June, 22 2017, 03:30pm EDT
Indivisible Statement on Senate TrumpCare Bill
Today, Angel Padilla, policy director at the Indivisible Project, released the following statement on the "Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017," Senate Republicans' version of TrumpCare.
WASHINGTON
Today, Angel Padilla, policy director at the Indivisible Project, released the following statement on the "Better Care Reconciliation Act of 2017," Senate Republicans' version of TrumpCare.
"Now that we've seen the Senate TrumpCare bill, Americans should ask themselves one simple question: Would this bill harm my family? Unless you are a giant corporation or super wealthy, the answer is clearly yes. The Senate bill keeps the same harmful effects of the House version-it rips coverage away from millions of Americans, eliminates protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, and increases costs for middle-class families.
"On top of that, the bill would destroy the Medicaid program, which more than 70 million Americans rely on. Today, if you're eligible for Medicaid, you can get it, guaranteed. This bill permanently caps funding for Medicaid, meaning eligible Americans could be stuck on waiting lists, left with inferior coverage, or denied vital coverage entirely, unsure of what the future holds.
"The bottom line is that Americans don't support this bill. It is irredeemable and unfixable. If the well-being of their constituents is every senator's priority, no senator should vote for this bill, period."
Indivisible Project (501c4) drives coordinated campaigns, powering the grassroots Indivisible movement to defeat the rightwing takeover of American government and win an inclusive democracy and bold progressive policies.
LATEST NEWS
'We Disagree': US Dismisses Landmark Amnesty Report Accusing Israel of Genocide
"We have said previously and continue to find that the allegations of genocide are unfounded," said a State Department spokesperson.
Dec 05, 2024
A U.S. State Department spokesperson told reporters on Thursday that the United States disagrees with Amnesty International's new report accusing Israel of carrying out genocide in the Gaza Strip.
"We disagree with the conclusions of such a report," spokesperson Vedant Patel said a day after the human rights group released the document. "We have said previously and continue to find that the allegations of genocide are unfounded."
The Israeli government has vehemently rejected the findings in the report.
"The deplorable and fanatical organization Amnesty International has once again produced a fabricated report that is entirely false and based on lies. The genocidal massacre on October 7, 2023, was carried out by the Hamas terrorist organization against Israeli citizens. Since then, Israeli citizens have been subjected to daily attacks from seven different fronts. Israel is defending itself against these attacks acting fully in accordance with international law," wrote the Israel Foreign Ministry in a post on X.
Amnesty Israel also does not accept the findings of Amnesty International's report, according to The Times of Israel.
In a statement, the Israeli branch of the organization—which reportedly did not take part in the funding, research, or writing of the report—said that "the scale of the killing and destruction carried out by Israel in Gaza has reached horrific proportions and must be stopped immediately," per The Times of Israel. However, the groups does not believe the events "meet the definition of genocide as strictly laid out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide."
In the 296-page report released Wednesday—titled, "You Feel Like You Are Subhuman": Israel's Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza—Amnesty International found through its research and legal analysis "sufficient basis to conclude that Israel committed, during the nine-month period under review, prohibited acts under Articles II (a), (b), and (c) of the Genocide Convention, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, and deliberately inflicting on Palestinians in Gaza conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part."
In order for a conflict to be considered genocide under international law, there must be both evidence of specific criminal acts—such as killing members of a given group—as well as "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."
In its report, Amnesty International concluded that "these acts were committed with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza."
Intent also came up during the State Department press conference Thursday when journalist Said Arikat of the Palestinian paper Al-Quds asked Patel a follow-up question about the report.
"I know that genocide depends a great deal on intent... And [the report] bases its conclusions on the statements, time and time and time again, by Israeli commanders, by Israeli officials," he said. "What is it going to take for you, for the United States of America... to say what is happening is genocide?"
Patel responded, "That's an opinion, and you're certainly welcome and you are entitled to it, as are all the organizations."
Israel faces an ongoing genocide case, led by South Africa, at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court recently issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Group Sounds Alarm Over Meta's Nuclear Power Plans
"In the blind sprint to win on AI, Meta and the other tech giants have lost their way," said a leader at Environment America.
Dec 05, 2024
Environmental advocates this week responded with concern to Meta looking for nuclear power developers to help the tech giant add 1-4 gigawatts of generation capacity in the United States starting in the early 2030s.
Meta—the parent company of Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and more—released a request for proposals to identify developers, citing its artificial intelligence (AI) innovation and sustainability objectives. It is "seeking developers with strong community engagement, development, ...permitting, and execution expertise that have development opportunities for new nuclear energy resources—either small modular reactors (SMR) or larger nuclear reactors."
The company isn't alone. As TechCrunchreported: "Microsoft is hoping to restart a reactor at Three Mile Island by 2028. Google is betting that SMR technology can help it deliver on its AI and sustainability goals, signing a deal with startup Kairos Power for 500 megawatts of electricity. Amazon has thrown its weight behind SMR startup X-Energy, investing in the company and inking two development agreements for around 300 megawatts of generating capacity."
In response to Meta's announcement, Johanna Neumann, Environment America Research & Policy Center's senior director of the Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, said: "The long history of overhyped nuclear promises reveals that nuclear energy is expensive and slow to build all while still being inherently dangerous. America already has 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that we don’t have a storage solution for."
"Do we really want to create more radioactive waste to power the often dubious and questionable uses of AI?" Neumann asked. "In the blind sprint to win on AI, Meta and the other tech giants have lost their way. Big Tech should recommit to solutions that not only work but pose less risk to our environment and health."
"Data centers should be as energy and water efficient as possible and powered solely with new renewable energy," she added. "Without those guardrails, the tech industry's insatiable thirst for energy risks derailing America's efforts to get off polluting forms of power, including nuclear."
In a May study, the Electric Power Research Institute found that "data centers could consume up to 9% of U.S. electricity generation by 2030—more than double the amount currently used." The group noted that "AI queries require approximately 10 times the electricity of traditional internet searches and the generation of original music, photos, and videos requires much more."
Meta is aiming to get the process started quickly: The intake form is due by January 3 and initial proposals are due February 7. It comes after a rare bee species thwarted Meta's plans to build a data center powered by an existing nuclear plant.
Following the nuclear announcement, Meta and renewable energy firm Invenergy on Thursday announced a deal for 760 megawatts of solar power capacity. Operations for that four-state project are expected to begin no later than 2027.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Meet the Banks and Investors Funding the LNG 'Carbon Bomb'
"Banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion," the authors of a new report said.
Dec 05, 2024
Liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.
A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.
"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."
"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."
The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.
Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.
"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.
Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.
The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:
- Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
- JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
- Mizuho (Japan)
- Gazprombank (Russia)
- SMBC Group (Japan)
- Bank of America (U.S.)
- Citigroup (U.S.)
- Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
- Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
- RBC (Canada)
While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.
All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.
"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."
The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.
The top 10 LNG investors are:
- BlackRock
- Vanguard
- State Street
- Fidelity Investments
- Capital Group
- GPFG
- JP Morgan Chase
- Brookfield Asset Management
- Blackstone
- MSBI
Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.
Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.
"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."
To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.
"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular