

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.

Ashley Siefert Nunes
asiefert@ucsusa.org
Statement by Adam Markham, Union of Concerned Scientists
At the World Heritage Committee meeting, member nations today ignored UNESCO’s recommendation by deciding against adding Venice—a city increasingly vulnerable to severe flooding and water damage—to the list of World Heritage sites that are “in danger.” Instead, Italy will have until December of next year to produce a detailed conservation plan for the site, which will then be taken up at the 2025 World Heritage Committee meeting. Its addition would have marked the first time a site had been placed on the endangered list due to climate change.
Below is a statement Adam Markham, the deputy director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
“As occurred with Australia’s Great Barrier Reef in recent years, member nations of the World Heritage Committee punted on adding Venice to UNESCO’s list of endangered sites. Today’s decision by the World Heritage Committee signals an alarming trend of nations not being held accountable for protecting some of the most iconic and irreplaceable natural and historic sites around the globe. Venice is a city in crisis facing rising sea levels and flooding that threaten the structural integrity of homes, businesses, critical infrastructure, and world-renowned historical sites. Uncontrolled mass tourism has also made affordable housing scarce for locals as demand for vacation rentals increases and the growth of cruise ship traffic has caused significant damage to the Venice lagoon. If nations continue to ignore the existential threat climate change poses to places like Venice, they could be irrevocably damaged or lost forever. Sadly, climate change and tourism are killing Venice.”
If you have questions or would like to interview Markham, please contact UCS Climate and Energy Media Manager Ashley Siefert Nunes.
Additional Resources:
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
“We believed that she was being authentic and honest with us," said one Virginia labor leader. "She just flat-out flipped."
Labor unions are feeling betrayed after Virginia's Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger vetoed a bill on Thursday that would have restored collective bargaining rights for half a million public sector workers.
Virginia is one of the most restrictive states in the country for public sector bargaining, a holdover from the Jim Crow era when the General Assembly and other state legislatures across the South sought to crush the power of a public workforce with many Black employees.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, Virginia has one of the largest public sector pay gaps in the country, with state and local government employees making about 27% less on average than their private-sector peers, and it is similarly stratified in other states with weak collective bargaining rights.
Spanberger, a former US representative who was elected governor this past November, made pro-union messaging central to her affordability-focused platform. She decried President Donald Trump's executive order stripping federal workers of collective bargaining rights last year and said that as governor, she'd "look forward to working with members of our General Assembly to make sure more Virginians can negotiate for the benefits and fair treatment that they earn.”
But since taking office, Spanberger's support for restoring public sector union rights has been more tepid as she's gotten an earful from fiscally conservative Right-to-Work and taxpayer advocacy groups who claimed higher salaries for public employees would drain state funds and raise the cost of services.
When a bill to immediately mandate collective bargaining rights to 500,000 workers was proposed in the Democratic-controlled General Assembly, she introduced amendments aimed at watering down the bill—making it optional for employers to recognize unions, delaying the full implementation until 2030, and introducing what unions called a "kill-switch" that would have allowed future governors to revoke collective bargaining power.
The legislature shot Spanberger's amendments down and passed the bill in its original form. On Thursday, the governor vetoed it altogether.
In her veto message, Spanberger said she wanted the bill's other collective bargaining provisions for state employees, home care workers, and higher education employees to go into effect first "in order to demonstrate the efficacy of this new system" before it was opened up to all public employees.
But the unions that advocated for the bill say Spanberger led workers on with false promises.
"This veto is a devastating betrayal to the hundreds of thousands of public employees who have spent years, and in many cases decades, fighting for a seat at the table," said Doris Crouse-Mays, the president of the Virginia AFL-CIO. "Spanberger campaigned publicly and privately on promises [of] affordability, to support working families and respect workers' rights... Instead, when presented with the opportunity to make history and deliver on those promises, she chose to side with fear, political calculation, business, and the same anti-worker arguments that have been used for generations to deny workers power in Virginia."
LaNoral Thomas, the president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Virginia 512—a union which helped lead the charge to pass the bill—told the Virginia news site Dogwood that her union had "high hopes" for Spanberger when she was elected.
“We believed that she was being authentic and honest with us," Thomas said. "She just flat-out flipped. It is shocking.”
"Public employees are not a special interest. They are our neighbors. They are the educators, bus drivers, social workers, librarians, custodians, and first responders who hold our communities together," said a joint statement from Carol Bauer, president of the Virginia Education Association, and Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association.
They emphasized that the veto also carried "a deep racial and gender impact," noting that "Virginia’s public sector bargaining ban is rooted in a Jim Crow era effort to silence Black workers at the University of Virginia Hospital who organized for fair pay and dignity." They said, "Preserving that legacy today disproportionately harms women and workers of color, who make up so much of the public-service workforce and who have the most to gain from fair wages, safer workplaces, and a real voice on the job."
Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)—the largest national union of public sector workers in the US, with more than 1.4 million members—said that Spanberger had caved to "anti-worker extremists [who] have sidelined working people while starving the public services Virginia families rely on, earning the state a reputation as one of the most anti-worker in the country."
"While the governor has broken her word," Saunders said, "AFSCME members are deeply grateful to the bill’s sponsors and the leadership of both chambers, who kept theirs. Their commitment to working people stands in stark contrast to the governor and will not be forgotten."
"Gov. Spanberger made a choice today," he added. "Working people will remember it."
"No American should be comfortable with the president of the United States accusing a reporter of treason for critical reporting."
President Donald Trump on Friday sparked alarm among press freedom advocates when he accused New York Times reported David Sanger of committing "treason" for portraying his illegal war with Iran in a negative light.
Speaking with journalists aboard Air Force One on his flight home from China, Trump was asked by Sanger about his failure to accomplish political changes in Iran that he swore to achieve when he launched the war without congressional authorization in late February.
"I had a total military victory," Trump replied. "But the fake news, guys like you, write incorrectly. You're a fake guy, and guys like you write incorrectly. We had a total military victory. We knocked out their entire navy, we knocked out their entire air force, we knocked out all their anti-aircraft weaponry."
Trump to NYT's David Sanger: "I had a total military victory. But the fake news, guys like you, write incorrectly. You're a fake guy. We had a total military victory. I actually think it's sort of treasonous what you write. You should be ashamed of yourself. I actually think it's… pic.twitter.com/QK421YHKtq
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 15, 2026
Despite this purported "total victory," however, Iran still controls the Strait of Hormuz and has prevented commercial vessels from traveling through it for the last two months.
After attacking the Times' reporting about the Iran War, the president pivoted to impugning Sanger's patriotism.
"I actually think it's sort of treasonous what you write," the president said. "You and The New York Times, and CNN, I would say, are the worst... You should be ashamed of yourself. I actually think it's treason."
The Times on Tuesday reported that the Trump administration’s “public portrayal of a shattered Iranian military is sharply at odds with what US intelligence agencies are telling policymakers behind closed doors, according to classified assessments from early this month that show Iran has regained access to most of its missile sites, launchers, and underground facilities.”
Hours after the president's tirade against Sanger—which echoed Trump's previous remarks about media coverage of the war—New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander released a statement defending its reporting on the Iran war.
"Reporting isn't treason," Stadtlander said. "It's foundational to a free press and the work that America's founders wrote the First Amendment to protect. That includes making clear when the claims of government officials and the reality of their actions don't line up... We will continue this important, constitutionally protected work."
Trump's treason accusation also drew a rebuke from Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who said that "no American should be comfortable with the president of the United States accusing a reporter of treason for critical reporting."
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof argued that Trump's attack on Sanger was really a sign of weakness given the failures of his military campaign against Iran.
"President Trump unloading on David Sander reflects a combination of anxiety, insecurity, and desperation about the Iran War," Kristof wrote. "David is the dean of national security reporters: experienced, meticulous, and fair. Blaming the messenger underscores that the reality itself is pretty bad."
Kristof's sentiment was echoed by former ABC News journalist Terry Moran, who wrote that he can't "understand how anyone can see Trump here and not see weakness."
Former Republican Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh said Trump's interaction with Sanger exposed him as "the biggest fucking crybaby in all of human history."
A Center for American Progress analysis found that the war is "forcing rural households to pay at least $26 more per week at the pump and threatening to push grocery prices even higher in the months ahead."
President Donald Trump won the 2024 election largely on a promise to alleviate the affordability crisis, but an analysis published Friday underscores how rural Americans—the bedrock of the MAGA base—are disproportionately paying the price for the US-Israeli war of choice on Iran.
"Rising gas and fertilizer prices tied to the Trump administration’s war in Iran are driving up costs for rural families, farmers, and consumers across the country," notes the analysis from the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank.
"Gas prices rose 52% between February 27, the day before the war with Iran began, and May 14, forcing rural households to pay at least $26 more per week at the pump and threatening to push grocery prices even higher in the months ahead," the publication continues.
"The economic fallout from the conflict is disproportionately affecting rural America, where households already spend significantly more on gasoline and energy and where farm operations depend heavily on diesel fuel and fertilizer," CAP added. "As oil prices rise and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, farmers are facing mounting input costs during an already difficult economic period."
CAP researchers also found that the gap between urban and rural fuel costs has increased from $46 to $70 per month since the start of the war.
With diesel fuel accounting for over 60% of their fuel expenditures, farmers are facing the prospect of paying at least $350 more per day to operate a single tractor.
"There are 453 farming-dependent counties across the country, and rising fuel and fertilizer costs could force more small and medium-sized farms out of business if disruptions continue," the analysis warns.
As Common Dreams reported this week, Trump's illegal war of choice and erratic tariff policies are hurting farmers and consumers while Big Ag profits from fast-rising fertilizer and food prices.
Likewise, while consumers feel the pain of skyrocketing pump prices, Big Oil is reaping prodigious profits fueled by scarcity and market uncertainty due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and other war-related causes.
A report published earlier this month by the office of Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) projects that US drivers could pay an additional $876 per year—or $1,753 for a family with two cars—on gasoline per year if pump prices remain at their current levels.
The CAP analysis comes on the heels of the latest consumer price index, released earlier this week, which revealed that inflation has risen to its highest level in three years largely due to rising fuel and food costs.
According to CAP, lower-income households—which spent a third of their pretax income on food in 2024—"will be hit hardest" by rising grocery prices, as the highest-income households spent just 6.4% of their before-tax earnings on food.
“Families in rural communities are already stretched thin, and this conflict is making everyday necessities even more expensive,” CAP senior fellow and analysis co-author Anne Knapke said Friday. “Higher gas prices, rising fertilizer costs, and more expensive groceries are all contributing to an affordability crisis that this president is making worse every day.”
Asked earlier this week if he thinks about the financial hardship his war is inflicting on Americans, Trump flippantly replied, "Not even a little bit."