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.
The uprisings in the Middle East and the growing austerity-induced unrest among workers in the US and Europe have provided new hope for environmental movement leaders who for years have struggled to mobilize the public to confront the looming catastrophes of growth-capitalism.
A good example is climate leader and 350.org founder, Bill McKibben. In February, McKibben authored a short blog post celebrating Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's decision to step down. He wrote of the revolution as a teachable moment for the climate movement, suggesting that if "a real people's movement" could bring down an apparently immovable tyrant like Mubarak a similar movement could bring down the fossil fuel giants.
McKibben is right. As the overlords of the current world order, fossil fuel companies do have a lot to fear from a powerful popular uprising. However, the Egyptian case also shows us that when such an uprising comes, it won't be fundamentally about the climate. The revolution against the fossil-fuel barons won't be a clean energy revolution. It will simply be a revolution.
This is the first major lesson for environmental movement organizers: when people rise up they rise up because of unbearable socio-economic circumstances -- oppressive, corrupt regimes, austerity measures, and aggressive assaults upon their economic and civil rights. They never have and very likely never will rise up en masse over bad environmental policies.
Still, this image of a popular climate uprising is something that a lot of us in the movement envision as an inevitability. Indeed, my boss, Chesapeake Climate Action Network director Mike Tidwell, recently wrote an article for the Washington Post describing steps he's taking to prepare for the unrest brought on by coming weather-related climate disasters. While he's still hopeful that we can find climate policy solutions, as a pragmatist he's already preparing for the worst: taking target practice, replacing locks on his home, buying back-up generators and learning to grow his own food.
Like Tidwell, I'm personally convinced that climate-related unrest, and hardships are indeed waiting for us not too far down the road and I've also started preparing. But when the unrest comes, in the public mind it won't be seen as a "climate rising." It will simply be seen as civil unrest. And like most historical examples of civil unrest, its focus won't be on climate problems, but on economic and political problems: the failure of the economy and the government to provide fundamental services, like food, water and energy.
In other words, when people start rioting about climate-induced food shortages - the first thing on their mind won't be "I demand the government do something about climate change," but, "I demand the government figure out a way to provide us with food security again." Of course, policies to facilitate a rapid switch away from fossil fuels and reduce other climate-change drivers will be part of the government response, but they'll hardly be the main focus. When people are starving they won't be placated by legislation to cap or tax carbon emissions. Such measures might even take a back seat to more immediate solutions.
In short, when things fall apart, what the public will demand first and foremost are answers from leaders and experts about how to create an economy that will solve the problems that the old one brought on.
If left-wing political leaders don't have clear answers for how to build a new economy that provides for human needs, people will do what they've always done: Put their faith in right-wing demagogues -- men who will prey on public fears and misery, and channel them into persecution of the Other -- i.e. of some imagined internal or external scapegoat. Without a credible systemic alternative we'll revert to fascism, tribalism and violence.
And so for those of us who have dedicated our lives to creating a more humane, livable world, the greatest, most pressing challenge of our time is not to stop climate change, or deforestation, or bio-diversity loss, or even to stop poverty, or war, or disease. The current global order has already put many of those individual problems beyond the reform efforts we've been diligently pushing for so long. A second lesson from Egypt is that you can't organize the kind of anger and widespread discontent that creates revolutions. Life has to become intolerable and push things to breaking point for that to happen.
Meanwhile, all you can really do is make incremental gains and create the organizational power and credibility necessary to emerge as leaders once the unrest begins. Clean-energy advocacy is a key part of that power building, but it's not enough.
Promoting a livable and humane world requires a much broader program focused on the economy. It requires recognizing and addressing the true overarching challenge of our time: providing a buffer against global fascism by helping the pubic understand how a new more humane economy beyond growth-capitalism could work. We have to position ideas like the steady-state economy as the answers that the public will turn to when the current world order collapses. Fortunately, the recent economic crisis has provided an opening, creating fissures in the public dogma of growth capitalism into which we can inject new economic memes.
Getting those memes out there and getting them to gain popular currency certainly won't be an easy goal to achieve. But there are many plausible, as yet untried strategies to pursue it, and we might even take a few pointers from the climate movement. In 2008 climate organizers with the group Focus the Nation helped spread national awareness of the crisis by organizing a series of widely-attended teach-ins at universities and institutions across the country. We need a similar effort to focus the nation on alternatives to growth capital -- alternatives like the steady-state economy. If done right such an effort might inform and inspire new wave of economics students to challenge the dogma of growth capital and loosen its grip on their schools' curricula.
However we approach this issue one thing is for certain: we don't have a second to lose. The problems of peak oil, climate change and crisis-capitalism aren't getting any better. Before we reach the precipice we've got a lot of work to do if we want the revolution to go our way.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The uprisings in the Middle East and the growing austerity-induced unrest among workers in the US and Europe have provided new hope for environmental movement leaders who for years have struggled to mobilize the public to confront the looming catastrophes of growth-capitalism.
A good example is climate leader and 350.org founder, Bill McKibben. In February, McKibben authored a short blog post celebrating Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's decision to step down. He wrote of the revolution as a teachable moment for the climate movement, suggesting that if "a real people's movement" could bring down an apparently immovable tyrant like Mubarak a similar movement could bring down the fossil fuel giants.
McKibben is right. As the overlords of the current world order, fossil fuel companies do have a lot to fear from a powerful popular uprising. However, the Egyptian case also shows us that when such an uprising comes, it won't be fundamentally about the climate. The revolution against the fossil-fuel barons won't be a clean energy revolution. It will simply be a revolution.
This is the first major lesson for environmental movement organizers: when people rise up they rise up because of unbearable socio-economic circumstances -- oppressive, corrupt regimes, austerity measures, and aggressive assaults upon their economic and civil rights. They never have and very likely never will rise up en masse over bad environmental policies.
Still, this image of a popular climate uprising is something that a lot of us in the movement envision as an inevitability. Indeed, my boss, Chesapeake Climate Action Network director Mike Tidwell, recently wrote an article for the Washington Post describing steps he's taking to prepare for the unrest brought on by coming weather-related climate disasters. While he's still hopeful that we can find climate policy solutions, as a pragmatist he's already preparing for the worst: taking target practice, replacing locks on his home, buying back-up generators and learning to grow his own food.
Like Tidwell, I'm personally convinced that climate-related unrest, and hardships are indeed waiting for us not too far down the road and I've also started preparing. But when the unrest comes, in the public mind it won't be seen as a "climate rising." It will simply be seen as civil unrest. And like most historical examples of civil unrest, its focus won't be on climate problems, but on economic and political problems: the failure of the economy and the government to provide fundamental services, like food, water and energy.
In other words, when people start rioting about climate-induced food shortages - the first thing on their mind won't be "I demand the government do something about climate change," but, "I demand the government figure out a way to provide us with food security again." Of course, policies to facilitate a rapid switch away from fossil fuels and reduce other climate-change drivers will be part of the government response, but they'll hardly be the main focus. When people are starving they won't be placated by legislation to cap or tax carbon emissions. Such measures might even take a back seat to more immediate solutions.
In short, when things fall apart, what the public will demand first and foremost are answers from leaders and experts about how to create an economy that will solve the problems that the old one brought on.
If left-wing political leaders don't have clear answers for how to build a new economy that provides for human needs, people will do what they've always done: Put their faith in right-wing demagogues -- men who will prey on public fears and misery, and channel them into persecution of the Other -- i.e. of some imagined internal or external scapegoat. Without a credible systemic alternative we'll revert to fascism, tribalism and violence.
And so for those of us who have dedicated our lives to creating a more humane, livable world, the greatest, most pressing challenge of our time is not to stop climate change, or deforestation, or bio-diversity loss, or even to stop poverty, or war, or disease. The current global order has already put many of those individual problems beyond the reform efforts we've been diligently pushing for so long. A second lesson from Egypt is that you can't organize the kind of anger and widespread discontent that creates revolutions. Life has to become intolerable and push things to breaking point for that to happen.
Meanwhile, all you can really do is make incremental gains and create the organizational power and credibility necessary to emerge as leaders once the unrest begins. Clean-energy advocacy is a key part of that power building, but it's not enough.
Promoting a livable and humane world requires a much broader program focused on the economy. It requires recognizing and addressing the true overarching challenge of our time: providing a buffer against global fascism by helping the pubic understand how a new more humane economy beyond growth-capitalism could work. We have to position ideas like the steady-state economy as the answers that the public will turn to when the current world order collapses. Fortunately, the recent economic crisis has provided an opening, creating fissures in the public dogma of growth capitalism into which we can inject new economic memes.
Getting those memes out there and getting them to gain popular currency certainly won't be an easy goal to achieve. But there are many plausible, as yet untried strategies to pursue it, and we might even take a few pointers from the climate movement. In 2008 climate organizers with the group Focus the Nation helped spread national awareness of the crisis by organizing a series of widely-attended teach-ins at universities and institutions across the country. We need a similar effort to focus the nation on alternatives to growth capital -- alternatives like the steady-state economy. If done right such an effort might inform and inspire new wave of economics students to challenge the dogma of growth capital and loosen its grip on their schools' curricula.
However we approach this issue one thing is for certain: we don't have a second to lose. The problems of peak oil, climate change and crisis-capitalism aren't getting any better. Before we reach the precipice we've got a lot of work to do if we want the revolution to go our way.
The uprisings in the Middle East and the growing austerity-induced unrest among workers in the US and Europe have provided new hope for environmental movement leaders who for years have struggled to mobilize the public to confront the looming catastrophes of growth-capitalism.
A good example is climate leader and 350.org founder, Bill McKibben. In February, McKibben authored a short blog post celebrating Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's decision to step down. He wrote of the revolution as a teachable moment for the climate movement, suggesting that if "a real people's movement" could bring down an apparently immovable tyrant like Mubarak a similar movement could bring down the fossil fuel giants.
McKibben is right. As the overlords of the current world order, fossil fuel companies do have a lot to fear from a powerful popular uprising. However, the Egyptian case also shows us that when such an uprising comes, it won't be fundamentally about the climate. The revolution against the fossil-fuel barons won't be a clean energy revolution. It will simply be a revolution.
This is the first major lesson for environmental movement organizers: when people rise up they rise up because of unbearable socio-economic circumstances -- oppressive, corrupt regimes, austerity measures, and aggressive assaults upon their economic and civil rights. They never have and very likely never will rise up en masse over bad environmental policies.
Still, this image of a popular climate uprising is something that a lot of us in the movement envision as an inevitability. Indeed, my boss, Chesapeake Climate Action Network director Mike Tidwell, recently wrote an article for the Washington Post describing steps he's taking to prepare for the unrest brought on by coming weather-related climate disasters. While he's still hopeful that we can find climate policy solutions, as a pragmatist he's already preparing for the worst: taking target practice, replacing locks on his home, buying back-up generators and learning to grow his own food.
Like Tidwell, I'm personally convinced that climate-related unrest, and hardships are indeed waiting for us not too far down the road and I've also started preparing. But when the unrest comes, in the public mind it won't be seen as a "climate rising." It will simply be seen as civil unrest. And like most historical examples of civil unrest, its focus won't be on climate problems, but on economic and political problems: the failure of the economy and the government to provide fundamental services, like food, water and energy.
In other words, when people start rioting about climate-induced food shortages - the first thing on their mind won't be "I demand the government do something about climate change," but, "I demand the government figure out a way to provide us with food security again." Of course, policies to facilitate a rapid switch away from fossil fuels and reduce other climate-change drivers will be part of the government response, but they'll hardly be the main focus. When people are starving they won't be placated by legislation to cap or tax carbon emissions. Such measures might even take a back seat to more immediate solutions.
In short, when things fall apart, what the public will demand first and foremost are answers from leaders and experts about how to create an economy that will solve the problems that the old one brought on.
If left-wing political leaders don't have clear answers for how to build a new economy that provides for human needs, people will do what they've always done: Put their faith in right-wing demagogues -- men who will prey on public fears and misery, and channel them into persecution of the Other -- i.e. of some imagined internal or external scapegoat. Without a credible systemic alternative we'll revert to fascism, tribalism and violence.
And so for those of us who have dedicated our lives to creating a more humane, livable world, the greatest, most pressing challenge of our time is not to stop climate change, or deforestation, or bio-diversity loss, or even to stop poverty, or war, or disease. The current global order has already put many of those individual problems beyond the reform efforts we've been diligently pushing for so long. A second lesson from Egypt is that you can't organize the kind of anger and widespread discontent that creates revolutions. Life has to become intolerable and push things to breaking point for that to happen.
Meanwhile, all you can really do is make incremental gains and create the organizational power and credibility necessary to emerge as leaders once the unrest begins. Clean-energy advocacy is a key part of that power building, but it's not enough.
Promoting a livable and humane world requires a much broader program focused on the economy. It requires recognizing and addressing the true overarching challenge of our time: providing a buffer against global fascism by helping the pubic understand how a new more humane economy beyond growth-capitalism could work. We have to position ideas like the steady-state economy as the answers that the public will turn to when the current world order collapses. Fortunately, the recent economic crisis has provided an opening, creating fissures in the public dogma of growth capitalism into which we can inject new economic memes.
Getting those memes out there and getting them to gain popular currency certainly won't be an easy goal to achieve. But there are many plausible, as yet untried strategies to pursue it, and we might even take a few pointers from the climate movement. In 2008 climate organizers with the group Focus the Nation helped spread national awareness of the crisis by organizing a series of widely-attended teach-ins at universities and institutions across the country. We need a similar effort to focus the nation on alternatives to growth capital -- alternatives like the steady-state economy. If done right such an effort might inform and inspire new wave of economics students to challenge the dogma of growth capital and loosen its grip on their schools' curricula.
However we approach this issue one thing is for certain: we don't have a second to lose. The problems of peak oil, climate change and crisis-capitalism aren't getting any better. Before we reach the precipice we've got a lot of work to do if we want the revolution to go our way.
"We've got the FBI patrolling the streets." said one protester. "We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Residents of Washington, DC over the weekend demonstrated against US President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard in their city.
As reported by NBC Washington, demonstrators gathered on Saturday at DuPont Circle and then marched to the White House to direct their anger at Trump for sending the National Guard to Washington DC, and for his efforts to take over the Metropolitan Police Department.
In an interview with NBC Washington, one protester said that it was important for the administration to see that residents weren't intimidated by the presence of military personnel roaming their streets.
"I know a lot of people are scared," the protester said. "We've got the FBI patrolling the streets. We've got National Guard set up as a show of force. What's scarier is if we allow this."
Saturday protests against the presence of the National Guard are expected to be a weekly occurrence, organizers told NBC Washington.
Hours after the march to the White House, other demonstrators began to gather at Union Station to protest the presence of the National Guard units there. Audio obtained by freelance journalist Andrew Leyden reveals that the National Guard decided to move their forces out of the area in reaction to what dispatchers called "growing demonstrations."
Even residents who didn't take part in formal demonstrations over the weekend managed to express their displeasure with the National Guard patrolling the city. According to The Washington Post, locals who spent a night on the town in the U Street neighborhood on Friday night made their unhappiness with law enforcement in the city very well known.
"At the sight of local and federal law enforcement throughout the night, people pooled on the sidewalk—watching, filming, booing," wrote the Post. "Such interactions played out again and again as the night drew on. Onlookers heckled the police as they did their job and applauded as officers left."
Trump last week ordered the National Guard into Washington, DC and tried to take control the Metropolitan Police, purportedly in order to reduce crime in the city. Statistics released earlier this year, however, showed a significant drop in crime in the nation's capital.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" asked NBC's Kristen Welker.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday was repeatedly put on the spot over the failure of US President Donald Trump to secure a cease-fire deal between Russia and Ukraine.
Rubio appeared on news programs across all major networks on Sunday morning and he was asked on all of them about Trump's summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin ending without any kind of agreement to end the conflict with Ukraine, which has now lasted for more than three years.
During an interview on ABC's "This Week," Rubio was grilled by Martha Raddatz about the purported "progress" being made toward bringing the war to a close. She also zeroed in on Trump's own statements saying that he wanted to see Russia agree to a cease-fire by the end of last week's summit.
"The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire, and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire," she said. "So where are the consequences?"
"That's not the aim of this," Rubio replied. "First of all..."
"The president said that was the aim!" Raddatz interjected.
"Yeah, but you're not going to reach a cease-fire or a peace agreement in a meeting in which only one side is represented," Rubio replied. "That's why it's important to bring both leaders together, that's the goal here."
RADDATZ: The president went in to that meeting saying he wanted a ceasefire and there would be consequences if they didn't agree on a ceasefire in that meeting, and they didn't agree to a ceasefire. So where are the consequences?
RUBIO: That's not the aim
RADDATZ: The president… pic.twitter.com/fuO9q1Y5ze
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
Rubio also made an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," where host Margaret Brennan similarly pressed him about the expectations Trump had set going into the summit.
"The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire," she pointed out. "He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn't agree to one. He said he'd walk out in two minutes—he spent three hours talking to Vladimir Putin and he did not get one. So there's mixed messages here."
"Our goal is not to stage some production for the world to say, 'Oh, how dramatic, he walked out,'" Rubio shot back. "Our goal is to have a peace agreement to end this war, OK? And obviously we felt, and I agreed, that there was enough progress, not a lot of progress, but enough progress made in those talks to allow us to move to the next phase."
Rubio then insisted that now was not the time to hit Russia with new sanctions, despite Trump's recent threats to do so, because it would end talks all together.
Brennan: The president told those European leaders last week he wanted a ceasefire. He went on television and said he would walk out of the meeting if Putin didn't agree to one, he said there would be severe consequences if he didn’t agree to one. He spent three hours talking to… pic.twitter.com/2WtuDH5Oii
— Acyn (@Acyn) August 17, 2025
During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," host Kristen Welker asked Rubio about the "severe consequences" Trump had promised for Russia if it did not agree to a cease-fire.
"Why not impose more sanctions on [Russia] and force them to agree to a cease-fire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?" Welker asked.
"Well, first, that's something that I think a lot of people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true," he replied. "I don't think new sanctions on Russia are going to force them to accept a cease-fire. They are already under severe sanctions... you can argue that could be a consequence of refusing to agree to a cease-fire or the end of hostilities."
He went on to say that he hoped the US would not be forced to put more sanctions on Russia "because that means peace talks failed."
WELKER: Why not impose more sanctions on Russia and force them to agree to a ceasefire, instead of accepting that Putin won't agree to one?
RUBIO: Well, I think that's something people go around saying that I don't necessarily think is true. I don't think new sanctions on Russia… pic.twitter.com/GoIucsrDmA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 17, 2025
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump said that he could end the war between Russian and Ukraine within the span of a single day. In the seven months since his inauguration, the war has only gotten more intense as Russia has stepped up its daily attacks on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.
"I had to protect my life and my family... my truck was shot three times," said the vehicle's driver.
A family in San Bernardino, California is in shock after masked federal agents opened fire on their truck.
As NBC Los Angeles reported, Customs and Border Protection (CPB) agents on Saturday morning surrounded the family's truck and demanded that its passengers exit the vehicle.
A video of the incident filmed from inside the truck showed the passengers asked the agents to provide identification, which they declined to do.
An agent was then heard demanding that the father, who had been driving the truck, get out of the vehicle. Seconds later, the agent started smashing the car's windows in an attempt to get inside the vehicle.
The father then hit the gas to try to escape, after which several shots could be heard as agents opened fire. Local news station KTLA reported that, after the father successfully fled the scene, he called local police and asked for help because "masked men" had opened fire on his truck.
Looks like, for the first time I'm aware of, masked agents opened fire today, in San Bernardino. Sources posted below: pic.twitter.com/eE1GMglECg
— Eric Levai (@ericlevai) August 17, 2025
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defended the agents' actions in a statement to NBC Los Angeles.
"In the course of the incident the suspect drove his car at the officers and struck two CBP officers with his vehicle," they said. "Because of the subjects forcing a CBP officer to discharge his firearm in self-defense."
But the father, who only wished to be identified as "Francisco," pointed out that the agents refused to identify themselves and presented no warrants to justify the search of his truck.
"I had to protect my life and my family," he explained to NBC Los Angeles. "My truck was shot three times."
His son-in-law, who only wished to be identified as "Martin," was similarly critical of the agents' actions.
"Its just upsetting that it happened to us," he said. "I am glad my brother is okay, Pop is okay, but it's just not cool that [immigration enforcement officials are] able to do something like that."
According to KTLA, federal agents surrounded the family's house later that afternoon and demanded that the father come out so that he could be arrested. He refused, and agents eventually departed from the neighborhood without detaining him.
Local advocacy group Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice said on its Instagram page that it was "mobilizing to provide legal support" for the family.