

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.

Contact at 350.org: Jay Carmona, jay@350.org, 510-502-0752
Contact with 350 Massachusetts: Darcy Dumont, dumont140@yahoo.com, 413-210-2201
With a March 20th deadline for moving their bill out of committee quickly approaching, fossil fuel divestment advocates are increasingly worried that behind-the-scenes industry lobbying is holding up the process.
The legislation in question is Senate bill S.1225, a bill sponsored sponsored by State Senator Benjamin Downing (D-Pittsfield), that directs the Commonwealth's Pension Reserves Investment Trust (PRIT) to divest its assets from fossil fuel companies within five years. PRIT manages $54 billion of which $1.3 billion is invested in the 200 fossil fuel companies that hold the largest amounts of coal, oil and gas reserves and are being targeted by the Go Fossil Free divestment effort.
"The impacts of unchecked climate change on the Massachusetts economy would be astronomical," said Jay Carmona, Divestment Campaign Manager with 350.org, an international climate campaign that is helping spearhead the divestment effort. "Fossil fuel divestment is a way for the Commonwealth to help address this crisis, insulate itself from a growing carbon bubble, and set an example for other states to follow. This is the right move both morally and financially."
Hampshire College in Amherst was one of the first institutions in the country to divest. The towns and cities of Amherst, Northampton, Provincetown, Truro, and Cambridge have all passed resolutions supporting divestment. Many religious communities, including the Massachusetts United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, and the First Parish Unitarian Universalist Church in Cambridge, have also endorsed divestment. The Massachusetts based John Merck Fund, the Chorus Foundation and the Solidago Foundation, recently joined 14 other foundations in committing to divestment. Meanwhile, active divestment campaigns are underway on many of the state's campuses, including a high profile effort at Harvard University.
The current legislation also has support of Treasurer Steve Grossman, who is now running for governor. Two of the current candidates for state treasurer, state Sen. Barry Finegold and former Brookline Selectwoman Deb Goldberg, have come out in favor of careful divestment.
Despite the feeling of momentum across the state and a large base of support for the bill, advocates are worried that fossil fuel industry pressure may be holding back progress. When the Joint Public Service committee held a hearing on the bill in September, a lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute (API) showed up to give the lone testimony against the proposed legislation.
"We were concerned when a very well-connected American Petroleum Institute (API) lobbyist with a Senate and Gubernatorial background showed up to testify before the Committee on Public Service last fall," said Darcy DuMont, a volunteer with 350 Massachusetts who has been helping coordinate efforts to build public support for S1225. "We suspected that this lobbyist would also try to exert pressure on the legislators on the committee as well."
"This is exactly the type of dangerous political influence that the oil lobby exerts all over the country," said Carmona. "We hope that legislators will look closely at the clear financial data that shows divestment is both an ethical and financially prudent decision, rather than fall for cherry-picked statistics presented by a well-connected lobbyist."
The real financial risk is staying invested in fossil fuels
Financial analysts and experts are increasingly worried about the risk of a "carbon bubble" that will arise if coal, oil and gas reserves become stranded assets. If governments meet their commitment to keep global warming below 2degC, they will need to pass regulations that force fossil fuel companies to keep 60-80% of their fossil fuel reserves underground. The accessibility of those reserves are a major factor in determining these companies' share price. Once the reserves are marked as unburnable, the value of the fossil fuel industry could plummet, to the tune of trillions of dollars. As Paul Spedding, an oil and gas analyst at HSBC, told the Guardian: "The scale of 'listed' unburnable carbon revealed in this report is astonishing. This report makes it clear that 'business as usual' is not a viable option for the fossil fuel industry in the long term."
On the flipside, fossil fuel divestment poses little-to-no-risk and can help insulate a portfolio from the carbon bubble. According to a report by the Aperio Group, a group of respected financial advisors, fossil fuel divestment poses would increase portfolio risk by a roughly 0.01%. The report's lead author, Patrick Geddes, told reporters on a recent webinar that, "Statistically, it's basically noise."
A number of specific outside studies looking at divestment came to the conclusion that divestment would actually benefit a portfolio. A study looking at university divestment commissioned by the Associated Press last year concluded that, "an endowment of $1 billion that excluded fossil fuel companies would have grown to $2.26 billion over the past 10 years, but an endowment that included investments in fossil fuel companies would have grown to $2.14 billion. That extra $119 million could pay for 850 four-year scholarships, assuming tuition of $35,000 per year."
The fight ahead in Massachusetts
No matter the outcome in the state legislature, divestment activists in Massachusetts are pledging to keep up the pressure on the state to divest. The divestment effort in MA is being supported by 350MA, the Better Future Project, Mothers Out Front, Students for a Just and Stable Future, various Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Christ, and Episcopal Churches and other faith groups, SEIU Local 509 and other state workers and pensioners.
"Divestment is the right move for Massachusetts" said DuMont. "We deeply hope that our Massachusetts legislators will listen to the experts, not the people who stand to lose potential investors if our fund decides to put our money toward the future instead. This is a decision for the people of Massachusetts, not the fossil fuel industry."
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
"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."
In San Francisco, thousands of anti-Trump activists gathered on a local beach to form a human sign that read, "Trump must go now! No ICE, no wars, no lies, no kings."
Millions of American across all 50 states on Saturday rallied against President Donald Trump and his authoritarian agenda during nationwide No Kings protests.
The flagship No Kings rally in Minneapolis, which organizers Indivisible estimated drew over 200,000 demonstrators, featured speeches from Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and actress Jane Fonda, as well as a special performance from rock icon Bruce Springsteen, who performed "Streets of Minneapolis," a song he wrote in tribute of slain protesters Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
Organizers called it "the largest single-day nationwide demonstrations in US history," with an estimate 8 million people coming out for events in communities and cities nationwide.
From major cities to rural towns that have never seen mobilizations like this before, protesters made clear that in America, we don’t do kings," the No Kings coalition said in a statement.
"This is what it looks like when a movement grows—not just in size, but in reach, in courage, and in more people who see themselves as part of this movement," the organizers said. "The American people are fed up with this administration’s power grabs, an illegal war that Congress and the public haven’t approved, and the continued attempts to stifle our freedoms. We’re not waiting for change; we’re making it."
The rally in Minneapolis was one of more than 3,300 No Kings events across the US and internationally, and aerial video footage showed massive crowds gathered for demonstrations in cities including Washington, DC, New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and San Diego.
Congratulations to all Americans who dared to take to the streets today and publicly expressed their stance and disagreement with the actions and policies of their president. #WeSayNoKings 👍👍👍 pic.twitter.com/f3UDpmsj3m
— Dominik Hasek (@hasek_dominik) March 28, 2026
In San Francisco, thousands of anti-Trump activists gathered on a local beach to form a human sign that read, "Trump must go now! No ICE, no wars, no lies, no kings."
WOW! Protesters in San Francisco, CA formed a MASSIVE human sign on Ocean Beach reading “Trump Must Go Now!” for No Kings Day (Video: Ryan Curry / S.F. Chronicle) pic.twitter.com/ItF7c7gvke
— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) March 28, 2026
However, No Kings rallies weren't just held in major US cities. In a series of social media posts, Indivisible co-founder Leah Greenberg collected photos and videos of No Kings events in communities including Arvada, Colorado, Madison, New Jersey, and St. Augustine, Florida, as well as international No Kings events held in London and Madrid.
Attendance estimates for Saturday's No Kings protests were not available as of this writing. Polling analyst G. Elliott Morris estimated that the previous No Kings event, held in October, drew at least 5 million people nationwide, making it likely “the largest single-day political protest ever.”