

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.
Supriya Kumar, skumar@worldwatch.org, (+1) 202-452-1992, ext. 510
As global unemployment continues to rise and job opportunities remain scarce, especially for youth, the creation of a green economy might hold the answers to addressing some of today's most critical challenges. Global unemployment reached an estimated 205 million in 2010, up from 177 million in 2007, according to the Worldwatch Institute's recently released report, State of the World 2012: Moving Toward Sustainable Prosperity. The report highlights the need for a green economy to address current social and economic woes.
The Earth's ability to absorb waste and pollution is increasingly challenged by the rise in resource consumption and the corresponding throughput of energy and materials. Stress on ecosystems is evident in many ways, from species loss and deforestation to the overuse and pollution of critical resources like water. A study published in Nature estimates that, by 2009, nine critical environmental thresholds either had already been crossed or were on track to be, pushing beyond the planetary boundaries upon which all life depends.
Critical environmental issues are too often pushed aside in pursuit of short-sighted economic goals. But to effectively address the ongoing economic crisis, environmental concerns must take center stage. By transitioning to a green economy that values both development and sustainability, societies can work to simultaneously alleviate the economic, environmental, and social concerns that threaten stability. Both industrialized and developing countries must play a role in----and benefit from----the move toward a green economy and toward sustainable prosperity that meets the needs of all people, present and future.
Unlike the conventional pattern of economic competition that produces winner and losers, the quest for a green economy needs to focus on win-win outcomes that render economic activities sustainable everywhere. In relative terms, the poor have to win more in a green economy than the rich do, so as to reduce and eventually overcome the stark differences in claims to the planet's remaining resources. Environmental sustainability is ultimately impossible without social equity.
Creating stable livelihoods is one of the most important tasks for a sustainable economic system. "Green jobs provide immense opportunity----but unfortunately, jobs that are in accord with environmental needs remain limited," said Michael Renner, State of the World 2012 project co-director and a senior researcher at Worldwatch. "We need a 'green for all' strategy that combines technical and structural change with social empowerment, with new approaches to everything from energy provision and transportation to housing and waste management."
In Chapter 1 of State of the World 2012, "Making the Green Economy Work for Everybody," Renner discusses four proposals to achieve sustainability with equity:
Worldwatch's State of the World 2012, released in April 2012, focuses on Rio+20, the 20-year follow-up to the historic 1992 Earth Summit that was also held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The report analyzes the steps that must be taken to make progress toward sustainable development.
The Worldwatch Institute was a globally focused environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C., founded by Lester R. Brown. Worldwatch was named as one of the top ten sustainable development research organizations by Globescan Survey of Sustainability Experts. Brown left to found the Earth Policy Institute in 2000. The Institute was wound up in 2017, after publication of its last State of the World Report. Worldwatch.org was unreachable from mid-2019.
Rep. Ilhan Omar demanded that ICE agents "stop terrorizing our communities."
This a developing story... Please check back for possible updates... WARNING: This post includes graphic footage of the shooting which some people may find disturbing...
Residents of Minneapolis reacted with fury on Wednesday after a woman was shot and killed by a federal immigration agent.
Emily Heller, a Minneapolis resident who witnessed the shooting, told Minnesota Public Radio that she saw a federal agent confronting a woman who was sitting in her car and telling her to leave the area during an immigration enforcement operation in the neighborhood.
"She was trying to turn around, and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent was in front of her car, and he pulled out a gun and put it right in," Heller told MPR. "And he reached across the hood of the car and shot her in the face like three, four times."
The identity of the woman shot by the agent has not yet been released, but US Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) wrote in a social media post that the woman was a US citizen.
The senator also said that "ICE should leave now for everyone's safety."
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is also demanding that ICE leave the city, according to a post from the city's official X account.
US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) echoed Smith and Frey's calls for ICE to get out of Minneapolis.
"ICE must stop terrorizing our communities and leave our city," she wrote in a social media post.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz released a statement saying that his public safety team "is working to gather information on an ICE related shooting this morning," while vowing to "share information as we learn more."
"In the meantime, I ask folks to remain calm," Walz added.
One witness, who was in the neighborhood to act as a legal observer, described horrifying scenes to local reporters:
This is what an eyewitness said pic.twitter.com/vQrLkMFpdS
— Sarah Burris (@SarahBurris) January 7, 2026
The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, put out a statement acknowledging that an ICE officer had fatally shot the woman and accused her of engaging in "domestic terrorism."
"ICE officers in Minneapolis were conducting targeted operations when rioters began blocking ICE officers and one of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them—an act of domestic terrorism," the agency claimed, without providing any evidence. "An ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement, and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots."
Video footage from scene as well as testimony from witnesses, however, betrayed the agency's version of events. As one social media user said, posting the following video, "Does this look like what you’re claiming?"
Does this look like what you’re claiming pic.twitter.com/4rV8n4LuSd
— Mogana (@MoganaPhilips) January 7, 2026
A separate video from a different angle (Warning: graphic footage), also shows that the individual in the car was trying to turn the vehicle away from officers, not harm anyone:
Here's the video for those who don't have Bluesky pic.twitter.com/vM3Bsfk8Uc
— Hussain (@huspsa) January 7, 2026
Federal officials in the past have made statements about incidents involving protesters that have been flatly contradicted by officers' own body camera footage.
In November, federal prosecutors dropped assault charges against Marimar Martinez, a woman who was shot multiple times by a US Border Patrol agent in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood, weeks after her attorney claimed to have seen body camera footage that completely undercut officers' claims.
Nearly seven in 10 feel the Trump administration has not provided evidence to justify its killing of at least 114 people in the Caribbean and other international waters.
The vast majority of US voters want the Trump administration to be more transparent about its campaign of extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and other international waters, according to a new poll out Monday.
While it has faded from the headlines over the past week due to President Donald Trump's illegal overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and atdtempt to commandeer the nation's oil, his bombings of alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and elsewhere have continued into the new year.
As of January 2, the US military had disclosed 35 separate attacks to the public, with a death toll of at least 114 people in total since September. But the administration has provided scant evidence to justify the attacks.
According to an ACLU/YouGov poll released on Monday, which was conducted in late December, 83% of voters believed the administration must release its legal justifications and full, unedited videos of the lethal strikes. This includes 97% of Democrats, but also 82% of independents and 70% of Republicans.
Several media outlets reported in November that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) authored a still-classified legal opinion justifying the strikes and exempting those involved in directing them from future prosecution. The ACLU and other rights groups filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request last month for the document.
The poll shows that a majority of voters—87% of Democrats, 53% of independents, and 15% of Republicans—disapproved of the strikes, while nearly seven in 10 felt that the administration has not yet shown evidence to the public justifying the bombings.
Members of both parties in Congress have called for the administration to release video of the strikes, with particular scrutiny on the September 2 "double-tap" strike in which the military bombed two shipwrecked survivors of an earlier attack.
Last month, Hegseth declined a request from Congress to release unedited video footage of the incident to the public. He had previously changed his recounting of the event multiple times, initially boasting of the attack before shunting the blame onto an underling—Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley—when the second strike was made public and met with outcry.
Trump, meanwhile, has misled the public about what drugs were supposedly on the boats. He has publicly stated that the ships were carrying fentanyl, a drug that has caused hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths in the US, dubbing it a "weapon of mass destruction."
Lawmakers have said they were briefed that the ships were actually carrying cocaine, which is much less deadly, though evidence of this has also not been shown to the public.
One bombed-out ship that washed up on the shores of Colombia in late December with two mangled corpses aboard was found to have only been carrying marijuana, which is legal in more than half of all US states. Other investigations have found that some of those killed in the strikes were fishermen or others not connected to the drug trade.
While the September 2 strikes—which were reportedly given the go-ahead by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—have become the subject of a congressional inquiry, the ACLU says the entire bombing campaign is illegal.
"The US military may not, under any circumstances, execute civilians who are merely suspected of smuggling drugs," the group said last month. "Rather, the US government must first pursue non-lethal measures like arrest and demonstrate that lethal force is an absolute last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury."
Two-thirds of respondents to the poll said that rather than carry out extrajudicial executions, they would prefer that the Coast Guard conduct its usual operations, seizing those it suspects of transporting drugs and putting them on trial.
Meanwhile, 58% said they'd support Congress holding a public hearing with officials in charge of the strikes, such as Hegseth, while just 19% said they'd oppose it.
Just over half described killing people suspected of carrying drugs as "murder," with that belief growing even stronger with respect to the double-tap strike.
"Our polling makes clear that an overwhelming number of Americans on both sides of the aisle want Congress to step up and hold the Trump administration publicly accountable for its illegal strikes on civilian boats in the Caribbean,” said Christopher Anders, director of ACLU’s democracy and technology division.
“This means open hearings with the officials responsible for these murders, as well as releasing both the legal justification and unedited videos of the strikes," he continued. "Given the life-or-death stakes of the president’s use of force, it’s imperative that this transparency and accountability comes immediately.”
If the proposed tax is enacted, Huang would face a roughly $8 billion tax bill—a tiny fraction of his $165 billion net worth.
Jensen Huang, CEO of the tech behemoth Nvidia and the eighth-richest man in the world, said Tuesday that he is "perfectly fine" with a grassroots push in California to impose a one-time wealth tax on the state's billionaire residents.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Huang said that "we chose to live in Silicon Valley, and whatever taxes, I guess, they would like to apply, so be it"—a nonchalant response that diverges from the hysteria expressed by other members of his class in response to the proposed ballot initiative.
"It never crossed my mind once," Huang said of the tax proposal.
If the proposed 5% levy on billionaire wealth makes it onto the November ballot and California voters approve it, Huang would face an estimated $8 billion tax bill—a tiny slice of his $165 billion net worth. Those subject to the tax would have the option of paying the full amount owed all at once or over a period of five years.
"'Who cares' is absolutely the appropriate reaction," said Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, a left-wing think tank. "It means nothing to him. David Sacks types look like the biggest babies in the world."
Bruenig was referring to the White House cryptocurrency czar who left California for Texas at the end of 2025 in an apparent effort to avoid the possible billionaire tax, which would apply to anyone living in California as of January 1, 2026.
“As a response to socialism, Miami will replace NYC as the finance capital and Austin will replace SF as the tech capital,” Sacks declared in a social media post last week.
"Frontline caregivers are glad to hear that, much like the overwhelming majority of billionaires, Mr. Huang will not be uprooting his life or business to make an ideological point over a 1% per year fix to a problem that Congress created."
The proposed one-time tax on California's roughly 200 billionaires would raise an estimated $100 billion in revenue, funds that would be set aside for the state's healthcare system, food assistance, and education.
Organizers are pursuing the tax in direct response to unprecedented Medicaid cuts enacted by US President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress over the summer.
Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and the lead sponsor of the ballot initiative, welcomed Huang's response to the proposed tax in a statement late Tuesday.
"We agree with Jensen Huang that California has a tremendous talent pool of workers uniquely qualified to continue moving many industries forward, including within the tech sector and beyond," said Jimenez. "This initiative will ensure the $100 billion healthcare funding crisis created by [the Trump-GOP legislation] in July is fixed, so that all of those workers can access emergency rooms and vital healthcare in California."
"Frontline caregivers are glad to hear that, much like the overwhelming majority of billionaires, Mr. Huang will not be uprooting his life or business to make an ideological point over a 1% per year fix to a problem that Congress created last July—and that California will unite to solve this November," Jimenez added.