

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.
Jason Schwartz, jason.schwartz@sunriseproject.
Today around 300 New Yorkers, many still reeling from the effects of Hurricane Ida, marched to Citigroup Headquarters and the NY Federal Reserve to demand two of the city's iconic financial institutions stop the pipeline of money flowing to the fossil fuel industry. The actions were part of a day of international escalation to protest the role of the financial sector in fueling the biggest threat to global financial security: climate change.
The group targeted Citigroup for its outsize role in propping up the fossil fuel industry: it is the industry's second largest funder after JP Morgan Chase. It is also the biggest US investor in coal. In concert with six other actions at Federal Reserve locations across the country, the New Yorkers also turned their attention to the New York branch of the Federal Reserve, calling on the Biden Administration to replace Fed Chair Powell. Because Powell has failed to use the mandate of his position to take substantive action on climate, The Fed lags behind central banks in Europe, who are beginning to place necessary restrictions on risky investments in the fossil fuel industry.
QUOTES:
Rachel Rivera, Superstorm Sandy survivor and member of New York Communities for Change: "The Fed, Citibank and other banks must stop funding fossil fuels. My family lost everything in Sandy. We're still hurting. On today's anniversary, just before Glasgow, I'm here to say New Yorkers demand a better future, and these Wall Street giants should do the right thing. They need to stop torching our planet."
Brooke Harper, 350.org: "The Federal Reserve has a mandate to protect our economy and steer investments away from high-risk fossil fuels. That's why we're taking action in coordination with a global youth-led mobilization at Fed branches across the country demanding a Fossil Free Federal Reserve. Ahead of COP26, if President Biden wants to be a real climate champion, he'll nominate a Federal Reserve Chair -- like Lael Brainard -- who will take climate risk seriously."
Mitzi Jonelle Tan, Fridays for Future Activist, Philippines: "For me this is personal. I know the families in Bulacan, Philippines forced from their homes because of a project funded by Standard Chartered Bank. That's why I've travelled thousands of miles to stand on the steps of the bank's HQ in the City of London and demand they defund fossil fuel."
Steve Melia, activist and former VP of Bank of America: "While fossil fuel companies are obvious culprits of climate destruction, there's a villain behind the scenes: the financial institutions who support them. Banks need to stop lending and insuring the companies extracting fossil fuels. Many people are unaware that their savings or pensions are invested in dirty assets. Fossil fuel investments are like the sub-prime mortgages which triggered the global recession in the late 2000s. Their value will collapse at some point in the future - the only thing we can't predict is when."
The actions in New York were undertaken in coordination with youth climate leaders, mobilizing in 39 cities for a Fossil Free Future and with a larger global mobilization to Defund Climate Chaos, all of which are calling out financial institutions on the eve of the UN climate talks in Glasgow, which commence Sunday.
Events in NYC started with a rally at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge. Demonstrators proceeded to the Federal Reserve, where among numerous other speakers, NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer gave a fiery speech about the need for the financial industry to take responsibility for its investments. The group then marched to Citigroup's headquarters, where a rally ensued calling on Citi's leaders to defund fossil fuels ensued.
It is a key mandate of the Federal Reserve to assess and account for risks to the U.S. economy. Marchers called on The Fed to fulfill that mandate and keep its word to account for climate risk. Data released today shows the Fed is continuing to slip, falling to 14th place behind India and retaining a "D-" grade, according to the UK-based thinktank Positive Money. Today also saw corresponding actions at six other Fed branches across the country, including in Washington, Chicago, and Denver.
Banks like Citigroup and Chase continue to expand tar sands, coal, and oil and gas extraction and deceive the public about the reality of the climate crisis. Citigroup alone poured over $237 billion into the fossil fuel sector between the years 2015 and 2020.
Climate leaders nationwide, led by frontline youth activists, rose up in 39 separate mobilizations today to disrupt the pipeline of money from banks to fossil fuel projects. The US actions accompanied many others around the world, targeting financial institutions of every kind. In San Francisco, activists are targeting BlackRock and the SF Fed, while in 13 countries in Africa, people opposed the funding of proposed pipelines in Tanzania and Uganda and collapsing pipelines in Mozambique. The 12 actions in the UK included one in London, in which activist Greta Thunberg joined hundreds protesting the relationship of Standard Chartered to the fossil fuel industry. There were 27 actions across Germany, 40 in Canada, as well as actions in The Philippines and Brazil and across Europe, all aimed at banks, asset managers, central banks, and other funders of the fossil fuel industry.
Spokespeople, including Superstorm Sandy survivor Rachel Rivera, are available for the New York actions, as well as for many others around the world, including US frontline youth leaders and climate leaders from across Europe.
The Sunrise Project grows social movements to drive the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy as fast as possible.
"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."