April, 21 2016, 12:30pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jagoda Munic, Friends of the Earth International Chair, jagoda [at] zelena-akcija.hr, in Croatia.
Dipti Bhatnagar, climate justice and energy coordinator, Friends of the Earth International, +258 840356599, dipti [at] foei.org, in Mozambique.
Sara Shaw, Friends of the Earth International climate justice and energy coordinator, + 44 79 74 00 82 70, sara.shaw [at] foe.co.uk, in the UK.
Ben Schreiber, Friends of the Earth US, Climate and Energy Program Director, +1 202 280 8743, bschreiber [at] foe.org, in Washington, DC.
We Can't Count on the Paris Agreement to Stop Climate Change
The deal agreed last December in Paris fails to deliver the scale of action needed to prevent dangerous climate change.
WASHINGTON
On 22 April 2016, representatives of over 130 nations are expected to attend the signing ceremony of the Paris Agreement at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. This brings parties one step closer towards ratifying the Agreement - with each nation turning their intended pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (known as INDCs) into their agreed actual contribution to the climate effort.
Developed countries not delivering their fair share
"From a scientific perspective, the numbers just don't add up", said Jagoda Munic, Chairperson of Friends of the Earth International. "The countries historically responsible for the bulk of climate change are coming up far short of their fair share of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions."
The climate science is clear that breaching the 1.5degC guardrail poses an unacceptable risk of crossing irreversible tipping points, impacting billions of people. The Agreement mentions the pursuit of 'efforts to limit increase to 1.5 degrees,' and acknowledges the risks of a 2degC goal, it lacks the conviction needed to meet even the 2degC goal. In fact, current pledges put forward by countries add up to warming of around 3 degrees, and possibly higher.
Without a meaningful increase of action now, the current pledges lead us to climate disaster.
Risks of false solutions
"Meanwhile, the Paris Agreement's mention of 'climate neutrality' is also worrying, as it will encourage the deployment of untested, dangerous geoengineering, or false solutions such as carbon markets, nuclear energy and a global land grab for agrofuels. This is all to legitimize the continued pumping of carbon into the atmosphere, with a pretense of somehow sucking the carbon back out again," said Dipti Bhatnagar, Climate Justice and Energy Coordinator at Friends of the Earth International.
A fair energy transformation
In order to curtail dangerous climate change:
- We need a just, global energy transformation, including blocking dirty energy projects, improving energy efficiency, tackling energy access issues and moving to community-owned renewable energy.
- We need finance from developed to developing countries to help them move away from dirty energy.
- We need countries to cut emissions at source, and not hide behind carbon markets, REDD and other false solutions.
In the next 10 years, as the window closes on our chance to remain below that 1.5degC guardrail, we will continue to help build a peoples' movement to push for this transformation.
"As for the global elite's theatre, simply signing the Paris Agreement without any substance on implementation and ambition is irresponsibly insufficient", said Sara Shaw, Climate Justice and Energy Coordinator at Friends of the Earth International. "We cannot count on such an Agreement alone to achieve climate justice."
Friends of the Earth International is the world's largest grassroots environmental network, uniting 74 national member groups and some 5,000 local activist groups on every continent. With over 2 million members and supporters around the world, FOEI campaigns on today's most urgent environmental and social issues.
LATEST NEWS
AOC Vows to File Articles of Impeachment After Supreme Court Trump Ruling
"Today's ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture."
Jul 01, 2024
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday said she will file unspecified articles of impeachment U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority ruled that former President Donald Trump is entitled to "absolute immunity" for "official acts" performed while he was in office, a decision that prompted dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor to declare her "fear for our democracy."
Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said on social media that "the Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control."
"Today's ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture," she added. "I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."
The House of Representatives reconvenes next Monday.
The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines Monday in Trump v. United States that "the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and that "he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
Dissenting, Sotomayor asserted: "Never in the history of our republic has a president had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former presidents will be cloaked in such immunity."
Far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dismissed calls to recuse themselves from the case over alleged conflicts of interest. In addition to them and Chief Justice John Roberts, the court's three Trump appointees sided with the ex-president in the case.
The decision means it is highly unlikely that Trump will face a trial for his alleged role in fomenting the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection before November's election, in which he is the presumptive Republican nominee. In addition to four felony charges in that case, Trump faces one trial in Fulton County, Georgia for his alleged effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election and another in Florida over his alleged mishandling of classified documents.
In May, Trump was convicted on 34 felony charges related to the falsification of business records regarding hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 presidential election. The former president was also impeached twice while in office, although the Senate did not convict him either time.
At least one other House lawmaker—Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.)—said he supports Ocasio-Cortez's move. Other progressive lawmakers expressed alarm over Monday's ruling.
"Presidents are not kings. Trump should absolutely be held criminally liable for inciting a violent mob to overturn the 2020 election," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "This ruling sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. This extremist court has put our democracy on life support."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "the far-right extremist majority has politicized our highest court, undermined its legitimacy, and has created a dangerous 'absolute' immunity for a president's official acts."
"This is a rogue, untethered, and damaging Supreme Court. MAGA extremist justices also are ignoring the festering corruption in their ranks," he added. "We need justices committed to justice. Stolen seats filled with partisan hacks lead to alarming results. Today's ruling is devastating to our democracy."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) asked, "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,'" he added.
Some progressive groups and campaigners also called for the impeachment of the six right-wing justices.
"The Supreme Court is a corrupt institution that's more concerned with advancing their ideological agenda than upholding the Constitution," Sunrise Movement said on social media. "Congress must move forward with impeachment."
Erica Payne, founder and director of Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement that "the Supreme Court's decision effectively legalizes the use of political violence by a president so long as it is an 'official act.'"
"This relieves the presidency—and the sitting president—from the most basic level of accountability while putting our entire constitutional republic in mortal danger," she continued. "Donald Trump incited an insurrection and encouraged his thugs to storm the Capitol. The idea that he should not be held accountable if these actions were 'official' is an egregiously partisan attempt to deny reality."
"This decision is the culmination of a relentlessly executed, multidecade plan to destroy American democracy," Payne contended. "It is the inevitable outcome of rank corruption facilitated by a malignant class of American oligarchs who, over decades, bought and paid for a complicit Supreme Court."
"The frog in the pot is now at a rolling boil," she added. "The president can encourage his thugs to murder members of Congress without fear of legal repercussions. If Democrats do not immediately take bold action, historians will mark today as the moment illiberal authoritarians cemented their rule over the United States of America."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The President Is Now a King Above the Law,' Sotomayor Warns in Chilling Dissent
A legal journalist described the liberal justice's dissent as "one of the most terrified and terrifying pieces of judicial writing I've ever encountered."
Jul 01, 2024
In her
dissent against the U.S. Supreme Court's Monday ruling in Trump v. United States, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor listed several acts that she argued the high court's right-wing supermajority has effectively sanctioned as unprosecutable exercises of presidential authority.
"Orders the Navy's SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune," wrote Sotomayor. "Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
The high court's 6-3 decision along ideological lines granted former President Donald Trump "absolute immunity" for acts that fall within the scope of the "responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution," as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
The new ruling leaves it to the lower courts to determine whether the election-subversion acts for which Trump was charged last year in a case led by Special Counsel Jack Smith were "official" or "unofficial." The Supreme Court took more than four months to decide the case after agreeing to hear it, meaning Trump is unlikely to face trial before the November presidential election.
The Associated Pressnoted that the Supreme Court "further restricted prosecutors by prohibiting them from using any official acts as evidence in trying to prove a president's unofficial actions violated the law"—a move that Sotomayor condemned as "nonsensical."
While Roberts acknowledged that "not everything the president does is official," Sotomayor argued that the majority's expansion of "the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds" means that "a president's use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution."
"Whenever the president wields the enormous power of his office, the majority says, the criminal law (at least presumptively) cannot touch him," wrote Sotomayor. "Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the president and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law."
Sotomayor: Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent. pic.twitter.com/sJjM6iMvk1
— Leah Litman (@LeahLitman) July 1, 2024
Sotomayor expressed "fear for our democracy" as she closed her dissent against the ruling by the Supreme Court's majority, two members of which have recently faced intense scrutiny and calls to resign for accepting lavish gifts from right-wing billionaires.
"Justice Sotomayor's alarmed dissent was signed 'with fear for our democracy,'" U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said in a statement Monday. "This is a blaring warning to voters of the anti-democratic forces pulling the strings both at the Supreme Court and in the Republican Party."
"Not only does this decision deprive the American people of knowing whether the former president is guilty of attempting to overturn the last election before they head to the polls in November, it also makes it much harder to hold a former president accountable for illegal acts committed while in office," said Whitehouse. "The far-right radicals on the court have essentially made the president a monarch above the law, the Founding Fathers' greatest fear."
Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the U.S. courts for Slate, called Sotomayor's dissent "one of the most terrified and terrifying pieces of judicial writing I've ever encountered."
Pointing to Sotomayor's dissent, U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) wrote Monday that "it is a dark day for democracy when presidents can commit any crime they want in their official capacity, and these justices are bribed for their decisions."
"Coup attempts are not 'official acts,'" she added.
Also writing in dissent was liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who warned that "in the majority's view, while all other citizens of the United States must do their jobs and live their lives within the confines of criminal prohibitions, the president cannot be made to do so; he must sometimes be exempt from the law's dictates depending on the character of his conduct."
"Indeed, the majority holds that the president, unlike anyone else in our country, is comparatively free to engage in criminal acts in furtherance of his official duties," wrote Jackson, who criticized the right-wing majority's "arbitrary and irrational" attempt to distinguish between official and unofficial acts.
"It suggests that the unofficial criminal acts of a president are the only ones worthy of prosecution," the justice continued. "Quite to the contrary, it is when the president commits crimes using his unparalleled official powers that the risks of abuse and autocracy will be most dire."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Justice Jackson Warns New Ruling Could 'Devastate' Federal Regulators
The liberal justice said Congress can remedy the "profoundly destabilizing" decision by passing legislation to strengthen the federal regulatory regime.
Jul 01, 2024
As the U.S. Supreme Court dealt yet another blow to the federal government's regulatory authority, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday stressed that "the ball is in Congress' court" to enact legislation to "forestall the coming chaos" wrought by the right-wing supermajority's decision.
The justices ruled 6-3 in Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that the Administrative Procedures Act's (APA) statute of limitations period does not begin until a plaintiff is adversely affected by a regulation. The ruling reverses a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Corner Post—a North Dakota truck stop that challenged a U.S. Federal Reserve rule capping debit card swipe fees—because the six-year statute of limitations on such challenges had passed.
Monday's ruling makes it much easier to sue government agencies. As Sydney Bryant and Devon Ombres at the Center for American Progress explained, the decision "is intended to allow a swarm of legal challenges to rules that have protected the American people from bad actors and corporate malfeasance for decades."
"Corner Post is not the story of David versus Goliath but rather the Trojan Horse, where moneyed interests attempt to sneak in their anti-regulation politics under the guise of altruism."
In a dissent joined by fellow liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Jackson wrote that "today, the majority throws... caution to the wind and engages in the same kind of misguided reasoning about statutory limitations periods that we have previously admonished."
"The court's baseless conclusion means that there is effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face," she continued. "Allowing every new commercial entity to bring fresh facial challenges to long-existing regulations is profoundly destabilizing for both government and businesses. It also allows well-heeled litigants to game the system by creating new entities or finding new plaintiffs whenever they blow past the statutory deadline."
"At the end of a momentous term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the court's holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the federal government," Jackson added, referring to last week's 6-3 overturning of the so-called Chevron doctrine, the legal principle under which courts deferred to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws passed by Congress.
While numerous business advocates welcomed Monday's ruling, a broad range of consumer, labor, and other groups echoed the alarm in Jackson's dissent.
"Americans expect that safeguards will protect us and our families from unsafe food, products, polluted air and water, and dangerous and unfair working conditions. This decision provides special interests, opposed to the safeguards that people rely upon, with more opportunities to challenge and seek to overturn these important protections," said Rachel Weintraub, executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards.
Weintraub added that the ruling "undermines federal agencies' ability to use administrative courts to impose civil penalties for violating regulatory protections" and "starkly impedes agencies' ability to protect the public."
Bryant and Ombres wrote that "Corner Post is not the story of David versus Goliath but rather the Trojan Horse, where moneyed interests attempt to sneak in their anti-regulation politics under the guise of altruism."
Jackson's dissent states that "Congress still has a chance to address this absurdity and forestall the coming chaos" by "clarifying that the statutes it enacts are designed to facilitate the functioning of agencies, not to hobble them."
"In particular, Congress can amend §2401(a)," Jackson offered, referring to the default six-year statute of limitations, "or enact a specific review provision for APA claims, to state explicitly what any such rule must mean if it is to operate as a limitations period in this context: Regulated entities have six years from the date of the agency action to bring a lawsuit seeking to have it changed or invalidated; after that, facial challenges must end."
"By doing this," she added, "Congress can make clear that lawsuits bringing facial claims against agencies are not personal attack vehicles for new entities created just for that purpose."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular