

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

After nine years of delay, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today officially acknowledged in a so-called "endangerment finding" that planet-warming pollution from airplanes disrupts the climate and endangers human welfare. But the agency failed to move forward on rules to actually reduce aircraft emissions.
"EPA officials finally acknowledged airplane pollution's obvious climate threat, but they're still not actually cutting the airline industry's skyrocketing emissions," said Vera Pardee, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity. "After nearly a decade of denial and delay, we need fast, effective EPA action. The Obama administration must quickly devise ambitious aircraft pollution rules that dramatically reduce this high-flying hazard to our climate."
"The endangerment finding documents the magnitude of airplanes' contribution to climate change, but EPA fails to take steps to address these harms," said Sarah Burt, staff attorney at Earthjustice. "We will continue to use the power of law to compel EPA to put in place standards that actually reduce harmful pollution from aircraft."
"People should not have to choose between mobility and a healthy climate," said Marcie Keever, legal director for Friends of the Earth. "The EPA's nine-year delay on regulating aircraft emissions failed the American people. Now it's time for the Obama administration to issue a strong rule, to hold the aviation industry accountable for its significant contributions to climate disruption, and to act immediately to curb air pollution worldwide."
The Center and Friends of the Earth, represented by Earthjustice, first petitioned the EPA in 2007 to regulate carbon emissions from aircraft under the federal Clean Air Act, which requires the government to issue emissions standards for any aircraft pollutant that "may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare."
The EPA finally began evaluating the climate risk of airplane pollution in 2014, shortly after environmental organizations filed a notice of intent to sue the agency for failing to reduce aircraft emissions.
Airplane greenhouse gas pollution is growing rapidly. If commercial aviation were considered a country, it would rank seventh after Germany in terms of carbon emissions. Airplanes could generate 43 gigatonnes of planet-warming pollution through 2050, consuming more than 4 percent of the world's remaining carbon budget, according to a recent Center report.
Studies show aircraft emissions could be reduced dramatically. A recent International Council on Clean Transportation report showed that some of the top 20 transatlantic air carriers can drive down greenhouse emissions by as much as 51 percent using existing technology and operational improvements.
The first international standards for carbon pollution from airplanes recommended earlier this year by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) are years behind the existing technology curve, would not reduce emissions from new planes beyond business as usual and would not even apply to any in-service aircraft.
"Decisive EPA action on airplane pollution is critical to catalyzing change on a global scale," Pardee said. "Aviation's threat to our climate is too big and growing too quickly to be ignored."
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460Allies of fossil fuel companies are celebrating the development as a step toward "stopping the endless wave" of lawsuits against the climate-wrecking industry.
US fossil fuel giants have long sought to shift litigation over industry harms from state to friendly federal courts, and the country's top court unanimously handed polluters a big win on Friday, allowing such a move in a case centered on environmental damage in coastal Louisiana.
Cases can be removed from state court when they are against federal officers or persons "acting under" them, "for or relating to any act under color of such office." Although the US Supreme Court has previously rejected multiple removals requested by Big Oil, the justices sided with the industry in Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish.
The company argued that its challenged production was sufficiently related to its contractual duties to refine crude oil into aviation gasoline, or avgas, for the US military during World War II. A federal district judge and the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected Chevron's argument, but the high court bought it.
"Chevron has plausibly alleged a close relationship between its challenged conduct and the performance of its federal duties—not a tenuous, remote, or peripheral one," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned a concurring opinion.
Justice Samuel Alito recused himself shortly before arguments. As with some other cases involving Big Oil, he bowed out due to his stock in ConocoPhillips, whose subsidiary Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company is involved in the case at the district court level.
This fight before the high court stemmed from dozens of cases filed over a decade ago. As NOLA.com detailed Friday:
In 2013, a group of local parishes and the state filed 42 lawsuits against energy companies whose predecessors sought and produced crude during World War II. They argued that the oil and gas companies damaged wetlands and failed to get or comply with the proper permits.
After a three-week trial, a Plaquemines Parish jury sided with the state in one of those cases and awarded a $745 million verdict against Chevron and two other companies.
But the companies challenged the verdict, saying the lawsuit should have been heard in federal court, not state court.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, the Plaquemines Parish case may now be retried in a US district court. Company spokesperson Bill Turenne said in a statement that "Chevron looks forward to litigating these cases in federal court, where they belong."
There are also potential implications for other legal battles involving the industry that is fueling the global climate emergency—as American Energy Institute CEO Jason Isaac, a former Republican state representative in Texas, celebrated in a Friday statement. He described the decision as "a critical step toward restoring sanity to our legal system and stopping the endless wave of politically motivated lawsuits designed to punish the very industry that powers our economy and national security."
The Supreme Court's decision notably came as the justices prepare to hear ExxonMobil and Suncor's request to move a 2018 lawsuit filed by the city of Boulder, Colorado—seeking financial damages for the companies' role in creating the climate crisis—from state to federal court. Alito has not yet recused himself from that case.
Fossil fuel companies largely have support from the Republican Party, which controls the White House and both chambers of Congress. President Donald Trump returned to power last year with help from the industry's campaign cash, and his administration has supported the companies being challenged in Louisiana.
As The New York Times noted Friday, the local communities' lawsuits "have gained support from Louisiana Republican leaders, including those who have otherwise endorsed President Trump's 'energy dominance' agenda. Gov. Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill, both Republicans, have supported the legal challenges."
However, ahead of the November midterm elections, Republicans in Congress are working on shielding oil and gas companies from what they call "abusive state climate lawsuits." There are similar efforts at the state level. As the Times reported earlier this month, Utah recently "became the first state to enact a law that shields companies from climate-related claims. Republican lawmakers in at least four other states, including Oklahoma, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Iowa, are working on similar bills."
Cassidy DiPaola, communications director for the Make Polluters Pay campaign, warned earlier this year that "a federal liability shield for fossil fuel companies would not lower energy prices or ease the cost of living. It would simply shift more of the financial burden onto working families and local governments while insulating one of the most profitable industries in history from accountability."
"Congress should not close the courthouse doors to communities seeking redress," said DiPaola. "Big Oil is not entitled to special immunity from the consequences of its conduct."
"Start with the modest $3000 check Bernie Sanders and I have proposed for families under $150,000."
Rep. Ro Khanna put the world's richest man on the spot on Friday after Elon Musk acknowledged that artificial intelligence and robotics advancements in the future would lead to mass layoffs for human workers.
In a social media post, Musk, the tech billionaire and right-wing ally to President Donald Trump, acknowledged that AI would lead to disruption in the labor market, but claimed that a guaranteed universal income program could make up for it.
"Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI," Musk wrote. "AI/robotics will produce goods and services far in excess of the increase in the money supply, so there will not be inflation."
Khanna, however, responded to Musk's post by arguing that any universal income program should be at least partly funded by the billionaire tech CEOs who are becoming even richer thanks to AI.
"In that case, are you willing to pay a modest trillionaire and billionaire tax to pay for checks to working families?" Khanna asked. "We could start with the modest $3000 check Bernie Sanders and I have proposed for families under $150,000?"
Both Khanna and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for months have been talking about the potential threats AI poses to working people, especially if it replaces human labor.
During a roundtable discussion with Sanders and author Naomi Klein on Tuesday, Khanna likened AI to the technological advances made during the Industrial Revolution, which saw historic gains in productivity, but also in inequality.
"If you look at the Industrial Revolution, for 60 years, worker wages fell... even as Britain became wealthy," Khanna explained. "And so the question, in my view, for AI is, are we going to let a few billionaires, trillionaires, call the shots, or are we going to make sure that the technology is actually used in any way to enhance workers, to enhance total productivity?"
Sanders flagged Amazon founder Jeff Bezos seeking to raise $100 billion to automate US factories with AI-powered robots as a particularly dangerous threat to the livelihoods of blue-collar workers.
"It means there will no longer be manufacturing jobs in the United States or in warehouses,” Sanders said of Bezos' plan. “He wants to get rid of the 600,000 Amazon workers and replace them with robots. Elon Musk is converting Tesla partially to a robotics company. He wants to produce a million robots a year… What do you think a robot is there for? It’s to replace a union worker.”
Sanders on Friday continued banging the drum about billionaires' plans for AI, and he slammed members of the Democratic Party who are reportedly wary of criticizing the industry publicly for fear of its enormous campaign war chest that it's planning to deploy during the upcoming midterm elections.
"With the AI industry planning to spend $300 million this election cycle," Sanders wrote on social media, "Democrats are being pressured by consultants to avoid 'antagonizing' them. Unacceptable. Democrats must get super PACS out of their primaries. Citizens United must be overturned. We must have the courage to take on the AI Oligarchs."
Meanwhile, Israel responded to Trump's purported prohibition of Israeli attacks on Lebanon by attacking the country.c
Iran said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz is fully reopened to international shipping following an Israel-Lebanon ceasefire agreement, prompting thanks from President Donald Trump—who then said the US naval blockade on Iranian ports will continue.
"In line with the ceasefire in Lebanon, the passage for all commercial vessels through Strait of Hormuz is declared completely open for the remaining period of ceasefire, on the coordinated route as already announced," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.
Trump first thanked Iran in a post on his Truth Social network. However, about 20 minutes later, the president posted again on the site, writing:
THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ IS COMPLETELY OPEN AND READY FOR BUSINESS AND FULL PASSAGE, BUT THE NAVAL BLOCKADE WILL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AS IT PERTAINS TO IRAN, ONLY, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS OUR TRANSACTION WITH IRAN IS 100% COMPLETE. THIS PROCESS SHOULD GO VERY QUICKLY IN THAT MOST OF THE POINTS ARE ALREADY NEGOTIATED.
The US, Iran, and Israel agreed to a two-week ceasefire on April 7 after Trump threatened a genocidal attack on Iran, saying that "a whole civilization will die tonight" if there was no deal that day. Officials on all sides clarified that the truce did not signal the end of the ongoing war.
Friday's announcements followed the implementation of a tentative 10-day ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, where nearly 50 days of Israeli bombardment has killed or wounded thousands of Lebanese, including hundreds of children, and displaced more than a million others.
It is unclear how Hezbollah, which did not take part in ceasefire negotiations, will respond. The Lebanon-based militant group has retaliated for Israel's genocide in Gaza and attacks on Lebanon with rocket and drone strikes on Israel, and the Lebanese government is largely unable to stop Hezbollah from further attacks if it decides to launch them.
Thousands of Iranians have also been killed or wounded by US and Israeli bombing since February 28, the day the war was launched. That was also the day that a US cruise missile strike on a girls' school in Minab killed 168 people, mostly children.
About half an hour after Trump's Friday post confirming the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the president took to Truth Social again, this time announcing that "the USA will, separately, work with Lebanon, and deal with the Hezboolah [sic] situation in an appropriate manner. Israel will not be bombing Lebanon any longer. They are PROHIBITED from doing so by the U.S.A. Enough is enough!!!"
Lebanese and Israeli media reported that, minutes after Trump's purported prohibition, Israel subsequently launched a drone strike targeting a motorcycle between the southern Lebanese towns of Kounine and Beit Yahoun, killing one person. The terms of Thursday's ceasefire do allow Israel to conduct "defensive" strikes against “planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks.”