

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.
Claire James, Campaign against Climate Change, claire@campaigncc.org
Dr. Lucky Tran, March for Science, lucky@marchforscience.com
Over 2000 scientists from over 40 countries, and working on seven continents around the world, have signed letters pledging to join the Global Climate Strikes on September 20 and 27, 2019.
The letters support the youth movement's concerns as "well-founded" and based on "solid, incontrovertible evidence." The academics state that the "current level of action and ambition falls far short of what is needed to secure a safe future for this and all other generations."
Over 2000 scientists from over 40 countries, and working on seven continents around the world, have signed letters pledging to join the Global Climate Strikes on September 20 and 27, 2019.
The letters support the youth movement's concerns as "well-founded" and based on "solid, incontrovertible evidence." The academics state that the "current level of action and ambition falls far short of what is needed to secure a safe future for this and all other generations."
The scientists urge their colleagues around the world to cancel their classes, or move them outside and turn them into teach-ins for the whole community, and to leave their research labs to join youth leaders for marches and rallies.
The Global Climate Strike will take place in 137 countries, and over 5000 locations around the world, making it the largest mobilization for climate change in history. The strikes were inspired by Greta Thunberg in Sweden over a year ago, and have since grown into a global movement of millions. The September dates will be the first time adults will join the strikes, which are scheduled to take place during a week when world leaders gather in New York City to meet at the UN climate action summit.
Letters
Scientists' Letter in Support of the Global Climate Strike
Scientists and academics support the youth climate movement's call to strike
Quotes
Dr. Ploy Achakulwisut, Staff Scientist, Stockholm Environment Institute, Sweden:
"As a scientist, I've studied how climate-driven droughts will increase airborne dust pollution and how burning fossil fuels to power our cars are causing asthma in 4 million children a year worldwide. These are just two of the many reasons why I will be striking in solidarity with the brave young people who are rising up all around the world to demand bolder climate action, because I believe that we all have a right to clean air, clean water, and a livable climate."
Dr. Kim Cobb, Professor in the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA:
"I'll be striking with my four children because the bold and urgent leadership of youth activists deserves the unbridled support of the climate science community. We have a historic opportunity to rise together in demanding climate action, and I'm honored and humbled to play a small supporting role on Friday."
Dr. Topiltzin Contreras, Profesor Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas, Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Morelos, Mexico:
"In the following decades climate change will exacerbate the freshwater biodiversity crisis we are already suffering, the time is now for science, industry and society to work together if we are to overcome this threat."
Professor Hayley Fowler, Professor of Climate Change Impacts, Newcastle University, UK:
"As a scientist I am deeply concerned about the rate of changes to extreme events we are experiencing, with more powerful and intense storm events, flooding, droughts, heatwaves, fires, sea level rise and the rapid melting of Arctic and mountain ice. Science tells us that 2 degrees or warming brings us to some dangerous tipping points or thresholds that will seriously affect human society. The scale of change is immense but not insurmountable. We need to act now to make easy and more difficult changes to our lifestyles to reduce emissions, with the lead from our Governments."
Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, Marine Biologist and Founder, Ocean Collectiv, USA:
"Because we understand the dire scientific predictions, and their implications for humanity and all species, we must raise our voices, strike, and insist governments and corporations transform their policies and practices to address the climate crisis."
Dr. Julia K. Steinberger, Professor of Social Ecology and Ecological Economics, University of Leeds, UK:
"The duty of all scientists and academics is to provide a better future for the youth of the world. Scientifically, we succeeded in explaining the causes and cures of the climate crisis. But at a more fundamental level, we failed to transform our societies and lower our emissions. The climate striking youth are calling us all out of our comfort zones, and it is now the duty of scientists and all adults to support them, in words and actions, to make the rapid and radical emissions reductions we need."
Dr. Oyewale Tomori, Professor of Virology, Redeemer's University, Ede Osun State, Nigeria:
"I am supporting the climate strike because climate change is likely to adversely impact several aspects of infectious diseases, including increasing the population of disease vectors, and changing the dynamics of human-animal-vector interactions."
Dr. Lucky Tran, Biologist and Managing Director, March for Science, USA:
"I am going on strike to stand with the people most impacted by the climate crisis--youth and frontline communities--who are calling on world leaders to stop stalling, and finally act with the urgency that science and justice demand."
“The only reason to move it there is to use it against Venezuela,” said one policy expert of the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford.
White House officials have sought to walk back President Donald Trump's repeated threats against Venezuela in recent days—even as the Department of Defense has continue to strike boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—but officials in the South American country on Tuesday took the arrival of a US aircraft carrier in the region seriously despite the administration's claims that it won't target Venezuela directly.
As the USS Gerald R. Ford entered waters near Latin America, accompanied by three warships, Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López said Venezuela's entire military arsenal had been placed on "full operational readiness," with President Nicolás Maduro ordering the deployment of nearly 200,000 soldiers.
The government also approved the “massive deployment of ground, aerial, naval, riverine, and missile forces," López announced.
Venezuela's military deployment comes weeks after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Ford to relocate from Europe to Latin America following several military strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that the Trump administration has claimed are meant to stop drug trafficking out of Venezuela—despite the fact that US intelligence agencies and United Nations experts agree that the country plays virtually no role in the trafficking of fentanyl, the top cause of drug overdoses in the US.
At least 76 people have been killed in the strikes so far, and the Associated Press reported last week that the victims have included an out-of-work bus driver and and a struggling fisherman—people who in some cases had turned to helping drug traffickers transport cocaine across the Caribbean, but were hardly the high-level "narco-terrorists" that Hegseth and Trump have insisted they've killed in the region.
With the carrier strike group entering the Caribbean region, the US now has about 15,000 troops in the area where tensions have escalated since the boat strikes began in September.
Mark Cancian, a senior defense adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told the Washington Post that Venezuelan officials had good reason to mobilize forces.
“The only reason to move it there is to use it against Venezuela,” Cancian said of the Ford deployment. "The shot clock has started because this is not an asset they can just keep there indefinitely. They have to use it or move it."
Since beginning the boat bombings, Trump has signaled the US attacks could move to Venezuela directly, with the Wall Street Journal reporting late last month that the administration was preparing to target "ports and airports controlled by the military that are allegedly used to traffic drugs, including naval facilities and airstrips."
Trump also authorized Central Intelligence Agency operations last month, falsely claiming the country has "emptied" its prisons into the US and again asserting that "we have a lot of drugs coming in from Venezuela."
Democratic senators have introduced two war powers resolutions aimed at stopping the US from striking inside Venezuela and at halting the boat-bombing campaign—but Republicans have voted them down after administration officials assured the caucus that the White House was not currently planning to attack Venezuela.
Maduro said last month that Trump's actions in the region in recent months amount to attempts at "regime change," adding that "if Venezuela did not possess oil, gas, gold, fertile land, and water, the imperialists wouldn’t even look at our country."
Trump himself said publicly in 2023 that if he had won the 2020 presidential election, "we would have taken [Venezuela] over, we would have gotten all that oil."
Trump: When I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over, we would have gotten all that oil. pic.twitter.com/5q3Jr1j1Ho
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 10, 2023
On Tuesday, both the United Kingdom and Colombia announced that they were halting intelligence sharing with the US in the region, saying that working with the US as it attacks small vessels in the Caribbean could make the countries complicit in violations of international law.
“All levels of law enforcement intelligence are ordered to suspend communications and other agreements with US security agencies,” Colombian President Gustavo Petro said. “This measure will remain in place as long as missile attacks on boats in the Caribbean continue. The fight against drugs must be subordinate to the human rights of the Caribbean people.”
"At COP30, governments must reject this nightmare fantasy, uphold a just transition, and choose a fast, fair, and funded fossil fuel phaseout," said one climate campaigner.
An International Energy Agency report published Wednesday underscores that world leaders are at a crossroads and must decide whether to embrace an ambitious transition to renewable energy or succumb to the agenda of US President Donald Trump and others bent on propping up the planet-wrecking fossil fuel industry.
The IEA said in its flagship World Energy Outlook that under a so-called "current policies scenario," oil and fracked gas demand could continue to grow until the middle of the century, complicating the organization's earlier projections that global fossil fuel demand could peak by 2030.
The change came amid pressure from the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers in the United States, the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. The New York Times noted Wednesday that "Republicans in Congress have been threatening to cut US government funding to the IEA if it does not change the way it operates."
"In an essay posted online, the authors of this year’s report said they were restoring the current policies scenario because it was appropriate to consider multiple possibilities for the way the future might unfold," the Times added. "They did not say they were responding to pressure from the United States."
Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director, said in a statement that the scenarios outlined in the new report "illustrate the key decision points that lie ahead and, together, provide a framework for evidence-based, data-driven discussion over the way forward."
Under all of the scenarios examined by the IEA, "renewables grow faster than any other major energy source" even as the Trump administration works to roll back clean energy initiatives in the US and promote fossil fuel production.
China, the report states, "continues to be the largest market for renewables, accounting for 45-60% of global deployment over the next ten years across the scenarios, and remains the largest manufacturer of most renewable technologies."
The analysis was released as world leaders gathered in Belém, Brazil for the COP30 climate talks, which the Trump administration is boycotting while lobbing attacks from afar.
David Tong, global industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, said the IEA report "sets out a stark and simple choice: We can protect people and communities by safeguarding 1.5ºC [of warming], settle for a disastrous business-as-usual 2.5ºC, or choose to backslide into a nightmare future of much higher warming."
"This year's report also shows Donald Trump's dystopian future, bringing back the old, fossil-fuel intense, high-pollution current policies scenario, charting an unrealistic pathway where governments drag their energy policies backwards and rates of renewable energy adoption stall, leading to high energy prices and unmitigated climate disaster," said Tong. "At COP30, governments must reject this nightmare fantasy, uphold a just transition, and choose a fast, fair, and funded fossil fuel phaseout."
"Make no mistake, people will die from these skyrocketing healthcare costs, paired with Republicans’ brutal Medicaid cuts," said Rep. Ilhan Omar.
As the US House appears likely to vote Wednesday to reopen the government, House progressives issued a scathing rebuke to their Democratic colleagues in the Senate who voted for a funding bill with no guarantee to protect the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans.
With the backing of leadership, the continued resolution was advanced by a group of eight Senate Democrats this weekend to end what has been the longest shutdown in US history.
In a joint statement, the 94-member Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) announced its opposition to the stopgap funding bill, which it said "includes no provisions to guarantee affordable healthcare and protect tens of millions of Americans from massive price spikes to their premiums, and imposes no strong guardrails to prevent the Trump administration from violating appropriations laws."
The bill agrees to fund the government until the end of 2026, without a deal to extend ACA subsidies that, if allowed to expire at the end of the year, will result in more than 20 million Americans seeing their insurance premiums more than double, according to analysis by KFF. It also introduces no new provisions to prevent President Donald Trump from refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress, nor does it address the nearly $1 trillion worth of Medicaid cuts passed in July’s GOP spending bill.
"The Senate-passed bill is a betrayal of working people and massively fails to address the urgent needs of the American people,” said CPC Deputy Chair Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). “Instead of working toward a fair deal, House Republicans refused to negotiate and abdicated their duty to serve the American people."
"The Senate-passed bill is morally bankrupt. It is indefensible to allow more than 20 million Americans to see their premiums double and let millions lose their healthcare coverage. Healthcare is a human right, and this bill contradicts that fundamental principle," Omar continued. "Make no mistake, people will die from these skyrocketing healthcare costs, paired with Republicans’ brutal Medicaid cuts."
After over a month of holding out, Democrats ultimately cracked under the White House's use of the shutdown to punish segments of the American public: Government workers hit with mass layoffs, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients illegally denied this month’s benefits, and residents of blue states and cities stripped of congressionally appropriated funding for critical infrastructure.
While Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) voted no on the deal to break the Democratic filibuster, he is widely understood to be the driving force behind the agreement, supporting the clique of eight Democratic senators who voted with the GOP—none of whom face reelection in 2026—to take the fall.
In the aftermath of the cave, Schumer has faced calls from several House Democrats to step down from leadership, including Reps. Ro Khanna (Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Mike Levin (Calif.). However, none in the Senate, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), have joined in that push, even though any one of them could force a vote on his leadership within seven days.
As part of the Senate deal, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) promised that Republicans would hold a vote to extend healthcare subsidies within 40 days. But CPC chairman Greg Casar dismissed it as "nothing but a pinky promise."
“A deal that doesn’t reduce healthcare costs is a betrayal of millions of Americans counting on Democrats to fight for them,” Casar said. “Millions of families would pay the price.”
The CPC has said it will vote no when the bill comes to the House for a vote on Wednesday, as have most other Democrats.
“I will not support any deal that doesn’t improve the lives of working Americans,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the co-chair of the CPC political action committee. “End of story.”
In the GOP-controlled chamber, Democrats cannot stop the bill on their own. But Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) can only afford to lose two Republicans, and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has already signaled that he will vote no.
While others, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), have expressed concern and disgust toward her GOP colleagues over the bill's lack of a solution to the looming healthcare apocalypse, there's no indication that enough Republicans will defect to kill the resolution.
On Tuesday, Republicans in the House voted down a Democratic amendment that would have extended ACA subsidies for three years.