

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.

Jenny Harbine, Earthjustice, (406) 586-9699
Shannon Anderson, Powder River Basin Resource Council, (307) 672-5809
Stephanie Kodish, National Parks Conservation Association, (865) 329-2424 x28
Gloria Smith, Sierra Club, (415) 977-5532
Concerned that clean air and public health in Wyoming and the Northern Rockies region have been significantly undercut by a recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision regulating pollution from coal-fired power plants, local residents and conservation groups today filed an appeal in federal court to secure cleaner air.
The appeal of EPA's pollution control decisions has been filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals by Earthjustice on behalf of the Powder River Basin Resource Council, National Parks Conservation Association, and Sierra Club.
"When coal is burning at Wyoming power plants, nearby states get electricity and we get the pollution," said Shannon Anderson of the Powder River Basin Resource Council, a Wyoming citizens' organization. "With the modern technologies available now to cut smokestack emissions or generate electricity from cleaner sources, there's just no excuse for any more foot dragging or loopholes on cleaning up Wyoming's power plants."
Coal-fired power plants in Wyoming release about 47,000 tons of nitrogen oxide pollution and 40,000 tons of sulfur pollution into the air each year, according to EPA's 2013 Air Markets Program data. As an example of the other contaminants typical in coal emissions, annual toxic releases from the smokestacks at PacifiCorp's 1970s-era Jim Bridger plant near Rock Springs include over half a million pounds of acid gases (hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, and hydrogen fluoride); about 250 pounds of lead; and around 500 pounds each of mercury, chromium, and nickel.
Groups are supporting the EPA on its decision to require Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) pollution control updates for Wyoming's Laramie River and Wyodak coal plants within five years, controls which will curb nitrogen oxide emissions by up to 90 percent -- but the agency took a more lax approach on PacifiCorp's Naughton and Dave Johnston plants where the industry-wide pollution control standard was not required. Groups are challenging these weak control decisions, which, if successful will preclude these plants from continuing to emit preventable pollution despite the prevalence of cost effective controls.
"EPA cannot give PacifiCorp's aging coal plants a free pass when it comes to cleaning up haze-causing air pollution," stated Gloria Smith, an attorney with the Sierra Club. "PacifiCorp must be required to do what many other utilities across the country have done - clean up the air and protect public health."
Steps to update coal plants with modern pollution controls, or to instead transition to cleaner energy resources, provide public health benefits as well as helping to guard important national parks and wilderness areas against industrial pollution. Nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide pollution can exacerbate asthma and other respiratory problems, and they combine with other compounds in the air to form particularly dangerous fine particle pollution; exposure can cause heart attacks, strokes, asthma attacks and lung cancer. Mercury and lead can cause brain and nervous system damage, especially in children. Chromium and nickel are carcinogens that can cause lung, bladder, kidney, and skin cancer.
Particle pollution produced by nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide pollution from Wyoming coal plants contributes to haze at Yellowstone, Grand Teton Badlands and Wind Cave national parks, as well as the Washakie, North Absaroka, Teton, Fitzpatrick and Bridger wilderness areas.
"Public lands like Yellowstone National Park define the region attracting millions of visitors and billions of dollars annually," said Bart Melton, National Parks Conservation Association's Yellowstone field manager. "With modern pollution controls and clean energy options it is incumbent upon regulators to abate preventable pollution for the wellbeing of our national parks and health of visitors and neighboring communities."
According to the Outdoor Industry Association, outdoor recreation generated $4.5 billion in spending in Wyoming in 2011-2012, generated $1.4 billion in wages and salaries, directly employed 50,000 people and generated $300 million in state and local tax revenues. Last fall's federal government shutdown provided another reminder of the importance of investing in protection of Wyoming's national parks. During the month of October when the shutdown took place and parks were closed for several weeks, Wyoming was among the top five states in the country in terms of associated economic impact (more than $20 million drop in typical visitor spending), according to a Department of Interior report.
"Wyoming is home to some of our nation's most treasured public lands," said Earthjustice attorney Jenny Harbine. "These lands deserve no less than the full protection of our federal clean-air laws from Wyoming's dirty coal plants."
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"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."