the plans if
those limits were exceeded.
"National forests
provide some of the biggest remaining chunks of wildlife habitat in
Southern California," said Jeff Kuyper, executive director of Los
Padres ForestWatch, a nonprofit conservation organization based in
Santa Barbara, California. "For too long, federal land management
agencies have emphasized development and resource extraction, exacting
a heavy toll on our region's wildlife. Today's ruling recognizes the
important role that our national forests play in the survival and
recovery of endangered plants and animals, giving them the attention
they so desperately deserve."
The decision will
require greater protection for more than 40 plants and animals that are
teetering on the brink of extinction. Species from the majestic
California condor, rebounding from a low of only 28 birds in the mid
1980s, to the charming California gnatcatcher are threatened with
declines based on the failure of the Forest Service to put in place the
required safety nets to protect these irreplaceable species.
"Land-management plans have impacts on the wildlife that live on our
forests and that's what this opinion recognizes," said Kim Delfino,
California director of Defenders of Wildlife. "We hope this opinion
will set a new tone for the Obama administration in recognizing this
fact and providing wildlife on public lands the protections that they
so desperately need."
The judge gave the parties 21
days to provide additional briefing on the appropriate relief for the
troubled species while the federal agencies prepare new biological
opinions.
"The conservation community warned the
Forest Service again and again that it was wrong in claiming that its
forest plans do not affect our public lands. The plans are the Forest
Service's blueprint for how to manage our forests, and Judge Patel has
held the federal government accountable for fulfilling its
responsibilities to protect our imperiled natural heritage. The ruling
is especially timely because the Forest Service is gearing up to revise
forest-management plans throughout the Sierra Nevada," said Bill
Corcoran, senior regional representative of the Sierra Club.
Plaintiffs in the case are the Center for Biological Diversity, Los
Padres ForestWatch, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, and California
Native Plant Society.
The plaintiffs were
represented in the case by Marc Fink of the Center for Biological
Diversity and Sierra Weaver of Defenders of Wildlife.
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"Talk to or read energy experts—people who focus on the physical side of the oil crisis—and their hair is on fire."
Gas prices in the US have surged to a four-year high, and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman is warning that the worst is likely yet to come.
Amid a Tuesday projection from AAA that average US gas prices had hit $4 per gallon for the first time since 2022, Krugman published an analysis of the petroleum market in which he projected that the price of oil will go even higher in the coming weeks as the global economy runs into supply shortages caused by President Donald Trump's war against Iran.
Krugman argued that oil price hikes have actually been tame so far because physical supplies have remained steady in recent weeks, as tankers that had already passed through the Strait of Hormuz before the start of the war have continued making scheduled deliveries.
That "grace period," as Krugman described it, is about to end as speculative market prices run into the hard realities of physical shortages.
What this fundamentally means, wrote Krugman, is "you should be alarmed."
"Once the crisis gets physical, there will no longer be room for jawboning the markets," Krugman wrote. "Since the war began there have been several occasions on which Donald Trump has been able to talk prices down by asserting that meaningful negotiations are underway... but that won’t work once the oil runs out. So prices will have to rise."
As for how far prices will go up, Krugman calculated that with only medium disruption to global oil production and medium demand elasticity, the price of oil would rise to $152 per barrel, which would push US gas prices well over $4.50 per gallon.
Making matters worse, Krugman found that it wouldn't take much additional disruption to push the price of oil into worse-case scenarios where it would top $200 per barrel.
"If oil really does go to $200 or more, it’s all too easy to envisage a full-blown global economic crisis, with an inflation surge and quite likely a recession," Krugman commented. "Ever since this war began I’ve noticed a sharp divide in sentiment among experts. Finance and macroeconomics experts have been relatively sanguine about our ability to ride out this storm. But talk to or read energy experts—people who focus on the physical side of the oil crisis—and their hair is on fire."
Petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan on Tuesday highlighted the major increases in the price of diesel fuel since the start of the Iran war, which could add even more pain to the US economy in the form of higher shipping costs for goods.
"Can't overstate the impact that's coming down the pipeline to truckers, farmers, logistics, and beyond," De Haan wrote in a social media post. "The US economy runs on diesel with several states setting new all-time highs for diesel, while others are seeing largest monthly increases of all time."
De Haan also posted a chart highlighting the states with the biggest diesel price increases since late February, and it showed swing states Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina faced the largest surges, with prices up more than 57% in just one month in each state.
Of the roughly 450 hospitals identified in a new analysis as at risk of closure or service cuts, around 200 are located in congressional districts represented by Republicans.
The unprecedented Medicaid cuts that US President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans approved last summer are putting hundreds of hospitals across the country at high risk of cutting services or permanently shutting their doors, a potentially devastating outcome for millions of poor Americans that was repeatedly predicted ahead of time.
The advocacy group Public Citizen released a report Monday identifying 446 hospitals that could be forced to reduce services or close because of the Trump-GOP Medicaid cuts, which will amount to around $1 trillion over the next decade. The at-risk hospitals collectively served 7 million patients in 2024, according to Public Citizen's analysis.
Nearly 200 of the hospitals listed in Public Citizen's report are located in congressional districts represented by Republicans who voted for the Medicaid cuts, and 146 are in states represented by Senate Republicans—nearly all of whom supported the sprawling budget package that included the assault on Medicaid.
“Trump’s cuts to Medicaid will hurt millions of low-income and disabled Americans, and will deepen financial strains that are already plaguing rural and safety-net hospitals—compromising their ability to deliver care, potentially leading many to close,” said Public Citizen researcher Eileen O’Grady, the author of the report. “Congress should take urgent action to restore all Medicaid funding cuts enacted by Trump and Republicans in Congress, and should extend the enhanced premium tax credits for coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.”
The report comes as Republicans are reportedly considering billions of dollars in additional healthcare cuts—and kicking hundreds of thousands more off their health coverage—to help fund Trump's illegal and increasingly expensive war on Iran.
Public Citizen found in its report that there's at least one hospital at risk of closing or slashing services in 44 states and Washington, DC. States with the highest proportion of at-risk hospitals are Connecticut, California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington, the analysis shows.
"It is notable that while there are more at-risk hospitals in Democrat-led states and congressional districts, a substantial number of hospitals in Republican-led states and congressional districts are threatened by Medicaid cuts," the report observes. "Almost all congressional Republicans voted to pass the Big Ugly Law."
"When unlawful force is repeated over time, it risks becoming normalized."
The Trump administration's most recent attack on a boat in the Caribbean, which killed four people last week, "highlights a sustained pattern of unlawful use of lethal force outside any context of armed conflict, amounting to extrajudicial executions," Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday.
The US military announced last Wednesday that it had conducted its 47th attack on boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. The Trump administration has presented little evidence for its claim that the targeted boats have been engaged in trafficking drugs to the United States. At least 163 people have been killed in these attacks since September 2025, all of them without trial.
Human Rights Watch is part of a chorus of international organizations and observers that have condemned the boat bombing campaign as acts of murder in flagrant violation of international law.
“These strikes aren’t one-off incidents, they’re part of a pattern of using military force where the law does not permit it, over and over again,” said Sarah Yager, Washington director at Human Rights Watch. “The fact that these strikes have faded from public attention does not make these violations any less grave or unlawful.”
The organization noted that there is no ongoing military conflict in the Caribbean or eastern Pacific that would make those traveling by boat legitimate targets.
And while the US government has provided scant evidence that those it has killed were trafficking drugs, Human Rights Watch said that even if evidence of drug trafficking existed, suspected criminals are still not lawful targets of lethal force unless they pose an imminent threat to the lives of others.
The boat strikes have continued in the background as President Donald Trump has launched attacks against Venezuela and Iran, both of which international organizations have described as acts of aggression that violate the laws of war.
Trump has also enacted a crippling economic blockade of Cuba with the explicit goal of toppling its government so the US can "take" the island, and has previously threatened to use economic leverage or the US military to forcibly annex Greenland.
“When unlawful force is repeated over time, it risks becoming normalized,” Yager said. “That’s dangerous because it opens the door to using lethal force whenever and wherever a government wishes and without constraints.”