

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.

Lindsay Meiman, lindsay@350.org, (347) 460-9082
Over 50 people rallied in New York's capital today urging Comptroller Tom DiNapoli and state officials to stand for a Green New Deal for New York by supporting action to divest the state pension fund from fossil fuels. Traveling from across the state, participants staged a tug of war between New Yorkers and fossil fuel executives, with a garbed DiNapoli in the middle. Following the stunt, activists began a series of meetings with 40 legislators, urging passage of the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act.
"I lost everything in Sandy and then my family in Puerto Rico also were flooded out in Maria. New York City is divesting its pension funds and even Governor Cuomo supports state divestment," said Rachel Rivera a Sandy survivor and member of New York Communities for Change (NYCC). "How many people need to die from climate change? How many need to lose their homes? What the hell is wrong with Comptroller DiNapoli that he doesn't understand that pumping investments into companies whose business model destroys the state is simply insane?"
The Fossil Fuel Divestment Act, co-sponsored by New York State Senator Liz Krueger and Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, currently has 22 senate and 30 assembly sponsors. Yesterday, Krueger and Ortiz released a clear-eyed response to an unusual letter from DiNapoli where he lobbied against the bill. The Comptroller sending such a letter to the full legislature is highly unprecedented.
"Climate change is the single greatest threat facing humanity; the only rational response is to use every tool at our disposal to prevent and mitigate its most catastrophic impacts," said Senator Liz Krueger. "Divesting our state pension fund from fossil fuels will protect workers and retirees from the rapid loss of valuation that fossil fuel companies will suffer in the coming energy transition. It will also send a powerful message that it is no longer acceptable to invest in a business model that puts our entire planet at risk. The climate crisis is here - fiduciary and moral responsibility require the process of divestment to begin now."
Pensioners, community members, and young people launched the call for DiNapoli to divest the day after Superstorm Sandy hit, a storm which devastated the lives and livelihoods of New Yorkers, and cost taxpayers over $60 billion with recovery still ongoing. In January 2018, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Comptroller Scott Stringer announced their commitment to divest the City's similar-sized pension funds within five years. To date, over 1020 institutions representing more than $8 trillion in assets have committed to divest.
As a person living on a state pension, I am outraged that the state retiree fund is continuing to support the fossil fuel industry and its continuing damage to our climate," said Steve Redler, pensioneer and resident of Bethlehem in Albany County. "Studies show the state retiree fund experienced a lower return in recent years because it maintained its fossil fuel investments. Divestment is a way of increasing the security of our planet -- and my financial security as well."
Still, DiNapoli is investing $13 billion of pension money in fossil fuel companies, despite proof of financial imprudence. This includes $1 billion in ExxonMobil, a company currently being sued for fraud by NY attorney general Tish James. DiNapoli has ignored calls to divest, arguing instead for shareholder engagement, despite Reuters recently revealing Exxon's attempts yet again to block his climate resolution from going to a vote at the company's annual meeting.
During his State of the State, Governor Andrew Cuomo directed state agencies to begin the process of divestment. DiNapoli remains isolated as the world urgently moves off fossil fuels, and as New York takes bold action for a Green New Deal.
"Enough is enough. It's time for New York State to divest from companies using fossil fuel sources that continue to continue to destroy our atmosphere and waterways," said Assistant Speaker Assemblyman Felix Ortiz. "We can no longer allow corporate pollution to jeopardize future generations. I've re-introduced my Fossil Fuel Divestment bill to take the state's money out of the pockets of corporate polluters. Hurricane Sandy and the re-occurring polar vortexes taught us the lessons to invest in renewable energy. Let's take one step forward through divestment."
Today's events take place in the lead-up to the March 20 forum for a Green New Deal for NY and ahead of an April 30 formal legislative hearing on the Divestment bill convened by Senator Liz Krueger and Assembly Member Felix Ortiz.
Ruth Foster, Director of the NY Climate Advocacy Project, said: "How long do we have to wait until politicians realize that global warming is already a crisis? People are dying now from wildfires, hurricanes, drought and the polar vortex. Not only is it immoral to fund the fossil fuel industry, it is also fiscally irresponsible. Funding the fossil fuel industry today is like funding horse and buggy industry in the 1920s. We need Comptroller DiNapoli to divest from the fossil fuel companies now."
Cata Romo, Fossil Free New York Campaigner, 350.org, said: "As a New Yorker, my community is living with the impacts of climate chaos now. We see it in heatwaves and polar vortexes; in fires scorching the west coast; in superstorms harming our sisters and brothers in Puerto Rico. I want my Comptroller, Tom DiNapoli, to lead by cutting ties with fraudulent companies like Exxon and fracked gas pipeline companies like Williams. It's time DiNapoli make New York a real leader in investing in climate solutions."
Rich Schrader, NY Political Director for NRDC, said: "Divestment shines a light on the need to cut loose fiscal ties with powerful polluters. We need more of our leaders to follow Governor Cuomo's lead and take bold action to ensure our energy policies represent the interests of our children and grandchildren - that means doing without dirty fossil fuels and charting a better, safer, healthier way forward. It's up to Comptroller DiNapoli to get on board - there's no time to wait."
Clara Vondrich, Director Divest Invest, said: "Comptroller DiNapoli is leaving billions of dollars on the table by refusing to divest: The fossil fuel industry is underperforming and volatile, finishing dead last in the S&P500 last year. If you are a day trader with a high risk appetite, fossil fuels are for you. But as a long-term investor with fiduciary duties, Comptroller DiNapoli has no business gambling with the hard-won pension benefits of New Yorkers. A study last year by Corporate Knights was clear: Each beneficiary of the state pension fund would have been about $19,000 richer had Comptroller DiNapoli divested a decade ago. That's real money that New Yorkers need now. Stop digging the hole deeper for your pensioners and the planet -- Divest Invest."
Greg Young, Supervisor of Fulton County, said: "As the world moves to end the era of fossil fuels, the financial risk of staying invested continues to grow for our pensioners. Climate change is harming our communities, and we must use all tools at our disposal to curb the destructive influence of the companies most responsible, and invest in climate solutions that benefit local communities and make them more resilient."
Mark Dunlea, Chairperson of the Green Education and Legal Fund, said: "The IPCC has called for immediate action to end the era of fossil fuels and increase the likelihood that life on our planet can survive climate change. Divestment from fossil fuels is also critical to protect taxpayers and public workers from the growing loss of value from the fossil fuel sector. It is unfortunate that the present state comptroller wants to talk to fossil fuel companies rather than provide national leadership to demand climate action. We urge state lawmakers to make New York the first state in the U.S. to divest from fossil fuels."
Dorian Fulvio, 350NYC, said: "Comptroller DiNapoli claims to recognize the risk that climate change poses to financial markets. Yet he refuses to divest the State's pension fund assets from fossil fuel investments, claiming that a " shareholder engagement" strategy will persuade these companies to change. His approach has been a failure both financially (in the form of pension fund losses from poorly performing fossil fuel investments) and strategically (because these companies haven't changed anything, and have no intention of doing so). We have precious little time to get off fossil fuels. Let's not waste that time in hopeless negotiations that leave our pension funds at risk."
Eileen Moran, Chair, Environmental Justice Working Group, Professional Staff Congress-CUNY, AFT local 2334, said: "The PSC Environmental Justice Working Group strongly supports the divesting of public pensions out of fossil fuels and the financial interests that would make morel drilling , extraction or pipelines possible. To have healthy retirements we need to leave 80% of the already identified fossil fuels in the ground. Already fossil fuel stocks are doing poorly compared with the general index funds. Divesting pensions from fossil fuel will both protect our pensions from devalued fossil fuel stocks and send a message to the industry's bankers that they will lose even more money if they support more fossil fuel development and infrastructure. Instead, let's invest our pensions for a Green New Deal."
Nancy Romer, Environmental Justice Working Group, PSC-CUNY AFT local 2334, Executive Council member, 2000-2009, retiree, said: "How shocking that NY State Comptroller DiNapoli is still fronting for the fossil fuel industry! Pensioneers should not be suffering from financial holdings that are declining in value compared to the general stock index and are harming the future of our families, communities and planet. The fossil fuel-based economy must be completely replaced by one that is based completely on renewable energy. The IPCC report and several other science-based reports make it clear that we have 12 years to make this turn-around Let's protect pensions from the inevitable nose-dive of fossil fuel stock values and use our pensions to support a positive future with renewable energy."
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.
"Now in its third consecutive year of famine, Sudan received nothing."
Elon Musk's vault to trillionaire status following the public debut of his rocket company SpaceX came on the heels of an analysis showing the devastating impact of his destruction of the US Agency for International Development on millions of people in countries on the brink of famine.
The analysis, authored by Council on Foreign Relations expert and longtime aid worker Sam Vigersky, noted that Musk's targeting of USAID during his tenure as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) resulted in the transfer of the Food for Peace program to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), an agency "without international humanitarian or disaster-response expertise."
Vigersky found that the USDA this year chose just seven countries to receive American grain under the Food for Peace program: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, El Salvador, and Rwanda. The latter two countries, Vigersky noted, "do not meet an emergency threshold" for assistance.
"Meanwhile, the country facing the largest hunger crisis in the world—Sudan—did not make the list. Now in its third consecutive year of famine, Sudan received nothing. In fact, more than 40% of Sudan’s community kitchens, a lifeline for the displaced, have closed in the past six months as funding dried up, according to Islamic Relief," Vigersky reported. "Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Yemen were also passed over. Millions of people in those countries live one step from famine, according to the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the UN-backed monitoring system that uses a standardized five-point scale (five being famine) to measure the severity of food insecurity."
Experts assessing the global impact of USAID's decimation at the hands of billionaire US President Donald Trump and the world's first trillionaire, who bragged publicly about "feeding USAID into the wood chipper," estimate that hundreds of thousands of people have already died as a result of the large-scale loss of humanitarian assistance—and millions more will die in the coming years if swift action is not taken to restore aid.
"The impacts of the cuts were immediate and tragic," Nicholas Enrich, a former USAID employee who became a whistleblower, wrote in The Boston Globe on Friday. "Health clinics and emergency ambulance services shuttered overnight. Clinical trials were deserted. Thousands of healthcare workers lost their jobs. Lifesaving food and medicine was left to expire in warehouses. According to conservative estimates, in the year since USAID was dismantled, 750,000 people have died as a result of the cuts. For the first time in a generation, more children died in one year — 2025—than in the previous year."
Oxfam has estimated that a 10% tax on Musk's $1 trillion fortune would generate enough revenue to end extreme poverty worldwide for a year.
Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."