

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.

Tamra Gilbertson (IEN): tamra@ienearth.org ; +1-865-443-1337
Cate Bonacini (CIEL): cbonacini@ciel.org; +1-202-742-5847
As governments meet this week to review and approve a summary of the latest findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding climate mitigation, hundreds of organizations from around the world sent an open letter demanding that they focus on rapidly ending fossil fuel production and use. The letter, signed by nearly 350 organizations, including Center for International Environmental Law, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth International, Greenpeace, Heinrich Boll Foundation, and the Indigenous Environmental Network, calls on governments and IPCC Co-Chairs to ensure the IPCC's summary of the mitigation science foregrounds rapid fossil fuel phaseout in order to avoid dangerous temperature overshoot, and recognizes that reliance on large-scale Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), carbon markets and carbon offsets, and Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) threatens irreversible harm to people and nature.
The Working Group III Summary for Policymakers (SPM) regarding IPCC mitigation recommendations due out on 4 April 2022 will greatly influence how the consensus science is understood and in turn, how it is acted upon by policymakers, investors, and the public. The stakes could not be any higher, the science any clearer, or the imperative for immediate action any greater.
The IPCC's recent WGII report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability leaves no doubt: Climate change is a human rights and environmental and social justice crisis, eroding health, well-being, the environment, and equity across the entire globe, in grossly unequal ways. Current levels of warming are already causing permanent loss and damage, especially for the populations most vulnerable to, and least responsible for, the climate crisis. Surpassing 1.5degC of warming--even temporarily--will unleash further irreparable harm taking the planet into a point of no return.
Read the open letter to Governments and the IPCC here: https://www.realsolutions-not-netzero.org/ipcc-wg-iii
QUOTES FROM ORGANIZATIONS
Nikki Reisch, Director of the Climate & Energy Program at the Center for International Environmental Law, said:
The IPCC's Summary for Policymakers should not conceal the stark scientific realities that the full report lays bare. The climate crisis is accelerating and fossil fuels are the overwhelming cause. Any report on mitigation that fails to emphasize that fact is denying the very science to which the IPCC is committed. To avoid the irreversible harm of overshooting 1.5degC, we must end dependence on fossil fuels and phase out their production and use as rapidly and equitably as possible. Governments have a responsibility to ensure this truth is front and center in the summary of the IPCC's findings on mitigation. They also must convey the danger of relying on technologies like large-scale carbon dioxide removal and carbon offset schemes that threaten to push warming beyond 1.5degC, triggering irreversible harm to people and nature.
Dipti Bhatnagar, Climate Justice and Energy International Programme Coordinator from Friends of the Earth International, said:
We do not consent to an overshoot of 1.5 degrees, and there is no justification for pursuing policies or pathways that allow for an overshoot. We used to chant "1.5, we might survive" - 1.5 was already a compromise for frontline communities suffering the worst climate impacts. The IPCC told us only last month that breaching this guard-rail, even temporarily, could push us over a series of tipping points, unleashing a cascade of irreversible feedback systems that would cause warming beyond our ability to control. It would be grossly negligent to ignore those warnings and pursue a mitigation plan that allows for an overshoot, as is now on the table with this new report.
Tom BK Goldtooth, Executive Director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, said:
Indigenous Peoples have been targeted by technology and market-based scams like carbon capture, solar radiation management and carbon pricing systems because these scams represent another money-making frontier for the colonizers. Indigenous Peoples have been targeted, harassed, exploited, and expelled by carbon brokers, traders, project managers, US agencies like US AID, and the big Conservation NGOs - all for the rights to their forests and lands. This is nothing new for Indigenous Peoples. Proponents of these technologies and markets of destruction not only create a system that distracts from the important political work of phasing out fossil fuels, they target Indigenous communities that keep this planet on life support. It is a horrific expansion of a deeply flawed, unjust and unethical system. We call on the IPCC and world leaders to listen to Indigenous Peoples and Mother Earth to focus their future western research projects on keeping fossil fuels in the ground.
Jim Walsh, Policy Director, Food & Water Watch, saId:
We do not have time to delay a transition off fossil fuels, but unfortunately global emissions of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels continue to rise, as global leaders and polluters promote misleading net zero claims as solutions to the climate crisis. These climate scams, including carbon trading schemes, carbon capture, and biofuels not only delay real climate action but are creating significant harms to disadvantaged communities from air and water pollution. The leaders of the IPCC must make sure the Summary for Policymakers clearly states what the science shows, further reliance on climate scams that delay a phaseout of fossil fuels will imperil our ability to avoid catastrophic climate tipping points and lock us into irreversible impacts of climate change, increasing global suffering and harms
Established in 1990 within the United States, IEN was formed by grassroots Indigenous peoples and individuals to address environmental and economic justice issues (EJ). IEN's activities include building the capacity of Indigenous communities and tribal governments to develop mechanisms to protect our sacred sites, land, water, air, natural resources, health of both our people and all living things, and to build economically sustainable communities.
"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."