

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.

For the first time in history, over 400 public financial institutions from around the world gathered to discuss policies that, if adopted, would ensure a just and sustainable transition to a better future for all. In the context of the COVID-19 crisis, all participating banks agreed to work to align with the Paris Agreement, the sustainable development goals and biodiversity goals. But they fell short to demonstrate how these principles would translate into concrete and measurable commitments. Approximately $2 trillion in public money should now be being put into real actions to address the health, economic and planetary crises the world faces, but campaigners are critical about the outcomes of the Finance in Common Summit (FiC) and warn that this was yet another wasted opportunity.
Taking place 11-12 November 2020, the summit shed light on the crucial role of Public Development Banks (PDBs) in enacting sustainable recovery measures that will have a long-term impact on the planet and communities. A joint statement signed by over 320 civil society organisations called on PDBs to devote their considerable financial resources and influence towards building a just, equitable, inclusive and sustainable future for all. But the clear lack of concrete time-bound pledges made the FiC commitments well below the level of ambition that was expected from public development banks.
"With their public mandate, development banks have a great responsibility in making sure that investments directly benefit communities. We urge them to stop funding fossil fuel projects, and place human rights, racial and climate justice at the core of their actions. They must seize the opportunity to lead the way and initiate a deep and rapid shift in the way they operate, in line with a Just Recovery for all. But they are choosing to lag behind. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, limiting global warming to 1.5degC, protecting communities and ensuring climate justice should be the key drivers of action for all sectors of our society over the coming decade," says Clemence Dubois, France Team Leader at 350.org.
The Finance in Common Summit is one step of many. One month from now, on December 12th, the Paris Agreement will be celebrating its 5th anniversary. The past five years have not seen enough climate action. G20 nations are still providing three times as much money each year to fossil fuels as they are to clean energy, and this has not changed despite their public commitments under the Paris climate deal. This occasion should be a moment to speed up action towards truly implementing its goals, including to align financial flows with "pathways to low greenhouse gas emissions and climate resilient development."
In the leadup to COP26, where finance will be a key topic, civil society groups call on financial institutions to lead the way and increase their support for a just transition away from fossil fuels. They must increase the share of finance dedicated to climate action to assist countries in accelerating their own low-carbon development pathways, commit to fully align with the Paris Agreement, and support other financial institutions in their efforts to implement similar commitments.
"Getting public finance institutions out of fossil fuels is an urgent task. This is the time for these publicly funded entities to make the right call and make sure that the resources available will be spent to create the future we need. We have a historic chance to drive real, transformative change and build back better in line with climate and sustainable goals. Real leadership from public banks would send a strong political signal towards the private sector to help build momentum towards a successful COP26 in 2021. With a rampant climate crisis and so much at stake for people's jobs and health, simply paying lip service to the need for a just recovery and a low-carbon transition won't cut it," says May Boeve, 350.org Executive Director.
##
NOTE:
During the week, civil society groups organized actions in Nigeria, Brazil, Philippines and France calling on development banks to stop funding fossil fuel projects.
Photos and videos are available HERE.
QUOTE SHEET
Landry Ninteretse, 350.org Africa Team Leader:
"As concerned citizens of Africa, we are firm that the future the world needs is one that no longer burns fossil fuels for energy generation. It is totally unacceptable that public financial institutions continue to fund fossil fuel projects while millions hardest hit by the climate and pandemic crisis are struggling to get appropriate healthcare, social protection and economic assistance. Development banks need to lead the way and direct public money to a truly healthy, equitable, sustainable and just recovery. That would be a first and solid step towards building real resilience for the people and the planet."
Chuck Baclagon, 350.org Asia Finance Campaigner:
"While leaders and power brokers in the financial sector meet, in Asia, we are now just beginning to pick up the pieces left by the strongest storm this year, Super Typhoon Goni, in the middle of a pandemic. Public financial institutions are given the responsibility to chart a future that ensures Asia can thrive justly and sustainably, by shifting the financial flows away from fossil fuels to one that prioritizes access to a low-carbon economy and healthcare. They must commit with a clear timeframe to end support for fossil-fuel projects and ensure that the money goes towards building sustainable, healthy, and resilient societies."
Ilan Zugman, 350.org Latin America Interim Managing Director:
"Many Latin American countries are among those that have had proportionally more deaths and greater economic losses because of Covid-19. However, scientists warn that these damages will appear mild when compared to those that the climate crisis may cause, if the planet reaches the worst scenarios of global warming. Latin America's economic recovery only makes sense if it is accompanied by measures to reduce emissions and build climate resilience in our countries, which is why development banks must make comprehensive and urgent commitments to zero their funding for fossil industry projects. Taxpayer money needs to stimulate job creation in sectors that benefit the most vulnerable families, such as clean energy, urban mobility and public health."
Eri Watanabe, 350.org Japan Finance Campaigner:
"Prime Minister Suga's recent pledge of "carbon neutrality" in 2050 will be meaningless if Japan's public financial institutions continue to support fossil fuel projects. To slow the warming of the Earth, JICA, JBIC and NEXI should stop funding coal fired power plants in Bangladesh, Indonesia and Vietnam in the name of "international cooperations". They must instead support sustainable sources of energy for the communities in developing countries who suffer the most from the dual crises of COVID-19 and the climate change."
Fenton Lutunatabua, 350.org Pacific Managing Director:
"The Pacific is fighting for their homes, and their lives, to turn the tide against climate change. Public development banks globally must join this fight in solidarity by committing to a Just Recovery from COVID-19, and stopping investments in the fossil fuel industry, the greatest source of carbon emissions. There is no time to lose. These institutions must effect policies that will divest from carbon-polluting industries and instead support renewable energy solutions so that all people can continue to thrive."
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.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.
"Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to launch some kind of ground assault on Iran in the coming weeks, but one prominent military strategy expert believes he's heading straight for defeat.
The Washington Post on Saturday reported that the Pentagon is preparing for "weeks" of ground operations in Iran, which for the last month has disrupted global energy markets by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in response to aerial assaults by the US and Israel.
The Post's sources revealed that "any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops" that could be used to seize Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil export hub, or to search out and destroy weapons systems that could be used by the Iranians to target ships along the strait.
Michael Eisenstadt, director of the Military and Security Studies Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the Post that taking over Kharg Island would be a highly risky operation for American troops, even if initially successful.
“I just wouldn’t want to be in that small place with Iran’s ability to rain down drones and maybe artillery,” said Eisenstadt.
Eisenstadt's analysis was echoed by Ret. Gen. Joseph Votel, former head of US Central Command, who told ABC News that seizing and occupying Kharg Island would put US troops in a state of constant danger, warning they could be "very, very vulnerable" to drones and missiles launched from the shore.
Lawrence Freedman, professor emeritus of war studies at King's College London, believes that the president has already checkmated himself regardless of what shape any ground operation takes.
In an analysis published Sunday, Freedman declared Trump had run "out of options" for victory, as there have been no signs of the Iranian regime crumbling due to US-Israeli attacks.
Freedman wrote that Trump now "appears to inhabit an alternative reality," noting that "his utterances have become increasingly incoherent, with contradictory statements following quickly one after the other, and frankly delusional claims."
Trump's loan real option at this point, Freedman continued, would to simply declare that he had achieved an unprecedented victory and just walk away. But even in that case, wrote Freedman, "this would mean leaving behind a mess in the Gulf" with no guarantee that Iran would re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
"Success in war is judged not by damage caused but by political objectives realized," Freedman wrote in his conclusion. "Here the objective was regime change, or at least the emergence of a new compliant leader... Trump’s problem is that whatever the claims he might make about the damage to Iran’s nuclear and military capacity, which is substantial, the regime survives, the international economy has been severely disrupted, and the bills keep on coming in."
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," said one critic.
The New York Times is drawing criticism for publishing articles that downplayed the significance of Saturday's No Kings protests, which initial estimates suggest was the largest protest event in US history.
In a Times article that drew particular ire, reporter Jeremy Peters questioned whether nationwide events that drew an estimated 8 million people to the streets "would be enough to influence the course of the nation’s politics."
"Can the protests harness that energy and turn it into victories in the November midterm elections?" Peters asked rhetorically. "How can they avoid a primal scream that fades into a whimper?"
Journalist and author Mark Harris called Peters' take on the protests "predictable" and said it was framed so that the protests would appear insignificant no matter how many people turned out.
"There's a long, bad journalistic tradition," noted Harris. "All conservative grass-roots political movements are fascinating heartland phenomena, all progressive grass-roots political movements are ineffectual bleating. This one is written off as powered by white female college grads—the wine-moms slur, basically."
Media critic Dan Froomkin was event blunter in his criticism of the Peters piece.
"Putting anti-woke hack Jeremy Peters on this story is an act of war by the NYT against No Kings," he wrote.
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, also took a hatchet to Peters' analysis.
"The NY Times saves its harshest skepticism for progressives," he wrote. "Instead of being impressed by 3,000-plus coordinated protests, NYT dismisses the value of 'hitting a number' and asks if No Kings will be 'a primal scream that fades into a whimper.' F off, NY Times. We'll defeat fascism without you."
The Media and Democracy Project slammed the Times for putting Peters' analysis of the protests on its front page while burying straight news coverage of the events on page A18.
"NYT editors CHOSE that Jeremy Peters's opinions would frame the No Kings demonstrations and pro-democracy movement to millions of NYT readers," the group commented.
Joe Adalian, west coast editor for New York Mag's Vulture, criticized a Times report on the No Kings demonstrations that quoted a "skeptic" of the protests without noting that said skeptic was the chairman of the Ole Miss College Republicans.
"Of course, the Times doesn’t ID him as such," remarked Adalian. "He's just a Concerned Youth."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, took issue with a Times piece that offered five "takeaways" from the No Kings events that somehow managed to miss their broader significance.
"I despise the five-takeaways journalistic trope the Broken Times loves so," Jarvis wrote. "It is reductionist, hubristic in its claim to summarize any complex event. This one leaves out much, like the defense of democracy against fascism."
Journalist Miranda Spencer took stock of the Times' entire coverage of the No Kings demonstrations and declared it "clueless," while noting that USA Today did a far better job of communicating their significance to readers.
Harper's Magazine contributing editor Scott Horton similarly argued that international news organizations were giving the No Kings events more substantive coverage than the Times.
"In Le Monde and dozens of serious newspapers around the world, prominent coverage of No Kings 3, which brought millions of Americans on to the streets to protest Trump," Horton observed. "In NYT, an illiterate rant from Jeremy W Peters and no meaningful coverage of the protests. Something very strange going on here."