SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
May Boeve Joins Mayors of 12 Major Cities Committed to Divest From Fossil Fuel Companies and Invest in a Green and Just Recovery from COVID-19 Crisis
22nd September 2020: 12 cities, representing over 36 million city residents, pledged to divest from fossil fuel companies and advocate for greater sustainable investment, as part of their commitment to accelerating a green and just recovery from COVID-19.
WASHINGTON
22nd September 2020: 12 cities, representing over 36 million city residents, pledged to divest from fossil fuel companies and advocate for greater sustainable investment, as part of their commitment to accelerating a green and just recovery from COVID-19.
"The declaration sends a loud clear message to the fossil fuel industry. As we watch wildfires burn in the US and devastating floods in parts of Africa, we know that Fossil fuels are not a safe investment: the sector is too volatile to be deeply vulnerable, it is time to divest from fossil fuels and invest in the green and just recovery of the future" May Boeve Executive Director of 350.org
Divesting from Fossil Fuels, Investing in a Sustainable Future," brings together mayors of some of the world's most influential cities, including Berlin, Bristol, Cape Town, Durban, London, Los Angeles, Milan, New Orleans, New York City, Oslo, Pittsburgh, and Vancouver.
"Now is the time to divest from fossil fuel companies and undertake investment and policy change that prioritises public and planetary health, building back a more equal society and addressing this climate emergency." Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio
The cities signing on to the new declaration commit to build momentum for fossil-free and sustainable investment by:
- Taking all possible steps to divest city assets from fossil fuel companies and increasing financial investments in climate solutions to help promote decent jobs and a just and green economy.
- Calling on pension funds to divest from fossil fuel companies and increasing financial investments in climate solutions to help promote decent jobs and a just and green economy.
- Advocating for fossil-free and sustainable finance by other investors and all levels of government, including by promoting the importance of strong, long-term climate policies and demanding greater transparency.
According to Energy Policy Tracker, more than $200 billion in COVID-19 recovery funds are being pledged to fossil fuels, though risky investments in coal, oil, and gas are key drivers of the climate emergency. Continued investment in fossil fuels drives emissions that endanger the Paris Agreement goals, jeopardize efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5degC, and threaten to lock dangerous carbon emissions into economies, especially as governments determine preferred pathways to a COVID-19 recovery.
It is essential to ensure that today's investments do not lock-in polluting technologies and carbon-intensive industries. Investments should instead support the solutions we need to avert climate breakdown, create good jobs, advance environmental justice, and support livable communities." May Boeve Executive Director of 350.org
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.
LATEST NEWS
‘The First Amendment Applies at the Border,’ ACLU Says of Settlement for CBP Interrogating Journalists
“This settlement confirms what we already knew: What happened to us was wrong,” said an award-winning photographer detained at the US-Mexico border as part of a secret program to target journalists in 2019.
Feb 11, 2026
In what the ACLU called a "win for freedom of the press," a pair of federal immigration agencies announced on Wednesday that they settled a lawsuit with five photojournalists who claimed to have been unconstitutionally detained and questioned while reporting at the US-Mexico border.
The five journalists—Bing Guan, Go Nakamura, Mark Abramson, Kitra Cahana, and Ariana Drehsler—are all citizens of the United States who traveled to the border in 2018 and 2019 to report on the journeys of people traveling from Central America as part of migrant caravans.
The journalists said that after reporting on conditions at the border, they were detained by US border officers and questioned about their sources and observations while reporting, which they said was a violation of their First Amendment right in a lawsuit.
"It’s clear the government’s actions were meant to instill fear in journalists like me, to cow us into standing down from reporting what is happening on the ground," said Guan, a freelance photographer who has contributed to Reuters, Bloomberg, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, among other publications.
Shortly after these five journalists were detained, NBC News reported that they were targeted as part of a broader operation by US Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) San Diego sector to detain and interrogate a list of dozens of journalists, lawyers, and activists labeled as "instigators."
Others on this list who were detained, including US citizens, reported being aggressively interrogated about their political views and opinions about the Trump administration.
Tactics have only grown more aggressive during President Donald Trump's second term: Federal immigration agents have hauled off journalists in unmarked vans for recording them, and the administration has repeatedly asserted, incorrectly, that it is illegal to film ICE agents on duty or reveal their identities.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has claimed that recording ICE agents in public constitutes “violence” or a “threat” to agents' safety, and a DHS bulletin issued last year has classified recording at protests as “unlawful civil unrest."
However, several federal courts have overwhelmingly held that the First Amendment protects the right to film law enforcement, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection.
Esha Bhandari, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology project, said the settlement, reached in January, affirms that "the First Amendment applies at the border to protect freedom of the press."
As part of the settlement, CBP will be required to issue guidance to certain border units on First Amendment and Privacy Act protections that apply when questioning journalists at the border.
While the scope of the settlement is limited and does little to protect journalists under threat nationwide, Kitra Cahana, an award-winning photographer and another plaintiff, said it still serves as an important affirmation of press freedom.
“This settlement confirms what we already knew: what happened to us was wrong,” Cahana said. “Government officials should never put journalists on secret lists, interfere with our ability to work and travel, or pressure us for information at border crossings."
"My biggest fear is that other journalists may have avoided important stories out of fear of being targeted themselves," she added. "Press freedom is not a partisan issue. Everyone should be alarmed when journalists are targeted.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sharing of IRS Data With DHS for Trump's Mass Deportations Has Gone as Horribly as Expected
"Sharing this private taxpayer data creates chaos, and as we’ve seen this past year, if federal agents use this private information to track down individuals, it can endanger lives.”
Feb 11, 2026
Privacy officials at the Internal Revenue Service were sidelined in discussions last year about the Department of Homeland Security's demand for taxpayer data about people the Trump administration believed were not authorized to be in the US, and a court filing by the IRS Wednesday may have illustrated some of the officials' worst fears about the plan.
According to a sworn declaration by Dottie Romo, the chief risk and control officer at the IRS, the agency improperly shared private taxpayer data on thousands of people with immigration enforcement officers.
The data was shared, the Washington Post reported, even in cases in which DHS officials could not provide data needed to positively identify a specific individual.
Two federal courts have preliminarily found that the IRS and DHS acted unlawfully when they moved forward with the plan to share taxpayer addresses and have blocked the agencies from continuing the arrangement. A third case filed by Public Citizen Litigation Group, Alan Morrison, and Raise the Floor Alliance is on appeal in the DC Circuit.
But before the agreement was enjoined by the courts, DHS requested the addresses of 1.2 million people from the IRS, and the tax agency sent data on 47,000 people in response.
Thousands of people's confidential data was erroneously included in the release, sources who were familiar with the matter told the Post.
Despite Romo's sworm statement saying an error had been made by the agencies, a DHS spokesperson continued to defend the data sharing agreement, telling the Post that “the government is finally doing what it should have all along.”
“Information sharing across agencies is essential to identify who is in our country, including violent criminals, determine what public safety and terror threats may exist so we can neutralize them, scrub these individuals from voter rolls, and identify what public benefits these aliens are using at taxpayer expense,” the spokesperson told the newspaper. “With the IRS information specifically, DHS plans to focus on enforcing long-neglected criminal laws that apply to illegal aliens."
Records have shown that a large majority of people who have been arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents since President Donald Trump began his mass deportation and detention campaign have not had criminal records, despite the administration's persistent claims that officers are arresting "the worst of the worst" violent criminals.
Undocumented immigrants are also statistically less likely than citizens to commit crimes, and have not been found to attempt to participate in US elections illegally.
When DHS initially asked for taxpayer data last year, IRS employees denounced the request as "Nixonian" and warned that a data sharing arrangement would be illegal. Providing taxpayer information to third parties is punishable by civil and criminal penalties, and an IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty in 2023 to leaking the tax returns of Trump and other wealthy people.
Trump has sued the IRS for $10 billion in damages due to the leak.
Romo on Wednesday did not state whether the IRS would inform individuals whose confidential data was sent to immigration officials; they could be entitled to financial compensation.
Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, noted that judging from Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, "thousands of trillions of dollars" should be paid to those affected by the data breach.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said the "breach of confidential information was part of the reason we filed our lawsuit in the first place."
"Sharing this private taxpayer data creates chaos," she said, "and as we’ve seen this past year, if federal agents use this private information to track down individuals, it can endanger lives.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘What Oligarchy Looks Like’: AI Giants Pledge to Pump $100 Million Into 2026 Midterms
The goal of the PAC is to elect a Congress that will prohibit individual states from passing their own AI regulations.
Feb 11, 2026
Silicon Valley elites are planning to spend big money in 2026 to ensure that the next US Congress will be even more friendly to the artificial intelligence industry than the current Republican-led version.
CNN reported on Wednesday that Leading the Future, a super political action committee (PAC) focused on electing AI-friendly members of Congress, is pledging to spend at least $100 million to influence the 2026 midterm election.
The PAC, which is backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, and other AI heavyweights, is working to elect lawmakers who will pass legislation that will set a single set of AI regulations that will take effect throughout the US, overriding any restrictions placed on the technology by state governments.
The massive sum the PAC is dedicating to the 2026 midterms prompted Matthew Stoller, researcher at the American Economic Liberties Project, to remark that this is "what oligarchy looks like."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tried to get a provision preempting state AI regulations slipped into the GOP's major budget package last year, but it was ultimately taken out amid bipartisan resistance to giving the AI industry a blank regulatory check.
President Donald Trump subsequently signed an executive order instructing the US Department of Justice to create a task force that would sue any state governments that enact supposedly "onerous and excessive" regulations on the technology.
However, as an executive order, this directive can be overturned by any future president who supports stronger AI regulation.
CNN noted that Leading the Future's planned flood of cash is coming at a time when AI has been drawing skepticism from factions within both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for instance, has thrown his support behind a "Citizen Bill of Rights for AI," which would provide privacy protections for end users and place restrictions on the construction of AI data centers.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), meanwhile, has called for a full moratorium on the construction of new AI data centers.
Leading the Future also appears to understand that the AI industry's reputation is becoming toxic for voters.
As Fast Company reported on Wednesday, the super PAC has launched negative ads against Democratic New York US congressional candidate Alex Bores by highlighting his past work at Palantir, which has become controversial for providing technology used by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to carry out mass deportations.
Current and former Palantir employees told Fast Company that they believe the ad against Bores to be highly deceptive, as Palantir wasn't nearly as integrated with ICE operations during his tenure as it is today.
"If Bores’ campaign is one that would restrict the tech industry’s growth," one former Palantir employee told Fast Company, "and his base is one that is already primed to be critical of Palantir, people (like me!) who watch this ad wouldn’t suspect that it’s people with significant interests in Palantir and the broader industry that are funding the ads, too."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular