

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"Is this what happens when you have zero scientists in your administration?" said one critic.
National Park Service employees on Tuesday were seen pouring a bleaching agent into the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, DC, apparently to kill algae that had sprouted up shortly after the completion of a $14.2 million renovation commissioned by President Donald Trump.
The bleaching of the pool was spotted by CBS News journalist Bob Kovach, who posted video of workers dumping 12% hydrogen peroxide into the water.
This morning at the reflecting pool pic.twitter.com/uygkbcn7Mn
— bob kovach (@bkovoDC) June 16, 2026
The pool in recent days has turned a bright green due to algae growth, which threatened to spoil Trump's effort to make it appear "American flag blue" ahead of the celebrations of the country's 250th anniversary next month.
As noted by The New Republic, 12% hydrogen peroxide is strong enough to "cause problems if inhaled and burns if the chemical touches the skin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
"Hydrogen peroxide is generally considered less environmentally destructive as its compounds readily break down in water," The New Republic added, "but the high concentration could nonetheless pose a risk to some of the pool’s frequent visitors, such as ducks or other birds."
Michael O'Brien, a Washington DC-based primary care pediatrician, expressed skepticism that the plan to dump bottles of hydrogen peroxide into the pool would succeed in fixing the algae problem.
"Y’all, not to be a huge nerd but for the reflecting pool you would need a minimum of about 8,000 liters of 12% hydrogen peroxide to reach the 50 parts per million concentration to kill algae," O'Brien wrote. "Is this what happens when you have zero scientists in your administration?"
NOTUS reporter Igor Bobic, upon seeing the chemical being dumped into the pool, remarked it was a "bad day to be a duck."
A Fox News reporter on the scene tried to put a good spin on the pool being green by pointing out that "there's pool guys cleaning it up," and then exclaiming, "No other president would do that!"
FOX: I'm here at the newly renovated reflecting pool. It's painted American flag blue. The Democrats will tell you there's green algae. There's pool guys cleaning it up. No other president would do that. pic.twitter.com/19MzxnEcq5
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 16, 2026
Trump's efforts to renovate the reflecting pool raised eyebrows even before it became overrun by algae. According to a Tuesday report in The Guardian, the pool was renovated by Atlantic Industrial Coatings, which received a no-bid contract from the Trump administration after having "previously carried out work on a swimming pool at one of the president's golf clubs."
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said one organization leader. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions."
"You cannot abandon the map and still expect to reach your destination. Yet that's exactly what the federal government has done with its 2030 climate plan."
That's according to Charlie Hatt, climate director at Ecojustice, Canada's largest environmental law charity and one of the groups that partnered with a trio of young citizens this week to challenge Prime Minister Mark Carney's "failure" to bring the country's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
"Right now, its only climate plan is a plan to fail—and that's not just irresponsible, it's unlawful under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act," said Hatt. "Neither the climate nor the law can tolerate rollbacks today in exchange for promises of action many years from now."
The act requires the federal government to set science-based climate goals, create a plan to achieve them, and report on its progress. However, Carney has recently pursued various rollbacks and boosted fossil fuel development, putting his nation's 2030 emissions reduction target out of reach—which the groups and young people argued violates the law.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions. Climate change is not an abstract future threat: It is a public health emergency that is already harming patients and communities across Canada. That's why CAPE is joining this lawsuit."
The fossil fuel-driven climate emergency isn't just a danger to public health. As Environmental Defence's Julia Levin noted, Canadians "are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity, and high costs of living."
"PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress," Levin declared, accusing the Liberal Party leader of following in the footsteps of Big Oil-backed Republican US President Donald Trump.
"The rest of the world is rapidly adopting clean energy systems that are already more reliable, affordable, and secure than fossil fuels," she said. "Meanwhile, our prime minister is copying President Trump's playbook, ensuring that Canada will be left behind."
Carney's climate policies as prime minister—especially compared with how he talked about the crisis before rising to his current position last year—have frustrated many citizens and left "climate-anxious voters... feeling a major case of buyer's remorse, disoriented by the dissonance between who they thought they were supporting and a climate plan that is now a complete shambles," as Canadian climate writer and activist Seth Klein wrote for The Guardian last month.
Youth applicants in the new legal fight made that frustration clear on Tuesday. Montréal, Quebec-based climate organizer Shirley Barnea said that "the Carney government's gutting of climate policy is a massive insult. After presenting himself as a climate leader, our prime minister is now abdicating responsibility—to Canadians, to future generations, to the law. As long as governments continue ignoring climate science and rolling back protections for our futures, young people will continue taking them to court."
Marie Maltais, who is from Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Québec, and has advocated for the climate since her early teens, said that "my generation has grown up surrounded by climate disasters and broken political promises to address them. We're told to trust the government's climate commitments—but commitments mean nothing without a real plan behind them."
Sudbury, Ontario-based Sophia Mathur, an early participant in Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement who recently met with Carney and urged him to keep his climate promises, added that "young people are being handed the consequences of decisions we didn't make. We are going to live with the impacts of unchecked climate change for the rest of our lives—so we're standing up for our futures, now."
The young citizens and advocacy groups are seeking a court order that would compel Carney to comply with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, stressing that "climate change is an existential threat to all Canadians."
Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”