

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 court said the actions of Sudan's Rapid Support Forces, who are backed by a US ally in the UAE, "may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity."
The International Criminal Court said it is collecting and preserving evidence of war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region following a massacre committed by a militia group and amid reports of widespread starvation.
In a statement published Monday, the ICC—the international body charged with prosecuting crimes against humanity—expressed "profound alarm and deepest concern over recent reports emerging from El-Fasher about mass killings, rapes, and other crimes" allegedly committed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which breached the city last week.
According to the Sudan Doctors Network (SDN), a medical organization monitoring the country's brutal civil war, the militants slaughtered more than 1,500 people in just three days after capturing El-Fasher, among them more than 460 people who were systematically shot at the city's Saudi Maternity Hospital.
The ICC said that "such acts, if substantiated, may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute," the court's founding treaty, which lays out the definitions for acts including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
The court said it was "taking immediate steps regarding the alleged crimes in El-Fasher to preserve and collect relevant evidence for its use in future prosecutions."
The announcement comes shortly following a new report from the UN-affiliated Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the world's leading authority on hunger crises, which found that famine has been detected in El-Fasher and the town of Kadugli in Sudan's South Kordofan province. Twenty other localities in the two provinces—which have seen some of the civil war's worst fighting—are also in danger of famine, according to the report.
The two areas have suffered under siege from the RSF paramilitary, which has cut off access to food, water, and medical care. The IPC says it has led to the "total collapse of livelihoods, starvation, extremely high levels of malnutrition and death."
According to the UN's migration authority, nearly 37,000 people have been forced to flee cities across North Kordofan between October 26 and 31. They joined more than 650,000 displaced people who were already taking refuge in North Darfur's city of Tawila.
Sudan's civil war, which began in 2023, has created the world's largest humanitarian crisis, with potentially as many as 150,000 people killed since it began. Over 12 million people have been displaced, and 30.4 million people, over half of Sudan’s total population, are in need of humanitarian support.
The recent escalation of the crisis has led to heightened global scrutiny of RSF's chief financier, the United Arab Emirates. In recent days, US politicians and activists have called for the Trump administration to halt military assistance to the Gulf state, which it sold $1.4 billion in military aircraft in May.
On Tuesday, Emirati diplomats admitted for the first time that they "made a mistake" supporting the RSF as it attempted to undermine Sudan's transitional democratic government, which took power in 2019 after over three decades of rule by the Islamist-aligned dictator Omar al-Bashir. Those efforts culminated in a military coup in 2021 and an eventual power struggle for control over the country.
However, as Sudanese journalist Nesrine Malik wrote in The Guardian on Monday, the UAE "continues to deny its role, despite overwhelming evidence."
"The UAE secures a foothold in a large, strategic, resource-rich country, and already receives the majority of gold mined in RSF-controlled areas," Malik wrote. "Other actors have been drawn in, overlaying proxy agendas on a domestic conflict. The result is deadlock, quagmire, and blood loss that seems impossible to stem, even as the crisis unravels in full view."
"Sudan’s war is described as forgotten, but in reality it is tolerated and relegated," she continued. "Because to reckon with the horror in Sudan... is to see the growing imperialist role of some Gulf powers in Africa and beyond—and to acknowledge the fact that no meaningful pressure is applied to these powers, including the UAE, to cease and desist from supporting a genocidal militia because the UK, US, and others are close allies with these states."
"If I have money left over, then I will eat."
Beneficiaries of federal food aid are expressing anger and bewilderment at the Trump administration's efforts to use the program as a hostage to end the current shutdown of the federal government.
On Monday, the Trump administration said that it would partially restart funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the wake of two district court rulings mandating that the administration use emergency funds set up by Congress to continue the program.
The administration said that it would only fund around 50% of the $8 billion in total monthly benefits, while also warning that there could be delays before SNAP beneficiaries are able to access the funds.
In interviews with The Guardian, several SNAP beneficiaries fumed that their ability to access food for themselves and their families is being used as a political football by the administration.
Wisconsin resident Betty Standridge, who had been relying on SNAP to afford food after being hospitalized, told The Guardian that, without the funds, "I will not be able to replenish my food for the month, therefore I will do without things like fresh produce, milk, eggs."
Donna Lynn, a disabled veteran who lives in Missouri, also said that she would have to make significant cuts to her budget if SNAP benefits were not replenished.
"It comes down to paying for my medications and my bills or buying food for myself and for my animals," she said. "So I pay for my medications and bills and get what food I can for my animals, and if I have money left over, then I will eat."
A Wisconsin retiree named Sandra, meanwhile, told The Guardian she feared that the administration was angling to permanently end SNAP even after the end of the government shutdown.
"I'm dumbfounded by the cruelty," she said.
Before the administration allowed more than 40 million people—nearly 40% of whom are children—to go without food assistance on November 1 and refused to use a contingency fund to keep SNAP running, the Republican Party passed roughly $186 billion in cuts to the program in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer.
The bill expanded work requirements, shifted some of the cost of SNAP to the states, and restricted benefit increases, leaving millions of people vulnerable to losing their benefits.
Betty Szretter, a New York retiree whose daughter depends on SNAP benefits, told NBC News that she regrets voting for President Donald Trump in 2024, and said she's worried that his focus appears to be elsewhere—like the corporate-funded construction of a ballroom at the White House—rather than on helping people like her family.
“I think deep down he wants to help the country with things like food insecurity,” she said. “But now he is busy out of the country and demolishing the White House. I know that is being paid for with private funds, but those could be used to help people... It all seems very selfish."
CBS News on Tuesday interviewed a Baltimore resident named Kelly Lennox, who has been relying on SNAP for the last year-and-a-half after a car accident that required multiple surgeries left her unable to work. She said the halt of SNAP payments was a particularly harsh blow given that she's deep in medical debt in the wake of the accident.
Now, she says she'll have to rely on local food pantries to keep from going hungry.
"I'm going to have to make use of the pantries and work with their schedule, because if I use actual money for food, it takes away money I need to pay for my residential parking permit, gas, and union dues," she said.
Roughly 42 million people living in the US currently receive SNAP benefits, and The Washington Post estimates that SNAP payments account for 9% of all grocery sales in the US.
"I don't know how a DC jury would convict," said one resident who was not selected to serve on the jury.
The trial of Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department employee who threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent in protest in early August, began Monday, weeks after US Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office failed to secure a felony indictment.
Dunn, who is now facing a misdemeanor assault charge, has become a symbol of public resistance to and disdain for President Donald Trump's deployment of masked federal immigration agents to the streets of US cities.
DC residents who were not chosen to serve on the jury for the trial expressed deep skepticism that the latest attempt to indict Dunn would end any differently than the first.
"How is that an assault?” one DC woman asked of Dunn's sandwich throw, which was caught on video. Before hurling the sandwich, Dunn screamed at the agents and called them "fascists."
Another person who was not selected to serve on the jury told CNN that they "don't know how a DC jury would convict."
The trial is expected to be quick. The judge, Trump appointee Carl Nichols, called it "the simplest case in the world" and predicted a two-day trial.
Dunn's lawyers have argued in court that the Trump administration's prosecution attempts amount to "a blatant abuse of power."
"The federal government has chosen to bring a criminal case over conduct so minor it would be comical—were it not for the
unmistakable retaliatory motive behind it and the resulting risk to Mr. Dunn," Dunn's lawyers said. "Mr. Dunn tossed a sandwich at a fully armed, heavily protected Customs and Border Protection officer. That act alone would never have drawn a federal charge. What did was the political speech that accompanied it."