

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.

Tonight, the opening night of the second Democratic primary debate passed with insufficient discussion of the climate crisis. Following the first debate in June -- in which just 6 percent of questions over two nights addressed climate change policy -- we heard just one candidate, Elizabeth Warren, outline their vision for implementing a Green New Deal.
In response, Greenpeace USA Senior Climate Campaigner Jack Shapiro said:
"We are in a climate emergency and millions of people around the world are already suffering the consequences. Pushing climate change policy to the backburner for the second debate in a row is an insult to those dealing with extreme heatwaves, storms, and droughts right now and to future generations for whom everything is at stake. We desperately need an official climate debate in which informed moderators can press those vying to be our next president on how they will address this existential threat."
Bernie Sanders also signaled that we must "take on the fossil fuel industry" in addressing corporate greed and influence in American politics.
"We deserve a world without fossil fuels, and our next president has the chance to lay the groundwork," Shapiro continued. "It's critical that Sanders and the rest of the field join Jay Inslee, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Tom Steyer in committing to end drilling, fracking, and mining for fossil fuels in the United States. No matter who wins in 2020, we know that Exxon and BP will throw their weight behind blocking climate action. Our next president must be willing to look their executives directly in the eye and say, 'no more.'"
Despite moderator Jake Tapper's statement early in the debate that healthcare was the "top issue for democratic voters," a CNN poll [1] released today showed that climate change is the number one issue voters want to hear debated.
Twenty-one candidates [2] are already on record calling on the DNC to host an official debate on the climate crisis.
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"The current international order is plutocratic," said French economist Thomas Piketty. "It is essential to move away from this plutocratic system to a new democratic order."
A sprawling report released Thursday argues that averting the "bleak techno-authoritarian futures now being sold to us" and laying the groundwork for a just, livable future requires restructuring the world's economic order to widely redistribute wealth that has been hoarded at the very top for decades.
The report, compiled by hundreds of researchers from around the world and published by the World Inequality Lab (WIL), is billed as the first comprehensive attempt to lay out a plan to "reconcile planetary habitability and high well-being for all." Achieving that aim will be impossible, the authors argue, "without a drastic reduction in inequality of income, wealth, and power."
"The current international order is plutocratic," said French economist Thomas Piketty, a renowned expert on inequality and co-director of WIL. "It is essential to move away from this plutocratic system to a new democratic order."
The report outlines a number of proposals that would redress staggering levels of wealth and income inequality. Currently, the top 10% of the global population brings in more income than the remaining 90% combined. Wealth inequality is even more extreme, with the top 10% controlling 75% of global wealth, compared to 2% controlled by the poorest half of humanity.
Specifically, the authors call for a new, progressive global income tax that would peak at 90% for those who earn 5,000 times the average adult disposable income. They also propose taxing the wealth of millionaires and billionaires at a rate up to 20%.
Revenue from the new taxes would flow into a Global Justice Fund, which would distribute dividends to countries to help boost spending on climate, education, and healthcare. The fund would also invest in a World Sovereign Fund, whose returns on "sustainable assets" would be used to finance country dividends.
"The result is not a transfer from many to few but a gain for almost everyone," Piketty and other report contributors wrote in an op-ed for The Guardian. "Close to 90% of the world’s population would double their income between 2026 and 2100, and once leisure and a habitable planet are counted, more than 99% come out ahead."
"Technical impossibility is not what is standing in the way, but rather the absence of a shared vision of social progress, at once concrete and radical."
Redressing inequality would not be sufficient to secure a livable future, the report authors emphasize, given that continued fossil fuel use and expansion are pushing the world in the direction of climate catastrophe. What's required to prevent planetary disaster is a "fundamental transformation of energy systems," the report argues.
"This means electrifying energy demand wherever feasible (such as transitioning vehicle fleets) and switching to low-carbon fuels (for example, in steel and cement production)," the report states. "Crucially, electricity generation itself must be decarbonized, moving away from fossil fuels toward renewables like hydropower, solar, and wind."
The report also envisions a move away from overconsumption toward what the authors call a future of "sufficiency," which would entail shorter work hours for the global labor force, changes to land use, and other reforms.
Such ambitious goals will not become reality, the report stresses, without "a powerful citizen movement and a dense network of broad-based organizations (including labor unions, political parties, civic platforms, and other collective initiatives) which are sufficiently well-organized and effective at promoting broad institutional and policy change."
"A habitable, equal, and prosperous 21st Century is materially possible," the authors declare. "Technical impossibility is not what is standing in the way, but rather the absence of a shared vision of social progress, at once concrete and radical. What it will take instead is political choice, and the hard work of coalition-building behind it."
"We hope that other communities will use the model set by residents here... as inspiration to stop data centers from encroaching in their backyard," said a Monterey Park city councilmember.
Voters in Monterey Park, California on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a permanent ban on data centers within city limits, becoming the first city in the US to prohibit the power-hungry facilities via a ballot initiative.
In total, the anti-data center resolution passed with 86% voter support, with only 14% of voters opposed. The resolution's text said that a ban was necessary to "protect air quality, drinking water resources, and public health" and "prevent impacts to electricity and water rates."
Steven Kung, a leader of the local initiative, told ABC 7 Eyewitness News that the result was "a landslide victory."
Kung listed multiple reasons why residents in the city resoundingly rejected building data centers in their community.
"The noise pollution, the air pollution, the rise in the electricity rates," he said, "the deal just didn't make sense and it doesn't make sense for most, if not all, cities data centers go to."
In an interview with Politico, Monterey Park Mayor Elizabeth Yang predicted that her city would be far from the last to pass data center bans, noting data center projects have spurred protests across the country.
"A lot of the other cities that are facing data center proposals are going to follow suit," said Yang. "There's [a] bad reputation across the board, across the country, from other data centers that have been built in neighborhoods."
Monterey Park city councilmember Jose Sanchez expressed a similar sentiment, telling The Guardian that he hoped his city would become a inspiration to others.
"We hope that other communities will use the model set by residents here in Monterey Park," said Sanchez, "as inspiration to stop data centers from encroaching in their backyard."
Data centers have become political lightning rods in recent months, as residents across the country object to their massive resource consumption, which is leading to a major spike in utility bills, as well as the noise pollution they generate.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) earlier this year introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment."
A poll released on Wednesday by Public First showed US residents more opposed to data center construction than any nation in the world, with just 26% of Americans registering support for building more data centers.
This opposition isn't merely abstract, as it has caused major headaches for Big Tech firms that have been scrambling to increase their AI models' compute power.
As The Financial Times reported on Thursday, "dozens of projects collectively worth at least $156 billion have been blocked or stalled since 2025" thanks to local opposition to their development.
The latest killing came a day after a Democratic senator revealed that "the presence of narcotics on the boat has never been a targeting criteria" in the boat bombings.
The Trump administration killed two more people in a boat bombing in the eastern Pacific Ocean Wednesday, bringing the total number of people killed in the operation human rights experts have condemned as an "extrajudicial killing" spree to at least 207.
"The Trump administration’s lawless killing spree at sea continues," said Brian Finucane, senior adviser at the US program at the International Crisis Group. "The term for premeditated killing outside of armed conflict is murder—and there is no armed conflict here."
As with previous announcements of the lethal boat strikes, at least 63 of which have now been carried out by the US military in an operation the Trump administration has insisted is stopping drugs from reaching the US, US Southern Command presented no evidence Wednesday night when it said the victims were "two male narco-terrorists" and that the boat was "engaged in narco-trafficking operations."
Finucane noted that "even if there were an armed conflict, there’s no indication these supposed 'narco-terrorists' are lawful targets."
President Donald Trump has claimed the US is in an armed conflict with drug cartels in Latin America, and that the Caribbean and eastern Pacific are a legitimate battleground where the conflict has played out. But a number of victims have been identified as fishermen, and families have filed legal complaints against the US over the killings.
After the bombings began in September, Vice President JD Vance all but publicly admitted that the operation would put innocent people at risk, joking at a rally that he "wouldn’t go fishing right now in that area of the world."
The US in the past has treated drug trafficking as a criminal issue, in accordance with international law. A top military lawyer warned the Pentagon last August, just before the operation began, that carrying out the boat bombings could put top officials as well as rank-and-file service members at risk of being held criminally liable.
"Over 200 people killed so far, some who seem likely to have died agonizing deaths by drowning after clinging to wreckage for hours, with no trials, and without a single piece of evidence released to the public of their guilt or of any intent to smuggle drugs to the United States," said Aaron Rechlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council.
The latest boat bombing came a day after US Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) revealed a key detail about the "targeting criteria" the military has been using as it's conducted the bombings since last September.
On Tuesday at a hearing where Secretary of State Marco Rubio testified, Kaine noted that "evidence of narcotics on the boat" has not been a prerequisite for US Southern Command to conduct lethal strikes in Operation Southern Spear, despite the fact that the administration has insisted the operation is aimed at stopping drug trafficking boats from reaching the US.
"I've been briefed on Southern Spear since the first operation on September 2 and most recently within the last couple of weeks, and I've asked again and again, 'Have the targeting criteria changed?' 'No they have not,'" said Kaine. "The presence of narcotics on the boat has never been a targeting criteria."
Despite that, Kaine noted, "The administration has always announced, 'This is against narco-traffickers'" when a new strike has been carried out.
Adam Isacson, director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, pointed out that Operation Southern Spear comes two decades after human rights groups presented evidence to US military leaders that "their Colombian military partners were carrying out extrajudicial executions" in what became known as the "false positive" killings.
As Human Rights Watch has explained:
Between 2002 and 2008, army brigades across Colombia routinely executed civilians. Under pressure from superiors to show “positive” results and boost body counts in their war against guerrillas, soldiers and officers abducted victims or lured them to remote locations under false pretenses—such as with promises of work—killed them, placed weapons on their lifeless bodies, and then reported them as enemy combatants killed in action. Committed on a large scale for more than half a decade, these “false positive” killings constitute one of the worst episodes of mass atrocity in the Western Hemisphere in recent decades.
"Now," said Isacson, US officials are "carrying out their own extrajudicial executions every few days. No middleman."
Journalist Joseph Bouchard said the boat strikes could be called the United States' "own false positives scandal."
"None of these have been military targets," said Bouchard. "And even then, do we just kill drug traffickers now, without trial? Better name might be the classic 'crimes against humanity.'"