

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.
On the 50th Anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, it’s time for us to speak up for these struggling bears and use the law to protect them.
Apparently the U.S. Congress thought it was okay to break treaty obligations when they passed a rider that mandated two oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Biden administration is being forced to hold a second lease sale this year.
This plot to industrialize the Arctic refuge threatens a population of 500 polar bears that wander along the Beaufort Sea shore and den on the coastal plain of our largest and wildest refuge. While they can’t speak to Congress, they certainly have rights and laws that should protect them.
In January, pregnant polar bears are curled up in dens that they have dug out in snowdrifts. Soon they will give birth to one or two cubs in the dark, icy cold of winter. The newborn bears are about the size of a guinea pig and weigh only a pound. They are helpless and dependent on their mothers who nurse them for about three months in the den. Sensitive to noise and disturbance, polar bear mothers will abandon their cubs if startled by industrial noises that are associated with seismic trains and drilling rigs. The cubs will not survive if their mothers leave the den.
Polar bears have the right to survive.
Since 2008, the Southern Beaufort Sea population of threatened polar bears has been protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Over the past two decades their population has decreased by 40% because of the continued loss of sea ice habitat that they need for survival. More and more bears are denning on land because of the unstable nature of ocean ice or absence of it. Polar bears might be the largest land carnivore, but they are also a victim of climate change, showing us the catastrophic effects of our emissions each and every day they try to survive on vanishing ice floes.
In 1973 five Arctic nations signed the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears to ensure that polar bear populations remained strong and healthy. One of the provisions of this multilateral treaty is that all nations will protect critical denning habitat for polar bears. Never before has the North Slope of Alaska been more critical for denning habitat than it is now. The United States needs to honor this polar bear treaty and protect the coastal plain of the Arctic refuge, not turn it into an oil field. After all, it’s a refuge, and these bears are in serious long-term danger of extinction.
When the Arctic refuge was established in 1980, the purposes were clear: to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, the Porcupine caribou herd, polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, Dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, and an array of migratory birds. A second purpose requires that the Secretary of Interior fulfill international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife, including polar bears, and their habitats. The opportunity for continued subsistence uses by residents is to be provided, along with ensuring water quality and quantity.
Secretary Deb Haaland and the Biden administration have a duty to honor the original purposes of the Arctic refuge, to fulfill the obligations of the polar bear treaty, and to protect Beaufort Sea polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. Polar bears are also protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
With three laws and an international treaty that protect polar bears, and the fact that some of the Beaufort Sea bears den in a wildlife refuge, one would think these animals are safe. But not so—not if the 2017 Tax Act leasing mandate is unrightfully prioritized over these bedrock environmental laws and a long-standing international agreement.
On the 50th Anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, it’s time for us to speak up for these struggling bears and use the law to protect them. We should elevate their status from “threatened” to “endangered.” Polar bears are as awesome as the American condor and as magnificent as the humpback whale. They are loved by children all over the world and featured in stories and movies. Companies have used them in flashy animated ads.
Polar bears have the right to survive. Their plight is as clear as melting ice. The least we can do is protect the sensitive region where they give birth in the Arctic refuge and do everything we can to lower our global emissions.
Wildlife defenders on Wednesday denounced the Biden administration after the U.S. Department of the Interior issued a rule allowing fossil fuel companies operating in northern Alaska to harass polar bears and walruses while searching or drilling for oil and gas.
"The Arctic should be protected, not turned into a noisy, dirty oil field."
--Kristen Monsell, CBD
Responding to a request from the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued the rule (pdf), which authorizes the "nonlethal, incidental, and unintentional harassment" of polar bears and Pacific walruses that "may result from oil and gas exploration, development, production, and transportation activities occurring for a period of five years."
The rule applies to drilling, seismic blasting, infrastructure construction and operation, and other activities.
The new authorization covers a massive swath of the Alaskan Arctic, including nearly eight million acres in the Beaufort Sea, as well as the area containing the Willow Master Development Plan, a multibillion-dollar ConocoPhillips project approved during the final months of former President Donald Trump's tenure and defended by the Biden administration.
The southern Beaufort Sea's polar bear population is one of the world's most imperiled, with only around 900 animals remaining, according to the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which says that "scientists have determined that the population cannot sustain any injuries or deaths from oil and gas activities."
According to CBD:
The heavy equipment used in seismic exploration and drilling activities can crush polar bears in their dens or scare denning polar bears out too early, leaving cubs to die of exposure or abandonment by their mothers. The noise generated by routine oil operations can disturb essential polar bear behavior and increase stress on the animals' when food may be scarce.
Walruses are also highly sensitive to human disturbance. Without summer sea ice for resting, walrus mothers and calves have been forced to come ashore, where they are vulnerable to being trampled to death in stampedes when the animals are startled by noise.
"It's disturbing to see the Biden administration letting oil companies continue their assault on polar bears, walruses, and our climate," Kristen Monsell, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. "The Arctic should be protected, not turned into a noisy, dirty oil field. President [Joe] Biden promised bold climate action, but this is business as usual. Polar bears and walruses deserve better."
The new rule comes as the U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced Tuesday that it will conduct another environmental review of oil and gas leasing in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) after Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said "multiple legal deficiencies" were found in a prior review by the Trump administration, which rushed to auction off fossil fuel drilling leases there in its final weeks.
On his first day in office, Biden signed an executive order temporarily pausing new drilling on public lands, pending "a new, comprehensive analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the oil and gas program."
In June, the Biden administration suspended some of the Arctic drilling leases auctioned at the end of Trump's term, a move welcomed as a step in the right direction by environmentalists and some Indigenous people.
2020 is continuing to bring deeply worrying climate news from both the Arctic and the Antarctic.
First the Arctic, where our climate emergency is playing out in real time, with devastating consequences.
Every day brings new horrors and new insights into how our climate emergency is driving the extreme weather.
I have already blogged recently that the region has quite literally, been on fire, and has been experiencing record temperatures and unprecedented fires.
But every day brings new horrors and new insights into how our climate emergency is driving the extreme weather.
Scientists from France, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, Switzerland, and the UK have been collaborating to examine whether and to what extent human-induced climate change has been causing the Arctic heatwave to intensity and become more likely.
The scientists conclusions are damning: They said, "the January to June 2020 prolonged heat was made at least 600 times more likely as a result of human-induced climate change."
They warned that the region, which is warming at least three times faster than the rest of the world, could experience a worse case scenario of seven degrees of warming by 2050.
They added, "by 2050 the Siberian region could expect to have temperatures increase by at least 2.5 degrees compared to 1900, but this increase could be as high as 7 degrees."
If this happens, the region as we know it will be no more, with a spiraling chaos of extreme heat, fires, methane releases, and the decimation of iconic species.
This extreme heat is impacting the sea ice. Yesterday an article in Mashable warned that the Arctic sea ice just crashed to an extreme, record low. In total, Mashable warned "Arctic sea ice is about 500,000 square kilometers (some 193,000 square miles) under the previous record low for this time of year."
Walt Meier, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, told the site, "right now it's quite extreme." He is not the only one worried. Meteorologist Simon Lee tweeted:
The loss of sea ice is having a devastating impact on polar bears, who use it to hunt for seals.
A new study, published in Nature Climate Change, warns that under a business as usual scenario, polar bears could nearly be extinct by the end of the century, now only present in the Queen Elizabeth Islands, the northernmost cluster in Canada's Arctic.
"It's been clear for some time that polar bears are going to suffer under climate change," Peter Molnar, a biologist at the University of Toronto, and lead author of the study, told the Guardian. "Even if we mitigate emissions, we are still going to see some subpopulations go extinct before the end of the century."
The news from the South Pole, Antarctica, is equally depressing, with scientists discovering active leaks of methane, the most potent greenhouse gas, from the sea floor. This is deeply troubling as Antarctica is estimated to contain as much as a quarter of earth's marine methane reserves. If this escapes into the atmosphere it could seriously worsen our climate emergency.
Andrew Thurber, from Oregon State University, who led the research published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, said "It is not good news...The methane cycle is absolutely something that we as a society need to be concerned about. I find it incredibly concerning."
We all need to be worried. As the Independent added about the research, "as the climate crisis means ice shelves retreat, the release of methane from subsurface marine reservoirs is expected to become increasingly common."
Outlines of a giant human penis and a large polar bear were the iconographic symbols that accompanied the words, 'Oi, Trump -- Climate Change Is Real,' in a message that was mowed into large fields near the Stansted airport in the United Kingdom with the hopes that the U.S. president would see it during his landing on Monday morning.
With Trump's arrival generating plans for massive street protests, the provocative greeting--similar to the giant 'Baby Trump' blimp which has become so popular in recent years--is additional evidence of how reviled and little-respected the president is among many in Britain.
According to the Bishop's Stortford Independent:
Online upcycling entrepreneur Ollie Nancarrow, 18, spent part of Saturday and Sunday mowing the message in the grounds of his family home just outside Hatfield Heath, with the full approval of mother and stepfather Vanessa and David Ambler.
Alongside the greeting "Oi Trump," the teenager - who is taking A Levels in art, product design and business studies at The Bishop's Stortford High School - has crafted a cock and balls.
This is followed by the message "Climate Change is Real" and accompanied by a polar bear.
" Donald Trump and his denial of climate change are not welcome," Nancarrow told the newspaper over the weekend, "and I want him to be fully aware of that when he flies in to Stansted."

The president did land on Monday morning as scheduled, though it remains uncertain as of this writing whether or not Trump witnessed the message.
Massive protests in London are expected for Tuesday.
Scientists at the United Nations' intergovernmental body focusing on biodiversity sounded alarms earlier this month with its report on the looming potential extinction of one million species--but few heard their calls, according to a German newspaper report.
Deutsche Welle reported Thursday that partially because the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released its report on what it called nature's "unprecedented" decline on the same day that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had their first child, news reports on the study's grave implications were few and far between.
While some international and progressive outlets--including Common Dreams--published high-profile stories on the report when it was released, just two of Britain's national newspapers included any reporting about biodiversity on their front pages on May 7, the day after the royal baby was born to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry.
Deutsche Welle's report was mirrored by revelations in a Media Matters report published earlier this week which showed that ABC News devoted more time to covering the royal baby's birth in the week after the child was born than it had to stories about the climate crisis in all of 2018--even as organizers like 16-year-old Greta Thunberg led worldwide climate strikes.
"Where [is] the breaking news?" tweeted Thunberg the day after IPBES released its report. "The extra news broadcasts? The front pages? Where are the emergency meetings? The crisis summits? What could be more important?"
IPBES's report detailed how "The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever," the panel's chairman, Sir Robert Watson said in a statement.
By rapidly expanding livestock and crop production, degrading land, concentrating activity in urban areas at more than double the rate than two decades ago, and increasing pollution by tenfold since 1980, humans are "eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide," Watson said.
"If we continue to lose biodiversity, if we continue to fragment our ecosystems, then human well-being will indeed suffer. This is something the average American should care about." --Sir Robert Watson, IPBES
In addition to the potential loss of one million species, the biodiversity crisis carries substantial risks for world economies, food security, and the spread of disease, scientists warn.
The report calls on policymakers to take immediate concrete action to protect nature by promoting sustainable agricultural practices, inclusive and equitable water management, renewable energy sources and other reforms.
On Wednesday, Democrats in the U.S. House attempted to call attention to the ecological crisis which is causing the rapid loss of life among millions of species, with a House Natural Resources Subcommittee holding a hearing on the issue, including testimony from Watson and other IPBES officials.
Biodiversity, Watson told the subcommittee, "is the substance behind food security, water security, it does control our climate in part, it does control pollination, it does control storm surges. These are things that affect everyday Americans. If we continue to lose biodiversity, if we continue to fragment our ecosystems, then human well-being will indeed suffer."
"This is something the average American should care about," he added.
But as The Guardian reported, lawmakers at the hearing also heard from climate science deniers who had been invited to testify by Republican committee members, diluting the urgency of IPBES's message.
Scientists have published more than 20,000 articles in 45 languages on the subject of biodiversity loss in recent years, Deutsche Welle reported.
Without the media reporting on and lawmakers expressing the urgency of the biodiversity crisis, the public has found little reason to become interested in the issue. The same day most news outlets devoted their coverage to the royal baby, Google searches for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle outnumbered those for biodiversity by 14 and 31 to one, respectively.
Deutsche Welle reported that while politicians and the news media have slightly increased the attention they've given to the climate crisis recently, under pressure from campaigners, the same consideration has not been given to biodiversity.
"Nature's unprecedented decline, which has quietly sped up, is, in isolation, less dramatic than extreme weather events brought by global warming--such as flash floods and wildfires. Its contributions to humans are also hard to grasp," reported Ajit Niranjan in the newspaper. "An obscure earthworm may form part of an ecosystem that keeps soil fertile and helps put food on our plates. But its death rarely stirs hearts the way a polar bear on melting ice does."
With its latest report, IPBES aimed to change that perception.
"One of the great things about the report is that it highlights...the different ways we value nature," environmental scientist Kathryn Williams told the outlet. "Not just tangible ways like food and clear air, but also the ways that we relate on a more emotional level."
In the Americas, the Trump tsunami has swept across both continents and the "pink tide" of progressivism has all but disappeared from the southern half of the hemisphere. In Europe, with the recent exception of Spain, the left has been banished to the political margins. In Africa and Asia, socialism has devolved into nationalism, authoritarianism, or just plain corruption. And forget about the Middle East.
In this planet-wide rising tide of right-wing populism, the liberal left commands only a few disconnected islands -- Iceland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Spain, Uruguay. In so many other places, increasingly illiberal leaders are in charge. Add up the numbers and significantly more than half the world's population currently lives under some form of right-wing populist or authoritarian rule, courtesy of Donald Trump in the United States, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Narendra Modi in India, Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey, Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Xi Jinping in China, among others
Optimists cling to the pendulum theory of politics: conservatives are now basking in the limelight, but the day will come when the right inevitably falls on its face and the left swings back into action; witness the results of the 2018 mid-term elections in the United States.
"Bolsonaro, Erdogan, Putin, Trump, and their ilk should indeed be understood as the political equivalent of global warming. Instead of deadly carbon, they spew hateful invective and show a remarkable determination to destroy a far-from-perfect status quo."In addition, pragmatists point out that many of these latter-day autocrats, for all their anti-democratic tendencies, came to power through elections. Yes, they have since sought to change constitutions, pack courts, muzzle the media, and crack down on civil society, but they remain constrained by the guardrails of the more-or-less liberal political systems they still run. In the end, so goes such thinking, democracy will prevail. Look at how, over time, some right-wing populists have been dislodged at the polls (Vladimir Meciar in Slovakia), brought down by corruption scandals (Alberto Fujimori in Peru), or forced to resign in disgrace (Silvio Berlusconi in Italy).
Optimists and pragmatists alike ultimately have faith that democracies are self-regulating organisms, not unlike the Earth's ecosystem. The planet has managed to survive countless asteroid strikes, solar flares, and extreme weather conditions. Democracy, too, will outlast Hurricane Donald and all the other examples of extreme political weather, thanks, sooner or later, to woke voters and resilient mechanisms of checks and balances.
Unfortunately, given the malign impact humans are having on the planet, this analogy is far less reassuring than it once might have been. Only the willfully ignorant expect that some natural oscillation in global temperature or the Earth's own adjustments to its climate feedback loops will arrive in time to save us. Humankind has clearly thrown a spanner into the works and now faces a distinctly difficult, if not disastrous, future. Similarly, across the globe, the electoral pendulum appears to be stuck on the side of reaction and the new generation of right-wing populists could well be on the verge of changing the political playing field, just as humans are in the process of irrevocably transforming the planet.
Bolsonaro, Erdogan, Putin, Trump, and their ilk should indeed be understood as the political equivalent of global warming. Instead of deadly carbon, they spew hateful invective and show a remarkable determination to destroy a far-from-perfect status quo. Moreover, they are the product not of farting livestock or extraterrestrial events but of the self-interested acts of blinkered humans. In an increasingly restrictive political space, liberals and progressives are looking ever more like so many polar bears on ever fewer ice floes, with diminishing room for maneuver.
Don't bet on politics as usual to lower the temperature and put a stop to this moment's tidal surge of ugly intolerance. Because the nature of the game has changed, those who oppose the global New Right must engage in a strategic rethink -- or we'll all drown in the rising waters.
The Game Changers
Today's autocrats are, at first glance, a diverse band of brothers.
In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte has attacked the Catholic Church for defending the sanctity of human life and challenging his campaign of extrajudicial murder. In Nicaragua, one-time revolutionary Daniel Ortega has courted the Catholic Church as a pillar of his undemocratic rule. Vladimir Putin presents himself and his country as saviors of Christianity, while Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan continues to promote his own brand of political Islam, Narendra Modi has ridden to power thanks to Hindu nationalism, and Xi Jinping eschews religion altogether. Some right-wing nationalists like Bolsonaro have ambitious plans to privatize state assets, while others, like those in Italy's current leadership, want to nationalize major properties. Hungary's Viktor Orban is concerned about climate change, but most right-wing populists like Donald Trump insist that the threat doesn't exist and want to extract ever more fossil fuels.
Don't be fooled, though. While these leaders may not rhyme, they all dance to the same rhythm.
These illiberal politicians have uniformly come to power by attacking globalization. They have criticized the neo-liberal transformations of the recent past that enriched the few at the expense of the many, while challenging the major political parties of the center left and center right that implemented the economicreforms that unleashed such forces. They have taken aim at the corruption that has metastasized in political systems already ill equipped to handle a massive uptick in cross-border financial transactions. When politically useful, they have demonized immigrants and refugees who are one side effect of, as well as victims of, that very burgeoning globalization movement. They have championed national sovereignty against the interventions of multilateral organizations, while blasting multicultural values and the human-rights groups that promote them. And they have taken advantage of social media like Facebook and Twitter that promote a version of participatory totalitarianism in which individuals can freely relinquish their privacy and abandon conventional news media for daily dispatches from their favorite celebrity autocrat.
Election results in the world's most populous democracies suggest that liberalism -- in its free-market economic form and its more tolerant, inclusive, and statist political version - has become discredited at a popular level. A quick glance at the titles of some recent books (Why Liberalism Failed, The Retreat of Western Liberalism, How Democracies Die, What Was Liberalism) reveals that the chattering classes, too, have noticed this global trend.
The Trumps of this world have cannily identified a fundamental shift in the political playing field, rushing into the gap created by the declining popularity of liberal values. Viktor Orban set an early example of such opportunism when, in the 1990s, he jettisoned his liberal past and opted instead for the right side of the Hungarian political spectrum. In the aftermath of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the left and right had alternated in power as voters became disgusted with whatever party controlled the levers of state. By successfully linking all the ills facing the country to liberals and their follies, however, Orban became the one to preside over a genuine transformation of the political landscape. The premier liberal party, the Alliance of Free Democrats, effectively disappeared when he became prime minister in 2010 -- and formally dissolved three years later. Almost a decade after he first took office, the only serious opposition to Orban is to his right.
"The Trumps of this world have cannily identified a fundamental shift in the political playing field, rushing into the gap created by the declining popularity of liberal values."
The last time globalization transformed the world so thoroughly, in the early twentieth century, the ensuing backlash led to liberalism's first catastrophic fail. In those years, liberals consistently failed to understand that the ground had shifted under them. In Russia, Bolsheviks took power from the weak crew of potential democratic reformers that had overthrown the tsar, inspiring a handful of movements in Europe that attempted something similar. In Germany, illiberal politicians took aim at the cosmopolitan values of the Weimar Republic. In Italy and Spain, leaders adopted virulent nationalism, challenging incipient global institutions like the League of Nations. In the wake of the Great Depression, Japanese ultra-militarists easily dispatched the weak Taisho democracy. Meanwhile, in the United States, right-wing demagogues like Father Charles Coughlin built large followings by railing on the radio against communists, Wall Street, and "the international money-changers in the temple," though they failed to take power in the era of a charismatic liberal president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Where liberalism survived, it did so largely by absorbing some of the strategies of the illiberal communists and fascists, namely relying on the state to keep the economy afloat, as Roosevelt did with his New Deal policies. This lesson carried over into the post-World War II-era in which American liberals continued to embrace New Deal principles that would culminate in President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs and European liberals embraced the compromises that would eventually produce the European Union. At the global level, nations of various ideological dispositions came together to create a set of institutions -- the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund -- meant to ensure some degree of permanent stability. Economic globalization resumed, but this time in a regulatory environment that, initially, seemed to spread the benefits more equally.
That all changed in the 1970s when, in one country after another, a new generation of liberals and conservatives began to dismantle those very regulations in hopes that an unfettered market would jump-start growth globally. However, only after China embraced capitalism and the Soviet Union collapseddideconomic globalization take a quantum leap to true globalization. With it the world returned to Gilded Age levels of concentrated wealth and inequality. No surprise, then, that the instability and intolerance of that long-gone era has returned as well.
Leaders like Putin, Erdogan, and Trump aren't just politically savvy, nor have they simply been lucky or unusually ruthless. Instead, they sensed the changing mood of a moment and were able to capitalize on a profound discontent with the status quo that liberals had built, a discontent that won't disappear simply because right-wing populists are exposed as frauds, incompetents, or cheats. Worse, crafty operators with even more ambitious agendas stand ready to destroy the liberal status quo once and for all.
The Bannon Archipelago
A Nationalist International should be a contradiction in terms, but that hasn't stopped Steve Bannon from trying to create one. The erstwhile publisher and moviemaker, darling of the alt-right, and one-time Trump whisperer is on an extended world tour aimed at building a loose network of right-wing populists that he calls the Movement. It's centered in -- of all places -- Brussels, the home of the European Union.
Bannon hopes to take advantage of post-Brexit Euroskepticism to roll his Trojan horse of a movement into the very heart of the enemy's camp. With the encouragement of various right-wing oligarchs, he's already met with neo-fascists associated with groups like the Belgian Vlaams Belong, France's National Rally (the rebranded National Front), and Sweden's Democratic Party, as well as more conventional right-wing populists in Italy and Hungary. He's out to take the EU from the social democrats and pallid conservatives, the Vatican from the too-permissive Pope Francis, and the West from the clutches of immigrants and multiculturalists.
Elections for the European Parliament at the end of May should prove a testing ground for Bannon's Movement. Right now, if the polling is accurate and the Euroskeptic, populist, and far-right parties combine their efforts, they could, staggeringly enough, become the largest coalition in that body. True, some prominent right-wing parties, like Poland's Law and Justice, remain unseduced by Bannon. But it's a mistake to underestimate him, just as it was a mistake to dismiss Trump in 2016. Success can be very persuasive, as The Donald proved in his takeover of a Republican Party whose leaders initially and almost universally despised him.
But Europe is only part of Bannon's plan. For someone who has vented so much spleen at "globalists" like financier and philanthropist George Soros, Bannon is quite the internationalist. In Latin America, he's already appointed Jair Bolsonaro's youngest son as his regional representative to help build on the right's electoral successes in Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, and Paraguay. Bannon has also partnered with a Chinese billionaire to create a Rule of Law Fund that's meant to be the point of a spear aimed at the regime in Beijing.
In search of a stable of princes, that would-be Machiavelli has also visited Japan at the invitation of the fanatical Happiness Realization Party, a political cult that embraces Japanese militarism. Israel, too, is to be part of Bannon's alt-right archipelago because the self-professed "Christian Zionist" sees Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a key link in a future anti-Islamic front. Also figuring prominently in his thinking is Russia, a vast, mostly white country led by a critic of Western liberalism and "radical Islam," though Bannon acknowledges that the Mueller report has temporarily set back his efforts.
Bannon didn't create the new right-wing populist wave, but he's been clever enough to grab a surfboard, dive into the waters, and try to guide the swell further to the right. Toward that end, he's creating what he calls a "war room." He says:
"It's what we did for Trump in the U.S.: writing op-eds, booking people on media, surrogate media -- all that. The last part of it is to do with grassroots social media and getting organized physically and getting out the vote."
This isn't, however, just a global version of Richard Nixon's "Southern strategy," an opportunistic attempt to solidify a political realignment. Bannon and his ilk have a much more ambitious project in mind. Having dismissed the current resident of the Vatican as far too liberal, Bannon has put himself forward as the pope of a new movement to fight the barbarians (as he defines them).
A lifelong Catholic and former military man, he harkens back to a much earlier papal tradition, that of Pope Urban II, who launched the First Crusade to retake Jerusalem at the end of the eleventh century. Bannon wants to recreate a pre-EU, whiter, more martial and nationalistic Europe. Like the popes and princes of the eleventh century, the right-wing populists in Europe have already been conjuring up external enemies to unify the like-minded. Islam remains a suitable adversary, whether in the form of ordinary immigrants or extraordinary terrorists. But there's China, too, which poses the greatest challenge to the West since the Middle Kingdom last ruled the world of commerce, innovation, and culture so many centuries ago. Finally, there's the enemy within: the globalists who have no patience for nationalism, the secularists who want to hold religion at arm's length, and the multiculturalists who campaign against white privilege.
This crusade of Bannon's and the far right is a last-ditch effort to maintain the United States and a large swath of Eurasia as bastions of white Christendom. For decades, those who held such views populated the extremes where they belonged. However, the economic failures of globalization, a huge uptick in refugee flows, and a general decline in faith in democratic institutions have proved fertile ground for such a new crusade to take shape.
Movement vs. Movement
In the United States, organizations like Indivisible, a progressive group created by former congressional staffers in the wake of the 2016 elections that now has 5,000 local chapters, are not waiting for the political pendulum to swing by itself. They're already working hard to push politics back to the left -- and their organizing produced results in the 2018 midterm elections when the Democratic Party retook the House of Representatives.
The 2020 presidential election, however, is a different matter. Trump now has the incumbent's advantage and, for the time being, the tailwind of a strong economy. In fact, some economic forecasters predict a landslide for him as long as the economy doesn't tank. The president's team has also made sure that areas of the country where his base is strong are experiencing greater job growth than in Democratic Party strongholds.
In addition, Trump and his minions are hard at work eroding the foundations of a democratic society -- demonizing the media, working to suppress voter turnout, chipping away at the barriers between church and state, and packing the courts with ideologues who support their agenda. The vast majority of the groups mobilizing to defeat Trump in 2020 are working with traditional tools to effect political change. Having learned from past masters of populism like Orban and Erdogan, Team Trump is instead busy changing the playing field.
That's what makes the current political moment different. The pendulum theory of political change only applies if the major electoral actors play by the same rules. The right-wing populists have, however, been busy transforming the rules of the game so that they can stay in power as long as possible, while using the levers of the state to enrich themselves and their cronies. Putin has ruled Russia for two decades. Erdogan has held onto power for 16 years. Orban is closing in on a decade in office. Even in an undemocratic country like China, Xi Jinping has altered the collective rules of succession to ensure that he will remain leader for life.
One possible response to right-wing populism would, of course, be to ramp up left-wing populism. This was a winning strategy in 2015 for the Greek political party Syriza, which has been in charge of that country for four years now. It also worked for Evo Morales, who has captained Bolivia for more than a dozen years. And, of course, Bernie Sanders came close to being the Democratic Party's standard bearer in the 2016 election while promoting his version of left-wing populism, which capitalizes on an essential political reality: passion often moves people more effectively than policy.
But it's hard to see left-wing populism as a long-term answer to the New Right. It either fails electorally, as Jean-Luc Melenchon, the standard bearer for the movement France Unbowed, discovered in that country's last presidential election; or it faces the kind of "economic realities" that forced Syriza to accommodate the austerity demands of European bureaucrats and banks; or, as Morales has demonstrated in Bolivia, it ends up presiding over the same erosion of democratic practices as its right-wing counterparts.
Yes, the nuts-and-bolts organizing of groups like Indivisible is indispensable. Yes, the passion of left-wing populists is essential. But such politicking and the mirror-image populism that sometimes goes with it are mere life preservers. They may keep us afloat, but they won't rescue us. The New Right requires a far more original kind of response.
After all, the forces that gave rise to this tidal wave of right-wing populism remain in place: widening economic inequality, surging migrant flows, ballooning corruption scandals. Parties of the center remain discredited, and liberals have not come up with convincing alternatives to the policies and institutions of globalization they created. Trying to nudge the political pendulum out of the emergency zone is a necessary but ultimately insufficient approach. It's the equivalent of expecting that a conventional fix like a gasoline tax will stop climate change. Environmentalists understand that unprecedented change requires an unprecedented response. To deal with the threat of political climate change, a similarly international, broad-based, and fundamentally new approach is called for.
So don't wait for the pendulum to swing. Don't put your faith in the guardrails. It's not time for a manifesto or a 10-point plan. It's time for a movement to counteract Bannon's Movement, a global coalition that joins people and politicians in a united, international effort to respond to the true global problems -- climate change, endless war, and economic inequality -- that threaten to overwhelm us all. Absent such a movement, the rising tide of populism will sink all boats, life preservers and all.
A jury in the United Kingdom acquitted a pair of climate activists--including a co-founder of the Extinction Rebellion movement--of vandalism charges Thursday after they defended their acts of civil disobedience as a proportionate response to the threats posed by the global climate crisis.
Jurors at Southwark Crown Court in London unanimously cleared 25-year-old David Durant and 52-year-old Roger Hallam, the Extinction Rebellion co-founder, of all charges that stemmed from their efforts as part of an ultimately successful campaign to pressure King's College London to divest millions of dollars from fossil fuels.
On Jan. 19, 2017, Hallam wrote "divest from oil and gas" in water-soluble chalk-based spray paint on the university's property. Hallam and Durant were arrested days later, on February 1, for spray painting the walls of the university's Great Hall.
"We are extremely grateful to the jury for following common sense," Hallam said outside court Thursday, according to The Guardian. "Ordinary people, unlike the judiciary, are able to see the broader picture."
Durant called the charge of criminal damage he faced "ridiculous," adding that "chalk on the wall is obviously less important than the impending catastrophe for the planet."
Hallam and Durant--who represented themselves at the three-day trial--did not deny the damage to the university, which reportedly spent PS7,000 ($9,105) to wash away the paint. Instead, the defendants focused on their motivations for the actions, presenting a "necessity defense" under the U.K.'s Criminal Damage Act--despite Judge Michael Gledhill claiming multiple times that the climate crisis was "irrelevant" to the case.
"We were shut down quite a lot," Durant told Climate Liability News. "We'd try to read out case law and we were shut down."
While the prosecution showed video footage of the spray paint campaign to the jury, Hallam and Durant shared their motivations for the actions.
As The Guardian reported:
In a video shown to the jury, Hallam said: "This is not about polar bears, this is about mass starvation. It is a total emergency, if we do not take drastic action, our civilization will soon collapse."
In a second video shown to the jury, Durant can be heard saying: "You guys seem very concerned about the fact that we're potentially damaging your building but not by the fact that King's is damaging the planet."
"That was really handy," Durant said of the videos. "That was making the case for us."
Tim Crosland, director of climate campaign group Plan B and a legal adviser to Extinction Rebellion, said the jury's decision Thursday was "incredibly significant."
"This comes just after we've had Extinction Rebellion in London, so members of the jury will have been conscious of all of that," Crosland added. "It's a test of public opinion and how a randomly selected sample of the population have responded to this."
Since U.K. climate activists launched Extinction Rebellion last year, the group has spread to dozens of countries. Throughout April, they organized marches, demonstrations, and peaceful civil disobedience to demand from elected officials bolder policies to curb planet-warming emissions--and garnered widespread support, particularly among the British public.
Under pressure from the wave of activism, the U.K. Parliament made history on May 1 by declaring a climate and environment emergency, just days after similar moves by the Welsh and Scottish governments. On Thursday, Ireland followed suit.
"Climate emergency is not some abstract concept," Hallam, an organic farmer, told Real Media in a video interview published this week.
"Just over a decade ago there was a series of extreme weather events which destroyed my business and led to 25 people losing their jobs," he said. "Millions of farmers around the world are under extreme economic pressure due to the climate change catastrophe that is now unfolding."
As part of its Blue Economy initiative, the Trump administration has developed a map to provide ocean industries information on areas ripe for oil rigs and floating factory farms. The map brands these areas as "ocean neighborhoods." Though that sounds pretty cozy, it is nothing close to reality. What's in store for these "neighborhoods?" Massive rigs and other infrastructure, increased vessel traffic and noise, the inherent risk of dirty oil spills and blowouts and unavoidable toxic discharge.
Although the map touts "a fountain of data for use by industry," it ignores several components of the ocean ecosystem and certain coastal communities that are already struggling and need increased protections -- not increased development. Users can view the migratory pathways of sharks and fish -- but not other migratory species like seabirds and turtles. You can see critical habitats designated pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, but not the habitats for every threatened or endangered species (not all species receive critical habitat protection). Finally, feeding areas for cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are shown, but what about breeding areas for these struggling species? And, where are the other species protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act: sirenians (manatees and dugongs) and marine carnivores (like seals, otters, walrus and polar bears)? Trump's new industry-focused map does not include this vital information.
Since taking office, Trump has prioritized rolling back decades of progress in ocean protection policy.
While we're at it, what about coastal communities throughout the Gulf of Mexico that are already bearing the brunt of extensive offshore drilling? Thanks to offshore drilling, they are struggling with basic needs like drinkable water and breathable air. But, the map doesn't pay them any credence. Trump must not see them as a priority in determining where to develop next.
Since taking office, Trump has prioritized rolling back decades of progress in ocean protection policy. Both former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama took steps toward establishing a strong foundation for healthy oceans with protections for marine mammals, the creation of sanctuaries and monuments, improving U.S. fisheries and crafting policies to shield massive swaths of our waterways from dirty drilling activities. Trump has attempted to abolish much of that progress. This map is just one more Trump handout to Big Oil and others in the booming business of ocean industrialization.
Thankfully, we have checks and balances in our federal government to help prevent Trump's bad policies. In January 2019, members of Congress joined together to introduce a series of bills that would protect the majority of our coastlines from offshore drilling activities. And in March 2019, a federal judge nixed Trump's attempt to expand offshore drilling in the Arctic and North Atlantic coasts and upheld protections placed by former President Obama.
States can also attempt to resist Trump through stronger local policies. For example, an inspiring number of governors -- including Republicans and Democrats -- from coastal states opposed Trump's plan for expanded offshore drilling. Unfortunately, Trump responded by proposing to take away states' rights to object to coastal development off their coasts.
Thanks to major pushback from organizations like Friends of the Earth, Trump has temporarily postponed the next phase of his plan for offshore drilling expansion. But the recent issuance of his ocean industrialization map reinforces that Trump will continue providing corporate handouts and pushing to industrialize our remaining wild places. Click here to tell the Trump administration to permanently pull the plug on its five-year plan to expand offshore drilling. Remember: our oceans are home to important and endangered marine species, and shouldn't be treated as mere uncharted areas for mega-corporations to industrialize.
Signatories' Note: We are inviting teachers and scholars--elementary and secondary school teachers, college and university faculty, graduate students, independent scholars and writers, investigative journalists, librarians, editors, museum professionals, and other educators and researchers--from the United States, Canada, and around the world to join us in the campaign to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and uphold Indigenous Rights. This letter with all signatories will be submitted to the Bureau of Land Management on March 13, 2019, the deadline for public comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program. [To endorse this letter, send an email to thelastoil@unm.edu, with your name, affiliation, and state/province/country.]
As teachers and scholars from across the United States, Canada, and other parts of the world, we are united in our opposition to oil and gas exploration and drilling in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. We strongly condemn the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program and the rushed process by which the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared the document. Downplaying the dangers of expanding fossil fuel development in the Arctic, and disregarding scientific data and concerns raised by Indigenous peoples, the BLM is also shutting the public out of the process, undermining a core purpose of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Fossil fuel development in the Coastal Plain would devastate an Arctic nursery of global significance. It would violate human rights, jeopardize food security, and threaten the health and safety of Indigenous communities. It would contribute to the escalating crises of climate change and biological annihilation. The Arctic Refuge is an irreplaceable ecological treasure. Its fate should not be decided on an expedited timeline that prioritizes outcome over process to benefit the oil industry and its allies.
Ever since drilling proponents snuck an Arctic Refuge leasing provision into the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Trump administration has been moving aggressively to rush through the required Environmental Impact Statement. During the scoping phase of the EIS, the BLM held only one public hearing outside of Alaska--in Washington, DC, on a Friday night in mid-June 2018. Still, a large number of people showed up to voice their concerns about the ecological, cultural, and climate impacts of drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
Dismissing the concerns raised by the public and Indigenous peoples and "relying on outdated and incomplete science," the BLM hastily assembled a draft EIS and released it on December 20, 2018, the day before the longest government shutdown in US history began.
The Neets'aii Gwich'in tribal governments of Arctic Village and Venetie, who worked in a government-to-government capacity in the EIS process, denounced the BLM draft. In a press release, the tribes claimed: "The draft goes so far as to boldly declare that oil and gas development in the caribou calving grounds will have no impact at all on the Tribe's subsistence hunting practices." Equally important is that the government did not adequately consult the tribes prior to the release of the document. "Today's release was done with no prior notification to our Tribal Councils, who have met with the BLM for months on a government-to-government basis," said Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government Executive Director Tonya Garnett. "The total lack of regard to our tribal governments on an issue of such importance really demonstrates how BLM leadership views their trust responsibility to our Tribes."
The draft EIS set the deadline for public comments to end on February 11, 2019. On December 21, 2018, the Arctic Village and Venetie tribal governments were joined by a coalition of environmental and Indigenous human rights organizations in submitting requests to extend the public comment period--to April 29, 2019--to ensure robust participation by the interested public. On January 14, 2019, in the midst of the government shutdown, the coalition submitted additional requests, reiterating the need for the extension of the public comment period and asking that additional public hearings be held across the nation so that members of the public outside of Alaska are given an opportunity to have their voices heard. Finally, the coalition requested that notice of the hearings be provided at least two weeks prior to the first hearing date to give the public sufficient time to prepare remarks.
When the BLM announced its plans on January 30, 2019, the agency failed to respond to the requests from the coalition and instead offered a much shorter extension until March 13. The BLM also announced only one public hearing outside of Alaska--again, as during the scoping phase, in Washington, DC. But this second round of hearings was structured on an even more compressed timescale to invite even less public input. The BLM stipulated that all public hearings be finished within a much shorter window of time--starting on February 4 and ending on February 13--and that the first hearing would happen just two business days after the announcement, not the two-week notice requested by the coalition. These decisions underscore the Trump administration's rampant and repeated efforts to stifle public participation in the process.
Indeed, the first BLM hearing, held in Fairbanks on February 4, did not even include a public forum: it was merely an "open house" information session for agency officials to provide an overview of the draft EIS. Gwich'in and Inupiat elders and leaders spoke out against this injustice, and demanded the right to be heard. "We are beyond frustrated that our elders are not allowed to speak today," one leader explained. Tribal members and grassroots groups--including Defend the Sacred Alaska, Native Movement Alaska, and the Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition--joined together to turn the anti-democratic charade into what one participant called a "People's Hearing."
The voices of the people need to be heard, because the BLM's rushed process has resulted in a flawed environmental review.

The draft EIS fails to address the ecological impacts of drilling. Fossil fuel development would degrade the habitat of the Porcupine Caribou Herd as well as that of migratory birds, polar bears, and other creatures. More than 200,000 caribou embark every year on the longest land migration of any animal on earth, journeying from their wintering grounds in Canada and Alaska to the Coastal Plain, where they calve and nurse their young. According to caribou biologists, the entirety of the calving and nursing grounds that stretch from the Arctic Refuge to the adjacent Ivvavik National Park in the Yukon Territory of Canada should be protected if the herd is to survive and thrive. With caribou herds across Canada and the circumpolar world in severe decline, the Department of the Interior should respect scientific and traditional ecological knowledge to sustain this transnational herd. Likewise, the draft EIS minimizes development impacts on the nesting and feeding habitats of millions of birds that migrate to the refuge from all fifty US states and all over the world. Nor does it adequately consider the impacts on polar bears, now listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, as their traditional sea ice habitat continues to disappear due to rapid Arctic warming. As we are in the midst of what scientists call biological annihilation, these impacts on wildlife need to be considered fully, not ignored or minimized to expedite drilling.
The draft EIS fails to address Indigenous rights and environmental justice. For the Gwich'in communities on both sides of the US-Canada border, the prospect of drilling represents an existential threat to their culture. The Gwich'in have relied upon the Porcupine Caribou Herd for their nutritional, cultural, and spiritual sustenance for millennia. To them, the Coastal Plain is Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit (the Sacred Place Where Life Begins). Their food security, human rights, and cultural future are all stake in this decision. For many Inupiat people who call the area home, fossil fuel development would lead to increased social stress and air pollution with potentially severe health impacts on community members. The dangerous levels of toxic pollutants emitted by drilling could cause respiratory illnesses and other health problems, as has been documented in Nuiqsut following the development of the Alpine oil field. Indigenous voices must be heard, not marginalized and brushed aside in the rush to develop.
The draft EIS fails to address climate change. Fossil fuel extraction would contribute to further warming of the already rapidly-warming Arctic--an action that would affect the whole earth, as the Arctic is a critical integrator of our planet's climate systems. As climate scientists keep telling us, we are living through a pivotal moment in history, a time in which the US and other nations around the world need to transition to a sustainable energy future. Deciding not to drill in the Arctic Refuge would be a crucial step in this direction.
Instead of racing to turn a wildlife sanctuary into an oil field, the BLM needs to assess the full impacts of drilling on the ecological, cultural, wilderness, and subsistence values of the Arctic Refuge. The fossil fuel industry has already developed large portions of northern Alaska. The Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge--a contiguous stretch of unparalleled public land that constitutes about 5% of Alaska's Arctic coast--should be protected permanently not auctioned off at breakneck speed.
Since the Trump administration is attempting to complete this significant environmental review in a rushed and undemocratic manner, environmental and Indigenous activists have decided to take ownership of the process and create their own democratic structures. The coalition has organized a series of Public Community Hearings in March. Independent of the BLM's hasty and flawed process, these hearings will amplify voices of the public and highlight the administration's suppression of public participation. The public hearings represent a democratic push from below, an effort to enlist--rather than exclude--all people in this critical environmental debate. The coalition has scheduled public hearings in three cities: Albuquerque, New Mexico, on March 5; Denver, Colorado, on March 8; and Seattle, Washington (date will be announced soon on the letter web-page).
As teachers and scholars, we know that younger generations are worried about the escalating dangers to our planet's biological, climate, and life-support systems. The short-term drive to drill in the Arctic undercuts their hopes for a sustainable future. The natural and cultural values of the Arctic Refuge far exceed any oil that may lie beneath the Coastal Plain. Rather than rushing to lease and drill, the US government should keep this cherished place and vibrant ecosystem protected for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Ahtuangaruak (Inupiaq), Arctic Indigenous Scholar, Arctic Research Consortium of the United States (Alaska, USA)
Subhankar Banerjee, Lannan Chair and Professor of Art and Ecology, University of New Mexico (New Mexico, USA)
Finis Dunaway, Professor of History, Trent University (Ontario, Canada)
Norma Kassi (Vuntut Gwitchin), Director of Indigenous Collaboration at the Arctic Institute of Community-Based Research (Yukon, Canada)
Conservation groups are cheering the introduction on Monday of a measure to stop fossil fuel extraction in a section of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
"This bill calls a halt to the administration's headlong rush to sell off this special wilderness to corporate polluters," said John Bowman, senior director for federal affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "And it preserves the fundamental human rights of the Gwich'in people whom these lands have sustained for thousands of years, and who--among two-thirds of all Americans--oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge."
The legislation is a renewed effort by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), and would repeal a provision included in the GOP's 2017 tax bill (pdf). Denounced as "a Big Oil polar payout," the provision opens the refuge's coastal plain to oil and gas exploration and drilling.
"I have seen the coastal plain," said Stan Senner, vice president for bird conservation at National Audubon Society, "and it makes no sense to drill for oil in this unique landscape. Even one season of exploration, to say nothing of full-scale development, will scar it for decades."
The impact could be "catastrophe," said Erik DuMont, public lands campaign director for Environment America.
"Drilling in this area would likely displace the Porcupine caribou herd from their prime calving grounds, leading to a decrease in the survival rate of the calves and decimating the overall size of the herd. But that's just the start," DuMont explained. "It would disrupt nesting grounds for dozens of species of migratory birds who flock there from every U.S. state and six continents. And, even just doing seismic testing, would likely cause irreparable harm to our iconic polar bears."
According to a press statement from Sierra Club, it has 100 co-sponsors.
The announcement of the new legislation comes the same day as a group of teachers and scholars detail their opposition to fossil fuel exploration and drilling in ANWR's coastal plain.
"Ever since drilling proponents sneaked an Arctic Refuge leasing provision into the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Trump administration has been moving aggressively to rush through the required Environmental Impact Statement," the group writes in an open letter. Summing up the catastrophic impact of the proposed extraction, they note:
Fossil fuel development in the Coastal Plain would devastate an Arctic nursery of global significance. It would violate human rights, jeopardize food security, and threaten the health and safety of Indigenous communities. It would contribute to the escalating crises of climate change and biological annihilation. The Arctic Refuge is an irreplaceable ecological treasure. Its fate should not be decided on an expedited timeline that prioritizes outcome over process to benefit the oil industry and its allies.
The letter will be submitted to the Bureau of Land Management on March 13, 2019, the last day to provide for public comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program.