

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.

Cassidy DiPaola, cassidy@fossilfree.media
No matter the outcome of the midterm elections on Tuesday night, President Biden will need to follow through on a bold course of executive actions in order to meet his own climate commitments and fulfill unmet promises on environmental justice and limiting fossil fuel development.
"During his first two years in office, President Biden failed to use his full executive powers to address the climate crisis and protect our communities from the ravages of fossil fuels," said People Vs. Fossil Fuels, a coalition of over 1,200 grassroots, frontline and national organizations in a statement released ahead of Tuesday's election. "It's past time for President Biden to declare a climate emergency and block the federal approval of all new fossil fuel projects that are threatening our climate and communities."
Since before President Biden took office, People vs. Fossil Fuels has been pushing him to use his extensive executive powers to address the climate crisis and fossil fuel pollution that is poisoning people across the country, especially working families and Black, Brown, Indigenous, people of the global majority.
While the Biden Administration has taken actions to boost the growth of clean energy, they have done little to directly address the production, export, and burning of fossil fuels, the most significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and a significant source of local pollution. If anything, the administration has gone backwards: failing to fulfill a promise to ban fossil fuel development on public lands, failing to stop controversial projects like the Line 3 pipeline, encouraging the growth of fossil fuel exports, and allowing for massive industry handouts in the Inflation Reduction Act that passed through Congress.
"Environmental Justice communities have experienced a long history of health disparities for generations stemming from the disproportionate burden of fossil fuel pollution and polluting infrastructure. Not only do fossil fuels cause land, water, and air damage but they also create a health and safety hazard in Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities where they are overwhelmingly sited and the workers who maintain them. Enough is enough. Our elected officials have failed us time after time by continually saying yes to industry. It's time we take our power back. It's time we get folks in office who care about people," said Roishetta Ozane, Organizing Director, Healthy Gulf.
These failures on fossil fuels aren't just a policy concern: they're costing lives. Last year, a study from Harvard University and others concluded that 1 in 5 deaths worldwide are caused by fossil fuel air pollution. This includes nearly 350,000 Americans every year, with the impacts concentrated in low-income and Black, Brown, Indigenous, people of the global majority communities.
Many environmental justice, frontline, and Indigenous organizations have been frustrated not only by the administration's lack of action, but their willingness to even meet with the communities most impacted by climate change, fossil fuels, and their own policy decisions.
In October 2021, People vs. Fossil Fuels mobilized over a thousand people from frontline communities across the United States to come to Washington, D.C. and engage in civil disobedience to pressure President Biden to act. In September 2022, the coalition mobilized again to successfully stop Senator Manchin's dirty deal which would have fast tracked dangerous fossil fuel projects, including the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
Below are additional quotes from leading climate and environmental justice organizations within People vs. Fossil Fuels:
"As I fight alongside frontline organizers across the country to stop all new fossil fuel projects and ensure a livable future, it's clear to me how strong we are when we are united. President Biden should take note of this and join us. He can start by declaring a climate emergency," Russell Chisholm, Mountain Valley Watch Coordinator.
"For 500 years, Indigenous people of the Americas have been ignored about the ongoing genocide and ecocide we have allowed to be committed by our world leaders. Biden and his administration has been anything but 'bold' in our climate crisis -- meanwhile, sacrifice zones of millions of Americans have been the ones to pay for his cowardice. Stick to your promises President Biden, or a new age of Indigenous leadership will remind you yet again who's land you are on." Tasina Sapa Win, Cheyenne River Grassroots Collective
"The Arctic is warming at an estimated 4 to 5 times faster than the rest of the world, which is exponentially faster than previously predicted, making it ground zero for climate change. Alaska Natives experience the impacts of catastrophic climate change first hand, along with many other Black and Indigenous people worldwide. President Biden and world leaders have a responsibility to keep our people safe and ensure a healthy world for future generations. The time is now to declare a climate emergency, stop all fossil fuel extraction, and allow for a just transition into renewable energy. Stop the Willow Project and all fossil fuel projects." Sonia Ahkivgak, Social Outreach Coordinator, Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic
"Indigenous communities turned out to vote for Biden because we needed immediate climate action and he has failed to offer any meaningful leadership. Instead he has allowed big oil to continue to make windfall profits and make Indigenous communities sacrifice zones and ignored our sovereignty to give oil and gas access to destroy the water, land and air quality in our communities. We have passed the point of keeping warming to 1.5C and we will see much heartache and devastation from climate chaos in the years ahead. No matter how the elections turnout, he has the executive power to take immediate action and we will keep pushing him to put politics aside and do what's right for all of humanity." Ikiya Collective
"Communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis and environmental racism turned out in droves to elect Biden on the promise that he'd deliver swift climate action. But two years into his presidency, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and other fossil fuel companies posted windfall profits, while communities across the country and Global South endured record heat waves, devastating floods, and other climate change fueled disasters. Regardless of the midterm results, we need Biden to exercise executive power and end the era of fossil fuel greed!" Erika Thi Patterson, Campaign Director, Action Center on Race and the Economy
Fossil Free Media is a nonprofit media lab that supports the movement to end fossil fuels and address the climate emergency.
"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."