The United Nations’ highest court has found that countries can be held legally responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions, in a ruling highly anticipated by Pacific countries long frustrated with the pace of global action to address climate change.

In a landmark opinion delivered yesterday in The Hague, the president of the International Court of Justice, Yuji Iwasawa, said climate change was an “urgent and existential threat” that was “unequivocally” caused by human activity with consequences and effects that crossed borders.

The court’s opinion was the culmination of six years of advocacy and diplomatic manoeuvring which started with a group of Pacific university students in 2019.

• READ MORE: ICJ climate crisis ruling: Will world’s top court back Pacific-led call to hold governments accountable?
• Do countries have a duty to prevent climate harm? The world’s highest court is about to answer this crucial question
• Other climate crisis reports

They were frustrated at what they saw was a lack of action to address the climate crisis, and saw current mechanisms to address it as woefully inadequate.

Their idea was backed by the government of Vanuatu, which convinced the UN General Assembly to seek the court’s advisory opinion on what countries’ obligations are under international law.

The court’s 15 judges were asked to provide an opinion on two questions: What are countries obliged to do under existing international law to protect the climate and environment, and, second, what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts — or lack of action — have significantly harmed the climate and environment?

Overnight, reading a summary that took nearly two hours to deliver, Iwasawa said states had clear obligations under international law, and that countries — and, by extension, individuals and companies within those countries — were required to curb emissions.

Iwasawa said the environment and human rights obligations set out in international law did indeed apply to climate change.

‘Precondition for human rights’
“The protection of the environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of human rights,” he said, adding that sea-level rise, desertification, drought and natural disasters “may significantly impair certain human rights, including the right to life”.

To reach its conclusion, judges waded through tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and heard two weeks of oral arguments in what the court said was the ICJ’s largest-ever case, with more than 100 countries and international organisations providing testimony.

They also examined the entire corpus of international law — including human rights conventions, the law of the sea, the Paris climate agreement and many others — to determine whether countries have a human rights obligation to address climate change.

Major powers and emitters, like the United States and China, had argued in their testimonies that existing UN agreements, such as the Paris climate accord, were sufficient to address climate change.

But the court found that states’ obligations extended beyond climate treaties, instead to many other areas of international law, such as human rights law, environmental law, and laws around restricting cross-border harm.

Significantly for many Pacific countries, the court also provided an opinion on what would happen if sea levels rose to such a level that some states were lost altogether.

“Once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood.”

READ HERE: The summary of the #ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change. https://t.co/7TWc7ifwfX pic.twitter.com/vVxxwpZpbX

— CIJ_ICJ (@CIJ_ICJ) July 23, 2025

Significant legal weight
The ICJ’s opinion is legally non-binding. But even so, advocates say it carries significant legal and political weight that cannot be ignored, potentially opening the floodgates for climate litigation and claims for compensation or reparations for climate-related loss and damage.

Individuals and groups could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the court’s opinion, and states could also return to the International Court of Justice to hold each other to account.

The opinion would also be a powerful precedent for legislators and judges to call on as they tackle questions related to the climate crisis, and give small countries greater weight in negotiations over future COP agreements and other climate mechanisms.

Outside the court, several dozen climate activists, from both the Netherlands and abroad, had gathered on a square as cyclists and trams rumbled by on the summer afternoon. Among them was Siaosi Vaikune, a Tongan who was among those original students to hatch the idea for the challenge.

“Everyone has been waiting for this moment,” he said. “It’s been six years of campaigning.

“Frontline communities have demanded justice again and again,” Vaikune said. “And this is another step towards that justice.”

‘It gives hope’
Vanuatu’s Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu said the ruling was better than he expected and he was emotional about the result.

“The most pleasing aspect is [the ruling] was so strong in the current context where climate action and policy seems to be going backwards,” Regenvanu told RNZ Pacific.

“It gives such hope to the youth, because they were the ones who pushed this.

“I think it will regenerate an entire new generation of youth activists to push their governments for a better future for themselves.”

Regenvanu said the result showed the power of multilateralism.

“There was a point in time where everyone could compromise to agree to have this case heard here, and then here again, we see the court with the judges from all different countries of the world all unanimously agreeing on such a strong opinion, it gives you hope for multilateralism.”

He said the Pacific now has more leverage in climate negotiations.

“Communities on the ground, who are suffering from sea level rise, losing territory and so on, they know what they want, and we have to provide that,” Regenvanu said.

“Now we know that we can rely on international cooperation because of the obligations that have been declared here to assist them.”

The director of climate change at the Pacific Community (SPC), Coral Pasisi, also said the decision was a strong outcome for Pacific Island nations.

“The acknowledgement that the science is very clear, there is a direct clause between greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and the harm that is causing, particularly the most vulnerable countries.”

She said the health of the environment is closely linked to the health of people, which was acknowledged by the court.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Rwanda, backed by Western powers such as the United States, the European Union (EU), Canada, Israel, etc, has consistently acted as a destabilizing force in the region, providing material support to proxy militias like the M23 to undermine Congolese sovereignty and facilitate the extraction of resources. Much like the sub-imperialist relationship between the United Arab Emirates and Sudan, Rwanda has no significant mineral reserves of its own yet has become one of the world’s leading exporters of critical minerals like coltan. The recent escalation in Goma, where Rwanda Defense Forces (RDF) and M23 have seized strategic areas, is a direct result of this imperialist agenda.

The Congolese People, however, continue to resist valiantly, with the Armed Forces of the DRC (FARDC) and Wazalendo self-defense groups reclaiming critical infrastructure like the Congolese National Radio and Television station (RTNC). The responsibility of those outside of the DRC is to heed the acts of the People reflecting the unheard, to unconditionally support their path toward self-determination and right to defend their land and sovereignty. This is the only way to sustainable peace in the Congo.

The conflict in the DRC is not an isolated event but a direct consequence of the global capitalist system in crisis. The so-called “Green Corridor” initiative, promoted by President Felix Tshisekedi at the World Economic Forum in Davos, is a stark example of how imperialist powers and their local compradors, seek to legitimize their pillaging under the guise of development. This initiative, funded primarily by the United States and EU, aims to secure access to the Congo’s cobalt, copper, and lithium — resources essential for the global transition to renewable energy and digital technologies. Yet, this so-called “development” comes at the direct expense of the Congolese People, who continue to suffer from violence, displacement, and poverty.

The recent attacks on the embassies of Belgium, France, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and the United States, chanting “down with imperialism” and widespread protests across the DRC, from Goma to Kinshasa, make clear the frustration of the Congolese with a government that has failed to protect them, and a global system that exploits them. The uprising reflects a growing consciousness among the Congolese masses, who are demanding accountability, liberation, and an end to decades of suffering. The Black Alliance for Peace recognizes these protests as part of a broader struggle across the African continent. As Che Guevara said, “all free people of the world be prepared to avenge the crime of the Congo.”

We understand that the liberation of the Congo is inseparable from the liberation of Africa as a whole. The Congo’s land, energy, and resources have fueled the wealth of imperialist powers for generations, while its people have been subjected to unimaginable violence and exploitation. The current crisis is a stark reminder that the struggle for African sovereignty is a struggle against the global capitalist system. We must reject the false narratives that frame this conflict as a regional or ethnic issue and instead recognize it as a fight against imperialism and for self-determination.

The Black Alliance for Peace calls on all progressive forces, both within the African continent and around the world, to stand in solidarity with the Congolese People. Demand an immediate end to Rwanda’s aggression and the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the DRC. We call for Congo’s resources to be under the democratic control of its People. We call on all anti-imperialist forces across the world to expose the puppeteer role of the U.S.-EU-NATO Asix of Domination in fueling this crisis and to support the Congolese People’s right to life.

The struggle of the Congolese People is our struggle. Their victory is our victory . Let us unite in solidarity to end the centuries-long suffering in the Congo and to build a world free from imperialism, capitalism, and exploitation. The Congo is not for sale—it belongs to its People.

Free the Congo! 
Patrice Lumumba Lives!
Unite Africa under Socialism!
No Compromise!No Retreat!

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Black Alliance for Peace.

The Australian government denies responsibility for asylum seekers detained in Nauru, following two decisions from the UN Human Rights Committee.

The UNHRC recently published its decisions on two cases involving refugees who complained about their treatment at Nauru’s regional processing facility.

The committee stated that Australia remained responsible for the health and welfare of refugees and asylum seekers detained in Nauru.

• READ MORE: Other asylum seeker reports

“A state party cannot escape its human rights responsibility when outsourcing asylum processing to another state,” committee member Mahjoub El Haiba said.

After the decisions were released, a spokesperson for the Australian Home Affairs Department said “it has been the Australian government’s consistent position that Australia does not exercise effective control over regional processing centres”.

“Transferees who are outside of Australia’s territory or its effective control do not engage Australia’s international obligations.

“Nauru as a sovereign state continues to exercise jurisdiction over the regional processing arrangements (and individuals subject to those arrangements) within their territory, to be managed and administered in accordance with their domestic law and international human rights obligations.”

Australia rejected allegations
Canberra opposed the allegations put to the committee, saying there was no prima facie substantiation that the alleged violations in Nauru had occurred within Australia’s jurisdiction.

The committee disagreed.

“It was established that Australia had significant control and influence over the regional processing facility in Nauru, and thus, we consider that the asylum seekers in those cases were within the state party’s jurisdiction under the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights),” El Haiba said.

“Offshore detention facilities are not human-rights free zones for the state party, which remains bound by the provisions of the Covenant.”

Refugee Action Coalition spokesperson Ian Rintoul said this was one of many decisions from the committee that Australia had ignored, and the UN committee lacked the authority to enforce its findings.

Detainees from both cases claimed Australia had violated its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), particularly Article 9 regarding arbitrary detention.

The first case involved 24 unaccompanied minors intercepted at sea, who were detained on Christmas Island before being sent to Nauru in 2014.

High temperatures and humidity
On Nauru they faced high temperatures and humidity, a lack of water and sanitation and inadequate healthcare.

Despite all but one being granted refugee status that year, they remained detained on the island.

In the second case an Iranian asylum seeker and her extended family arrived by boat on Christmas Island without valid visas.

Although she was recognised as a refugee by the authorities in Nauru in 2017 she was transferred to mainland Australia for medical reasons but remains detained.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Janine Jackson interviewed the Sentencing Project’s Richard Mendel about coverage of youth crime for the December 20, 2024, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

Sentencing Project (12/11/24)

Janine Jackson: Some listeners may know the Sentencing Project for their work calling out racial disparities in sentencing associated with crack versus powder cocaine, and mandatory minimums. A recent project involves looking into another factor shaping public understanding and public policy around criminal justice—the news media. In this case, the focus is young people.

“The Real Cost of ‘Bad News’: How Misinformation Is Undermining Youth Justice Policy in Baltimore” has just been released. We’re joined now by the report’s author. Richard Mendel is senior research fellow for youth justice at the Sentencing Project. He joins us now by phone from Prague. Welcome to CounterSpin, Richard Mendel.

Richard Mendel: Thanks for having me.

JJ: Before we get into findings, what, first of all, is the scope of this study? What did you look at, and then, what were you looking to learn, or to illuminate?

RM: We’ve been seeing, just anecdotally, a big increase in fearful reporting, sensational reporting, about youth crime over the last few years. And we, luckily, in this country had a very long period of almost continually declining youth crime rates, from the mid-’90s to 2010 or so, and continuing positive trends.

And then we saw some increase nationally in the murder rate, and young people took part in that, in 2020 and 2021. But there’s really been an epidemic of scary and problematic reporting, we saw across the country.

We decided to look in depth at how media is covering youth crime, and we decided to pick one jurisdiction, and we looked in Baltimore, but I think that a lot of the findings would probably be seen in other places, too. And what we did was we looked at many of the major outlets, the four main local TV news stations, as well as the Baltimore Sun, and an online paper, a prominent one in Baltimore, called the Baltimore Banner.

We just looked at all their crime coverage to see, first of all, what share of crime coverage is focusing on young people. And then, of the crime, what are they saying about the trends in youth crime, and how are they presenting their information? And that’s what we did, and we found really alarming results.

JJ: Let’s get into it. What were some of the key things revealed by the research?

Richard Mendel: “Young people in Baltimore…are 5% of arrests..and yet almost 30% of the stories that identified the age of the offenders focused on young people.”

RM: What we found is that young people in Baltimore, according to the Baltimore Police Department, are 5% of arrests in the Baltimore area, and yet almost 30% of the stories that identified the age of the offenders focused on young people. One station, more than a half of them focused on young people, and really creating a misimpression in the public that the young people are responsible for most of the crime, or a huge portion of it, when it’s really just not true.

Also, a lot of the coverage indicated a spike in youth crime, which really is not supported by the data; the trends are mixed. Some of the findings, in some areas, there are areas of concern, but overall, things are still trending downward, mostly. And just a lot of the rhetoric around young people, really using the sensationalistic, fear-inducing rhetoric to describe their role in crime.

So it was really creating a false impression among the public, presumably, that youth are responsible for a lot of very dangerous crime, and creating a crisis atmosphere in the legislature this year in Maryland to do something about this perceived problem, which is really a creation of the media rather than the fact.

JJ: Before we talk about impacts, I would just note that part of the way that media can just paint a picture about crime rates rising when they are not, or that doesn’t match the reality, is they don’t use numbers. They don’t use statistics, they just kind of tell stories. That was part of what you found, is that they didn’t use data to back up these claims.

RM: In many cases they didn’t. And in other cases, they cherry picked them—there’s overall arrest, there’s arrest for this, there’s arrest for that. And they, in many cases, just focused on the couple of crime categories where the crime rates were going up, and made a huge deal out of that, while ignoring all the other crime categories where youth offending was down. It’s a combination of not reporting, not using data, or not using data in responsible ways.

JJ: Well, of course the point is not just to say that this is inadequate and bad journalism, which it is, but these media problems and the story that they tell have effects.

Fox45 (12/28/22)

RM: For certain. And I think that the Baltimore example is an extreme example. One of the stations in the area made a crusade out of highlighting as much as they can, and in as fearful ways as they can, almost every instance of youth offending. And more than half of the stories on that station were about youth. Many of them were long. And each incident was then followed by going back to show frightening video of previous incidents, and just over and over again, and many assertions that youth crime is out of control. And a banner headline behind the anchors on that station, “City in Crisis,” whenever they were looking at youth crime stories. So it was really just a fearmongering approach.

And it really affected the legislature this year. At the beginning of the Maryland legislative session, the Senate president, at a news conference, said that we need to do something about youth crime this year, because of a “perception problem.” And he even acknowledged that youth are responsible for less than 10% of the crimes, and that they’ve addressed it two years previously, in a comprehensive bill to update their approach to youth justice, that was a two-year study commission, and they really followed the evidence.

And this time, they created a policy environment that was very much crisis-driven, and there were no hearings, there was no expert testimony, there was no process, other than backroom discussion, and come up with something to solve the perception problem created by the media, not to address real problems in the real world.

JJ: I just want to draw you out just on precisely that point, because corporate media frame questions of crime, or of court-involved people, as a problem, a scandal, a controversy. And it has to be a perennial, unsolvable problem, or that boilerplate story goes away. But the reality is, we do know what works to reduce youth crime and to promote public safety. So please talk a bit more about that.

Sentencing Project (3/1/23)

RM: Yes, all of the evidence shows that detention and incarceration lead to bad outcomes. Comparable young people, if they’re based in detention, versus allowed to remain free pending their trial, and if they’re incarcerated following their trial, they do worse than young people who remain in the community.

And it just makes sense. Disconnecting young people from school, disconnecting them from their family, and instead surrounding them by other troubled young people, and disrupting their natural adolescent development, it’s not a good approach. And the results show it, that the recidivism is much higher if you’re punitive towards them. And just involving them in the system, arresting them, disrupting their educations and getting a record like that, really leads to worse outcomes for young people. And the kids who were diverted from the system, again, do much better.

JJ: And so that diversion, what can that look like? It’s not just, don’t do what you’ve been doing, but there are things that have been tried and that have shown success, right, in terms of diverting young people?

RM: Some of diversion programs just connect young people to positive mentors in the community, and there’s a very promising approach of restorative justice, in which the young person meets with the persons that they’ve harmed, and makes apologies, and together craft a solution for the young person to have restored some of the harm that they’ve caused. That leads to much, much higher victim satisfaction, which is an important goal of the justice system, which the traditional system does terrible at, and also leads to better outcomes for the young people.

JJ: Finally, I’m not sure how much media coverage you can expect on the report, though media do love to talk about themselves. But I wonder what audiences you do hope to get this work in front of, and what are just some of the recommendations or things that you would hope folks would take away?

Sentencing Project (12/11/24)

RM: We had three goals in terms of the report, and first is to influence media themselves, just to help them see the impact of their current practices. And I think that most reporters are well-intentioned, but I think that they maybe don’t understand the impact of their current approach. And we’re trying to show them there’s some better ways to cover this issue, in terms of the proportion of coverage focused on young people, in terms of presenting trends in fair and accurate ways, in terms of showing the impacts of not having the knee-jerk “more punishment is safer,” because the actual research shows the opposite. So that’s one audience.

Another audience are political leaders that have a responsibility to pursue policies that really do produce the best long-term safety, and not to succumb to pressure created by media narratives like the ones that we’ve seen in Baltimore and around the country.

And the third is to provide a tool for advocates around the country, people who care about this, that there’s ways of pushing back against irresponsible or misleading or imbalanced coverage in the media. And to do studies like this and show, “Hey, the picture that’s being presented is not accurate.” And make sure that the people in the community know and that the political leaders in that community know and that the media in that community know the negative, scary picture that you’re painting isn’t the reality. And the punitive solutions that are being suggested in response to this made-up problem are going to make things worse rather than better.

JJ: We’ve been speaking with Richard Mendel, senior research fellow at the Sentencing Project. You can find the report, “The Real Cost of ‘Bad News’” on their website, SentencingProject.org. Richard Mendel, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

RM: Thank you. Great to be with you.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

Vanuatu’s special envoy to climate change says their case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is based on the argument that those harming the climate are breaking international law.

The case seeks an advisory opinion from the court on the legal responsibilities of countries in relation to climate change, and dozens of countries are making oral submissions.

Hearings started in The Hague with Vanuatu — the Pacific island nation that initiated the effort to obtain a legal opinion — yesterday.

• READ MORE: ICJ begins hearings in landmark Pacific climate change case started by students
• Other ICJ climate lawsuit reports

Vanuatu’s Special Envoy for Climate Change and Environment  Ralph Regenvanu told RNZ Morning Report they are not just talking about countries breaking climate law.

He outlined their argument as: “This conduct — to do emissions which cause harm to the climate system, which harms other countries — is in fact a breach of international law, is unlawful, and the countries who do that should face legal consequences.”

He said they were wanting a line in the sand, even though any ruling from the court will be non-binding.

“We’re hoping for a new benchmark in international law which basically says if you pollute with cumulative global greenhouse gas emissions, you cause climate change, then you are in breach of international law,” he said.

“I think it will help clarify, for us, the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) process negotiations for example.”

Regenvanu said COP29 in Baku was frustrating, with high-emitting states still doing fossil fuel production and the development of new oil and coal fields.

What Vanuatu youth Vepaiamele Trief said… https://t.co/5cFNHhh5rd

— Ralph Regenvanu (@RRegenvanu) December 3, 2024

He said a ruling from the ICJ, though non-binding, will clearly say that “international law says you cannot do this”.

“So at least we’ll have something, sort of a line in the sand.”

Oral submissions to the court are expected to take two weeks.

Another Pacific climate change activist says at the moment there are no consequences for countries failing to meet their climate goals.

Pacific Community (SPC) director of climate change Coral Pasisi said a strong legal opinion from the ICJ might be able to hold polluting countries accountable for failing to reach their targets.

The court will decide on two questions:

• What are the obligations of states under international law to protect the climate and environment from greenhouse gas emissions?
• What are the legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to the climate and environment?

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

According to the National Retail Federation, a United States trade group, Americans will spend nearly $1 trillion on clothes, electronics, trinkets, and other goods during the 2024 holiday season, which it defines as November 1 through December 31. That’s about a fifth of the whole year’s retail sales in just two months.

Will all that shopping make people happier? Probably not — more than half of Americans say they regret their previous Black Friday purchases, according to one national survey. Polling suggests the high people get from buying stuff is ephemeral; it fades quickly, only fueling the desire to buy more.

Perhaps the biggest loser in the cycle of overconsumption, however, is the planet. Obscured by the low prices featured in online flash sales are externalized costs to climate and the environment — in the form of raw material extraction, climate pollution from manufacturing and transport, and the waste that results when products and their packaging are eventually thrown away. By some estimates, the retail industry accounts for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The internet is littered with blogs and opinion articles claiming consumers are to blamed — that “our need to shop is ruining our planet.” But Flora Bagenal, the producer of a new Netflix documentary called Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy sees an injustice in that framing. Why should everyday people feel guilty, the film asks, when manufacturers and retail companies are doing everything within their power to drive up the pace of consumption? These corporations have designed products to break down quickly, promised that recycling would keep the planet clean, and precision-engineered their advertisements and marketplaces to make the shopping impulse all but irresistible — all while passing the environmental toll onto the public.

“I’ve always felt that we don’t hold our companies to account,” Bagenal told Grist. “I wanted to explore that from the perspective of somebody who feels caught up in the system as much as everyone else.” Bagenal lives in the United Kingdom and has produced several other documentaries on topics including the anti-vaccine movement and mental health care.

Without explicitly using the term, Buy Now! makes the case for an alternative paradigm called the “polluter pays principle,” which holds that companies — not the public — should be held financially responsible for dealing with the waste they generate. In wonkier terms, the idea manifests as “extended producer responsibility,” or EPR, policies that typically require large companies to pay into a central fund for waste management and prevention. In the U.S., five states have passed EPR laws for packaging.

Through interviews with former executives at Adidas, Amazon, and Apple, Buy Now! argues that consumer goods companies have knowingly abdicated their responsibility to the public good. Grist sat down with Bagenal to discuss the film and how she and her team of executive producers went about conveying the polluter pays principle to a general audience.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q. What was your motivation for producing a film about overconsumption, and the role of big consumer goods companies in turning it into a crisis?

A. We knew the waste problem was a really big problem, but we were worried about making something depressing that people turn away from. And so gradually, we evolved our thinking into shifting away from piles of rubbish and landfills and things like that — instead, we thought: Well, where’s it all coming from? And as you start peeling back the layers and going another step back, you realize that any film about waste is really going to have to be about who’s making the stuff that becomes waste. That was really a revelation for us — we realized that we could tell the story a bit differently and target companies that hadn’t been held accountable.

Q. The film’s subtitle is “The Shopping Conspiracy,” hinting at the strategies companies use to get people to buy more while still denying responsibility for the resulting trash. But one could argue that this is exactly what we’d expect from companies incentivized to maximize their profits. Why do you think their behavior warrants being called out as a conspiracy?

A. We had a lot of conversations about this — in the back of the taxi, in the back of the studio, in the edit suite. There’s no table where these imaginary execs sat around and decided to do this and then laid it on the world. But the conspiracy comes from the fact that you can’t work for one of these companies and not know the truth: that, while we’re all here trying to do our best, feeling guilty and wondering what we can do, these big companies are well aware of the impact they have on the planet and are still not doing enough. If I go down to the shop and decide to not buy a pot of yogurt because it might not be recyclable, nothing will change. But if a company like Adidas or Amazon or Apple actually decided to sell less stuff or make a product that would last three times as long, then something would change.

Q. The philosophy you’re describing — that polluters should pay for their pollution — has been popularized among policy wonks as “extended producer responsibility.” What strategies did you use to make that idea more accessible?

A. EPR is really popular in NGO [nongovernmental organization] and business circles, but we felt it was going to be really hard to communicate in a film and to get people to care. So we spent a lot of time trying to crystallize it into something that feels so obvious, that is hard to fight against. And actually, it was Erik Liedtke, the former Adidas exec, who hit the nail on the head at the end of the film. He said, “Stop putting it on us [the public], stop telling us it’s our responsibility. You produce this stuff, you need to account for its life after it gets thrown away.” 

We also called the film “Buy Now!” to get at that moment when you press the button and you decide to give your money to a company. That transaction is the bit that makes money, that’s the bit that the industry is interested in. But once you press “buy now,” you’re making a contract that you don’t know about — you’re now a caretaker of this thing, and it’s your responsibility until you dispose of it, and then it becomes the whole world’s responsibility. The only one who’s not really responsible anymore is the company.

Q. Several countries and U.S. states have passed EPR laws, and environmental groups have put forward some ambitious proposals for new ones. But what’s the bigger-picture solution that those policies should be paired with?

A. There is a lot of good stuff now that companies are doing. The fashion industry in particular has embraced the idea of EPR, and some of the consumer goods companies like Coca-Cola have talked about it. I think it’s really, really important as a tool for governments to hold companies to account and to share the costs of environmental impacts. But it doesn’t solve the problem entirely. I think all of us still need to buy less stuff, and companies need to make less stuff. It’s fine to tax [companies] for the end-of-life stuff, but it doesn’t get away from the fact that reduction is the ultimate goal.

Q. Despite everything you describe about corporate responsibility for climate and environmental pollution, it can still be hard for people to imagine how to resist beyond individual actions — like by shopping less. How do you hope viewers will take action?

A. Well, not shopping doesn’t have to be just forgoing something. It feels quite satisfying as an act of resistance to be like, “You know what? I’m not going to spend my precious time and money on this company. I don’t need another coat.” 

But the people that I really think about are the people who are working inside companies and have been feeling guilty for a long time. The people who feel like there’s something wrong and they’ve tried to change it and no one’s listened, or that they’re not in the right job and they could be using their time and the energy to do something that is more constructive. It’s those people I would love to watch this and have a change of heart. We’ve already seen some reactions to the trailer from people who work in advertising who basically have said, “You know, we sell this shit to you, that’s what we do all day long. And we all feel really bad about it.” I would love it if there were a few people who saw this and took it as an opportunity to say, “You know what? I can do better than this.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Who’s responsible for waste? A Q&A about the ‘conspiracy’ of overconsumption. on Nov 27, 2024.

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

According to the National Retail Federation, a United States trade group, Americans will spend nearly $1 trillion on clothes, electronics, trinkets, and other goods during the 2024 holiday season, which it defines as November 1 through December 31. That’s about a fifth of the whole year’s retail sales in just two months.

Will all that shopping make people happier? Probably not — more than half of Americans say they regret their previous Black Friday purchases, according to one national survey. Polling suggests the high people get from buying stuff is ephemeral; it fades quickly, only fueling the desire to buy more.

Perhaps the biggest loser in the cycle of overconsumption, however, is the planet. Obscured by the low prices featured in online flash sales are externalized costs to climate and the environment — in the form of raw material extraction, climate pollution from manufacturing and transport, and the waste that results when products and their packaging are eventually thrown away. By some estimates, the retail industry accounts for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The internet is littered with blogs and opinion articles claiming consumers are to blamed — that “our need to shop is ruining our planet.” But Flora Bagenal, the producer of a new Netflix documentary called Buy Now! The Shopping Conspiracy sees an injustice in that framing. Why should everyday people feel guilty, the film asks, when manufacturers and retail companies are doing everything within their power to drive up the pace of consumption? These corporations have designed products to break down quickly, promised that recycling would keep the planet clean, and precision-engineered their advertisements and marketplaces to make the shopping impulse all but irresistible — all while passing the environmental toll onto the public.

“I’ve always felt that we don’t hold our companies to account,” Bagenal told Grist. “I wanted to explore that from the perspective of somebody who feels caught up in the system as much as everyone else.” Bagenal lives in the United Kingdom and has produced several other documentaries on topics including the anti-vaccine movement and mental health care.

Without explicitly using the term, Buy Now! makes the case for an alternative paradigm called the “polluter pays principle,” which holds that companies — not the public — should be held financially responsible for dealing with the waste they generate. In wonkier terms, the idea manifests as “extended producer responsibility,” or EPR, policies that typically require large companies to pay into a central fund for waste management and prevention. In the U.S., five states have passed EPR laws for packaging.

Through interviews with former executives at Adidas, Amazon, and Apple, Buy Now! argues that consumer goods companies have knowingly abdicated their responsibility to the public good. Grist sat down with Bagenal to discuss the film and how she and her team of executive producers went about conveying the polluter pays principle to a general audience.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q. What was your motivation for producing a film about overconsumption, and the role of big consumer goods companies in turning it into a crisis?

A. We knew the waste problem was a really big problem, but we were worried about making something depressing that people turn away from. And so gradually, we evolved our thinking into shifting away from piles of rubbish and landfills and things like that — instead, we thought: Well, where’s it all coming from? And as you start peeling back the layers and going another step back, you realize that any film about waste is really going to have to be about who’s making the stuff that becomes waste. That was really a revelation for us — we realized that we could tell the story a bit differently and target companies that hadn’t been held accountable.

Q. The film’s subtitle is “The Shopping Conspiracy,” hinting at the strategies companies use to get people to buy more while still denying responsibility for the resulting trash. But one could argue that this is exactly what we’d expect from companies incentivized to maximize their profits. Why do you think their behavior warrants being called out as a conspiracy?

A. We had a lot of conversations about this — in the back of the taxi, in the back of the studio, in the edit suite. There’s no table where these imaginary execs sat around and decided to do this and then laid it on the world. But the conspiracy comes from the fact that you can’t work for one of these companies and not know the truth: that, while we’re all here trying to do our best, feeling guilty and wondering what we can do, these big companies are well aware of the impact they have on the planet and are still not doing enough. If I go down to the shop and decide to not buy a pot of yogurt because it might not be recyclable, nothing will change. But if a company like Adidas or Amazon or Apple actually decided to sell less stuff or make a product that would last three times as long, then something would change.

Q. The philosophy you’re describing — that polluters should pay for their pollution — has been popularized among policy wonks as “extended producer responsibility.” What strategies did you use to make that idea more accessible?

A. EPR is really popular in NGO [nongovernmental organization] and business circles, but we felt it was going to be really hard to communicate in a film and to get people to care. So we spent a lot of time trying to crystallize it into something that feels so obvious, that is hard to fight against. And actually, it was Erik Liedtke, the former Adidas exec, who hit the nail on the head at the end of the film. He said, “Stop putting it on us [the public], stop telling us it’s our responsibility. You produce this stuff, you need to account for its life after it gets thrown away.” 

We also called the film “Buy Now!” to get at that moment when you press the button and you decide to give your money to a company. That transaction is the bit that makes money, that’s the bit that the industry is interested in. But once you press “buy now,” you’re making a contract that you don’t know about — you’re now a caretaker of this thing, and it’s your responsibility until you dispose of it, and then it becomes the whole world’s responsibility. The only one who’s not really responsible anymore is the company.

Q. Several countries and U.S. states have passed EPR laws, and environmental groups have put forward some ambitious proposals for new ones. But what’s the bigger-picture solution that those policies should be paired with?

A. There is a lot of good stuff now that companies are doing. The fashion industry in particular has embraced the idea of EPR, and some of the consumer goods companies like Coca-Cola have talked about it. I think it’s really, really important as a tool for governments to hold companies to account and to share the costs of environmental impacts. But it doesn’t solve the problem entirely. I think all of us still need to buy less stuff, and companies need to make less stuff. It’s fine to tax [companies] for the end-of-life stuff, but it doesn’t get away from the fact that reduction is the ultimate goal.

Q. Despite everything you describe about corporate responsibility for climate and environmental pollution, it can still be hard for people to imagine how to resist beyond individual actions — like by shopping less. How do you hope viewers will take action?

A. Well, not shopping doesn’t have to be just forgoing something. It feels quite satisfying as an act of resistance to be like, “You know what? I’m not going to spend my precious time and money on this company. I don’t need another coat.” 

But the people that I really think about are the people who are working inside companies and have been feeling guilty for a long time. The people who feel like there’s something wrong and they’ve tried to change it and no one’s listened, or that they’re not in the right job and they could be using their time and the energy to do something that is more constructive. It’s those people I would love to watch this and have a change of heart. We’ve already seen some reactions to the trailer from people who work in advertising who basically have said, “You know, we sell this shit to you, that’s what we do all day long. And we all feel really bad about it.” I would love it if there were a few people who saw this and took it as an opportunity to say, “You know what? I can do better than this.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Who’s responsible for waste? A Q&A about the ‘conspiracy’ of overconsumption. on Nov 27, 2024.

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

At least 128 journalists and media workers, all but five of them Palestinian, have been killed – more journalists than have died in the course of any year since CPJ began documenting journalist killings in 1992. All of the killings, except two, were carried out by Israeli forces. CPJ has found that at least five journalists were specifically targeted by Israel for their work and is investigating at least 10 more cases of deliberate targeting. Two Israeli journalists were killed in the October 7, 2023, attack by Hamas.

The killings, along with censorship, arrests, the continued ban on independent media access into Gaza, persistent internet shutdowns, the destruction of media outlets, and displacement of the Gaza media community, have severely restricted reporting on the war and hampered documentation. However, as of October 4, 2024, CPJ’s research was able to confirm the following:

Unprecedented numbers of killed journalists

128 journalists killed

At least 128 journalists and media workers have been killed since the war began.

These 128 killings include:

More journalists and media workers have died in the Israel-Gaza war than in any other year since CPJ began documenting journalist killings in 1992. By comparison, 56 journalists were killed in Iraq in 2006 – the next deadliest year. The targeted or indiscriminate killing of journalists, if committed deliberately or recklessly, is a war crime.

CPJ is investigating at least 10 additional cases where the IDF may have specifically targeted the journalists. (See below for an explanation of how CPJ defines “murder” in its methodology.)

Arrests and allegations of torture of detained journalists

69 Palestinian journalists arrested

Since the war, at least 69 Palestinian journalists have been arrested; Israel arrested 66, and Palestinian authorities arrested three.

Of this record number being imprisoned:

On a per capita basis, Israeli authorities now hold the highest number of detained journalists in the world in a given year over the past two decades, followed by Turkey, Iran, and China. There are numerous accounts of Israeli-held journalists being subjected to violence, humiliation, and mistreatment during their detention. 

Censorship and blocked access to Gaza

In Israel, press freedom has been curtailed by the passage of a new law that empowers the government to ban media outlets, an increasing number of banned articles, government officials’ anti-press rhetoric, alleged attempts to control news outlets, and attacks on both international and local reporters in the West Bank and Israel, among other threats. 

Impunity and lack of accountability

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

But the claim is false. A Secret Service spokesperson told AFCL there is no such employee working for the organization. Investigations into the gunman who attempted to assassinate Trump are still going on. 

The claim was shared on China’s Weibo social media platform on July 15, 2024.

The Weibo post cited a purported member of the U.S. Secret Service as saying: “My name is Jonathan Willis … I’m here to tell the public that I spotted the gunman at least 3 minutes before, but the head of the Secret Service refused to order the removal of him. I was stopped from killing him.”

Calls from Republicans mounted on Wednesday for the head of the Secret Service, Kimberly Cheatle, to be replaced in the wake of the failure to prevent Donald Trump being shot last weekend, as fresh reports emerged that the gunman had aroused suspicions a considerable time before he took aim at the former president from a rooftop.

Trump suffered an injury to his right ear. One rally-goer was killed and two were injured. The 20-year-old gunman was shot dead by security officers.

But the claim about Jonathan Willis, which has been also shared on other platforms such as X and Netease, is false. 

Secret Service response 

Secret Service spokesperson Nate Herring told AFCL: “This claim is categorically false. There is no U.S. Secret Service employee by that name.” 

The claim has been debunked by other fact-checking organizations, including the Associated Press and FactCheck.org.

The AP cited a Secret Service spokesperson as saying that the organization’s operational guidelines allows high-point snipers to remove any security threats found in the field on their own initiative. 

Once a threat is detected, a sniper can decide to act without having to ask for instructions or wait for orders, the spokesperson added. 

The FBI said in a statement, the gunman who attempted to assassinate Trump was a 20-year-old man named Thomas Matthew Crooks. Authorities are investigating his motives for the crime.

4chan rumors 

Keyword searches found the “Jonathan Willis” claim first appeared on the online forum “4chan”.

4chan is a completely anonymous, anything-goes forum similar to Reddit in layout and function. Unlike Reddit, users on 4chan never need to create an account or choose a username, not even a pseudonym. This anonymity allows participants to say and do virtually anything with minimal accountability.

4chan has been called a “cradle of conspiracy theories” by the Taiwan FactCheck Center. The site is known for generating several notorious theories, including QAnon.

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 Zhuang Jing for Asia Fact Check Lab.

Mao Ning: Once a wheat exporter, Syria now finds around 55 percent of its population facing food insecurity. The US is undeniably responsible for this. The US says it’s there to fight terrorism, but the reality says it’s there to plunder. The US keeps emphasizing human rights, but the reality abounds with US violations of people’s rights to subsistence and life in other countries. The US brands itself as a guardian of democracy, freedom and prosperity, but the reality shows its true identity as a manufacturer of humanitarian crises.

The US needs to earnestly respect Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, immediately end its illegal military occupation in Syria, stop plundering Syria’s resources, and take concrete actions to make up for the damages done to the Syrian people.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by ShanghaiEye.

Of the millions of enzymes on earth, RuBisCO might be the most important. It’s essential to photosynthesis, and without it, plants would be unable to grow. Without RuBisCO, nearly all life on Earth would starve.

But even though it’s everywhere, and has been around for billions of years, RuBisCO kind of sucks at its job. And it’s getting worse as the world gets hotter.

Today, a global team of scientists is trying to accomplish something that evolution has previously failed to do: building a better RuBisCO.

RuBisCO was discovered kind of by accident. It was the 1940s, and an aimless grad student named Sam Wildman stumbled on a newly-released book about plant science in his university library. The book described a simple way to get protein from leaves, using common lab ingredients. Curious, and maybe a bit bored, Wildman started messing around in the lab.

When he added a certain chemical to the spinach juice, a giant cloud of protein would appear. He didn’t know it at the time, but that cloud was RuBisCO. He had just discovered the enzyme directly responsible for taking CO2 from the air and kickstarting photosynthesis. He also had no idea that that cloudy test tube contained a clue that would haunt scientists for the next eight decades.

You can think of photosynthesis kind of like a big assembly line that takes in CO2 and, step by step, turns it into food. Each stop on the assembly line is an enzyme: little biological machines that each perform a step. And if they all work together, the plants can suck up a lot of carbon, make a lot of food, and the whole operation runs like clockwork.

Unfortunately, that’s not what happens, because of one incompetent enzyme: RuBisCO. The first problem is that it’s really slow, hundreds of times slower than many other enzymes. And it ends up slowing down the entire factory, resulting in a lot less food.

Second, it makes a lot of mistakes. Instead of grabbing CO2, RuBisCO will often grab an oxygen molecule. This wreaks havoc on the assembly line, and the entire operation has to go into cleanup mode. This happens so often that plants waste nearly a third of their energy fixing this sloppy mistake. 

Finally, this enzyme performs even worse during hot weather. This means that as climate change warms our planet, our farms may produce less food, and our plants could get worse at sequestering carbon.

In the face of all of these problems, plants have developed an incredibly makeshift workaround: 

They just make tons and tons of RuBisCO. This is why there was so much of that cloudy protein in Sam Wildman’s test tube. RuBisCO alone makes up nearly half of the protein in leaves of spinach and many other plants. 

Soon after its discovery, scientists started to wonder if a better RuBisCO was possible. They envisioned futuristic plants that could produce higher yields and suck up more carbon. They saw it as a way to feed the world’s growing population, and the billions more to come — not through bigger farms or more fertilizer, but by improving the fundamental nature of plants.

On the other hand, neither billions of years of evolution nor decades of scientific research had fixed RuBisCO’s problems. To some, this is a sign that a better RuBisCO isn’t possible. The lack of progress seems so hopeless that one source told me that scientists are sometimes hesitant to even admit they’re working on this challenge.

But not everyone sees it that way. Robbie Wilson is a research scientist and a self-described “rubiscologist” at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He’s one of the scientists who see this evolutionary paradox as more of a challenge. Wilson is part of an international collaboration aimed at evolving a better RuBisCO — not in a field, or even a greenhouse, but in a petri dish of bacteria.

Evolution usually takes place over millions of years. But with bacteria, scientists are able to speed this process up. Bacteria are pretty simple to modify genetically, meaning scientists can actually design their own sequences instead of waiting for random mutations. And their generations are only about 25 minutes long. “I’d say it makes it a million times better — maybe a billion times easier — to work with bacteria,” Wilson said.

This is what’s so special about Wilson’s technique: He’s found a way to engineer bacteria to create and test thousands of different versions of RuBisCO in the lab. Just like in the wild, where threats like predators and diseases push species to develop certain strengths, Wilson’s designed a special lab environment to push the bacteria to develop better forms of RuBisCO.

Once each bacteria colony has produced a slightly different version of RuBisCO, Wilson and his team essentially poison the bacteria. The poison comes from a second enzyme, called phosphoribulokinase, or PRK. 

Like RuBisCO, this enzyme is an important part of photosynthesis in plants. In nature, PRK produces a chemical that RuBisCO needs to do its job — capturing carbon and turning it into food. But in the petri dish, that same chemical can be deadly. The bacteria isn’t designed for photosynthesis, so unless RuBisCO acts quickly, that chemical will just build up until it eventually kills the entire colony of bacteria. 

RuBisCO is essentially an antidote to this poison. The better the RuBisCO, the healthier the bacteria.

On a recent visit to Wilson’s lab at MIT, I watched as he pulled out two petri dishes from the experiment. This first petri dish contained RuBisCO you’d find in nature — which wasn’t very good, so the petri dish was empty. The second petri dish was full of bacteria with new versions of RuBisCO. That dish was covered in little dots. Those bacteria colonies were surviving because their new RuBisCO enzymes worked really well. 

Wilson was seeing evolution — but happening in hours instead of millions of years.

Once the team has identified the best candidates in the petri dish, they need to see if the new versions of RuBisCO actually work in real plants. Using a syringe, they inject the new DNA into the plants. You can actually see the liquid spreading through the leaf. Those plants will go on to produce the brand new versions of RuBisCO, and Wilson’s team will see if they actually do grow better in the real world.

While it’s still a long process from the lab to the field, Wilson is hoping that this project might finally demonstrate that a better RuBisCO actually is possible. “I’m secretly pretty confident that we’re going to change the way that people think about RuBisCO’s engineering potential, which is going to have a huge knock-on effect for continuing research,” he said.

But as important as improving RuBisCO is, it’s just one part of the enormous effort to develop more productive and climate-resilient crops. Right now, other scientists are thinking up ways to make plants that can capture more colors of sunlight, or dreaming up projects that build on the natural workarounds that certain plants have developed to circumvent RuBisCO’s weaknesses.

“There have been very encouraging results from many other projects that have gotten me really excited,” Wilson said. “I think if all of these can be combined together, we’re gonna have something really special.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline This enzyme is responsible for life on Earth. It’s a hot mess. on May 16, 2024.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Jesse Nichols.

We speak with two doctors who’ve just returned after two weeks at the European Hospital in Gaza. Dr. Feroze Sidhwa and Dr. Mark Perlmutter are co-authors of a new piece for Common Dreams titled “As Surgeons, We Have Never Seen Cruelty Like Israel’s Genocide in Gaza.” They describe a hospital “hanging on by a thread,” with the majority of patients being young children, and bombing targeted at Muslim Palestinians “concentrated at the time of evening prayer.” “Genocide was the overwhelming impression that I got,” says Perlmutter. “This is dehumanization. The purpose of this is to kill a population.” He also says, of U.S. responsibility in this genocide, “We’re buying the bullets and the gun for the gunman who’s going to the school and killing the children.” “If our support stops, the occupation stops,” adds Sidhwa, urging other Americans to push political leaders and public discourse against the country’s support of Israel. “We have to raise the domestic cost for these policies.” Dr. Sidhwa and Dr. Perlmutter worked with the Palestinian American Medical Association in collaboration with the World Health Organization in Gaza. Collectively, they have previously volunteered medical assistance in the West Bank, Haiti and Ukraine, and after 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the Boston Marathon bombing.

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

Republicans are on a “crusade” against responsible investing, says Andrew Behar, CEO of the nonprofit group As You Sow that promotes corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy. His group was subpoenaed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee this week as Republicans probe whether investments that take into account environmental, social and governance (ESG) concerns violate antitrust laws. Republicans have introduced bills in dozens of states across the U.S. to limit state bodies from working with banks and other financial firms that take things like climate change into consideration in their investments. ESG is “a framework for assessing risk,” Behar says. “Basic good business says you want to assess and address risk, and that’s what they’re trying to suppress.”

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

• The war in Ukraine will persist until the West realizes that a return to the previous world order is unattainable.
• In Iran, with parliamentary elections scheduled for March, the government is likely to face yet another challenge to its legitimacy.
• In Belarus, setbacks for Russia in Ukraine could prompt the Lukashenka regime to attempt to normalize relations with the West.
• While 2024 will see a rightward shift in the EU, it is unlikely to bring the deluge of populist victories that some are predicting.
• The vicious spiral for women in Afghanistan will only worsen.
• Peace between Armenia and its neighbors could set the stage for a Russian exit from the region.
• Hungary's upcoming leadership of the European Council could prove a stumbling block to the start of EU accession talks with Ukraine.
• Kyrgyzstan is on course to feel the pain of secondary sanctions over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine if the West's patience runs out.

Here, then, are our correspondents' predictions for 2024. To find out more about the authors themselves, click on their bylines.

The Ukraine War: A Prolonged Stalemate

By Vitaliy Portnikov

In September 2022, Ukrainian generals Valeriy Zaluzhniy and Mykhaylo Zabrodskiy presciently warned that Russia's aggression against Ukraine would unfold into a protracted conflict. Fast forward 15 months, and the front line is effectively frozen, with neither Ukrainian nor Russian offensives yielding substantial changes.

As 2023 comes to a close, observers find themselves revisiting themes familiar from the previous year: the potential for a major Ukrainian counteroffensive, the extent of Western aid to Kyiv, the possibility of a "frozen conflict,” security assurances for Ukraine, and the prospects for its Euro-Atlantic integration ahead of a NATO summit.

It is conceivable that, by the close of 2024, we will still be grappling with these same issues. A political resolution seems elusive, given the Kremlin's steadfast refusal to entertain discussions on vacating the parts of Ukraine its forces occupy. Conversely, Ukraine’s definition of victory is the full restoration of its territorial integrity.

Even if, in 2024, one side achieves a military victory -- whether through the liberation of part of Ukraine or Russia seizing control of additional regions -- it won't necessarily bring us closer to a political resolution. Acknowledging this impasse is crucial, as Russian President Vladimir Putin's assault on Ukraine is part of a broader agenda: a push to reestablish, if not the Soviet Empire, at least its sphere of influence.

For Ukraine, resistance to Russian aggression is about not just reclaiming occupied territories but also safeguarding statehood, political identity, and national integrity. Western support is crucial for Ukraine's survival and the restoration of its territorial integrity. However, this backing aims to avoid escalation into a direct conflict between Russia and the West on Russia's sovereign territory.

The war's conclusion seems contingent on the depletion of resources on one of the two sides, with Ukraine relying on continued Western support and Russia on oil and gas revenues. Hence, 2024 might echo the patterns of 2023. Even if external factors shift significantly -- such as in the U.S. presidential election in November -- we might not witness tangible changes until 2025.

Another potential variable is the emergence of major conflicts akin to the war in the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, this would likely signify the dissipation of Western resources rather than a shift in approaches to war.

In essence, the war in Ukraine will persist until the West realizes that a return to the previous world order is unattainable. Constructing a new world order demands unconventional measures, such as offering genuine security guarantees to nations victimized by aggression or achieving peace, or at least limiting the zone of military operations to the current contact line, without direct agreements with Russia.

So far, such understanding is lacking, and the expectation that Moscow will eventually grasp the futility of its ambitions only emboldens Putin. Consequently, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine will endure, potentially spawning new, equally perilous local wars worldwide.

Iran: Problems Within And Without

By Hannah Kaviani

Iran has been dealing with complex domestic and international challenges for years and the same issues are likely to plague it in 2024. But officials in Tehran appear to be taking a “wait-and-see” approach to its lengthy list of multilayered problems.

Iran enters 2024 as Israel's war in Gaza continues and the prospects for a peaceful Middle East are bleak, with the situation exacerbated by militia groups firmly supported by Tehran.

Iran’s prominent role in supporting paramilitary forces in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen has also drawn the ire of the international community and will continue to be a thorn in the side of relations with the West.

Tehran has refused to cooperate with the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency over its nuclear program, resulting in an impasse in talks with the international community. And with the United States entering an election year that could see the return of Donald Trump to the presidency, the likelihood of Tehran and Washington resuming negotiations -- which could lead to a reduction in sanctions -- is considered very low.

But Iran's problems are not limited to outside its borders.

The country’s clerical regime is still reeling from the massive protests that began in 2022 over the death of Mahsa Amini in police custody after her arrest for not obeying hijab rules. The aftershocks of the Women, Life, Freedom movement that emanated from her death were reflected in acts of civil disobedience that are likely to continue in 2024.

At the same time, a brutal crackdown continues as civil rights activists, students, religious minorities, and artists are being beaten, detained, and/or given harsh prison sentences.

With parliamentary elections scheduled for March, the government is likely to face yet another challenge to its legitimacy as it struggles with low voter turnout and general disinterest in another round of controlled elections.

Another critical issue Iranian officials must continue to deal with in 2024 is the devastated economy resulting from the slew of international sanctions because of its controversial nuclear program. After a crushing year of 47 percent inflation in 2023 (a 20-year high, according to the IMF), costs are expected to continue to rise for many foods and commodities, as well as real estate.

Iran’s widening budget deficit due to reduced oil profits continues to cripple the economy, with the IMF reporting that the current government debt is equal to three annual budgets.

With neither the international community nor the hard-line Tehran regime budging, most analysts see scant chances for significant changes in Iran in the coming year.

Belarus: Wider War Role, Integration With Russia Not In The Cards

By Valer Karbalevich

Belarus has been pulled closer into Moscow’s orbit than ever by Russia’s war in Ukraine -- but in 2024, it’s unlikely to be subsumed into the much larger nation to its east, and chances are it won’t step up its so-far limited involvement in the conflict in the country to its south.

The most probable scenario in Belarus, where the authoritarian Alyaksandr Lukashenka will mark 30 years since he came to power in 1994, is more of the same: No letup in pressure on all forms of dissent at home, no move to send troops to Ukraine. And while Russia’s insistent embrace will not loosen, the Kremlin will abstain from using Belarusian territory for any new ground attacks or bombardments of Ukraine.

But the war in Ukraine is a wild card, the linchpin influencing the trajectory of Belarus in the near term and beyond. For the foreseeable future, what happens in Belarus -- or to it -- will depend in large part on what happens in Russia’s assault on Ukraine.

Should the current equilibrium on the front persist and Western support for Ukraine persist, the likelihood is a continuation of the status quo for Belarus. The country will maintain its allegiance to Russia, marked by diplomatic and political support. Bolstered by Russian loans, Belarus's defense industry will further expand its output.

The Belarusian state will continue to militarize the border with Ukraine, posing a perpetual threat to Kyiv and diverting Ukrainian troops from the eastern and southern fronts. At the same time, however, Russia is unlikely to use Belarusian territory as a launching point for fresh assaults on Ukraine, as it did at the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022.

If Russia wins or scores substantial victories -- if Ukraine is forced into negotiations on Moscow’s terms, for example, or the current front line comes to be considered the international border -- Lukashenka, consolidating his position within the country, will reap "victory dividends." But relations between Belarus and Russia are unlikely to change dramatically.

Potentially, Moscow could take major steps to absorb Belarus, diminishing its sovereignty and transforming its territory into a staging ground for a fresh assault on Kyiv. This would increase tensions with the West and heighten concerns about the tactical nuclear weapons Moscow and Minsk say Russia has transferred to Belarus. However, this seems unlikely due to the absence of military necessity for Moscow and the problems it could create on the global stage.

The loss of Belarusian sovereignty would pose a major risk for Lukashenka and his regime. An overwhelming majority of Belarusians oppose the direct involvement of Belarus in the war against Ukraine. This fundamental distinction sets Belarus apart from Russia, and bringing Belarus into the war could trigger a political crisis in Belarus -- an outcome Moscow would prefer to avoid.

If Russia loses the war or sustains significant defeats that weaken Putin, Lukashenka's regime may suffer economic and political repercussions. This could prompt him to seek alternative global alliances, potentially leading to an attempt to normalize relations with the West.

Russia, Ukraine, And The West: Sliding Toward World War III

By Sergei Medvedev

2024 will be a critical year for the war in Ukraine and for the entire international system, which is quickly unraveling before our eyes. The most crucial of many challenges is a revanchist, resentful, belligerent Russia, bent on destroying and remaking the world order. In his mind, President Vladimir Putin is fighting World War III, and Ukraine is a prelude to a global showdown.

Despite Western sanctions, Russia has consolidated its position militarily, domestically, and internationally in 2023. After setbacks and shocks in 2022, the military has stabilized the front and addressed shortages of arms, supplies, and manpower. Despite latent discontent, the population is not ready to question the war, preferring to stay in the bubble of learned ignorance and the lies of state propaganda.

Here are four scenarios for 2024:

Strategic stalemate in Ukraine, chaos in the international system: The West, relaxed by a 30-year “peace dividend,” lacks the vision and resolve of the 1980s, when its leaders helped bring about the U.S.S.R.’s collapse, let alone the courage of those who stood up to Nazi Germany in World War II. Putin’s challenge to the free world is no less significant than Hitler’s was, but there is no Roosevelt or Churchill in sight. Probability: 70 percent

Widening war, collapse or division of Ukraine: Russia could defend and consolidate its gains in Ukraine, waging trench warfare while continuing to destroy civilian infrastructure, and may consider a side strike in Georgia or Moldova -- or against Lithuania or Poland, testing NATO. A frontal invasion is less likely than a hybrid operation by “unidentified” units striking from Belarus, acts of sabotage, or unrest among Russian-speakers in the Baltic states. Other Kremlin operations could occur anywhere in the world. The collapse of Ukraine’s government or the division of the country could not be ruled out. Probability: 15 percent.

Russia loses in Ukraine: A military defeat for Russia, possibly entailing a partial or complete withdrawal from Ukraine. Consistent Western support and expanded supplies of arms, like F-16s or Abrams tanks, or a big move such as closing the skies over Ukraine, could provide for this outcome. It would not necessarily entail Russia’s collapse -- it could further consolidate the nation around Putin’s regime. Russia would develop a resentful identity grounded in loss and defeat -- and harbor the idea of coming back with a vengeance. Probability: 10 percent

Russia’s Collapse: A military defeat in Ukraine could spark social unrest, elite factional battles, and an anti-Putin coup, leading to his demotion or violent death. Putin’s natural death, too, could set off a succession struggle, causing chaos in a country he has rid of reliable institutions. While breakup into many regions is unlikely, the empire could crumble at the edges -- Kaliningrad, Chechnya, the Far East – like in 1917 and 1991. Russia’s nuclear weapons would be a big question mark, leading to external involvement and possible de-nuclearization. For all its perils, this scenario might provide a framework for future statehood in Northern Eurasia. Probability: 5 percent

EU: 'Fortress Europe' And The Ukraine War

By Rikard Jozwiak

2024 will see a rightward shift in the European Union, but it is unlikely to bring the deluge of populist victories that some are predicting since Euroskeptics won national elections in the Netherlands, Poland, and Slovakia and polled well in Austria and Germany.

The European Parliament elections in June will be the ultimate test for the bloc in that respect. Polls still suggest the two main political groups, the center-right European People's Party and the center-left Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, will finish on top, albeit with a smaller share of the vote. But right-wing populist parties are likely to fail once again to agree on the creation of a single political group, thus eroding their influence in Brussels.

This, in turn, is likely to prod more pro-European groups into combining forces again to divvy up EU top jobs like the presidencies of the European Commission, the bloc's top executive body, and the European Council, which defines the EU's political direction and priorities. Center-right European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is widely tipped to get a second term, even though she might fancy NATO's top job as secretary-general. Charles Michel, on the other hand, will definitely be out as European Council president after serving the maximum five years.

While right-wing populists may not wield major influence in the horse-trading for those top jobs, they will affect policy going forward. They have already contributed to a hardening of attitudes on migration, and you can expect to hear more of the term "fortress Europe" as barriers go up on the EU's outer border.

The biggest question for 2024, however, is about how much support Brussels can provide Ukraine going forward. Could the "cost-of-living crisis" encourage members to side with Budapest to block financial aid or veto the start of de facto accession talks with that war-torn country? The smart money is still on the EU finding a way to green-light both those decisions in 2024, possibly by unfreezing more EU funds for Budapest.

Although it seems like a remote possibility, patience could also finally wear out with Hungary, and the other 26 members could decide to strip it of voting rights in the Council of the European Union, which amends, approves, and vetoes European Commission proposals -- essentially depriving it of influence. In that respect, Austria and Slovakia, Budapest's two biggest allies right now, are the EU countries to watch.

The one surefire guarantee in Europe isn't about the European Union at all but rather about NATO: After somehow failing to join as predicted for each of the past two years, against the backdrop of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Sweden will become the transatlantic military alliance's 32nd member once the Turkish and Hungarian parliaments vote to ratify its accession protocol.

Caucasus: A Peace Agreement Could Be Transformative

By Josh Kucera

Could 2024 be the year that Armenia and Azerbaijan finally formally resolve decades of conflict?

This year, Azerbaijan effectively decided -- by force -- their most contentious issue: the status of the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. With its lightning offensive in September, Azerbaijan placed Karabakh firmly under its control. Both sides now say they've reached agreement on most of their fundamental remaining issues, and diplomatic talks, after an interruption, appear set to resume.

A resolution of the conflict could transform the region. If Armenia and Azerbaijan made peace, a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement could soon follow. Borders between the three countries would reopen as a result, ending Armenia's long geographical isolation and priming the South Caucasus to take full advantage of new transportation projects seeking to ship cargo between Europe and Asia while bypassing Russia.

Peace between Armenia and its neighbors also could set the stage for a Russian exit from the region. Russian-Armenian security cooperation has been predicated on potential threats from Azerbaijan and Turkey. With those threats reduced, what's keeping the Russian soldiers, peacekeepers, and border guards there?

A Russian exit would be a messy process -- Moscow still holds many economic levers in Armenia -- but Yerevan could seek help from the United States and Europe to smooth any transition. Washington and Brussels have seemingly been waiting in the wings, nudging Armenia in their direction.

But none of this is likely to happen without a peace agreement. And while there don't seem to be any unresolvable issues remaining, there are mounting indications that Azerbaijan may not see it in its interests to make peace. Baku has gotten what it wanted most of all -- full control of Karabakh -- without an agreement. And maintaining a simmering conflict with Armenia could arguably serve Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev well, as it would allow him to continue to lean on a reliable source of public support: rallying against an Armenian enemy.

But perhaps the most conspicuous indication of a broader strategy is Aliyev's increasing invocation of "Western Azerbaijan" -- a hazily defined concept alluding to ethnic Azerbaijanis who used to live on the territory of what is now Armenia and their presumed right to return to their homes. It suggests that Azerbaijan might keep furthering its demands in hopes that Armenia finally throws in the towel, and each can accuse the other of intransigence.

Hungary: The Return Of Big Brother?

By Pablo Gorondi

Critics might be tempted to believe that Big Brother will be watching over Hungarians in 2024 like at no point since the fall of communism.

A new law on the Defense of National Sovereignty will allow the Office for the Defense of Sovereignty, which the law created, to investigate and request information from almost any group in Hungary that receives foreign funding. This will apply to civic groups, political parties, private businesses, media companies -- in fact, anyone deemed to be conducting activities (including "information manipulation and disinformation") in the interests of a foreign "body, organization, or person."

The law has been criticized by experts from the United Nations and the Council of Europe over its seemingly vague language, lack of judicial oversight, and fears that it could be used by the government "to silence and stigmatize independent voices and opponents."

The head of the Office for the Defense of Sovereignty should be nominated for a six-year term by right-wing Prime Minister Viktor Orban and appointed by President Katalin Novak by February 1. This would allow the new authority to carry out investigations and present findings ahead of simultaneous elections to the European Parliament and Hungarian municipal bodies in early June -- possibly influencing their outcomes.

Asked by RFE/RL's Hungarian Service, some experts said fears of the new authority are overblown and that the government is more likely to use it as a threat hanging over opponents than as a direct tool for repression -- at least until it finds it politically necessary or expedient to tighten control.

On the international scene, meanwhile, Hungary will take over the Council of the European Union's six-month rotating presidency in July, a few weeks after voting to determine the composition of a new European Parliament.

MEPs from Orban's Fidesz party exited the center-right European People's Party bloc in 2021 and have not joined another group since then, although some observers expect them to join the more Euroskeptic and nationalist European Conservatives and Reformists.

Orban has for years predicted a breakthrough of more radical right-wing forces in Europe. But while that has happened in Italy, the Netherlands, and Slovakia, experts suggest that's not enough to fuel a significant shift in the European Parliament, where the center-right and center-left should continue to hold a clear majority.

Because of the June elections, the European Parliament's activities will initially be limited -- and its election of a European Commission president could prove complicated. Nevertheless, Orban has said in recent interviews that he wants to "fix the European Union" and that "we need to take over Brussels." So, Hungary's leadership may make progress difficult on issues that Orban opposes, like the start of EU accession talks with Ukraine or a possible reelection bid by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Stability And The 'Serbian World'

By Gjeraqina Tuhina and Milos Teodorovic

Serbia, once again, will be a key player in the region -- and its moves could significantly shape events in the Balkans over the next 12 months.

For over a decade, the dialogue to normalize relations between Serbia and its former province Kosovo has stymied both countries. Then, in February in Brussels and March in Ohrid, North Macedonia, European mediators announced a path forward and its implementation. There was only one problem: There was no signature on either side. Nine months later, little has changed.

Many eyes are looking toward one aspect in particular -- a renewed obligation for Pristina to allow for an "appropriate level of self-management" for the Serb minority in Kosovo. This also entails creating possibilities for financial support from Serbia to Kosovar Serbs and guarantees for direct communication of the Serb minority with the Kosovar government.

In October, EU mediators tried again, and with German, French, and Italian backing presented both parties with a new draft for an association of Serb-majority municipalities. Both sides accepted the draft. EU envoy to the region Miroslav Lajcak suggested in December that the Ohrid agreement could be implemented by the end of January. If that happened, it would mark a decisive step for both sides in a dialogue that began in 2011.

"The Serbian world" is a phrase launched a few years ago by pro-Russian Serbian politician Aleksandar Vulin, a longtime cabinet minister who until recently headed the Serbian Intelligence Service. It is not officially part of the agenda of either Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic or the government, but it underscores the influence that Serbia seeks to wield from Kosovo and Montenegro to Republika Srpska in Bosnia-Herzegovina. But how Vucic chooses to exert the implicit ties to Serb leaders and nationalists in those countries could do much to promote stability -- or its antithesis -- in the Balkans in 2024.

Another major challenge for Vucic revolves around EU officials' request that candidate country Serbia harmonize its foreign policy with the bloc. So far, along with Turkey, Serbia is the only EU candidate that has not introduced sanctions on Russia since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. It is unclear how far the Serbian president is willing to push back to foster ongoing good relations with Moscow.

But first, Serbia will have to confront the fallout from snap elections in December dominated by Vucic's Serbian Progressive Party but rejected by the newly united opposition as fraudulent. The results sparked nightly protests in the capital and hunger strikes by a half-dozen lawmakers and other oppositionists. A new parliament is scheduled to hold a session by the end of January 2024, and the margins are seemingly razor-thin for control of the capital, Belgrade.

Central Asia: Don't Write Russia Off Just Yet

By Chris Rickleton

Will the empire strike back? 2023 has been a galling year for Russia in Central Asia as it watched its traditional partners (and former colonies) widen their diplomatic horizons.

With Russia bogged down in a grueling war in Ukraine, Moscow has less to offer the region than ever before. Central Asia’s five countries have made the most of the breathing space, with their leaders holding landmark talks with U.S. and German leaders as French President Emmanuel Macron also waltzed into Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan with multibillion-dollar investments.

And China has reinforced its dominant position in the region, while Turkey has also increased its influence.

But don’t write Russia off just yet.

One of Moscow’s biggest wins in the neighborhood this year was an agreement to supply Uzbekistan with nearly 3 billion cubic meters of gas every year, a figure that could increase.

Power deficits in Uzbekistan and energy-rich Kazakhstan are the most obvious short-term sources of leverage for Moscow over those important countries.

The coming year will likely bring more in terms of specifics over both governments’ plans for nuclear power production, with Russia fully expected to be involved.

And Moscow’s confidence in a region that it views as its near abroad will only increase if it feels it is making headway on the battlefield in Ukraine.

Tajikistan

Tajikistan’s hereditary succession has been expected for so long that people have stopped expecting it. Does that mean it is back on the cards for 2024? Probably not.

In 2016, Tajikistan passed a raft of constitutional changes aimed at cementing the ruling Rahmon family’s hold on power. Among them was one lowering the age to run for president from 35 to 30.

That amendment had an obvious beneficiary -- veteran incumbent Emomali Rahmon’s upwardly mobile son, Rustam Emomali. But Emomali is now 36 and, despite occupying a political post that makes him next in line, doesn’t look any closer to becoming numero uno.

Perhaps there hasn’t been a good time to do it.

From the coronavirus pandemic to a bloody crackdown on unrest in the Gorno-Badakhshan region and now the shadows cast by the Ukraine war, there have been plenty of excuses to delay the inevitable.

Turkmenistan

But perhaps Rahmon is considering events in Turkmenistan, where Central Asia’s first father-son power transition last year has ended up nothing of the sort. Rather than growing into the role, new President Serdar Berdymukhammedov is shrinking back into the shadow of his all-powerful father, Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov.

And this seems to be exactly how the older Berdymukhammedov wanted it, subsequently fashioning himself a post-retirement post that makes his son and the rest of the government answerable to him.

But Turkmenistan’s bizarre new setup begs a question: If you’re not ready to let it go, why not hold on a little longer?

Kyrgyzstan/Kazakhstan

Writing on X (formerly Twitter) in November, a former IMF economist argued that Kyrgyzstan would be the "perfect test case" for secondary sanctions over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Robin Brooks described the country as "small, not remotely systemically important, and very clearly facilitating trade diversion to Russia."

Official statistics show that countries in the Eurasian Economic Union that Moscow leads have become a “backdoor” around the Western-led sanctions targeting Russia. Exports to Kyrgyzstan from several EU countries this year, for example, are up by at least 1,000 percent compared to 2019.

Data for exports to Kazakhstan shows similar patterns -- with larger volumes but gentler spikes -- while investigations by RFE/RL indicate that companies in both Central Asian countries have forwarded “dual-use” products that benefit the Kremlin’s military machine.

Belarus is the only Russian ally to get fully sanctioned for its support of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine -- but will that change in 2024?

Central Asian governments will argue they have resisted Russian pressure to provide political and military support for the war. They might even whisper that their big friend China is much more helpful to Russia.

But the West’s approach of targeting only Central Asian companies actively flouting the regime is failing.

So, while Western diplomats continue to credit the region’s governments for their anti-evasion efforts, their patience may wear out. And if it does, Kyrgyzstan might be first to find out.

Afghanistan: The Vicious Spiral Will Worsen

By Malali Bashir

With little internal threat to Afghanistan’s Taliban regime and the failure of the international community to affect change in the hard-line Islamist regime’s policies, the Taliban mullahs’ control over the country continues to tighten.

And that regime’s continued restrictions on Afghan women -- their rights, freedom, and role in society -- signals a bleak future for them in 2024 and beyond.

Many observers say the move by the Taliban in December to only allow girls to attend religious madrasahs -- after shutting down formal schooling for them following the sixth grade -- is an effort by the Taliban to radicalize Afghan society.

“Madrasahs are not an alternative to formal schooling because they don’t produce doctors, lawyers, journalists, engineers, etc. The idea of [only] having madrasahs is…about brainwashing [people] to create an extremist society,” says Shukria Barakzai, the former Afghan ambassador to Norway.

The crackdown on women’s rights by the Taliban will also continue the reported uptick in domestic violence in the country, activists say.

Since the Taliban shut down Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission and Women Affairs Ministry, women find themselves with nowhere to turn to and find it extremely difficult to seek justice in Taliban courts.

With no justice for victims of abuse on the horizon, women’s rights activists say violence against women will continue with no repercussions for the perpetrators.

Barakzai argues that Taliban officials have already normalized domestic violence and do not consider it a crime.

“According to [a Taliban] decree, you can [confront] women if they are not listening to [your requests]. Especially a male member of the family is allowed to use all means to punish women if they refuse to follow his orders. That is basically a call for domestic violence,” she said.

The vicious spiral for women will only worsen.

Being banned from education, work, and public life, Afghan women say the resulting psychological impact leads to panic, depression, and acute mental health crises.

Although there are no official figures, Afghan mental health professionals and foreign organizations have noted a disturbing surge in female suicides in the two years since the Taliban came to power.

"If we look at the women who were previously working or studying, 90 percent suffer from mental health issues now," said Mujeeb Khpalwak, a psychiatrist in Kabul. "They face tremendous economic uncertainty after losing their work and are very anxious about their future."

Heather Bar, associate director of the women's rights division at Human Rights Watch, says, "It's not surprising that we're hearing reports of Afghan girls committing suicide. Because all their rights, including going to school, university, and recreational places have been taken away from them."

Promising young Afghan women who once aspired to contribute to their communities after pursuing higher education now find themselves with no career prospects.

“I do not see any future. When I see boys continuing their education, I lose all hope and wish that I was not born a girl,” a former medical student in Kabul told RFE/RL's Radio Azadi.

Despite immense global pressure, the Taliban seems adamant about maintaining its severe limits on women and reducing their role in society. This will result in a tragic future for the women of Afghanistan with no relief in sight.

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Nick Turse.

• President Joe Biden returns from his lightning trip to the Middle East; Israel says it will allow Egypt to deliver limited quantities of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip at Biden’s request; White House says Israel was ‘not responsible’ for Gaza hospital blast.
• The U.S. vetoes a UN Security Council resolution that would have called for a humanitarian pause in the conflict between Israel and Hamas.
• For the second time, House Republicans voted to reject the nomination of Republican Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio to be the next speaker of the House.
• Capitol Police arrested around 300 people during a large-scale mostly Jewish demonstration against the Israel-Hamas war.

Demonstrators protest inside the Cannon House Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2023. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

The post President Joe Biden returns from his trip to the Middle East; Israel says it will allow limited quantities of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip; White House says Israel was ‘not responsible’ for Gaza hospital blast – Wednesday, October 18, 2023 appeared first on KPFA.

This content originally appeared on KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays and was authored by KPFA.

"At every turn, Donald Trump and his appointees have made increasing the power of corporations over working people their top priority," the Communications Workers of America wrote while the former president was still in office. "Trump has encouraged freeloaders, made it more difficult to enforce collective bargaining agreements, silenced workers, and restricted the freedom to join unions."

It's no surprise, then, that Trump's 2024 presidential campaign is glossing over the actual substance of his record as the billionaire former president and current Republican frontrunner attempts to insert himself into one of the most significant labor actions in decades.

The New York Timesreported Monday that the Trump team has "produced a radio ad that will begin running on Tuesday in Detroit and Toledo, Ohio, trying to cast Mr. Trump as aligned with autoworkers."

The narrator of the spot declares that Trump "has always had their backs," even though he said on at least two occasions during his 2016 campaign that U.S. workers' wages are "too high" and spent much of his administration trying to disempower employees.

Trump is expected to speak to hundreds of workers—including autoworkers and plumbers—during his Detroit visit next Wednesday. According to the Times, the former president is also considering "an appearance at the picket line."

"The last time Donald Trump 'visited' striking union workers, it was to cross our picket line against 'The Apprentice' in 2004," the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees wrote in a social media post on Tuesday.

"Now he wants to visit a UAW picket line? When billionaires show you what they think of labor, believe them," the union added.

It's far from clear that Trump would get a warm reception from the roughly 13,000 autoworkers who are currently on strike in Missouri, Ohio, and Michigan—a number that's expected to grow in the coming days if management does not meet the UAW's demands for substantial wage and benefit improvements.

A majority of the U.S. public supports the strikes, which are the first simultaneous walkouts targeting the Big Three automakers in the UAW's history.

Just two days after the union launched the strikes, NBC News aired an interview with Trump in which the former president lashed out at UAW president Shawn Fain, claiming he is "not doing a good job in representing his union because he's not going to have a union in three years from now."

"Those jobs are all going to be gone because all of those electric cars are going to be made in China," Trump said. "The autoworkers are being sold down the river by their leadership, and their leadership should endorse Trump."

Fain, the first UAW president directly elected by rank-and-file members, hit back in a statement on Monday.

"Every fiber of our union is being poured into fighting the billionaire class and an economy that enriches people like Donald Trump at the expense of workers," said Fain. "We can't keep electing billionaires and millionaires that don't have any understanding what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to get by and expecting them to solve the problems of the working class."

"Donald Trump's anti-worker, anti-union record is one of the key reasons Michigan rejected Trump in 2020."

Reports that Trump is considering a picket-line visit have generated some consternation among Democratic lawmakers and strategists, who fear that the former president is " outmaneuvering" Biden on the autoworker strike.

The day the walkouts began, Biden—whose NLRB has fought to strengthen workers' rights—said the Big Three automakers "should go further to ensure record corporate profits mean record contracts for the UAW" and announced he would dispatch Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su and White House senior adviser Gene Sperling to Detroit to support the contract negotiations, a move that reportedly frustrated UAW leaders wary of any outside intervention in the high-stakes talks.

The Biden administration has since decided against sending Su and Sperling to Detroit.

The Washington Post's Jeff Stein reported earlier this week that Biden is facing "increasing pressure from some Democratic lawmakers to do something none of his predecessors appear to have done in office: join striking workers walking a picket line."

"Numerous Democrats in Michigan and around the country have expressed concern as Biden's likely rival in next year's election, former president Donald Trump, tries to woo union voters and weaken a crucial Democratic constituency by making his own visit to a strike site," Stein wrote. (Biden beat Trump 57%-40% among members of union households nationwide in 2020.)

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) told the Post that she believes "the UAW family would love the most powerful person in the world—the president of the United States—to come and hold a sign in solidarity with them."

"But I hope he does it in a way where he actually sits down and has a roundtable with some key people, and really listens to how hard it’s been," Tlaib added. "Of course, the president coming would be extremely important. But people want someone who's advocating for them and demanding a form of economic justice for them and their families—to come in solidarity."

Politicoreported Tuesday that "Biden's team has privately weighed whether to dispatch a top lieutenant to the picket line to stand alongside the UAW workers," but a decision has yet to be made.

One Democratic strategist, granted anonymity by Politico, expressed concern that Trump "scooped" the Biden administration by announcing a Detroit trip first.

"Now if we announce we're going, it looks like we're just going because of Trump," said a national Democratic strategist. "We waited too long. That's the challenge."

The Biden campaign waved away that assessment, arguing that Trump's visit provides "an opportunity to remind voters across the Midwest that as president he cut taxes for billionaires."

"Donald Trump's anti-worker, anti-union record is one of the key reasons Michigan rejected Trump in 2020 and sent Joe Biden to the White House," Ammar Moussa, a spokesperson for the Biden campaign, told Politico. "His failed presidency is defined by auto companies shuttering their doors and shipping American jobs overseas while lining the pockets of the wealthy and big corporations."

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) expressed a similar sentiment in a social media post earlier this week, writing: "Trump is not going to fight for pay increases, pensions, healthcare, benefits, or job security for workers. He will not work to strengthen our domestic auto industry during this transition and he’s not going to fight to keep these jobs in America."

"I hope people see exactly what this is about at a time when this industry and our workers are at a crossroads," Dingell added.

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

"At every turn, Donald Trump and his appointees have made increasing the power of corporations over working people their top priority," the Communications Workers of America wrote while the former president was still in office. "Trump has encouraged freeloaders, made it more difficult to enforce collective bargaining agreements, silenced workers, and restricted the freedom to join unions."

It's no surprise, then, that Trump's 2024 presidential campaign is glossing over the actual substance of his record as the billionaire former president and current Republican frontrunner attempts to insert himself into one of the most significant labor actions in decades.

The New York Timesreported Monday that the Trump team has "produced a radio ad that will begin running on Tuesday in Detroit and Toledo, Ohio, trying to cast Mr. Trump as aligned with autoworkers."

The narrator of the spot declares that Trump "has always had their backs," even though he said on at least two occasions during his 2016 campaign that U.S. workers' wages are "too high" and spent much of his administration trying to disempower employees.

Trump is expected to speak to hundreds of workers—including autoworkers and plumbers—during his Detroit visit next Wednesday. According to the Times, the former president is also considering "an appearance at the picket line."

"The last time Donald Trump 'visited' striking union workers, it was to cross our picket line against 'The Apprentice' in 2004," the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees wrote in a social media post on Tuesday.

"Now he wants to visit a UAW picket line? When billionaires show you what they think of labor, believe them," the union added.

It's far from clear that Trump would get a warm reception from the roughly 13,000 autoworkers who are currently on strike in Missouri, Ohio, and Michigan—a number that's expected to grow in the coming days if management does not meet the UAW's demands for substantial wage and benefit improvements.

A majority of the U.S. public supports the strikes, which are the first simultaneous walkouts targeting the Big Three automakers in the UAW's history.

Just two days after the union launched the strikes, NBC News aired an interview with Trump in which the former president lashed out at UAW president Shawn Fain, claiming he is "not doing a good job in representing his union because he's not going to have a union in three years from now."

"Those jobs are all going to be gone because all of those electric cars are going to be made in China," Trump said. "The autoworkers are being sold down the river by their leadership, and their leadership should endorse Trump."

Fain, the first UAW president directly elected by rank-and-file members, hit back in a statement on Monday.

"Every fiber of our union is being poured into fighting the billionaire class and an economy that enriches people like Donald Trump at the expense of workers," said Fain. "We can't keep electing billionaires and millionaires that don't have any understanding what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to get by and expecting them to solve the problems of the working class."

"Donald Trump's anti-worker, anti-union record is one of the key reasons Michigan rejected Trump in 2020."

Reports that Trump is considering a picket-line visit have generated some consternation among Democratic lawmakers and strategists, who fear that the former president is " outmaneuvering" Biden on the autoworker strike.

The day the walkouts began, Biden—whose NLRB has fought to strengthen workers' rights—said the Big Three automakers "should go further to ensure record corporate profits mean record contracts for the UAW" and announced he would dispatch Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su and White House senior adviser Gene Sperling to Detroit to support the contract negotiations, a move that reportedly frustrated UAW leaders wary of any outside intervention in the high-stakes talks.

The Biden administration has since decided against sending Su and Sperling to Detroit.

The Washington Post's Jeff Stein reported earlier this week that Biden is facing "increasing pressure from some Democratic lawmakers to do something none of his predecessors appear to have done in office: join striking workers walking a picket line."

"Numerous Democrats in Michigan and around the country have expressed concern as Biden's likely rival in next year's election, former president Donald Trump, tries to woo union voters and weaken a crucial Democratic constituency by making his own visit to a strike site," Stein wrote. (Biden beat Trump 57%-40% among members of union households nationwide in 2020.)

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) told the Post that she believes "the UAW family would love the most powerful person in the world—the president of the United States—to come and hold a sign in solidarity with them."

"But I hope he does it in a way where he actually sits down and has a roundtable with some key people, and really listens to how hard it’s been," Tlaib added. "Of course, the president coming would be extremely important. But people want someone who's advocating for them and demanding a form of economic justice for them and their families—to come in solidarity."

Politicoreported Tuesday that "Biden's team has privately weighed whether to dispatch a top lieutenant to the picket line to stand alongside the UAW workers," but a decision has yet to be made.

One Democratic strategist, granted anonymity by Politico, expressed concern that Trump "scooped" the Biden administration by announcing a Detroit trip first.

"Now if we announce we're going, it looks like we're just going because of Trump," said a national Democratic strategist. "We waited too long. That's the challenge."

The Biden campaign waved away that assessment, arguing that Trump's visit provides "an opportunity to remind voters across the Midwest that as president he cut taxes for billionaires."

"Donald Trump's anti-worker, anti-union record is one of the key reasons Michigan rejected Trump in 2020 and sent Joe Biden to the White House," Ammar Moussa, a spokesperson for the Biden campaign, told Politico. "His failed presidency is defined by auto companies shuttering their doors and shipping American jobs overseas while lining the pockets of the wealthy and big corporations."

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) expressed a similar sentiment in a social media post earlier this week, writing: "Trump is not going to fight for pay increases, pensions, healthcare, benefits, or job security for workers. He will not work to strengthen our domestic auto industry during this transition and he’s not going to fight to keep these jobs in America."

"I hope people see exactly what this is about at a time when this industry and our workers are at a crossroads," Dingell added.

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

"At every turn, Donald Trump and his appointees have made increasing the power of corporations over working people their top priority," the Communications Workers of America wrote while the former president was still in office. "Trump has encouraged freeloaders, made it more difficult to enforce collective bargaining agreements, silenced workers, and restricted the freedom to join unions."

It's no surprise, then, that Trump's 2024 presidential campaign is glossing over the actual substance of his record as the billionaire former president and current Republican frontrunner attempts to insert himself into one of the most significant labor actions in decades.

The New York Timesreported Monday that the Trump team has "produced a radio ad that will begin running on Tuesday in Detroit and Toledo, Ohio, trying to cast Mr. Trump as aligned with autoworkers."

The narrator of the spot declares that Trump "has always had their backs," even though he said on at least two occasions during his 2016 campaign that U.S. workers' wages are "too high" and spent much of his administration trying to disempower employees.

Trump is expected to speak to hundreds of workers—including autoworkers and plumbers—during his Detroit visit next Wednesday. According to the Times, the former president is also considering "an appearance at the picket line."

"The last time Donald Trump 'visited' striking union workers, it was to cross our picket line against 'The Apprentice' in 2004," the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees wrote in a social media post on Tuesday.

"Now he wants to visit a UAW picket line? When billionaires show you what they think of labor, believe them," the union added.

It's far from clear that Trump would get a warm reception from the roughly 13,000 autoworkers who are currently on strike in Missouri, Ohio, and Michigan—a number that's expected to grow in the coming days if management does not meet the UAW's demands for substantial wage and benefit improvements.

A majority of the U.S. public supports the strikes, which are the first simultaneous walkouts targeting the Big Three automakers in the UAW's history.

Just two days after the union launched the strikes, NBC News aired an interview with Trump in which the former president lashed out at UAW president Shawn Fain, claiming he is "not doing a good job in representing his union because he's not going to have a union in three years from now."

"Those jobs are all going to be gone because all of those electric cars are going to be made in China," Trump said. "The autoworkers are being sold down the river by their leadership, and their leadership should endorse Trump."

Fain, the first UAW president directly elected by rank-and-file members, hit back in a statement on Monday.

"Every fiber of our union is being poured into fighting the billionaire class and an economy that enriches people like Donald Trump at the expense of workers," said Fain. "We can't keep electing billionaires and millionaires that don't have any understanding what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to get by and expecting them to solve the problems of the working class."

"Donald Trump's anti-worker, anti-union record is one of the key reasons Michigan rejected Trump in 2020."

Reports that Trump is considering a picket-line visit have generated some consternation among Democratic lawmakers and strategists, who fear that the former president is " outmaneuvering" Biden on the autoworker strike.

The day the walkouts began, Biden—whose NLRB has fought to strengthen workers' rights—said the Big Three automakers "should go further to ensure record corporate profits mean record contracts for the UAW" and announced he would dispatch Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su and White House senior adviser Gene Sperling to Detroit to support the contract negotiations, a move that reportedly frustrated UAW leaders wary of any outside intervention in the high-stakes talks.

The Biden administration has since decided against sending Su and Sperling to Detroit.

The Washington Post's Jeff Stein reported earlier this week that Biden is facing "increasing pressure from some Democratic lawmakers to do something none of his predecessors appear to have done in office: join striking workers walking a picket line."

"Numerous Democrats in Michigan and around the country have expressed concern as Biden's likely rival in next year's election, former president Donald Trump, tries to woo union voters and weaken a crucial Democratic constituency by making his own visit to a strike site," Stein wrote. (Biden beat Trump 57%-40% among members of union households nationwide in 2020.)

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) told the Post that she believes "the UAW family would love the most powerful person in the world—the president of the United States—to come and hold a sign in solidarity with them."

"But I hope he does it in a way where he actually sits down and has a roundtable with some key people, and really listens to how hard it’s been," Tlaib added. "Of course, the president coming would be extremely important. But people want someone who's advocating for them and demanding a form of economic justice for them and their families—to come in solidarity."

Politicoreported Tuesday that "Biden's team has privately weighed whether to dispatch a top lieutenant to the picket line to stand alongside the UAW workers," but a decision has yet to be made.

One Democratic strategist, granted anonymity by Politico, expressed concern that Trump "scooped" the Biden administration by announcing a Detroit trip first.

"Now if we announce we're going, it looks like we're just going because of Trump," said a national Democratic strategist. "We waited too long. That's the challenge."

The Biden campaign waved away that assessment, arguing that Trump's visit provides "an opportunity to remind voters across the Midwest that as president he cut taxes for billionaires."

"Donald Trump's anti-worker, anti-union record is one of the key reasons Michigan rejected Trump in 2020 and sent Joe Biden to the White House," Ammar Moussa, a spokesperson for the Biden campaign, told Politico. "His failed presidency is defined by auto companies shuttering their doors and shipping American jobs overseas while lining the pockets of the wealthy and big corporations."

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) expressed a similar sentiment in a social media post earlier this week, writing: "Trump is not going to fight for pay increases, pensions, healthcare, benefits, or job security for workers. He will not work to strengthen our domestic auto industry during this transition and he’s not going to fight to keep these jobs in America."

"I hope people see exactly what this is about at a time when this industry and our workers are at a crossroads," Dingell added.

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

Only 20 countries, led overwhelmingly by the United States, are responsible for nearly 90 percent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) pollution threatened by new oil and gas fields and fracking wells planned between 2023 and 2050. If this oil and gas expansion [1] is allowed to proceed, it would lock in climate chaos and an unlivable future, according to Planet Wreckers, a new report by Oil Change International.

The research is released days ahead of United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres’ Climate Ambition Summit in New York City, where more than 10,000 people will march in protest of inaction against fossil fuels. Guterres has called for countries to show up with commitments to stop oil and gas expansion and plan a phase out of existing production in line with the 1.5°C limit.

If these 20 countries, which the report dubs “Planet Wreckers”, halted their planned new oil and gas extraction, 173 billion tonnes (Gt) of carbon pollution would be kept in the ground. This is equivalent to the lifetime pollution of nearly 1,100 new coal plants, or more than 30 years of annual U.S. carbon emissions. On top of oil and gas extraction from already operating sites worldwide, this amount of new carbon pollution would make it impossible to hold temperature rise to 1.5°C.

Five global north countries with the greatest economic means and moral responsibility to rapidly phase out production are responsible for a majority (51%) of planned expansion from new oil and gas fields through 2050: the United States, Canada, Australia, Norway, and the United Kingdom.

Key Findings:

• Analysis shows just 20 countries are responsible for nearly 90% of carbon dioxide pollution threatened by new oil and gas extraction projects between 2023 and 2050 — with top ‘climate hypocrites’ the United States, Canada, Australia, Norway, and the United Kingdom accounting for a majority.
• If these 20 Planet Wreckers followed the call from UN Secretary General Guterres to stop new oil and gas fields and licensing, the equivalent to the lifetime carbon pollution of 1,100 new coal plants would be kept in the ground
• The United States is Planet Wrecker In Chief, accounting for more than one-third of planned global oil and gas expansion through 2050.
• Oil and gas expansion by the 20 Planet Wrecker countries would make it impossible to hold temperature rise to 1.5°C.

The United States is “Planet Wrecker-In-Chief”, accounting for more than one-third of CO2 pollution from planned global oil and gas expansion through 2050.[2] The United States is already the largest producer of oil and gas in the world and the largest historical climate polluter.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE), this year’s host of crucial UN negotiations, is also set to be one of the largest expanders of oil and gas production despite pledging to use its COP presidency to “keep 1.5°C alive”.

Oil and gas expansion from the 20 countries would make it impossible to hold temperature rise to 1.5°C. Even extracting just the fossil fuels from existing sites globally would result in 140% more carbon pollution than the allowed budget for 1.5°C. If these countries proceed with new extraction, committed carbon pollution from fossil fuel production will be 190% over the 1.5°C budget, risking locking in more than a dangerous 2°C of warming, and an unlivable future for all.

Romain Ioualalen, Global Policy lead and report co-author at Oil Change International, said: “It’s simple: when you are in a hole, the first step is to stop digging. The climate crisis is global in nature – but is atrociously unjust. A handful of the world’s richest nations’ are risking our future by willingly ignoring the calls to rapidly phase out fossil fuels. Despite very clear science telling us what is in store beyond 1.5°C, these so-called climate leaders are planning for climate chaos. Continuing to increase fossil fuel production anywhere is not compatible with a liveable future and has been rightly called “moral and economic madness” by UN Secretary General Guterres. All countries must show up to the UN Climate Ambition Summit with plans to stop oil and gas expansion immediately, but these five countries have the additional responsibility to move first and fastest to phase out their production, and pay their fair share to fund a just global energy transition. The world is watching, and those intent on leading us into disaster will be held accountable.”

Julia Levin, Associate Director, National Climate, Environmental Defence Canada said: “Canada has been rightly exposed as one of the worst polluters on the planet, as a result of its plans to increase oil and gas production. It has been a devastating summer for people across Canada, who have lost their lives, their homes and their communities as a result of climate disasters. Yet governments in Canada are throwing fuel on the fire by expanding oil and gas production, while the federal government drags its feet on new rules that would cap and cut emissions from the oil and gas sector. Further delay in reducing oil and gas pollution is inexcusable.”

Tessa Khan, Executive Director at Uplift, said: “We’re often told that the UK is a climate leader, but this confirms that we’re now part of a tiny club of countries that are having an outsized role in driving the climate crisis. We know we cannot keep opening up new oil and gas fields if we want a habitable world, yet that is exactly what this government is doing.

Rishi Sunak needs to stop bowing to the demands of the fossil fuel firms, who continue to rake in obscene profits while millions of us cannot afford to heat our homes.

What’s worse is that we don’t need to be part of this wrecking club. The UK has renewable resources in abundance, enough to provide us with a cheaper, clean supply of energy. Oil and gas companies cannot be allowed to influence the UK’s energy or climate policies any longer.”

James Sherley, Climate Justice Campaigner at Jubilee Australia, said: “Despite the reality of the climate crisis the Australian government continues to facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. In recent years Australians have been devastated by the most severe bushfires and floods in our history, it is inconceivable that our taxpayer dollars are still propping up the industry causing this destruction. By signing the Glasgow Statement the government can end its support for fossil fuel exports and redirect that integral capital into the clean energy revolution. This is just one step Australia must take if we are to rebuild some credibility on global climate action, especially pertinent considering our bid to host COP31 with our Pacific Islands neighbors.”

Frode Pleym, head of Greenpeace Norway, said: “This report confirms that Norway is on a highway to climate hell. The science could not be more clear: There is no room for a single drop of oil from new fields. Yet, the state is spending billions on exploring for ever more resources, even in the vulnerable arctic.”

Caroline Brouillette, Executive Director of Climate Action Network Canada, said: “From heatwaves to wildfires to floods, Canadians have experienced devastating climate impacts this summer – all of which are linked to fossil fuels. Pollution from Canada’s oil and gas sector has risen unchecked for decades, and the sector is still planning further expansion, actively destroying our chance at a safe and healthy future. Fossil fuel companies won’t clean up their act on their own: Canada needs a strong and ambitious emissions cap to ensure the oil and gas industry finally takes responsibility.”

Helen Mancini, 16 year old Fridays For Future from New York City, said: “The Planet-Wreckers report presents unmistakable evidence of the peril of fossil fuel expansion while reckoning with the world’s historic polluters, namely the United States, and how we must hold them accountable. The activism youth are doing is not radical, it’s a demand for survival that the Planet-Wreckers must heed.”

Lavetanalagi Seru, Regional Coordinator for Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN) said: “Australia’s treachery is once again laid bare for all to see. This report cuts through the supposed change in rhetoric on climate by the Albanese Government and exposes Australia for what it truly is: a captive of the fossil fuel industry shackled to its insidious agenda.

It’s unfathomable that the Australian government continues to stoke the flames of the climate crisis, despite the brutal scars of unprecedented bushfires and floods etched into its landscape, and with full knowledge of the profound impacts that the fossil fuel industry inflicts upon First Nations communities and the Pacific.

With the window of opportunity to limit global warming to 1.5°C rapidly closing, a global fossil fuel phase out that is fast, fair and funded must be our paramount priority. Pacific Leaders must strongly insist on Australia to course correct before lending its support to the COP31 bid.”

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

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Jim Fitzpatrick.

More than 120 mostly English lawyers on Friday published a "declaration of conscience" pledging to withhold their services from "supporting new fossil fuel projects" and "action against climate protesters exercising their democratic right of peaceful protest."

The United Kingdom has in recent years faced protests from numerous climate groups, including those with more pronounced direct actions like Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain, and Extinction Rebellion. As part of those protests, participants have filled the streets, blocked fossil fuel facilities, glued scientific papers and themselves to a government building, called out major law firms for "defending climate criminals," and even, controversially, tossed tomato soup on one of Vincent van Gogh's glass-protected paintings.

Released on the heels of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the lawyers' statement notes the U.K. Parliament's 2019 climate emergency declaration, the International Energy Agency's warning against future oil and gas development, and United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres' proclamation that "investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness."

The attorneys' declaration also recognizes that the world is on track to breach the 2015 Paris climate agreement's 1.5°C goal and the "dire consequences" of doing so, pointing out that "in the U.K. alone, we are already seeing unprecedented heatwaves, wildfires, flooding, and coastal erosion. In other parts of the globe the effects are already far worse."

Along with vowing to restrict their services, the lawyers:

• Called upon the U.K. government and other attorneys to take action;
• Advocated for law and litigation reform related to mitigating and adapting to global warming;
• Expressed support for the democratic right to peaceful protest, which is under attack in the United Kingdom; and
• Committed to donating their time and money to climate causes.

The attorneys, collectively calling themselves Lawyers Are Responsible, are supported by the groups Good Law Project and Plan B.Earth—whose director, Tim Crosland, highlighted that "the U.N. has said we're on a 'highway to climate hell' and that to get off it, we need to stop new fossil fuel developments now. But behind every new oil and gas deal sits a lawyer getting rich."

"Meanwhile, it's the ordinary people of this country, taking a stand against this greed and destruction that the British legal system prosecutes and imprisons, jailing them just for talking about the climate crisis and fuel poverty," Crosland said. "The rule of law has been turned on its head. Lawyers are responsible. It's time to take a stand."

Taking a stand is not without risk. In the United Kingdom, generally, solicitors advise clients on specific issues and barristers argue in court—and the former are able to choose their cases and clients while the latter are subject to the "cab rank rule," obligating them to provide services as long as they are qualified, even if the case or client is objectionable.

As Lawyers Are Responsible's website details in response to some right-wing outrage over the declaration:

The classic example of the cab rank rule in action is of a criminal barrister who accepts a brief to represent a person accused of murder, against whom there is strong evidence of guilt. In that situation, there is no conflict between the cab rank rule and the interests of justice. The barrister is agreeing to perform his or her role within a system of justice that produces, on the whole, just outcomes. By representing the accused, the barrister is merely helping to ensure that there is a fair trial and is serving the greater good.

The signatories to the declaration are convinced that at the present time offering their services in support of new fossil fuel projects or action against peaceful climate protesters would not serve the greater good.

Good Law Project director and declaration signatory Jolyon Maugham wrote in a Friday opinion piece for The Guardian that "like Big Tobacco, the fossil fuel industry has known for decades what its activities mean. They mean the loss of human life and property, which the civil law should prevent but does not."

"The scientific evidence is that global heating, the natural and inevitable consequence of its actions, will cause the deaths of huge numbers of people. The criminal law should punish this but it does not," Maugham continued. "Nor does the law recognize a crime of ecocide to deter the destruction of the planet. The law works for the fossil fuel industry—but it does not work for us."

"Today's history books speak with horror about what the law of yesterday did, of how it permitted racism, rape, and murder," he added. "And tomorrow's history books will say the same about the law as it stands today, of how it enabled the destruction of our planet and the displacement of billions of people."

The Guardianreported that "18 barristers, including six king's counsel, have signed the declaration" and "will now self-refer to the Bar Standards Board." The newspaper noted that while barristers can face fines for rule-breaking, "the consequences can be more far-reaching for junior members of the profession, who can find themselves blocked from receiving the 'silk' awarded to king's counsel, or from promotion to the judiciary."

In a statement from Plan B, one junior lawyer who wished to remain anonymous said that "young lawyers are being placed in an impossible position. We're being told by our firms and regulators it's a professional obligation to act for fossil fuel projects, knowing that doing so will poison our own future and all of life on Earth."

"That's wrong on every level. It's indefensible," the lawyer added. "If the profession doesn't look out for my generation, how does it expect to survive?"

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

“It is heartening to see the recognition of former Haitian Mayor Jean Morose Viliena’s crimes, including the 2008 attack on a community radio station, after a decades-long pursuit of justice,” said CPJ Program Director Carlos Martinez de la Serna, in New York. “Those who seek to violently silence the free flow of information should be held to account no matter where they are located. This verdict shows that the United States is not a safe haven for those attempting to evade justice.”

In 2008, Viliena and his armed supporters ransacked New Vision Radio, a station in Les Irois operated and financed by members of the Struggling People’s Party and which broadcasted local news, political debates, and gospel music, according to the Center for Justice and Accountability, a San Francisco-based human rights organization that served as representation in the civil complaint against Viliena, along with two private law firms.

On Tuesday, March 22, the plaintiffs, including the son of the man who owned the building where the radio station rented a room, were awarded $15.5 million in damages, including $11 million in punitive damages by the jury for the attacks on the station as well as other instances of political violence, according to a press release by the CJA. Viliena denied any wrongdoing, according to The Associated Press.

Haitian authorities arrested Viliena in 2008 in relation to the killing of a man who had accused him of misconduct as well as the shootings of two people at the New Vision Radio office, building owner Nissage Martyr and local high school student Juders Ysemé. Martyr was shot in the leg during that attack, and Ysemé was blinded in one eye, according to the CJA press release.

Viliena was provisionally released and then fled to the United States, according to news reports. The plaintiffs filed a civil complaint in a U.S. District Court in 2017, and Nissage Martyr died later that year. The complaint was filed under the 1991 Torture Victim Protection Act, which allows for the filing of U.S. civil lawsuits against foreign officials who allegedly committed wrongdoing in their home countries, if all legal avenues in their homeland have been exhausted.

“I agreed to have the station at my house because I know the media would serve the population,” Nissage Martyr said in 2017, according to those reports, saying that Viliena “did not like the radio station and destroyed it because he knew that the population would become aware of the crimes he was committing.”

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Erik Crouch.

A Sweden-based research institute published a report Monday showing that the United States accounted for 40% of the world's weapons exports in the years 2018-22, selling armaments to more than 100 countries while increasing its dominance of the global arms trade.

The report—entitled Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2022—was published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and listed the United States, Russia, France, China, and Germany as the world's top five arms exporters from 2018-22. The five nations accounted for 76% of worldwide weapons exports during that period.

The five biggest arms importers over those five years were India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Australia, and China.

"The United States has much room for improvement."

The United States saw a 14% increase in arms exports over the previous five-year period analyzed by SIPRI. U.S. arms were delivered to 103 nations from 2018-22, with 41% going to the Middle East.

"Even as arms transfers have declined globally, those to Europe have risen sharply due to the tensions between Russia and most other European states," Pieter Wezeman, senior researcher at the SIPRI Arms Transfers Program, said in a statement. "Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, European states want to import more arms, faster. Strategic competition also continues elsewhere: Arms imports to East Asia have increased and those to the Middle East remain at a high level."

None

— (@)

According to the report, Russia's invasion of Ukraine early last year "had only a limited impact on the total volume of arms transfers in 2018–22, but Ukraine did become a major importer of arms in 2022."

Ukraine was the 14th-largest arms importer from 2018-22 and the third-biggest last year.

Wiliam Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote Monday that "the impacts of the global arms trade aren't just about the volume of weapons delivered. The question is how those weapons are likely to be used, and the extent to which they promote stability versus fueling conflict or propping up repressive regimes with abysmal human rights records."

"On this score the United States has much room for improvement," he continued. "Transfers to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for use at the peak of their brutal war in Yemen, and sales to major human rights violators from the Philippines, Egypt, and Nigeria are a few examples of how U.S. arms deliveries can make the world a more dangerous place."

None

— (@)

"There are a number of promising steps that Congress can take—as articulated by a new coalition, the Arms Sales Accountability Project—that would mandate closer scrutiny of U.S. sales," Hartung asserted.

"There is also some useful language in the Biden administration's new arms transfer policy directive, that, if implemented, would significantly rein in the most egregious sales," he added. "Only time will tell if U.S. policy can be moved towards one based on arms sales restraint rather than arms sales promotion."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

Following former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley's launch of her 2024 presidential campaign Tuesday, progressives cautioned that while the Republican has spent years cultivating a so-called "moderate" public persona, her policy positions make it abundantly clear that as president, she would promote a right-wing agenda similar to the Trump administration, in which she served for nearly two years.

Haley, who also served as South Carolina's governor before joining the administration of former President Donald Trump in 2017, has advanced right-wing policies both domestically and abroad, and since leaving public office four years ago, has used her platform to promote "extreme hardline positions on foreign policy," wrote Daniel Larison at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

The Republican has strived to center her response to the 2015 Mother Emanuel AME Church shooting in Charleston by a white supremacist as evidence of her moderation, including in her campaign launch video footage of the speech she gave weeks after the massacre when signing a bill to remove the Confederate flag from the grounds of the state capitol.

Progressive strategist Sawyer Hackett noted, however, that moments earlier in the video she denied that the deep history of institutional racism has contributed to persistent inequality in the United States.

\u201cIn this ad, Nikki Haley explicitly rejects the idea of institutional racism\u2014then goes on to highlight her role responding to the the white supremacist massacre in Charleston.\nhttps://t.co/kTwHTqKkYZ\u201d

— Sawyer Hackett (@Sawyer Hackett) 1676379744

"Make no mistake: Nikki Haley is no moderate," said Christina Harvey, executive director of progressive advocacy group Stand Up America. "From her support of Trump's policy of putting children in cages and the regressive reproductive health policies she pushed as governor of South Carolina to her opposition to federal voting rights legislation and her unwavering support of Donald Trump—even after he incited the January 6 insurrection—Nikki Haley has shown her true colors."

During her six years as governor of South Carolina, Haley signed anti-reproductive rights bills including one that banned abortion care after 19 weeks of pregnancy, with no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

With anti-abortion rights Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis expected to also announce a run for the GOP presidential nomination, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Mini Timmaraju said the primary is already becoming "a race to the bottom."

"Whether it's serving in Donald Trump's Cabinet or signing an extreme abortion ban into law, Nikki Haley's record is chock full of red flags," said Timmaraju. "Haley's views on abortion are just as extreme as others gunning for the Republican nomination, and we look forward to working alongside our members to defeat the Republican nominee, whoever it may be."

Haley's campaign launch ad also included a claim that President Joe Biden is promoting a "socialist" agenda, which Poor People's Campaign co-chair Rev. Dr. William Barber II interpreted as an attack on those who "believe in living wages, voting rights, and healthcare for all."

\u201cEverything Nikki Haley says in her new ad attacking Biden/Harris et al as \u201csocialist\u201d if they believe in living wages, voting rights, & healthcare for all is the same politics of lies & division that Trump used, just in a softer voice.\u201d

— Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II (@Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II) 1676383516

During Haley's two years as U.N. ambassador under the Trump administration, she was a strong proponent of the president's so-called "zero tolerance" policy under which thousands of migrant children were separated from their parents and guardians, Trump's push to pull out of the U.N. Human Rights Council, and the administration's decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.

Though she briefly criticized Trump for inciting the mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 in an effort to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election results, Haley soon after defended the former president and called on Democratic lawmakers to "give the man a break" as they impeached Trump for a second time.

"When we needed leaders to stand up for our democracy and our freedoms, Haley fell in line with Donald Trump, again and again," said Harvey. "That's exactly the opposite of what our country needs. Unfortunately, it doesn't make her unique. Whether the Republican nominee is Nikki Haley, Donald Trump, or someone else, there will likely be a MAGA Republican with a track record of undermining our democracy on the GOP ticket come November 2024."

At the Quincy Institute, Larison wrote that Haley's effort to cast herself as a moderating voice in the Republican Party while also defending the former president has left her "with no obvious base of support" and has likely rendered her a long-shot candidate.

"There is so little daylight between Haley's own positions and those of Trump that it will be difficult for her to criticize anything he did as president," Larison wrote. "Haley's foreign policy record is bound up with Trump's to such an extent that she will struggle to distinguish herself from him."

Barber called on voters to focus on "the main message: None of the Republicans planning on running disagree with Trump on policy."

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

The post Court Says Colombian State Responsible for Patriotic Union “Extermination”…No Mention of US Role appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by W. T. Whitney.

“Expanding mineral activities on federal public lands without modernizing our mining laws could threaten some of our nation’s most treasured areas,” wrote the groups. “Previous mine permitting proposals have sought to scale back protections for millions of acres of tribal sacred sites, culturally significant places, and iconic natural places. While mining is not permitted within the boundaries of National Parks, mining activities pollute the air and water that crosses the boundaries of protected lands. Insufficiently regulated mining in the name of clean energy development promotes a false choice by risking key lands that we need to conserve for our own health and wellbeing.”

Current mining operations are governed by the Hardrock Mining Law of 1872, and Congress has not updated the legislation for over 150 years.

“Mining companies have exploited the climate crisis to call for unfettered access to our public lands and expand dirty mining operations that remain governed by antiquated laws and regulations,” said Earthjustice Senior Legislative Representative Blaine Miller-McFeeley. “We can’t avoid all mining, and any mining that happens must proceed in the most sustainable way possible. Our current laws and regulations fail to meet this moment, and Congress must address this shortfall and ensure that iconic environmental treasures, Indigenous sacred sites, and the clean air and clean water of mining-impacted communities are not sacrificed in the process.”

“Necessary changes include those considered last Congress in the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act of 2022,” the groups continued. “Converting to a leasing system for hardrock minerals—just like the one that oil and gas companies use today–would help provide certainty to the permitting process and result in more timely and socially acceptable decisions. We respectfully urge Members of the House Natural Resources Committee to oppose efforts that would exacerbate deficiencies in the existing mining law and result in an unnecessary increase in mining on federal public lands and puts at risk irreplaceable protected lands, special places, tribal sacred sites, wildlife, and culturally significant sites in the guise of a clean energy transition.”

Click here to read the letter.

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

This content originally appeared on openDemocracy RSS and was authored by Mukanzi Musanga.

We speak with Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy for the Arab World Now, or DAWN, about the campaign to hold Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman responsible for the 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. This week a U.S. federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against Prince Mohammed filed by DAWN and Jamal Khashoggi’s fiancée Hatice Cengiz, ruling that the crown prince has sovereign immunity from prosecution after being named prime minister of Saudi Arabia earlier this year. “We believe, as a matter of law and a matter of fact, this was a fake, manipulative ploy to title-wash himself with a bogus title and bogus powers as head of government,” says Whitson.

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

In Texas, where two-thirds of the state’s nearly 100 prisons lack air conditioning, temperatures inside facilities have risen to as high as 149 degrees Fahrenheit. Climate change will only increase the number of dangerously hot days: Historically no Texas county typically saw more than 25 days annually where the heat index rose above 105 degrees F. By midcentury, however, more than a third of counties in the Lone Star State will likely be subject to more than 50 days with heat that high, according to data from the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.

Nevertheless, Texas lawmakers have repeatedly failed to advance bills that would fund prison air conditioning, and prison officials have suggested that heat deaths are not a problem. At a July hearing before the Texas House of Representatives’ Appropriations Committee, Texas Department of Criminal Justice executive director Bryan Collier claimed that that there have been zero heat-related deaths since 2012.

“Their numbers are wrong,” said Amite Dominick, one of the new report’s coauthors and the president and founder of Texas Prisons Community Advocates, an organization that is pushing Texas policymakers to fund prison air conditioning.

“I hope it adds further credence to what we’ve been saying all along — that these individuals are dying because the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is refusing to put AC in prisons,”she added. “Our legislators aren’t getting the job done.”

The 271 deaths in facilities without air conditioning — an average of 14 per year — occurred on days that were unusually hot for the region, when the heat index rose above the 90th percentile for the location. On such days, the risk of death rose 15 percent. The study also found that each 1-degree increase in temperature over 85 degrees increased risk of death by 0.7 percent.

These deadly effects were not observed in air-conditioned facilities: The researchers, led by Brown University Ph.D. Julianne Skarha, found no correlation between heat and mortality in the latter. This is not surprising, given that heat-related death is uncommon among the general population — accounting for less than half a percent of U.S. deaths.

While Texas jails are required to maintain temperatures between 65 and 85 degrees F, state prisons have no such regulations. “There is life-saving potential if the Texas Department of Criminal Justice applies a similar temperature regulation policy to its prison facilities as it does to its jail facilities,” the researchers wrote.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice declined to comment on the report. “The agency takes numerous precautions to lessen the effects of hot temperatures for those incarcerated within our facilities. These efforts work,” Communications Director Amanda Hernandez said by email. “In 2022, there have been thirteen inmates who required medical care beyond first aid for heat related injuries and none were fatal.”

Skarha chose to focus her research in Texas in part because it has the highest state prison population in the U.S., incarcerating around 118,000 people. However, the JAMA study has implications far beyond the state.

“We know there are many states in the U.S., especially in the South, that don’t have AC in the majority of their prisons,” Skarha said. “There’s no reason to assume that it’s not a similar story there.”

Heat deaths are difficult to track, and the cause of a heat-induced death isn’t always listed as hyperthermia. Researchers have found that heat increases the risk of cardiovascular- and diabetes-related deaths as well as the risk of death for people over age 75. U.S. prison populations are aging, and prisoners are more likely to have both heart conditions and diabetes. People taking psychotropic medications, used to treat a range of mental health issues, are also particularly heat-sensitive and are also over-represented among those incarcerated.

Hernandez, the corrections department communications director, told Grist that prisoners have access to fans and ice water. Additionally, in 2018 a lawsuit forced Texas to implement a system for protecting prisoners in unairconditioned prisons on hot days, including by offering access to cooled respite areas and by moving heat-sensitive individuals to air-conditioned housing. Although the JAMA study period overlaps with the new measures, it provides minimal insights into the effectiveness of that program.

Separate survey results published this summer by Texas A&M University suggest the new measures have fallen short. Close to a third of incarcerated survey participants said they were aware of at least one heat-related death in prison. Many described near-death experiences or a fear that the heat would kill them. That research was also a collaboration between scholars and grassroots organizers with Texas Prisons Community Advocates.

To Dominick, it’s long past time for policymakers to act. “This problem has been happening for decades and they want reports and testimonies and articles,” said Dominick. “It is hot in Texas and they know it. They are choosing not to get this done quickly.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Study: Extreme heat responsible for hundreds of deaths in Texas prisons on Nov 10, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Alleen Brown.

Be responsible, righteous, honest, and lead by example.

That’s the advice from psychotherapist Selina Kuruleca to all fathers, as Fijians celebrate Father’s Day today.

Being a father was not only a biological thing, or a physical thing, Kuruleca said.

“It’s also an emotional thing, a mental, psychological attachment and part of that responsibility means being there, being there in all those aspects psychologically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually,” she said.

“Just so you know, you’re a father figure to someone.

“What does it mean? It means nurturing, it means protecting, it means loving, it means compassion.

“And it means being someone who can be trusted to protect and to provide for someone, who can listen and also partner with their spouses and paddling with their children in terms of uplifting their family, leading them in a manner that is good not only for the family but for the extended family, the community and the nation.”

Kuruleca saluted single fathers for the roles they played and urged them to continue looking after their children.

“For single fathers, continue to be there for your children, provide for them, for your nephews and nieces, for your grandchildren because they need it and no one else can fulfill that role.

“You take it from a biblical perspective. The Bible talks about the father being the head of the household. It doesn’t mean that you don’t play your part.

“You know, being the head of the household means doing everything to be that role. And that means monitoring things safely.”

Luke Nacei is a Fiji Times journalist. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Researchers analyzed nearly two decades of fire-driven tree loss data from the University of Maryland. Data shows between 2001 and 2019, Russia and Canada experienced the biggest losses in forest canopy due to fires. The United States ranked third globally, with over a quarter of its forest loss attributed to fires alone.

Forest fires are not going away any time soon, said James MacCarthy, a research analyst for World Resources Institute, which hosts the Global Forest Watch tool. Forest fires create what researchers call a “fire-climate feedback loop.” When a tree burns down, it releases previously stored carbon into the atmosphere. The more carbon in the atmosphere, the worse the effects of climate change, which only makes forested areas more susceptible to fire.

The increasing likelihood of fires, as outlined by new data, calls into question the usefulness of using forests to offset carbon emissions — a popular climate strategy in several states. But when fires destroy these forests, many of which are located in the West where the risk of fires is increasing, extra carbon is released. But despite increasing fires, MacCarthy says forests should remain a key part of strategies to combat climate change. 

“Nature has to be part of the solution,” MacCarthy said, which includes planting more trees and protecting existing ones. 

While fires have exacted a heavy toll on global forests, there are some reasons for optimism. Forests in regions historically susceptible to fire have adapted to low-intensity fires over centuries, MacCarthy said. Mature trees tend to survive wildfires, depending on the fire’s severity. 

In order to reduce the local risk of high-intensity forest fires, people could remove smaller trees and twigs beneath the forest canopy through controlled burns, said Jessica Richter, a GIS research analyst with Global Forest Watch. North American Indigenous peoples have long used controlled burns for forest management, a strategy that some U.S. states are starting to adopt more broadly after decades of no-burn policies. 

Globally, Richter said ending deforestation and reducing reliance on fossil fuels are also necessary to mitigate the fiery effects of climate change. Continued research on forest loss due to fires will also help: The data released this week used satellite imagery to determine where forest loss has been driven by fires alone, at a greater level of specificity and longer period of time than previous studies.

Moving forward, researchers will update the analysis annually, which will allow for a better understanding of trends in forest loss due to fires over time at the global, regional and local level.

“Not all fires are bad,” MacCarthy said. “Too much and too frequent is when it starts to become a problem.” 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Fire is responsible for a quarter of US forest loss since 2021 on Aug 22, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Jessie Blaeser.

CoreCivic, the first publicly traded prison company in America and the first to operate both private prisons and private immigration detention centers on a for-profit basis, had another first to announce. Damon T. Hininger, the chief executive, paused to share the news on a call with investors last month: CoreCivic Inc. was the first company after the George Floyd protests to proactively conduct a “racial equity audit,” the results of which it was now ready to release.

“CoreCivic is one of the very few companies in the United States that has proactively embraced the process,” Hininger gloated.

The private prison corporation’s stock price and access to bond markets had been battered by pressure over its role in profiting from immigrant detention and for providing financial support to Donald Trump’s presidency. The company is currently facing a class-action lawsuit brought by immigration detainees claiming that they were forced to work with little or no pay. The racial equity audit was a conscious effort by CoreCivic not only to mend its poor public image, but also to harness public interest in racial justice to bring the company back into the good graces of Wall Street investors.

The contents of CoreCivic’s audit pointed to mostly superficial contributions to diversity and equity. The report, conducted by Moore & Van Allen, a North Carolina-based law firm, offered some room for improvement but largely applauded the private prison giant for its “genuine” commitment to diversity principles, including by raising cultural awareness with a mural of Martin Luther King Jr. at one of its Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers in Arizona. The report also praised CoreCivic for its philanthropy and business practices that have “benefitted communities of color.”

In an accompanying report on the company’s diversity, equity, and inclusion — known as DEI — CoreCivic touted its ranks of nonwhite prison guards, diversity on its board of directors, and diverse ranks of wardens, as well as its partnership with a Black-led, pro-business trade group.

Those supposed strides elicited eye rolls among its critics. “They put children’s murals on the wall while incarcerating infants. That doesn’t mean they have positive impacts for children,” said Bob Libal, a longtime watchdog of the private prison industry, referencing the company’s Taylor, Texas-based ICE detention center.

The Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility operated by CoreCivic in Tutwiler, Miss., on Aug. 16, 2018.

Photo: Rogelio V. Solis/AP

“They put children’s murals on the wall while incarcerating infants. That doesn’t mean they have positive impacts for children.”

“People who are buying these funds almost always believe that they’re doing something to make the world a better place, and in reality, they’re just moving shares around in publicly traded companies.”

Many ESG funds used to exclude certain arms manufacturers, arguing that the global sale of bombs and missiles did not constitute a social good — now there’s a push to reward them.

Related

▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​▄​

Calls for decarbonization, once central in the ESG movement, can also be offset by racial metrics.

People walk past the New York Stock Exchange and the Fearless Girl Statue on March 23, 2021, in New York.

Photo: Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images

The corporate beneficiaries of the fund might come as a surprise to retail investors who thought they were supporting the political goals of #MeToo.

“These are decisions we should be making as voters, as regulators pushing for change. Instead, we’ve passed on this responsibility to CEOs and fund managers.”

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Lee Fang.