

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.

Sophie Richmond, srichmond [at] climatenetwork.org
Bronwen Tucker, bronwen [at] priceofoil.org
Shaye Skiff, kskiff [at[ foe.org
Climate change organizations under the Big Shift Coalition have called on the World Bank to fire its President David Malpass. In a panel discussion at a New York Times event yesterday, Malpass refused to back climate science and was labeled a "climate denier" by former US Vice President Al Gore.
Climate change organizations under the Big Shift Coalition have called on the World Bank to fire its President David Malpass. In a panel discussion at a New York Times event yesterday, Malpass refused to back climate science and was labeled a "climate denier" by former US Vice President Al Gore. Malpass was asked three times to state whether he believed man-made fossil fuel emissions contributed to climate change and after trying to evade the questions multiple times, ultimately answered with: "I am not a scientist".
Last year, over 70 groups from around the world sent a letter to World Bank Governors and Executive Directors calling on David Malpass to be fired over his failure on climate action. A staffer at the World Bank wrote in a scathing opinion piece that Malpass "has neither the vision nor credibility to make the World Bank a climate leader". The climate adviser to the UN Secretary General singled out the World Bank for "underperforming on climate". Al Gore said in an interview to the Financial Times that the WB is "missing in action" and "needs new climate leadership". According to insider reports reviewed by the Financial Times, Malpass played a direct role in blocking the ambition of the joint MDB announcement on climate finance at COP26.
Notes:
Member groups of the Big Shift Coalition issued the following quotes in response:
Bronwen Tucker of Oil Change International: "The World Bank Group still funds more fossil fuels than any other MDB, and they continue to lock Global South countries into expensive and volatile fossil fuel contracts through their heavy-handed policy lending programs. Now we know why. With Malpass at the top, the World Bank Group cannot be trusted as a partner in sustainable development."
Dean Bhekumuzi Bhebhe of Power Shift Africa: "The investments by the World Bank in Africa continue to fuel the impacts of the climate crisis experienced by communities across the continent. There is no time for climate denialism. The World Bank must act now to end all fossil fuel finance and invest in sustainable, renewable energy for all. It is critical Africa attracts increased investments to leapfrog dirty energy and become a green leader and not just a victim of the climate emergency."
"The World Bank must not be led by a climate denier and President Biden should call on the Bank's Board to fire him immediately," said Luisa Galvao of Friends of the Earth US. "The ancient agreement where the United States nominates Bank Presidents also needs to end. We need democratic and globally equitable governance."
Fran Witt of Recourse: "Our partners around the world are suffering the catastrophic results of climate change". "Scientists agree that climate change has been caused by the unfettered burning of fossil fuels, and it is universally agreed that climate action means dramatically cutting carbon emissions. But the World Bank Group cannot align its portfolio with the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global warming below 1.5C with a climate change denier at its helm! Malpass must go!"
Sonia Dunlop, Programme Lead on MDBs and Public Banks and climate change think tank E3G: "This is a step too far. It is time for the White House and governments all over the world to think hard as to who they want at the helm of the World Bank. The World Bank is critical to the global fight against climate change. You don't need to be a scientist to understand climate science. The facts are clear, and there's no alternative but to act."
Tasneem Essop, Executive Director, Climate Action Network: "A self-pronounced climate denier at the helm of the World Bank at this stage of the climate emergency is inexcusable! The World Bank continues to use public money to finance fossil fuel projects in Global South countries where people are already suffering the worst impacts of climate change. For the World Bank to maintain any shred of decency Malpass cannot remain as President."
Heike Mainhardt, Senior Advisor with Urgewald: "Given Malpass' climate crisis denial stance, it is no wonder the World Bank provides more finance, tax breaks, and higher tariffs to benefit fossil fuels than any other public development bank. We stand with UN leadership and call on the World Bank's shareholders to step in - to stop the World Bank's public funding of fossil fuels."
Elaine Zuckerman, Gender Action: "While civil society pressured the World Bank to acknowledge climate change's harmful impacts on all humanity including its non-uniform gender, geographical and class differences, eliminate direct but not indirect fossil-fuel financing and fund some renewable energy projects, Malpass's persistent denial that climate change is manmade undermines saving our planet from climate destruction."
David Ryfisch, Team Leader for International Climate Policy at Germanwatch: We urgently need more climate action by the World Bank. This can only happen if the leadership is on board. This is clearly not the case. There is no time to convince president Malpass of climate science, if he hasn't understood it by now. Shareholders - including Germany - have to make it clear that denying man-made climate change is unacceptable for the president of the World Bank.
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029"The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President Trump’s largest donors,” the lawmakers wrote.
A group of 31 Democratic senators has launched an investigation into a new Trump administration policy that they say allows the Environmental Protection Agency to "disregard" the health impacts of air pollution when passing regulations.
Plans for the policy were first reported on last month by the New York Times, which revealed that the EPA was planning to stop tallying the financial value of health benefits caused by limiting fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone when regulating polluting industries and instead focus exclusively on the costs these regulations pose to industry.
On December 11, the Times reported that the policy change was being justified based on the claim that the exact benefits of curbing these emissions were “uncertain."
"Historically, the EPA’s analytical practices often provided the public with false precision and confidence regarding the monetized impacts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone," said an email written by an EPA supervisor to his employees on December 11. “To rectify this error, the EPA is no longer monetizing benefits from PM2.5 and ozone.”
The group of senators, led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), rebuked this idea in a letter sent Thursday to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
"EPA’s new policy is irrational. Even where health benefits are 'uncertain,' what is certain is that they are not zero," they said. "It will lead to perverse outcomes in which EPA will reject actions that would impose relatively minor costs on polluting industries while resulting in massive benefits to public health—including in saved lives."
"It is contrary to Congress’s intent and directive as spelled out in the Clean Air Act. It is legally flawed," they continued. "The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President [Donald] Trump’s largest donors."
Research published in 2023 in the journal Science found that between 1999 and 2020, PM2.5 pollution from coal-fired power plants killed roughly 460,000 people in the United States, making it more than twice as deadly as other kinds of fine particulate emissions.
While this is a staggering loss of life, the senators pointed out that the EPA has also been able to put a dollar value on the loss by noting quantifiable results of increased illness and death—heightened healthcare costs, missed school days, and lost labor productivity, among others.
Pointing to EPA estimates from 2024, they said that by disregarding human health effects, the agency risks costing Americans “between $22 and $46 billion in avoided morbidities and premature deaths in the year 2032."
Comparatively, they said, “the total compliance cost to industry, meanwhile, [would] be $590 million—between one and two one-hundredths of the estimated health benefit value."
They said the plan ran counter to the Clean Air Act's directive to “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare,” and to statements made by Zeldin during his confirmation hearing, where he said "the end state of all the conversations that we might have, any regulations that might get passed, any laws that might get passed by Congress” is to “have the cleanest, healthiest air, [and] drinking water.”
The senators requested all documents related to the decision, including any information about cost-benefit modeling and communications with industry representatives.
"That EPA may no longer monetize health benefits when setting new clean air standards does not mean that those health benefits don’t exist," the senators said. "It just means that [EPA] will ignore them and reject safer standards, in favor of protecting corporate interests."
"An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down," wrote the New Republic's editorial director.
Democratic voters overwhelmingly want a leader who will fight the superrich and corporate America, and they believe Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the person to do it, according to a poll released this week.
While Democrats are often portrayed as squabbling and directionless, the poll conducted last month by the New Republic with Embold Research demonstrated a remarkable unity among the more than 2,400 Democratic voters it surveyed.
This was true with respect to policy: More than 9 in 10 want to raise taxes on corporations and on the wealthiest Americans, while more than three-quarters want to break up tech monopolies and believe the government should conduct stronger oversight of business.
But it was also reflected in sentiments that a more confrontational governing philosophy should prevail and general agreement that the party in its current form is not doing enough to take on its enemies.
Three-quarters said they wanted Democrats to "be more aggressive in calling out Republicans," while nearly 7 in 10 said it was appropriate to describe their party as "weak."
This appears to have translated to support for a more muscular view of government. Where the label once helped to sink Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) two runs for president, nearly three-quarters of Democrats now say they are either unconcerned with the label of "socialist" or view it as an asset.
Meanwhile, 46% said they want to see a "progressive" at the top of the Democratic ticket in 2028, higher than the number who said they wanted a "liberal" or a "moderate."
It's an environment that appears to be fertile ground for Ocasio-Cortez, who pitched her vision for a "working-class-centered politics" at this week's Munich summit in what many suspected was a soft-launch of her presidential candidacy in 2028.
With 85% favorability, Bronx congresswoman had the highest approval rating of any Democratic figure in the country among the voters surveyed.
It's a higher mark than either of the figures who head-to-head polls have shown to be presumptive favorites for the nomination: Former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Early polls show AOC lagging considerably behind these top two. However, there are signs in the New Republic's poll that may give her supporters cause for hope.
While Harris is also well-liked, 66% of Democrats surveyed said they believe she's "had her shot" at the presidency and should not run again after losing to President Donald Trump in 2024.
Newsom does not have a similar electoral history holding him back and is riding high from the passage of Proposition 50, which will allow Democrats to add potentially five more US House seats this November.
But his policy approach may prove an ill fit at a time when Democrats overwhelmingly say their party is "too timid" about taxing the rich and corporations and taking on tech oligarchs.
As labor unions in California have pushed for a popular proposal to introduce a billionaire's tax, Newsom has made himself the chiseled face of the resistance to this idea, joining with right-wing Silicon Valley barons in an aggressive campaign to kill it.
While polls can tell us little two years out about what voters will do in 2028, New Republic editorial director Emily Cooke said her magazine's survey shows an unmistakable pattern.
"It’s impossible to come away from these results without concluding that economic populism is a winning message for loyal Democrats," she wrote. "This was true across those who identify as liberals, moderates, or progressives: An unmistakable majority wants a party that will fight harder against the corporations and rich people they see as responsible for keeping them down."
In some cases, the administration has kept immigrants locked up even after a judge has ordered their release, according to an investigation by Reuters.
Judges across the country have ruled more than 4,400 times since the start of October that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has illegally detained immigrants, according to a Reuters investigation published Saturday.
As President Donald Trump carries out his unprecedented "mass deportation" crusade, the number of people in ICE custody ballooned to 68,000 this month, up 75% from when he took office.
Midway through 2025, the administration had begun pushing for a daily quota of 3,000 arrests per day, with the goal of reaching 1 million per year. This has led to the targeting of mostly people with no criminal records rather than the "worst of the worst," as the administration often claims.
Reuters' reporting suggests chasing this number has also resulted in a staggering number of arrests that judges have later found to be illegal.
Since the beginning of Trump's term, immigrants have filed more than 20,200 habeas corpus petitions, claiming they were held indefinitely without trial in violation of the Constitution.
In at least 4,421 cases, more than 400 federal judges have ruled that their detentions were illegal.
Last month, more than 6,000 habeas petitions were filed. Prior to the second Trump administration, no other month dating back to 2010 had seen even 500.

In part due to the sheer volume of legal challenges, the Trump administration has often failed to comply with court rulings, leaving people locked up even after judges ordered them to be released.
Reuters' new report is the most comprehensive examination to date of the administration's routine violation of the law with respect to immigration enforcement. But the extent to which federal immigration agencies have violated the law under Trump is hardly new information.
In a ruling last month, Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the US District Court in Minnesota—a conservative jurist appointed by former President George W. Bush—provided a list of nearly 100 court orders ICE had violated just that month while deployed as part of Trump's Operation Metro Surge.
The report of ICE's systemic violation of the law comes as the agency faces heightened scrutiny on Capitol Hill, with leaders of the agency called to testify and Democrats attempting to hold up funding in order to force reforms to ICE's conduct, which resulted in a partial shutdown beginning Saturday.
Following the release of Reuters' report, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) directed a pointed question over social media to Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE.
"Why do your out-of-control agents keep violating federal law?" he said. "I look forward to seeing you testify under oath at the House Judiciary Committee in early March."