

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.

On September 8th, the Bezos Earth Fund announced its second round of funding of more than $200 million to a few environmental justice (EJ), academic, corporate controlled, and big green- and Hollywood-informed entities. Of the nearly $1 billion given out by the Earth Fund thus far, ~20% has been transferred to environmental/climate justice organizations, and much of that via funder intermediaries. Ironically, this is substantially less than what is called for in the Justice40 initiative they are supporting, which urges the federal government to ensure 40% of "overall benefits" are directed to "disadvantaged communities".
Now is the time for undeniably powerful grassroots leadership. This is even truer now than when the Earth Fund announced its initial grantees last year. We call upon the Bezos Earth Fund to make clear their commitment to frontline communities by mirroring Justice40's 40% investment (which is a floor, not a ceiling) and committing at least 40% of remaining funds directly to grassroots-led climate solutions. There are four pathways ready to absorb these funds: frontline organizations directly; via grassroots alliances and networks; via community-controlled capital mechanisms; and via grassroots-centric funder intermediaries.
In a recent article by Verge, CJA board member Maria Lopez-Nunez, at Ironbound Community Corporation in Newark, New Jersey said, "The Bezos fund is improving, but they still have some ways to go. We don't want byproducts. We want the real deal." We want direct investment in our communities, "not the undefined 'overall benefits' of funding streams that communities themselves don't control." "The Earth Fund is a complicated fund, given how Bezos has made his wealth on the exploitation of workers and the environment," Lopez-Nunez says. "[The money] comes from our communities; it's been extracted from our communities, at the cost of our health."
Yet, in this round, EJ groups whose communities have been most impacted, did not get funding parity with, let alone 40% of, what big green environmental organizations received in the first cycle [World Resources Institute ($100 million), The Nature Conservancy ($100 million), Natural Resources Defense Council ($100 million), Environmental Defense Fund ($100 million), World Wildlife Fund ($100 million)].
So, while it is a small step in the right direction, neither the dollar amount nor the strategy of depending on federal government programs that down the road could possibly benefit some environmental justice communities goes far enough. The Bezos Earth Fund grantmaking practices, thus far, do not do enough to close the $2.7 Billion Funding Gap Between White-Led and BIPOC-Led Environmental and Conservation Organizations. Nor do they help permanently retire market based schemes, carbon capture and storage, and other techno fixes that continue to harm frontline communities and fail to address the root causes of the rapidly escalating climate emergency. We need significant capital moving to make deep investment in the ingenuity and brilliance of frontline communities who are leading climate solutions that actually cool the planet and are available to us now, ready to absorb resources, and scalable through localized replication.
"We have to run and put our finger in so many different holes," said Dwaign Tyndal, Executive Director of the Boston-based nonprofit Alternatives for Community and Environment and Board Member of Climate Justice Alliance, to Verge. "We carry so much of this work, relative to the resources that are allocated ... Many of our groups are Black and brown, Indigenous groups and somehow that money has not trickled down."
Philanthropy and government, alike, must DIRECTLY support local solutions and narratives that come from those who have endured environmental racism and have lived on the frontlines of the climate crisis for decades. We continue to invite the Earth Fund to prioritize resourcing and scaling up those frontline-led solutions that ensure jobs, justice, climate, and care are centered, while working to reduce emissions at source through a Just Transition. We call for the commitment of at least 40% of the remaining $9 billion in the fund to the grassroots organizing sector. Large scale support for corporate controlled false promises and unproven techno fixes works at counter purpose and does not move us toward equity grounded in systemic change.
As summed up by CJA Board Co-Chair and Executive Director of UPROSE in Brooklyn, New York, Elizabeth Yeampierre, "If you are not investing in climate justice and ensuring equity in frontline communities -- you are not addressing the climate crisis. This is a time for transformative funding that will address an historic legacy of harm."
Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) formed in 2013 to create a new center of gravity in the climate movement by uniting frontline communities and organizations into a formidable force. Our translocal organizing strategy and mobilizing capacity is building a Just Transition away from extractive systems of production, consumption and political oppression, and towards resilient, regenerative and equitable economies. We believe that the process of transition must place race, gender and class at the center of the solutions equation in order to make it a truly Just Transition.
(202) 455-8665"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."