

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.

The first draft of the Glasgow final decision text at COP26 completely fails to mention fossil fuels, despite expert consensus on the need to end new coal, oil and gas immediately to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement 1.5C goal.
Thanks to blocking by fossil fuel interests, the first version of the official text, published by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, fails to acknowledge that fossil fuels are driving the climate crisis, nor does it make any commitment to tangible actions to end global reliance on coal, oil and gas. The text is just 850 words long.
Campaigners are gravely concerned because ordinarily, the first draft of a COP text is relatively ambitious, and becomes weaker over the second week as countries work in caveats for themselves. For the first draft to be so weak does not bode well.
This glaring omission comes despite the fact that experts at the International Energy Agency have made clear there can be no new fossil fuel projects, beyond those already underway this year, if we're to deliver the goal of keeping global temperature rise to 1.5C. And after the most recent IPCC report the UN Secretary General has said that the latest climate science must sound a "death knell for fossil fuels" and that countries should end all new fossil fuel exploration and production.
Campaigners are calling on negotiators to stand up to fossil fuel producing countries like Saudi Arabia and Australia, which have blocked fossil fuel reduction even being mentioned in the last 25 COP texts and are crippling ambition in the negotiations at Glasgow. The key markers of success for the week ahead are as follows:
Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, has been to every COP and every time the mention of fossil fuels has been blocked by the same countries. She said: "What's very concerning here in Glasgow is that the first draft of the climate pact text is already exceptionally weak. Usually the text starts with some ambition, which then gets watered down. "To keep 1.5 alive, four words must be added: 'fossil fuels phase out', and countries must come back next year to close the gap."
Edwin Namakanga, aged 27, from Uganda is a climate activist from Fridays for Future, Most Affected People and Areas, who arrived at COP on board the Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior ship last week, with a message for world leaders: stop failing us.
Edwin said: "In my lifetime I've seen first hand the destructive impact of the climate crisis, which everyone knows is driven by fossil fuels.
"The result from Glasgow must be the end of new fossil fuels, and there must be proper financial support for countries in the Global South. We need solidarity and just transition to renewable energy, because anything less is a death sentence for whole peoples, countries and areas."
Kate Blagojevic, Greenpeace UK's head of climate, said: "The UK Presidency has let the most vulnerable nations down by supporting such a weak first draft text. Alok Sharma can still fix this and insist world leaders up their game through stronger commitments on phasing out fossil fuels and significantly increasing pledges on adaptation finance in the next draft. And that action can start in the UK today by ruling out all new fossil fuel projects, including the Cambo oil field, and making sure the UK's climate finance contributions don't eat into the aid budget."
Negotiators at COP26 have just five more days to reach an agreement which will inform how countries tackle the climate crisis, and will seek to nail down a final text for countries to sign.
At the halfway point of the talks, countries have so far announced a string of voluntary agreements that contain vague language and big loopholes.
Last week the Taskforce for Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets, put forward by UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, and former Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, was widely criticized as a greenwash operation, including by Greta Thunberg. On Wednesday Greenpeace activists staged a protest to disrupt the launch event, and ensure the Taskforce does not press ahead unchecked.
Over the weekend, Saudi Arabia came under fire for trying to block the creation of any 'cover decision' for the final text whatsoever, for deleting references and for trying to block efforts to achieve progress on adaptation. A key pillar of the Paris Agreement, adaptation is the effort to help millions of people around the world cope with the impacts of rising temperatures. Lack of progress on adaptation would make it difficult for vulnerable countries, including the African block of nations, to embrace any final agreement, making success at COP26 less likely.
And the Saudi government has already tried to influence the wording of a landmark UN climate science report, due out in March next year. The BBC and Unearthed revealed that representatives from the Saudi oil ministry pushed the authors of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report on mitigation to remove a reference to published literature that found fossil fuels need to be phased out if we're to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the world's biggest oil exporters.
And today [MON] Global Witness revealed that there are more delegates at COP26 associated with the fossil fuel industry than from any single country. Fossil fuel activists outnumber the UNFCCC's official indigenous constituency by almost two to one.
Given that the next two conferences will be held in Egypt and then the United Arab Emirates, campaigners fear that it's crunch time for getting the COP text to commit to fossil fuel phaseout.
Arshak Makichyian, aged 27, is a Russian activist who is attending COP26. He said: "It is astonishing to me that in all these years that world leaders have had to deliver the big solution to climate change - over my whole life - not once have they mentioned the cause of the problem. My future is resting on just 850 words - but we need four more: phase out fossil fuels.
"What the hell have they been doing? We are out of time. Glasgow must mean a total and immediate fossil fuel phaseout. That's it."
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000"War is hell. And hell comes with a hefty price tag," said University of Michigan professor Justin Wolfers.
University of Michigan professor Justin Wolfers on Friday joined a growing number of economists and other critics casting down on what he called "the Pentagon's lowball $25 billion estimate" for the cost of President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran.
While testifying before Congress last week alongside US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Pentagon comptroller Jules "Jay" Hurst offered the $25 billion figure. However, experts have responded with raised eyebrows. Stephen Semler, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, estimated that the government spent at least $71.8 billion during the first two months of the war, or around $1.2 billion each day.
Although Trump told Congress last Friday—a key deadline under the War Powers Act—that his assault on Iran had been "terminated," citing the ceasefire deal reached a month ago after his genocidal threat, the administration has maintained its naval blockade and on Thursday bombed what it claimed were "Iranian military facilities responsible for attacking US forces."
The cost isn't just measured in billions of taxpayer dollars spent on a war that doesn't make us safer. It's measured in economic losses such as high prices working families see at the gas pump. The human toll can't be ignored. www.nytimes.com/2026/05/08/o...
[image or embed]
— Randi Weingarten 🖇️📚✊🇺🇸 (@rweingarten.bsky.social) May 8, 2026 at 2:41 PM
As the threat of more US bombings of Iran loomed, Wolfers wrote Friday in a New York Times opinion piece that "the Pentagon's stated number reflects only a narrow accounting of the tab that Operation Epic Fury is running up. It's the price of the more than 2,000 Tomahawk and Patriot missiles already fired, the warplanes already flown and in some cases lost, and the rest of the gear already chewed through. It does not measure the true cost of the war—including the human toll."
"Since the start of the war, oil markets have been disrupted, consumer confidence has cratered, the global economy is groaning, and military budgets are growing," the economist continued. "The toll from this upheaval must be counted in lives disrupted, jobs lost, companies shut down (see: Spirit Airlines), and the income and output sacrificed. The less easily quantified costs—death, disability, and mental health—could become much more dramatic should President Trump send troops into Iran, which still can't be ruled out."
As David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, detailed Friday, the war seemingly hasn't achieved any of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's shifting objectives:
The US and Israel said they wanted to eradicate Iran's nuclear program and change its regime. The regime is now composed of more hard-liners than before, and Iran's nuclear capability has not budged since last summer. Now the two sides are negotiating the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the conflict, and the terms of Iran's nuclear program, which they were negotiating before the conflict. Moreover, the compromise being contemplated involves Iran pausing uranium enrichment in exchange for the US lifting sanctions and unfreezing Iranian funds. That sounds suspiciously like the deal President Obama struck in 2015 that Trump ripped up when he took office, complete with the "bags of cash" sent to Iran that Trump flipped out over back then.
All this war has done is killed thousands of people, opened a new front for Israel in Lebanon, damaged most US military sites and most energy production facilities in the region, led to oil spills that are visible from space, created a shipping bottleneck that will take at least a year to fix, raised domestic gas prices to a record for this time of year, cost American consumers $34.3 billion and counting, ended the life of one US airline with more likely to come, and led us down an imminent path to physical shortages of critical commodities like oil, including in the United States.
I have never in my life seen a war that achieved literally none of its objectives while directly causing this many devastating costs, and I lived through Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Washington Post reported Thursday that the Central Intelligence Agency has privately warned the Trump administration that "Iran can survive the US naval blockade for at least three to four months before facing more severe economic hardship," and its "analysis might even be underestimating Iran's economic resilience if Tehran is able to smuggle oil via overland routes."
The reporting heightened concerns about how long the war may drag on. The International Monetary Fund warned last month that a prolonged conflict could cause a global recession.
Already, the war has "pushed the Federal Reserve Bank into a corner," and "Wall Street is worried, despite the market touching new highs," Wolfers wrote Friday. "My estimate—based on the movement of oil prices, along with the S&P 500—is that stocks are about 5% lower than they otherwise would be, suggesting that the war has wiped about $3 trillion off the value of these companies."
The economist also cited recent research showing that elevated "geopolitical risk leads to lower investment and employment."
Shortly after launching the war in February, the White House signaled it would need $200 billion for the operation. However, it is now seeking a $1.5 trillion defense budget for the next fiscal year—which Hegseth tried to frame as a fiscally responsible plan that puts "the American taxpayer first" in a widely ridiculed video this week. Wolfers highlighted that the budget request is "a roughly 40% boost over this year. That's a massive $600 billion increase, or roughly $4,000 per household."
Like Dayen, Wolfers also pointed to the Iraq War, which economists Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz estimated cost the US around $3 trillion, after factoring in expenses such as "lifetime medical care and disability benefits for veterans, and the higher recruitment and retention costs that follow a bloody war—all compounded by a rising interest bill."
"The best any economist can do right now is get the order of magnitude right, and my math suggests the Iran war will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and very possibly trillions," Wolfers concluded. "War is hell. And hell comes with a hefty price tag."
"ABC has finally learned that bullies don’t stop when companies cower in a corner," said one free press advocate.
ABC News earned plaudits on Friday after it came out swinging against the Trump administration's investigation into its daytime talk show "The View."
In a filing with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), first reported by The New York Times, ABC said the Trump administration's actions "threaten to upend decades of settled law and practice and chill critical protected speech, both with respect to 'The View' and more broadly."
The FCC launched an investigation into "The View" over its interview with Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico of Texas earlier this year, as the agency questioned whether the program should be exempt from Section 315 of the Communications Act, which requires networks to provide equal access to candidates' political opponents.
Disney-owned ABC noted that "'The View' has been broadcasting under a bona fide news exemption granted to it more than 20 years ago," and argued that forcing the show to abide by equal-time rules "would risk restricting political discourse exactly when it is needed most."
The network's aggressive posture against the FCC inquiry earned it praise from press freedom watchdogs who have long criticized mainstream media outlets for timidity in the face of the Trump administration's authoritarianism.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said ABC deserved kudos for "for standing up for itself and the First Amendment" amid attacks from President Donald Trump and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who has repeatedly threatened to pull broadcasters' licenses over unfavorable news coverage.
"It’s about time news outlets start telling Carr and his Donald Trump lapel pin to kick rocks," said Stern. "Otherwise, he’ll continue manufacturing bogus pretexts to harass and jawbone licensees that air content his boss doesn’t like."
Jessica J. González, co-CEO of Free Press, said she was "pleased that ABC has finally learned that bullies don’t stop when companies cower in a corner," referring to past settlements ABC and other networks made with Trump after his 2024 election victory.
"The FCC chairman has blatantly and repeatedly abused his power to silence speech that displeases Trump," said González. "This doesn’t just violate the First Amendment rights of broadcasters on the receiving end of Brendan Carr's tactics; it also harms the broadcasters’ audiences."
Mark Jacobs, former editor at the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, similarly pointed to ABC's past capitulations to Trump, while expressing hope that the network had learned its lesson.
"Remember when ABC folded to Trump's shakedown scheme with a $15 million settlement?" he wrote in a social media post. "Maybe they thought it would buy peace with the dictator. It didn't. The regime demanded Jimmy Kimmel's firing and harassed 'The View.' Now ABC is fighting back after learning that fascists always come back for more."
"Most politicians still fail to recognize or downplay the threat of AI to workers, at the behest of Silicon Valley," said one veteran labor organizer.
In a first for a statewide candidate, California gubernatorial contender Tom Steyer on Friday proposed the creation of a wealth fund that would be paid into by artificial intelligence companies, with the money being used to fund jobs in key sectors of the economy.
The billionaire hedge fund founder-turned-environmental advocate, who has come out in support of a proposed tax on billioionaires' wealth and a single-payer healthcare system for the state and has described himself as a "class traitor," told Wired about his proposal to use a "token tax" to fund what he called the Golden State Sovereign Wealth Fund.
Big Tech companies would be taxed “a fraction of a cent for every unit of data processed” for AI uses, and some of the money directed to the fund through the taxation plan would be earmarked for jobs for people who lost employment due to the expansion of AI.
Jobs in healthcare, housing construction, and modernizing the state's energy infrastructure would be prioritized in the fund.
Steyer told Wired the plan would make California "the first major economy in the world" to guarantee jobs to people who have been displaced by AI.
“People all over this state are terrified that AI is going to hollow out this whole economy and they’re going to lose their jobs. Young people are worried they’ll never get a job,” Steyer told Wired. “We believe this can be an amazing transformational technology in many ways, but we’re not in the business of leaving people in California behind.”
The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray, and Christmas released a report Thursday showing that for the second straight month, AI was the leading reason companies cited for laying off workers. AI-related job cuts accounted for 26% of the 88,387 layoffs the firm recorded, with 21,490 people losing their jobs due to AI.
“Technology companies continue to announce large-scale cuts and are leading all industries in layoff announcements. They are also often citing AI spend and innovation. Regardless of whether individual jobs are being replaced by AI, the money for those roles is,” said Andy Challenger, chief revenue officer for Challenger, Gray, and Christmas.
Last October, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) released an analysis showing that AI and automation could eliminate nearly 100 million jobs in a decade—yet President Donald Trump and the Republican Party are aggressively pushing to stop states from regulating the industry.
Trump signed an executive order late last year calling on the Department of Justice to create an AI Litigation Task Force, which would target laws and proposals to require studies on the impact of AI on jobs, protect people from AI companion chatbots, and regulate the technology in other ways.
“Not regulating AI doesn’t seem remotely reasonable,” Steyer said Friday.
At a debate earlier this week, Steyer said AI cannot be allowed to "create 12 trillionaires and millions of people who lose their jobs."
"The number-one thing that we have to do is make sure AI is a tool for workers and not a replacement of workers," he said. "And we absolutely need to own part of it."
We can't let AI create 12 trillionaires and millions of people who lose their jobs. The people of California need to share in the wealth AI creates. pic.twitter.com/ts2Ru1J5IX
— Tom Steyer (@TomSteyer) May 6, 2026
Charles Idelson, former communications director for National Nurses United, applauded Steyer for "addressing a growing danger for California's working class."
"Most politicians still fail to recognize or downplay the threat of AI to workers, at the behest of Silicon Valley," said Idelson.
Steyer said in a memo that in addition to protecting Californians from job loss, the fund created by the token tax would "strengthen the foundation of the state’s economy, invest in our communities, and create beautiful, vibrant public spaces."
“To support these efforts," said the campaign, "Tom will also invest heavily in training and apprenticeship programs across the state.”
Steyer's plan for AI also includes an expansion of unemployment insurance and the creation of the AI Worker Protection Administration that would adopt new rules to protect workers' rights as AI continues to develop.
Devin Murphy, director for digital mobilization for Steyer's campaign, said the state faces a "defining question" after its tech industry helped build the AI economy: "Who benefits from it?"
"Tom Steyer is putting forward one of the first serious plans to ensure AI strengthens the middle class," said Murphy, "instead of hollowing it out."