

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.

Joe Smyth, Greenpeace Communications, 831-566-5647, joe.smyth@greenpeace.org
On Thursday, the Interior Department announced the next step in its comprehensive review of the federal coal program, publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to begin the scoping process for a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS).
In response, Greenpeace Energy Campaign Director Kelly Mitchell said:
"The Obama administration is asking Americans to help shape the future of the federal coal program, a welcome change from the past when companies like Peabody ran the show without any oversight. Instead of giving away our coal to an industry that has shown nothing but contempt for communities and the environment, we should be planning how to quickly transition from coal to 100% renewable energy."
A Greenpeace report published last week showed that federal coal accounts for most of the coal mined by the three biggest coal companies in the US, Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, and Cloud Peak Energy. Using government data, the report also revealed several instances in which coal companies mined more coal than they had reported and paid for, among other ways in which the coal industry has dominated federal coal management decisions.
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000"Having to hire human workers who might have pesky demands for more pay, better hours, or better working conditions is but a nuisance to them," one software engineer wrote about tech industry bosses.
A leading billionaire right-wing donor and tech evangelist raised eyebrows during a podcast appearance this week with a blunt explanation for why he believes artificial intelligence is superior to human workers.
The past few months have seen a wave of tech industry layoffs that companies have acknowledged were driven wholly or in part by AI: From Meta, which slashed 8,000 jobs on Wednesday and reassigned thousands of other workers to AI roles; to Intuit, which announced a cut of about 17% of its workforce the same day to put more focus on the emerging technology.
The venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, who leads one of Silicon Valley's most powerful venture capital firms, Andreessen Horowitz, declared as recently as last month that despite report after report of mass layoffs, "‘AI job loss’ narratives are all fake,” and the industry would facilitate a "massive jobs boom" because it allows individual workers to be "endlessly more productive."
But during an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience on Tuesday, he seemed to suggest that he viewed the human workforce as not only inferior to AI but also an expendable nuisance that employers would be better off without.
He imagined the programmer of the future "overseeing an org chart of bots" numbering in the thousands, which would go on to exponentially increase productivity.
This, he said, is preferable to the current, inefficient model of hiring human laborers. He used the example of the graphic design work on Rogan's set to illustrate the point.
"You hire somebody... and you tell them you want a screen display and you want it to be an animated version of the thing you got back here," he said. "They spend, you know, two weeks doing it. It's like, 'Okay, that's pretty good, but I actually want the whole thing to be whatever, purple and green.' And they spend a week doing that. And they come back, and you're like, 'I actually prefer the old version.'"
“The guy gets, like, pissed at you because he’s like, ‘I just wasted my time.’ The bot’s like, 'No problem,' you know, no sweat, like whatever you want, and we can try it 12 more times if you want. Or you tell it, you know, this is terrible. Like, I can’t believe you came back to me with this. It has all these bugs. It’s like, ‘Oh, I’m so sorry. I’ll go fix these.’"
"By the way, [it] never gets drunk, never gets sick, never gets high," he continued.
"Never gets depressed because his girlfriend broke up with him," Rogan interjected.
"Never files HR complaints," Andreessen added.
Andreessen said this mass adoption of "armies" of AI workers would begin in tech fields like coding, but would quickly expand out to other fields like writing, medicine, and law.
He described artificial intelligence as technology that would grant workers a "universal basic superpower." But while some proponents of AI expansion imagine it as a tool to liberate workers from long hours by automating menial tasks, Andreessen said it was actually doing the opposite for workers in the coding world.
He said one would assume that “if AI coding makes them four times more productive... then maybe they’re working only a fourth the time and now they’ve got a great life,” but “what’s actually happened is virtually to a person, they’re all working more hours than ever to the point where there is a new term of art that’s used in the valley called the ‘AI vampire.’”
“You’re up all night doing AI coding because you are so productive," Andreessen said approvingly. "You’re getting so much done that you can’t turn off. The opportunity cost of going to sleep is too high because if you go to sleep, you won’t be with your 20 AI coding agents, keeping them working on all the projects that you have them working on. And so people stop sleeping.”
"They're clearly, clearly, clearly not taking care of themselves, and they're absolutely ecstatic," Andreessen said, "because they are able to produce five times, 20 times more code per hour than they could in the past."
The comments drew widespread backlash from critics across the political spectrum, who noted Andreessen's cavalier disregard for the fate of human workers in his imagined future scenario.
His mention of "HR complaints" in particular raised red flags for those who noted that the male-dominated worlds of Silicon Valley and venture capitalism have had many high-profile sexual harassment scandals.
But more broadly, it was interpreted as an expression of contempt for workers who demand a modicum of dignity from their jobs.
One software developer, who writes the Substack blog Dialectics of Decline on Substack under the name Scarlet, described Andreessen's comments as an encapsulation of an attitude that she recently said was "destroying the career I once loved."
I noticed that my bosses were getting infected with the mind virus sold to them by the AI hype men. They started to believe we weren’t needed anymore, or, if we were, we were now capable of producing 10x the amount of code in the same amount of time...
Having to hire human workers who might have pesky demands for more pay, better hours, or better working conditions is but a nuisance to them. They want to streamline their businesses by—ideally—not needing to hire humans at all. They are being sold a dream of a 100% agent-operated business where they purchase tokens instead of labor hours, and at a fraction of the cost. After all, agents won’t ever try to unionize. They don’t need weekends off. They don’t get sick or fall pregnant. They can’t strike. They won’t fight back.
It’s a mindset that Andreessen—one of the most prominent fixtures of the so-called “tech right” that spent big to elect Trump in 2024—is apparently seeking to export to the entire country.
Andreessen Horowitz and its billionaire founders have dumped an unprecedented $115 million to influence elections in the 2026 midterm cycle, more than other more prominent donors like Elon Musk and George Soros.
According to a report last week from the New York Times:
Already Andreessen Horowitz has put $47.5 million into the crypto super PAC network, Fairshake, since Election Day 2024. And the firm’s interests have expanded beyond crypto. It helped found Leading the Future, a super PAC network focused on electing pro-artificial intelligence legislators, which is modeled on Fairshake, and donated $50 million to it. Fairshake and Leading the Future both back Republicans and Democrats.
Andreessen Horowitz and its co-founders have also together donated $12 million to MAGA Inc., President Trump’s super PAC, including $6 million in March. A trust linked to Mr. Andreessen donated nearly $900,000 to the Republican National Committee that same month.
Andreessen's comments on Rogan's show inspired calls from progressive legislators, including Silicon Valley's Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who said it was an example of why Washington should "tax agentic AI more than workers" rather than providing tax breaks to companies that invest in AI infrastructure.
But the influence of tech oligarchs like Andreessen is also starting to unnerve some on the right, like the influential conservative pundit James Lindsay, who said he was getting "really sick of anti-human tech weirdos leading anything."
Sen. Ron Wyden said the $1.8 billion slush fund was "staggeringly corrupt even by Trump's bottom-dwelling standards."
President Donald Trump's attempt to create a $1.8 billion slush fund for his political allies is coming under bipartisan attack, and congressional Democrats are proposing a 100% tax on any of its future beneficiaries to thwart what's being described as an unprecedented form of corruption in the nation's nearly 250-year history.
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) on Tuesday introduced the first bill taxing Trump slush-fund payouts at a 100% rate, and he was followed on Thursday by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who introduced a similar bill in the US Senate.
If enacted, the legislation would negate the entire $1.8 billion venture, which was created as purported restitution for Trump politcal allies who have been convicted of committing crimes on his behalf, and force beneficiaries to return any payments received to the US Department of Treasury.
The bill would slap on an additional 50% penalty "in the case of any willful attempt to avoid or evade the tax."
Wyden described the president's slush fund, which could be used to pay out cash to Trump supporters who violently stormed the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021, as "staggeringly corrupt even by Trump’s bottom-dwelling standards."
"Congress must do whatever it takes to prevent Donald Trump from stealing $1.8 billion from the American people to fund right-wing violence and handouts to insurrectionists," said Wyden. "This money doesn’t belong to Donald Trump, it belongs to the taxpayer.”
Thompson, the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax, said that the legislation is need to stop Trump's attempt "to line the pockets of January 6th insurrectionists who attacked law enforcement and tried to overturn our democratic election."
"My legislation ensures if a sitting president sues our government while in office," added Thompson, "they get taxed 100% on any money paid through a trial or settlement."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) took some time on Thursday to provide an overview of the Trump slush fund's creation in a lengthy social media post.
As explained by Levin, the fund came about after Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) earlier this year over the 2019 leaking of his tax returns.
Levin noted that "IRS lawyers did their jobs" by writing a memo of legal arguments they believed would defeat Trump's lawsuit in court.
However, before the case could be fully heard in a courtroom, Trump agreed to drop his lawsuit while the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the creation of the $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund" as a settlement.
Levin also called attention to the structure of the committee, which he said was riddled with conflicts of interest.
"The acting attorney general, Trump’s former criminal defense attorney, picks the five commissioners who decide who gets paid," he said. "Trump can fire any of them. Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are not ruled out."
Levin concluded by calling the fund "the most corrupt thing I've ever seen from an American president."
While Democrats are taking the lead in the effort to block Trump's slush fund, some Republicans have also indicated their opposition to the initiative.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), one of the most vulnerable GOP members of the House, said on Wednesday that "a nearly $1.8 billion DOJ-controlled fund cannot be created, defined, and distributed in the shadows," and he demanded acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche provide answers about who will be eligible to receive payouts and under what legal authority.
"Taxpayer dollars will not be turned into a discretionary payout fund," Fitzpatrick emphasized. "Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not negotiable."
According to a Thursday report from Punchbowl News, Senate Republicans are preparing to slap restrictions on the $1.8 billion fund that could prevent any payments from going to January 6 rioters who attacked police officers.
In an interview with Punchbowl News, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) expressed incredulity that such guardrails were even necessary.
"Imagine that—a fund that is set up to compensate people who assaulted Capitol Police officers," Tillis said. "How absurd does that sound coming out of my mouth?"
"Plastic pollution is not just wrecking our environment, it's entering our bodies, starting from infancy," said one campaigner. "How our food is packaged is designed for profit, not for people's health."
Parents often reach for squeeze pouches of baby food to feed little ones on the go or because they aren't likely to break if dropped from a high chair, but research commissioned by Greenpeace International and released Thursday raises concerns about how the convenient packaging is exposing children to microplastics and plastic-associated chemicals, with potential health risks.
"In supermarkets worldwide, shelves are now lined with these soft plastic squeeze pouches of pureed baby food, promoted with safety and environmental claims such as 'BPA-free,' 'non-GMO,' 'pesticide-free' and 'organic,'" notes the group's new report, "Tiny Plastics, Big Problem: The Hidden Risks of Plastic Pouches for Baby Food."
"In the US alone, it has been reported that sales of baby food pouches skyrocketed by approximately 900% between 2010 and 2023, becoming a dominant format for baby nutrition," the report continues. Given the rising popularity of pouches, Greenpeace had SINTEF Ocean conduct laboratory testing of Danone's Happy Baby Organics and Nestlé's Gerber pureed baby food.
The researchers found up to 54 microplastic particles in Gerber yogurt pouches and up to 99 particles in Happy Baby Organics fruit pouches, on average—or as many as 270 microplastics per teaspoon in the former and 495 in the latter. They estimated that a full pouch of Gerber contains more than 5,000 particles, while Happy Baby has over 11,000 particles.
"Spectral analysis identified polypropylene (PP) and polyamide (PA), as well as tentatively identifying polyethylene (PE)," the report explains. "Particles tentatively identified as PE microplastic were the most abundant, occurring at similar levels in both products. This suggests that abrasion or degradation of the inner PE lining in contact with the food may contribute to the microplastic content in the food."
The experts also examined chemicals in the pouched food, and "tentatively identified 81 chemicals in the Danone fruit puree and 111 in the Nestlé dairy-based puree, which were also detected in the respective packaging materials," according to the report.
"Cross-referencing with the PlastChem database, an inventory of chemicals known to be used in or found in plastics, revealed that 55 of the substances found in the fruit sample and 28 in the dairy sample were identified as plastic-associated chemicals," the publication notes. "One chemical found in both the packaging and the yogurt was tentatively identified as 2,4-di-tert-butylphenol (2,4-DTBP), a chemical of concern. It is recognized as hazardous to human health and the environment, has been associated with endocrine-disrupting effects, and could also act as an obesogen."

"Our findings are not occurring in isolation," the report emphasizes, citing other research on baby food pouches, infant bottles, and other plastic packaging, including breast milk storage bags. "Wherever we look with the right tools, we find the fingerprints of plastics permeating baby foods."
The document also acknowledges that "besides the potential health risks of microplastics and plastic chemicals on babies, concerns have been raised by public health nutritionists about the growing market for spout pouches and their nutritional impact on babies and toddlers, specifically the high levels of sugars and low mineral and vitamin content in many products."
"Overreliance on spout pouches is starting to be associated with growing levels of dental decay and obesity amongst young children," the report adds, pointing to warnings from the World Health Organization and the United Kingdom's National Health Service that "babies can eat too fast when they suck directly from the pouch."
Considering the findings, "delaying action is not just ill-advised, it's unethical," Greenpeace argued. "Governments must work nationally and globally to secure a strong global plastics treaty that dramatically reduces global plastic production, eliminates hazardous plastics and associated chemicals, and drives a justice-centered, at-scale transition to reuse-based systems."
Several rounds of negotiations on crafting a United Nations treaty to combat plastic pollution have been largely fruitless. In March, the chair of the talks, Chilean diplomat Julio Cordano, released a roadmap to renew the global push for a deal. Following that release, another round of talks is expected later this year or next year.
What #Nestlé & #Danone are feeding to babies will shock you. A Greenpeace International report found microplastics in the plastic-pouched baby food of 2 popular Nestlé & Danone brands, Gerber & Happy Baby Organics.❌ No amount of #microplastics should be in a CHILD'S FOOD. Share if you agree.
[image or embed]
— Greenpeace International 🌍 (@greenpeace.org) May 21, 2026 at 4:45 AM
The Greenpeace report doesn't just put pressure on governments. It also says that "all companies that rely on plastic packaging must reconsider their business model, prioritizing baby food, baby products, and food contact packaging. Nontoxic, plastic-free, zero-waste, reuse-centered product delivery systems and packaging alternatives already exist in communities around the world."
"Nestlé and Danone, and other major consumer goods companies and supermarket chains must take responsibility by swapping flexible packaging for healthier alternatives and supporting policies that accelerate reuse system expansion," it stresses.
Graham Forbes, Greenpeace USA's global plastics campaign lead, declared that "this study is a wake-up call for parents everywhere, who trust these brands to put their kids first. Plastic-dependent companies like Nestlé and Danone owe families a clear answer: What are they doing to eliminate microplastics and chemicals from the products they sell to babies?"
"Plastic pollution is not just wrecking our environment, it's entering our bodies, starting from infancy," Forbes added. "How our food is packaged is designed for profit, not for people's health. Cutting plastic production and eliminating harmful chemicals is essential to protect human health, especially the health of our children."