

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.
Gaelle Gourmelon, ggourmelon@worldwatch.org , (+1) 202-745-8092, ext. 510
With resource-saving notions like "the paperless office" and "telecommuting," the digital age holds great environmental promise. But have digital technologies really helped to improve global sustainability? In the Worldwatch Institute's State of the World 2014: Governing for Sustainability, Richard Worthington, professor of politics at Pomona College, posits that a dose of healthy skepticism regarding emerging digital systems may safeguard our environment and our democracy (bit.ly/SoW2014).
When the first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, the collection of ideas and artifacts that is now known as the Internet was only a research and development program at the U.S. Department of Defense. Meanwhile, environmental advocates of the era were fighting large, complex technological systems, such as nuclear power and industrialized agriculture, as threats to both the ecosphere and democratic self-governance. Yet when big digital systems began to take hold in the 1980s, these expanding pervasive and powerful technologies were rarely criticized. Today, a true understanding of their environmental and social impacts is urgently needed in order to navigate-or resist-technology's growing influence.
Sustainable production. Studies that directly link the impacts of digital technologies to environmental benefits have yielded ambiguous results because of the difficulties in measuring these impacts. For example, it is difficult to isolate and track the Internet's contribution to energy efficiency during a time where other changes (such as energy-efficient appliances and insulation for buildings) are also unfolding.
A "'rebound effect' in which the gains of, say, telecommuting are offset by increased consumption afforded by the savings, such as taking an overseas vacation," further complicates the measurement of digital technology benefits, writes Worthington.
Although some studies address the digitization-environment link by offering projections of future savings to be had through the use of digital technologies, much of this research is sponsored by global corporations in the technology industry, leaving one to question its credibility.
Digital democracy. Among digital enthusiasts,technology is depicted as the key to creating new democratic practices. Indeed, the lower communications costs afforded by digitization have made it possible for groups to become engaged that previously had lacked the resources to participate in campaigns or policy development.
Yet many other digitally influenced developments have either resulted in very limited democratic gains or exacerbated undemocratic tendencies. In U.S. politics, for example, the use of digital systems has not increased the number of engaged citizens. Rather, it has widened the information and engagement gap by providing more opportunities for those already engaged, biasing them further toward their views. In some cases, digital technologies also have eroded the quality of political communications by generating floods of impersonal, easily ignored appeals or by shifting engagement toward event-driven, short-term responses.
Funding sustainability. Since the late 1990s, digital technology has accounted for about a third of private investment in the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, investment in sustainability, such as the support needed to set the United States on track for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is grossly underfunded.
"At its core, investment capital is a measure of a society's freedom, representing the resources to address urgent issues and to enhance prosperity," writes Worthington. "The large claim that digital industries have on these resources in a global society that faces severe ecological disruption warrants closer attention than it has received to date."
Looking ahead. Profound changes in environmental governance have already occurred since the advent of digitization. There are no unambiguous answers about whether or how much digital systems have added to ecological destruction and sociopolitical polarization. One fact is certain, however: digital technologies cannot be ignored.
"There is little choice about engaging digital systems in environmental governance, but naive attachment to them will perpetuate distorted patterns of investment and other features of the socioeconomic model that has generated the environmental crisis," writes Worthington. "Critical engagement, careful strategizing, and most of all a commitment to profound change are preconditions for using these systems for different ends."
Worldwatch's State of the World 2014 investigates the broad concept of governance for sustainability, including action by national governments, international organizations, and local communities. The book highlights the need for economic and political institutions to serve people and preserve and protect our common resources.
State of the World 2014 's findings are being disseminated to a wide range of stakeholders, including government ministries, community networks, business leaders, and the nongovernmental environmental and development communities. For more information on the project, visit https://www.worldwatch.org/state-world-2014-governing-sustainability .
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.
"This protects every Oregon family who depends on these programs to put food on the table," said the state's attorney general, who is among the 21 AGs behind the case.
A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked an attempt by the US Department of Agriculture to force state governments to comply with President Donald Trump's positions on gender and immigration or lose out on billions of dollars in funding, including for food assistance.
The attorneys general of the District of Columbia and 20 Democrat-led states sued the department and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in March, arguing that "USDA has now thrown unconstitutional and unlawful roadblocks between the programs created by Congress and the states that rely on them, threatening critical nutrition support, vital agricultural research, and the safety of our national food chain and communities."
Specifically, the Trump administration imposed "a vague set of funding conditions relating to USDA's purported anti-discrimination 'policies,' 'gender ideology,' 'fair athletic opportunities' for women and girls, and immigration," without specifying the policies or even confirming "that certification is limited to currently existing policies," says the complaint, filed in the District of Massachusetts.
The March filing also makes the case that "even if USDA went back and cured its vagueness problem and conducted a reasoned analysis before taking final agency action, the challenged conditions would still be unlawful."
While US District Judge Myong Joun has not explicitly agreed, the appointee of former President Joe Biden granted a preliminary injunction sought by the AGs and said he would issue a memorandum explaining his decision at a later date.
Welcoming the judge's unexplained decision on social media, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield highlighted that the move safeguards funding for school lunches, emergency aid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
"This protects every Oregon family who depends on these programs to put food on the table," Rayfield said. "The court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to hold school lunches, WIC, and SNAP hostage to its political agenda. These are lifelines for 86,000 Oregon kids, working families, seniors, and rural communities—and they will remain protected."
New York Attorney General Letitia James also celebrated that "we won a court order protecting billions of dollars in USDA funding as our lawsuit continues," and pledged that "my office will keep fighting to protect New Yorkers and stop the federal government from punishing our state for refusing to bend."
NEW: When Trump tried to gut billions in USDA funding for states refusing to comply with his anti-immigrant agenda, we sued.The court just ruled in our favor, blocking his cuts while our case continues.These grants are a lifeline - I'll always fight to protect food assistance for families.
— AG Andrea Joy Campbell (@massago.bsky.social) June 5, 2026 at 4:58 PM
The other states involved in the case are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Collectively, according to the complaint, "'plaintiff states receive over $74 billion annually in funding from USDA."
The judge's decision came on the heels of four Democrats in the US House of Representatives voting with Republicans to approve legislation that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has estimated would strip modest fruit and vegetable benefits from "nearly 5.4 million toddlers, preschoolers, and pregnant and postpartum WIC participants."
Already, since congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year, at least hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost federal food assistance. Last month, Trump's USDA chief suggested that some of them were receiving SNAP benefits fraudulently—without offering evidence—while others are "moving into the American dream and off of welfare."
Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at CBPP, responded that "unless the Trump administration has redefined 'the American dream' to mean 'losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,' I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins."
"The murder of a 7-month-old baby by Israeli forces in the illegally occupied West Bank and an Israeli massacre at a wedding in Gaza are horrific crimes that should shock the conscience of every person," said a US-based group.
Gunfire from at least one Israeli soldier killed a 7-month-old Palestinian boy and injured his parents, who were traveling in their vehicle in the occupied West Bank on Friday, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.
The Palestinian National Authority's WAFA reported that Sam Fahd Abu Haikal lived in Bethlehem with his mother and father, Fahd Abdul Aziz Abu Haikal, a lecturer at Bethlehem University. The family—which also included the baby's grandmother and 11-year-old sibling—intended to visit Hebron when they were struck by at least one bullet that left both parents with "moderate injuries" and ultimately killed the infant, who "succumbed on Friday evening to critical wounds."
As Reuters detailed:
The baby's grandmother said the family was driving near Checkpoint 17 when they saw Israeli military vehicles and soldiers in the distance and stopped the car. She said shots were then fired toward them, which they initially believed were warning shots.
"One bullet struck my grandson, traversed his face and crossed his head, striking his mother's cheek where it lodged," she said, adding that the bullet had also grazed the father's finger, and that the mother was in hospital.
A spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces told CBS News that soldiers "perceived a vehicle accelerating toward them" and responded by firing single shots, which injured three Palestinians who were evacuated for medical treatment. The spokesperson added that an initial inquiry "found that those injured were uninvolved civilians," and that the IDF "expresses deep sorrow for any harm caused to uninvolved individuals."
Fahd Abdul Aziz Abu Haikal told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that "the soldier was about 10 meters away from me. He saw me, he saw my wife, and the children. The car windows were not dark, it was daylight, and everything was clear. You can't say he didn't see that it was a family."
The father added that "this case must not be closed without an investigation and without accountability. At least I don't intend to give up."
The baby's death sparked a fresh wave of criticism against the IDF, which is widely accused of committing genocide against Palestinians in the wake of the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. The Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip has killed over 72,000 people.
Since October 2023, Israeli forces and settlers have also ramped up attacks in the illegally occupied West Bank, killing over 1,000 Palestinians, including at least 240 children, according to the United Nations.
In a Saturday statement, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, condemned the baby's killing as well as a deadly Israeli attack on a wedding in Gaza.
"The murder of a 7-month-old baby by Israeli forces in the illegally occupied West Bank and an Israeli massacre at a wedding in Gaza are horrific crimes that should shock the conscience of every person," CAIR said. "No military force that repeatedly kills children, medical workers, journalists, and civilians—using American taxpayer-supplied weapons—should continue to enjoy impunity or the support of our own government."
"We call on our government and the international community to stop enabling these atrocities," the group said, "and to take concrete action to protect Palestinian civilians, end the occupation, and uphold international law."
This post was updated with a newly available photo and reporting from Haaretz.
"Even though the interest in today’s sale was tepid, the new leasing still poses significant threats to habitat, iconic wildlife, and Indigenous ways of life," said Earthjustice.
In an embarrassment for President Donald Trump and his "drill, baby, drill" energy policy, Friday's third oil and gas lease sale in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge once again drew no bids from Big Oil—but conservationists stressed that fossil fuel expansion still poses a serious threat to the pristine wilderness and its human and animal inhabitants.
The US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offered 60 tracts on 689,000 acres in the ANWR in northeastern Alaska's Coastal Plain for lease sales. Just two companies—the government-owned Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority and Hex LLC, an Alaska firm—bought five leases that generated a paltry $3.7 million in total receipts.
“Yet again, no major oil and gas companies showed up to bid, because they know that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is a losing proposition,” said Kristen Moreland, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, which represents the Gwich'in Indigenous people and opposes drilling.
“We will continue to fight the Trump administration’s leasing program, and work with our friends and allies to protect this sacred and irreplaceable landscape from development of any kind," Moreland added.
The Trump administration had touted fossil fuel lease sales as a way to help pay for tax cuts in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act that mostly benefited corporations and wealthy individuals. The law, which was signed last July by Trump and extends tax cuts the president enacted in 2017, is expected to result in over $5 trillion in lost revenue through 2034, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, the world's leading independent tax policy nonprofit.
Despite the underwhelming result, the BLM described Friday's ANWR lease sale as "successful," with agency Director Steve Pearce calling it "another important step toward restoring American Energy Dominance and responsibly developing the vast resources Congress directed us to make available in the Coastal Plain."
Friday's lease sale was the third such auction, the first of which was held in 2021 during Trump's first term and generated just 1% of the administration's projected revenue. The Biden administration—which canceled the leases issued in the 2021 sale—held another lease auction last year because Trump's 2017 tax cut law required two ANWR lease sales within seven years. The 2025 auction drew no bidders.
Green groups and other drilling opponents warned that Friday's flop does not diminish the threat posed by fossil fuel development in ANWR, which is home to the North Slope Iñupiat and the Gwich’in peoples and 270 animal species, including all of the world’s remaining South Beaufort Sea polar bears and the 200,000 porcupine caribou upon which the Gwich'in—who call the area the "sacred place where life begins—rely upon for their survival. The North Slope Iñupiat broadly support drilling and called Friday's lease sale "an important milestone."
"Even though the interest in today’s sale was tepid, the new leasing still poses significant threats to habitat, iconic wildlife, and Indigenous ways of life in one of the nation’s most wild and beautiful landscapes," Earthjustice—one of the groups leading a lawsuit challenging the lease sales—said in a statement. "All of today’s leases are in important polar bear habitat, for example."
Athan Manuel, the Sierra Club's director of lands protection, said that "today's lease sale was another embarrassment and broken promise. The Trump administration has pushed leasing out the Arctic Refuge as the way to finance huge tax cuts, yet today generated $3.7 million for the federal government."
“Let's call that what it is, another scam to trick Americans into giving away our precious natural world," Manuel continued. "It does nothing to change the reality that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge remains a risky, controversial, and fundamentally flawed proposition."
"For years, the public was promised that sacrificing the refuge would generate significant economic benefits," Manuel added. "Instead, this leasing program has been plagued by uncertainty while putting one of America's most important public lands at risk."
Autumn Hanna, vice president of the advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said, "From two previous failed lease sales that delivered less than 1% of promised revenue, taxpayers already know that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is a bad deal."
"Today’s lease sale is yet another reminder that oil and gas development in the refuge is high-risk, low-reward, with zero interest from real industry players," Hanna added. "Americans will not see relief at the pump and, instead, face greater risks from the drilling in a sensitive region.”