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.

Oxfam International
Sunita Bose on +974 5504 6084, sunita.bose@oxfaminternational.org
Today, as the UN climate talks entered their final hours, six of the largest environmental and development organizations in the world issued an emergency call to all governments about the conclusions of the Doha climate talks.
ActionAid, Christian Aid, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Oxfam and WWF issued a statement saying the Doha talks were on the brink of disaster and that rich governments had 24 hours to urgently make a deal that reflects the scale of planetary emergency facing humanity. This deal must include scaled up public climate finance from 2013, deep emissions cuts and a mechanism to address loss and damage.
The NGOs were joined by Yeb Sano, Commissioner for Climate Change of the Philippines; Emmanuel Dlamnini, Chair of the African Group of Negotiatiors; and Pa Ousman, Chair of the Least Developed Countries Group.
The statement was released following an open-letter to negotiators and ministers that was issued by social movements from across the developing world, and which the organizations supported and distributed at the press conference.
"Failure is locking in inaction for the next decade. The millions of people already facing floods and famines cannot accept failure. The people of Africa can't accept failure and neither can the people of Europe. We call on all governments to reject an 'agreement' for agreements sake, if it does nothing to stop the planetary emergency," Asad Rehman, spokesperson for Friends of the Earth International, said.
"How many more glaring reminders, how many more lost lives, how much more suffering is it going to take for rich countries to accept that this is a planetary emergency for the world's poorest people. The Doha talks are in crisis over climate finance, as in 25 days developing countries do not know how they will be supported to adapt to climate change. Rich countries now have 24 hours to make a collective commitment to increase public climate finance from next year to at least $US60billion by 2015," Celine Charveriat, Director of Advocacy and Campaigns for Oxfam International said.
"People are dying because of climate change. People are losing their homes, their livelihoods, and their source of food. It is saddening to see rich country negotiators actively blocking progress in order to maintain the profits of their coal, oil and forestry industries. A newly elected Barack Obama has not changed the approach of US negotiators. Europe too is now intransigent, and is losing its progressive image on climate. Politicians have a simple task in Doha, and today civil society spelled out exactly what is required of them. If they fail, it would be an historic act of irresponsibility, for which we would ensure they face accountability. It is not too late. We say to politicians here in Doha, that we are watching, and the world will not forget", Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director, Greenpeace International, said.
"Developed countries are pretending that loss and damage isn't a real problem, and that we don't need an international mechanism to address it. Tell that to the Philippines in the wake of Typhoon Bopha, and to the people who had no role in creating the climate crisis but are suffering the most from its effects. It's those people who have the most to lose from a bad outcome here in Doha," Harjeet Singh, International Coordinator for Disaster Risk Reducation and Climate Adaptation at ActionAid International, said.
"The reality is that this year, people in rich and poor countries experienced the full force of climate change. Extreme heat waves, drought and storms hit people's livelihoods, lives and the environment on which they depend. And just this week, people in the Philippines have lost homes and lives due to severe weather conditions. The gap between this reality and the political commitment to address climate change is just too large. This is being reflected in the shamefully weak deal being negotiated in Doha. WWF, in solidarity with social movements and other parts of civil society, rejects the minimalist deal that is emerging. Countries are going to walk out of here claiming this was a success. As things stand, it clearly won't be," Samantha Smith, Leader of the Global Climate and Energy Initaitve at WWF, said.
'The people who have imprinted the lightest carbon footprint on this world are the ones suffering the first and the worst. Until leaders respond to the clear alarm bells that are ringing with greater volume and urgency than ever, we will not have a planet safe for us or for future generations. We have spent years working to ensure we have effective climate laws shaped by what science requires, not just what politicians are willing to offer. Rich countries need to do the heavy lifting making the needed cuts in carbon emissions and provide finance to those affected by climate change," Mohamed Adow, senior climate change adviser at Christian Aid, said.
Notes to Editors
Download a copy of the statement.
Downnload a copy of the letter.
A webcast of the conference is available here: https://unfccc4.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop18/templ/ovw_live.php?id_kongressmain=231
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
"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."