

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 Earth Month, as we reflect on the power we hold, we should recognize that some of the most profound acts of environmental stewardship begin not with planting or preservation, but with making the ground safe enough to stand on.
During the 1960s, America was deep in the throes of the US War in Vietnam. In addition to student protests of the war, there were also “teach-ins”—gatherings that questioned not just the war, but the systems behind it, on campuses all across the country. This anti-war movement inspired the start of another; the fight for environmental protection, giving birth to Earth Month in 1970.
Earth Month is not only a moment of reflection about sustainability and the protection of the environment; it is a test of what we choose to do with what we know. This year’s theme, “Our Power, Our Planet,” asks us to consider where power truly lives. In Laos and Ukraine, the answer is clear: It lives in the land and its people.
Land feeds families and shapes culture. It determines whether a child grows up with stability or scarcity. In Laos, more than 70% of the population depends on agriculture. Golden green glutinous, or “sticky,” rice fields stretch across the country, joined by cassava, coffee, and vegetables that sustain both households and local markets. In Ukraine, fertile black soil has long made the country a cornerstone of the global food system, feeding more than 400 million people through exports of wheat, corn, barley, and sunflower seed.
In both countries, the land carries a hidden burden.
Safe land means farmers can plant without fear, invest in their futures, and pass on their livelihoods to the next generation.
Between 1964 and 1973, the US dropped at least 2.5 million tons of ordnance on Laos, with nearly a third failing to detonate. Today, unexploded ordnance litters every province, leaving a quarter of villages affected. Fertile ground is laced with danger.
Ukraine is now becoming all too familiar with this reality. Over four years into Russia’s full-scale invasion, over a quarter of its land is estimated to be contaminated with explosive remnants of war. Just like in Laos, their legacy will endure for generations.
For farmers, this threat is daily life.
In Ukraine, images circulate of tractors moving steadily through fields under gray skies, in rain, even under fire. There is a kind of grim humor in the idea that farmers will cultivate their land no matter the obstacle. Beneath the dark humor of those internet memes is a gritty determination to survive.
In Laos, that risk has been a constant for decades.
Mae Tao Seesom was just in her early 20s during the war in Laos. She remembers having to hide in caves to avoid danger. Unable to farm their land, she and fellow villagers had to harvest what grew in the forest.
Decades after the war, in 2019, Mae Tao Seesom was cooking for her grandchildren when a cluster bomb exploded under her fire. Luckily, no one was injured. This time.
In Ukraine, Oksana Lukiyanchuk’s newly inherited farm is only 35 kilometers from the front lines; she moved to her own farm in 2021 to generate a livelihood for her young family and a legacy to pass on to her newborn son. Only months later, Russia invaded.
The war has drained her workforce; she now works her land with just one hired hand. Under constant threat of drones, Oksana continues to build her business; as a fifth-generation farmer, her ties to the soil here keep her from leaving. This sense of belonging emanates widely among Ukrainian farmers, and is the reason many continue to risk everything to grow on these front lines.
What lies beneath the soil does more than threaten lives; it constrains entire economies.
In Laos, farmers often avoid deep plowing or expanding irrigation for fear of what they might uncover. The result is lower yields and lost potential. Infrastructure—from roads to schools to clinics—cannot move forward without clearance. Decades after the last bombs fell, vast areas of land remain unused.
Ukraine now stands at the beginning of a similar economic struggle. Agriculture is one of its largest sectors, with consequences far beyond its borders. Smaller farms face labor shortages as workers are drawn into military service. Larger producers race to maintain supply chains under constant disruption.
Yet, this is not a story of helplessness. It is a story of leadership.
In Laos, unexploded ordnance clearance has become a national priority, embedded in its development strategy and backed by decades of commitment. Progress has been steady: Casualties have declined, and more land is made safe each year. National institutions, international organizations, and local communities work in concert, ensuring that clearance efforts reach those most in need.
In Ukraine, that same sense of urgency has taken root with remarkable speed. Organizations like Fondation Suisse de Déminage hire hundreds of explosive ordnance risk educators to meet farm staff where they are—at farmers markets, in schools, and on their land—to ensure everyone living in hazardous areas knows the threat of these weapons. As the country develops new landmine technology, this risk education saves lives now, and will remain necessary for decades on.
While the risks of demining are immediate, so are the returns.
Safe land means farmers can plant without fear, invest in their futures, and pass on their livelihoods to the next generation. It allows roads to be built, markets to grow, and communities to thrive. It restores not only productivity, but dignity.
This is why demining is not simply a humanitarian effort. It is one of the most direct and effective investments in development. It strengthens food systems, reduces poverty, and builds resilience all at once.
It is also achievable.
The experience of Laos shows that progress, while gradual, is real. With sustained commitment, improved technology, and strong partnerships, contamination can be reduced, lives can be saved, and land can be returned to those who depend on it.
Ukraine’s future is not yet written. But the path ahead is clearer because others have walked it before.
If land is life, then clearing land is renewal.
This Earth Month, as we reflect on the power we hold, we should recognize that some of the most profound acts of environmental stewardship begin not with planting or preservation, but with making the ground safe enough to stand on.
In Laos and Ukraine, that work is already underway—unceasingly, by the people, and with extraordinary courage.
"At a time when we should be strengthening protections for species," said one advocate, "not weakening them, it’s clear there is growing opposition to efforts that put special interests ahead of science and conservation."
Republican leadership in the US House of Representatives planned to mark Earth Day with a "catastrophic" attack on the Endangered Species Act, but ultimately canceled Wednesday's vote at the last minute, a development celebrated by conservationists nationwide.
After reports of "problems" getting some Republicans to back the ESA Amendments Act and a procedural vote that "showed shaky support from party members," as The New York Times put it, the House adjourned without a final vote on the bill—which the newspaper called "an embarrassing setback" for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).
While the lead sponsor, House Committee on Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), claimed that "we just have a few provisions we've got to work through on it, and hopefully in the next couple of weeks, we'll be able to vote on it," Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "this should be a wake-up call to Rep. Westerman that not even his own colleagues support his extreme attacks on wildlife."
"It's time for him to drop this failed crusade," Kurose declared. "Good riddance."
Other wildlife defenders joined Kurose in enthusiastically welcoming the blow to what Bradley Williams, the Sierra Club's deputy legislative director for wildlife and lands protection, called "extremely harmful legislation."
"We are encouraged to see that the House of Representatives has pulled this bill after outcry from Republicans and Democrats," Williams said in a statement. "By rejecting a bill that would have gutted protections for endangered and threatened species across the country, Congress is sending a clear message that protecting wildlife is a shared American value, not a partisan issue."
Jewel Tomasula, policy director for the Endangered Species Coalition, which has hundreds of member organizations, said that "given the more than 58,000 emails sent to elected officials, along with hundreds—if not thousands—of calls made in just the past few days, it is clear that the American people support the Endangered Species Act, understand its value, and want its protections for threatened and endangered wildlife to remain in place."
"This is a welcome sign that efforts to gut protections for imperiled species are not moving forward on Earth Day," Tomasula continued. "We're glad Congress is hearing their constituents' concerns about Westerman's harmful bill and taking pause to listen. For now, the important work to protect endangered species can continue. This Congress should leave the ESA alone."
Major #EarthDay win 🎉: H.R. 1897, aka the Endangered Species Act Amendments Act was just pulled from house floor consideration following outcry from both Republicans and Democrats who oppose the bill.
[image or embed]
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) April 22, 2026 at 2:36 PM
Sara Amundson, president of Humane World for Animals Action Fund, similarly said that "on Earth Day, pulling the House vote on the deeply flawed Endangered Species Act bill is a clarion call that legislators need to stop heeding their own leadership and start doing the will of their constituents."
"At a time when we should be strengthening protections for species like grizzly bears and sea turtles, not weakening them, it’s clear there is growing opposition to efforts that put special interests ahead of science and conservation," Amundson said. "We urge Congress to abandon this harmful proposal altogether and instead focus on upholding and strengthening the Endangered Species Act for future generations."
Defenders of Wildlife legislative director Mary Beth Beetham proclaimed that "now we can really celebrate Earth Day!"
"The public defeat of the Westerman bill is a direct result of sustained constituent pressure," she stressed. "Congress is finally listening to the majority of Americans who support the Endangered Species Act, rather than centering politics and money in its policy decisions."
"The decision to not advance the vote keeps current safeguards in place, which have protected 99% of species from extinction," Beetham added. "While there is still much more work to secure lasting protections for wildlife, today's outcome is a meaningful victory for conservation."
Temperatures are higher than they’ve ever been, even before El Niño breaks above our heads this summer. And yet we’re talking very little about climate change in our national conversation. That needs to change.
I woke up this Earth Day morning in Santa Barbara, California—which is appropriate, since the offshore oil spill here in 1969 was one of the galvanizing events for the first Earth Day 56 years ago. People got mad, they squawked, and government began to listen. We should never forget what they accomplished—in 18 months Congress had adopted the suite of laws (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Environmental Protection Agency, etc) that the Trump administration is still trying to gut. And within five years those laws had begun to work. The air is far cleaner than it was, thanks to them. You can swim in far more lakes and rivers, thanks to them. Because they got loud.
We face a more complicated moment today, of course. The ecological crisis of our time is not caused by something going wrong—an engine spewing small amounts of carbon monoxide into the air—and not easily fixed by adding a catalytic converter to the tailpipe. Global warming is the result of things going as they’re supposed to: A “clean-burning” engine emits just water vapor, and lots and lots and lots of carbon dioxide. But that CO2 traps heat, and is now warming the planet disastrously. To fix it we have to replace an energy system that runs on fossil fuels with another that runs primarily on the sun. And we have to do it fast.
I flew here Tuesday, and for my carbon sins got a clear-sky view of pretty much the entire western United States. It was, as always, majestic—to fly above the Grand Canyon is to glimpse deep time. But it was also almost unbelievably sad. I’ve been telling you that this was the hottest winter, by far, in the history of the West. But to see it is different. I flew over peaks where I’ve glissaded down snowfields in June, and there was not an inch of snow to be seen. Lake Mead from above looked like a bathtub with the plug open. Sere brown and tawny withered gold as far as you could see, and with it the scary promise of what will come this summer, the smoke that will rise and the flames that will burn orange against the night.
Temperatures are higher than they’ve ever been, even before El Niño breaks above our heads this summer. And yet we’re talking very little about climate change in our national conversation. There are many reasons for that—the most obvious is that the constant psychic assault from the president leaves so little room to think about anything else. But there’s also been a concerted effort among Democrats and some of their environmental allies to stay away from the topic on the grounds that it will distract from or undercut messages about “affordability” which are supposed to be the ticket to electoral success in the fall.
If they think he’s got tariffs wrong, and the war wrong, and immigration wrong, and pretty much everything else wrong, why would they think he had the science of climate right?
I’m committed to that electoral success—my calendar for the months ahead is mostly red districts, where Third Act is busy trying to move the needle with older voters. And I understand the concerns, but I think they’re basically wrong, and that talking straightforwardly about the climate crisis is both politically useful, and an excellent way to take on affordability. And I also think that human beings just need to be discussing the single biggest thing happening on planet Earth, especially since we’re causing it.
The so-called “climate hushing” among Democrats is a product of political consultants looking at polling data. As Claire Barber explained in an excellent essay last month:
The Searchlight Institute, a Democratic think tank run by veteran Democratic political strategist Adam Jentleson that opened its doors in 2025, made waves with its focus on shifting Democratic messaging away from progressive causes, like climate and LGBTQ issues. The think tank is pointed in its stance on climate messaging. A report released in the fall reads, “The First Rule About Solving Climate Change: Don’t Say Climate Change.”
“While battleground voters overwhelmingly agree climate change is a problem, addressing it is not a priority for them,” the report said. Similar to the American Mind Survey, Searchlight found that a majority of Americans believe that climate change is a problem, but rank it below other key issues, like affordability. Searchlight also found high partisan (Democratic) association with the terms “climate” and “climate change” and suggested jettisoning mentions of both altogether.
The phenomenon really dates, I think, from the 2024 presidential campaign, and Vice President Kamala Harris’ abbreviated run for the White House. Climate campaigners were perfectly happy to shut up during that run for an obvious reason: President Joe Biden had given them, in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), most of what DC could provide: a massive infusion of funds for the energy transition we require. The job was to pull Harris across the finish line so that her administration could continue the work well underway with the IRA. We failed at that: Her message, on the politics of joy and the dangers of Donald Trump, ran aground on frustrations with inflation. Climate played no discernible part in the election; I’m not sure any issue played a part in the election, save a kind of general kvetchy grumpiness, and a sense that normal people were being squeezed.
In the wake of their defeat, Democrats have seized on “bread and butter issues,” and left supposed culture war clashes behind. That’s come at a real cost. Corporations, feeling only pressure from the right, have backslid dramatically on their climate commitments. (The Big Tech guys, who just a couple of years ago were noisily pledging they’d go net zero, are currently planning gas-fired data centers that Wired reports today will produce more emissions than midsized European countries). And journalists are, not surprisingly, wandering away from the whole area: The wonderful Amy Westervelt yesterday described a dour meeting of environmental reporters where, among other things, she learned that not just The Washington Post but also Reuters was laying off its climate desk:
Meanwhile, funders of climate journalism are largely folding, too, opting to back comms projects instead or simply stay away from anything as "controversial" as climate and journalism altogether. The cowardice is breathtaking.
As the media watchdogs at FAIR make clear, this decline in coverage is very real:
Our research has found that online news coverage of climate change has been trending down. A search of the term “climate change” in Media Cloud’s US–National dataset, which indexes 248 online outlets, found that there was almost 32% less climate coverage in 2025 than 2024.
This trend is similar in TV news. A recent Media Matters (3/4/26) study found that climate coverage on major US commercial broadcast TV networks was down 35% in 2025.
In fact, they even put the decline on a chart. Powerpoint time!
What’s interesting about all this is that it’s not being driven by some change in the basic underlying politics of climate. New polling data makes clear that Americans are as concerned about climate change as they ever have been. Gallup last week reported that:
Americans’ concern about global warming or climate change remains elevated compared with what it had been prior to 2017. At least 4 in 10 US adults have expressed “a great deal” of concern about the matter throughout the past decade (except for a 39% reading in 2023). Between 2009 and 2016, worry was typically in the low-to-mid 30% range but dropped to as low as 25% in 2011.
Currently, 44% of US adults worry a great deal about global warming or climate change, among the highest in the full trend since 1989, along with 46% measured in 2020 and 45% in 2017.
And another series of Earth Day polls made the numbers even clearer. Americans, in increasing numbers, think that our environment is getting worse, and that government should be doing much more about it. Gallup again:
Americans’ assessments of the environment are particularly bleak ahead of Earth Day, as a record-low 35% offer a positive rating of the environment’s quality and two-thirds say it is worsening.
More than 3 in 5 US adults, 63%, think the government is not doing enough to protect the environment, and most believe environmental protection should be prioritized over economic growth (58%) and development of US energy sources (57%).
The key data point here, for political thinkers, is that the increase in worry about the environment is being driven by independent voters, precisely the people who will determine how the midterms go.
And it doesn’t surprise me a bit. It’s not as if the president or his oil-soaked cabinet has made some convincing new case about the climate. He just blusters on about the “green new scam” and insists, as he did last week, that the “planet is cooling.” By this point, Americans have decided he’s an idiot—his approval ratings are now dropping into the mid and even low 30s. If they think he’s got tariffs wrong, and the war wrong, and immigration wrong, and pretty much everything else wrong, why would they think he had the science of climate right?
So, especially as the climate disasters of this hot summer start to mount, and as the El Niño starts to scare people anew, I’d spend some time if I were campaigning making fun of the president on this score. I’d show that clip of him insisting the planet is cooling. It makes Republicans, who have supported him down the line in Congress on energy issues, look like idiots too.
But of course I’d couple it with a full-on assault about affordability, leaning not into the price of eggs, but the price of gas, utilities, and insurance. The first is tied to the war, but they are all three also about the folly of continuing to rely on our current energy system. All you have to say is: A quick move to clean energy drives down prices. If I were preparing ads for congresspeople, I’d definitely have one about how a solarized Australia will, in June, start providing electricity free for three hours every afternoon to all its citizens. Talk about affordability!
One problem with keeping quiet about climate is that it leads people to think that they’re alone in their fears. Here’s an interesting survey from last month fronm the folks at EcoAmerica:
Most Americans are concerned about climate change, but they don’t think most others share that concern. That quiet misunderstanding is one of the biggest barriers to climate action in the United States… The findings point to a striking paradox: While many Americans trust the information they encounter and are concerned about climate change, they believe others are far less concerned and less able to recognize accurate information.
I think some politicians are starting to recognize the possibilities here. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, venerable campaigner for climate action (with a particular focus on insurance) this winter tweeted out a memorable thread:
There’s a thing out there called a “climate husher.” Anyone who cares about what fossil fuel pollution is doing to Earth’s natural systems needs to ignore these so-called “climate hushers” —people who think Dems should stop talking about climate.
In an electorate focused on costs, 65% say climate change is raising their costs. Climate-driven hikes in home insurance are the top economic issue in many places. By 74-10, voters want companies to pay for the harm their pollution causes.
{Poll-chasing analysts] ignore the "leadership lack loop." When leaders don’t talk about something, enthusiasm falls among voters. In politics, you can often make your own wind, or you can make your own doldrums.
Last, they ignore that this is a fight in which there are real and dangerous villains. Our climate peril didn’t “happen,” it was done—by fraud and corruption.
The fossil fuel climate denial fraud operation and the fossil fuel dark money corruption operation are villainous. It’s evil stuff. Villains need to be fought. Plus, it’s a better story with villains. And true.
I’m pretty sure he’s right. Look, at Third Act we too are focusing a lot of our messaging on the Republican attack on democracy. But we can talk about a couple of things at once. And you can only have a working democracy on a working planet.
Happy Earth Day, all!
The environmental movement has already shown what collective action can achieve. The question now is whether we are prepared to use that power again.
Fifty-seven years ago, Earth Day changed American politics. On April 22, 1970, 20 million American, about 10% of the entire US population, took to the streets, campuses, and town squares in a single day to demand action after 150 years of uncontrolled industrial pollution. The demonstrations were so large and bipartisan that Washington responded almost immediately, probably out of fear but also respect for the intensity and size of the demonstrations. Within just a few years, President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress passed 20 landmark laws including the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. Americans and their environment enjoyed that nonpartisan honeymoon for over a decade.
Again in the early 1990s, cooperation between Democrats and Republicans produced significant environmental progress, including the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which addressed acid rain, smog, and toxics, and the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, which stopped pollutants at their source. Were they costly? Initially to the polluters yes, but the health and safety results, estimated to be close to $2 trillion in health-cost savings, have been stunning. And eventually industry investment in clean technologies led to efficiency, profits, and innovation. These laws and others demonstrated that bipartisan cooperation could deliver both environmental and economic results.
What is often forgotten today is how broad that political coalition once was. Environmental protection was not a partisan cause. Republicans and Democrats almost competed to be seen as environmental champions. Conservative lawmakers voted for pollution limits, and no wonder: 75% of Americans supported increased government spending to reduce air and water pollution, and large majorities said they were willing to pay higher costs for clean air and water.
For a time, that public pressure worked.
When citizens demonstrate that protecting the planet matters—to their communities, their votes, and their future—leaders respond.
But the momentum that first Earth Day created has slowed and increasingly reversed. Why? One major turning point came in 2010, when the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision allowed corporations and outside groups to spend unlimited money in elections. In the years since, political spending by all groups has surged but particularly by polluting industries, which outspent health and environmental groups 20 to 1. According to Climate Power, the fossil fuel industry spent $450 million during the 2024 election cycle.
In the past year, 425 environmental and health and safety laws and regulations have been rolled back or crippled, many of which, including all climate change related policies and laws, were promised during the election. The quid pro quo for donations was pretty straightforward—denial that climate change exists or is harmful.
Citizens United opened the spigot for anti-environmental spending, and what is coming out of those spigots is hurting our children, our health, and American innovation and economic leadership.
The influence of that spending has helped transform environmental policy from a bipartisan priority into one of the most polarized issues in Washington. In the years before the ruling, bipartisan climate legislation was still possible. In the years after Citizens United, cooperation largely collapsed. The result has been legislative gridlock at precisely the moment scientists and many economists say immediate action will both reduce or even solve the climate crisis and keep America from losing its place in the impossible to stop green economy.
Ironically, this reversal of environmental policy has occurred even as public concern has remained high. Surveys consistently show that large majorities of Americans believe climate change is real and more than 70% of Americans support stronger measures to address climate change. This disconnect between public concern and political action is the defining challenge of this Earth Day and the environmental movement itself.
That is why the theme of this year’s Earth Day, Our Power, Our Planet, is more than a slogan. It is a reminder of a fundamental truth that shaped the first Earth Day: Political power ultimately flows from citizens—real people—to Congress and the White House.
The environmental breakthroughs of the 1970s and 1990s did not happen because leaders suddenly discovered science. They happened because millions of people made environmental protection politically unavoidable. Citizens marched, organized, voted, and demanded action. They made it clear that protecting the planet was not optional. Today, that same civic power and engagement is needed again.
If governments believe environmental protection is a low priority for voters, progress will stall. If they believe the public is divided or disengaged, short-term political pressure and massive corporate dollars will always win. But when citizens demonstrate that protecting the planet matters—to their communities, their votes, and their future—leaders respond.
That is the real meaning of Our Power, Our Planet. The environmental movement has already shown what collective action can achieve. The question now is whether we are prepared to use that power again. Because the progress of the past half-century was never guaranteed; without sustained public engagement, it could easily erode.
Earth Day was never meant to be a celebration. It was designed as a demonstration of public will. Fifty-seven years later, the challenge is the same: to show governments, once again, that the power to protect our planet ultimately belongs to the people.
This piece was distributed by American Forum.
Let Earth Day push our awareness beyond the invisible borders we have created and beyond the invisible money god who holds us hostage.
Let Earth Day be every day! Let it transcend the present state of politics and our economic hierarchy. Let it open us to the future we long for but do not yet envision.
We live on one vulnerable, extraordinary planet. We are not its overlords; we are part of an evolving circle of life, which we are still trying to understand. And we can only understand it if we also value it, ever so deeply. Earth Day is also Love Day.
Oh God, let it flow beyond the invisible borders we have created. To that end, I call forth the late Pope Francis, who died two days ago as I write—a day before Earth Day 2025. He was 88. Unlike most world leaders, he saw the need to transcend the present worldview—including religion—that currently holds the planet hostage.
The necessary changes humanity must make are collective, but also individual, at least in the sense that we must open our hearts and look for solidarity... with one another, with all of life.
As Nathan Schneider, a University of Colorado professor and contributor to the Jesuit publication America Magazine, noted recently in a Democracy Now interview, Pope Francis was insistent on linking major political issues, such as protecting the planet’s ecosystem and halting the war on migrants. “Justice for both,” Schneider said. We must “counter the idea of disposability.”
This is a cry from the depths of our soul. Value the planet. Value all of humanity. We have to reach beyond the world we think we know and, as the Pope put it, according to Schneider, “learn from the periphery.”
The migrant crisis and the climate crisis are intertwined. The Pope “called for solidarity across borders. He called for taking down the idols of our world—the things that we think are real that really aren’t: borders created with imaginary lines.”
That is to say: Tear down that wall, this is a wall we’ve built in our own hearts. Planet Earth is a single entity; our complex differences are interrelated. Yes, conflict is inevitable, but dehumanizing those with whom we disagree is never the answer. Yes, this is an inconvenience for those in power—and for those who want, and feel entitled, to use up the planet for personal gain. Humanity, as Pope Francis understood, is at an extraordinary transition point: beyond exploitation.
As Cynthia Kaufman writes:
The forces that are tearing apart the fabric of our world are part of a global set of practices that have developed over the past 500 years that allow people and companies to pursue profit for its own sake without regard for the needs of others. Over those centuries, destructive practices based on capitalism, slavery, colonialism, and particular forms of patriarchy have been woven into the ways that politics, economics, and culture function...
Rather than trying, under these difficult circumstances, to reestablish a new accord with the exploitative systems that dominate our world, the time is ripe to dig deeply and try to uproot those systems at their cores. That will involve building alternative ways of meeting our needs, fighting against the structures that support the current system, and rethinking our understanding of our social world. If a new accord between capital and labor is not likely to be established any time soon, our best hope is to work to build a social world based on principles of solidarity.
Principles of solidarity? This is a huge leap for the part of humanity that assumes itself to be in control of the future. Kaufman is not talking about an alliance of good guys against bad guys, but solidarity in a total way: solidarity with the planet and its extraordinarily complex ecosystem. “Solidarity” values continuous learning, understanding, and protecting, not simply controlling. That is to say: environmental stewardship.
According to the Earthday website:
It is widely acknowledged that Indigenous people, despite making up just 5% of the global population, protect a significant amount of the planet’s remaining biodiversity. Traditional Ecological Knowledge is a term for the collective Indigenous knowledge and beliefs about nature and man’s place in it, and serves as an alternative to the more objective and resource-oriented Western worldview of the environment as something to be exploited.
I would put it this way: Planet Earth has a soul.
I say this in a non-religious way, without a sense of explanatory understanding, just a sense of wonder. The planet itself is alive. And life itself should be what we value most, not... money (the invisible god).
As Earthday notes:
Like the Maōri, many Indigenous communities consider themselves “guardians” of their local environmental resources.
Within the 2.7 million square miles of the Amazon Rainforest, there are approximately 400 distinct tribes which call the rainforest home. The Guajajara tribe, in the Brazilian state of Maranhão, are particularly known for their fierce protection of their local forests from illegal loggers, and continue to risk their lives daily for their home.
Let Earth Day push our awareness beyond the invisible borders we have created and beyond the invisible god who holds us hostage. I don’t say this with a simple shrug but, rather, without knowing how this will happen—just that it must. The necessary changes humanity must make are collective, but also individual, at least in the sense that we must open our hearts and look for solidarity... with one another, with all of life. This is what I have called empathic sanity. Real change is impossible without it.
As defenders of the planet marked Earth Day with pledges to fight the destructive agenda of U.S. President Donald Trump, some green groups on Tuesday responded with alarm to the administration's plans for layoffs at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Several news outlets obtained the notice that EPA Assistant Deputy Administrator Travis Voyles sent on Monday evening to staffers with the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights as well as regional EJ divisions, warning of a reduction in force (RIF) that will cut 280 employees and reassign about 175 others this summer.
"This action is necessary to align our workforce with the agency's current and future needs and to ensure the efficient and effective operation of our programs," Voyles said. "With this action, EPA is delivering organizational improvements to the personnel structure that will directly benefit the American people and better advance the agency's core mission of protecting human health and the environment."
The Washington Post noted that "the news comes months after the agency placed 171 of the office's employees on administrative leave and then reversed course, reinstating dozens of regional employees in offices across the country," and as decision-makers at the EPA have been weighing how to implement Trump's executive order targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
"It's a gut punch but long expected," said an employee who was put on leave in February and spoke with the Post on the condition of anonymity. "Announcing a RIF of the EJ program on the eve of Earth Day is sick and shows exactly who they are."
Joyce Howell, executive vice president of the American Federation of Government Employees Council 238 that represents over 8,400 EPA workers nationwide, told Reuters that "decimating our agency and environmental justice workforce goes against our oath to protect human health and to keep our planet healthy and habitable for future generations."
In a Tuesday statement, Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous similarly said that "the Trump administration is determined to destroy the stated mission of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect human health and the environment. All of us deserve to have clean air to breathe, safe water to drink, and be protected from toxic pollution."
"Instead, the Trump administration is selling us out to corporate polluters by actively working to slash clean air and water protections and laying off critical environmental justice staff," he continued. "The people that Donald Trump is putting out of work are hardworking, dedicated civil servants who have devoted their careers to protecting our clean air and water and securing a livable future for us all. The only people who will benefit from their firings are corporate polluters."
Chitra Kumar, a former official with the impacted EPA office who's now managing director at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program, said in a statement that "the layoff notice sent to employees claimed their dismissal would 'better advance the agency's core mission of protecting human health and the environment,' which is the height of hypocrisy given that these staffers are working to reduce pollution and toxins in the communities suffering the most harm."
"Scientific data shows that, due to historic and ongoing injustices, communities overburdened by polluting industries, smog-forming traffic, and contaminated waterways and soil are predominantly low-income, Black, Brown, and Indigenous. Exposure to consistently higher levels of pollution increases the risk of asthma, heart and lung ailments, cancer, and even death," said Kumar, who took aim at EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.
"Zeldin and the Trump administration continue to focus on propping up the profits of coal, oil, and gas companies and other big polluters who take advantage of every loophole available at the expense of public health. This is about all of us, our children, and grandchildren," she stressed. "If Administrator Zeldin goes forward with this destructive move, he will be responsible for ending decades of work intended to help set right the harmful legacy of pollution in overburdened communities in a handout to big polluters."
Kumar pointed out that "this is also part of the Trump administration's larger ongoing strategy to dismantle EPA and its core functions and undermine its very mission, which is to help keep all people in America safe. In the time ahead, Zeldin is expected to launch a repeal, or 'no enforce' order, for a host of science-backed environmental regulations and engage in a wholesale 'reorganization' of the agency, including gutting the Research and Development Office that produces science undergirding EPA decisions."
As criticism of Zeldin and Trump's plans for the EPA mounted, people protested against the administration in communities across the country. Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the youth-led Sunrise Movement, said in a statement that "Donald Trump, backed by fossil fuel billionaires, is waging a full-scale assault on the very lifesaving protections that Earth Day was created to demand."
While Republicans currently control the White House and both chambers of Congress, some elected Democrats used Earth Day to advocate for policies that would protect the planet. Multiple senators
used the day to promote bills that would protect the Pacific and Atlantic oceans from offshore oil and gas drilling.
"Earth Day is an important reminder that every coastal community deserves healthy oceans and oil-free beaches," said one campaigner.
On Tuesday, to coincide with Earth Day, multiple Democratic senators renewed their effort to pass bills to protect the Pacific and Atlantic oceans from offshore oil and gas drilling—part of a broader legislative push by Democrats to safeguard U.S. coastal waters.
Sen. Alex Padilla of California has reintroduced the West Coast Ocean Protection Act, which would permanently end new oil and gas leases for offshore drilling off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.
"We must end offshore oil drilling in coastal waters once and for all," said Padilla in a statement on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey has reintroduced the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism (COAST) Anti-Drilling Act, which would permanently prohibit the federal government from issuing leases for the exploration, development, or production of offshore oil and gas in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Straits of Florida planning areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.
Reps. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) are leading companion legislation for the two bills in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"California's spectacular marine life—including complex kelp forests and charismatic sea otters—and vibrant coastal economies rely on healthy ecosystems," said Pamela Flick, Defenders of Wildlife California program director, in a statement on Tuesday.
The West Coast Ocean Protection Act "could, once and for all, block offshore drilling activities along the continental shelf, and protect critical marine habitats along California's iconic Pacific Coast," she said.
The legislation comes as environmental leaders warn that this Earth Day puts a focus on the need to resist the Trump administration's attacks on environmental regulation and programs.
On President Donald Trump's first day in office, he initiated plans to make federal land and waters open for oil drilling and mining, including in fragile wilderness in Alaska. Trump also declared a national energy emergency.
Beyond the West Coast Ocean Protection Act and the COAST Anti-Drilling Act, Democratic lawmakers in Congress have reintroduced several other bills in recent weeks aimed at safeguarding coasts.
Those bills include the Florida Coastal Protection Act, which would protect the coast of Florida and eastern Gulf of Mexico from offshore drilling, exploration, and production, and the New England Coastal Protection Act, which would protect the coasts of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, in addition to portions of the North Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf, from offshore drilling.
Conservation groups said they welcome the suite of legislation.
"The path of so-called 'energy dominance' is paved with threats to American coasts," said Sierra Weaver, senior attorney for Defenders of Wildlife, in a statement on Tuesday. "This set of bills offers real protections for coastal communities and wildlife against unwanted, unreasonable, and unsafe offshore oil drilling."
Weaver added that the bills are the kind of leadership and action that's needed on the anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest marine oil spill in history.
"Oceana applauds these congressional leaders for reintroducing pivotal legislation that would establish permanent protections from offshore oil and gas drilling for millions of acres of ocean," said Oceana campaign director Joseph Gordon in a statement on Tuesday.
"Earth Day is an important reminder that every coastal community deserves healthy oceans and oil-free beaches," he added.
"What we need is real system change that gets to the root of the current economic, social, and political systems that prioritize maximizing profits over people and the environment," said the report's lead author.
As the world celebrated the 55th annual Earth Day, one leading green group released a report exploring how the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency and species loss impact each other, existing policies, and "false" and "real" solutions to the intertwined crises.
The Friends of the Earth International (FOIE) report, Climate and Biodiversity in Freefall, says that "the vicious cycle between climate change and biodiversity loss is harmful and dangerous. Climate change negatively impacts biodiversity in multiple ways."
"For example, ecosystems become unbalanced as different species respond and adapt to climate change in different ways and at different paces," the publication notes. "Pests become more prevalent, destroying entire ecosystems, while ocean acidification threatens coral reefs and the many species that depend on them."
"We can forge a path toward system change that protects our planet's ecosystems and provides a sustainable future for peoples and communities."
"At the same time, biodiversity loss further destabilizes the climate," the report continues. "Since life on Earth contains significant amounts of carbon, biodiversity loss also means the loss of important carbon reservoirs. Biodiversity loss will further reduce carbon storage in ecosystems, and we are fast approaching tipping points like the Amazon dieback where forests may turn from carbon sinks into carbon sources."
After sections that lay out how the climate and biodiversity crises affect each other, the report tackles problematic climate projects and policies: tree planting and monoculture tree plantations; carbon offsetting; nature-based solutions; geoengineering; bioenergy, including with carbon capture and storage; nuclear energy; and hydropower dams.
Tree plantations, for example, "are essentially 'green deserts,' often made up of a single non-native species, and thus require extensive pesticide use, provide no habitat for other species, and are highly prone to fire," the document details.
Projects labeled nature-based solutions, the report adds, "are primarily focused on compensating for climate emissions, and often serve as greenwashing tools for heavily polluting corporations, allowing them to continue their harmful practices under the guise of environmental responsibility."
There is also a section on United Nations policies, which points out that although the two crises "each have their own U.N. treaty—the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)—extremely little attention has been paid to the interlinkages."
"While the connection is often made at the discourse level, a systemic view that addresses climate and biodiversity simultaneously is largely absent in real policies," adds the U.N. section of the report, which was published just over six months away from the next United Nations climate summit, COP30, in Brazil.
In this blog, @nelemarien.bsky.social highlights how current climate policies worsen the climate and biodiversity crises, with disastrous consequences for communities & ecosystems! Read more here: www.foei.org/system-chang... #SystemChange #biodiversityloss #climatechange
[image or embed]
— Friends of the Earth International (@foeint.bsky.social) April 22, 2025 at 5:53 AM
The next section of the report, promoting what FOEI dubs "real solutions," calls for "rigorous regulation of all sectors that harm biodiversity," an end to financing for "environmentally destructive corporate activities," a moratorium on harmful "development" projects, ditching industrial agriculture in favor of agroecology, and investments in measures such as "reducing or eliminating pesticides and other toxins, curbing noise and light pollution, and encouraging native species to thrive."
The report also stresses the need for broader impact assessments and that "the impacts of the biodiversity and climate crises hit Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) and poor and marginalized people hard by undermining their livelihoods, jeopardizing food sovereignty, and worsening general living conditions." It calls for protecting these groups, including by "recognizing collective rights to land and community governance of territories."
On the climate front, the document emphasizes the necessity of "a rapid and just energy transition" that guarantees energy sufficiency for all; ensures direct democratic control and governance; guarantees the right to free, prior, and informed consent; and prioritizes "renewable technology that is climate resilient, locally appropriate, low impact, and not harmful to biodiversity."
Nele Marien, the report's lead author and FOEI's forests and biodiversity program coordinator, said in a Tuesday statement that "the intertwined crises of climate change and biodiversity loss call for a fundamental rethinking of our approach."
"What we need is real system change that gets to the root of the current economic, social, and political systems that prioritize maximizing profits over people and the environment," Marien asserted. "By recognizing these interconnections between the climate and biodiversity crises, halting detrimental climate policies, and supporting Indigenous knowledge, we can forge a path toward system change that protects our planet's ecosystems and provides a sustainable future for peoples and communities, especially those in the Global South who are most affected."
"We are ready to fight for our future with everything we've got. Our generation will not sit back while Trump and fossil fuel billionaires destroy our home," said one climate leader.
As green groups honor the 55th annual Earth Day on Tuesday, environmental leaders are highlighting the need to fight back against the detrimental climate policies of U.S. President Donald Trump and his "billionaire allies," even as they brace for the possibility of further federal action that could hamper the climate movement.
Since entering office, Trump has signed executive orders aimed at bolstering oil, gas, and coal and installed Cabinet members with ties to the fossil fuel industry. Trump's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator (EPA) in March announced a sweep of deregulatory actions and his administration has enacted cuts at federal agencies that work on environmental and climate issues, such the EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
For Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the youth-led Sunrise Movement, Earth Day is a call to action to resist these moves.
"We are ready to fight for our future with everything we've got. Our generation will not sit back while Trump and fossil fuel billionaires destroy our home," said Shiney-Ajay in a statement on Tuesday. "We will not cooperate with the destruction of our world."
"Donald Trump, backed by fossil fuel billionaires, is waging a full-scale assault on the very lifesaving protections that Earth Day was created to demand," she added.
In addition to actions already taken, Trump is reportedly considering targeting the nonprofit tax-exempt status of green groups, which allows them to forego paying federal income tax. Such a move would likely impact their ability to fundraise because these groups collect tax-exempt donations. It is rumored that such an order could come down on Tuesday, to coincide with Earth Day.
Ashley Nunes, public lands policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, wrote in an op-ed Tuesday that Trump has worked quickly to "pursue an agenda that puts the profits of his billionaire allies above the well-being of the American people and our environment."
Trump's strategy appears to be to do so much damage that it's impossible to focus on one issue, wrote Nunes, "yet Earth Day reminds us that our public lands, wildlife and, climate are priorities among the flurry of broad and harmful executive actions."
The executive director at the Center for Biological Diversity confirmed last week that the organization was preparing for a potential presidential order aimed at green groups' tax-exempt status.
Anti-billionaire sentiment is influencing the in-person Earth Day actions planned for Tuesday. On Tuesday, the climate group Planet Over Profit and the protestors who organize under the slogan #TeslaTakedown will picket what they say is the New York home of James Murdoch the son of billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch and a Tesla board member. Tesla is the electric vehicle company of Trump's billionaire adviser Elon Musk, who has played a core role in Trump's efforts to slash the size of government.
The electric vehicle company is a target because "Tesla ranks fifth among companies producing toxic air pollution in the country" and "there's no greater threat to our ability to live rich, dignified lives on a safe, stable planet than the Trump/Musk regime," among other reasons, according to the organizers.
According to The Guardian, thousands of people gathered on Saturday in New York City for a march that was endorsed by climate and migrant justice groups. "The two movements converged amid Trump's crackdown on migrants and embrace of fossil fuels—which will drive further climate collapse and forced migration," according to the outlet.
Climate groups are also coordinating Earth Day mobilization under the slogan "All Out on Earth Day"
Meanwhile, EarthDay.org, the global organizer of Earth Day, is featuring Earth Day events around the globe on its website and encouraging people to take part.
"We need to demonstrate to our leaders in government and business that we are still here, we are a witness to their actions, and we will hold them accountable to do right by our planet and its people," wrote Susan Bass, the senior vice president of programs and operations at EarthDay.org, in an opinion piece published Monday.
Americans who oppose Trump’s actions can get out and peacefully protest this Earth Day and call on their congressional representative and senators to fight back and rein in this lawless administration.
Since the day U.S. President Donald Trump took office, his administration has relentlessly pursued an agenda that puts the profits of his billionaire allies above the well-being of the American people and our environment.
Trump’s strategy seems clear: Do so much damage so quickly that no one can focus on one issue for long before something else draws attention away.
Yet Earth Day reminds us that our public lands, wildlife and, climate are priorities among the flurry of broad and harmful executive actions.
The latest in Trump’s onslaught of attacks on our environmental protections came just days ago with a proposed rule change on endangered species.
Trump wants to gut the very core of these protections: preserving crucial wildlife habitat, even though habitat destruction is the primary driver toward extinction for most animals. Instead, Trump would limit what it means to “harm” endangered species to killing or hunting animals directly.
Endangered species rollbacks are just one of far too many Trump orders and actions that chip away at hard-fought protections for people and the planet.
If Trump gets his way, logging, mining, drilling, developing, or polluting the lands where animals live or breed wouldn’t be considered “harm” to imperiled wildlife. With such reckless action, we could lose endangered species like grizzly bears entirely, while species that have bounced back because of these protections—including bald eagles—could head back toward extinction again. It’s just not possible to protect animals and plants from extinction without protecting their natural home.
This comes after Trump already cut funds to life-saving international elephant and rhino conservation programs and fired thousands of workers across federal agencies who ensure endangered species are protected throughout the country.
Endangered species rollbacks are just one of far too many Trump orders and actions that chip away at hard-fought protections for people and the planet.
Trump’s attacks on science and efforts to tackle climate change began on day one of his presidency, when he moved to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris agreement, an international treaty to limit climate-warming emissions.
Trump escalated his war on science with a plan to defund crucial NASA research and climate science. Trump forced the removal of government websites that map climate, pollution, and offer environmental justice resources.
Then Trump took steps to revoke the government’s basis for tackling climate change, a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and the environment.
Without leadership from the White House, we will have to rely on state leaders to take action on climate change.
Trump’s greed is on full display with his efforts to expand and prioritize oil, gas, coal, mining, and logging operations on public lands.
Trump just unleashed the chainsaws on our national forests with a goal of ramping up logging and road building on public lands. This will pollute the drinking water of 180 million Americans and clear the forests that many wildlife species need to survive. Cutting down older, fire-resilient trees will also make wildfires worse.
The Trump administration declared a so-called “emergency situation” in 59% of our national forests. This is a phony declaration concocted to reduce protections against industrial logging and offer up about 112 million acres of national forests to become timber. Instead of majestic landscapes, we’ll be left with more flammable clear-cuts, polluted waters, and extinct species.
Trump promised to “unleash American energy” by offering up our public lands for oil, natural gas, and coal extraction. He’s eliminating protections and rubber-stamping approvals without environmental review or air pollution permits for oil and gas processing facilities.
It seems nothing is too sacred or precious to sell off for parts. Trump could even open up the Grand Canyon area for uranium mining and is likely to eliminate at least two national monuments, the Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands national monuments in California.
In addition to the weakening all of these protections, national parks, national monuments, and public lands have taken other major hits from Trump’s mass layoffs, office closings, and freezing funds. Trump has gutted all the necessary resources to keep these spaces functional, yet is still requiring the public to have access.
Our beloved parks can’t operate or remain open without the necessary staff and Park Rangers to keep visitors safe. Even when normally staffed, an average of 11 visitors die each year at the Grand Canyon alone. What will happen now as Trump is willfully putting visitors at risk?
Like Trump’s harmful environmental moves, many other administration actions are deeply unpopular. Trump’s approval ratings are only getting worse. So people are rightfully taking to the streets to peacefully oppose the administration’s damaging policies and to say “hands off!” our planet, our home.
Our organization is fighting back in court. We will use every legal tool at our disposal to halt the Trump administration’s implementation of these reckless environmental actions. State lawmakers should rebuff the dismantling of our environmental safeguards and protect their lands, wildlife, and our climate.
Americans who see the greed behind Trump’s actions can get out and peacefully protest this Earth Day and call on their congressional representative and senators to fight back and rein in this lawless administration. We can’t lose hope. Today, we build momentum and fight for a greener future.