

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.

Today, the State Legislature and Governor agreed to enact a historic deal to end fossil fuels in new buildings via the 2023-24 New York state budget. Once enacted, New York will become the first state to end gas in new construction by law, beginning in 2026 for buildings under seven stories; 2029 for taller ones. The timeline of the law’s effect defers action until the beginning of 2026, one year later than advocates’ demands.
“At the behest of New York’s grassroots climate movement, Governor Hochul and legislative leaders are taking a historic step, making New York the first state in the nation to prohibit fossil fuels in new construction by law. New Yorkers are resisting fossil fuels everywhere they pop up, from the power plants that pollute our air to the pipelines that put our communities in harm’s way. Now buildings can be a part of that solution,” said Alex Beauchamp, Northeast Region Director at Food & Water Watch. “Unfortunately, we’re still moving too slowly, and Governor Hochul is to blame. Instead of fighting for the swift transition off fossil fuels that the climate crisis demands, the governor caved at the eleventh hour, giving the fossil fuel industry another year of delay to profit at our expense. We won’t stop fighting until we end our devastating addiction to fossil fuels.”
The politically popular move will reduce climate-heating pollution, create jobs in clean energy, reduce childhood asthma, and save New Yorkers money — analyses have found that building all-electric leads to hundreds of dollars in energy cost savings for consumers. As the prices of gas and fuel oil rise, New Yorkers across the state, regardless of climate zone, would save more with an all-electric home.
“My family lost everything to a climate disaster. This is a moment of mixed emotions because this policy is a political compromise between what’s needed for the people and the death-dealing fossil fuel industry, the people who hurt my family so badly. On the one hand, New York, my home, will be the first state to end fossil fuels in new buildings by law. That’s huge because my community needs to save money, breathe clean air, and get good jobs in clean energy, not die in an extreme weather crisis, as members of my family have. Sadly, this great new law will go into effect years later than it should. New York is far behind what’s needed for climate justice. We needed Governor Hochul to deliver at the scale of the crisis, but in the end we got a half-measure. I want to thank our bill sponsors, and all the movement leaders who fight for what’s right,” said Rachel Rivera, a member of New York Communities for Change and Sandy survivor who lives in Brownsville, Brooklyn.
Advocacy groups are disappointed that the law will take effect too slowly to maximize benefits to New Yorkers. A delayed start date at the beginning of 2026 threatens to lock in higher energy bills and decades of new pollution from the 40,000 new buildings that are constructed each year. Groups had been backing proposed legislation to mirror New York City’s all-electric new buildings law, to take effect at the beginning of 2024, providing earlier cost savings and pollution reduction. The final deal also drew criticism for exemptions including for fuel cell systems and certain commercial buildings, which wouldn’t have to comply until 2029. Large warehouses and box stores operated by the likes of Amazon stand to benefit from these carve outs, which reduce the bill’s positive impact and further defer to corporate lobbyists.
Each year, the state adds approximately 250,000 metric tons of climate-heating pollution from the tens of thousands of new homes and buildings that are built to be dependent on gas boilers and furnaces, thereby jeopardizing meeting the state’s legally mandated climate targets.
The law does not include a “poison pill” the gas lobby pushed that advocates opposed; the provision, left on the cutting room floor, would have allowed local governments to, in effect, veto the law locally.
Assemblymember Emily Gallagher and Senator Brian Kavanagh, the bill’s prime sponsors, led the charge, with Governor Hochul also proposing this vital policy. With the State Senate and State Assembly’s leaders, Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Carl Heastie, committing to action in budget resolutions released in March, a legislation path opened for this historic, though needlessly delayed, action. In the “end game,” the State Senate pushed for climate and jobs action and remains the clear leader on the issue.
“Facing big spending from the oil and gas industry on disinformation campaigns to stall climate action, New York passed a historic law to move new buildings off fossil fuels. We want to thank the bill sponsors and the thousands of young people that fought with us to make this law happen. However, the Governor and legislative leaders compromised and allowed a too-slow timeline, making it all the more difficult to meet fast approaching greenhouse gas emission reduction benchmarks. For the young people we work with, this is a gamble with their futures,” said Megan Ahearn, Program Director for NYPIRG.
A rising multiracial climate movement fought hard for the policy’s enactment, first winning NYC’s landmark law in December, 2021, then moving to push for action at the state level. Enactment of this policy by Ithaca and Beacon, NY also paved the way to final passage. Activists statewide from a variety of groups also pushed hard, with rallies, protests, and local events across the state building to a people-powered victory.
The resulting legislation ensures that backup generators are allowed for emergencies and includes some exemptions for building uses that still require gas, but these are narrow exemptions that only apply to a tiny proportion of new construction. However, the law takes effect much slower than is justified, locking tens of thousands of new buildings to higher bills and pollution for decades to come.
“Following enactment of New York’s nation-leading climate law, thanks to the voices of thousands of New Yorkers, New York has made a historic move to end fossil fuels in new buildings. But as the state with the highest building-sector emissions and most premature deaths in the country from fossil fuel combustion in buildings, it is disappointing that the Governor and Legislature caved to fossil fuel industry lies and delayed the implementation timeline. We thank the bill sponsors and our partners for their work leading to this victory,” said Liz Moran, New York Policy Advocate for Earthjustice.
The groups and legislators defeated a multimillion dollar effort by the gas industry and its allies to defeat this legislation. Nonetheless, lawmakers were influenced by the lies, backed by deep pocketed lobbyists, to push off the policy effective date.
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said one critic.
Some critics of the Trump administration are reacting with horror to revelations that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been serving as the de facto ruler of Venezuela.
According to a Saturday report in The New York Times, Rubio for the last several months has been acting informally as the "viceroy" of Venezuela ever since its recognized president, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted by the American military in January and brought to the US to face charges related to "narco-terrorism."
The Times' sources revealed that Rubio "effectively controls Venezuela’s finances, the distribution of its natural resources, and its government" and "is deeply involved in the country’s day-to-day operations," while maintaining regular contact with acting Venezuelan President Delcy Rodríguez.
Under current arrangements, the US Treasury Department takes in revenue from Venezuela's exports, including its petroleum, and then disperses the money back to the country through its private banks with strict conditions set by Rubio over what it can be spent on.
In explaining the system, the Times likened it to "parents handing out allowances to children," adding that it gives Rubio "immense leverage over... Rodríguez, who depends on the money to pay workers and prop up the national currency."
Elizabeth Saunders, professor of political science at Columbia University, described Rubio's power over Venezuela as "insane," as well as "derelict, unconscionable, and impeachable."
"The secretary of state's time is scarce, valuable, and not outsourcable," Saunders emphasized.
Orlando J. Pérez, professor of Political Science at the University of North Texas at Dallas, said the Times report made a mockery of Rubio's professed claims to want to bring democracy back to Venezuela.
"It appears Rubio has transformed from democracy promotion warrior," Pérez commented, "to transactional realpolitik operative!"
Kenneth Roth, former executive director at Human Rights Watch, wrote that US control over Venezuela appeared similar to the kind of imperial power wielded by European nations in the 19th Century.
"Trump has turned Venezuela into an effective US colony," said Roth, "with Marco Rubio as the viceroy and Washington controlling the country’s oil revenue and dictating major foreign and domestic policies. Democracy has been relegated to the distant future."
Bradley Simpson, historian at the University of Connecticut, also saw the current US arrangement with Venezuela as a return to overt imperialism.
"We are literally back in the Dollar Diplomacy days of the 1910s," Simpson wrote, "when the United States invaded countries and took over their financial systems and ran them as effective colonies. Flagrantly illegal, enormously corrupt. Where is the organization of American states or UN in denouncing this?"
"These hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road."
Rep. Ro Khanna this week was detained by a group of Israeli settlers whom he described as "hoodlums... with machine guns" while making a visit to a Palestinian village in the occupied West Bank.
In an interview with Reuters published on Saturday, Khanna (D-Calif.) said he and his tour group were surrounded by armed settlers as they were traveling through the West Bank on Wednesday.
"We were at a village that Israeli settlers had destroyed, they had destroyed the school, they had destroyed that village, and we were just looking at it," said Khanna. "And these hoodlums come in with machine guns—M4, an American-made machine gun—and they detain us. They block off the road."
The California Democrat said that the settlers called in members of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to help them deal with him and his group.
"The IDF is on their side," Khanna remarked, "not on the side of the Americans."
Cameron Kasky, an aide to Khanna, told Reuters that the group was held for over an hour before officials whom he believed to be police intervened and secured their release.
The IDF told Reuters that both military troops and police officers dispersed the settlers who had set up a roadblock near the small Palestinian village of Khirbet Zanuta.
Khanna wasn't the only American to have a run-in with Israeli settlers this week, as CNN reported that four settlers attacked groups of journalists, including CNN reporters and crew, who were traveling through an area north of the Palestinian city of Ramallah on Saturday.
As the journalists were driving, four settlers blocked off the road with their cars and began attacking the reporters' vehicles with wooden clubs and metal rods.
"The settlers then began to jump on the vehicle behind CNN's—carrying another group of journalists—and smashed the windshield of that vehicle," the network reported. "Another group of settlers tried to block a separate exit route before chasing the journalists towards the town of Sinjil."
Israeli police arrived on the scene and arrested four settlers who were allegedly responsible for the attacks, CNN reported.
"The Israel Police and the IDF view any manifestation of violence or causing damage to property very seriously," the Israeli officers said after the arrests, "especially when it concerns media personnel performing their work."
Israeli settlers for years have carried out violent attacks on Palestinians living in the West Bank, and witnesses have regularly described IDF soldiers at the scene either standing by as the attacks occur or even actively helping the attackers.
In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that claims about settler violence have been "blown up beyond belief," describing attacks as being carried out by a small number of "juvenile delinquents."
"This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
The Trump administration on Friday escalated its war with the press by subpoenaing several reporters at The New York Times days after the paper published a story on Wednesday that detailed security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
According to the Times, the subpoenas are attempting to force reporters to testify before a federal grand jury in Manhattan on Wednesday next week, a move that the paper describes as an "extraordinary escalation in President Trump’s efforts to threaten and intimidate independent news organizations."
The issued subpoenas do not specifically name the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet as the reason for the grand jury probe, although they were given to all four journalists—Tyler Pager, Julian Barnes, Eric Schmitt, and Eric Lipton—who reported the story.
Additionally, the Times noted, a senior official at the FBI had asked the paper to hold off publishing its story on the jet before it came out on Wednesday, citing unspecified national security concerns about its content.
David McCraw, the top attorney representing the Times' newsroom, denounced the subpoenas as an attack on the freedom of the press.
"The appearance of federal law enforcement agents on the doorstep of news reporters should shock the conscience of any American who believes in the Constitution and the press freedom it protects," said McGraw. “This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs."
It is highly uncommon for government investigators to subpoena journalists when they are probing national security leaks, as such actions are generally seen as having a chilling effect on reporters’ ability to gather information.
Rick Stengel, former under secretary of state for President Barack Obama, said that the Times' reporting on the Qatari jet, whose security upgrades are being financed with US tax dollars, is completely within the scope of constitutional protections for press freedom.
"The reporting that the Times journalists have been subpoenaed for is exactly the kind of journalism the First Amendment is designed to protect: matters involving national security and taxpayer dollars," wrote Stengel in a Saturday social media post. "Reporting that embarrasses a president is protected speech."
Fox News chief national security correspondent Jennifer Griffin also denounced the Trump administration for trying to drag reporters into a grand jury investigation.
"This action by the US government to subpoena reporters for reporting legitimate news on security concerns about Air Force One should alarm every American," Griffin wrote.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, accused the Trump administration of abusing government power not to defend national security, but to protect the president from personal humiliation.
"We've long said that when the government claims it needs to investigate journalists to protect national security, it really means its own reputational security," said Stern. "This is as clear an example as you can get. The administration's embarrassment that it reportedly charged taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit a flying bribe that still isn't secure enough for hostile times does not supersede the need for a free and independent press."
This is the second time in recent weeks that the Trump administration has tried to subpoena reporters to compel their testimony in grand jury investigations.
In June, the US Department of Justice issued subpoenas for national security reporters at The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal related to national security leaks.
Subpoenas against both news organizations were withdrawn after they issued legal challenges in sealed filings.