

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.

Jennifer K. Falcon, jennifer@ienearth.org
The 15th session of the Conference of Parties (COP15) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) concluded in the early hours on Monday, December 19th with the adoption of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), known as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The UNCBD is a multilateral treaty with three core goals, "the conservation of biological diversity; the sustainable use of its components; and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources." Additionally, the post-2020 GBF defines targets for biodiversity conservation for the next decade, and with nearly 200 Parties and an estimated 15,000 attendees present for the biodiversity summit, there were various obstacles and points of tension that Parties did not agree on.
Although the framework includes 20 references to Indigenous Peoples, and some references to our rights including the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), human rights, and the rights of Mother Earth, COP15 prioritized the expansion of false solutions, harmful instruments, and the financialization of Mother Earth over the true protection of biodiversity. In section C, Considerations for the implementation of the framework, made reference to rights of nature and the rights of Mother Earth as being an integral part of its successful implementation. While rights of Mother Earth are aligned with Indigenous Peoples' worldviews and part of our own stewardship practices, these references are nothing more than recommendations for Parties and there remains a gap in implementation.
Of the 23 Targets in the framework, seven targets included references to Indigenous Peoples. Traditional [Indigenous] Knowledge was also referenced ten times and Free, Prior and Informed Consent was referenced twice. However, the concerns for implementation despite these references are apparent in Target 21, where the text states, "...traditional knowledge, innovations, practices, and technologies of Indigenous Peoples and local communities should only be accessed with their free, prior and informed consent [FPIC], in accordance with national legislation." Ultimately, this means that FPIC is contingent on whether that Party recognizes the rights of Indigenous Peoples and that it is subject to national legislation first and foremost.
Prominent on COP15's agenda also included new financial instruments tied to Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) and foregin debt, the expansion of nature-based solutions (NBS), including biodiversity offsets through the framework, as well as digital sequencing information (DSI) and the expansion of geoengineering technologies. The final text of COP15, the post-2020 GBF, includes a range of false solutions that cater to private finance. These false solutions include NBS, the financialization and commodification of nature, geoengineering, and offsetting schemes as well as genetic engineering in the forms of synthetic biology and gene drives. By continuing to promote and proliferate these false solutions, the framework subordinates the sacredness of Mother Earth, her web of life, to the chains of the markets, capitalism and the growth of the corporate dominated systems. The passage of this framework does not question the viability of a global economy whose jurisprudence places property rights above all, and a system that prioritizes private interests over Indigenous and human rights.
Finance was another major theme at COP15, including discussions on banking, insurance, and hosting the first ever 'Finance and Biodiversity Day' at the global biodiversity summit. Private interests pushed to establish a uniform system of standards and metrics for measuring 'natural capital', which includes biodiversity, as well as to create a new type of 'biodiversity credits' to be harmonized with other carbon markets in the future. Not only are these efforts pushing for the more swift and aggressive commodification of Mother Earth, but are also paving the way for debt-for-nature swaps, in which countries in debt, mostly in the Global South, would pay off debt by handing over their biodiversity to banks.
Debt for nature is a dangerous concept that threatens the sovereignty and tenure of Indigenous Peoples, and prevents developing nations from attaining economic power. The inclusion of private and financial sectors has culminated so far into profit-driven frameworks that are antithetical to natural law. Biodiversity is not a metric, nor translates into shareholder gains and financial market reporting. To attach ownership and price tags on the natural resources that maintain the balance of earth's systems that sustain all life further commodifies Mother Earth and does not address the true threats to biodiversity loss, rather is an expansion of false solutions.
Moreover, Target 3 in the post-2020 GBF sets out a 30x30 goal, to conserve 30 percent of the world's lands and 30 percent of the world's waters for biodiversity conservation. While Parties and private interests acknowledge that Indigenous Peoples have a unique and crucial role in preserving biodiversity, there remains a gap for ensuring the protection of Indigenous Peoples' sovereignty over their lands on Target 3, that goes beyond just mere recognition and respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples over their territories. In achieving Target 3, there has been an aggressive push to include market-based approaches and in terms of implementation, there is a real risk and threat to ensuring Indigenous Peoples' rights over their lands, waters, and territories are upheld, which includes the implementation of their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) to engage on this conservation target.
IEN's Carbon Policy Educator, Thomas Joseph, shares his concerns regarding Target 3 in the framework, "The ratification of Target 3, which focuses on the implementation of the global 30x30 initiative, is nothing more than manifest destiny in the 21st century. This will lead to the largest land and resource grab of Indigenous Peoples' territories since westward expansion. The Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework guarantees a continuation of the commodification of our Mother Earth using market based mechanisms like nature-based solutions and carbon trading. Our relationship with our Mother Earth must change and we cannot use market approaches or colonial tactics to preserve the remaining biodiversity."
Another key vehicle in achieving targets outlined in the GBF are nature-based solutions (NBS). However, the discussions at COP15 fixated on how to financialize nature and co-opt Traditional Indigenous Knowledge. While Parties might highlight the role of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the implementation of NBS projects, they perpetually disregard and downplay the risks of human rights violations, land and resource grabs, and the unintended negative impacts of associated climate and biodiversity projects led by the private sector.
Furthermore, digital sequencing information (DSI) was another focal point at COP15. This included interventions related to the access to information derived from genetic resources and the altering of genes in the name of preserving biodiversity. At COP15, technical and policy information around DSI was intentionally hidden and obscured from Indigenous Peoples. DSI is not only dangerous because of its potentially destructive and irreversible ecological impacts, but particularly for Indigenous Peoples because it is a way for governments and private industry to extract, commodify, and monetize Traditional Indigenous Knowledge. Likewise, DSI poses the risk of restricting Indigenous Peoples' benefits or use of their own genetic resources. Indigenous Peoples' communities and lands have already become testing sites for new, risky technologies without their Free, Prior and Informed Consent.
IEN's Executive Director, Tom BK Goldtooth shares his reflections on this year's global biodiversity summit, "The outcome of the UNCBD COP15 leaves Mother Earth open to be bought and sold by the private sector and through carbon trading. Violating Traditional Indigenous Knowledge, the agreement embraces the risky and dangerous gene drive extinction technology. Indigenous Peoples are not safe from this new agreement. Rather, we stand at more of a risk of being forced into a capitalist system that demands the expansion of the destruction of Mother Earth in order to continue its continuous growth. We are at a point of no return to stop biodiversity loss and climate change, and it is clear that the UNCBD and UNFCCC are not the platforms to deliver the frameworks that will prevent a global catastrophe."
All in all, COP15 prioritized the continued commodification and exploitation of Mother Earth over finalizing a global framework that upholds Indigenous and human rights. Private interests paired with developed countries pushed for false solutions that put profit over biodiversity protection, yet again let those who are driving immense biodiversity loss off the hook, leaving those on the frontlines without adequate resources or protection to continue to protect the remaining biodiversity on Mother Earth. Stay tuned for Indigenous Environmental Network's full analysis of the outcomes of COP15 in early 2023.
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.
"The billions in funding in this bill will only embolden ICE and CBP to continue arresting our neighbors—immigrant and US citizen alike," warned one ACLU attorney.
Seven Democrats in the US House of Representatives voted with nearly all Republicans on Thursday to pass a Department of Homeland Security funding bill despite growing calls from across the country for Congress to rein in the Trump administration's deadly immigration operations, which are led by DHS agents.
Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Laura Gillen (NY), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), and Tom Suozzi (NY) joined all Republicans but Rep. Thomas Massie (KY) for the 220-207 vote that sent the legislation to the Senate—where the GOP also has a majority, but it's so narrow that most bills need some Democratic support to pass.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) notably refused to pressure members of his caucus to oppose the bill, even though voters clearly oppose federal operations featuring violence and lawlessness by agents with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) everywhere from California and Illinois, to Minnesota and Maine.
Jeffries and other Democratic leaders have faced growing public pressure to use a rapidly approaching deadline—if Congress doesn't pass legislation by January 30, the federal government shuts down again—to freeze ICE funding. The bill that advanced out of the House on Thursday would give ICE $10 billion and CBP $18.3 billion.
"I just voted HELL NO to giving ICE a single penny," declared Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), who's part of the progressive Squad. "Congress should not be funding an agency that has terrorized our communities, kidnapped our neighbors, and killed people on the street with impunity. We must abolish ICE and end qualified immunity for ICE agents NOW."
Two weeks ago, ICE officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Good, a 37-year-old US citizen and mother of three, in the Twin Cities, where President Donald Trump has sent thousands of federal agents. Videos, eyewitness accounts, analyses of the shooting, and an independent autopsy have fueled calls for Ross' arrest and prosecution.
Squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), whose district includes Minneapolis, said ahead of the vote: "Deporting children with cancer. Using a 5-year-old as bait. Shooting moms. ICE is beyond reform. And today the House is voting to bankroll more terror. Hell no."
Another Squad member, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), said: "DHS is using our tax dollars to terrorize our neighbors and detain 5-year-olds. It's shameful. ICE must be abolished. Kristi Noem must be impeached. And not one more penny should go to this rogue agency."
The entire Congressional Progressive Caucus opposed the bill. CPC Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said in a video posted to social media after the vote that "this mass deportation machine is out of control: detaining and deporting US citizens and veterans, arresting little kids, ripping up families, killing innocent people. It's got to stop."
"Our taxpayer money does not need to got to Donald Trump's out-of-control mass deportation machine," Casar added. "We should be sending it to our schools and to childcare, and to bringing down the cost of living for everyday people."
MoveOn Civic Action spokesperson Britt Jacovich said in a Thursday statement that "Americans want healthcare and lower costs, not masked ICE agents kidnapping kids from playgrounds and schools. The House just failed their latest test to hold Trump and his dangerous ICE street gang accountable for killing innocent people like Renee Nicole Good and many others. Senate Democrats need to step up for the American people and block any funding bill that gives another dime for ICE to abduct 5-year olds and kill citizens."
Kate Voigt, senior policy counsel at the ACLU—which has been involved in multiple lawsuits over recent DHS operations—similarly stressed that "the House vote in favor of excessive funding for ICE with no meaningful accountability measures is wildly out of touch with polling that shows the majority of voters oppose ICE and Border Patrol's attacks on our communities."
"The bill fails to rein in ICE and Border Patrol at a time when they are engaged in an unprecedented assault on our rights, safety, and democratic way of life," she continued. "The billions in funding in this bill will only embolden ICE and CBP to continue arresting our neighbors—immigrant and US citizen alike—no matter the costs to our communities, economy, and integrity of our Constitution.
"While the House narrowly passed this bill, we thank the members of Congress who held the line and voted against this harmful legislation," Voigt added. "Now we need our senators to hold firm and refuse to be complicit in fueling ICE's reckless abuses in our communities."
Every representative who voted yes voted for more brutalization of our neighbors, more kidnapping of our children, more trampling of our rights, and more murder from this government.
[image or embed]
— Indivisible ❌👑 (@indivisible.org) January 22, 2026 at 6:53 PM
The group Indivisible emphasized that "the House had an opportunity to impose meaningful restrictions on ICE and it failed. As the regime terrorizes our communities with masked federal agents and unchecked violence, Congress stood quietly by and passed a DHS funding bill that continues to funnel taxpayer dollars into ICE's slush fund."
"Passing this bill without any meaningful check on this lawless agency is beyond the pale," Indivisible added. "In an egregious failure of leadership, House Democratic 'leaders' personally opposed the bill while declining to whip against it."
The DHS legislation advanced alongside a three-bill appropriations package, which passed by a vote of 341-88. According to the Hill: "The House will combine the four bills with a two-bill minibus it passed last week and send the full package to the Senate. The upper chamber is expected to take up the bills when it returns from recess next week ahead of a January 30 deadline."
"The maniac in the White House does not have the authority to bomb and invade anywhere he wants across the globe," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "Congress must put an end to this."
The latest in a series of congressional efforts to rein in President Donald Trump's military aggression against Venezuela failed Thursday as Republican lawmakers again defeated a war powers resolution by the tightest possible margin.
House lawmakers voted 215-215 on H.Con.Res.68—introduced last month by Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.)—which "directs the president to remove US armed forces from Venezuela unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force for such purpose has been enacted."
Unlike in the Senate, where the vice president casts tie-breaking votes, a deadlock in the House means the legislation does not pass.
Every House Democrat and two Republicans—Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted in favor of the measure. Every other Republican voted against it. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) did not vote.
The House vote came a week after Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote was needed to overcome a 50-50 deadlock on a similar resolution introduced last month by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—was enacted during the Nixon administration toward the end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The law empowers Congress to check the president’s war-making authority by requiring the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours. It also mandates that lawmakers approve any troop deployments lasting longer than 60 days.
Thursday's vote followed this month's US bombing and invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife on dubious "narco-terrorism" and drug trafficking allegations. Trump has also imposed an oil blockade on the South American nation, seizing seven tankers. Since September, the US has also been bombing boats accused of transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
"If the president is contemplating further military action, then he has a moral and constitutional obligation to come here and get our approval," McGovern said following the vote.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (D-NY) lamented the resolution's failure, saying, "The American people want us to lower their cost of living, not enable war."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said on Bluesky: "Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Today, I voted for a war powers resolution to ensure Trump cannot send OUR armed forces to Venezuela without explicit authorization from Congress."
Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy adviser at the advocacy group Demand Progress, also decried the resolution's failure.
“We are deeply disappointed that the House did not pass this war powers resolution, though it's notable that it failed only due to a tie," he said.
"As with the recent Senate vote, the administration expended extraordinary energy pressuring Republicans to block this resolution," Kharrazian added. "That effort speaks for itself: With the American people tired of endless war, the administration knows that a Congress willing to enforce the law can meaningfully curtail illegal and escalatory military action. We urge members of Congress to continue fully exercising their constitutional authority over matters of war.”
"Let him talk," said one observer of the vice president. "He's his own iceberg."
US Vice President JD Vance left observers scratching their heads Thursday after he touted the Trump administration's economic policies by comparing them to the doomed ocean liner Titanic.
Speaking at an event in Toledo in his home state of Ohio under a banner reading, "Lower Prices, Bigger Paychecks," Vance addressed the worsening affordability crisis by once again blaming former Democratic President Joe Biden—who left office a year ago—for the problem.
“The Democrats talk a lot about the affordability crisis in the United States of America. And yes, there is an affordability crisis—one created by Joe Biden’s policies,” Vance said. “You don’t turn the Titanic around overnight. It takes time to fix what was broken.”
Responding to Vance's remarks, writer and activist Jordan Uhl said on X, "The Titanic, a ship that famously turned around."
Other social media users piled on Vance, with one Bluesky account posting: "Let him talk. He's his own iceberg."
Podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen asked on X, "Does he know what happened to the Titanic?"
One popular X account said, "At least he's admitting what ship we're on."
In an allusion to the Titanic's demise and the Trump administration's deadly Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown, another Bluesky user quipped, "Ice was the villain of that story too."
Puns aside, statistics and public sentiment show that Trump has utterly failed to tackle the affordability crisis. The high price of groceries—a central theme of Trump's 2024 campaign—keeps getting higher. And despite Trump's claim to have defeated inflation, a congressional report published this week revealed that the average American family paid $1,625 in higher overall costs last year amid tariff turmoil, soaring healthcare costs, and overall policies that favor the rich and corporations over working people.
A New York Times/Siena College poll released Thursday found that 49% of respondents believe the country is generally worse off today than it was when Biden left office a year ago, while only 32% said the nation is better off and 19% said things are about the same. A majority of respondents also said they disapprove of how Trump is handling the cost of living (64%) and the economy (58%).
"You know, a thing about a phrase like 'lower prices, bigger paychecks' is that you can't actually fool people into thinking that you've delivered these things if they can look at their own bank account and see it's not true," Current Affairs editor Nathan J. Robinson wrote on X.
"I know the Trump administration's standard strategy is to just make up an alternate reality and aggressively insist that anyone who doesn't believe in it is a domestic terrorist," Robinson added, "but personal finances are really an area where that doesn't work."