

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.
Kathleen O'Neil, NPCA Media Relations 202.419.3717
The National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, San
Juan Citizens Alliance, and 15 other conservation groups have asked the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ensure national parks and the
public's health are protected from air pollution by requiring that
states take significant steps to fulfill the Clean Air Act.
"Millions of visitors to national parks and wilderness areas each
year see views obscured by haze, and breathe air tainted by preventable
pollution - even icons like the Grand Canyon are affected," said
Stephanie Kodish, clean air counsel for the National Parks Conservation
Association (NPCA). "To improve these conditions, EPA must require
significant reductions in haze-causing pollution."
EPA faces a deadline of January 15, 2011 to finalize plans to reduce
air pollution that will help restore natural views in the country's most
pristine public lands. However, NPCA has determined that most states
and EPA are not on track to meet this deadline.
The conservation groups have asked the agency to ensure that states
require large pollution sources to reduce their air pollution to fully
restore visibility to 156 national parks and wilderness areas that
Congress in 1977 designated as outstanding national treasures deserving
pristine air quality. To meet the national goal of restoring visibility
to these national treasures, states must now take steps to eliminate
man-made haze. However, some states have submitted haze-reduction plans
that would miss the goal by more than 100 years: Texas has submitted a
plan that would not eliminate man-made haze over Big Bend National Park
until 2177, and the state of Washington's would not fully protect
Olympic National Park for 323 years.
"Our region's two biggest coal-fired power plants, the Four Corners
Power Plant and the Navajo Generating Station, contribute the most haze
over the greatest number of parks and wilderness areas of any other
pollution source in the country," said Mike Eisenfeld, New Mexico energy
coordinator for San Juan Citizens Alliance. "Regional haze from
industrial sources continues to increase in the Four Corners region,
where it also harms the public's health."
The Clean Air Act requires states to submit State Implementation
Plans (SIPs) that show how they will reduce regional haze-causing
pollutants. In January 2009, EPA found that 37 states had not met the
deadline to do so; it set the new deadline of January 2011 for the
states to submit their plans. The agency will establish a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for states or areas that do not have an
approved SIP.
NPCA and its allies are asking EPA to make clear that states must
ensure that state and federal plans result in the cleanest air
achievable.
"EPA has the tremendously important task of ensuring that plans are
in place to restore natural visibility to our most spectacular wild
places," said Holly Bressett, project attorney for Sierra Club. "It has
an unparalleled opportunity to reduce haze-causing emissions from some
of the nation's oldest and most-polluting facilities, which impact areas
ranging from Washington's verdant Olympic Peninsula to the red rocks in
southern Utah's Arches National Park."
The following organizations signed onto the letter, which was
delivered today: Plains Justice, Western Resource Advocates, Sierra
Club, Citizens for Dixie's Future, Dakota Resource Council, GreenLaw,
the Kentucky Environmental Foundation, the Minnesota Center for
Environmental Advocacy, the Powder River Basin Resource Council, Our
Children's Earth Foundation, the Northwest Environmental Defense Center,
National Parks Conservation Association, San Juan Citizens Alliance,
the Southern Environmental Law Center, Voyageurs National Park
Association, WildEarth Guardians, the Wasatch Clean Air Coalition, and
the Wyoming Outdoor Council.
A copy of the letter to EPA is available
online at https://www.npca.org/media_center/pdf/Regional-Haze-Letter-2010.pdf.
NPCA is a non-profit, private organization dedicated to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the U.S. National Park System.
"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."