SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
350.org on W. Virginia vs. EPA decision of Supreme Court
Today the United States Supreme Court has announced their decision on West Virginia v. EPA, which limits the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
In response to the Supreme Court decision, May Boeve, 350.org Executive Director, said:
"Following on the June 24 decision on Roe v. Wade, we again take a clear stance against this Supreme Court decision which will have drastic negative consequences on the health and well-being of millions of Americans.
WASHINGTON
Today the United States Supreme Court has announced their decision on West Virginia v. EPA, which limits the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
In response to the Supreme Court decision, May Boeve, 350.org Executive Director, said:
"Following on the June 24 decision on Roe v. Wade, we again take a clear stance against this Supreme Court decision which will have drastic negative consequences on the health and well-being of millions of Americans.
Today's decision on West Virginia v. EPA has seriously diminished the Environmental Protection Agency's vital ability to do its job, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court has sided with the fossil fuel industry, stripping federal agencies of many of their intended powers. For the EPA, that means its power to protect the environment, our communities, and our economy from a growing climate crisis. According to the Wall St. Journal, inaction on climate could cost the global economy $178 Trillion by 2070."
By limiting the EPA's authority to regulate pollution from the energy sector, which accounts for a quarter of the U.S. emissions that are contributing to climate change, the Supreme Court is putting our families, our environment, our health, and our future in danger.
We're calling on President Biden to send a signal to the industry and SCOTUS by stopping the federal approval of all new fossil fuel projects that are harming our communities and fueling climate chaos. He must stop subsidizing fossil fuel industries, and divert public monies towards accelerating a just, clean, and renewable energy transition, which will also benefit the economy and combat inflation. The time for executive action on climate is now - we have no more time to waste."
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
'Let's See If I Get Banned Again!' Journalist Releases Team Trump Rubio Dossier
Trump's reported pick for secretary of state previously suggested the president-elect "could not be trusted with America's nuclear codes" and criticized him for "using language in seeming praise of Putin."
Nov 12, 2024
With U.S. President-elect Donald Trump reportedly set to pick Sen. Marco Rubio as his secretary of state, journalist Ken Klippenstein on Tuesday published a 551-page dossier that the campaign previously compiled on the Florida Republican.
Like the dossier on Vice President-elect JD Vance that Klippenstein released on KLIPNEWS in September, the Rubio file "was offered to major media outlets this summer," the independent journalist noted. "All refused to publish it, not over questions about its authenticity, but because the media thinks it is an arm of the national security state, complying with U.S. government's warnings that because the document came from Iran, the American people shouldn't see it."
"Let's see if I get banned again!" Klippenstein said Tuesday on X, the social media platform formerly called Twitter and now owned by billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk. Klippenstein was "permanently" suspended over the Vance dossier, but after The New York Timesreported last month that the Trump campaign coordinated with X to suppress the document, Musk had Klippenstein reinstated in the name of "free speech principles," according to correspondence obtained by the journalist.
The latest dossier, Klippenstein noted, "is authentic and there are no signs it was altered, something spokespersons for both the Trump campaign and Rubio did not deny when I contacted them for comment and provided them with copies of the dossier."
The journalist highlighted sections of the document detailing Rubio's past remarks about Trump related to Russian collusion in 2016, the 2020 election, Trump's control over nuclear weapons, the September 11 terrorist attacks, Russian President Vladimir Putin, NATO, North Korea's Kim Jong Un, free trade, China, immigration, Iran, the Iraq war, and the U.S. withdrawal from Syria.
For example, the dossier notes that "in 2016, Rubio contended that Trump was dangerous and could not be trusted with America's nuclear codes," and "in 2022, Rubio said it was 'unfortunate' Trump was using language in seeming praise of Putin."
In addition to detailing Rubio's critiques of Trump and "undermining of the 'America First' agenda," the document—last updated April 1, 2024—lays out some of his "questionable" policy positions as well as "ethics issues" and "controversial associations."
So far, Trump's other reported or confirmed foreign policy picks are: Congressman Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) for national security adviser, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) for ambassador to the United Nations, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for ambassador to Israel, Steven C. Witkoff for special envoy to the Middle East, and Brian Hook to lead the U.S. State Department transition team.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Economists, Advocates Call On G20 Ministers to 'Make History' and Tax Superrich
"There are 16 people in the world who—if 99% of their wealth vanished overnight—would still be billionaires," said one campaigner. "We must tax the rich."
Nov 12, 2024
Ahead of the G20 Leader's Summit, scheduled to take place over two days next week in Rio de Janeiro, international economists on Tuesday were calling on economic ministers to take an historic step toward reducing global inequality by approving a tax on extreme wealth.
"Tax the rich" has been a rallying cry among economic justice advocates for years, but with the richest 1% of people now owning more wealth than the bottom 95%, some of the world's top economists and finance ministers in recent months have joined the call for a fair taxation system that demands the wealthiest households pay their fair share.
Jenny Ricks, general secretary of the Fight Equality Alliance (FIA), pointed out that taxing the richest people in the world would barely dent their fortunes—but for millions of people across the Global South, it could mean the difference between whether healthcare and public services are provided to them or not.
"There are 16 people in the world who—if 99% of their wealth vanished overnight—would still be billionaires," said Ricks. "We must tax the rich, end austerity, and cancel debt to ensure healthcare, education, and other essential public services for billions in the Global South. A growing movement of millions across the world is tired of the G20 upholding a broken system. A first step forward would be supporting an ambitious global deal to tax the superrich."
The five richest men in the world have doubled their wealth since 2020, while 60% of people have become poorer. The richest 1.5% of people in the world now control nearly half the world's wealth.
FIA warned that with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump scheduled to take office in January, global finance ministers must take action to rein in the "era of the billionaire" before leaders like Trump lavish their billionaire donors with more tax breaks, decimating public services.
"Countries are on track to lose $4.8 trillion in tax to tax havens over the next 10 years," said Nathalie Beghin, co-director of the Instituto de Estudos Socioeconômicos in Brazil. "Such unchecked tax evasion perpetuates inequality and undermines the foundation of sustainable economic development. At this historic moment, G20 leaders must demand the changes needed to transform an outdated, unfair system that's no longer fit for purpose—if it ever was."
Beghin, an economist, called on G20 leaders to support the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation (UNFCITC), which would "tackle illicit financial flows, rediscuss inefficient tax expenditures, [and] tax transnationals and high net worth individuals."
"If Brazil could tax its superrich, as a consequence of a global commitment, the country could stop austerity measures and implement social, environmental and adaptation policies to fight hunger, poverty, and climate change," said Beghin. "Making big companies and very wealthy individuals pay their fair share is also fundamental to tackle inequality."
At a meeting in Rio de Janeiro in July, global finance ministers agreed on the need to develop a global tax system in which the richest people in the world pay a higher tax rate—despite the protests of the United States delegation.
Zinnia Quirós Chacón, a campaigner with Oxfam International, called the upcoming G20 meeting "a once-in-a-lifetime chance to make history."
"For the first time ever, world leaders are close to agreeing on a global plan to tax the superrich," she said.
Oxfam and other groups participating in the Say It With Me Now campaign—an initiative aimed at showing the widespread support for a global wealth tax—posted a video on social media showing supporters around the world asking the G20 ministers to take decisive action.
"Tax the superrich and make the world a better place for everyone," said the supporters in the video. "They won't even notice anyway."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Newly Unearthed Docs Show Big Oil Knew of Climate Dangers as Early as 1950s
"Big Oil has been running public affairs campaigns to downplay the dangers of its products just as long as Big Tobacco," said one expert.
Nov 12, 2024
Documents uncovered from several academic and news archives shed light on what one climate disinformation expert on Tuesday called "one of the earliest and most brazen efforts by the oil industry to prop up" a front group with the aim of denying climate science and delaying action that would cut into the industry's profits by protecting the planet from steadily increasing fossil fuel emissions.
The Climate Investigations Center found a warning that came in 1954 from the head of the Air Pollution Foundation, a group funded by the Western Oil and Gas Association. According to DeSmog, which reported on the findings, the lobbying group, now known as the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), poured $1.3 million into the APF in the 1950s—the equivalent of $14 million in today's dollars.
APF was set up with the public-facing intent of confronting the worsening smog crisis in Los Angeles, where the number of cars had doubled between 1940-50 and the area was rapidly industrializing.
But with funding coming from Western Oil and Gas Association members including Shell and companies that were later bought by ExxonMobil, Chervon, and other oil giants, the foundation was meant to be "protective" of the industry, as meeting minutes from 1955 showed.
At the time of APF's founding, researchers had begun warning that air pollution was caused by vehicles and refineries, and officials in Los Angeles had begun proposing new ordinances to cut down on smog.
To counter this, the foundation asked the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) to submit a proposal determining the main source of air pollution. Caltech geochemistry professor Samuel Epstein submitted a proposal in November 1954, warning that the Earth's climate could be affected by burning fossil fuels.
The "concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere" was a matter "of well recognized importance to our civilization," wrote Epstein.
After the report was submitted, APF president Lauren Hitchcock, a chemical engineer who had been recruited to lead the group, began investigating oil and gas refineries and publicly demanding pollution controls across California—actions that didn't please the industry giants who were backing APF.
As DeSmog reported, leaders of the Western Oil and Gas Association "summoned Hitchcock to the California Club where they reprimanded him, spelling out in no uncertain terms exactly what they expected in return for their hefty financial contributions."
According to the report:
Over lunch, WSPA's oilmen criticized Hitchcock for supporting pollution controls across California, for drawing "attention" to refinery pollution, and for conducting "too broad a program" of research. Instead, they told him they had formed the Air Pollution Foundation to be "protective," that Hitchcock should serve as "the research director for the oil industry" and the foundation should publish "findings which would be accepted as unbiased" where the oil industry's findings were not seen as trustworthy. This frank exchange, reported in detail by Hitchcock in a never-before-seen memo, unmasks the strategic motivations behind Big Oil's sponsorship of air pollution research.
Hitchcock resigned from APF in 1956, after many of the group's research projects were scaled back and the organization took the official stance in reports that carbon dioxide emissions were "innocuous."
"This is where Big Oil's climate disinformation began," said Aimee Dewing, a communications strategist focusing on environmental justice.
APF and the intervention from its funders "helped lay the strategic and organizational groundwork for Big Oil's decades of climate denial and delay," Geoffrey Supran, a climate disinformation expert at the University of Miami, toldThe Guardian.
"The fossil fuel industry is often seen as having followed in the footsteps of the tobacco industry's playbook for denying science and blocking regulation," added Supran. "But these documents suggest that Big Oil has been running public affairs campaigns to downplay the dangers of its products just as long as Big Tobacco, starting with air pollution in the early-to-mid-1950s."
DeSmog's report comes nearly two years after Shell and ExxonMobil were revealed to have known about the impact of fossil fuels on the climate earlier than previously reported.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular