

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.

Christine Mbithi, christine.mbithi@350.org
Campaigners have warned that Africa is in danger of locking the continent into fossil fuels for decades to come with leaders considering a new position that would prioritize fossil gas and nuclear over cleaner, cheaper, renewables.
A technical committee of the African Union - made up of energy, not climate ministers - has recently proposed an "African Common Position on Energy Access and Transition". This position centers on fossil gas and nuclear energy, at the expense of renewables, and is proposed for adoption by African Heads of State and launched at COP27.
Campaigners have warned that Africa is in danger of locking the continent into fossil fuels for decades to come with leaders considering a new position that would prioritize fossil gas and nuclear over cleaner, cheaper, renewables.
A technical committee of the African Union - made up of energy, not climate ministers - has recently proposed an "African Common Position on Energy Access and Transition". This position centers on fossil gas and nuclear energy, at the expense of renewables, and is proposed for adoption by African Heads of State and launched at COP27.
This comes on the back of the European Union's recent vote in favor of a new rule that will consider fossil gas and nuclear projects "green," making them eligible for lost-cost loans and subsidies, and their scramble for Africa's energy resources.
Together these would clear the way for the COP27 climate talks in Egypt to announce a massive effort to scale up fossil gas production in Africa, distracting from the clear need for renewables, locking the continent into fossil fuels for decades to come, while also shifting dangerous nuclear technologies that Europeans don't want onto African soil.
Campaigners are concerned that the position will fail to achieve its own objectives of ensuring energy access and transition. They have also expressed concerns that it could have drastic consequences for Africa's future prosperity, locking in massive stranded asset risk, damaging development prospects, while prioritising exports to Europe and the Global North. It could also damage the credibility of COP27 and the viability of global climate goals as set out in the Paris Agreement. Their concerns are set out in an African Energy Access and Transition Memorandum.
Mohamed Adow, Director of Power Shift Africa, said:
"Africa is blessed with an abundance of wind, solar and other clean renewable energies. African leaders should be maximizing this potential and harnessing the abundant wind and sun which will help boost energy access and tackle climate change. What Africa does not need is to be shackled with expensive fossil fuel infrastructure which will be obsolete in a few years as the climate crisis worsens.
It would be a shameful betrayal of African people, already on the front line of the climate crisis, if African leaders use this November's COP27 climate summit on African soil to lock Africa into a fossil fuel based future. Africa does not need the dirty energy of the past, it needs forward looking leadership that can take advantage of the clean energy of the present and future."
Charity Migwi, Africa Regional Campaigner at 350.org, said:
"As a concerned African citizen, it is totally unacceptable for African leaders to prioritize gas while millions hardest hit by the unfolding climate crisis are struggling to adapt to the devastating realities of climate change. The International Energy Agency (IEA) warned in 2020 that there is no room for new fossil fuels. The development of gas would not only lock African nations into fossil fuel production but would also undermine any plans to rapidly cut greenhouse gas emissions in a bid to keep global temperatures under 1.5 degrees Celsius, in order to avert even more catastrophic climate impacts. African leaders must instead support sustainable sources of renewable energy for the communities in developing countries for the good of humanity and the planet."
Omar Elmawi, coordinator of #StopEACOP, said:
"Africa needs to wake up and stop behaving like Europe's petrol stations and always looking at resolving their energy problems, it is now time to think collectively on what's best for the continent and its people. This is a continent ripe with renewable energy potential that we are yet to even scratch the surface. It is time to invest in green energy that supports and meets African needs and not extract oil and gas for Europe's needs as we leave all the impacts and destruction to be faced by the African people."
Dr. Sixbert Mwanga, Coordinator of Climate Action Network Africa, said:
"The African Continent is endowed with so many and high quality renewable energy sources including solar, wind , geothermal, tidal which could benefit its people. At COP27, we call for the African Union and African leaders to announce the utilization of these sources for the benefit of our people and leave aside fossil fuel development for export."
Avena Jacklin, Climate and Energy Justice Campaign Manager at groundWork and Friends of the Earth, South Africa said:
"In July, South African communities and movements met and reflected on the expansion of the fossil fuel sector in South Africa and strengthened their: "commitment to fight for climate justice and to call for an URGENT STOP to all new fossil fuel exploration, extraction and development, and a managed phase out fossil fuel to secure a just transition for all South Africans, not only for the elite."
Lorraine Chiponda, Africa Coal Network Coordinator, said:
"The 2022 IPCC clearly warns that the world needs drastic cuts in carbon emissions to prevent catastrophic climate impacts. The globe already has seen temperature rise and we will exceed 1.5oC by and suffer an increase in intensity and frequency in climate disasters. The prospect that African leaders are presenting and pushing for gas developments and investment is overwhelming and reckless given the climate impacts that threaten the lives of millions of people in Africa having seen worsening droughts and hunger, recurring floods and cyclones. In addition to this as we have seen in the past, the acceleration of gas projects in Africa is another colonial and modern "Scramble and Partition of Africa" amongst energy corporations and "rich" countries. Fossil fuel projects have neither solved energy poverty in Africa where 600 million people in Africa still live in energy poverty nor brought any socio-economic justice to Africa people. We shall continue to strengthen calls for a people's just transition away from fossil fuels."
Fatima Ahouli, Regional Coordinator of Climate Action Network Arab World, said:
"Calling for more and new exploitation of fossil fuels in Africa is driven by the same hungry countries who only see Africa as a gold mine. The continuous and unsustainable abuse of Africa's resources contradicts all the fight against climate change in the World. It in fact undermines all the efforts of phasing out of fossil fuels as well as of letting African countries lead a more sustainable economies. We therefore demand a shutdown of these colonialist mindsets that only lead to more conflicts and accelerate humanity's doomsday."
Ubrei - Joe Mariere Maimoni, Climate Justice and Energy project coordinator of Friends of the Earth Africa, said:
"Fossil fuels and extractivism especially on the continent of Africa have brought tales of sorrow, tears and blood. Communities have been made to unjustly sacrifice their lands, livelihoods and even their dignity, and humanity, to enrich developed nations, transnational corporations and African elites. We demand that African leaders stop all new gas exploration and fossil fuels on our continent, already facing the ravages of the climate crisis. COP27 should instead be a space to empower people-centered renewable energy solutions. We say no to false solutions. We demand public climate finance, and technology transfer to help support a just transition to clean new renewable energy for the peoples."
Joab Okanda, Pan Africa Senior Advocacy Advisor, Christian Aid, said:
"Africa has the potential to be a clean energy superpower if we can harness the wind and solar resources our continent is blessed with. However a clean energy revolution will do nothing for those who profit from fossil fuels and so there is pressure for African leaders to instead use valuable investment dollars on gas instead.
The African Union would be crazy to shackle their countries to fossil fuel infrastructure just as the era of polluting fossil fuels is coming to an end. The reality of climate change means the world is moving away from dirty energy like gas and instead maximising clean alternatives which are already cheaper.
The African Union is in danger of falling for the con of African gas at a time when other countries are investing in renewables which will be what powers development and progress in coming decades. It would be the ultimate betrayal of African people if their leaders missed the opportunity to become a renewable energy super power by locking us into a doomed experiment with fossil fuels that is hurting Africa through climate breakdown."
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.
In a searing rebuke of Trump's self-dealing lawsuit against the IRS, Judge Kathleen Williams wrote that "a court should not be a forum for a party that cynically views a lawsuit as a vehicle to achieve a predetermined outcome."
A progressive US senator on Monday welcomed a federal judge's ruling that found President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service was an illegal act of self-dealing, while calling for the Republican to be impeached for a third time.
Trump and his two eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, "acted in bad faith and for an improper purpose by 'collusively filing a lawsuit with claims subject to multiple dispositive defenses solely to provide cover for a collusive settlement,'" US District Judge for the Southern District of Florida Kathleen Williams—who was appointed by former President Barack Obama—wrote in her 56-page ruling.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called Williams' order "a scalding, blistering judicial opinion calling out Trump’s sham litigation, striking down his corrupt IRS immunity, and holding his sycophant lawyers to account."
"That’s a good start," the senator said. "Impeachment is next."
Finding that "sanctions are appropriate here," Williams referred Trump's personal attorney Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar for "its consideration, review, and determination as to whether any disciplinary action is appropriate in light of the findings and rulings made in this order."
Williams also banned another one of the president's personal lawyers, Daniel Epstein—who is not related to Jeffrey Epstein, the late convicted child sex criminal and former close friend of Trump—from seeking admission to practice law in the Southern District of Florida for one year.
The judge further found that acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche's "apparent capacity to speak for both plaintiffs and defendants, sign a 'settlement' document on behalf of all parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case."
In January, Trump and his sons sued the Internal Revenue Service and US Treasury Department for $10 billion over the leak of the president's tax returns by a former IRS contractor. Trump’s own Department of Justice (DOJ) then settled the case in May by agreeing to exempt the plaintiffs from future IRS audits and create a roughly $1.776 billion settlement slush fund for people claiming they were unfairly targeted by the government.
Beneficiaries of the so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" were expected to include January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists, roughly 1,500 of whom were pardoned by Trump and dozens of whom have since been charged or convicted for serious crimes, including child sex crimes, rape, grand larceny, burglary, home invasion, gun violations, death threats against public officials, and fatal DUI incidents.
Blanche has signaled that the DOJ will no longer pursue the creation of the slush fund.
Williams wrote in her ruling that "certainly, a court should not be a forum for a party that cynically views a lawsuit as a vehicle to achieve a predetermined outcome: 'I’m suing myself."
"President Trump did not pursue his claims until he once again occupied the White House and had appointed his former lawyer, and the former lawyer of persons who are putative beneficiaries of the 'Anti-Weaponization Fund,c' to prominent positions in the DOJ," she continued. "These officials then negotiated on behalf of the United States, with his current lawyers, including his former White House counsel, to reach a 'settlement.' It is risible to suggest that there was ever adverseness between the parties."
“Even the fund amount—$1.776 billion—speaks of a ‘branding’ effort rather than a deliberate and thoughtful calculation of damages,” the judge added.
A spokesperson for Trump's legal team responded to Monday's order in a statement asserting that “the IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically motivated employee to leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to The New York Times, ProPublica, and other left-wing news outlets, which was then illegally released to millions of people."
"President Trump continues to hold those who wrong America and Americans accountable," the statement added.
Defenders of the rule of law welcomed Monday's ruling, with Robert Weissman and Lisa Gilbert, co-presidents of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, taking a swipe at Trump's "brilliant idea of suing the government he runs and resolving the lawsuit with the creation of an illegal and unconstitutional nearly $1.8 billion slush fund, paid for at taxpayer expense and likely to be distributed to January 6 insurrectionists, among others, as well with as an immunity deal protecting Trump and his family from IRS investigation."
"Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was a willing participant in this fraud on the court and the American people," the pair added. “If the Senate needed an additional reason not to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, it just got it.”
"With this lawsuit, California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets," said Attorney General Rob Bonta. "America has no kings in government or our economy.”
In filing an antitrust lawsuit against Paramount Skydance over its proposed $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, 12 state attorneys general on Monday deployed a legal tactic successfully used in 2022 to block another megamerger pushed by book publisher Simon & Schuster.
States including California, New York, Colorado, and Washington argued in the lawsuit that should the merger be approved, just one massive corporation would control more than 30% of anticipated top-grossing blockbuster films with large budgets and audiences, while just four distributors—Paramount, Disney, Universal, and Sony—would control more than 90% of those films.
In 2022, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) argued successfully that Simon & Schuster's proposed acquisition of Penguin Random House would harm competition among book publishers as they vied for the rights to books anticipated to be bestsellers.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the coalition of states in the biggest legal challenge against the merger thus far, said that "the unlawful merger of these two entertainment behemoths would lead to higher prices, lower quality, and less content for film and television, harming movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and ultimately, audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the US."
The lawsuit also argues that after the proposed merger, just three distribution companies would control 75% of wide-release theatrical films and 27% of the market in licensing for basic cable television channels.
The merger, said the attorneys general in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which bars business mergers and acquisitions that substantially lessen competition or create a monopoly.
"In this country, no one is above the law," said Bonta. "With this lawsuit, California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets. America has no kings in government or our economy.”
New York Mayor Zohran Mamadani expressed pride that his state was fighting the deal, which he said "is not a merger that serves the public."
The media advocacy group Free Press emphasized that along with reducing competition among film distribution companies, the merger would create a "media colossus" that would also include control over CBS—taken over by Skydance Media CEO David Ellison last year after his company merged with Paramount—and CNN.
The merger would give tech mogul Larry Ellison and his family—allies of President Donald Trump's administration—"the power to shape public discourse at the president’s direction in exchange for the administration’s regulatory approval," said Free Press. "That’s why administration officials like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have openly rooted for the Ellisons to obtain CNN, based on their documented promises to make 'sweeping changes' to the network to please Trump."
Following the Ellisons' takeover of CBS, the leadership of newly appointed right-wing editor-in-chief Bari Weiss has been condemned by First Amendment advocates as Weiss has sought to remake CBS News—spiking a "60 Minutes" segment on Trump's mass deportations and firing the leadership of the flagship investigative news show.
“President Trump and his cronies want to rush this anti-competitive deal through because David Ellison has demonstrated time and again that he will leverage his control of his media empire to silence Trump’s critics and amplify MAGA propaganda," said Free Press co-CEO Jessica González, thanking the state attorneys general for their legal challenge. "That’s corruption, plain and simple. Any merger of this scale would diminish creativity and diversity in entertainment, weaken journalists’ ability to hold those in power accountable, and further endanger our democracy."
"This is especially true when the Ellisons are in charge," said González. "To win approval for their takeover of CBS News, the Ellisons promised to gut hard-hitting reporting across the network—and have gleefully followed through. And they’ll do the same to undermine editorial independence at CNN if they gain control of the global news network."
Although Paramount's proposed merger has already been approved by 20 countries and regions globally, and Trump's DOJ claimed the creation of an even larger media empire was "not likely to harm competition or American consumer,” regulators in the United Kingdom and the European Union have leaned toward looking more closely at the deal. The lawsuit, said González, "means that this corrupt merger is far from a done deal."
"While the administration won’t take a stand against the president’s billionaire cronies, we can still stop the Ellisons’ power grab," said González. "While Paramount is flaunting its corruption and toasting Trump officials, we’re standing with the workers and artists at the heart of the news and entertainment industries—and with the American people, who deserve a diverse and independent media system that works on their behalf, and against the self-interest of greedy billionaires and unethical politicians.”
The lawsuit also followed a series of town halls held in Los Angeles, New York, and Atlanta by the American Economic Liberties Project, titled "Main Street vs. the Merger." Anti-monopoly advocates heard from entertainment workers, small business owners, and others who would be impacted by the Paramount-Warner Bros. deal.
Comedian Adam Conover warned at one town hall that the merger would lead to higher streaming prices, and writers and other media workers shared fears that the deal would lead to mass layoffs.
"I spent the last month meeting with the workers and business owners who’d be hit with this deal,” said Alvaro Bedoya, senior adviser at American Economic Liberties Project, on Monday. “The rich guys who run Paramount can say what they want, but the people who actually work for them know that this will kill jobs and screw over the small businesses that are the lifeblood of this industry. I hope the states win and win fast, because these people need it.”
Lawsuits challenging mergers typically take at least several months and up to a year to be decided by a judge, and the states are asking the companies to freeze the proposed merger deal—which was set to close in the third quarter of 2026—which the case is being adjudicated. California also said it would seek a temporary restraining order if the companies did not agree to pause the deal.
Paramount has agreed to pay Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders $650 million for each quarter the deal isn't finalized, starting in October.
“This illegal merger would mean layoffs for artists and workers, higher prices for consumers, and the death of Hollywood,” said Matt Stoller, research director at American Economic Liberties Project. “State enforcers have done the right thing in seeking to block it. It is time to stop oligarchs from strip-mining our culture and selling America off for parts. Blocking this megamerger is the first step in doing so.”
Just weeks after Trump's secretary of state admitted that "no country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway," the president demanded 20%, far higher than the 1-2% sought by Iran.
The Iranian foreign minister on Monday mocked President Donald Trump's announcement that he was renewing the US blockade of Iran and that he expected a 20% fee from commercial vessels for "guarding" the key waterway.
"POTUS is absolutely right," the minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, wrote on social media. "Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service."
"Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER," he added. "20% is of course too much. We will be fair."
Trump had called in to "Fox & Friends" on Monday. He said on-air that the United States would be "the guardian angel of the strait" and "we're gonna get paid for guarding it."
Later Monday morning, he had written on Truth Social that "the U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as ‘THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,’ but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World."
Critics and experts have highlighted that Trump's 20% toll is far higher than the 1-2% sought by Iran, and warned that Trump had perhaps unintentionally bolstered Iran's case for imposing its own fee on ships in the strait.
Others have pointed out that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told journalists just a few weeks ago that "no country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. That's existing international law. That's the way it is in international waterways all over the world, and that's the way we expect it'll be here. So I don't think we have anybody to convince around here in that regard. I think all the countries in this region would agree with us."