![Food & Water Watch](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012658/origin.jpg)
Seth Gladstone, sgladstone@fwwatch.org, 917.363.6615
Ryan Schleeter, rschleet@greenpeace.org, 415.342.2386
Collin Rees, collin@priceofoil.org, 308.293.3159
More than 200 groups sent a letter to U.S. senators today, urging them to oppose the European Energy Security and Diversification Act of 2019 (S. 704), a bill that would provide billions of dollars of support for natural gas infrastructure projects in Europe, further incentivizing fracking and fossil fuel development in the United States. The bill, passed by the House in March, has drawn criticism for locking both the United States and Europe into decades of continued fossil fuel dependence under the guise of national security.
The letter, organized by the national advocacy group Food & Water Watch, was signed by groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, Climate Hawks Vote, The Climate Mobilization, Friends of the Earth US, Greenpeace USA, Oil Change U.S., Progressive Democrats of America, Public Citizen, Rainforest Action Network, Sunrise Movement and 350.org.
The letter states in part: "The only way to promote real energy security is to work together with Europe to rapidly end our shared reliance on fossil fuels. Our nation should be investing in renewable energy technology and energy efficiency, not setting aside tens of billions of dollars to support fracked-gas infrastructure projects that will keep Europe dependent on fossils."
"At a time when we should be leading the global mission to rapidly quit fossil fuels, the notion of seeking new and deeper fossil fuel codependence between America and Europe is patently absurd," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director at Food & Water Watch. "Climate science is clear: We must begin an aggressive global transition to clean, renewable energy now. For the Senate to promote the opposite would be a clear abdication of moral duty to current and future generations in this country and every country."
"The only way to promote real energy security is to work with Europe to rapidly end reliance on fossil fuels," said Nicole Ghio, Senior Program Manager at Friends of the Earth."As communities around the world deal with the effects of climate change, America should be investing in renewable energy, not dirty fossil fuels."
"Whatever the geopolitics, sending more deadly fossil fuels to Europe or any other part of the world is not the answer. Natural gas is fool's gold and will inevitably lead to further destabilization of any region that relies upon it," said Bill Snape, Senior Counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity."The future is with clean renewable energy and infrastructure. Any expenditure of taxpayer funds for fossil fuels is a colossal waste of money and a major lost opportunity."
"This bill would undermine its own stated cause. Using fossil fuels for energy diplomacy increases global tensions and decreases our national security by pouring fuel on the fire of the climate crisis. Research clearly shows that existing fossil fuel development - including gas development - contains more carbon than the world can afford to burn," said Collin Rees, Senior Campaigner at Oil Change U.S."Any action that seeks to build out new, additional fossil fuel infrastructure flies in the face of what's needed for a just transition. We must invest in the clean energy of the future, not in dirty fuels like gas that will directly crowd out these renewable sources and lock us into climate disaster."
"Civilization is already breaking down in the face of rising climate disasters," saidEzra Silk, Director of Strategy & Policy at The Climate Mobilization."At the very least, we must immediately halt all new climate-damaging investments, including the expansion of natural gas infrastructure. This bill would bring us yet another step closer to runaway global warming and the collapse of civilization."
"The time for climate make-believe is past", said Russell Greene, Senior Strategic Adviser to the Progressive Democrats of America."Let's deal in truth. We are in a climate emergency and have no carbon budget left to burn."
"The clean energy revolution is inevitable - across the globe, people are already powering their communities with wind and solar," said Janet Redman, Climate Campaign Director at Greenpeace USA."Foolishly investing billions of dollars in the oil and gas industry like this will only make the United States and our European allies fall behind in the race towards a clean energy economy. Instead of putting the fossil fuel industry on life support, it's time to clear the way towards a green and prosperous future for all."
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500From a Coup to Assassinations, Just How Much Immunity Does the US President Now Have?
"If Trump, as commander-in-chief, ordered his troops to assassinate somebody or stage a coup, that would seem to fall within the absolute immunity provision of the court's decision," said one legal expert.
Right-wing Chief Justice John Roberts accused his liberal colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court of "fearmongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals" in their alarmed dissents against the conservative supermajority's ruling in Trump v. United States, which held that current and former presidents are entitled to sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for so-called "official acts."
But legal experts said in response to the decision that the "nightmare" scenarios Justice Sonia Sotomayor outlined in her dissent—including a president ordering the Navy's SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a domestic political opponent or staging a coup to remain in power, all without legal consequences—aren't farfetched readings of the new ruling.
"The language of the Supreme Court's decision seems to suggest that because this is a core function of the president, that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution," Cheryl Bader, a criminal law professor at Fordham Law School and a former federal prosecutor, toldPolitico. "If [presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald] Trump, as commander-in-chief, ordered his troops to assassinate somebody or stage a coup, that would seem to fall within the absolute immunity provision of the court's decision."
"If brazenly attempting to overturn a democratic election by claiming the powers of the presidency can be a so-called 'official' act of the president, then where does it end?"
Bader was hardly alone in her interpretation of the ruling, which Trump and the far-right architects of his possible second White House term celebrated as a critical victory in their effort to seize the levers of the federal government.
"If I'm reading the court correctly," Cornell Law School professor Michael Dorf wrote on social media after the decision was released Monday, a president "can openly accept bribes for pardons, because those fall within his 'exclusive' authority."
During oral arguments over the case in April, an attorney for Trump conceded in response to questioning from Sotomayor that assassination of a political rival "could well be an official act"—thus making it unprosecutable under Trump v. United States.
Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, warned that if Trump wins another term, he's "going to preface every blatantly illegal thing he does by saying, 'Official act, this is an official act.'"
Justice Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military...to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?"
Trump’s Lawyer: "That could well be an official act."
– Trump v. US, oral arguments pic.twitter.com/6hOzZ3WFPN
— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) July 1, 2024
Analysts, lawmakers, and civil liberties groups alike expressed horror at the prospect of a former president who has openly threatened to target his political opponents taking office with king-like powers bestowed by the Supreme Court's conservative majority—half of which Trump appointed.
"Former President Trump's handpicked justices have cast aside our nation's bedrock principle of the rule of law, afforded future presidents carte blanche to abuse the powers of their office for political and personal gain, and laid the foundation for Donald Trump to have absolute authority in a potential second term," Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said Monday.
"If brazenly attempting to overturn a democratic election by claiming the powers of the presidency can be a so-called 'official' act of the president, then where does it end? If a former president who has fomented an insurrection at our Capitol and who now promises to serve as a dictator on day one back in office can avoid accountability in a court of law, then as Justice Sotomayor stated, I too 'fear for our democracy.'"
ACLU national legal director David Cole warned that the Supreme Court supermajority's opinion "sits like a loaded weapon for Trump to abuse in the pursuit of criminal ends if he is reelected."
In a column headlined "The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially," The Nation's Elie Mystal wrote that he "cannot even imagine what [Trump will] try if he is actually given power again, knowing full well that he will never be held accountable for literal crimes."
"Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree, steal all the money and murder all the people they can get their hands on, all under the guise of presumptive 'official' behavior, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable for their crimes while in office," Mystal noted. "That, according to the court, is what the Constitution requires."
"While the Supreme Court says 'unofficial' acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting 'unofficially,'" he added. "And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were 'unofficial.'"
'Apocalyptic Scenes': Hurricane Beryl Leaves 'Complete Devastation' in Its Wake
"What we see here are the consequences of a rampaging climate change," the prime minister of one impacted country said, as the storm now bears down on Jamaica.
Hurricane Beryl—the earliest Category 4 and Category 5 storm to ever form in the Atlantic Basin—killed at least seven people as it tore through the southeastern Caribbean nations of St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Grenada on Monday, leaving behind devastation that the leaders of both countries compared to "Armageddon."
Scientists say that the record-breaking storm intensified so rapidly and so early in the season due to above-average ocean temperatures heated primarily by the burning of fossil fuels.
"What we see here are the consequences of a rampaging climate change," Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines Ralph Gonsalves toldDemocracy Now! on Wednesday morning. "We are in the era of the Anthropocene, and the developed countries—the major emitters—are not taking this matter seriously."
"Big Oil must be held to account for worsening extreme weather disasters."
Beryl made landfall on Carriacou Island in Grenada at around 11:00 am EDT on Monday as a Category 4 storm before strengthening to a Category 5 later in the day. With winds blowing as high as 150 miles per hour, it was the strongest hurricane to hit the Grenadines since at least 1851.
The storm flattened Carriacou in half an hour, Grenadian Prime Minister Dickon Mitchell said in a press briefing late Monday.
"Having seen it myself, there is really nothing that could prepare you to see this level of destruction," Mitchell told reporters. "It is almost Armageddon-like. Almost total damage or destruction of all buildings, whether they be public buildings, homes, or private facilities. Complete devastation and destruction of agriculture, complete and total destruction of the natural environment. There is literally no vegetation left anywhere on the island of Carriacou."
The hurricane also pummeled the Grenadian island of Martinique. On the two islands, which are home to around 6,000 people, the storm damaged or destroyed 98% of structures, including Carriacou's marinas, airport, and main hospital, The New York Times reported. It also wiped out electricity and communications on the two islands, damaged crops, downed trees and power lines, and flattened Carriacou's mangroves.
In St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the hardest-hit islands were Canouan, Mayreau, and Union Island, where 90% of homes were flattened or seriously damaged, according toThe Guardian. The outlet said social media footage of the damage showed "apocalyptic scenes."
Speaking on Democracy Now!, Gonsalves compared conditions in the south of the country to "Armageddon."
"Union Island is flattened," he said, adding that everyone on Union and Mayreau were homeless.
One woman who survived the storm described the experience to Vincentian journalist Demion McTair, saying, "Just imagine stoves flying in the air, house flying, lifting up, tearing apart, and just going in the wind. Just like that… Just imagine."
Despite the devastation, the death toll has remained low for now, with three reported dead in Grenada, one in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and three in Venezuela, according to The New York Times.
However, the task of rebuilding from the storm will be "Herculean," Gonsalves told Democracy Now!, adding that he estimated the damage was in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
"We are in a sense going up a down escalator," he said. "Every time we make some progress, we get hit by these natural disasters and we have to start afresh."
Yet, given the role that the fossil fuel-driven climate crisis plays in supercharging storms and hurricanes, these disasters expose the deep guilt of powerful corporations who have profited from the continued consumption of coal, oil, and gas.
"Seriously, at what point do we get crimes against humanity trials for the fossil fuel execs and economists, like Nobel winner William Nordhaus, who minimized climate impacts for decades?" climate advocate Julia Steinberger wrote on social media in response to the storm's devastation.
Greenpeace International agreed.
"Big Oil must be held to account for worsening extreme weather disasters," the group wrote on social media.
Both Gonsalves and Mitchell criticized wealthier nations for leaving Caribbean countries to bear the brunt of a crisis they did little to cause.
In Monday's press briefing, Mitchell said he expected recovery to cost tens of billions of dollars and called for climate justice:
We are no longer prepared to accept that it's OK for us to constantly suffer significant, clearly demonstrated loss and damage arising from climatic events and be expected to rebuild year after year while the countries that are responsible for creating this situation—and exacerbating this situation—sit idly by with platitudes and tokenism.
Grenada's economy, Grenada's environment, both physically built and natural, has taken an enormous hit from this hurricane.
It has put the people of Carriacou and Petit Martinique light years behind, and they are required to pull themselves by the boot strap, on their own.
This is not right, it is not fair, and it not just.
Mitchell promised to establish a task force to address the issue involving other small island developing states and the international community.
Gonsalves, speaking from his residence late on Monday, said that developed countries who have contributed the most to the crisis were "getting a lot of talking, but you are not seeing a lot of action—as in making money available to small-island developing states and other vulnerable countries."
He also referred to the United Nations climate negotiations, or COPs, as "largely a talkshop."
He expressed hope that seeing such a strong hurricane form so early in the season "will alert them to our vulnerabilities, our weaknesses and encourage them to honor the commitments they have made on a range of issues, from the Paris accord to the current time."
However, he also expressed concern that the climate crisis was not a larger point of discussion in the upcoming U.K. elections, or in other elections worldwide this year.
"The same thing is happening in other parts of the election in Western Europe and the United States as countries move to the right," Gonsalves said. "It's a terrible time for small-island developing states and vulnerable countries."
Meanwhile, Beryl's potential path of destruction is not over, as it approaches Jamaica as a Category 4 hurricane with winds of up to 140 miles per hour, the National Weather Service (NWS) wrote at 2:00 pm EDT Wednesday.
"We are very concerned about a wide variety of life-threatening impacts in Jamaica."
"On the forecast track, the center of Beryl will pass near or over Jamaica during the next several hours. After that, the center is expected to pass near or over the Cayman Islands tonight or early Thursday and move over the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico Thursday night or early Friday," NWS said.
While the agency predicted the storm would weaken somewhat over the next two days, it "is forecast to be at or near major hurricane intensity while it passes near Jamaica during the next several hours and the Cayman Islands tonight or early Thursday."
"We are very concerned about a wide variety of life-threatening impacts in Jamaica," AccuWeather's chief meteorologist Jon Porter said, adding that Beryl was "the strongest and most dangerous hurricane threat that Jamaica has faced, probably, in decades."
Oliver Mair, Jamaica's consul general in Miami, toldThe Washington Post that the hurricane was "almost like a game-changer."
"To have this size hurricane so early in the season, it's frightening," Mair said.
'The Land Theft Continues': Israel Announces Biggest West Bank Seizure in Over 30 Years
The Israel-based activist group Peace Now says "2024 is by far the peak year for Israeli land seizure in the occupied West Bank."
Human rights defenders on Wednesday condemned the far-right Israeli government's announcement of the largest seizure of Palestinian land—many critics bluntly called it "land theft"—in the illegally occupied West Bank in over 30 years.
On June 25, Israeli occupation authorities unilaterally declared 12,700 dunams, or 4.9 square miles, of land in the Jordan Valley "state lands." Israel's Custodian of the State's Property in the Civil Administration published the declaration on Wednesday. The move supplements previous Israeli land grabs totaling nearly 11,000 dunams (4.2 square miles) in February and March.
Combined, these are the biggest seizures of Palestinian land since the 1993 Oslo Accords.
"Land theft is a component part of colonial genocide as a social process," noted Heidi Matthews, an assistant professor at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Toronto.
Muther Isaac, academic dean of Bethlehem Bible College in Jerusalem, lamented that "the land theft continues in the West Bank!"
Israel's goal, according to Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, is to "establish facts on the ground" in service of annexing the Palestinian lands and establishing or expanding overwhelmingly Jewish colonies there. The push comes as more and more countries—nearly 150, according to Palestinian officials—officially recognize the state of Palestine and as Israeli forces continue an assault on Gaza that has been widely condemned as genocidal.
"We will establish sovereignty... first on the ground and then through legislation. I intend to legalize the young settlements," Smotrich said last month, referring to illegal outposts that are newer and smaller than established Jewish settler colonies.
"My life's mission is to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state," he added.
Under international law, all of the settlements are illegal. Most were built on land seized from Palestinians through terrorism and ethnic cleansing during the Nakba, or catastrophe, when more than 700,000 Arabs were expelled during the establishment and consolidation of modern Israel in the late 1940s, and during the conquest of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Syrian Golan Heights in 1967.
Smotrich and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "are determined to fight against the entire world and against the interests of the people of Israel for the benefit of a handful of settlers who receive thousands of dunams as if there were no political conflict to resolve or war to end," the Tel Aviv-based activist group Peace Now said in a statement Wednesday.
"Today, it is clear to everyone that this conflict cannot be resolved without a political settlement that establishes a Palestinian state alongside Israel," the group added. "Still, the Israeli government chooses to actually make it difficult and distance us from the possibility of peace and stopping the bloodshed."
That bloodshed includes a surge in settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since last October. More than 500 Palestinians—around a quarter of them children—have been killed by Israeli soldiers and settlers there over the past nine months, according to Palestinian and international agencies.
Protected and sometimes aided by Israeli troops, Israeli settlers have launched multiple deadly pogroms targeting Palestinian people and property in the occupied territories since last year.
These and other previous attacks prompted the Biden administration to impose sanctions on a handful of the most extremist Israeli settlers. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken also reverted to classifying Israeli settlements as unlawful, which was the State Department's position from 1978 until the Trump administration reversed it in 2019.
However, the U.S. remains Israel's staunchest international supporter, providing billions of dollars in military aid and diplomatic cover for Israeli policies and actions that, in addition to occupation and colonization, critics say amount to apartheid and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.