“This is a major blow for press freedom in the United States: A network news outlet has just caved to groundless threats from the president over its coverage,” said CPJ CEO Jodie Ginsberg in New York. “This signals that the current administration–as well as any future administrations–can interfere with, or influence, editorial decisions.” 

In a lawsuit filed last year, Trump accused CBS, whose parent company is Paramount Global, of deceptively editing a ’60 Minutes’ interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris to interfere with the election. Paramount Global will pay the settlement amount, including legal fees, to Trump’s future presidential library, according to news reports.

Last month, CPJ wrote to the chair of Paramount Global, Shari Redstone, warning her that a settlement would signal that political figures can pressure news organizations into altering or censoring editorial decisions.

The FCC is investigating a merger deal between CBS parent company Paramount and Skydance, a deal that could have been endangered by the possibility of litigation from Trump. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) earlier this year re-opened a news distortion investigation into CBS.

CPJ’s request to Paramount Global for comment on the settlement’s editorial implications did not receive an immediate reply.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

In response to the release of the letter, Sierra Club Clean Transportation for All Director Katherine García released the following statement:

“There’s nothing beautiful about toxic air pollution, saddling drivers with higher costs, and rolling back progress on clean transportation. At this moment, as half of the country is affected by an intense heat wave, we need to focus on investing in climate solutions and holding polluters accountable. The previous Congress had funded innovative and strategic programs to reduce costs, protect American jobs, and drive the competitiveness of the U.S. vehicle industry, and they’re working in communities across the nation in Republican and Democratic districts. This disastrous bill threatens to strip away that progress in giveaways to billionaires and corporate polluters. We urge all Senators to vote one, big beautiful no on this bill.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

But the claim is false. According to official data from 2023, Chinese nationals were involved in 1.123% of prosecutions in Japan, and they made up 1.135% of all suspects. 

The claim was shared on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Sep. 21. 

“Chinese people already account for three-fifths of all criminal offenses in Japan. Do you think the Chinese should be driven back to China?” the claim reads in part. 

The post did not provide further details on the source of the data. 

The claim began to circulate online after the Sept. 18 stabbing and subsequent death of a 10-year-old Japanese schoolboy in the Chinese city of Shenzhen by a Chinese man. 

The incident ignited a wave of anger in Japan, with critics accusing China of fostering anti-Japanese sentiment through its education system and state-controlled media.

But the claim about the crime rate for Chinese people in Japan is false. 

Official data

A report from Japan’s National Police Agency, NPA, in June 2024 shows that in 2023, there were 269,550 criminal prosecutions and 183,269 suspects in total.

Out of those, 2,080 Chinese nationals were involved in 3,028 cases. This count does not include individuals from Taiwan and Hong Kong.

The figures mean Chinese nationals accounted for just 1.123% of total prosecutions and 1.135% of all suspects.

When looking only at cases involving foreigners, Chinese nationals were involved in 19.5% of them, and they made up 21.4% of the suspects, ranking second in the number of cases and first in the number of suspects.

Similar annual statistics from the NPA, going back to 2014, show that the proportion of cases involving Chinese nationals in Japan has never exceeded 1.4% during this period.

The X user who made the claim has not responded to AFCL’s inquiries. 

Translated by Shen Ke. Edited by Shen Ke and Taejun Kang.

Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Dong Zhe for Asia Fact Check Lab.

A group of more than 60 journalism professors has written to The New York Times calling on the paper to commission an independent review of its report that members of Hamas committed widespread sexual violence on October 7. Numerous media outlets, as well as some of the paper’s own staff, have raised questions about the December 28 article headlined “Screams Without Words,” reported in part by a freelance Israeli journalist who had liked multiple posts on social media advocating for violence against Palestinians. The Times has even published subsequent reporting undercutting some of the key elements of the article, which was used by Israeli leaders and Western allies as justification for the brutal military campaign in Gaza that had already killed tens of thousands of Palestinians up to that point. “It was very troubling to professors of journalism to see such a shoddy article be published without a retraction or an investigation,” says Rutgers media studies professor Deepa Kumar, one of the signatories, author of Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire. She also says that as an academic, she is troubled by the mainstream media’s depiction of student encampments as places of hate and violence. “For those of us who have been to these encampments, we know that the atmosphere there is peaceful until the police show up and start to create chaos. … These are fantastic spaces of learning.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Oil giant ExxonMobil agreed to buy the shale group Pioneer Natural Resources for $59.5 billion in a deal that places a vast bet on a future for fossil fuel production in the United States.

America’s largest oil and gas deal in more than two decades will increase Exxon’s dominance in the Permian Basin shale field, at the heart of the country’s transformation into the world’s biggest oil producer.

Shares in Exxon have almost doubled over the past two years as oil and gas prices rose sharply. Its takeover of Pioneer – an all-stock transaction – capitalizes on this market rally.

While the Biden administration has sought to hasten the shift towards renewable energy in the face of the climate crisis, this acquisition underlines the confidence of America’s largest oil company that fossil fuel output will not be significantly hampered in the coming years.

With shareholders in Pioneer set to vote on the proposed tie-up, Scott Sheffield, the operator’s chief executive, declared the combined fracking giant would create value for them “for decades to come.”

Darren Woods, chief executive and chairman of Exxon, said: “Pioneer is a clear leader in the Permian with a unique asset base and people with deep industry knowledge. The combined capabilities of our two companies will provide long-term value creation well in excess of what either company is capable of doing on a standalone basis.”

This would be ExxonMobil’s biggest deal since Exxon’s $75 billion merger with Mobil Oil in 1998. Together, Exxon and Pioneer are set to have “the largest footprint of high-return wells in the Permian Basin,” Sheffield noted.

Exxon’s production in the Permian would more than double to 1.3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day following the purchase, it said. This is expected to rise to about 2 million barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2027.

The company is pitching the takeover as environmentally friendly, however. It pledged to leverage its “industry-leading” greenhouse gas reduction plans in the Permian, which Woods said will to “accelerate Pioneer’s net-zero plan from 2050 to 2035.”

The deal – expected to close in the first half of next year – is subject to regulatory approvals. The boards of Exxon and Pioneer have already granted the green light. It values Pioneer at $253 per share, which amounts to a 9 percent premium on where the operator’s stock was trading about a month before reports of takeover talks first surfaced.

Shares in Pioneer Natural Resources climbed 0.3 percent to $238.10 on Wednesday. Exxon dropped 4.8 percent to $105.11.

Unlike some of its rivals, Exxon has so far defied calls to move away from fossil fuels and concentrate on cleaner energy sources. Rather than place big bets on the shift to renewable energy, the oil giant has instead focused on its core business.

The company’s annual profits soared to a record $55.7 billion last year, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine triggered a surge in oil prices. President Biden accused the industry of “war profiteering” as prices rose at the pump. Exxon claimed on Wednesday that its purchase of Pioneer would both strengthen energy security and bolster the US economy.

“ExxonMobil expanding is bad for people, communities, and our climate,” said David Tong, global industry campaign manager at nonprofit research and advocacy group Oil Change International. “Further consolidation of the fossil energy market into a smaller number of mega companies will not secure energy access for people or help achieve climate targets.”

A recent analysis by Tong’s group found that, despite their climate pledges, no major oil and gas company comes close to aligning with the 2015 Paris Agreement, a groundbreaking international treaty aimed at keeping global temperatures “well below” 2C above pre-industrial levels.

The non-profit environmental advocacy group Environmental Defense Fund has raised concerns that the deal will reduce transparency around methane emissions, which are 80 times more planet-warming than carbon emissions in the short term.

Pioneer has been an industry leader in methane reporting, but the group expressed fear that Exxon’s acquisition will likely mean that those practices “would likely revert to Exxon’s own outdated and inadequate practices.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Exxon reinforces support for fossil fuels with deal to buy shale giant for $60 billion on Oct 14, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Callum Jones.

“Yasuní gives life to our world, and Ecuadorian society has finally woken up to this,” Nemonte Nenquimo, an Indigenous Waorani activist and winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize, said in a statement. “People are now realizing the crises we face aren’t going to be solved by exploiting more oil.”

Yasuní National Park is a sprawling, 3,800-square-mile reserve in the Ecuadorian section of the Amazon rainforest, in the northeastern part of the country. It’s home to the Tagaeri and Taromenane, tribes that choose to live without contact with the outside world. Declared a UNESCO biosphere reserve in 1989, the park is also a hotspot for biodiversity, boasting hundreds of distinct bird, reptile, and amphibian species. Scientists say that just one hectare (2.47 acres) of Yasuní land boasts more tree species than there are in all of North America. The park is also home to Ecuador’s largest reserve of crude oil.

This weekend’s referendum follows more than decade of organizing from green groups and environmental advocates who wanted to keep that oil in the ground — including former President Rafael Correa, who in 2007 asked developed countries for $3.6 billion to keep the Yasuní free from oil exploration. That funding never materialized, however, and Petroecuador, the state-owned oil company, began drilling in the park in 2016. Today, the company produces some 55,000 barrels of oil a day in a relatively small swath of the park called Block 43.

The drilling ban, which drew support from about 60 percent of Ecuadorian voters, will now require Petroecuador to dismantle its operations in Block 43, preventing the extraction of some 726 million barrels of oil worth an estimated $1.2 billion. (The vote does not ban drilling in two other Yasuní blocks, although activists have made inroads against oil extraction in one of them.)

Critics said Ecuador was “shooting itself in the foot” by stopping drilling, because it will lose revenue and have to buy more oil from other countries. Ecuador’s central bank said a ban on drilling in Block 43 would cause a 1.9 percent reduction in economic growth between 2023 and 2026.

Environmental advocates, however, said the move will nudge Ecuador away from resource extraction and toward more sustainable economic activity, like ecotourism. They celebrated the outcome as a victory for democracy; it’s the first time citizens have had a direct say in the future of Amazonian oil exploration.

“The outcome of this referendum is a victory for all Ecuadorians,” Pedro Bermo, a spokesperson for the environmental collective Yasunidos, said in a statement. “It shows us that the greatest national consensus at this time is in the defense of nature, the defense of Indigenous peoples and nationalities, the defense of life.” Voters also approved a separate ban on mining in the Choco Andino forest, in the north of Ecuador.

The referendum marked a bright spot for many in Ecuador, which was rattled earlier this month when a presidential candidate was assassinated while leaving a campaign rally. Voters on Sunday also cast ballots for president in a snap election to decide who will succeed President Guillermo Lasso, an oil-drilling proponent. The race, which has been dominated by concerns over safety and drug-trafficking, will likely be decided in an October 15 runoff between the leftist candidate Luisa González or the right-wing candidate Daniel Noboa.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline 60% of Ecuadorians vote to stop drilling in Amazon rainforest on Aug 21, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Joseph Winters.

This week, a coalition of more than 60 national organizations sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to support the Justice for Shireen Act (H.R. 3477). The bill, introduced by Rep. Andre Carson (IN-07), would require the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the State Department to publicly report on the circumstances surrounding Shireen Abu Akleh’s death.

The letter was led by the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Americans for Justice in Palestine Action, Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN). Over 60 groups signed it, including U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Human Rights, Amnesty International USA, Reporters Without Borders, Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP), If Not Now, Defense of Children International – Palestine (DCIP), Oxfam America, Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), Arab American Institute, Human Rights Watch, Win Without War, and Center for Civilians In Conflict (CIVIC).

This letter appeals to lawmakers to pass the Justice for Shireen Act and urges Congress and the Biden administration to take immediate steps to ensure U.S. assistance to Israel does not contribute to human rights violations against Palestinians or attacks on members of the press.

Note to Editors: Attacks on journalists in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory represent a deadly pattern. On the first anniversary of Abu Akleh’s killing, the Committee to Protect Journalists published a report documenting at least 20 journalist killings by the Israel Defense Forces since 2001. The vast majority—18—were Palestinian. No one has ever been charged or held accountable for these deaths. 

###

The Committee to Protect Journalists is an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Arlene Getz/CPJ Editorial Director.

President Joe Biden claims that the United States is leading "democracies" in a fight against "autocracies" to establish a peaceful international order, but his administration approved weapons sales to nearly three-fifths of the world's authoritarian countries in 2022.

That's according to a new analysis conducted by Security Policy Reform Institute co-founder Stephen Semler and published Thursday in The Intercept.

The U.S. has been the world's largest arms dealer since the end of the Cold War. Data released in March showed that the U.S. accounted for 40% of global weapons exports from 2018 to 2022.

As Semler explained:

In general, these exports are funded through grants or sales. There are two pathways for the latter category: foreign military sales and direct commercial sales.

The U.S. government acts as an intermediary for FMS acquisitions: It buys the materiel from a company first and then delivers the goods to the foreign recipient. DCS acquisitions are more straightforward: They're the result of an agreement between a U.S. company and a foreign government. Both categories of sales require the government's approval.

Country-level data for last year's DCS authorizations was released in late April through the State Department's Directorate of Defense Trade Controls. FMS figures for fiscal year 2022 were released earlier this year through the Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency. According to their data, a total of 142 countries and territories bought weapons from the U.S. in 2022, for a total of $85 billion in bilateral sales.

To determine how many of those governments were democratic and how many were autocratic, Semler relied on data from the Varieties of Democracy project at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, which uses a classification system called Regimes of the World.

"Of the 84 countries codified as autocracies under the Regimes of the World system in 2022, the United States sold weapons to at least 48, or 57%, of them," Semler wrote. "The 'at least' qualifier is necessary because several factors frustrate the accurate tracking of U.S. weapons sales. The State Department's report of commercial arms sales during the fiscal year makes prodigious use of 'various' in its recipients category; as a result, the specific recipients for nearly $11 billion in weapons sales are not disclosed."

"The Regimes of the World system is just one of the several indices that measure democracy worldwide, but running the same analysis with other popular indices produces similar results," Semler observed. "For example, Freedom House listed 195 countries and for each one labeled whether it qualified as an electoral democracy in its annual Freedom in the World report. Of the 85 countries Freedom House did not designate as an electoral democracy, the United States sold weapons to 49, or 58%, of them in fiscal year 2022."

Despite the White House's lofty rhetoric, it is actively bolstering the military power of a majority of the world's authoritarian countries, from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to dozens of others, including some overlooked by researchers at the University of Gothenburg.

For instance, the Varieties of Democracy project characterizes Israel as a "liberal democracy" even though human rights groups around the world have condemned it as a decidedly anti-democratic apartheid state. Washington, meanwhile, showers Israel with $3.8 billion in military support each year, resources that the government uses to violently dispossess and frequently kill Palestinians at will.

As Semler put it Saturday in his "Speaking Security" newsletter, "These findings fly in the face of Biden's preferred framing of international politics as a "battle between democracies and autocracies."

The president's narrative "lends itself more to a self-righteous foreign policy than an honest or productive one," Semler argued. "Dividing the world between democratic and autocratic countries—in the spirit of 'with us or against us'—makes conflict more likely and has had a chilling effect on calls for diplomacy and détente. It's also harder to cooperate with the international community while insisting you're locked in an existential fight with roughly half of them."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Kenny Stancil.

Electric car markets are seeing “exponential” growth as sales in 2022 exceeded 10 million globally, or 14% of all new cars sold last year, according to a report by the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based intergovernmental organization.

That’s up tenfold from 1 million sold in 2017. In 2021, the share of electric vehicles in global car sales was 9% and 4% the year before. 

“Electric vehicles are one of the driving forces in the new global energy economy that is rapidly emerging – and they are bringing about a historic transformation of the car manufacturing industry worldwide,” IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said.

“The trends we are witnessing have significant implications for global oil demand,” he said. “The internal combustion engine has gone unrivaled for over a century, but electric vehicles are changing the status quo.”

Sales are seen growing another 35% this year to reach 14 million, which means almost one in five cars sold this year will be electric, IEA projected.

By 2030, more than one in three new vehicles sold globally will be electric, the report predicted, which will reduce oil demand by 5 million barrels of oil a day, or around 5% of global oil demand today. 

That would mean an emissions cut of 700 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by the end of the decade, roughly the annual emissions of Germany or Saudi Arabia. 

‘Frontrunner’

The total number of electric cars on the world’s roads today is around 26 million. The figure includes both battery-only models and hybrids that plug in to charge. 

China is the “frontrunner” in the electric vehicle market, the report said, mainly due to a government subsidy program. 

EVs accounted for 29% of Chinese domestic car sales last year, up from 16% in 2021. That means the world’s second-largest economy has already exceeded its 2025 national target of achieving 20% new energy vehicle sales.

In Europe, the second-largest market, electric car sales increased by over 15% in 2022, while in the third-largest market, the United States, sales jumped 55% in 2022, reaching a sales share of 8%.

The gains come amid a contraction in the overall automotive market. Total vehicle sales last year dipped 3%, the report said.

In Thailand, electric car sales doubled to 21,000, slightly more than 3% of the total car sales in 2022. Chinese carmakers have a monopoly in the Southeast Asian kingdom, primarily due to low prices. 

Tesla is planning to enter this year the Thai market, along with building Superchargers. 

In India, over half of the country’s three-wheeler registrations in 2022 were electric, according to the study. The government is funding a $3.2 billion incentive program, which attracted $8.3 billion of investment.

By 2035, the European Union plans to discontinue most car sales powered by combustion engines. Meanwhile, the U.S. aims to have 50% of car sales come from electric vehicles by the end of the current decade.

IEA said measures such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, which offers generous subsidies to consumers to switch to electric vehicles, would further boost sales in the coming years.

Edited by Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Subel Rai Bhandari for RFA.

More than five dozen advocacy organizations on Friday implored U.S. President Joe Biden to swiftly select a Federal Communications Commission candidate who will serve the public interest, not the telecommunications industry.

The coalition's letter stresses that a fifth commissioner is urgently needed to end the current 2-2 deadlock and enable the FCC to "increase digital equity and media diversity, bolster online privacy and safety protection, and reassert its rightful authority over broadband to ensure everyone in the United States has access to this essential service."

The message to Biden comes after Gigi Sohnremoved herself from consideration last week, citing the "legions of cable and media industry lobbyists, their bought-and-paid-for surrogates, and dark money political groups with bottomless pockets" who distorted her "over 30-year history as a consumer advocate into an absurd caricature of blatant lies."

"We call on you to immediately put forth a new nominee—specifically, one who has a history of advocacy for the public interest and is free of industry conflicts of interest."

Sohn, the new letter states, "was eminently qualified to serve as a commissioner. But after 16 months of organized and well-funded attacks by dark-money groups—which were carried out by lobbyists, enabled by complicit elected leaders, and amplified in partisan media—Sohn made the understandable decision to withdraw from consideration."

Organizations behind the letter—including Common Cause, Demand Progress Education Fund, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fight for the Future, Free Press Action, Our Revolution, Public Knowledge, Revolving Door Project, and RootsAction.org—were outraged over both the telecom industry smear campaign against Sohn and top Democrats' refusal to fiercely defend the nomination. Her withdrawal has sparked fears that Biden will choose an industry-friendly candidate.

"Now, we call on you to immediately put forth a new nominee—specifically, one who has a history of advocacy for the public interest and is free of industry conflicts of interest; demonstrates a clear commitment to championing the rights of low-income families and communities of color; and supports Title II oversight and laws that ensure the FCC the authority to prevent unjust discrimination and promote affordable access," the coalition wrote to Biden.

"We ask you to actively press the Democratic majority in the Senate to swiftly confirm your nominee," the groups added. "We cannot permit senators to prevent forward progress any longer at the behest of the very corporations the FCC is meant to regulate."

Free Press Action president and co-CEO Craig Aaron similarly argued in a Common Dreams opinion piece last week:

We must oppose and reject any return to business as usual that furthers industry capture of the FCC.

Instead, we need to demand an independent candidate with public-interest bona fides and a clear commitment to racial justice and civil rights. They must show they're willing to stand up to lies. They must be unequivocal in their support for restoring the FCC's authority, and making sure that the internet is open, affordable, available, and reliable for everyone. They must demonstrate a commitment to engaging the public, not just meeting with lobbyists.

Sohn's defeat also "has implications that go far beyond the FCC," Aaron noted. "The Republicans and their Democratic enablers are setting out markers for who's allowed to serve in government."

"They made clear that public servants will be pilloried while ex-corporate lobbyists sail through," he wrote. "Women and LGBTQIA+ folks—Sohn would have been the first lesbian to serve as an FCC commissioner—will be slandered. Tweeting about police violence can be disqualifying (in the Senate, retweets do equal endorsements). Questioning the propriety of Fox News—even as it's being exposed for aiding and abetting election lies and insurrection—is unacceptable. A basic understanding of U.S. history and racism may be disqualifying."

Sohn "deserved better," Aaron tweeted. "But I hope we—and the White House and Democratic Party, especially—can learn so it doesn't happen again."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jessica Corbett.

Dozens of climate action, Indigenous rights, and public interest groups on Thursday announced an alliance that plans to engage with lawmakers ahead of this year's congressional debate on the Farm Bill, calling on them to pass legislation that rejects carbon offsets, carbon markets, and other policies that perpetuate a planet-heating agricultural system.

Food & Water Watch convened more than 60 groups including the Farmworker Advocacy Network, the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), all of whom have been disturbed in recent months by the passage of "at least three pieces of legislation that promote carbon offsets and dirty energy, propping up corporate ag interests and factory farming."

As Congress prepares to debate the Farm Bill, which is passed every five years and includes a range of nutrition, agriculture, forestry, and conservation policies, lawmakers must "transition away from false solutions to the climate crisis," said the alliance. "Carbon trading and offsets are inherently flawed and allow fossil fuels to continue polluting. Therefore, related carbon trading corporate-backed schemes have no place in Farm Bill legislation."

The groups are calling for a Farm Bill that will "further biodiverse, regenerative, sustainable agriculture and food systems; reduce fossil fuels and pesticides in farming practices; and promote a community-based food system that is more resilient to climate change."

"Flawed policies promoted under the guise of 'climate smart agriculture' threaten to entrench the polluting status quo, and worsen the climate crisis."

In such legislation, they said, lawmakers must exclude carbon offsets—tradable "rights" that allow purchasers to claim credit for an activity that removes carbon from the atmosphere or prevents emissions. The groups said the Farm Bill should reject:

• Soil offsets, which store carbon in soil and remain "underdeveloped, inconsistent, and unable to accurately account for differences in carbon storage related to specific climates and geographies";
• Forest offsets, which include forest protections that proponents claim prevent future deforestation, but which critics say "mask true emissions reductions by claiming sequestration and biodiversity gains"; and
• Methane offsets, which proponents claim can "tackle the methane emissions from animal waste—typically cow or pig manure—using either separation equipment or anaerobic digestion."

Offset proposals are "incompatible with sustainable agriculture and may drive further consolidation of farms and agribusinesses," said the organizations, adding that the methane offset approach "wrongly supposes that significant methane emissions from farms are inevitable, as well as ignores the litany of co-pollutants from farms poisoning the air and water of nearby environmental justice communities."

As the Center for American Progress (CAP) said in a report about fraud in the market last October, there is mounting evidence that "many carbon offsets do not actually represent permanently removed carbon or avoided emissions."

In some cases, forests targeted by carbon offsets have been logged or burned or, "conversely, were never at risk of being deforested," reported CAP. Some businesses have also purchased 40-year contracts to protect forests, rendering the offset unvalid because carbon can remain in the atmosphere for a century.

"Carbon offset markets are fatally flawed," said Ben Lilliston, director of climate strategies at IATP, on Thursday. "The scientific consensus does not support them. They are riddled with fraud. The economics don't work for anyone, least of all farmers and landowners. The urgency of the climate crisis demands that we put this failed experiment aside, and focus on what we know can benefit farmers and the planet."

Jim Walsh, policy director for Food and Water Watch, said carbon markets and offsets are driven by "wishful thinking" that is "fanciful at best."

"Flawed policies promoted under the guise of 'climate smart agriculture' threaten to entrench the polluting status quo, and worsen the climate crisis," said Walsh. "Real climate action in the Farm Bill means breaking up factory farms, decoupling conservation programs from the private sector to directly serve the public good, and putting a stop to the Big Ag monopolies trampling our climate for private gain."

Food and Water Watch suggested carbon offsets and markets aim to help businesses and policymakers avoid making "real climate progress."

The alliance also said the Farm Bill must not include public funding for methane digester technology that "perpetuates pollution and contamination and continues abuses in dairy and meat farms," conservation programs that include carbon credits sales and trade, the overuse of pesticides, and policies that encourage farmers to produce as much as possible even as the practice depresses prices and allows "agribusiness companies to buy raw materials at far below cost, while farmers struggle to pay mounting bills."

The groups said they plan to attend congressional briefings and meet with lawmakers to urge them to pass a Farm Bill that:

• Respects and uplifts traditional Indigenous knowledge (TIK) in regard to farming and ranching practices;
• Broadens opportunities and support for BIPOC farmers and low-income communities to grow their own food;
• Invests in and improves existing conservation programs to help transition farmers to more ecologically based agricultural practices and systems;
• Broadens opportunities for small and medium-sized farms to access crop insurance and increases safety net funding;
• Emphasizes the importance of building biodiverse, healthy soil;
• Ensures fair competition and treatment in the agriculture sector to ensure better living wages for all farmers and farmworkers;
• Decouples conservation programs from the private sector to directly serve the public good; and
• Tightens and enforces antitrust laws to prevent further monopolization and consolidation of the food system.

"This Farm Bill represents the greatest opportunity in a generation to position American agriculture as a solution to the climate crisis," said Jason Davidson, senior food and agriculture campaigner at Friends of the Earth. "But we cannot do this through carbon markets and offsets underpinned by decades of failure, or through more handouts that further entrench Big Ag's stranglehold on our food system. We need Congress to pursue strategies that support farmers in building a truly regenerative, resilient and equitable food system."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Julia Conley.

Today, leading food, farming, Indigenous, faith and climate advocacy groups announced the public launch of the Alliance Against Farm Bill Offsets. The Alliance, convened by Food & Water Watch, was formed in response to a growing trend of promoting flawed climate policies under the guise of “climate smart agriculture.” In the last six months alone, while most policies are in gridlock, Congress has passed at least three pieces of legislation that promote carbon offsets and dirty energy, propping up corporate Ag interests and factory farming.

The Alliance is backed by over 60 organizations including Climate Critical, Family Farm Defenders, Friends of the Earth, Indigenous Environmental Network, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, National Family Farm Coalition, and 350 Seattle.

Top Alliance Farm Bill priorities include:

• No carbon markets: Opposition to any Farm Bill additions that would further the development of voluntary or compliance-based carbon markets, including programs, regulations, initiatives, funding, or otherwise. These markets have a decades-long history of failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while allowing polluters to keep polluting and harming low-wealth and Indigenous, Black and Brown communities.
• No carbon offsets: Prohibition of offsets of any kind, including but not limited to soil offsets, forest offsets, and methane offsets, which are incompatible with sustainable agriculture and may drive further consolidation of farms and agribusinesses.
• No dirty energy: Stop public funding for factory farm gas digesters, fossil fuel based fertilizers, and other dirty energy projects that are perpetuating bioenergy with carbon capture scams. These perpetuate air and water pollution, massive pipelines and harm to rural economies.
• Real investments in sustainable agriculture: Invest in and improve existing conservation programs to help transition farmers to more ecologically-based agricultural practices and systems that incorporate Traditional Indigenous Knowledge, support the health of rural and urban communities, and end massive consolidation in our food system.

The alliance will work to educate Congress about these priorities through Congressional briefings, meetings with offices and mobilization of communities in support of a Farm Bill without offsets and dirty energy.

Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh said:

“Flawed policies promoted under the guise of ‘climate smart agriculture’ threaten to entrench the polluting status quo, and worsen the climate crisis. The wishful thinking behind carbon markets and offsets is fanciful at best. Real climate action in the Farm Bill means breaking up factory farms, decoupling conservation programs from the private sector to directly serve the public good, and putting a stop to the Big Ag monopolies trampling our climate for private gain.”

“Farmers and ranchers are already doing a lot of heavy lifting to cool the planet through existing agroecological practices and rotational grazing – and they should get direct support for this hard work through existing Farm Bill efforts such as the Conservation Reserve Program,” noted John E. Peck, executive director of Family Farm Defenders. “Forcing farmers to sign up with dubious corporate intermediaries to obtain carbon offset credits is just another false solution to the climate crisis that should be opposed in the 2023 Farm Bill debate.”

“Carbon offsets are a poison pill for the planet, farmers, and communities. Agricultural carbon markets will conceal polluters’ real environmental impact; will increase farmland speculation and consolidation; and will continue poisoning fenceline communities,” stressed Antonio Tovar, senior policy associate at the National Family Farm Coalition. “Carbon markets ignore the environmental benefits that a system based on agroecology, economic parity, and social equity creates.”

“Carbon trading and offset programs have targeted forest-dependent Indigenous Peoples for decades and now the carbon trading companies will begin to target farmers, ranchers, and communities from coastal and marine ecosystems,” said Tom BK Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN). “Research shows that carbon offsets are a scam that do nothing to reduce pollution or support Indigenous Tribal Nations and communities. Rather, they allow the fossil fuel industries and other private sector actors to use Tribal forest, natural resources and soils for carbon offsets so polluters can pollute more and make billions of dollars privatizing nature. Indigenous Tribes, farmers, ranchers and communities must be warned that the carbon cowboys are coming.”

“Carbon offset markets are fatally flawed. The scientific consensus does not support them. They are riddled with fraud. The economics don’t work for anyone, least of all farmers and landowners. The urgency of the climate crisis demands that we put this failed experiment aside, and focus on what we know can benefit farmers and the planet. The next Farm Bill must shift public spending away from more polluting farming systems and toward more climate-resilient systems based on agroecology and regenerative agriculture,” said Ben Lilliston, Director of Climate Strategies at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

“This Farm Bill represents the greatest opportunity in a generation to position American agriculture as a solution to the climate crisis,” said Jason Davidson, Senior Food and Agriculture Campaigner at Friends of the Earth. “But we cannot do this through carbon markets and offsets underpinned by decades of failure, or through more handouts that further entrench Big Ag’s stranglehold on our food system. We need Congress to pursue strategies that support farmers in building a truly regenerative, resilient and equitable food system.”

Read the full Alliance policy platform here.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

More than 60 faith-based organizations on Tuesday urged the U.S. Congress to impose major cuts on the bloated military budget as President Joe Biden pushes for a nearly $30 billion increase and Republicans demand even bigger spending hike.

"The country is sprinting towards a trillion-dollar budget for weapons and war—propping up an expensive and harmful militarized foreign policy while people struggle to meet their basic needs," reads a new letter to members of Congress signed by U.S., international, and state and local groups including the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice, Hindus for Human Rights, and dozens of others.

"We cannot continue down this morally bankrupt path," the letter continues. "We urge members of Congress to dramatically cut militarized spending in the fiscal year 2024 budget—both to facilitate reinvestment in the well-being of our communities, and to curtail the harms of our militarized foreign policy."

The groups' principled stand against devoting further resources to the U.S. military—and specifically to the Pentagon, an agency that recently failed its fifth consecutive audit—comes days after Biden requested an $886 billion military budget for the upcoming fiscal year, with $842 billion of that total earmarked for the Department of Defense.

Tori Bateman, the policy advocacy coordinator at AFSC, said Tuesday that "we know that there is enormous waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon—and that spending exorbitant amounts of money on weapons and war takes away from the funding our communities receive for things like healthcare and housing."

"This year, we need Congress to commit to cutting Pentagon spending, and maintaining a robust level of spending on human needs programs," Bateman added.

"We need Congress to commit to cutting Pentagon spending, and maintaining a robust level of spending on human needs programs."

But that demand is likely to be ignored in a Congress that agrees each year—on a bipartisan basis and with relatively little pushback—to increase the U.S. military budget, often by tens of billions more than the president's original request. In 2022, just 78 members of the House voted for Rep. Barbara Lee's (D-Calif.) amendment to cut the military budget by $100 billion while 350 opposed it.

In response to Biden's budget framework, leading Republicans made clear that they would push for even more military spending, calling the president's proposal "woefully inadequate"—even though it's among the largest in U.S. history.

"If past experience is any guide, more than half of the new Pentagon budget will go to contractors, with the biggest share going to the top five—Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman—to build everything from howitzers and tanks to intercontinental ballistic missiles," William Hartung of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft noted last week. "Much of the funding for contractors will come from spending on buying, researching, and developing weapons, which accounts for $315 billion of the new budget request."

Of the $1.7 trillion in discretionary spending that Biden has proposed for fiscal year 2024, just $584 billion is reserved for social programs, analyst Stephen Semler observed.

The anti-war group CodePink said in a statement Tuesday that while "President Biden's overall 2024 budget does have some positive proposals like restoring the child tax credit, investing in clean energy projects, and cleaning up nuclear waste sites," the "likelihood of passing the tax reform needed as well as the policies themselves seems very unlikely as congressional Democrats couldn't even pass the Build Back Better legislation when they had more control in 2021."

"What will pass—what always passes no matter who is in the White House and what majority fills the halls of Congress—is the defense budget," the group added. "Any domestic policy being dangled to the public by the Democrats is meaningless while they still support the ever-growing and immoral defense budget."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Yesterday, a federal jury largely affirmed those allegations, finding Householder and ex-Ohio Republican Party chair Matt Borges guilty of conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise involving bribery and money laundering. The two men face up to 20 years in prison and will be sentenced in the coming months. 

“Larry Householder illegally sold the statehouse, and thus he ultimately betrayed the great people of Ohio he was elected to serve,” said U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio Kenneth Parker in a press release.

Borges and Householder plan to appeal the verdict. “This is just step one,” Householder told reporters after the verdict. “Stay tuned.”

The bribery scandal in Ohio is an extreme instance of a common practice of utilities wielding behind-the-scenes influence on state legislatures — often to soften renewable energy standards and subsidize the rising costs of operating old, polluting power plants. In 2020, a utility in Illinois admitted to bribing the state house speaker, and a power company in Arizona acknowledged it donated millions of dollars to dark-money groups — 501(c)(4) nonprofits that are allowed to pay for political advertising without revealing the source of the money — in an attempt to get utility-friendly candidates elected to a commission that sets electricity rates for the state. 

“You don’t have to look far to see that the FirstEnergy scandal is part of a broader trend,” Dave Anderson, communications and policy manager of the nonprofit watchdog organization Energy and Policy Institute, told Grist in an email.

The Ohio corruption scandal began with a 2008 renewable energy law. The Ohio legislature, following in the footsteps of other states across the country, passed that law mandating wind and solar projects and creating programs to help residents and businesses use less energy. As these efforts materialized across the state, the utilities that primarily relied on nuclear and fossil fuel power began to see their profits dwindle. In response, they began lobbying the legislature and spending lavishly on allied politicians’ election campaigns. 

Some of those efforts succeeded, and the legislature repealed the renewable energy mandate in 2014. But relief came too late for one of the utilities, FirstEnergy, which found itself in the red. Simultaneously, Householder was considering returning to the state House (he had previously served in the early 2000s) and was looking for cash to mount a successful campaign as well as help like-minded politicians to run for office. After Householder was elected, his team set up a dark money group, and FirstEnergy began funneling money to it.  

What FirstEnergy and other utilities allegedly got in return was a $1.3 billion bailout. Soon after Householder took charge of the speaker’s podium in 2019, he proposed House Bill 6. It was touted as an effort to improve air quality, but it mostly included bailouts for coal and nuclear power. At the same time, it scaled back energy efficiency measures and added bureaucratic hurdles to prevent the growth of wind power. The bill was eventually signed into law. An independent analysis found that it would cost Ohioans $2 billion in excess utility bills and $7 billion in healthcare costs (due to worsening pollution) over nine years. 

Despite Householder’s 2020 arrest and widespread knowledge of the scandal, only parts of House Bill 6 have since been repealed. The ratepayer-funded bailout of two coal plants — which could eventually cost as much as $1.7 billion — still remains in effect, and the state’s energy efficiency requirements have not been restored. 

There are still additional loose ends in the scandal. During the course of Householder’s trial, FirstEnergy admitted to bribing Sam Randazzo, the former chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. (Neither Randazzo nor FirstEnergy employees have been charged with any wrongdoing, and Randazzo has maintained his innocence.) The Ohio state attorney general has also filed a civil lawsuit against Householder and others seeking damages for the scandal. Separately, the attorney general has filed a complaint against Householder for using campaign funds for his legal defense.

“The convictions provide new momentum for the ongoing federal criminal investigation into utility corruption in Ohio,” said Anderson with the Energy and Policy Institute. “Hopefully, the Department of Justice will follow the evidence wherever it leads.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Ohio politicians found guilty in $60 million utilities bribery scandal on Mar 10, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Naveena Sadasivam.

Mass racial justice protests broke out this weekend in Akron, Ohio, after police released multiple body-camera videos showing eight officers chasing and killing 25-year-old Jayland Walker after a minor traffic violation on June 27. Walker was an unarmed Black man. The video ends with the police firing about 90 rounds and shooting Walker about 60 times, according to an autopsy report, and lawyers for the family of Walker say police handcuffed him after the attack before trying to provide aid. “The video shows that a Black man was spotted driving at night in an area he probably shouldn’t have been spotted, was profiled, was then chased and gunned down like he wasn’t human at all. Any other narrative is a disgrace to what we’ve seen in the video,” says Ray Greene Jr., executive director of the Freedom BLOC, a Black-led collective based in Akron that pressured the state to release the video. We are also joined by former Ohio state Senator Nina Turner.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Ohio authorities on Sunday released bodycam footage showing Akron police officers shooting Jayland Walker, a 25-year-old Black man, upwards of 60 times.

As the Washington Post reported, officers "tried to stop Walker's vehicle at about 12:30 am Monday for investigation of an unspecified traffic violation and chased him when he did not pull over, they said."

"The Akron Police Department said a gun was fired from the vehicle during the pursuit—an allegation that Walker's family has disputed," the Post continued. "Minutes later, Walker jumped out of the car and ran into a parking lot, with officers following."

Eight officers involved in Walker's killing have been placed on paid leave as authorities investigate the incident, during which the cops are believed to have fired more than 90 rounds.

Watch the bodycam footage (warning: the video is disturbing):

The killing sparked outrage and protests in Akron, and the release of video footage is expected to be met with additional demonstrations on Sunday.

"Firing 90 times on anyone unarmed is more than excessive, it's inhumane, unjust, and immoral," Dr. N. J. Akbar, president of the Akron School Board, said in a statement released Friday. "The citizens of Akron deserve accountability and immediate transparency."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Common Dreams staff.

A survey published this week analyzing bug splat on U.K. motorists' license plates found that the nation's flying insect population has declined by nearly 60% over the past 17 years, indicating a "terrifying" loss of biodiversity among the planet's most numerous class of species.

"Declines are happening at an alarming rate and without concerted action to address them we face a stark future."

"There is a growing amount of evidence of widespread insect population decline. These declines could have catastrophic impacts on the Earth's natural environment and our ability to survive on the planet," warns a summary of the Bugs Matter Citizen Science Survey, which was conducted by Buglife and the Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT).

"However, there has not been enough data to draw robust conclusions about trends in insect populations in the U.K., because standardized surveys are not used for all insect groups or at a national scale," the publication continues. "Our study demonstrates the use of an innovative method for widespread monitoring of insect 'splat rate' to investigate changes in insect populations in the U.K. over a 17-year timeframe."

To collect survey data, U.K. drivers cleaned their front license plates before setting out on essential journeys. After trips, they counted the number of insects on the plate using a "splatometer grill" before submitting photos and count information via the Bugs Matter app.

The data showed the overall number of insects recorded had declined by 58.5% nationwide. England suffered the greatest loss, with 65% fewer insects recorded in 2021 than in 2004, while Wales had 55% fewer, and Scotland saw a decline of 27.9%.

"This vital study suggests that the number of flying insects is declining by an average of 34% per decade—this is terrifying," Buglife CEO Matt Shardlow told The Guardian. "We cannot put off action any longer, for the health and well-being of future generations this demands a political and societal response. It is essential that we halt biodiversity decline now."

According to a 2020 British parliamentary report that noted a 38% to 75% loss in bug biomass throughout Europe: "Insects play a pivotal role in natural processes that support other living organisms, and human health and well-being. Roles include pollination, pest and weed regulation, decomposition, nutrient cycling, and provision of food for wildlife and humans."

KWT conservation director Paul Hadaway told the BBC Thursday that "declines are happening at an alarming rate and without concerted action to address them we face a stark future."

The U.K. survey's findings complement those of other studies conducted around the world.

Last month, researchers at University College London's Center for Biodiversity and Environment Research published one of the largest-ever assessments of global insect population loss, with the paper revealing that "farmland in climate-stressed areas where most nearby natural habitat has been removed has lost 63% of its insects, on average."

In 2020, 73 international scientists published a roadmap to battle that's been called the global "bugpocalypse." The researchers stressed the need to aggressively curb planet-heating greenhouse emissions, reduce use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, limit pollution of all types, and fund increased conservation efforts.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.

The great American novelist John Steinbeck was born in 1902 and died in 1968 – the same year a wave of radicalism perfumed across the world; from the revolutionary upheavals in France to the anti-Vietnam war protests which were exploding across the US, from the Civil Rights movement to the Prague Spring.   Steinbeck himself had come of age as a novelist some decades before, in the context of another great historical shift – the depression era dust-bowl migrations which saw vast swathes of rural poor take to their caravans and carts, seeking out the brighter horizons of the Californian coast.

Steinbeck’s greatest novel, The Grapes of Wrath, was infused with this spirit of historical change; the desperation, hope and courage of the poverty-stricken who have taken to the road, as the thunder rumbles in the darkness above, and the conditions of their former existence fade into the past.  Steinbeck’s novel was a masterful, searing and tragic depiction, not simply because he felt, with an artist’s intuition, something of the great change which was moving through society and uprooting all the traditional certainties of yore, but also because he understood to a tee the spirit and psychology of those individuals who were swept up in it.

More

The post Travels With Charley at Age 60     appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Tony McKenna.