

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.

Austin Robert Davis, 350Vermont, austin@350vt.org, (802) 370-0408
During today's State of the State Address, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin called on the state's pension funds to divest the $4.02 billion portfolio from coal, as well as from the infamous fossil fuel corporation ExxonMobil.
During today's State of the State Address, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin called on the state's pension funds to divest the $4.02 billion portfolio from coal, as well as from the infamous fossil fuel corporation ExxonMobil.
"Our small state must partner with California, which manages hundreds of billions of dollars of state funds, and divest Vermont of coal. Let's remember Vermont is downwind of the coal fired plants to our West; we're the tailpipe to their dirty energy choices," said Governor Shumlin. "Their pollution sickens our children, creates acid rain, dumps mercury on our forests and in our lakes and increases greenhouse gas emissions. I ask that you send me a divestiture bill just like California's. While you're doing that, Governor Brown and I will invite other Governors to join us in what should be a national effort."
Shumlin also specifically targeted ExxonMobil for divestment.
"While we await the California study on oil, Vermont should not wait to rid ourselves of ExxonMobil stock," said the Governor. "It has been clearly documented that since the 1980's, ExxonMobil's own scientists have long known about the dangers of global warming, and chose to conceal that from the public. At the same time that they were building their oil rigs taller to account for rising sea levels, they were funding front groups of scientists to deny climate change is real. This is a page right out of Big Tobacco, which for decades denied the health risks of their product as they were killing people. Owning ExxonMobil stock is not a business Vermont should be in."
350.org co-founder Bill McKibben responded by congratulating the Governor for his leadership on the issue, "It's great that Vermont may join states like California in divesting from coal -- and even better that Governor Shumlin has taken the lead by saying no government should be invested in Exxon, as perhaps the greatest scandal in corporate history begins to unfold. Today is a great win for the thousands of Vermonters who have joined this fight, and it will give us new vigor to keep pushing on many fronts!"
The call to divest from Exxon is particularly significant following a series of investigative reports revealing that as early as the 1970s, Exxon not only knew about the effect of burning fossil fuels on the climate, but also that the company spent millions in sowing doubt and confusion around its own research among the public and world governments. Reporters recently uncovered that Exxon's oil industry peers also knew about these climate dangers and lied about them for decades, potentially opening them up for prosecution or additional regulations.
Now, momentum is growing to prosecute Exxon for their climate lies. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has launched an investigation to uncover all Exxon knew about climate change. Last October, over 60 prominent indigenous peoples, social, and environmental organizations released a call for the Department of Justice Attorney General Loretta Lynch to launch an investigation. Organizers across the country are urging their state Attorney Generals to launch similar investigations.
Governor Shumlin's push for Vermont to also divest from coal is part of a growing wave of divestment commitments worldwide as the case for action grows ever stronger. During the UN climate talks in December, it was announced that over 500 institutions representing more than $3.4 trillion in assets under management have committed to some level of divestment. Coal in particular has felt the pinch, as stocks have plummeted and many companies have filed for bankruptcy. There has been growing momentum for full divestment, as well, as renewable energy has gained cost efficiency over fossil fuels and Fossil Free Indexes have outperformed conventional markets. Leaders from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to World Bank President Jim Kim have commended the divestment movement for the impact it has having on the economic and political discussion about how to address the climate crisis.
The case for divestment is particularly strong in Vermont, a state that prides itself on green leadership, as well as sound accounting. In fact, not divesting may have hurt State funds since calls for action began. In November, 350Vermont and Corporate Knights found that the state pension fund lost more than $77 million in reduced returns over the past three years because of fossil fuel investments.
"The Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club is glad to hear Governor Peter Shumlin acknowledge the need to divest from fossil fuels. In light of the Paris Climate talks it is quite evident that fossil fuel investments are volatile and there are real questions about the fiduciary responsibility of continuing to invest in them," said Robb Kidd, VT Chapter of the Sierra Club Conservation Program Manager. "Vermont can lead by refocusing investments that align with the Vermont's clean energy goals while protecting public pensions."
Campaigners believe that today's announcement will provide significant momentum for Vermont's pension funds to divest from all fossil fuels, as well as set a precedent for other states, such as New York, to follow suit.
"It is gratifying to hear Governor Shumlin's support for fossil fuel divestment. Fossil fuel investments in the state pension funds have substantially hurt returns over the past couple of years and continue to constitute a real risk for pension beneficiaries and Vermont taxpayers," said Eric Becker, CFA, Chief Investment Officer, Clean Yield Asset Management. "Getting on a path to full divestment in the coming years will be a great step forward for Vermont and for the climate."
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.
"Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food," one lawyer said.
As the Trump administration continued its illegal freeze on food assistance, the US Department of Agriculture sent a warning to grocery stores not to provide discounts to the more than 42 million Americans affected.
Several grocery chains and food delivery apps have announced in recent days that they would provide substantial discounts to those whose Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits have been delayed. More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the program, and 39% of them are children.
But on Sunday, Catherine Rampell, a reporter at the Washington Post published an email from the USDA that was sent to grocery stores around the country, telling them they were prohibited from offering special discounts to those at greater risk of food insecurity due to the cuts.
"You must offer eligible foods at the same prices and on the same terms and conditions to SNAP-EBT customers as other customers, except that sales tax cannot be charged on SNAP purchases," the email said. "You cannot treat SNAP-EBT customers differently from any other customer. Offering discounts or services only to SNAP-eligible customers is a SNAP violation unless you have a SNAP equal treatment waiver."
The email referred to SNAP's "Equal Treatment Rule," which prohibits stores from discriminating against SNAP recipients by charging them higher prices or treating them more favorably than other customers by offering them specialized sales or incentives.
Rampell said she was "aware of at least two stores that had offered struggling customers a discount, then withdrew it after receiving this email."
She added that it was "understandable why grocery stores might be scared off" because "a store caught violating the prohibition could be denied the ability to accept SNAP benefits in the future. In low-income areas where the SNAP shutdown will have the biggest impact, getting thrown off SNAP could mean a store is no longer financially viable."
While the rule prohibits special treatment in either direction, legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold argues that it was a "perverted interpretation of a rule that stops grocers from price gouging SNAP recipients... charging them more when they use food stamps."
The government also notably allows retailers to request waivers for programs that incentivize SNAP recipients to purchase healthy food.
Others pointed out that SNAP is currently not paying out to Americans because President Donald Trump is defying multiple federal court rulings issued Friday, requiring him to tap a $6 billion contingency fund to ensure benefit payments go out. Both courts, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, have said his administration's refusal to pay out benefits is against the law.
One labor movement lawyer summed up the administration's position on social media: "Can't follow the law when a judge says fund the program, but have to follow the rules exactly when they say don't help poor people afford food."
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy.
After failing to use the government's might to bully Jimmy Kimmel off the air earlier this fall, President Donald Trump is once again threatening to bring the force of law down on comedians for the egregious crime of making fun of him.
This time, his target was NBC late-night host Seth Meyers, whom the president said, in a Truth Social post Saturday, "may be the least talented person to 'perform' live in the history of television."
On Thursday, the comedian hosted a segment mocking Trump's bizarre distaste for the electromagnetic catapults aboard Navy ships, which the president said he may sign an executive order to replace with older (and less efficient) steam-powered ones.
Trump did not take kindly to Meyers' barbs: "On and on he went, a truly deranged lunatic. Why does NBC waste its time and money on a guy like this??? - NO TALENT, NO RATINGS, 100% ANTI TRUMP, WHICH IS PROBABLY ILLEGAL!!!"
It is, of course, not "illegal" for a late-night comedian, or any other news reporter or commentator, for that matter, to be "anti-Trump." But it's not the first time the president has made such a suggestion. Amid the backlash against Kimmel's firing in September, Trump asserted that networks that give him "bad publicity or press" should have their licenses taken away.
"I read someplace that the networks were 97% against me... I mean, they’re getting a license, I would think maybe their license should be taken away,” Trump said. "All they do is hit Trump. They’re licensed. They’re not allowed to do that.”
His FCC director, Brendan Carr, used a similar logic to justify his pressure campaign to get Kimmel booted by ABC, which he said could be punished for airing what he determined was "distorted” content.
Before Kimmel, Carr suggested in April that Comcast may be violating its broadcast licenses after MSNBC declined to air a White House press briefing in which the administration defended its wrongful deportation of Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
"You need to understand that he actually believes it is illegal to criticize him," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media following Trump's tirade against Meyers. "Why? Because Trump believes he—not the people—decides the law. This is why we are in the middle of, not on the verge of, a totalitarian takeover."
"An ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien," said the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Immigration agents are using facial recognition software as "definitive" evidence to determine immigration status and is collecting data from US citizens without their consent. In some cases, agents may detain US citizens, including ones who can provide their birth certificates, if the app says they are in the country illegally.
These are a few of the findings from a series of articles published this past week by 404 Media, which has obtained documents and video evidence showing that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents are using a smartphone app in the field during immigration stops, scanning the faces of people on the street to verify their citizenship.
The report found that agents frequently conduct stops that "seem to have little justification beyond the color of someone’s skin... then look up more information on that person, including their identity and potentially their immigration status."
While it is not clear what application the agencies are using, 404 previously reported that ICE is using an app called Mobile Fortify that allows ICE to simply point a camera at a person on the street. The photos are then compared with a bank of more than 200 million images and dozens of government databases to determine info about the person, including their name, date of birth, nationality, and information about their immigration status.
On Friday, 404 published an internal document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) which stated that "ICE does not provide the opportunity for individuals to decline or consent to the collection and use of biometric data/photograph collection." The document also states that the image of any face that agents scan, including those of US citizens, will be stored for 15 years.
The outlet identified several videos that have been posted to social media of immigration officials using the technology.
In one, taken in Chicago, armed agents in sunglasses and face coverings are shown accosting a pair of Hispanic teenagers on bicycles, asking where they are from. The 16-year-old boy who filmed the encounter said he is "from here"—an American citizen—but that he only has a school ID on him. The officer tells the boy he'll be allowed to leave if he'll "do a facial." The other officer then snaps a photo of him with a phone camera and asks his name.
In another video, also in Chicago, agents are shown surrounding a driver, who declines to show his ID. Without asking, one officer points his phone at the man. "I’m an American citizen, so leave me alone,” the driver says. "Alright, we just got to verify that,” the officer responds.
Even if the people approached in these videos had produced identification proving their citizenship, there's no guarantee that agents would have accepted it, especially if the app gave them information to the contrary.
On Wednesday, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), told 404 that ICE agents will even trust the app's results over a person's government documents.
“ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien,” he said.
This is despite the fact that, as Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, told 404, “face recognition technology is notoriously unreliable, frequently generating false matches and resulting in a number of known wrongful arrests across the country."
Thompson said: "ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.”
According to an investigation published in October by ProPublica, more than 170 US citizens have been detained by immigration agents, often in squalid conditions, since President Donald Trump returned to office in January. In many of these cases, these individuals have been detained because agents wrongly claimed the documents proving their citizenship are false.
During a press conference this week, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denied this reality, stating that "no American citizens have been arrested or detained" as part of Trump's "mass deportation" crusade.
"We focus on those who are here illegally," she said.
But as DHS's internal document explains, facial recognition software is necessary in the first place because "ICE agents do not know an individual's citizenship at the time of the initial encounter."
David Bier, the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, explains that the use of such technology suggests that ICE's operations are not "highly targeted raids," as it likes to portray, but instead "random fishing expeditions."