

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.
"This country needs an alternative to the Liberal-Conservative consensus that is doubling down on a future of climate-wrecking corporate welfare," said New Democratic Party Leader Avi Lewis.
On the heels of young Canadians suing over Prime Minister Mark Carney’s climate "failure" and people across the country mobilizing to urge the government to "stop fast-tracking destruction," the Liberal leader on Thursday made a pair of fossil fuel-related announcements that sparked fresh anger.
Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith of the United Conservative Party announced that the province is partnering with the federally owned Trans Mountain Corporation and Calgary-based Pembina Pipeline Corporation for a proposed tar sands pipeline that would bring more oil to British Columbia's west coast.
"The proposed pipeline would generally follow the existing footprint of the federally owned Trans Mountain pipeline, running from Bruderheim, northeast of Edmonton, to the Roberts Bank export terminal in Delta, BC, south of Vancouver," the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported. "Smith said the project would send more than 1 million barrels to Asian markets every day, reducing Canada's reliance on the US."
"The Alberta government's submission to the federal government's Major Projects Office said the project would cost between $35.2 billion and $43.7 billion, including contingencies. Construction would start as early as 2027 and finish by 2034," CBC noted. "As for who foots the bill, Smith said detailed funding and the cost for taxpayers 'remains to be negotiated.'"
Sounding the alarm about the plans with a Friday blog post, 350 Canada country manager Atiya Jaffar wrote, "In other words, we can get ready to expect $35-100 billion of our taxpayer dollars wasted on building this dangerous pipe dream."
"Canada is headed in a dangerous direction. Expanding tar sands and the fracked gas industry is like pouring fuel on the flames of the climate emergency," she argued, urging Canadians to pressure their members of Parliament to sign what the advocacy group is calling a "People's MOU," a jab at the memorandum of understanding the federal and Alberta governments signed last year.
This week, heatwaves gripped communities across the country as we marked the 5 year anniversary of the 2021 Heat Dome. And yet, this is the week that Carney, Eby, and Danielle Smith teamed up to announce their plans to burn away our future! 350.org/west-coast-p...
[image or embed]
— 350 Canada (@350canada.bsky.social) July 3, 2026 at 2:44 PM
Smith and Carney's pipeline press conference came after shortly after the PM and BC Premier David Eby announced a "cooperative prosperity agreement" that the Wilderness Committee condemned as "an abandonment of both governments' efforts to fight climate change and protect the environment," given its provisions on the province's liquefied natural gas (LNG) and mining endeavors.
Although Eby, a member of the New Democratic Party (NDP), "has been a prominent critic of the Carney government's work with Alberta on pipeline plans," Politico reported Thursday, the provincial leader cut short a trip to Beijing, where he traveled to meet with PetroChina executives about LNG production, "to be at the prime minister's side" for the announcement.
Eby tried to stress that "this agreement doesn't require us to support any pipeline proposal from Alberta. However, as I've said before, we recognize our constitutional position, and we do not have the authority to stop a new pipeline. We will not be going to court to fight a pipeline project. Instead, we will ensure we fulfill our constitutional obligations in good faith."
"Pipelines are federal jurisdiction," he continued. "That's why this agreement matters. It ensures that the northern tanker ban stays in place, and it ensures that if a pipeline goes ahead, that British Columbians are fairly compensated for the environmental risks we would take on any new pipeline project."
Mark Carney, Danielle Smith and David Eby chose this record shattering #heatwave (which extends into Ontario & Quebec) as the backdrop for their plans to spend billions of dollars of our public $ to extract & export more fossil fuels. How do you feel about that? #cdnpoli #bcpoli #onpoli
[image or embed]
— Climate Justice Victoria (@climatejusticeyyj.bsky.social) July 3, 2026 at 12:01 PM
The Wilderness Committee's conservation and policy campaigner Lucero González responded, "Eby said he will ensure British Columbians are compensated for the environmental damage of another pipeline, but there is no compensation for the extinction of the southern resident orcas."
"How do you compensate for the unimaginable pain of an endangered orca like Tahlequah who has shown us her dead calves throughout the Salish Sea while each new megaproject continues to destroy their habitat?" González inquired.
Pointing to not only the potential increase in tanker traffic and oil spill risk but also the federal government's "proposed evisceration" of the Species at Risk Act, González declared that "Carney is showing us his enthusiastic willingness to accept and fund the extinction of endangered species and a future where oil and private profit are more valuable than the entire Salish Sea ecosystem.
As Politico highlighted, the prime minister's motivations for pushing the new pipeline include combating a separatist movement in one of the involved provinces:
The project is also aimed at easing separatist tensions in Alberta, where voters will decide in October if they want to hold a referendum to separate from Canada. Smith has blamed "10 years of bad Liberal policy" under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for fueling western alienation, pointing to climate rules and energy regulations she says hurt Alberta’s economy.
In a 17-minute video posted to his YouTube channel earlier this week, Carney acknowledged that his government’s energy policies will increase emissions. He argued that the climate policies championed by Trudeau had become a political wedge—and fodder for Alberta separatists.
Even before the video, advocacy organizations had partnered with a trio of young citizens in June to take legal action over the prime minister failing to bring Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
Julia Levin of Environmental Defence, one of the groups behind the case, said last month that "PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress. It is Canadians who are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity and high costs of living."
The pipeline announcement begins with Carney acknowledging, without a hint of irony, the “biblical weather” in Ottawa yesterday.Extreme weather huh? Like the kind exacerbated by climate change? You don’t say! Hm!!!!
[image or embed]
— Rachel Gilmore (@rachelgilmore.bsky.social) July 2, 2026 at 8:43 PM
The Wilderness Committee's associate director, Torrance Coste, similarly said Friday that "at a time when people across the country are suffering in extreme heat, wildfire evacuations, and devastating floods, pursuing the expansion of Canada's most polluting industry is utterly despicable."
"In the fight against climate change, Prime Minister Carney and Premier Eby are issuing their surrender, and resigning us to a future of ecological and economic decline," Coste added.
Stephen Harper's dream can finally be realized! And all it took was to screw over the next generations by destroying our climate and the livability of the planet.
[image or embed]
— Charles Latimer (@ch4rlie.bsky.social) July 3, 2026 at 2:52 PM
While Eby flew home to be by the prime minister's side for Thursday's first announcement, the NDP's recently elected national leader, Avi Lewis, delivered a scathing rebuke of a federal government that he said "will protect above all else: the profits of Big Oil."
"As we mark the five-year anniversary of a heat dome that killed 619 people in British Columbia—and as many communities across the country are facing extreme weather right now—Canadians deserve leadership that protects us," Lewis argued on social media. "Instead, this government is doubling down on yesterday's failed solutions and dragging us into further danger, risk, and insecurity."
The pipeline's "opaque and confusing public-private partnership ownership structure means it's very likely that we, the public, will not only bear the risks and the damages, but also the lion's share of the costs," he warned. "Canada's New Democrats unequivocally oppose this pipeline proposal. If anything, this is a pipeline to the courts. It ignores the federal government's legal responsibility to meaningfully consult Indigenous nations, including Treaty 8 nations in Alberta, threatens endangered species, and accelerates climate change. It will sow the very divisions the prime minister claims he wants to avoid."
"We do not achieve unity or prosperity from projects that pit communities against one another, all while a handful of oil and gas CEOs walk away with enormous profits," he continued. "While we're stuck fighting yesterday's battles over pipelines, and the prime minister openly admits that our emissions will rise, the rest of the world is racing ahead on renewables. We cannot afford to fall behind while other countries build the industries of the future. "
According to the NDP leader: "Canadians deserve better than being told our only choice is another fight over another pipeline. This country needs an alternative to the Liberal-Conservative consensus that is doubling down on a future of climate-wrecking corporate welfare."
"New Democrats are ready to build something bigger, safer, and better—a Canada that is a renewable energy superpower, with an east-west clean electricity grid and good green jobs in every region," he concluded. "Lower costs for families with home retrofits and heat pumps for all. Investing in the care economy as a nation-building project. That's what it looks like to build big things that actually unite this country."
His forthright approach on a difficult issue is likely to appeal to voters.
Well, as honeymoons go, that was brief.
Avi Lewis may well have set a record for honeymoon brevity in Canadian politics. He wasn’t even done accepting the great prize of winning the leadership of the federal New Democratic Party (NDP) last Sunday before two key figures in his own party denounced him over his resolve to move the country beyond fossil fuels.
Lewis may also have set something of a record for sheer cheerfulness in the face of such speedy backstabbing.
In response to Alberta NDP leader Naheed Nenshi’s attack, Lewis didn’t miss a beat. Even as reporters pressed him for some hot words, Lewis remained buoyant and smiling as he insisted these disputes are necessary and inevitable. He even went on to voice strong support for Nenshi, maintaining that what really matters is Nenshi defeating Danielle Smith to become Alberta premier.
But while the issue is tough, the way forward is clear. Science doesn’t give us a lot of wiggle room; the clock is running out on the world’s remaining chances of preventing carbon emissions from reaching catastrophic levels.
Talk about turning the other cheek; that was a class act. It suggests that Lewis may have a shot at knitting the party together, despite this rather troubled start.
Of course, knitting the party together won’t be easy. There’s a serious divide in the NDP over whether fossil fuels should be kept in the ground, for the sake of saving the planet.
Let’s face it—this is a tricky issue for the NDP.
On one hand, climate action is a winning issue for the party; most progressive voters care about climate, and Prime Minister Mark Carney has opened up lots of territory on his left flank by abandoning any plausible claim to being a climate champion with his willingness to embrace Big Oil.
On the other hand, the fossil fuel industry is powerful and employs Canadians, particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan—the two provinces where NDP leaders are hostile to Lewis.
But while the issue is tough, the way forward is clear. Science doesn’t give us a lot of wiggle room; the clock is running out on the world’s remaining chances of preventing carbon emissions from reaching catastrophic levels.
Furthermore, the world has already started transitioning to renewable energy. Not only are renewables increasingly affordable—battery costs have declined by 99% over the last three decades—but rebuilding our economy around them would be a huge job creator.
In fact, fossil fuel employment is on the decline, as the industry becomes less labor-intensive. Over the past decade, fossil fuel employment in Canada has already shrunk by 38,000 jobs, even as oil and gas production has risen significantly, notes economist Jim Stanford, director of the Centre for Future Work.
So Lewis is doing the right thing—not only in championing climate action, but in coming out and stating his position clearly, despite the political heat he’s taking for it inside his own party. This forthright approach on a difficult issue is likely to appeal to voters.
In addition to the knives wielded inside the party, Lewis can expect scorn from mainstream commentators, who tend to dismiss him as a left-wing extremist.
But are his positions too extreme for the electorate, or just too extreme for mainstream commentators?
Lewis advocates publicly-owned grocery stores and banks—ideas outside the political mainstream. But, given the way grocery and bank monopolies are squeezing customers these days, is it far-fetched to imagine voters might support public alternatives?
Interestingly, Toronto City Council voted last week to establish a pilot project for public grocery stores. And public banking through the post office, which existed in Canada for decades, could be a welcome alternative for low-income customers stung by payday loan operators, as well as for residents in rural areas, where banks are scarce.
Lewis also proposes a wealth tax on the very rich—again, an idea ridiculed by many mainstream commentators. But polls show it has wide popular support.
Perhaps these sorts of left-wing populist ideas have had trouble succeeding in Canadian politics because they’ve lacked a passionate and articulate advocate.
That may have just changed.
"The NDP will start winning again because we will become that beacon to the 99%," Lewis said.
Progressive activist Avi Lewis is pledging to bring Canada's New Democratic Party "out of the wilderness" after being decisively elected as its new leader on Sunday on the back of an ambitious, affordability-focused agenda aimed at winning back working-class voters.
Lewis, the grandson of one of the NDP's cofounders, cruised to a resounding victory, earning 56% of the vote to take over leadership of the long-ailing left-wing party, which has bled members in recent years to both Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberals and Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives.
He was introduced at Sunday's Winnipeg convention by his wife, the acclaimed author and activist Naomi Klein, who said her husband's victory was an invitation for Canadians to “dream big once again" and renew the fight against corporate greed at a time when more than half of the population says they struggle to afford basic necessities.
Lewis has proposed a sweeping agenda of “public options” aimed at combating Canada’s affordability crisis, including publicly owned grocery stores and banks to compete with price-gouging corporate monopolies.
A scion of the party that helped to build Canada’s universal healthcare system—which covers hospital and physician care—he’s called for it to be expanded into a “head-to-toe” care system that guarantees dental, drugs, vision, hearing, and mental health services for all Canadians.
In order to pay for these programs and others—including public housing, green energy investment, and subsidized phone and internet plans—Lewis has campaigned to pass a wealth tax on the richest 1% of Canadians, who own nearly $1.25 trillion, almost as much as the bottom 80% of Canadians, according to a recent report by Oxfam Canada.
"This country is awash in wealth. We can have nice things," Lewis asserted to a raucous crowd during his acceptance speech. "Banks made $70 billion in profits last year alone. Oil companies are expecting a new windfall in the tens of billions. Grocery baron Galen Weston alone is worth $20 billion."
During his campaign, Lewis railed against tax cuts for wealthy Canadians passed by the Liberal government, which are projected to cost the government nearly $76 billion over five years and slash an estimated 57,000 public-sector jobs by 2028.
"It is time, far past time, to properly tax the billionaires and corporations that have been riding a tidal wave of profit," Lewis said.
While he acknowledged that Carney is still largely popular in Canada, in large part due to his fiery denunciations of US President Donald Trump's tariff war and threats to annex Canada, Lewis argued that the prime minister's revulsion toward Trumpism is only skin-deep.
"I think when you connect the dots, his moves do not add up to the vision that Canadians truly want and deserve in this perilous moment," he said. "Half a trillion dollars in a decade for weapons to make Canada a major arms exporter in a war-torn world. Slashing our cherished public services, sweeping aside indigenous rights... No regulations on AI and pipelines."
"In the last federal election, Canadians voted to say no to Trump and Trumpism," Lewis said. "What they're getting instead is our government following the US into a future of wars, fossil fuels, austerity, and job-killing generative AI."
Lewis will face a difficult task ahead in rebuilding the NDP from a disastrous loss of support under its previous leader, Jagmeet Singh, who stepped down from his post after the party suffered the worst defeat in its history during last April’s elections, dropping to just seven seats in Parliament—not even enough to be considered a “recognized” party.
The role of NDP leader is the highest office Lewis has held in his life, having run two failed campaigns for parliament in his native Vancouver in 2021 and 2025.
Though NDP currently sits at a distant third, with only about 7% support according to an Abacus poll from March, other polls show that their positions, including a wealth tax and expanding federal health coverage, are popular with the vast majority of voters across party lines.
Other polls show that Canadians, especially those with low incomes, increasingly view affordability and inequality as pressing issues, especially as Trump's war against Iran has caused global energy shortages and price hikes.
"The NDP is coming back because we know that a thriving world is possible, and we know who is standing in our way, and there are way more of us than there are of them," Lewis said. "The NDP will start winning again because we will become that beacon to the 99%."
“When people are being gouged at the checkout aisle, on their phone bills, and in their rents, it’s clear that the market is failing,” Lewis said.
As Avi Lewis moves forward with his bid to become the next leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party, the progressive activist, filmmaker, and journalist, announced his first major policy proposal on Monday: an array of "public options" for groceries, housing, phone bills, and other necessities aimed at combating Canada's cost-of-living crisis.
After two failed parliamentary bids in 2021 and 2025, the Vancouver-based Lewis in September launched his bid to take Canada's leftmost party in a more economically populist direction following a series of defeats under its long-serving, Jagmeet Singh.
He hopes his laser focus on corporate greed, which he says is driving Canada's cost-of-living crisis, will help set him apart from other front-runners, including Edmonton Member of Parliament Heather McPherson and British Columbia union leader Rob Ashton.
“It’s a moral outrage that so many people in Canada can’t afford the basics of a dignified life at a time when corporate profits are only skyrocketing,” Lewis said as he unveiled an array of new proposals Monday. “When people are being gouged at the checkout aisle, on their phone bills, and in their rents, it’s clear that the market is failing.”
Lewis called for the creation of a public not-for-profit grocery store chain that would operate coast to coast to combat the growing crisis of food insecurity.
According to data published earlier this year by the Canadian Income Survey, approximately 10 million Canadians—over 25%—lived in food-insecure households in 2024, nearly doubling since 2021 amid skyrocketing food prices.
Lewis described it as a "market failure" that so many Canadians could struggle to pay for food while Galen Weston, the owner of Canada's largest grocery chain, Loblaw, has a net worth of over $18 billion.
Lewis called for the government to create "a low-cost alternative to the big grocery chains, using a high-volume, warehouse-style model supported by local and regional food hubs." He likened the proposal to Mexico's chain of state-owned grocery stores and the government-run commissaries that provide affordable food to US servicemembers and their families, both of which cost less on average than shopping at major grocery chains.
"Think Costco—but run as a public service," Lewis explained in a policy document.
Lewis proposed a similar solution for the cost of cell phone and internet service, which are higher in Canada than in other peer countries.
Attributing this to "an oligopoly of telecom providers that dominate cellphone and internet services in Canada and gobble up smaller competitors," he proposed that the nation create a network of public telecom providers modeled after SaskTel. This publicly owned company serves the province of Saskatchewan and has led to "substantially lower” prices for customers than in other parts of Canada, according to the nation's Competition Bureau.
To combat the spiking cost of rent and a growing homelessness crisis, Lewis also pledged that his NDP would once again prioritize the construction of public housing, which Canada built prolifically until the early 1990s.
He pledged that under his leadership, Canada would establish a public builder to create a million new units of social, co-op, non-profit, and supportive homes within five years.
Lewis also championed the return of nationwide postal banking as an antidote to the predatory fees and interest rates of Canada's financial institutions.
He plans to leverage the nation's national postal service, which is already the only option for financial services in many remote parts of the country, as a competitive alternative to Canada's six largest banks, which brought in more than $50 billion in profits last year, and to predatory payday loan and check-cashing companies.
Finally, he proposed the reestablishment of Canada's government-owned nonprofit pharmaceutical company, Connaught Labs, which created and cheaply mass-produced life-saving vaccines and other medications like insulin for free public distribution. The company was privatized in the 1980s under former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
"During the Covid pandemic, for-profit pharmaceutical companies made billions while countries competed with one another for vaccine supplies instead of distributing them globally to stop the virus's spread across borders," Lewis said.
He said that his new version of Connaught would invest in the public development of innovative pharmaceuticals, such as mRNA vaccines and cancer immunotherapies, and share that technology with low-income countries.
"It's time to take the power back from the price-fixing corporate cartels that have a stranglehold on our economy and put it in the hands of the people," Lewis said. "It's time to build a new generation of public options to reduce costs and raise our quality of life."
Lewis described his "next generation" of public options as following in the footsteps of those pursued by NDP-led provincial governments.
"Whether it's public auto insurance in Manitoba, the agricultural land reserve to protect food security in British Columbia, a public telecom provider in Saskatchewan, or, of course, Medicare, our party has created public institutions that continue to make people's lives better and more affordable decades after their creation."
"The cost of living crisis we face today demands bold solutions," he added. "That means expanding public ownership to lower bills and improve services while creating good union jobs in the process."
Lewis said NDP must “fling the doors wide open, and build a party for the 99%.”
The longtime progressive activist Avi Lewis officially launched his bid for leadership of Canada's New Democratic Party, which he aims to revitalize with a platform of economic populism.
Lewis, a journalist and documentarian whose grandfather helped to found the NDP in 1961, says the way to bring the party back to relevance amid an electoral low point is to “fling the doors wide open, and build a party for the 99%.”
At a kickoff party in Toronto on Wednesday, the former parliamentary candidate from Vancouver railed against the “Liberal-Conservative alliance” that dominates Canadian politics. The two major parties' leaders, Lewis said, "compete fiercely in public, while behind the scenes, they collude to boost corporate profits."
"In the name of protecting the country, the government is rapidly passing and proposing legislation that will change the culture and character of Canada," Lewis said. "From sweeping aside Indigenous rights and environmental protections for so-called nation-building projects, to rolling back higher taxes on the uberwealthy and digital giants, to the generational austerity of 15% cuts to public spending, to the $9 billion that materialized in an instant for the military this year, ramping up to $150 billion a year a decade from now—the changes afoot are extreme."
Lewis pledged to “build a government that is an instrument for the people, not for corporate Canada.”
The NDP—once Canada's third-largest national political party—has been ailing of late after a dismal showing in the nation's most recent parliamentary elections. The party, which held over 100 seats 14 years ago, dropped to a new low of just seven seats in 2025, not enough to even be recognized for committee assignments or federal funding.
The humiliating showing resulted in the resignation of Jagmeet Singh, who'd led the party for eight years, but was widely criticized by those on the left for his coziness with the establishment of the dominant Liberal Party and his failure to keep the NDP competitive. It is in this state of "political wilderness" that Lewis has emerged with an ambitious change agenda.
(Video: Avi Lewis for NDP Leader)
"Life in Canada today feels on the edge," Lewis said in a video released last week announcing his leadership run. "Everyone seeking a little stability, everyone being told 'You're all on your own.'"
He identified several causes of that precarity. One was the "economic attack" from US President Donald Trump, whom Lewis described as sending "disruption grenades" in the form of steep tariffs and annexation threats. But Lewis said that Trump merely "magnifies... the everyday emergency of trying to get by in an impossible economy."
According to one survey conducted in July, 57% of Canadians said their current incomes did not allow them to afford basic necessities like housing, groceries, energy, and cell phone plans.
"Working hard doesn't earn you a living," Lewis said.
"These days, every politician claims to be shocked by the costs," he continued. "What they don't talk about is why: The billions in profits for the tiny group of corporations that control every part of our economy. Three phone providers, three grocery giants, five oil companies, and the five big banks that fund them."
Lewis' plan to confront corporate power is years in the making. Alongside his wife, the acclaimed journalist and author Naomi Klein, Lewis rolled out the Leap Manifesto in 2015 as an agenda for the NDP. Leap focused on confronting the climate crisis, but its contents formed the basis of what he now refers to as a "Green New Deal." The accelerating climate emergency remains at the center of his agenda in 2025.
"Oil and gas CEOs," he said in the video, are "not just hoarding extreme wealth," but "foreclosing on our shared future."
Lewis has never held a parliamentary office, though he has run for a federal Vancouver-area seat twice before and achieved two third-place finishes, receiving 26% of the vote in 2021 and 12.5% in 2025.
In his bid to lead NDP, he has so far leaned heavily into his family legacy and his reputation as a lifelong activist who has "butted heads with the powerful," over issues like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the privatization of healthcare and public transit.
"For four decades," he said, "I have stood with workers, telling stories of working-class heroes and organizing for dignity in factories and fields, classrooms and care homes, shop floors and fishing fleets."
Lewis, who also identified free trade deals as job killers, proposed a "Green New Deal" as a means to revive Canadian industry and create "millions of good-paying jobs."
He has also proposed a wealth tax, a national cap on rent increases, a public option for groceries, and expanded universal healthcare that covers "medication to mental health."
During his speech Wednesday night, Lewis described NDP as "the only party that can accurately diagnose the cause of our everyday emergency, and offer solutions as big as the crises we face."
"The federal government has the power, the resources, and the responsibility to ensure the fundamentals of a good life—healthy food, truly affordable housing, functioning public transit, and hey, maybe a proper vacation once in a while," he said. "But we won’t get it if we don’t fight for it. And that’s where the NDP comes in. After all, the NDP is the original party of workers’ struggle. And in this moment of epic change and uncertainty, the party is needed as never before."
"It's so hard to sort out pebbles of fact from mountains of propaganda," wrote Canadian filmmaker Avi Lewis.
As officials and medical personnel in Gaza said Wednesday that the blockaded enclave faces a "humanitarian catastrophe," progressive journalists warned that policymakers are placing millions of lives at risk by rapidly making hugely consequential decisions while facts about what's taking place on the ground are not always immediately clear.
Canadian filmmaker and activist Avi Lewis used the military term "fog of war"—the difficulty of determining the on-the-ground realities and the correct decisions to make in military operations—to describe the current situation in Israel and Gaza following an unprecedented surprise attack by Hamas on Saturday, which killed more than 1,200 people, and Israel's deadly retaliation against the impoverished enclave that's home to more than two million civilians, about half of whom are children.
"It's so hard to sort out pebbles of fact from mountains of propaganda," Lewis wrote on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, adding that he has been "appalled" by the suffering of civilians in Israel and Gaza and by the decisions that have followed by policymakers thousands of miles away from the conflict.
As Gaza faced intensifying strain on its healthcare system due to a lack of fuel for its sole power plant and the death toll reached at least 950, Lewis was among those condemning countries including the United States, France, and the United Kingdom for "reverting to simple-minded, one-sided Israel-right-or-wrong-ism."
His comments came less than a day after U.S. President Joe Biden said the Pentagon is "surging additional military assistance" to Israel, "including ammunition and interceptors to replenish Iron Dome," repeating that "we're with Israel" without urging a cessation of the airstrikes that have decimated civilian neighborhoods and healthcare facilities in Gaza.
"The dead and the rubble piling up in Gaza are the bitter fruit of this cynical, simple-minded worldview," said Lewis.
As Yumna Patel, Palestine news director for Mondoweiss, noted on Tuesday—citing The Times of Israel—policymakers including Biden are pledging support for Israel's assault on Gaza as media reports focus heavily on the human impact Hamas's attack had, but far less on the suffering unleashed by the Israel Defense Forces' (IDF) retaliation.
"By taking only foreign press into these sites and feeding them information, Israel is again taking control of the narrative on the international stage," said Patel. "And by not allowing local, Hebrew-speaking media into certain areas, Israel is shielding itself from the criticisms and growing frustrations of a population that could easily eventually turn on the government for failing to protect them."
"It's a win-win situation for Israel," she added. "It gets to put out to the world the images that it wants (dead Israelis), while limiting what it doesn't want the world to see or hear (real-life Gazans as human beings), and preventing its own people from the truth of its colossal failure."
Germany-based Palestinian journalist Hebh Jamal added that "this misinformation, and fog of war is playing EXACTLY into Israel's favor."
Warnings of the difficulties of determining the reality on the ground in Gaza and Israel came as numerous right-wing leaders in Israel and the U.S. compared the Hamas attack to September 11, 2001, with both the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and a spokesperson for the IDF saying in recent days, "This is our 9/11."
At The Intercept on Monday, Jon Schwarz wrote that the analogy is apt, but perhaps not for reasons Israeli or U.S. officials would acknowledge.
Both Israel and the U.S. "generated their own enemies," Schwarz wrote, with the U.S. encouraging "fundamentalist Islamic opposition to "the Soviet Union in Afghanistan during the 1980s," and Israel doing "the same thing in miniature in the occupied territories, encouraging the growth of Hamas to damage the secular Fatah." And like the George W. Bush administration, Israel apparently "ignored" warnings about an impending attack, as Haaretz reported Monday.
"Finally, the revenge that Israel will now exact will be hideous, as was that taken by the U.S.," Schwarz wrote. "There is nothing on earth like the fury of the powerful when they believe they have been defied by their inferiors."
At Open Democracy—which published commentary in the wake of the 9/11 attacks urging the U.S. not to rush into war—international security correspondent Paul Rogers also drew comparisons between the current moment and the time period following the World Trade Center attacks, warning that the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's current outlook mirrors that of the Bush administration in 2001: "He sees no alternative but to launch a counter-attack," even against civilian families who had nothing to do with Hamas's brutal assault.
"The chances of a peaceful outcome may be remote, but the alternative will be years more of conflict," wrote Rogers. "Those few Western politicians calling for an immediate cease-fire may be shouted down, but they are right."
U.S. lawmakers including U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) were branded "disgraceful" by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre after issuing statements that both condemned Hamas' attack and criticized Israel's occupation. The lawmakers also called for a cease-fire and peace talks.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—the sole member of Congress to vote against the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force—was widely denounced for her vote after 9/11, and over the weekend also called for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.
"Time eventually proved her wise, and that lonely stand built her legacy," wrote Intercept journalist Ryan Grim of Lee's dissent in 2001.
Over the objections of lawmakers like Lee this week, he added, "what Netanyahu is doing, and what Biden is encouraging, may spiral into one of the greatest mass civilian atrocities in a half-century."
As Canadians head to the polls Monday on the final day of federal elections, a journalist, documentary filmmaker, and climate activist in British Columbia is hoping his plan to take aggressive action to combat the climate emergency will resonate with enough voters to score an upset victory.
"The entire political system is failing to confront the level of emergency that we have."
--Avi Lewis,
NDP candidate
Avi Lewis, the New Democratic Party's (NDP) candidate for the House of Commons for the West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country riding, knows his is a longshot campaign. The social democratic NDP--which finished a distant fourth place there in the 2019 election--has never held the seat in the riding, one of Canada's wealthiest, and a Liberal stronghold.
"We're in an uphill battle to pull off an upset of epic proportions," Lewis told CBC News Sunday.
However, Lewis--who is the third generation of his family to enter politics--believes he can flip the riding from the Liberals, the party of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, by running on a Green New Deal platform that addresses the most pressing issues facing Canada today: the climate crisis and inequality.
"The entire political system is failing to confront the level of emergency that we have and embrace the level of opportunity in housing and health and transit and all the related systems that need changing," he added.
International climate campaigners including Canadian environmental activist David Suzuki and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben have joined activists, artists, and intellectuals such as Jane Fonda, Alexandra Morton, Mike Douglas, Yan Martel, and Sara Quin in endorsing Lewis due to his strong stance on climate action.
In 2015, Lewis, along with his wife--the author, activist, and filmmaker Naomi Klein--and others published The Leap Manifesto, a bold call to action on climate and inequality spearheaded by a coalition of Indigenous leaders, labor unions, and environmentalists that was signed by more than 50,000 Canadians and whose principles were adopted by the NDP in 2016.
However, activists have criticized what they call the NDP's vague and inadequate climate policies, including the party's support for fossil fuel projects and its refusal to condemn fracking.
Unlike NDP leadership, Lewis has been unafraid to demand a halt to destructive projects, including the government-owned Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion. Both Trudeau's government and the Conservative Party opposition staunchly support the fossil fuel industry, which accounts for more than 5% of Canada's gross domestic product. Canada is the only G7 nation whose greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the Paris climate agreement was signed in 2015, mainly due to the extraction of tar sands oil, the world's dirtiest fuel.
Mike Simpson, the Green Party candidate running for the West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country parliamentary seat, has resisted pressure to step down and support Lewis. However, Lewis' stong stance on climate action has earned him the support of many Green Party members and voters.
"We need to send Avi to Ottawa," Suzuki asserted in an endorsement video featuring prominent British Columbian Greens, "to shake up the entire political establishment, including his own party, and tip the scales in favor of people and the planet."
Lewis' candidacy comes during a summer in which British Columbians suffered some of the world's hottest temperatures, as well as devastating wildfires. Provincial authorities said extreme heat claimed 569 lives between June 20 and July 29.
After the village of Lytton recorded a Canadian record temperature of 49.6degC (121.3degF) on June 30--surpassing all-time highs in desert cities including Las Vegas and Tucson, Arizona--it was destroyed by a massive wildfire.
"Before we can win a Green New Deal, we need to be able to close our eyes and imagine it. We can be whatever we have the courage to see."
That was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) expressing one of the messages behind an urgent video on climate change released Wednesday by The Intercept.
The video, "A Message From the Future with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," was produced by The Intercept's Naomi Klein. Narrated by Ocasio-Cortez, the short film is presented as a look back to the present day from a future in which the Green New Deal passed Congress and reshaped America and the planet for the better.
The video features art from Molly Crabapple and was written by Ocasio-Cortez and Avi Lewis. It was co-directed by Kim Boekbinder and Jim Batt.
"Despite all the horrors of climate change that we have seen and continue to see," said Crabapple, "we can save ourselves, accomplish brave, beautiful, and world-changing things."
Klein pointed to the hope the video could give to people interested in working to change the planet for the better.
"This beautiful film helps us imagine a different version of ourselves, and a future in which we decided to come together in the face of crisis, rather than surrender and fall apart," said Klein.
Watch the video here:
It was a relatively intimate event—this small conference described as a "gathering of minds to envision the world we want"—that took place over three days as last month ended and December began in Burlington, Vermont.
No, it wasn't a "hootenanny." The serious topics discussed in detail and with passion were poverty, inequality, human rights, the climate crisis, racism, war, peace, refugees, workers, healthcare, housing, civil rights, independent media, corporate power, criminal justice reform, international solidarity, civil rights, voting rights, the rights of women, the LGBTQ community, immigration, democracy, economics, politics, organizing, and ultimately about how all of these issues can never be adequately understood or addressed in isolation.
"What do we need to do to improve the quality of life of our citizens of the world?" —Dr. Jane O'Meara Sanders, The Sanders Institute
"I think it's important that we realize the intersectionality of the issues," explained Jane O'Meara Sanders, who along with executive director David Driscoll founded The Sanders Institute and organized the Gathering. "I mean environmental sanity has to do with income inequality and so many things. And that's why we intentionally do things more comprehensively because we don't want to say, 'We're having an environmental conference,' or 'We're having a housing conference.'"
The conference, she said in an interview with Common Dreams, was one that wanted to ask: "What do we need to do to improve the quality of life of our citizens of the world?"
And while Jane's husband, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was at the conference—delivering the keynote and sitting on several panels—the weekend was distinctly not about him. Throughout the weekend, the senator could be found waving off reporters, sitting quietly in the back row during panel discussions, trying not to be seen, but listening intently to what was being said by the assembled speakers and the engaged attendees.
"I'm a guest here," Bernie told The Real News Network in an interview on Saturday as he credited his wife and the Institute for putting on the event.
"And what Jane understood," he explained, "is that when we deal with climate change, when we deal with the economy, when we deal with housing, when we deal with criminal justice or immigration issues—we have got to deal with them in a holistic way. We cannot see them as silo-ized, separate issues. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that we live in a nation owned and controlled by a small number of multi-billionaires whose greed—incredible greed, insatiable greed--is having an unbelievably negative impact on our entire country."
Despite being sandwiched between the just-concluded 2018 midterms and the hugely consequential 2020 race—which is already driving frenzied discussion and speculation—the three-day retreat was devoid of the kind of horse-race, personality-driven noise that tends to dominate the vapid political discourse seen on MSNBC, Fox News, and in the pages of America's major newspapers.

Aside from the occasional "Bernie 2020?" outburst from an audience member—and former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis' short but forceful demand that Sanders run for president for the good of the world—the Sanders Institute Gathering was predominantly driven by and organized around the issues and crises affecting the everyday lives of ordinary people in the United States and across the globe, from grotesquely unequal healthcare systems to the climate crisis, which threatens to render the planet uninhabitable for future generations if immediate and bold action is not taken.
What's love got to do with it?
"Only all that we love is on the line," declared Our Revolution president and Sanders Institute fellow Nina Turner during a panel on the moral necessity of Medicare for All, capturing both the ethos of the retreat and the urgency of the issues at hand.
Applauding nurses and others leading the charge for progressive change throughout the U.S. and the world, Turner said success will only come from working together "to soften the soil, to have the conversations, one person to another, that are necessary to ensure that our family and our friends and our play cousins understand what is at stake. You can't win somebody's head unless you win their heart."
"You can't win somebody's head unless you win their heart." —Nina Turner, Our Revolution
Winning over a critical mass of hearts—as the progressive experts and organizers emphasized repeatedly across panels on human rights, the criminal justice system, labor, and the climate crisis—will require an enormous grassroots movement that is not merely single-issue focused and national, but far-reaching and international in scope.
"Capitalism isn't working for a huge number of people on this planet," said journalist and activist Naomi Klein during a panel on the necessity of a Green New Deal as she explained why the crisis also carries with it a political opportunity that must be recognized.
"If we can come up with a framework for responding to climate change that is actually a challenge to economic inequality, joblessness, economic precarity, the need for Medicare for All, and the rest of it," Klein said, "then actually we're gonna build a much broader movement, and also a movement that will fight harder, because it has so much to gain. Because not only is it not threatened by systemic change, it's hungry for it."
"What is required now is transformation of every aspect of society," Klein added. "In other words, a political revolution."
But simply winning over hearts is not sufficient, said many participants, for the kind of transformative change that is necessary for the United States and the world to confront staggering levels of poverty and inequality, lack of healthcare, and the existential threat posed by the climate crisis. In addition to a vision of justice for all, argued the diverse array of voices featured at the Gathering, any successful progressive movement must also rest on a solid intellectual foundation that demonstrates not just the moral necessity of bold progressive initiatives, but also the striking practicality of these objectives.
Social justice from below and the criminals at the top
Discussing criminal justice and the necessity of holding power to account in the U.S., academic and social justice activist Cornel West denounced the two-tiered nature of the nation's justice system. "Why are the criminals at the top hardly talked about?" West asked during a morning panel discussion. "All that market manipulation, insider trading, predatory lending, fraudulent activity on Wall Street. How many of them went to jail? Not at all, not at all. Massive corruption in government, Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are not the only gangsters. And greed is a difficult thing not to be seduced by when you're not accountable."
"When we talk about criminality," West added, "we have to put it in the right context. If we had all the prison reform in the world and still had high levels of poverty, still had decrepit school systems, still had inadequate housing, still had dominant images of a corporate media in which you deal with conflict by killing other people, we still have a problem."
On the broader effort of building a viable progressive movement, West told attendees: "It's got to be solidaristic. If we don't have a left populist option that's credible, we're headed down a neo-fascist road. There's no guarantee that we're gonna win. So what? We're gonna fight anyway."
In the panel discussing why organized labor is essential to democracy, Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Good Jobs Nation, argued that in order for the broad progressive movement to be successful, workers must be marshalled in order to ensure there is political power behind its shared and visionary demands.
"There's been an all-out attack by the corporate class to destroy worker power," Geevarghese said. "That's significant because the power of workers is the only thing that stands between our democracy and having a completely corporate-run government. The working class has been eviscerated and we don't have a powerful countervailing force to take on capital."
"The working class has been eviscerated and we don't have a powerful countervailing force to take on capital."
--Joseph Geevarghese, Good Jobs Nation
And so, he added, "If we are to win the vision that all of us share, I would argue that the conditions precedent for that are empowering the working class to take on the corporate class."
RoseAnn DeMoro, former head of National Nurses United, told Common Dreams after the panel that organized labor and non-unionized citizens who support progressive solutions like Medicare for All should work alongside one another in order to call attention to "all the different sectors in this economy that are harming people" because they all tie into the shared human condition.
"If you tie your workers into the human condition," she said, "then they can take a stand for all the people in the society. And when the labor movement connects with the public good, guess what? When you're out on strike, the public good connects with you."
While Republicans have shown amazing commitment to attacking organized labor, lamented Geevarghese, Democrats have failed to show their commitment to defending workers.
"The problem on our side is when we elect Democrats--or, mainstream Democrats--their goal is not to immediately grow the labor movement. But it should be," he said to applause from the audience. "It fundamentally should be. The challenge for all of us, if we are to realize the vision that the Sanders Institute is giving us space to articulate, I think it is imperative that we do everything possible to increase the number of workers in unions."
What's a progressive economy good for?
Separately--sitting on a panel focused on civil rights, immigration, and human dignity--Radhika Balakrishnan of the Center for Women's Global Leadership at Rutgers University opened the talk with a simple question, invoking the astronomical riches of just three American billionaires who together own more wealth than the bottom half of the U.S. population--approximately 160 million people.
"What's the economy for?" Balakrishnan asked. "Why do we go buy stuff, make things, get paychecks, do all these things? What's the purpose of it? Is it so those three men have half the wealth of the nation, is that what the economy is for?" While the audience responded with a resounding, "No," she explained the imperative of world economies being judged not by the amount of wealth they generate, but by whether the people living within those economies are able to survive and thrive.
Balakrishnan argued that whether it's a focus on various forms of gender inequality or racial inequality, the real questions should be about the freedoms people have, what rights they have, and whether their real material needs are being met. "Are people eating?" That's an important question, she said. "We talked about housing, we talked about mass incarceration, we talked about poverty. Now if we were to judge economic policy by the fact that it does not fulfill these rights, then we can think about a different kind of economy."
Ben Jealous, the former NAACP president and Democratic gubernatorial candidate for Maryland, agreed with Balakrishnan's model of putting "human need at the center of economics and not human greed." But he added that progressives must approach economic debates without allowing conservatives and corporate Democrats to frame bold initiatives as costing too much.
"In reality, you dig into it and what we're actually talking about is saving money, because Medicare for All will save us money," Jealous said. "You end mass incarceration and it turns out you have enough money to lower the cost of higher education dramatically."
"We talked about housing, we talked about mass incarceration, we talked about poverty. Now if we were to judge economic policy by the fact that it does not fulfill these rights, then we can think about a different kind of economy."
--Prof. Radhika Balakrishnan, Rutgers University
"Our policies are not only the right thing to do from a rights perspective, they're also the right thing to do from an economic perspective," he added. "They're the right thing to do from a public safety perspective. And we've got to be willing to stop and say, 'Wait a second, Medicare for All will save us money.'"
Helping to prove that point, the Sanders Institute Gathering also featured the unveiling of a first-of-its-kind analysis of Medicare for All which comprehensively demonstrates that single-payer healthcare is economically feasible and beneficial in addition to morally necessary.
Authored by a team of researchers at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the new paper found that Medicare for All would save the U.S. a staggering $5.1 trillion over ten years while guaranteeing every American comprehensive coverage.
"It's easy to pay for something that costs less," said economist Robert Pollin, the paper's lead author.
The distance from policy prescriptions to claiming power
In remarks connecting policy solutions to the kind of politics needed to achieve them, Jealous invoked a phrase that was repeated throughout the weekend, applauding progressive victories in state houses and legislatures during the midterm elections and imploring progressives to stay engaged in fighting for progressive solutions and social justice even while Republicans still control the White House and the Senate.
"At the end of the day we root this movement in our cities, in our counties, in our states," Jealous said. "What we'll find is that we'll move further, faster. It's not that change comes from the top down. Change has always come from the bottom."
"[Our progressive] policies are not only the right thing to do from a rights perspective, they're also the right thing to do from an economic perspective."
--Ben Jealous, former NAACP presidentReflecting on his time spent at the conference as an attendee, educator, and organizer Nikhil Goyal, author of Schools on Trial: How Freedom and Creativity Can Fix Our Educational Malpractice, told Common Dreams that even though he wished his area of specific focus had been given more attention at the conference, he strongly believes the progressive movement needs to hold gatherings such as this this more often.
"We need to have opportunities to mull over, debate, analyze, and thrash out the details of the agenda we are pursuing for the United States and the rest of the world," Goyal said. "The right-wing does this consistently with its numerous think tanks and the left needs to counteract that force."
Goyal said the absence of a firm "hierarchy" at the Gathering--in addition to its small size and casual atmosphere--made speakers and participants accessible to one another and created space for people from various regions and backgrounds to chat, share stories, and make connections.
The empire in the room
It was in the hallways outside one panel where Jeffrey Sachs, economist and Columbia University professor, took stock of American foreign policy and discussed why the American people--and certainly people around the world--are ready for an end to this century's wars and the gratuitous and destructive military spending driving them. The Pentagon budget was a frequent touchstone for many at the conference.
"People are definitely ready to hear about a new U.S. foreign policy," Sachs told Common Dreams in an interview. "They know the last 25 years has been disastrous. You can't point to one success--in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, or elsewhere in the Middle East. There's not one U.S. success. People understand how much has been wasted."
"You spend money on stupid, wasteful, destructive, unsuccessful wars... and sure enough you're not going to have money for your own kids in this country."
--Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia UniversityThose bragging about or defending the size of the military budget--including Trump, the Republicans, and many prominent Democratic leaders--have it exactly backward, warned Sachs. "If we stand with our people in uniform," he said, "we should stop these wars, get them to safety, and not use the rhetoric of building the military budget as the patriotic thing to do."
Both lawmakers and the American people "need to get serious about this now," Sachs concluded. "Is the public ready? Yes. The public wants peace. Is the Washington establishment ready? No, not yet. Are there voices in Washington that are ready to tell the truth? Absolutely yes."
Also a focus of his new book, A New Foreign Policy, Sachs argues there is a great hunger among other nations to forge new agreements of cooperation and end the failures of U.S. hegemony and the imperial mindset that so infects the nation's politics.
"The fact of the matter is," he told Common Dreams, "there's a world of counterparts out there that would actually like to cooperate to solve problems like climate change, poverty, hunger, the need for building infrastructure, and creating a future that people want. That world's actually out there. I travel and meet leaders all over the world and they cannot understand how the United States digs deeper and deeper into this hole."
The link between U.S. failures abroad and domestic struggles, Sachs continued, is the outrageous size of the nation's military and the economic damage wrought by the deluded religion of American exceptionalism.
"We have more than 800 military bases in more than 70 countries around the world," he said. "We have troops stationed in more than a hundred countries around the world. The costs of this are absolutely mind-boggling. They have drained the budget. They have created massive debt. The wars have cost trillions of dollars, and then we hear Congress turn around and say, 'Oh, there's no money for health, for education, for modernizing our infrastructure.' So the links are absolutely direct. You spend money on stupid, wasteful, destructive, unsuccessful wars... and sure enough you're not going to have money for your own kids in this country."
Ben Cohen, Vermont political activist and co-founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, joined Sachs at the conference in putting emphasis on the ills of military spending, but also paired his critique with the Republican Party's systematic attack on voting rights.
"We are part of a large and potentially powerful movement," he told a room of conference participants during an interlude at the event. "We all have our pet issues, but in general we all want the same stuff: a world that is life-affirming instead of death-defying. But there are these two threshold issues--Pentagon spending and voter suppression--that must be addressed before we can get anything else that we want."
"We all have our pet issues, but in general we all want the same stuff: a world that is life-affirming instead of death-defying."
--Ben Cohen, ice cream maker & political activistThe country, said Cohen, "needs to learn to measure its strength not by how many people we can kill, but by how many people we can feed, clothe, house, and care for."
According to Sachs, it is time for the U.S. to get its priorities straight.
"We don't need hundreds of military bases around the world," he argued. "We don't need a military budget that's not only the $700 billion of the Pentagon itself, but when you add up all the other military-related budgets is closer to a $1 trillion. It eats up our budget and for what? We're not getting security out of it. We're not getting solutions out of it. We're not getting peace out of it. We're getting the illusion, which is the illusion of each president after the next, that the United States somehow runs the world--which is a bizarre idea to begin with because we're only 4.4% of the world's population. So maybe we should take a look at the mirror and realize we're really not here to run the world and we should take care of our own problems."
Existential concerns and the need for a global movement
Sachs says he's not arguing for isolation, but rather global cooperation.
Sitting on a panel with Bernie Sanders, Greece's former finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, Mayor of Barcelona Ada Calou, Canadian House of Commons MP Niki Ashton, and Irish economist David McWilliams, Sachs said on Friday night that international cooperation will be absolutely key if the world is to seriously address war, poverty, and the climate threat.
"Everybody can be a part of [the Progressive International] and what ties it all together is the understanding that we need to come together in pursuit of the justice that we all deserve."
--Canadian MP Niki AshtonIt was at the end of this panel when Jane Sanders and Varoufakis announced their new joint project, the Progressive International, and issued a call for progressives worldwide to join the effort in order to fight the rise of fascism with a bold call for solidarity and the creation of "a global network of individuals and organizations that will fight together for dignity, peace, prosperity, and the future of our planet."
Talking with Common Dreams about the new project, Ashton said "it's clear to me that we're all facing similar elements" and that the "rise of the right" is a threat that cannot be ignored. The Progressive International, she added, "gives us an opportunity to learn from each other and find ways to fight back. It is for elected representatives, but it's also for activists, it's for concerned citizens. Everybody can be a part of it and what ties it all together is the understanding that we need to come together in pursuit of the justice that we all deserve."
In a Guardian op-ed published by Varoufakis and his European colleague David Adler on the morning after the announcement at the Sanders Institute Gathering, the pair argued that progressives from around the world must recognize the importance of seizing established institutions--both political and economic ones--in order "to transform the world for the better, and reclaim them as our own. The alternatives--the technocratic status quo and the strongman unilateralism that has emerged to challenge it--are simply unacceptable."
In her talk with Common Dreams, Jane Sanders explained: "We need to include people of all walks of life, of all backgrounds, in different countries and make sure that we have communication with them so that we know when there are things happening in their countries that need progressive support."
Such communication and organization, she said, will be essential in order to shift the Progressive International from a concept embraced by a handful of political figures into "a movement around the globe that is looking for peace, prosperity, environmental justice, racial justice, social justice, and economic justice."
Reclaiming existing institutions and building new ones
And one of the central themes that emerged from the conference was the urgent need for progressive organizers--and the social movements they represent--to address the real institutional needs of a movement that is clamoring for far-reaching and transformational change.
In a conversation with Common Dreams at the conference, veteran Canadian journalist Avi Lewis, co-founder and strategic director of The Leap, argued that a hard, but liberating, truth of the current moment is that progressives "are now in a position globally and historically where we need an all-of-the-above change strategy" when it comes to taking over existing institutions as well as creating new ones.
"We have to take over and use existing institutions--and not to reform them, but transform them."
--Avi Lewis, The Leap
In terms of how transformative change happens, Lewis said, one of the most exciting things now happening is "a renewed interest among social movements in North America to engage with the electoral sphere. And part of that is a recognition of the existential urgency and the short time left on the clock. There isn't time to build institutions from the ground up if we're serious about the imminence of the climate crisis. And so we have to take over and use existing institutions--and not to reform them, but transform them."
But that's not all. Progressive forces, he added, also "need to build new institutions at the same time" in order to challenge the corrupted political mechanisms that have so far shown to be incapable of making the kind of radical changes both climate science and outrageous levels of inequality demand.
"We need to do it all," Lewis said. "We just simply need to do it all, so I think it's an interesting historical moment when you're seeing lots of social movement energy trying to intervene in the electoral sphere as a shortcut to taking over and trying to use existing institutions. This is a recognition of the conditions of urgency we are now forced to work under."
Naomi Klein, who is married to Lewis and also helped launch The Leap initiative in Canada, told Common Dreams in the same conversation that the choice before humanity is no longer a choice between half-measures and bold solutions. Responding with market-based prescriptions or paying lip service to the threat while continue to drill for, mine, and burn fossil fuels is what we've been doing for the last 20 years. And as the science has become more dire and the here-and-now evidence of climate catastrophes pile up all around us, she says, that approach has not even come close to solving the problem. In fact, it has only increased the threats we face.
The choice now, says Klein, is one "between a model that failed and a model that is really our last chance."
"There are a lot of people on the liberal end of the spectrum who can talk a really good game about the urgency of the climate crisis," she explained, "but if we look at the track record of the kind of legislation they produced; the kind of one-step-forward and three-steps-back approach" that took place under President Obama in the U.S. during his tenure--and happening now under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Canada--there are important lessons that must be recognized.
"We are up against the wall... For some reason we are acting like it's thirty years ago when it would have been possible to gradually introduce renewables and maybe have a carbon tax--that is not the stage we're at now."
--Naomi Klein, journalist & activistKlein says the all-of-the-above energy strategy pushed by Democrats under Obama was absurd, given the science. Now, she says, that is exactly the model that cannot be replicated.
"We are up against the wall," Klein declared. "We need a rapid transition off fossil fuels to 100 percent renewable energy. That is not an all-of-the-above approach. And for some reason we are acting like it's 30 years ago when it would have been possible to gradually introduce renewables and maybe have a carbon tax--that is not the stage we're at now."
The demand for a Green New Deal--an energy and economic transformation on a global scale and matched with a deep commitment to climate justice--is now one of the unifying and defining features of the international progressive movement and it was a big topic of conversation throughout the weekend in Vermont.
In her assessment of the conference, and the purpose behind it, Jane Sanders said the institute's goal was to amplify the most important issues that good people are organizing around in communities across the country and the world.
"There are so many people that are doing really important work, and it can be anything," she told Common Dreams on the final day of the Gathering. "It doesn't have to be that you have to go across the world to go help people with a big project. It can be trying to influence the education system. Or everybody can make a difference no matter what you're doing. So you don't have to spend a lot of time or money to do it, you just have to come to it with kindness."
"I guess that's my message to progressives around the world," she concluded. "Where do you want to take it? And please just come from a sense of kindness, spirit of generosity, and inclusion."
In his final thoughts about the trends that are being seen and felt around the world--as well as the ideas, issues, and solutions offered by those at the Sanders Institute event--Avi Lewis said the big question was not whether or not the prescriptions on offer were the correct ones, but whether or not there was enough time, movement cohesion, and political acumen to see them executed within the time frame now available to humanity.
The big question, he concluded, is this: "Can we hear this in time to really change course--fundamentally, economically, and culturally? This is the great drama of our age. Can enough of us hear the alarm bells?"
In the wake of the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation, as white male privilege reclaims its desperate grip on our future, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report comes out, informing us that we haven't got much future left in which to avoid . . . I mean implement . . . serious change
Meanwhile, the midterm elections percolate.
Our quasi-democracy --rife as it is with voter suppression and mainstream media determination to trivialize the issues at stake --remains, nonetheless, the country's primary means of manifesting public values. Inconvenient as it is to the powerful, this thing called voting is how collective humanity expresses its will --and I believe this will, to paraphrase Martin Luther King, bends toward sanity.
I hope so.
This is about more than numbers and individual "interests." As the U.N. report is trying to tell us, this is about evolution. We have to become a civilization that is not at perpetual war with planet that sustains it. As Avi Lewis writes, "The only thing that can save us now is the total transformation of our political and economic system."
The U.N. report warns, in essence, that "humanity has only a dozen years to mitigate global warming and limit the scope of global catastrophe," as Amy Goodman says on Democracy Now! "Otherwise, millions will be imperiled by increasing droughts, floods, fires and poverty. The sweeping report . . . urges immediate and unprecedented changes to global policy in order to keep global warming at a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius."
And the primary urgency here is to stop emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which means, to wean ourselves from burning fossil fuels.
How is change at this level possible? I truly do not know, but I refuse to succumb to cynicism. I refuse, as I have put it in the past, to remain trapped in the comfort zone of helplessness. Our political system may seem to be caught up in the trivial interests of the powerful and the manipulation of the fears and prejudices of everyone else, but deep values are managing to emerge nonetheless. The Kavanaugh confirmation fiasco is an example of this, as women by the hundreds of thousands publicly opened their wounds, many for the first time, and challenged politics as usual at its core.
70 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide come from about 20 percent of the world's population --that is to say, from those who live in relative wealth and comfort.
This is democracy beyond the ritual of voting, and it must continue. The infrastructure of privilege and exploitation is being washed away. This is not a simple process. Confronting paradox never is.
The transition we have to make is described with clarity and succinctness by Kevin Anderson, a professor in climate change leadership in the Department of Earth Sciences at Sweden's Uppsala University, in his Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman.
Noting that about 70 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide come from about 20 percent of the world's population --that is to say, from those who live in relative wealth and comfort --he hones in his focus on what must change:
". . . we have to move the productive capacity of our society from building second homes for professors or private jets or private yachts or large four-wheel drive cars -- moving from that to building public transport, electrification, improved homes for everyone. So it's a shift of that productive capacity, the resources and the labor from the . . . luxury for the 20 percent to the essential low-carbon infrastructure for all of us."
What he's describing here is a profound social shift, only partially because it seems to curb the rights of the relatively wealthy to live the way they want --from zooming cross-country in their gas-guzzling SUVs to taking a private jet to Saint Barthelemy. The essence of the change he is describing isn't simply a parental or autocratic no-no to those with money. It's a consciousness shift: from individual to collective decision-making in how we use the planet's resources.
And the change Anderson describes ultimately holds not merely the consumers accountable for the destructive use of the planet's resources, but the corporate, multinational producers as well. The two are, of course, interlocked.
Facing up to climate change requires human cooperation at an unprecedented level.
What Anderson doesn't mention in the interview, but what must be added here, is that militarism and war are also seriously part of the environmentally destructive wastefulness that must be curbed. Whatever its mission, whatever its strategy, whatever its tactics, war is ecocide.
The paradox here is that those who must give up their "rights" --their rights to create climate change --are those with the money and power to declare: no way. No ruling authority is going to suddenly emerge from the great beyond and outlaw private jets or Mar-a-Lago or, my God, defund the Department of Defense.
Facing up to climate change requires human cooperation at an unprecedented level. Avi Lewis puts it this way: "Transforming our economy and society on the scale this crisis requires is the most powerful opportunity we've ever had to build a more caring, livable planet."
Could such an opportunity ever be seized? Perhaps . . . if failure to do so means the end of humanity. The rich have to see beyond their own comfort and profit. The politically powerful have to see beyond war. And we have about 12 years to make the shift.
This seems beyond the realm of the possible, except for the fact that something at this level is necessary. This brings me back to the uproar and the humanity that flowed from our wounds as the Kavanaugh hearings staggered to their conclusion. People see the need for change at the deepest level --change that nurtures the injured and the vulnerable. I can only hope that such change is reflected in the upcoming elections.