

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.

Tanya Brooks, Senior Communications Specialist at Greenpeace USA, tbrooks@greenpeace.org
A new report from Greenpeace USA reveals plastic recycling has largely failed after decades of being touted by corporations as a solution to the pollution crisis. The report uncovered that only a fifth of the 8.8 million tons of the most commonly produced types of plastics — found in items like bottles, jugs, food containers, and caps — are actually recyclable. Moreover, plastic recycling rates in the United States have been cut in half since 2014, from 9.5% to roughly 5–6% today. The report concludes that plastic recycling is no more of a viable solution now than it was in the 1950s.
Our team of researchers also uncovered the effort by the plastic industry, retailers, prominent plastic-reliant brands, and related trade associations — the so-called “Merchants of Myth” — to mislead the public, protect their profits, and delay regulatory action.
Major brands like Coca-Cola, Unilever, and Nestlé have been quietly retracting sustainability commitments while continuing to rely on single-use plastic packaging. On top of this, the U.S. plastic industry is undermining meaningful plastic regulation by making false claims about the recyclability of their products to avoid bans and reduce public backlash. As global plastic production continues to climb and is projected to triple by 2050, our report investigates the ineffectiveness of voluntary measures without regulatory support.
John Hocevar, Greenpeace USA oceans campaigner director, said: “Recycling is a toxic lie pushed by the plastics industry that is now being propped up by a pro-plastic narrative emanating from the White House. These corporations and their partners continue to sell the public a comforting lie to hide the hard truth: that we simply have to stop producing so much plastic. Instead of investing in real solutions, they’ve poured billions into public relations campaigns that keep us hooked on single-use plastic while our communities, oceans, and bodies pay the price.”
Despite growing public awareness of the environmental and health concerns posed by plastics and microplastics, Merchants of Myth reveals many corporations have ramped up their disinformation campaigns and aggressive lobbying – and are being backed up by a compromised government.
While the Make Americans Healthy Again (MAHA) platform pledged to address chronic illnesses linked to toxic chemicals, its recent health report largely sidestepped plastics — one of the most pervasive sources of chemical exposure. Despite growing scientific consensus on the health risks and economic costs of plastic pollution, the report offered only vague commitments to develop a framework to study chemical exposures, including microplastics, allocate limited funding for safer farming, and launch a public pesticides awareness campaign.
Jo Banner, executive director of The Descendants Project, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving Black history and fighting environmental racism in the frontline communities of Louisiana’s River Parishes, said: “It’s the same story everywhere: poor, Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities turned into sacrifice zones so oil companies and big brands can keep making money. They call it development — but it’s exploitation, plain and simple. There’s nothing acceptable about poisoning our air, water, and food to sell more throwaway plastic. Our communities are not sacrifice zones, and we are not disposable people.”
Among the report’s other key findings on the ineffectiveness of plastic recycling:
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000"Just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the court today doubles down on chaos," wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The US Supreme Court late Tuesday gave Alabama a green light to use an aggressively gerrymandered congressional map that a lower court said was "tainted by intentional race-based discrimination."
The unsigned decision, from which the high court's three liberal justices dissented, enables Alabama's Republican-dominated government to replace its current congressional map, which has two majority-Black districts, with a map that the US Supreme Court struck down in 2023. That map has just one majority-Black district.
In her dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that "just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the court today doubles down on chaos."
"In addition to being wrong on the merits, the court’s decision inflicts two grave harms on the public," wrote Sotomayor. "It debases the democratic process by upending Alabama’s entire election in the name of permitting Alabama to discriminate against Black Alabamians. It also corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders."
The liberal justice noted that in order to switch to the map previously struck down by the high court, Alabama election officials "will have to reassign hundreds of thousands of voters across the state to new congressional districts."
"Three of Alabama’s counties will be particularly hard hit because they are split across two congressional districts," Sotomayor noted. "These counties have about 600,000 registered voters between them (roughly 15% of the state’s total number of registered voters).”
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, postponed US House primary elections in the wake of the Supreme Court's April decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which severely narrowed the 1965 Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial discrimination and paved the way for Alabama and other states to impose new maps ahead of the 2026 midterms.
“The Supreme Court’s shameful ruling allowing Alabama to move forward with a gerrymander that was drawn with the explicit intent to dilute Black voting power—as found by a panel of judges that included two Trump appointees—is an absolute affront to the founding principles of our democracy, and wipes out whatever was left of the court’s credibility,” said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation. “This country deserves better, and we must continue to work toward federal legislation that not only bans partisan and racial gerrymandering but also ensures that our rights cannot be undermined by captured courts.”
The ruling drew condemnation from the two Democrats in Alabama's US congressional delegation. Rep. Shomari Figures, who was elected to the US House under the independently drawn map that Alabama Republicans are working to replace, said in a statement that "the Supreme Court has now confirmed that there is no longer a Voting Rights Act in America, and states are essentially free to discriminate against minority voters with no consequences."
"This is a dangerous ruling that sets the state and this nation back decades," said Figures.
Rep. Terri Sewell called the ruling "just the latest in a pattern of outrageous Supreme Court decisions that help Republicans desperately cling to power ahead of the midterm elections while diluting Black voices and erasing decades of hard-fought civil rights progress."
"No matter how hard Alabama state officials may try, they will not succeed in silencing our voices," said Sewell. "We will not go back to the Jim Crow era. The fight for fair representation continues."
“This decision lets the president direct a sweeping fossil fuel agenda, with no authorization from Congress and no meaningful judicial review, and then tells the children harmed by that agenda that they cannot challenge it until it is unconstitutionally implemented piece by piece," one lawyer said.
A federal judge in the District of Montana last year "reluctantly" dismissed a lawsuit filed by young Americans challenging a trio of President Donald Trump's anti-climate executive orders and invited the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to correct him—but the panel on Tuesday again tossed the case.
Backed by attorneys at Our Children's Trust and Public Justice, Eva Lighthiser, Rikki Held of Held v. State of Montana, and 20 other children and young adults sued in May 2025 over Trump's executive orders (EOs) boosting the coal industry, declaring a "national energy emergency," and calling on federal agencies to accelerate fossil fuel development.
After the first dismissal from US District Judge Dana Christensen, the young Americans and their lawyers vowed to appeal. However, the 9th Circuit on Tuesday found that "plaintiffs can only speculate that the executive orders are the cause of the many agency actions they allege will exacerbate climate change," and "they have not plausibly alleged that enjoining federal agencies from implementing the executive orders is substantially likely to prevent agencies from taking similar emissions-inducing actions under other lawful authorities."
Issuing an injunction sought by the plaintiffs "would effectively place one federal district court in charge of executive branch energy policy—'an extraordinary and unprecedented role' for a member of the 'unelected and politically unaccountable branch,'" the appellate court also concluded. "Further, by effectively challenging hundreds of current and anticipated agency actions in one lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to circumvent the jurisdictional and procedural rules Congress has established for challenges to agency actions."
Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and co-executive director of Our Children's Trust, declared in a Tuesday statement that "this decision lets the president direct a sweeping fossil fuel agenda, with no authorization from Congress and no meaningful judicial review, and then tells the children harmed by that agenda that they cannot challenge it until it is unconstitutionally implemented piece by piece. That is not how the Constitution works."
"The court did not decide whether these executive orders are constitutional. It did not decide whether the federal government may knowingly endanger children," she explained. "Instead, it slammed the courthouse doors on children fighting for their lives and told them to file hundreds of cases against every agency action carrying out the president's unconstitutional executive orders. Courts do not become policymakers when they stop unconstitutional government action. That is their job. These young people deserve a court willing to do it."
The lead plaintiff, Lighthiser, stressed that "the court never said we were wrong. They never said the harm isn't real. They just said they wouldn't stop the harm."
"They had the power to act. and they chose not to," she continued. "By the time we are harmed enough to satisfy them, it will be too late. I am a young person. This is my life, my health, my future. And I deserve better than this. We all do."
The decision comes as Trump and his allies continue to serve the interests of the fossil fuel executives who helped him return to power, regardless of the consequences for people and the planet—from gutting key agencies and attacking clean power projects to dismantling a deep-ocean monitoring system that helps researchers understand the impacts of the climate crisis.
"The Trump administration is responsible for a children's health emergency by obligating federal agencies to take actions that dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions and climate change," Dan Snyder, director of Public Justice's Environmental Enforcement Project, said Tuesday. "The 9th Circuit makes no mention of this emergency. Indeed, the 9th Circuit's decision is shocking in what it lacks."
"The court didn't even consider US Supreme Court decisions—or decisions from within its own circuit—which would require it to reach a very different decision than the one it did today," he highlighted. "The court ignored significant and undisputed facts that Trump's executive orders are causing real-world injuries to our children today. And the court ignores its most basic responsibility: finding workable remedies that provide relief to the uncontested injuries being inflicted by the Trump administration on our kids."
“We don’t need a weaponized DNI; we need professionals there," said Senate Majority Leader John Thune.
Republican US senators including Majority Leader John Thune on Tuesday joined a growing chorus of criticism in response to President Donald Trump's appointment of loyalist Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence, despite an utter lack of relevant experience or expertise.
Thune (SD) was asked by a reporter what he thought of Trump's appointment of the private equity firm founder and homebuilder—who is currently director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—to the top intel post, which current Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard will officially vacate on June 30.
“We don’t need a weaponized DNI; we need professionals there," Thune said, according to The Hill. “If they nominate him to take the position permanently, he’ll have to go through a confirmation process and hearings and everything else, so we’ll see."
Thune added that Pulte would have "a lengthy road ahead of him" if Trump sought to make him the permanent DNI.
The majority leader wasn't the only Senate Republican who voiced opposition to Trump's move.
"The best I can tell you is he’s not qualified, but I don’t know anything about him other than that," said outgoing Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who last month lost a primary to Trump-backed Republican challenger Rep. Julia Letlow.
Sen. John Cornyn—who also lost his recent primary runoff in Texas after Trump backed his opponent, state Attorney General Ken Paxton—told reporters that “I see no evidence of any qualifications for that job" for Pulte, "but I’m willing to listen.”
Common Dreams reported earlier Tuesday on Democratic opposition to Pulte's appointment, mostly over allegations that he's used his position at FHFA to target Trump's political foes for politically motivated mortgage fraud investigations.
Targeted individuals include two figures involved in Trump's two impeachments: Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.); former FBI Director James Comey, who oversaw an investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election; New York Attorney General Letitia James, who won a $450 million judgment against the president and his business in a civil fraud case; and Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook, whom the president has been attempting to oust so that he can fill the US central bank with loyalists.
Last November, a federal judge dismissed the cases against Comey and James, ruling that Trump's handpicked prosecutor was illegally installed. The following month, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office agreed to investigate whether Pulte and other FHFA employees "potentially misused federal authority and resources to publicly accuse prominent Democrats and President Donald Trump’s perceived political enemies of mortgage fraud."
Even more Democrats piled on Pulte later on Tuesday.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said on X: "As someone who helped set up the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, I oppose elevating Bill Pulte to acting director. He has no experience. Zero. And he is the wrong choice to help keep us safe."
"Mr. Pulte has weaponized his current agency against the president's critics, he's fired federal watchdogs looking into his allies, and he is under active investigation by the Government Accountability Office," she continued. "This all makes him an incredibly dangerous choice to be in charge of ODNI and have access to the tools of this office."
"As someone who has had the government weaponized against me, I cannot in good conscience support his elevation to such a sensitive post," added Slotkin, who drew Trump's ire and a federal probe with a video reminding US troops of their duty to not follow illegal orders. "The president should choose a serious nominee."
Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona—a retired Navy captain who was investigated by the Pentagon for comments similar to Slotkin's until a federal judge blocked the baseless probe—quipped, “If you’re good at drywall, you must be good at national intelligence."
"I don’t get it," he added. "This is an important job, you know. This is about the safety of all Americans.”
Advocacy groups also rejected Pulte's appointment, with the co-chairs of the Not Above the Law coalition issuing a statement reading, “This appointment is a reward, and has nothing to do with qualifications."
"At FHFA, Bill Pulte did one thing: hunt Trump’s perceived enemies," the statement by Public Citizen's Lisa Gilbert, Constitutional Accountability Center's Praveen Fernandes, MoveOn's Kelsey Herbert, and Stand Up America's Brett Edkins continued. "He ginned up mortgage fraud allegations against sitting officials, which federal investigators found baseless, and weaponized a housing regulator to punish those who tried to hold Trump accountable."
“If past is prologue, he will now do the same with the vast resources of the US intelligence community," the co-chairs asserted. "The agencies built to protect Americans, including our troops at home and abroad, will be turned into instruments of political retribution, betraying the men and women who serve those agencies and every American whose safety depends on them."
“Trump doesn’t staff his government with people who uphold the law," the statement adds. "He installs people willing to break it for him, and now he’s handing one of them the keys to our nation’s most sensitive information.”