

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.

Tish O’Dell, CELDF Consulting Director: Tish@CELDF.org
Ben Price, CELDF Education Director: BenPrice@CELDF.org
About half of all waters in the United States are too polluted for swimming, fishing, or drinking.
That, according to advocates, is why we need the Great Lakes and State Waters Bill of Rights, a new law which was introduced into the New York legislature by Assemblyman Patrick Burke (District 142) on March 19th.
The bill, AO5156A, if passed, would be the first ever state-level “rights of nature” law in the United States. It would recognize “unalienable and fundamental rights to exist, persist, flourish, naturally evolve, regenerate and be restored” for the Great Lakes and other watersheds and ecosystems throughout the state.
Under the current system of law in almost every country, nature is considered to be property. Thus, those who “own” wetlands, forestland, and other ecosystems and natural communities, are largely permitted to use them however they wish, even if that includes destroying or polluting them..
According to the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, which kickstarted the rights of nature movement in the United States, rights of nature means recognizing that ecosystems and natural communities are not merely property that can be owned. Rather, they are entities that have an inherent and inalienable right to exist and flourish.
Today, April 22nd (Earth Day), advocates for the New York bill have been invited to the United Nations to address a high-level meeting on harmony with nature. Alongside New York State Assemblyman Patrick Burke, who introduced the bill last month, and other rights of nature supporters and advocates such as Movement Rights, Ben Price, Education Director for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), which drafted the bill, has also been invited to speak. The invitation was extended by the Plurinational State of Bolivia, which includes some protections for nature in its national constitution.
Besides playing a key role in drafting the New York bill, Price was instrumental to a 2006 rights of nature law passed in Tamaqua, Pennsylvania, which was the first time rights of nature were recognized in any western legal system. “Tamaqua didn’t even get statewide media attention, let alone national or international press,” Price says. “Yet it lit a fire and helped to inform Ecuador’s constitutional amendment of the rights of Pachamama (Mother Earth).”
Since 2006, more than 400 rights of nature initiatives have been introduced around the globe, with Latin America accounting for more than any other region.
Here in the United States, rights of nature has been an uphill battle, as courts have ruled previous laws illegal and even pursued financial penalties against communities and lawyers for pursuing it. According to CELDF Executive Director Kai Huschke, the political moment we find ourselves in calls for a willingness to be bold and challenge systems of law and power that aren’t working.
“Rights of nature would not be where it is today had people and communities followed unjust rules,” Huschke says. “We’ve made progress because of people taking risks, being disobedient, and taking action. That’s what we’re trying to facilitate with our current rights of nature work.”
It’s hard to swim against the current inside institutions — like government — that reward sticking with the status quo.
But Assemblyman Patrick Burke, who represents South Buffalo, the City of Lackawanna, and the towns of West Seneca, Ellicott, and Orchard Park, is willing to push these boundaries — especially given the dire state of our waterways.
“When I passed one of the nation’s first microplastic bans as an Erie County legislator, it was because our communities demanded more than environmental regulation, they demanded accountability,” Burke says. “I carry that same responsibility into my role as Chair of the Great Lakes Taskforce [in the New York State Assembly]. The Great Lakes & State Waters Bill of Rights is about restoring balance between people and the ecosystems we depend on, making sure future generations inherit more than just our mistakes.”
Across the region, support is growing for the New York bill.
“It’s a paradigm shift,” says Paul Winnie, a member of Tonawanda Seneca Nation who has been active in issues relating to tribal sovereignty, food, and environmental protection for many years. Winnie says that the bill represents an attempt to create a different way of relating to the natural world beyond extraction and exploitation. It’s something “that could combat the existing system to balance out corporate rights,” he says. “It’s trying to reignite that connection to nature.”
Anna Castonguay, Chair of the Western New York Environmental Alliance, also says that this bill would help bring some balance.
“We give legal personhood to corporations,” Castonguay says, “but have limited protections for the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land where we grow our food and live our lives on. The Great Lakes Bill of Rights would make it so that the health and vitality of the Earth and our communities is not an afterthought.”
Dr. Kirk Scirto, a primary care physician and public health specialist based in Buffalo, says that the bill is really about self-protection.
“Since we depend entirely on Nature for our survival, by destroying it throughout New York, we’re actually hurting ourselves,” Dr. Scirto says. “Striking at Nature is self-injury. This bill would allow communities to protect their rivers, creeks, lakes, and other ecosystems. It would allow each community to protect its water in its own way, without being overridden by state and federal government. Whether it’s a chemical company or a loud crypto mining center, it could allow communities to keep these polluters out if they choose. And it could be used to make corporations restore waters they’ve already polluted! So, it expands both community rights and Nature’s.”
Talking Rivers, an organization based in the St. Lawrence River / Kaniatarowanénhne and Adirondack Watersheds, wrote a memorandum of support for the bill, stating:
“At this critical juncture as it becomes apparent that the federal government is going to scale back, if not outright abandon, efforts to protect our environment, in particular our waters, it is vitally important that state and local governments step up in a major way. The Great Lakes and State Waters Bill of Rights is that major step forward.”
Carol De Angelo, the Director of the Office of Peace, Justice and Integrity of Creation at the Sisters of Charity New York, a Catholic religious organization, is another supporter of the bill.
“I am grateful that Representative Burke has introduced this bill,” De Angelo says. “Over the years as a Sister of Charity of New York and a longtime member of ROAR (Religious Organizations Along the River), my awareness and advocacy of the Hudson River and all God’s Creation have strengthened as I become more aware of the interconnectedness of all life.”
De Angelo’s belief in the importance of protecting the environment was reinforced by the late Pope Francis, who was the first Pope to address rights of nature and who passed away on April 20th.
“The 2015 encyclical, Laudato Si’ confirmed my belief and commitment,” De Angelo says. “In Laudato Si’ #139, Pope Francis says, ‘When we speak of the environment, what we really mean is a relationship existing between nature and the society which lives in it. Nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live. We are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it.’ This Bill, in recognizing the rights of nature, calls us to accountability and responsibility in creating a flourishing Earth Community for today’s children and future generations.”
Meanwhile, in Minnesota, an effort to protect a sacred and ecologically important plant — manoomin, more commonly known as wild rice — using a rights-based approach is underway. The Wild Rice Act was introduced by Senator Mary Kunesh, the first Indigenous woman to serve in the state senate, in February.
Leanna Goose, an enrolled member of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and co-author of the bill, says it is an attempt to recognize the inherent rights of non-human life forms.
“The issue at the core of the bill is the need to recognize and honor the living beings we share this Earth with,” Goose says. “They have an inherent right — separate from any right ‘assigned’ by humans — to exist and thrive, just as we do. In Anishinaabe culture, we understand that without all living beings we will cease to exist; our survival would not be possible. We show respect to our plant and animal kin, along with gratitude for this. This is what it means to recognize the inherent right of a living being. It is an invitation into a generational relationship of mutuality and whether we acknowledge it or not, that right exists. Recognizing it is a powerful first step toward fostering a deep respect for the Earth and all the living beings that call it home.”
The New York bill, like the Wild Rice Act in Minnesota, faces serious challenges going forward. In other rights of nature campaigns, even laws that have passed have faced legal challenges arguing they are unconstitutional. Ben Price, who says he was invited to the United Nations after Bolivian officials saw the New York bill and recognized it as a counterweight to anti-environmental federal policies, says that these efforts are all part of a larger process of culture change.
“Good things come in small packages,” he says. “Like Tamaqua, the likelihood of this bill having national or global effect may not be obvious. But given the current political atmosphere, people are looking for answers. Climate funding has been canceled. References to environmental harm removed from government websites. Under these circumstances, people rising up and passing laws like this at the local and state level is essential. These efforts are a voice in the wilderness and a bright spot amidst the chaos.”
With growing threats to water nationwide — including rapid growth in data centers, power plants, nuclear energy, industrial agriculture, and beyond — communities are looking for ways to protect the rivers, lakes, streams, and aquifers.
Tish O’Dell, one of the CELDF organizers behind this bill, encourages people to reach out to her. She says that with the growing media coverage of this effort, people in several states have already expressed interest in bringing rights of nature to their areas. O’Dell also said that individuals, organizations, and businesses can sign on to a list of supporters to make their voice heard and start making connections to form coalitions.
Huschke, the CELDF Executive Director, also reminds supporters that they can donate to support the organization’s rights of nature work, including in New York.
The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) is helping build a decolonial movement for Community Rights and the Rights of Nature to advance democratic, economic, social, and environmental rights-building upward from the grassroots to the state, federal, and international levels.
(717) 498-0054"While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran War imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big."
As President Donald Trump reached an interim peace deal with the Iranian government and Oxfam International revealed that 41 energy industry tycoons collectively increased their wealth by $23.5 billion since the war was launched in late February, a pair of US senators on Monday released their letters demanding answers from fossil fuel giants about their windfall profits and soaring gasoline prices during the conflict.
Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Committee on Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) last Thursday wrote to BP America chair and president Orlando Alvarez, Chevron chair and CEO Mike Wirth, ConocoPhillips chair and CEO Ryan Lance, Continental Resources president and CEO Robert Lawler, ExxonMobil chair and CEO Darren Woods, Occidental Petroleum president and CEO Richard Jackson, and Shell USA president Colette Hirstius.
"We write to question why American families are paying egregiously high prices at the pump while the fossil fuel industry collects massive windfall profits thanks to the Trump administration's war in Iran," Warren and Whitehouse wrote amid peace talks last week, noting that Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route for fossil fuels, led to what that the International Energy Agency (IEA) called "the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market."
"Gasoline prices rapidly increased by as much as 52%," the pair highlighted. "Before the Iran War, oil cost $71.32 per barrel. Since then, it has cost as much as $138.21 and currently sits at $98.29 per barrel. The Iran War has allowed 27 oil and gas companies to rake in over $40 billion in profit since the Iran War began."
Warren and Whitehouse also emphasized that "the opportunity to profit from high oil prices did not occur in a political vacuum. In April 2024, then-candidate Trump solicited a billion dollars from fossil fuel executives at a private dinner at Mar-a-Lago, promising in exchange to roll back environmental regulations, issue desired permits, and expand drilling opportunities."
Also pointing to Trump's invasion of Venezuela, abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, and takeover of the country's nationalized oil industry, the senators said that "the pattern is consistent: While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran War imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big."
The pair requested answers to their questions on profits, pricing, federal policy, and communications with the Trump administration about the Iran War by June 25, They explained that the information "will aid our assessment of the appropriate scope, rate structure, and enforcement mechanisms as we actively consider the Big Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act," reintroduced by Whitehouse and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in March, just weeks in to the war.
The information will also assist with investigations into "the extent to which Trump administration military, regulatory, and policy decisions benefited the oil industry and the extent to which any of these were the product of quid pro quo solicitations," as well as "whether oil and gas companies had advance knowledge of or ability to shape the administration's decision to go to war in Iran."
"Congress has a constitutional duty to investigate each of these matters and to legislate as necessary to protect the American people," the pair added. Both chambers are controlled by the GOP and have refused—largely along party lines—to pass war powers resolutions intended to prevent or end Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's illegal assault on Iran.
In response to Trump's new deal with Iran to extend a ceasefire reached in April and reopen the strait, oil prices dropped and the stock market rallied. Specifically, as The Associated Press detailed, "the S&P 500 rose 1.7%," while "the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 468 points, or 0.9%, to a record, and the Nasdaq composite jumped 3.1%."
Allie Rosenbluth, US program manager at the advocacy group Oil Change International, said Monday that "any agreement that reduces further violence is welcome. But this announcement should not be mistaken as the end to the crisis, given Israel has vowed to remain in occupied areas of southern Lebanon indefinitely, while violence continues in Gaza and the West Bank. As attention turns to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and falling oil prices, we should not lose sight of the devastating human toll this conflict has inflicted across the region, nor the profound economic disruption it continues to cause around the world."
Rosenbluth continued:
The rapid rise and fall of oil prices in response to military escalation and diplomatic announcements is a reminder of how exposed the global economy is to fossil fuel volatility. For millions of people, this crisis has meant loss, displacement, food insecurity, and higher cost of living. For fossil fuel companies, it has meant windfall profits.
Oil Change International estimates that if US oil prices average around $90 per barrel through the end of the year, US oil companies could make an additional $38 billion in windfall revenues from crude oil exports alone as a result of Trump and Netanyahu's war on Iran. While households around the world have been hit by higher fuel, energy, and food costs, oil companies are cashing in billions.
The Strait of Hormuz may be reopening, but this crisis has once again exposed fossil fuels as a source of conflict, chaos, volatility, and disruption. While communities bear the costs, oil companies profit from the instability. Once renewables are installed, sunlight or wind does not become more expensive because of geopolitical conflict. The most durable form of energy security is reducing exposure to fossil fuels altogether, and making a just transition to renewable energy.
As Group of Seven leaders, including Trump, gathered in France on Monday, and Oxfam International released its report about how G7 energy billionaires have pocketed $300 million per day since the start of the Iran War, the organization's executive director, Amitabh Behar, argued that representatives from the other six countries, or G6, "can't plead powerlessness."
"They can cancel debt. They can tax windfall profits and extreme wealth. They can advocate for a new issuance of special drawing rights. They can provide poorer countries with aid," Behar added. "Refusing to act simply because Washington will not join them is not diplomacy, it is cowardice. And it will only accelerate the G6's slide into global irrelevance."
“The American people deserve a foreign policy that serves American interests and American values," said another critic, "not legislation that places the priorities of a foreign government above American sovereignty."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday urged congressional lawmakers to strike a highly controversial provision from next year's military spending authorization bill that is aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli armed forces under the guise of reducing aid.
A provision of the proposed $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027 originally titled Section 224 but now renumbered Section 219 would establish a formal “United States–Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” requiring the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology collaboration.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—has called the section his personal plan.
"Only 16% of Americans support arming Israel without restrictions. So what is Congress doing? Burying a provision in the defense bill that would give Israel more military integration than any NATO ally," Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media. "We must strip Section 224 from the Pentagon budget."
Earlier this month, members of the House Armed Services Committee from both parties rejected an amendment introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to remove the integration provision from the 2027 NDAA. The committee then advanced the broader defense package. The Senate Armed Services Committee subsequently voted to advance the proposed NDAA.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—an anti-interventionist libertarian who recently lost his reelection primary to a challenger backed by President Donald Trump—said Sunday that he and Khanna have submitted an amendment to strip Section 219 from the proposed NDAA. Massie's measure requires the assent of seven of the House Rules Committee's 13 members to get a vote.
In addition to Section 219, another provision of the proposed NDAA, Section 622, would "expand and enhance intelligence sharing" with Israel, including "information relating to cybersecurity threats, terrorism, sanctions evasion, plans and intentions of state and nonstate actors, adversarial technology proliferation, missile threats, unmanned aerial systems, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, air and space domain awareness, and other aerial threats relevant to the defense of Israel, United States forces and interests in the region, and regional security partners."
Section 622, which was introduced by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), also limits restrictions on intelligence sharing with Israel.
"This proposal is one of several recent moves by those in Washington who carry the Israeli government’s water to keep the United States tied to Israel despite plummeting support for the country among the American public," Paul Pillar wrote last week for Responsible Statecraft.
"The most salient form of US support to Israel has been more than $300 billion in economic and especially military assistance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has tried to get ahead of the declining public support and avoid embarrassing losses by suggesting it would be fine with him to phase out the military aid," he continued.
"Israel’s strategy and that of its US supporters is now to rely on ties with, and support from, the United States that are not as salient as the military aid with its prominent price tag," Pillar added. "The strategy includes forms of military integration that are less visible than congressionally appropriated grant aid and therefore less publicly accountable. Section [219] of a defense authorization bill currently in the House of Representatives embodies this form of integration."
Sections 219 and 622 come in the wake of the Pentagon's warning of growing espionage threats posed to the United States by Israel, which has a long history of spying on the US. Recent concerns center on Israel's alleged attempts to sabotage efforts to end the Iran War.
Responding to the proposed Sections 219 and 622, Robert McCaw, director of government affairs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, recently said in a statement that “Congress must act to block these Israel‑first bills that would force a deeper US and Israel military and intelligence merger, a merger that will weaken independent American oversight, compromise US national interests, and pull the country into foreign conflicts without democratic consent."
“The American people did not elect Congress to merge our military infrastructure, intelligence systems, defense technologies, artificial intelligence capabilities, cyber operations, and regional security architecture with a foreign government accused of genocide, apartheid, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, torture, starvation policies, and the unlawful targeting of civilians," he continued.
"Instead of demanding accountability... Congress is seeking to reward the Israeli government with even deeper access to American military capabilities, technologies, intelligence resources, and strategic infrastructure," McCaw added. "The American people deserve a foreign policy that serves American interests and American values, not legislation that places the priorities of a foreign government above American sovereignty, accountability, and self-government.”
"People in Maine are tired of establishment status quo politics," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "They want to take on the billionaire class and fight for REAL change."
"Republicans are worried," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday, referring to Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner's historic primary victory in Maine last week, as local reports in the state pointed to a spending blitz as five-term GOP Sen. Susan Collins tries to hold on to her seat in the high-stakes election.
The Senate race in Maine could determine the balance of power in the Senate, and with primary voters showing clear enthusiasm for political newcomer Platner—who won the most votes in a Democratic primary in the state's history—overall spending in the race could reach an estimated $384 million, with the majority spent by pro-Collins groups, according to the media tracking company AdImpact.
If the firm's projections are accurate, the Maine Senate race could be the fourth-most expensive in the country this election cycle, after far more populous states including Texas, Michigan, and Georgia.
In response to the report, Platner said he plans to "defeat" the pro-Collins groups—and then end the campaign finance system that allows billionaires to buy elections.
One political writer based in Maine, Anthony Emerson, reported that the spending blitz was already evident over the weekend during the World Cup and Stanley Finals Cup games.
"Every single ad break had an attack ad on Platner or a Collins ad," said Emerson. "Saw only a handful of pro-Platner/anti-Collins."
Maine is home to just 1.4 million people, meaning that an election spending total of nearly $400 million would be equivalent to about $400 per registered voter, said journalist Alex Seitz-Wald of The Midcoast Villager.
Collins-aligned groups have already booked about $100 million in ads through Election Day, including dark money groups such as One Nation and Pine Tree Results Political Action Committee (PAC).
Those groups have booked more than $46 million combined in advertisements like a Pine Tree Results-funded attack ad against Platner that aired in April, seizing on comments the Democratic candidate made in 2013 on Reddit about sexual assault.
Along with Wall Street CEOs Stephen Schwarzman and Paul Singer and Palantir executive Alex Karp, the pro-Collins super PAC counts among its donors Republican legal activist Leonard Leo and hedge fund billionaire Ken Griffin. Leo gave at least $1 million to Pine Tree Results PAC, while Griffin, who recently criticized New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani over his tax on second homes, donated $2.5 million to the group.
According to The Maine Monitor, nearly 100 billionaires and their spouses have donated nearly $10 million total to pro-Collins groups since the beginning of 2025.
The spending blitz by outside groups comes as Platner has proven to be a formidable fundraiser, bringing in about $16 million as of May compared with about $12 million for Collins.
Platner's campaign has nearly $350,000 in ads booked through Election Day, while Collins is so far largely relying on the PACs that are aligned with her to run attack ads against her opponent.
Groups including Majority Forward, Unrig Our Economy, and Duty and Honor have spent about $11 million combined on ads promoting Platner's campaign, which is focusing on his support of Medicare for All; his demand that the government invest money in schools, healthcare, and communities instead of pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the military each year; and his call for a billionaires' minimum tax.
Platner's platform also includes a call to "ban billionaires buying elections," by passing a constitutional amendment to overturn the US Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which struck down a centuries-old ban on corporate "independent" spending on elections—money that doesn't go directly to a candidate or party—allowing corporations and super PACs to spend unlimited amounts to help their preferred candidates.
"We have individuals spending tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars on political campaigns, a scheme of legalized bribery and vote-buying that drowns out the voices of regular people, effectively replacing what we used to call democracy," reads Platner's website. "Under this system, the prospects for any meaningful reform are grim. We must throw out of Washington any politician who will not commit to passing a constitutional amendment to ban billionaires buying elections!"
Journalist Zaid Jilani concurred with Sanders (I-Vt.) that Republicans appear concerned about Platner's momentum, saying their plan to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into a small state does not seem like the strategy of a party that thinks "they have it in the bag."
Sanders expressed confidence that the money flowing into Maine will be no match for Platner's engagement with voters and his focus on issues that affect working people in the state.
"People in Maine are tired of establishment status quo politics," said Sanders. "They want to take on the billionaire class and fight for REAL change."