

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.

New report from University of Waterloo says benefits of divesting from fossil fuels are environmental and financial.
New research shows that U.S. public pension funds would be $21 billion richer had they divested from fossil fuels a decade ago.
The study, out of the University of Waterloo in partnership with Stand.earth, analyzed the public equity portfolios of six major U.S. public pension funds, which collectively represent approximately 3.4 million people, to determine the effect divesting from their energy holdings would have had. In total, researchers estimate that the pension funds would have seen a return on their investments that was 13 per cent higher on average.
Another analysis of the same eight U.S. public pension funds included in the report found that the carbon footprint that would have been reduced had they divested 10 years ago is equivalent to the emissions for powering 35 million homes per year.
Researchers say the report proves that divesting creates additional financial value, lowers exposure to climate risks, and reduced the carbon footprint of portfolios.
“Influential investors, like these large public pension funds, can bring about positive change on a few fronts,” said Dr. Olaf Weber, professor in the School of Environment, Enterprise and Development at Waterloo. “Energy divestments can create higher returns for the funds, which leads to higher returns for the beneficiaries and reduced exposure to climate risks. Consequently, it leads to safer pensions.”
The report also explored ways that recent changes in the performance of the energy sector due to major global events—such as COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine—would have influenced the funds. During the last three years, the value of the fossil fuel sector went up because of the reduced oil supply from Russia. Hence, divestment has not been that attractive from a financial point of view. However, the report found that even in times of high performance in the fossil fuel sector, divestment does not reduce financial returns in any significant way.
“If climate chaos like fires and floods weren’t enough, this latest report strengthens the case even further that public pension funds must divest from fossil fuels as part of meeting their fiduciary duties,” said Amy Gray, senior climate finance strategist at Stand.earth. “As the longest-term investors for workers, the last thing pension funds should be doing is gambling with retirement and deferred wages of their members.”
Future work will include going into more detail regarding the emissions of particular portfolio holdings on a per-holdings basis or analyzing the emissions of specific companies and then excluding those with the highest emissions.
“This new Waterloo data hits home for me. My mom is a beneficiary of a public pension, and my family is depending on that retirement income for security,” said Miguel Alatorre Jr., Fossil Free California. “It’s unconscionable to me that these funds are investing in fossil fuel companies driving climate change, heat waves, wildfires and flooding, all while losing income for workers.”
The report, The Impact of Energy Investments on the Financial Value and the Carbon Footprint of Pension Funds, was presented at the IEEFA Energy Finance Conference on June 22.
Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with offices in Canada and the United States that is known for its groundbreaking research and successful corporate and citizens engagement campaigns to create new policies and industry standards in protecting forests, advocating the rights of indigenous peoples, and protecting the climate. Visit us at
Immigration agents "murdered two people on video since the beginning of the year, and the Trump administration still lied about what happened and tried to justify it," said one critic. "I don't think cameras are the solution."
As the Hennepin County medical examiner on Monday classified Alex Pretti's death as a homicide, US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said members of her department who are on the ground in Minnesota will be issued body-worn cameras—a development that came amid a congressional funding fight and was met with mixed reactions.
President Donald Trump and Noem this year have sent thousands of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents to the Twin Cities, where they have fatally shot Pretti and Renee Good, both US citizens acting as legal observers. Noem announced on social media Monday that she met with the heads of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"Effective immediately we are deploying body cameras to every officer in the field in Minneapolis. As funding is available, the body camera program will be expanded nationwide. We will rapidly acquire and deploy body cameras to DHS law enforcement across the country. The most transparent administration in American history," the department chief wrote, also thanking the president.
Noem's revealed the move as Congress was in the process of reopening the government after a weekend shutdown. The package would give federal lawmakers until mid-February to sort out a battle over DHS funding. Democrats have fought for policies to rein in the department since ICE officer Jonathan Ross killed Good last month, and demands have mounted since Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez killed Pretti.
Responding to the secretary on social media, House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said, "The funding is there, and every officer operating in our communities should be wearing a body camera."
"However, this alone won't be enough for Homeland Security to regain public trust or to ensure full transparency and accountability. Secretary Noem must be removed from office," DeLauro added. There have been growing calls to impeach her.
Pointing to extra money that ICE got in the budget package that congressional Republicans and Trump forced through last summer, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said: "You got $75 billion in the Big Bad Betrayal bill. You've got funding 'available' right now. And... release the Pretti bodycam footage NOW."
Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va.) also took to social media to call for releasing the bodycam footage from the Pretti shooting and stressed that funding is already available:
As the Associated Press reported:
Homeland Security has said that at least four Customs and Border Protection officers on the scene when Pretti was shot were wearing body cameras. The body camera footage from Pretti's shooting has not been made public.
The department has not responded to repeated questions about whether any of the ICE officers on the scene of the killing of Renee Good earlier in January were wearing the cameras.
Bystander footage of the Minneapolis shootings has circulated widely and fueled global demands for ending Trump's "Operation Metro Surge" in Minnesota as well as arresting and prosecuting the agents who shot and killed both legal observers.
Some Americans and a growing number of Democratic lawmakers are also calling to abolish ICE. Author Chantal James declared Monday: "We didn't say bodycams on ICE. Their murders are already on video. We said no more ICE."
Critics of the administration cast doubt on whether adding more bodycams to the mix will reduce violence by DHS. Campaign for New York Health executive director Melanie D'Arrigo said that immigration agents "murdered two people on video since the beginning of the year, and the Trump administration still lied about what happened and tried to justify it. I don't think cameras are the solution."
Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, a a policy organization focused on harmful criminal justice and immigration systems, shared an image emphasizing that "surveillance is not accounability" and a fact sheet about body cameras his group put out last month.
"In the wake of the killing of Michael Brown in 2013, policymakers and police departments held up body-worn cameras as the path forward. Editorial boards joined the chorus," the fact sheet states. "Over a decade later, with 80% of large police departments in the US now having acquired body-worn cameras, it's safe to say body-worn cameras have not delivered on their lofty promise."
"The evidence that body-worn cameras reduce use of force is mixed, at best," and "footage ≠ transparency or accountability," the document details. Additionally, "contrary to their stated purpose, body-worn cameras are actually thriving as tools to surveil and prosecute civilians."
Body cameras are surveillance camerasBody cameras are surveillance camerasBody cameras are surveillance camerasBody cameras are surveillance camerasBody cameras are surveillance camerasBody cameras are surveillance cameras
— Evan Greer (@evangreer.bsky.social) February 2, 2026 at 7:03 PM
After a masked federal immigration agent told a legal observer in Maine that she was being put in a database for purported "domestic terrorists," independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported last week that federal agencies are using multiple watchlists to track and categorize US citizens—especially activists, protesters, and other critics of law enforcement.
Trump administration immigration enforcers shot the 37-year-old nurse multiple times and then allegedly denied him medical care.
A county medical examiner's office in Minnesota on Monday ruled the death of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old nurse fatally shot last month by Trump administration immigration enforcers in Minneapolis, a homicide.
The Hennepin County medical examiner said that Pretti's cause of death was homicide by multiple gunshot wounds. Homicide is a medical description that does not imply criminal wrongdoing; the Trump administration said last week that it has launched a civil rights probe into the January 24 incident in which agents shot Pretti seconds after disarming him of a legally carried handgun.
On Sunday, ProPublica revealed that US Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer Raymundo Gutierrez shot Pretti, who was reportedly known to federal officials after a previous encounter in which immigration enforcers allegedly broke his rib.
A physician who rushed to the scene of the shooting and tried to save Pretti's life said in a sworn statement that agents denied the victim medical care and instead "appeared to be counting his bullet wounds."
As they did with Renee Good, the 37-year-old mother and poet who was also shot dead by a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in Minneapolis last month, President Donald rTrump and some of his senior officials attempted to smear Pretti as a “domestic terrorist”—a move consistent with the administration’s designation of left-wing activism as terrorism.
Last week, US District Court Judge Katherine Menendez—an appointee of former President Joe Biden—rejected a bid by state and local officials in Minnesota to halt Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration's name for the ongoing anti-immigrant blitz in the Twin Cities.
This, even as Menendez acknowledged that the operation "has had, and will likely continue to have, profound and even heartbreaking, consequences," and that “there is evidence that ICE and CBP agents have engaged in racial profiling, excessive use of force, and other harmful actions."
Immigrant advocates renewed calls to end ICE and the Trump administration's broader anti-immigrant crackdown in the wake of the Minnesota medical examiner's homicide determination.
Author Chantal James took aim at Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's Monday announcement that every officer with her department deployed to Minneapolis will be equipped with a body-worn camera.
"We didn't say bodycams on ICE," she wrote on Bluesky. "Their murders are already on video. We said no more ICE."
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), whose district includes Minneapolis, said on Bluesky: "Abolish ICE. There’s no reforming it. There’s no compromise. There’s only one way to rein in ICE’s terror campaign. Abolish it."
"The unilateral court victories are evidence of what we've known all along—Donald Trump has it out for offshore wind, but we aren’t giving up without a fight," said a Sierra Club senior adviser.
While President Donald Trump's administration on Monday again made its commitment to planet-wrecking fossil fuels clear, a Republican-appointed judge in Washington, DC dealt yet another blow to the Department of the Interior's attacks on offshore wind power.
US District Judge Royce Lamberth, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, issued a preliminary injunction allowing the developer of the Sunrise Wind project off New York to resume construction during the court battle over the department's legally dubious move to block this and four other wind farms along the East Coast under the guise of national security concerns.
Lamberth previously issued a similar ruling for Revolution Wind off Rhode Island—which, like Sunrise, is a project of the Danish company Ørsted. Other judges did so for Empire Wind off New York, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind off Virginia, and Vineyard Wind off Massachusetts, meaning Monday's decision was the fifth defeat for the administration.
Ørsted said in a Monday statement that the Sunrise "will resume construction work as soon as possible, with safety as the top priority, to deliver affordable, reliable power to the State of New York." The company also pledged to "determine how it may be possible to work with the US administration to achieve an expeditious and durable resolution."
Welcoming Lamberth's decision as "a big win for New York workers, families, and our future," Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul stressed that "it puts union workers back on the job, keeps billions in private investment in New York, and delivers the clean, reliable power our grid needs, especially as extreme weather becomes more frequent."
Despite the series of defeats, the Big Oil-backed Trump administration intends to keep fighting the projects. As E&E News reported:
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers reiterated in a response Monday that Trump has been clear that "wind energy is the scam of the century."
"The Trump administration has paused the construction of all large-scale offshore wind projects because our number one priority is to put America First and protect the national security of the American people," Rogers said. "The administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue."
The Interior Department said it had no comment at this time due to pending litigation.
Still, advocates for wind energy and other efforts to address the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency are celebrating the courts' consistent rejections of the Trump administration's "abrupt attempt to halt construction on these fully permitted projects," as Hillary Bright, executive director of the pro-wind group Turn Forward, put it Monday.
"Taken together, these five offshore wind projects represent nearly 6 gigawatts of new electricity now under construction along the East Coast, enough power to serve 2.5 million American homes and businesses," she noted. "At a time when electricity demand is rising rapidly and grid reliability is under increasing strain, these projects represent critically needed utility-scale power sources that are making progress toward completion."
"We hope the consistent outcomes in court bode well for the completion of these projects," Bright said. "Energy experts and grid operators alike recognize that offshore wind is a critical reliability resource for densely populated coastal regions, particularly during periods of high demand. Delaying or obstructing these projects only increases the risk of higher costs and greater instability for ratepayers."
"After five rulings and five clear outcomes, it is time to move past litigation-driven uncertainty and allow these projects to finish the job they were approved to do," she argued. "Offshore wind strengthens American energy security, supports domestic manufacturing and construction jobs, and delivers reliable power where it is needed most. We need to leverage this resource, not hold it back."
Sierra Club senior adviser Nancy Pyne similarly said that "the unilateral court victories are evidence of what we've known all along—Donald Trump has it out for offshore wind, but we aren't giving up without a fight. Communities deserve a cleaner, cheaper, healthier future, and offshore wind will help us get there."
"Despite the roadblocks Donald Trump has tried to throw up in an effort to bolster dirty fossil fuels, offshore wind will prevail," she predicted. "We will continue to call for responsible and equitable offshore wind from coast to coast, as we fight for an affordable and reliable clean energy future for all."
Allyson Samuell, a Sierra Club senior campaign representative in the state, highlighted that beyond the climate benefits of the project, "we are glad to see Sunrise Wind's 800 workers, made up largely of local New Yorkers, get back to work."
"Once constructed, Sunrise Wind will supply 600,000 local homes with affordable, reliable, renewable energy—this power is super needed and especially important during extreme cold snaps and winter storms like Storm Fern," Samuell said in the wake of the dangerous weather. "Here in New York, South Fork has proven offshore wind works, now is the time to see Sunrise, and Empire Wind, come online too."