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
belize
Biden Urged to 'Fight Like Hell' for Global Covid Funds as New Summit Announced
The governments hosting the summit--the United States, Belize, Germany, Indonesia, and Senegal--said in a joint statement that the May 12 virtual conference "will redouble our collective efforts to end the acute phase of the Covid-19 pandemic and prepare for future health threats."
The co-hosts said the conference will "build on the themes and commitments" made at the first Global Covid-19 Summit, which was hosted virtually by Biden last September. Top agenda items include "getting shots in arms," as well as increasing testing and treatment, expanding and protecting health workers, boosting local manufacturing of "medical countermeasures," and funding preparedness for future pandemics.
At last year's summit, Biden promised the United States would become the world's "arsenal for vaccines" and would donate 1.1 billion Covid-19 doses of the inoculations to the developing world by 2023. An analysis published last month by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen warned that the administration was likely to miss even that modest goal unless it increased donations by 50%.
Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen's Access to Medicines program, asserted Monday that the summit is "late and necessary."
"The U.S. could show up empty-handed to its own summit, making it harder to summon commitments, unless Congress funds the global fight," he warned.
Last month, the House of Representatives slashed $5 billion in proposed global pandemic response funding from an omnibus spending bill, money the administration had requested to carry out its National Covid-19 Preparedness Plan. Without that funding, the administration's program to combat the pandemic around the world is in danger of stalling.
At the time Maybarduk called the cut "a choice to extend the pandemic."
"Five billion dollars is the bare minimum; far less than what is needed," he warned on Monday. "The White House needs to fight like hell for that money and much more."
News of the second summit comes as the World Health Organization reportedly prepares to release an estimate based on more than a year of research that around 15 million people worldwide have died during the pandemic.
Related Content
Rich Nations, Big Pharma Still Blocking 'Early Exit' From Pandemic: Experts
At last year's summit, Biden called upon the world's nations to work toward vaccinating 70% of the world's population within a year. Experts warned that the summit's goals fell far short of what was needed to end the pandemic and downplayed the obligations of wealthy nations to end vaccine, testing, and treatment apartheid caused by government policies more aligned with the interests of the pharmaceutical industry than with global public health.
According to the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center, 4.4 billion people, or 57.8% of the world's population, have been fully vaccinated against the coronavirus. However, inoculation rates are far lower in much of the Global South. In 16 nations--13 of them in sub-Saharan Africa--less than 10% of the population has been fully vaccinated. In Haiti, the rate is 1.02%. In Burundi, it's less than one-tenth of one percent.
A February 22 Lancet article noted:
Widening gaps in global vaccine equity have led to a two-track pandemic with booster Covid-19 vaccinations proliferating in high-income countries... and first doses not yet reaching all populations in low-income countries. Early in the pandemic, the Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility (COVAX) promised equitable vaccine supplies for all countries. However, with insufficient funds and donations, COVAX has faltered, failing to meet even half of its 2021 target of delivering two billion doses.
"As we enter the third year of the pandemic and the new Omicron variant emerges, we recognize that the pandemic has been prolonged by corporate greed and vaccine inequity endorsed by many of our world leaders," Rhiannon Osborne and Dr. Marie-Claire Wangari wrote in a report published last month.
"The pandemic has been prolonged by corporate greed and vaccine inequity endorsed by many of our world leaders."
"To date, the insufficient vaccine supply to countries in the Global South has led to many preventable deaths," they continued." Rich countries have hoarded vaccine doses, leaving other countries without the protection they need and having to rely on donations. Despite public funding of vaccine research and development, pharma monopolies are still not waiving intellectual property rights for the Covid-19 vaccine, which would save lives."
While more than 100 countries--including a handful of wealthy nations like the United States and France--support a proposal by India and South Africa to waive parts of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the European Union, as well as rich countries such as the United Kingdom, Norway, Singapore, and Switzerland, have fought to block its adoption.
International Support Grows for Mexico's Lawsuit Against US Gun-Makers
Law.com reports attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon joined an amicus brief filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey urging a federal court in Boston to deny the gun-makers' motions to dismiss the suit.
"States and cities have the right to protect residents with reasonable gun laws--and federal law doesn't shield companies from complying," Washington, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine, a Democrat, tweeted Tuesday.
The Trace reports Alejandro Celorio Alcantara, principal legal adviser of Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said: "I feel very encouraged because this means that what we are doing as a government is worth doing. We are confirming that the missing link in this whole equation of illicit trafficking is the gun companies. And I think that's recognized on both sides of the border."
According to Law.com:
A separate brief filed by Ellen Leonida, a partner at BraunHagey & Borden, on behalf of a coalition of U.S. district attorneys asserts that U.S. cities have been negatively impacted by the guns trafficked into Mexico, saying those weapons end up on U.S. streets alongside vast quantities of illicit drugs. Leonida also linked the weapons trafficking to rising homicides and overdose deaths in the U.S.
Signees to that amicus brief include Melinda Katz, district attorney for Queens County, New York, and San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin.
"The defendant gun manufacturers send guns to Mexico, where transnational drug cartels use them to inflict violence on both sides of the border," Boudin said in a statement. "These gun manufacturers are empowering the drug traffickers flooding our streets with fentanyl and methamphetamines."
Reuters reports that the countries of Belize as well as Antigua and Barbuda on Monday filed separate briefs urging the court to deny the defendants' motions to dismiss the suit, arguing that U.S. gun-makers "must not be permitted to hold hostage the law-abiding citizens of an entire region of the world."
Various U.S. gun violence prevention groups--including Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Global Exchange, March for Our Lives, Newtown Action Alliance, and the Violence Policy Center--also on Monday filed an amicus brief in support of Mexico's litigation.
"As this case shows, the impact of irresponsible gun industry practices can have devastating effects on communities--whether in the U.S. or abroad," Alla Lefkowitz, senior director of affirmative litigation at Everytown Law, said in a statement. "The gun industry has refused to accept that it has a critical role to play in preventing gun violence. No industry should be able to operate with impunity, and we'll continue to fight on every front to hold reckless actors in the industry accountable for the harm they cause."
Last August, Mexico sued companies including Smith & Wesson, Barrett Firearms, Beretta USA, Colt's Manufacturing Co., Glock, and Sturm, Ruger & Co., seeking as much as $10 billion in compensation after linking more than 17,000 of the nation's 34,648 homicides in 2019 to weapons trafficked from the United States.
Related Content
Mexico Files Historic Lawsuit Against US Gun Companies Fueling Cartel Carnage
"Almost all guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico--70% to 90% of them--were trafficked from the U.S.," the lawsuit states, adding that it seeks to "put an end to the massive damage that the defendants cause by actively facilitating the unlawful trafficking of their guns to drug cartels and other criminals in Mexico."
According to Reuters:
The companies have argued Mexico has failed to establish its harms were attributable to them and that a U.S. law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, protected gun-makers from lawsuits over their products' misuse.
Mexico's lawyers in a filing on Monday countered that the law only precludes lawsuits over injuries that occur in the United States and would not shield the companies from allegations over the trafficking of guns to Mexican criminals.
"The enormous and militarized U.S. gun market has accelerated violence in Mexico, which in turn has forced migrants to seek asylum in the United States," John Lindsay-Poland, coordinator of the Stop U.S. Arms to Mexico project at Global Exchange, said in a statement.
"Criminal organizations in Mexico make profits based on territory they control, for which they use U.S.-sourced, military-grade weapons," he added. "The assault and sniper rifles aggressively marketed by the gun company defendants provide a perfect supply for such violence. Global Exchange stands with those seeking to change the U.S. weapons industry's practices."
12 Years to Save the Planet? Make That 18 Months
Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that to keep the rise in global temperatures below 1.5C this century, emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be cut by 45% by 2030.
But today, observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.
The idea that 2020 is a firm deadline was eloquently addressed by one of the world's top climate scientists, speaking back in 2017.
The climate math is brutally clear: While the world can't be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020," said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder and now director emeritus of the Potsdam Climate Institute.
The sense that the end of next year is the last chance saloon for climate change is becoming clearer all the time.
"I am firmly of the view that the next 18 months will decide our ability to keep climate change to survivable levels and to restore nature to the equilibrium we need for our survival," said Prince Charles, speaking at a reception for Commonwealth foreign ministers recently.
So why are the next 18 months so important?
The Prince was looking ahead to a series of critical UN meetings that are due to take place between now and the end of 2020.
Ever since a global climate agreement was signed in Paris in December 2015, negotiators have been consumed with arguing about the rulebook for the pact.
But under the terms of the deal, countries have also promised to improve their carbon-cutting plans by the end of next year.
One of the understated headlines in last year's IPCC report was that global emissions of carbon dioxide must peak by 2020 to keep the planet below 1.5C.
Current plans are nowhere near strong enough to keep temperatures below the so-called safe limit. Right now, we are heading towards 3C of heating by 2100 not 1.5.
As countries usually scope out their plans over five and 10 year timeframes, if the 45% carbon cut target by 2030 is to be met then the plans really need to be on the table by the end of 2020.
What are the steps?
The first major hurdle will be the special climate summit called by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, which will be held in New York on 23 September.
Mr Guterres has been clear that he only wants countries to come to the UN if they can make significant offers to improve their national carbon cutting plans.
This will be followed by COP25 in Santiago, Chile, where the most important achievement will likely be keeping the process moving forward.
But the really big moment will most likely be in the UK at COP26, which takes place at the end of 2020.
The UK government believes it can use the opportunity of COP26, in a post-Brexit world, to show that Britain can build the political will for progress, in the same way the French used their diplomatic muscle to make the Paris deal happen.
"If we succeed in our bid (to host COP26) then we will ensure we build on the Paris agreement and reflect the scientific evidence accumulating now that we need to go further and faster," said Environment Secretary Michael Gove, in what may have been his last major speech in the job.
"And we need at COP26 to ensure other countries are serious about their obligations and that means leading by example. Together we must take all the steps necessary to restrict global warming to at least 1.5C."
Reasons to be cheerful?
Whether it's the evidence of heatwaves, or the influence of Swedish school striker Greta Thunberg, or the rise of Extinction Rebellion, there has been a marked change in public interest in stories about climate change and a hunger for solutions that people can put in place in their own lives.
People are demanding significant action, and politicians in many countries have woken up to these changes.
Ideas like the green new deal in the US, which might have seemed unfeasible a few years ago have gained real traction.
Some countries like the UK have gone even further and legislated for net zero emissions by 2050, the long-term goal that will keep temperatures down.
Prince Charles' sense that the next 18 months are critical is shared by some climate negotiators.
"Our group of small island developing states share Prince Charles's sense of the profound urgency for ambitious climate action," said ambassador Janine Felson from Belize who is the chief strategist for the Alliance of Small Island States group in the UN.
"All at once we are witness to a collective convergence of public mobilisation, worsening climatic impacts and dire scientific warnings that compel decisive climate leadership."
"Without question, 2020 is a hard deadline for that leadership to finally manifest itself."
Reasons to be fearful?
With exquisite timing, the likely UK COP in 2020 could also be the moment the US finally pulls out of the Paris agreement.
But if Donald Trump doesn't prevail in the presidential election that position could change, with a democrat victor likely to reverse the decision.
Either step could have huge consequences for the climate fight.
Right now a number of countries seem keen to slow down progress. Last December the US, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Russia blocked the IPCC special report on 1.5C from UN talks.
Just a few weeks ago in Bonn, further objections from Saudi Arabia meant it was again dropped from the UN negotiations, much to annoyance of small island states and developing nations.
There will be significant pressure on the host country to ensure substantial progress. But if there's ongoing political turmoil around Brexit then the government may not have the bandwidth to unpick the multiple global challenges that climate change presents.
"If we cannot use that moment to accelerate ambition we will have no chance of getting to a 1.5 or 2C limit," said Prof Michael Jacobs, from the University of Sheffield, a former climate adviser to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
"Right now there's nothing like enough understanding of, or commitment to, this among leading countries. That's why the UN Secretary General is holding a summit in September.
"It's great that the COP might be in UK because we have a big civil society ecosystem and much higher climate awareness than in most other countries. But the movement here has barely started to think about how to apply sufficient pressure."
There's also been a strong warning shot from the UK's Committee on Climate Change (CCC).
At the launch of their review of progress made by the UK government on tackling climate change, the country was found not to be on track despite legislating for net zero emissions by 2050.
"The government must show it is serious about its legal obligations...[its] credibility really is at stake here," said CCC chief executive Chris Stark.
"There is a window over the next 12-18 months to do something about this. If we don't see that, I fear the government will be embarrassed at COP26."
And it's not all about climate change
While the decisions taken on climate change in the next year or so will be critical, there are a number of other key gatherings on the environment that will shape the nature on preserving species and protecting our oceans in the coming decades.
Earlier this year a major study on the losses being felt across the natural world as result of broader human impacts caused a huge stir among governments.
The IPBES report showed that up to one million species could be lost in coming decades.
To address this, governments will meet in China next year to try to agree a deal that will protect creatures of all types.
The Convention on Biological Diversity is the UN body tasked with putting together a plan to protect nature up to 2030.
Next year's meeting could be a "Paris agreement" moment for the natural world. If agreement is found it's likely there will be an emphasis on sustainable farming and fishing. It will urge greater protection for species and a limit on deforestation.
Next year, the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea will also meet to negotiate a new global oceans treaty.
This has the potential to make a real difference, according to UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove.
"We have been convinced by the evidence of environmental degradation which occurs without adequate protection," he said in a speech last week.
"And that is why the United Kingdom has taken the lead in ensuring at least 30% of the ocean we are responsible for is protected by 2030 - a trebling of the present target. We will be asking all nations to sign up to that goal."
If all this comes to pass, the world might have a fighting chance of preserving our natural environment.
But the challenges are huge, the political involvement patchy.
So don't hold your breath!
Follow Matt on Twitter.
Trump-Linked Christian Fundamentalists Are Pouring Dark Money Into Europe, Boosting the Far Right
They are spending money on a scale "not previously imagined," according to lawmakers and human rights advocates, who have called openDemocracy's findings "shocking."
They are spending money on a scale "not previously imagined," according to lawmakers and human rights advocates, who have called openDemocracy's findings "shocking."
Among the biggest spenders is a group whose chief counsel is also Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow. Another organization has collaborated with a controversial Rome-based institute backed by Steve Bannon.
None of these American groups discloses who its donors are--though at least two have links to famous conservative billionaires, such as the Koch brothers (who helped bankroll the Tea Party movement) and the family of Trump's education secretary, Betsy DeVos.
'Nobody should be in any doubt as to the insidious nature of these fundamentalist groups'
The increasing ties between some of these Christian conservative groups and the European far right will be on display this weekend at a summit of the World Congress of Families (WCF): a network of American, Russian and other ultra-conservative activists.
Right-wing politicians and their supporters from across Europe are expected to attend the event in Verona, Italy--including the Italian deputy prime minister, Matteo Salvini, who has described the WCF as a showcase for "the Europe that we like."
A cross-party group of more than 40 members of the European Parliament (MEPs) has called on the EU's transparency tsar Frans Timmermans to look into the influence of "U.S. Christian fundamentalists... with the greatest urgency" ahead of May's European Parliament elections.
In a letter reacting to openDemocracy's findings, and copied to the presidents of the European Council, European Commission and European Parliament, the MEPs have demanded action to protect European democracy "against nefarious outside influences."
Scottish National Party MEP Alyn Smith, who sits on the European Parliament's foreign affairs committee and signed the letter, said on Wednesday: "This investigation by openDemocracy is extremely timely and shines a light on a major challenge facing democracy in Europe."
OpenDemocracy's findings "are highly alarming, and nobody should be in any doubt as to the insidious nature of these fundamentalist groups," he continued. "No group of any kind should be able to use dark money to distort debate and to subvert democracy in Europe, least of all groups such as these whose causes are deeply regressive."
'The Europe we like'
OpenDemocracy has examined a decade of U.S. Christian organizations' financial accounts and found that several of them appear to have significantly increased their spending in Europe over the past five years.
These findings come as far-right parties aim for big wins in the upcoming European Parliament elections in May, and show how large amounts of foreign money have supported the spread of their "traditional values" messages.
OpenDemocracy has reviewed hundreds of pages of financial filings for a dozen religious conservative groups that are registered as tax-exempt non-profit organizations, and thus are required to disclose some information about their foreign spending.
Some of these groups have been previously accused of supporting campaigns to criminalize homosexuality in Africa, "draconian" anti-abortion laws in Latin America and controversial projects to encourage gay people in the United States to "leave homosexuality."
But the extent of their European activity has--until now--received little scrutiny. The new investigation reveals that some of these groups have:
- Sent teams of lobbyists to Brussels to influence EU officials
- Challenged laws against discrimination and hate speech in European courts
- Supported campaigns against LGBTQ rights in the Czech Republic and Romania
- Funded a network of seemingly grassroots anti-abortion campaigns in Italy and Spain
- Deployed ambulance-chasing evangelists after tragedies such as the Grenfell Tower fire, and in the wake of terrorist attacks
Five of the conservative groups have previously been listed as partners of the World Congress of Families (WCF) network, which is meeting in Verona this week.
It's not just European politicians who are concerned about them: These groups are controversial in America too. The WCF itself has been described as an "anti-LGBT hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which monitors extremist movements and tracks this network's increasing connections with the far right.
The SPLC explains that "viewing homosexuality as unbiblical or simply opposing same-sex marriage" is not enough to be categorized as a "hate group." Groups on this list go further--claiming that homosexuality is dangerous, linked to pedophilia, and should be criminalized, disseminating "disparaging 'facts' about LGBT people that are simply untrue."
This is, says SPLC, "no different to how white supremacists and nativist extremists propagate lies about black people and immigrants to make these communities seem like a danger to society."
Joseph Grabowski, a WCF spokesperson, told openDemocracy: "We dispute entirely the premise [of the 'hate group' designation]... It's an unfortunate slight for the countless Americans and the people around the world who hold the same views as we do on marriage, the nature of family and the right to life, that are part of the fabric of Christianity and also other traditional points of view," he said.
The WCF is a project of the International Organization for the Family and the Illinois-based Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, whose directors include an ultra-conservative Spanish activist linked to the leader of the far-right Vox party.
Other directors include a close associate of a Russian oligarch who sponsored a 2014 "secret meeting" in Vienna with key French and Austrian far-right leaders--and an Italian politician facing corruption charges in his country.
Over the last decade, the WCF has hosted at least seven major meetings in Europe, attended by hundreds of religious right activists and a growing list of far-right politicians. Its 2017 meeting in Budapest was opened by Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban.
Among the conveners of this week's event in Verona is an Italian anti-abortion group linked to the neo-fascist Forza Nuova party, whose leader is also expected to attend the WCF.
Trump, the far-right and the Christian 'legal army'
Two of the Trump-linked groups examined by openDemocracy are Christian-right legal powerhouses: Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the American Center for Law and Justice. Together, they have spent more than $20 million in Europe since 2008.
They don't disclose their funders, but journalists have previously traced at least $1 million in grants to ADF from a foundation controlled by the billionaire family of Betsy DeVos, Trump's education secretary, and Erik Prince, founder of the Blackwater mercenary firm.
ADF was co-founded by Alan Sears, a Christian-right leader who co-authored a book against "the homosexual agenda." It is increasingly active internationally, including in Latin America. It supported a 2016 law in Belize making gay sex punishable with 10 years in jail.
This group tripled its annual spending in Europe between 2012 and 2016, to more than $2.6 million a year. It now has offices in Belgium, France, Austria, Switzerland and the UK, and spends hundreds of thousands of euros lobbying EU officials, according to separate transparency data.
Among its European projects, the group supported the defense of a notorious German activist who compared abortion to the Holocaust and accused specific doctors of murder.
This year, ADF International also co-hosted an event with the French group La Manif Pour Tous, which has been previously been linked to the far-right party Front National.
Ahead of the last European Parliament elections in 2014, La Manif Pour Tous launched a "Europe for Family" campaign that got 230 French candidates to sign a pledge opposing marriage equality, trans rights and sex education.
Speaking to openDemocracy, a spokesperson for ADF International said they are "exclusively privately funded by people from all over the world, who care about human rights" and that their activities include "advocating for freedom of speech in Europe."
Asked for more detail about whom the group gives its money to, they said: "Since our advocacy involves court cases in countries where people are harassed, stigmatized, and even killed because of their religious convictions, it is our general policy not to disclose any recipients of funding in order to protect their personal safety and livelihoods."
The second of the two Trump-linked groups, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), also operates through the courts. It was founded in 1990 by American televangelist Pat Robertson to oppose the American Civil Liberties Union.
The group's current chief counsel is Jay Sekulow, a conservative talk-show host who has been described as "the top lawyer" on Donald Trump's legal team in the Mueller inquiry.
This group has had an office in Strasbourg, France--home of the European Court of Human Rights--for more than 20 years, from where it has intervened in numerous cases on issues including same-sex marriage, abortion rights and artificial insemination.
The director of its Strasbourg outfit has also represented the Holy See at the Council of Europe, while its Moscow center has praised Putin's laws banning "gay propaganda."
Trump, Franklin Graham and U.S.-sanctioned Kremlin officials
The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association is another major spender. It is led by the famous evangelical preacher's son, Franklin Graham, who said Satan is the architect of same-sex marriage and described Islam as an "evil and very wicked religion."
Franklin Graham, who has supported Trump as someone who "defends the faith," was in Russia earlier this month meeting with Kremlin officials under U.S. sanctions, on a trip that he said was personally signed off on by Vice President Michael Pence.
In 2018, his group organized festivals in England and Scotland amid protests from Muslim and LGBT rights groups. It also supports "rapid response chaplains" that target crises and have been accused of "chasing ambulances" and "exploiting tragedy."
Its filings disclose more than $23 million spent in Europe through two different U.S. entities between 2008 and 2014--making it the largest spender in this region, of the American groups analyzed by openDemocracy.
However, 2014 is the latest year for which openDemocracy was able to find public documents for this group, which has offices in the UK, Germany, France and Spain, so the true extent of its influence in the region is not yet known.
Training Europeans, on the 'front lines of the Culture War'
A number of groups spending smaller amounts of money appear to have increased their activities in Europe in recent years.
The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, which combines a conservative Christian worldview with free-market economics, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Koch family foundations.
This group spent more than $1.7 million in Europe since 2008, with its spending in the region rising in recent years (from around $166,000 in 2008 to almost $240,000 in 2017).
In Italy, it has collaborated with the Dignitatis Humanae Institute--of which Steve Bannon is a trustee--that has locally controversial plans to use a monastery outside Rome as a "gladiator school for culture warriors."
Also on the list is the U.S. branch of the Tradition, Family and Property (TFP), an ultra-conservative transnational Catholic movement that says it's "on the front lines of the Culture War, peacefully defending the values of tradition, family and private ownership."
This group said it spent about $100,000 in Europe since 2010. Its filings don't detail where this money went, but the TFP has been linked to a controversial think tank in Poland that has helped develop policies for far-right Law and Justice (PiS) politicians.
A 'wake-up call' to prevent 'foreign interference'
Under U.S. law, the groups analyzed by openDemocracy are required to publicly disclose some information about their foreign spending, but not the names of their overseas recipients, details of what activities they fund--or the identities of their own funders.
The $50 million figure drawn from openDemocracy's analysis is also a likely underestimation of the resources that U.S. conservatives have channeled into Europe in recent years.
Data for 2018 is not yet available; meanwhile, there are some important loopholes. Religious organizations registered as churches, for example, don't need to file the same disclosures.
A number of other U.S. Christian conservative groups appear to be spending money in Europe, but do not disclose this on their U.S. filings--including the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society, which has coordinated the WCF network.
Reacting to openDemocracy's findings, German Green MEP Terry Reintke, who sits on equality-related committees at the European Parliament, said: "This extreme extent of financial support flooding the EU is shocking--especially with the European elections ahead of us."
Every day European societies face concerted attacks by outside forces seeking to impose reproductive coercion... This is utterly at odds with the European values of democracy and human rights."
The SNP MEP Alyn Smith has said he and his fellow parliamentarians who signed Wednesday's letter have called for the mobilization of "EU institutions and member states in preventing malign actors such as those identified in the investigation from interfering in the European Parliament elections in May--and beyond."
Caroline Hickson, regional director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation's European Network, said: "The scale of this meddling by U.S. extremists is shocking, but sadly no surprise to us. Every day European societies face concerted attacks by outside forces seeking to impose reproductive coercion... This is utterly at odds with the European values of democracy and human rights."
"This is dark money coming into Europe to threaten human rights, and we're not doing anything about it," warned Neil Datta, secretary of the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development, describing the amounts of money involved as "staggering."
"It took the Christian right 30 years to get to where they are now in the White House," he said. "We knew a similar effort was happening in Europe, but this should be a wake-up call that this is happening even faster and on a grander scale than many experts could have ever imagined."
Additional reporting by Peter Geoghegan.
This article was produced by openDemocracy in partnership with the Independent Media Institute.
Breaking the 2 Degree Habit: Why 1.5 Is Critical
This was one of the greatest achievements of the 2015 Paris Agreement: the hard fought ambition gains in global temperature limits. Limiting global warming to 2 degrees no longer cuts it. It no longer prevents climate breakdown. Paris redefined this goal, demanding efforts to limit warming to well below 2 degrees and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5.
And for good reason, the science - made all the more clear today - shows the dramatic difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees for the planet as we know it. From a climate impacts perspective, half a degree is massive as shown in this excellent visual below from the World Resources Institute on the report.
Importantly, today's report also shows that 1.5 degrees is possible. It will require a redefinition of climate leadership - where climate leaders finally recognize that tweaks to business as usual will not adequately address the problem. We need climate leaders who say no to fossil fuel expansion, and who put an immediate end to financing dirty oil, coal, and gas, and actively and ambitiously plan for a just transition and a managed decline of existing fossil fuel production. But don't let anyone tell you that 1.5 is not possible - in fact this report proves that if the will is found, there is a way.
We also need the climate leaders to stand up the global climate deniers, such as Donald Trump or Australia's Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who recently said that there was no money for "global climate conferences and all that nonsense."
The global unprecedented effort will require transformational change in our energy systems and beyond.
While it was obvious before, faced with this report, champions of the Paris Agreement must face the urgent need to put an end to fossil fuel expansion:
- Canada is poised to build one of the world's largest LNG plants, is currently in the regulatory process for a giant new tar sands mine, and just purchased a massive tar sands pipeline and expansion project to facilitate the growth of the sector (which the government is currently trying to revive after being quashed in the courts).
- Norway is the world's 7th largest exporter of emissions continues to explore for and expand into some of the last frontiers for fossil fuels. Despite being one of the wealthiest countries in the world, Norway refuses meaningful climate leadership by ignoring the need for a managed decline of fossil fuel production.
- California's outgoing governor Jerry Brown wants his legacy to be defined by climate leadership, yet refuses to consider a Paris-aligned phase-out of the state's fossil fuel production.
- Germany is still actively destroying old growth forests to expand lignite coal mining.
- In the UK, the first shale gas or fracking well could start any day and the Government is currently consulting on taking fracking planning decisions out of democratic control.
These are just a few examples of the hypocrisy that so-called climate leaders must be confronted with. Of course doing what it takes for 1.5 will require action from everyone, everywhere, but as noted in the Lofoten Declaration, "it is the urgent responsibility and moral obligation of wealthy fossil fuel producers to lead in putting an end to fossil fuel development and to manage the decline of existing production."
That isn't to say there aren't inspiring examples of leadership. To date, 5 countries (New Zealand, France, Costa Rica, Ireland, and Belize) are in various stages of legislating bans on new fossil fuel exploration and expansion, with many sub-national jurisdictions doing the same. Even the World Bank has put an end to financing upstream fossil fuel production, adding to over $6.3 trillion in assets who have divested from fossil fuels.
Beyond the scientific imperative provided by this report, governments and investors will also need the energy scenarios to help them get to 1.5 degrees, including ones that can serve as roadmaps to success from energy authorities like the International Energy Agency (in its reaction to the special report, the World Coal Association pointed to the IEA as justification for the need for continued coal production). Governments and investors should demand a Paris compliant scenario from the IEA as soon as possible to inform decision making.
The alarm bells for climate have been ringing for decades, but as we come face-to-face with the horrific impacts scientists warned of, the excuses for inaction really are up. Now more than ever, the movements that have been built will need to work together to demand a just and equitable transformation to the safe and clean energy future we need.
Most Popular