

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.

Virginia Cleaveland, Stand.earth, media@stand.earth, +1 510 858 9902
In a shocking move by Procter & Gamble's shareholders that defied the company's own recommendations, two-thirds of Procter & Gamble (P&G) shareholders voted "yes" at the company's annual meeting on Tuesday, October 13, to pass a proposal on forest sourcing and impacts. The vote is a clear indication that despite repeated insistence from company executives, the world's largest consumer goods company is not doing enough to deal with the financial threats of deforestation and forest degradation in its supply chains.
67% of shareholders voted yes on Green Century Equity Fund's shareholder proposal #5 (page 78), which reads "Shareholders request P&G issue a report assessing if and how it could increase the scale, pace, and rigor of its efforts to eliminate deforestation and the degradation of intact forests in its supply chains." (See the full text of the resolution below.)
"P&G's CEO David Taylor has been trying to convince shareholders and customers that the company is doing enough for forests. Losing this shareholder resolution by a huge margin is a slap in David Taylor's face and a clear rebuke. The owners of the company are saying directly to the CEO, 'You have failed and you need to do more to protect forests,'" said Todd Paglia, Executive Director at Stand.earth.
"This is a clear directive from investors that P&G needs to do much more than the status quo to protect the world's remaining intact forests. This vote makes clear that shareholders agree that P&G is not doing enough. The choice now for P&G is whether they will work with us to establish a more sustainable supply chain, or face even greater pressure from concerned citizens and their investors moving forward," said Shelley Vinyard, Boreal Corporate Campaign Manager at NRDC.
"This vote is a clear sign that shareholders are asking Procter & Gamble to do more. P&G must take action for forests globally and the communities who depend on them. In Indonesia and Malaysia, P&G needs to take responsibility for the palm oil it sources for soaps and shampoos, and take a stand for workers rights, Indigenous rights, rainforests, and the global climate," said Brihannala Morgan, Senior Campaigner at Rainforest Action Network.
"Over the past decade, major institutional shareholders have too often failed to use their voting power to defund deforestation and forest degradation. Today's overwhelming vote at Procter & Gamble is a watershed moment for shareholder power to challenge management and defend forests," said Jeff Conant, Senior International Forest Program Manager with Friends of the Earth U.S.
The vote comes amid mounting pressure from international environmental advocacy groups -- including Stand.earth, NRDC, Friends of the Earth, Rainforest Action Network, David Suzuki Foundation, and Wildlands League -- to expose the ways Indigenous and frontline communities have been historically impacted by Procter & Gamble's destructive forest sourcing, land grabbing, and poor labor practices in the boreal forest of Canada as well as tropical forests in Malaysia and Indonesia, where the company sources some of its palm oil and fiber from. Learn more about the campaigns in this briefing note sent to P&G investors.
In recent weeks, advocacy groups had increased their campaigning in support of the proposal, hosting a virtual webcast critiquing P&G's "Our Home" climate initiative, leading multiple days of protest outside the company's headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio, and holding private meetings with shareholders to discuss the proposal. Groups including NRDC and Stand.earth met with a combined $90 billion of P&G investors representing about 30 percent of total shareholder value -- including some of the largest investment institutions in the world.
ABOUT THE ISSUE WITH TISSUE CAMPAIGN
Today's shareholder vote comes more than a year after the launch of Stand.earth and NRDC's Issue with Tissue campaign against Procter & Gamble for making toilet paper and tissue products from endangered forests and threatened species habitat.
In February 2019, Stand.earth and NRDC released the "Issue with Tissue" sustainability scorecard flunking Charmin and other major toilet paper brands for refusing to use zero recycled content in their at-home toilet paper. In June 2020, NRDC released "The Issue With Tissue 2.0," including a new sustainability scorecard that once again flunked P&G brands.
In the months following the release of the 2019 report, activists with Stand.earth created a "blind wipe" video spoofing Charmin over its softness claims, held a protest outside Procter & Gamble's shareholder meeting featuring a chainsaw-wielding bear, got Santa arrested for delivering coal to Procter & Gamble's headquarters, delivered a tongue-in-cheek Earth Day message about folding vs. wadding toilet paper, released a poll showing 85% of Americans want toilet paper makers to use more environmentally responsible materials, and supported religious leaders in Cincinnati in sending a letter to Procter & Gamble about the moral imperative of addressing climate change.
ABOUT THE BOREAL FOREST
Despite engaging in a long negotiation process with company executives late last year, Stand.earth and NRDC reached an impasse with Procter & Gamble over its sourcing practices. The company refused to set time-bound goals to stop sourcing from Canadian suppliers that don't meet the 65% habitat intactness thresholds established by the Canadian federal government to support the survival of endangered boreal caribou. The company has also failed to require its suppliers to adhere to the principles of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent when sourcing from traditional territories of First Nations in Canada.
The boreal forest of Canada is the largest intact forest remaining on the planet, and it also stores more carbon per hectare than nearly any other forest type on Earth (second only to mangroves), making it vital to mitigating the worst impacts of climate change. Often called the "Amazon of the North", this climate-critical ecosystem is home to over 600 Indigenous communities, as well as boreal caribou, pine marten, and billions of songbirds. The loss of this intact forest is impacting Indigenous peoples' ways of life and driving the decline of boreal caribou and other species.
Procter & Gamble recently launched their "It's Our Home" climate initiative, which centers around "the power of nature as a climate solution." The initiative includes plans by P&G to protect places "that are rich in carbon", such as the mangroves in the Philippines. However, the announcement conveniently downplayed the massive impacts the company has on the places it sources its fiber and palm oil, and completely ignored the boreal forest.
ABOUT SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL #5
The full text of shareholder proposal #5 reads:
ITEM 5. SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL -- REPORT ON EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE DEFORESTATION
Green Century Equity Fund, 114 State Street, Suite 200, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109, the owner of at least $2,000 in value of Common Stock of the Company, has given notice that it intends to present for action at the annual meeting the following resolution:
Whereas: Procter and Gamble (PG) uses palm oil and forest pulp. These commodities are among the leading drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, which are responsible for approximately 12.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and also contribute to biodiversity loss, soil erosion, disrupted rainfall patterns, land conflicts, and forced labor.
Companies that do not adequately mitigate deforestation and forest degradation in their supply chains are vulnerable to material financial risk.
Supply chains that illegally contribute to deforestation are increasingly vulnerable to interruption from regulatory action and enforcement, and in 2019, two of PG's Tier 1 palm suppliers were tied to illegal deforestation.
PG lists potential reputational damage from the real and perceived environmental impacts of its products as a risk factor in its 2019 10-K. The Company received negative attention from 115 NGOs for sourcing pulp from forests that serve as a substantial global carbon sink. PG also received unfavorable coverage from media, including major outlets like Reuters, for failing to meet its 2020 zero-deforestation palm oil goal. Chain Reaction Research calculates PG's potential reputational losses at $41 billion, or 14 percent of equity, which "dwarfs the cost of solutions."
PG's peers have adopted and implemented stronger forest sourcing policies:
- Kimberly-Clark, one of the world's largest buyers of market pulp, has committed to halve its sourcing from natural forests, dramatically increasing the use of alternative and environmentally-preferred fibers. Kimberly-Clark regularly reports progress and appears on track to meet its targets.
- Unilever has committed to zero-net deforestation by 2020 in its supply chains and will sustainably source 95 percent of 12 key crops--including palm oil and paper/board--by the end of 2020.
PG was rated below these peers by both Forest 500 and CDP Forest and as "high risk" by SCRIPT, a soft commodity risk analysis tool.
PG lags on implementing its existing no-deforestation commitment, achieving RSPO certification for only one-third of its palm oil supply and retaining as its single largest palm kernel oil supplier a company that has not obtained RSPO certification since 2016. Additionally, PG lacks a comprehensive plan to mitigate exposure to deforestation and forest degradation throughout its operations; its current sourcing policies allow the Company to source from critical ecosystems, like Canada's boreal forest.
Failure to adopt and implement policies that mitigate these exposures may subject the Company to significant systemic and company-specific risks.
Resolved: Shareholders request PG issue a report assessing if and how it could increase the scale, pace, and rigor of its efforts to eliminate deforestation and the degradation of intact forests in its supply chains.
Supporting Statement: Proponents defer to management's discretion on the content of the report but suggest that indicators meaningful to shareholders may include:
- Whether the company has adopted a no-deforestation and no-degradation policy for all relevant commodities, such as avoiding intact forests and regions at high-risk for deforestation and degradation; and
- Disclosure of progress toward any stepped-up efforts, such as quantitative progress reports, timebound action plans, and non-compliance protocols.
Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with offices in Canada and the United States that is known for its groundbreaking research and successful corporate and citizens engagement campaigns to create new policies and industry standards in protecting forests, advocating the rights of indigenous peoples, and protecting the climate. Visit us at
"We can’t allow a handful of billionaires, eager to increase their wealth and power, to rush forward with a technology that will fundamentally transform humanity without democratic input or accountability."
Sen. Bernie Sanders has declared artificial intelligence "a threat to everything the American people hold dear" in a Thursday editorial published by the Wall Street Journal.
Sanders (I-Vt.) began his piece by citing recent polls showing Americans are deeply apprehensive about the impact that AI will have on the economy and their lives, and he said that this feeling was entirely justified given what the people who currently control the technology aim to do with it.
"At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, people recognize the AI revolution is being led by some of the wealthiest people in this country," Sanders argued. "Billionaires like [Tesla CEO] Elon Musk, [Amazon founder] Jeff Bezos, [Meta CEO] Mark Zuckerberg, and [Oracle co-founder] Larry Ellison are investing enormous sums in AI and robotics not to improve life for working families but to expand their own wealth and power."
He then cited quotes from Musk and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates explaining how AI will eliminate the need for human labor and asked, "If machines can perform most economically valuable work better than humans can, how do people earn a living and support their families?"
Sanders said that the consequences of the widespread adoption of AI aren't just economic, but social as well.
"How can we rush forward when AI is already reshaping how we as human beings relate to one another?" he asked. "According to a recent poll by Common Sense Media, 72% of US teenagers say they have used AI companions, and more than half do so regularly. What does it mean for young people to form 'friendships' with AI while becoming lonelier and more isolated from other human beings?"
Sanders said the US Congress needs to step to the plate to regulate AI—and that Big Tech's massive campaign spending is intimidating too many lawmakers from speaking out.
"The AI industry has already spent more than $185 million to make sure government does nothing to protect the American people," Sanders said. "We can’t allow a handful of billionaires, eager to increase their wealth and power, to rush forward with a technology that will fundamentally transform humanity without democratic input or accountability."
Sanders has been one of the leading voices in Congress demanding the government due more to rein in AI, and last month he and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) 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."
Sanders last month also demanded that Amazon's Bezos testify publicly before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee about his plans to replace human workers with AI-powered robots, arguing that "we need to understand what will happen to these workers... Will they simply be thrown out on the street in order to make Mr. Bezos even richer?"
In the conclusion to his WSJ op-ed, Sanders called for "the future of AI" to be "decided by the American people."
Sen. Chris Murphy, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the ousted generals were likely “telling Hegseth his Iran war plans are unworkable, disastrous, and deadly.”
As President Donald Trump’s war in Iran goes further off the rails, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth carried out a “purge” of US Army leadership on Thursday, ousting its most senior general and two other top officers and reportedly leaving many senior officials stunned.
The Pentagon has not provided an official explanation for the sudden firing of Army Chief of Staff General Randy George, who was jettisoned along with another four-star general, David Hodne, and Major General William Green Jr., the top Army chaplain. But speculation was rampant Thursday as the White House continued to insist its war on Iran is going as planned.
Tom Nichols wrote for The Atlantic on Thursday that those dismissed were likely casualties of “Hegseth’s vindictive struggles with the Army... as he struggles in a job for which he remains singularly unqualified.”
Nichols suggested the latest firings were part of an effort to eliminate allies of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll, who has reportedly pushed back against Hegseth's attempt to enforce rigid ideological conformity and excise what he views as "wokeness" from the military.
Most recently, Driscoll reportedly objected to Hegseth's demands that he remove four Army officers—two Black men and two women—from a list of those to be promoted to brigadier general, while allowing the other mostly white male officers to be promoted.
NBC reported on Thursday that they were among more than a dozen Black and female officers that Hegseth has attempted to block from advancement across the four branches of the military.
Just before his firing, George—once an aide to former President Joe Biden's Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin—had reportedly asked to meet with Hegseth about his demotions of the four Army officers, but Hegseth refused.
The Atlantic reported that Driscoll, who has been rumored as a possible replacement for Hegseth amid embarrassing bungles like last year's "Signalgate" scandal, could be shown the door next.
Rep. Pat Ryan (D-NY), a US Army combat veteran who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, described George as "a Patriot who has served our nation honorably and bravely for decades" and said his firing was "a huge loss for our Army and our country."
He added that "Hegseth and Trump firing the highest ranking Army officer, in the middle of a war they started, shows you exactly where their priorities are."
While these sorts of petty grudge matches and power struggles have been a hallmark of Hegseth's term at Defense, Nichols remarked that "dumping the Army chief of staff in the middle of a war, without explanation, is a reckless move even by Hegseth’s standards."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, theorizes that Hegseth's purge—which is one of the biggest wartime leadership shakeups in recent memory—did not happen in spite of the Iran war, but because of it.
According to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, who was quoted by TIME on Thursday, Trump's inner circle—including Hegseth and other military and foreign policy officials—has formed a sort of information bubble around the president, giving him a “rose-colored view” of the war, even as it grows more unpopular by the day with the American public.
The high-level firings come as Trump and Hegseth are beginning what they said would be a multi-week campaign of bombing Iran “back to the Stone Ages.”
Hegseth has also continued to float the possible deployment of ground troops, potentially to invade and occupy critical strategic areas, like Iran's oil export hub Kharg Island, which analysts have warned would be unworkable and put thousands of US troops in harm's way.
"It's likely that experienced generals are telling Hegseth his Iran war plans are unworkable, disastrous, and deadly," Murphy said.
"Also, Hegseth is firing a ton of experienced generals right now."
According to Jennifer Griffin, the Chief National Security Correspondent for Fox News, Hegseth’s most recent firings “[add] to a long list of Secretary Hegseth asking senior military officers to step down with no reason given,” including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., and Adm. Alvin Holsey, the commander of US Southern Command, both of whom were also Black men.
Dan Lamothe, a military affairs correspondent for The Washington Post, added that Hegseth has now almost totally remade the Joint Chiefs of Staff since taking over as defense secretary and that only two original members, Gen. Eric Smith of the Marine Corps and Gen. Chance Saltzman of the Space Force, remain from the original team.
"The American people deserve to know why so many of their top officers are being tossed out of their jobs," Nichols said.
Noting the defense secretary’s penchant for secrecy, he suggested that now that George and other senior officers pushed out by Hegseth are considered civilians, "maybe they can step forward and tell their fellow citizens what on Earth is going on in Hegseth’s Pentagon.“
"To pay for his endless wars, he wants the biggest increase to military spending in 70 years," said Rep. Greg Casar. "Hell no."
President Donald Trump's White House released a budget proposal on Friday that pairs an unprecedented, debt-exploding $1.5 trillion in military spending with tens of billions of dollars in cuts to domestic agencies and education, healthcare, climate, and housing programs.
Trump's budget request for fiscal year 2027, which must be approved by Congress, includes $73 billion in total cuts to nondefense spending while boosting military outlays by 42%—or nearly $500 billion—compared to current levels.
Programs cut or eliminated in the proposed budget—under the guise of slashing "woke programs" and "ending the Green New Scam"—include the Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Justice program, Community Services Block Grants, electric vehicle charging subsidies, renewable energy initiatives at the Interior Department, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing.
The budget proposal also calls for cuts to the already-depleted Internal Revenue Service, without offering specific figures.
One budget expert noted that, if enacted, the White House's requested cuts would bring nondefense discretionary spending to "its lowest level in the modern era."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote in response to Trump's request that "to pay for his endless wars, he wants the biggest increase to military spending in 70 years."
"How does he pay for it? Cuts to 'education, health, housing, and more,'" Casar added. "Hell no."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said in a statement that "the Trump-Vought budget proposal is a moral obscenity," referring to Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
"The $500 billion annual increase in proposed Pentagon spending—if it were instead deployed humanely—would be enough to solve or meaningfully address the nation's great problems, from healthcare to daycare, from the climate crisis to affordable housing, from improving schools to making college education affordable," said Weissman. "Instead, Trump and Vought propose to spend an unfathomable amount on a Pentagon that can't even pass an audit to further empower an out-of-control and incompetent leader in Pete Hegseth."
"As usual, the priorities of the people are simply unimportant to this administration as they think about spending our taxpayer dollars," Weissman continued. "Republicans and Democrats in Congress should treat this proposal with all the care it deserves and immediately hit delete."
"Trump said that our country cannot afford to help families with childcare or healthcare—but his own budget proves what a ridiculous farce that is."
The White House unveiled its budget request days after Trump said it is "not possible" for the federal government "to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things" because "we’re fighting wars," comments that observers viewed as a stark summary of the administration's priorities.
"Trump is telling the American people our country somehow can’t afford childcare, Medicaid, and Medicare, but is never too stretched to fund wars of choice," Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement Friday. "He is wrong. We are the wealthiest country in the world and can absolutely afford to both defend and invest in the American people."
"The president is now demanding a massive increase in defense spending, including a $350 billion slush fund for his reckless war with Iran, while cutting billions from healthcare, education, housing, and more. This budget represents ‘America Last,'" said Boyle. "I will be demanding answers from White House OMB Director Russell Vought when he testifies at the House Budget Committee on April 15."
The Trump White House is calling on Congress to approve a significant chunk—roughly $350 billion—of its proposed military budget increase via the filibuster-proof reconciliation process, which would allow Republicans to push the funding through without any Democratic support. The new budget request also calls for a "historic investment" in the Department of Homeland Security, which has been partially shut down for more than a month as Democrats push for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"This funding would come in addition to the $170 billion passed just last year that has enabled the deaths of migrants in detention centers, the detention of children, and the deaths of US citizens at the hands of mass deportation agents," Lindsay Koshgarian, program director of the National Priorities Project, said in response to the budget request.
“The president looked at the country, with our rising gas prices and nearly half of us struggling to afford basic necessities, and decided what we really need is a bigger war budget," said Koshgarian. "Not healthcare or childcare or relief from high prices or expensive housing, but a nearly bottomless budget for whatever wars his cronies and the contractors dream up next."