radiofree.asia

Author: Kenny Stancil

  • ‘Beautiful’: Minnesota Becomes 4th State to Provide Free School Meals to All Kids



    Surrounded by students, teachers, and advocates, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Friday afternoon signed into law a bill to provide breakfast and lunch at no cost to all of the state’s roughly 820,000 K-12 pupils regardless of their household income.

    The move to make Minnesota the fourth U.S. state to guarantee universal free school meals—joining California, Maine, and Colorado—elicited praise from progressives.

    “Beautiful,” tweeted Stephanie Kelton, a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University.

    “No child should go hungry for any reason, period.”

    UC-Berkeley professor and former U.S. labor secretary Robert Reich wrote on social media: “Let this serve as a reminder that poverty is a policy choice. In the richest country in the world, it is absolutely inexcusable that millions of our children go to school hungry because they are living in poverty.”

    An estimated 1 in 6 children in Minnesota don’t get enough to eat on a regular basis. But 1 in 4 food-insecure kids live in households that don’t qualify for the federal free and reduced meal program, leading to “mounting school lunch debts in the tens of thousands of dollars,” Minnesota Public Radio reported.

    Tens of thousands of children are set to benefit from Minnesota’s new law, which could be operational as early as summer school in July. Some of them were there to thank Walz at the signing ceremony, where the sense of elation was palpable.

    “As a former teacher, I know that providing free breakfast and lunch for our students is one of the best investments we can make to lower costs, support Minnesota’s working families, and care for our young learners and the future of our state,” Walz said. “This bill puts us one step closer to making Minnesota the best state for kids to grow up, and I am grateful to all of the legislators and advocates for making it happen.”

    The Minnesota House—led by the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) Party, the state’s Democratic affiliate—first passed the bill in February in a 70-58 party-line vote. The state Senate—where the DFL holds just a single-seat advantage—approved it on Tuesday by a 38-26 margin. The state House rubber-stamped an amended version of the bill on Thursday.

    In a now-viral clip from the state Senate’s debate over the bill earlier this week. Sen. Steve Drazkowski (R-20) questioned whether hunger is really a problem in Minnesota—even as the state’s food banks reported a record surge in visits last year, months before federal lawmakers slashed pandemic-era Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

    “I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that is hungry,” Drazkowski said before voting against the bill. “I have yet to meet a person in Minnesota that says they don’t have access to enough food to eat.”

    During Friday’s signing ceremony, Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (DFL) said, “To our decision-makers who believe they have never met someone who is experiencing or has experienced hunger: Hi, my name is Peggy Flanagan, and I was 1 in 6 of those Minnesota children who experienced hunger.”

    “By providing free breakfast and lunch to all of our students, we are removing barriers and removing stigma from the lunch room,” said Flanagan. “We are helping family pocketbooks, especially for those 1 in 4 who don’t qualify for financial assistance with school meals. We are leading with our values that no child should go hungry for any reason, period.”

    “This is an investment in the well-being of our children, as well as an investment in their academic success,” Flanagan added, calling the “generation-changing” bill “the most important thing” she’s ever worked on in her life.

    “By providing free breakfast and lunch to all of our students, we are removing barriers and removing stigma from the lunch room… This is an investment in the well-being of our children, as well as an investment in their academic success.”

    As Minnesota Reformer reported: “The majority of Minnesota schools receive federal funding from the National School Lunch Program, which reimburses schools for each meal served, though it doesn’t cover the cost of the entire meal. Under the new law, schools are prohibited from charging students for the remaining cost, and the state will foot the rest of the bill—about $200 million annually.”

    MPR noted that “the legislation is similar to a program that was introduced during the pandemic to provide meals for all students, but was discontinued at the end of last year.”

    Last month, The Star Tribune editorial board opined that providing free breakfast and lunch to all of Minnesota’s students, including affluent ones, is “excessive.”

    Pushing back against this argument for means-testing, Darcy Stueber—director of Nutrition Services for Mankato Area Public Schools and public policy chair of the Minnesota School Nutrition Association—asserted that meals should be guaranteed to all kids at no cost, just like other basic learning necessities.

    “We don’t charge for Chromebooks and desks and things like that,” she told MPR. “It’s a part of their day and they’re there for so many hours. It just completes that whole learning experience for the child.”

    Minnesota Rep. Sydney Jordan (DFL-60A), the bill’s lead author, made the same point to counter GOP lawmakers’ complaints following the initial passage of the legislation.

    “We give every kid in our school a desk,” Jordan said last month. “There are lots of kids out there that can afford to buy a desk, but they get a desk because they go to school.”

    Walz, for his part, stressed Friday that his administration is “just getting started” when it comes to boosting education funding.

    “The big stuff,” said the governor, “is still coming.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘Threat to the Nation’: Trump Calls for Protests to Stop Potential Arrest in Echo of Jan. 6



    Former U.S. President Donald Trump claimed Saturday on his social media platform that he “will be arrested” on Tuesday and implored his supporters to “protest” and “take our nation back,” sparking fears of additional right-wing violence.

    Trump’s call to action was reminiscent of how, six weeks after losing the 2020 presidential election, he took to Twitter to urge his supporters to join a “big protest” in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021. “Be there, will be wild!” he wrote. Hundreds of far-right insurrectionists showed up and, after Trump told them to march from a rally near the White House to the Capitol, stormed the halls of Congress in a bid to prevent lawmakers from certifying President Joe Biden’s win. Multiple people died as a result of the failed coup, which was fueled by Trump and his Republican allies’ incessant lies about voter fraud.

    Trump is expected to be indicted by a Manhattan grand jury in a criminal case involving hush money paid to women who said they had sexual encounters with the former president, but its timing is unclear.

    Just before 7:30 am ET on Saturday, Trump baselessly declared on Truth Social: “Illegal leaks from a corrupt and highly political Manhattan district attorney’s office… indicate that, with no crime being able to be proven… the far and away leading Republican candidate and former president of the United States of America will be arrested on Tuesday of next week. Protest, take our nation back!”

    Alluding to Trump’s prior use of social media to provoke the Capitol attack, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington asked, “Will Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube allow him to use their platforms to incite riots?”

    Mother Jones‘ D.C. bureau chief David Corn, meanwhile, noted that Trump has recently “excused or dismissed the violence of January 6.”

    “He is an authoritarian willing to (again) use violence for his own ends,” Corn tweeted. “That is a threat to the nation.”

    As HuffPost‘s senior White House correspondent S.V. Dáte pointed out, “The coup-attempting former president… began inciting civil unrest if prosecutors came after him more than a year ago.”

    At a January 2022 rally in Texas, Trump promised to pardon January 6 rioters if he wins in 2024 and urged huge protests if prosecutors investigating his effort to subvert the 2020 election and other alleged crimes try to bring charges.

    “If these radical, vicious, racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had… in Washington, D.C., in New York, in Atlanta, and elsewhere because our country and our elections are corrupt,” Trump told a crowd of his supporters 14 months ago.

    According to The New York Times:

    Early Saturday morning, there was little evidence yet that Mr. Trump’s new demand for protests had been embraced by extremist groups.

    But Ali Alexander, a prominent organizer of “Stop the Steal” rallies after the 2020 election, reposted a message on his Telegram channel on Saturday suggesting that he supported mass protest to protect Mr. Trump.

    “Previously, I had said if Trump was arrested or under the threat of a perp walk, 100,000 patriots should shut down all routes to Mar-a-Lago,” Mr. Alexander wrote. “Now I’m retired. I’ll pray for him though!”

    Lacking the platform provided by the White House or the machinery of a large political campaign, it is unclear how many people Mr. Trump is able to reach, let alone mobilize, using his Truth Social website.

    After the FBI in early August searched Trump’s Mar-a-Lago palace and removed boxes of documents as part of a federal probe into the ex-president’s handling of classified materials, many anonymous and some well-known reactionaries called for “civil war” on Twitter, patriots.win, and elsewhere.

    Three days later, Ricky Shiffer, a Trump loyalist with suspected ties to a far-right extremist group and an unspecified connection to the January 6 insurrection, was shot and killed by police after an hourslong standoff. Shiffer, wielding an AR-15 and a nail gun, allegedly attempted to break into the FBI’s Cincinnati office and fled to a nearby field when he was unsuccessful.

    Meanwhile, Trump continued to lie about the Mar-a-Lago search on Truth Social, sparking an “unprecedented” surge in threats against FBI personnel and facilities.

    As Dáte noted on Saturday morning, many people downplayed warnings issued ahead of the January 6 assault.

    “Many of Trump’s core supporters want authoritarianism,” the journalist tweeted. “They believe in neither democracy nor the rule of law.”

    As the Times reported:

    Although prosecutors working for the [Manhattan] district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, have signaled that an indictment of Mr. Trump could be imminent, there was no immediate indication as to why the former president appeared confident that he would be arrested Tuesday. People with knowledge of the matter have said that at least one more witness is expected to testify in front of the grand jury, which could slightly delay any indictment.

    Three people close to Mr. Trump said that the former president’s team had no specific knowledge about when an indictment might come or when an arrest could be anticipated. One of those people, who were not authorized to speak publicly, said that Mr. Trump’s advisers’ best guess was that it could happen around Tuesday, and that someone may have relayed that to him, but that they also had made clear to one another that they didn’t know a specific time frame.

    Trump is expected to be charged in connection with payments his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, made to silence adult film actress Stormy Daniels and Playboy model Karen McDougal—both of whom alleged affairs with Trump—in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

    Cohen has testified that at Trump’s direction, he orchestrated payments totaling $280,000 to Daniels and McDougal. According to Cohen, the Trump Organization reimbursed him $420,000 and classified it as a legal fee. Trump’s former fixer pleaded guilty to federal campaign violations in 2018.

    Trump has so far evaded charges but that could soon change, as prosecutors are expected to accuse Trump of greenlighting the false recording of expenses in his company’s internal records.

    Citing five unnamed officials familiar with the matter, NBC News reported Friday that local, state, and federal law enforcement and security agencies are preparing for the possibility of a Trump indictment as early as next week.

    If indicted, Trump would become the first U.S. president to face criminal charges in or out of office. Trump, who has denied all wrongdoing, says that he will keep campaigning regardless of whether he is arrested.

    The Manhattan D.A.’s hush money probe is just one of Trump’s many legal woes. The twice-impeached president is also facing a state-level criminal investigation in Georgia over his efforts to overturn that state’s 2020 election results, as well as federal probes into his coup attempt and his handling of classified government documents.

    Nevertheless, Trump is still seen as the front-runner to win the GOP’s 2024 nomination.

    David Aronberg, the state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, said Saturday morning that if Trump is indicted in New York, “there will be protests here,” warning: “You have to worry about potential violence.”

    He pointed out that questions remain as to whether Trump would surrender to New York authorities or face extradition. Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, another authoritarian demagogue who is widely considered Trump’s leading rival for the GOP’s 2024 nomination, “has to sign off [any] extradition orders,” said Aronberg.

    The Times noted that if “Trump is arraigned, he will almost certainly be released without spending any time behind bars because the indictment is likely to contain only nonviolent felony charges.”

    However, The Associated Press reported that it is not clear when the other investigations into Trump “will end or whether they might result in criminal charges.”

    “But they will continue regardless of what happens in New York,” the outlet explained, “underscoring the ongoing gravity—and broad geographic scope—of the legal challenges confronting the former president.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Six Island Nations Commit to ‘Fossil Fuel-Free Pacific,’ Demand Global Just Transition



    Climate justice advocates celebrated Friday after a half-dozen island nations committed to building a “fossil fuel-free Pacific” and urged all governments to join them in bringing about an equitable phaseout of coal, oil, and gas.

    From Wednesday to Friday, Vanuatu and Tuvalu co-hosted the 2nd Pacific Ministerial Dialogue on Pathways for the Global Just Transition from Fossil Fuels in Port Vila, Vanuatu. The summit came amid an ongoing state of emergency in Vanuatu, which was hammered earlier this month by a pair of Category 4 cyclones. Participants described the current devastation as “just the most recent example of the extensive and ongoing fossil fuel-induced loss and damage suffered by” Pacific Islanders.

    At the conclusion of the three-day meeting, ministers and officials from six countries—Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Tonga, Fiji, Niue, and the Solomon Islands—agreed on the Port Vila Call for a Just Transition to a Fossil Fuel-Free Pacific.

    The resolution—issued “on behalf of present and future generations, communities on the frontlines, and all of humanity”—calls for immediate international action to accelerate a just transition from dirty to clean energy in accordance with what experts have shown is necessary to avert the worst consequences of the climate crisis.

    “The science is clear that fossil fuels are to blame for the climate emergency,” says the document. “This is a crisis driven by the greed of an exploitative industry and its enablers. It is not acceptable that countries and companies are still planning on producing more than double the amount of fossil fuels by 2030 than the world can burn to limit warming to 1.5°C.”

    “Every second wasted on climate inaction and clinging to fossil fuels puts lives, homes, livelihoods, cultures, and ecosystems in jeopardy.”

    Among other things, the resolution implores policymakers in the Pacific and around the world to join the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) and negotiate a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty (FFNPT) to end the expansion of coal, oil, and gas extraction and to expedite a fair global shift to renewables. It also cautions lawmakers to avoid phrases like “unabated” or “inefficient,” warning that such terminology “creates loopholes for fossil fuel producers.”

    In a statement, Oil Change International global policy lead Romain Ioualalen said, “Faced with devastating climate impacts resulting from the world’s continued addiction to fossil fuels, Pacific governments have once again demonstrated what true leadership looks like.”

    “The contrast between the U.S. and other rich countries approving new oil and gas fields in clear defiance of science, and the commitment to build a prosperous and resilient fossil fuel-free Pacific could not be more obvious and highlights the complete disregard the fossil fuel industry and its enablers have for people and communities most affected by the climate crisis,” said Ioualalen. “Countries must urgently heed the call for an immediate end to fossil fuel expansion that is emanating from the Pacific. We look forward to Pacific countries continuing to be vocal champions for a just and equitable phaseout of fossil fuels on the global stage, including at COP28 later this year.”

    Samoan climate justice activist Brianna Fruean said that “this dialogue of Pacific ministers is stepping outside of the box and acknowledging that we must try new ways to save ourselves—and that is going to require a fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty.”

    “While the guilty continue to reap profit off the expansion of fossil fuels behind our backs,” said Fruean, “the meeting is bringing renewed energy to Pacific leadership that will not just echo across our islands but drive action with our allies globally.”

    Despite bearing almost no historical responsibility for the climate crisis, Pacific Islanders are acutely vulnerable to rising sea levels and increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather. Policymakers from the region have long been leaders in demanding ambitious efforts to slash greenhouse gas pollution at speed and scale, including by putting the idea of a FFNPT on the table in 2016. Just last year, Vanuatu and Tuvalu became the first national governments to endorse such a measure, while Tuvalu also recently joined the BOGA as a core member.

    “Every second wasted on climate inaction and clinging to fossil fuels puts lives, homes, livelihoods, cultures, and ecosystems in jeopardy,” said Lavetanalagi Seru, regional policy coordinator at Pacific Islands Climate Action Network. “As Pacific leaders shoulder the burden of climate leadership, the Port Vila Call for a Just Transition to a Fossil Fuel-Free Pacific is a reminder that despite the doom and gloom, another world is possible, a fossil fuel-free world that is just, equitable, and sustainable.”

    The region’s new resolution states that “we have the power and responsibility to lead, and we will. Pacific leaders called for the Paris agreement to limit warming to 1.5°C, and have demanded an end to the development and expansion of fossil fuel-extracting industries, starting with new coal mines. Pacific civil society has challenged the world to step up the fight for urgent fossil fuel phaseout and effective climate action.”

    In recent weeks, Vanuatu has been leading an ongoing push for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on “how existing international laws can be applied to strengthen action on climate change, protect people and the environment, and save the Paris agreement.”

    The document unveiled Friday calls for “redoubled efforts to reaffirm, strengthen, and codify legal obligations with respect to the global phaseout of fossil fuels,” including by supporting the adoption of the Vanuatu-led ICJ resolution at the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly at the end of this month.

    “The contrast between the U.S. and other rich countries approving new oil and gas fields in clear defiance of science, and the commitment to build a prosperous and resilient fossil fuel-free Pacific could not be more obvious.”

    According to Seru, “The phaseout of fossil fuels is not only a challenge, but an opportunity to promote economic development and innovation in the Pacific region.”

    To that end, the Port Vila document calls for “new Pacific-tailored development pathways based on 100% renewable energy.”

    350.org Pacific managing director Joseph Sikulu welcomed this week’s developments, saying in a statement that “our people need global leaders to follow the innovation of Pacific representatives at the Pacific Ministerial Dialogue, it is a matter of survival.”

    “Our people also need energy to power their homes, their fishing boats, and their schools, which is where we are ready to work with governments in their commitment to progress the development and implementation of fossil-free development pathways at the grassroots level,” he added.

    In order to make that a reality, the document calls for increasing “public and private finance for the just transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy at the scale required, with innovative, simplified mechanisms and reforms of existing financial institutions.”

    Cansin Leylim, 350.org associate director of global campaigns, applauded Pacific Island nations for “once again showing immense leadership in the fight against the climate crisis, a crisis they had no part in creating.”

    “Pacific leaders have told us time and again—in order to stay below 1.5°C, the historically responsible countries need to immediately commit to a fossil fuel-free future without loopholes,” said Leylim. “This means ensuring adequate and grant-based climate finance is swiftly mobilized to both adapt to the crisis and limit the heating to survival limits, ensuring energy independence and resource resilience with renewable energy.”

    Tzeporah Berman, chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, predicted that this week’s “historic meeting” will “have far-reaching consequences.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Nuclear Plant, Minnesota Officials Hid 400,000-Gallon Leak of Radioactive Water for Months



    Xcel Energy in late November told Minnesota and federal officials about a leak of 400,000 gallons of water contaminated with radioactive tritium at its Monticello nuclear power plant, but it wasn’t until Thursday that the incident and ongoing cleanup effort were made public.

    In a statement, Xcel said Thursday that it “took swift action to contain the leak to the plant site, which poses no health and safety risk to the local community or the environment.”

    “Ongoing monitoring from over two dozen on-site monitoring wells confirms that the leaked water is fully contained on-site and has not been detected beyond the facility or in any local drinking water,” the company added.

    The Monticello plant, adjacent to the Mississippi River, is roughly 35 miles northwest of Minneapolis.

    Asked why it didn’t notify the public sooner, the Minneapolis-based utility giant said: “We understand the importance of quickly informing the communities we serve if a situation poses an immediate threat to health and safety. In this case, there was no such threat.”

    But Excel wasn’t the only entity with knowledge of the situation. The company said it alerted the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and state authorities on November 22, the day the leak was confirmed.

    According to The Star Tribune: “A high level of tritium in groundwater was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when first discovered, which published the ‘nonemergency’ report in its public list of nuclear events the next day. The listing said the source of the tritium was being investigated.”

    As Minnesota Public Radio explained, “The NRC’s November public notice was not in a news release” and was only visible “online at the bottom of a list of ‘non-emergency’ event notification reports.”

    Asked why they waited four months to inform residents, state regulators who are monitoring the cleanup said they were waiting for more information.

    “We knew there was a presence of tritium in one monitoring well, however Xcel had not yet identified the source of the leak and its location,” Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) spokesperson Michael Rafferty said Thursday.

    The source of the leak—a broken pipe connecting two buildings—was detected on December 19 and quickly patched.

    “Now that we have all the information about where the leak occurred, how much was released into groundwater, and that contaminated groundwater had moved beyond the original location, we are sharing this information,” said Rafferty.

    Dan Huff, assistant commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), said, “If at any time someone’s health is at risk, we would notify folks immediately.” However, he continued, “this is a contained site underneath the Xcel plant and it has not threatened any Minnesotans’ health.”

    Echoing Xcel and MDH officials, MPCA said in a statement: “The leak has been stopped and has not reached the Mississippi River or contaminated drinking water sources. There is no evidence at this time to indicate a risk to any drinking water wells in the vicinity of the plant.”

    Kirk Koudelka, MPCA assistant commissioner for land and strategic initiatives, declared that “our top priority is protecting residents and the environment.”

    “The MPCA is working closely with other state agencies to oversee Xcel Energy’s monitoring data and cleanup activities,” said Koudelka. “We are working to ensure this cleanup is concluded as thoroughly as possible with minimal or no risk to drinking water supplies.”

    Since reporting the leak, Xcel has been pumping, storing, and processing contaminated groundwater, which “contains tritium levels below federal thresholds,” according to The Associated Press.

    As the news outlet reported:

    Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that occurs naturally in the environment and is a common by-product of nuclear plant operations. It emits a weak form of beta radiation that does not travel very far and cannot penetrate human skin, according to the NRC. A person who drank water from a spill would get only a low dose, the NRC says.

    The NRC says tritium spills happen from time to time at nuclear plants, but that it has repeatedly determined that they’ve either remained limited to the plant property or involved such low offsite levels that they didn’t affect public health or safety. Xcel reported a small tritium leak at Monticello in 2009.

    Xcel said it has recovered about 25% of the spilled tritium so far, that recovery efforts will continue and that it will install a permanent solution this spring.

    “Xcel Energy is considering building above-ground storage tanks to store the contaminated water it recovers, and is considering options for the treatment, reuse, or final disposal of the collected tritium and water,” AP noted. “State regulators will review the options the company selects.”

    As MPR reported, news of the leak “comes as Xcel is asking federal regulators to extend Monticello’s operating license through 2050—when the plant will be nearly 80 years old.”

    The company says that doing so “is critical to meeting a new state law mandating fully carbon-free electricity by 2040,” The Star Tribune reported.

    But on social media, commentators pointed out that such pollution “doesn’t happen with solar and wind.”

    “Building more nuclear power plants is a bad solution to the climate crisis,” one user from Minnesota tweeted. “A good solution is more wind turbines and solar panels.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Groups Vow to Sue Biden for Ignoring Demand to End Drilling on Public Lands

    Three environmental groups on Thursday filed a 30-day
    notice of their intent to sue the Biden administration for refusing to respond to a petition to wind down fossil fuel extraction on public lands and waters.

    Signed by a coalition of more than 360 progressive advocacy organizations, the January 2022
    petition submitted to President Joe Biden and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland provides a framework to slash federal oil and gas production by 98% by 2035 using long-dormant provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the National Emergencies Act.

    Research published after the petition was submitted shows that wealthy countries must end oil and gas production entirely by 2034 to give the world a 50% chance of meeting the Paris agreement’s more ambitious goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C—beyond which the climate emergency’s impacts will grow increasingly deadly, especially for the world’s poor who have done the least to cause the crisis.

    And yet, not only has the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) ignored the coalition’s regulatory blueprint for more than a year, but the agency on Monday approved the Willow project—ConocoPhillips’ massive oil drilling operation in Alaska’s North Slope. This decision, which prompted a pair of separate lawsuits, was the latest but far from the only time that Biden has reneged on his 2020 promise to curb federal fossil fuel extraction. A recent analysis from the Center for Biological Diversity shows that the Biden administration rubber-stamped more permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands in its first two years than the Trump administration did in 2017 and 2018.

    “Biden’s approval of the climate-killing Willow project shows how desperately we need rules cracking down on runaway oil and gas extraction on public lands,” Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity said Thursday in a
    statement. “The climate deadline to end oil and gas extraction in the U.S. is 2034, and the natural place to start is on land the federal government controls. It’s pathetic that legal action is needed to force the administration to act.”

    With Thursday’s notice, the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, and WildEarth Guardians informed Haaland that they intend to sue DOI for “unreasonable delay” if, 30 days from now, the agency “has still not initiated rulemaking or provided a substantive response” to last year’s petition.

    The Administrative Procedure Act requires federal agencies to respond to such petitions within a “reasonable” amount of time, the groups explained. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, they argued, DOI’s 14-month period of inaction violates federal law.

    “We can’t frack our way to a safe climate and this lawsuit aims to ensure President Biden’s administration heeds the reality that we need to transition the United States away from both the consumption and production of oil and gas.”

    “Far from living up to his promise to protect the climate, President Biden is actually undermining his commitment to the American public to end fossil fuel leasing,” said Jeremy Nichols, climate and energy program director for WildEarth Guardians. “We can’t frack our way to a safe climate and this lawsuit aims to ensure President Biden’s administration heeds the reality that we need to transition the United States away from both the consumption and production of oil and gas.”

    As a presidential candidate, Biden vowed to prohibit new oil and gas lease sales on public lands and waters and to require federal permitting decisions to weigh the social costs of additional greenhouse gas pollution. Although Biden issued an executive order suspending new fossil fuel leasing during his first week in office, his administration’s actions since then have flown in the face of earlier pledges.

    On August 24, 2021, DOI argued that it had no choice but to restart lease auctions due to a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. Judge Terry A. Doughty, a Trump appointee who ruled in favor of Big Oil-funded Republican attorneys general who sued Biden over his moratorium. In a memorandum of opposition filed on the same day, however, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) asserted that while Doughty’s decision blocked the implementation of Biden’s pause, it did not force the DOI to hold new lease sales, “let alone on the urgent timeline specified in plaintiffs’ contempt motion.”

    Just days after Biden described global warming as “an existential threat to human existence” and declared Washington’s purported commitment to decarbonization at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, the DOI ignored the DOJ’s legal advice and moved forward with Lease Sale 257. The nation’s largest-ever offshore auction, which saw more than 80 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico offered to the highest-bidding oil and gas drillers, was blocked in January 2022 by a federal judge who argued that the Biden administration violated environmental laws by not adequately considering the likely consequences of resulting emissions.

    “Interior’s delay on our petition to phase down fossil fuel extraction and development is not only unreasonable, it is simply unacceptable.”

    Despite Biden’s pledge to cut U.S. greenhouse gas pollution in half by the end of this decade, the DOI held lease sales in several Western states in 2022, opening up tens of thousands of acres of public land to fossil fuel production.

    Moreover, the White House supported the demands of right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.)—the top congressional recipient of fossil fuel industry cash during the 2022 election cycle and a longtime coal profiteer—to add oil and gas leasing provisions to the Inflation Reduction Act. The DOI has so far announced plans for multiple onshore and offshore lease sales in 2023.

    The president’s 2021 freeze on new lease auctions was intended to give the DOI time to assess the “potential climate and other impacts associated with oil and gas activities on public lands or in offshore waters.” The agency’s review of the federal leasing program effectively ignored the climate crisis, however, focusing instead on proposed adjustments to royalties, bids, and bonding in what environmental justice advocates characterized as a “shocking capitulation to the needs of corporate polluters.”

    The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that about 25% of the nation’s total carbon dioxide emissions and 7% of its overall methane emissions stem from fossil fuel extraction on public lands and waters. A 2015 analysis prepared for the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth warned that federal fossil fuels already leased to industry contain up to 43 billion tons of potential planet-heating pollution, and those not yet leased hold another 450 billion tons. According to peer-reviewed research, a nationwide ban on federal oil and gas leasing would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 280 million tons per year.

    “It’s tragic that climate chaos has raged on Biden’s watch,” Hallie Templeton, legal director for Friends of the Earth, said Thursday. “People are dying, sea levels are rising, and we are rapidly reaching the point of no return.”

    “Interior’s delay on our petition to phase down fossil fuel extraction and development is not only unreasonable, it is simply unacceptable,” said Templeton. “We hope that our lawsuit clears the administration’s apparent apathy and spurs the urgent action that this code-red moment calls for.”

  • Coalition Rises to ‘Stop the Merger’ of Kroger and Albertsons



    A progressive coalition of more than 100 unions and consumer advocacy groups from across the United States has come together to build the “Stop the Merger” campaign, a national and state-level effort to prevent Kroger from acquiring Albertsons and establishing the country’s most powerful grocery cartel.

    On Tuesday, the coalition announced the launch of NoGroceryMerger.com, which includes information about the negative impacts of the proposed $25 billion merger between two of the nation’s largest grocery chains, testimony from unionized grocery workers and elected officials, and tools for people to express their opposition to the potential deal.

    Individuals and organizations can sign the coalition’s letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is currently reviewing the grocery giants’ proposal and has the regulatory authority to reject it.

    If approved, the merger would likely “lead to store closures, worsen food deserts, increase prices for consumers, and destroy thousands of unionized grocery jobs,” the letter warns. “This deal is an antitrust travesty and it must be stopped.”

    Since the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted international supply chains—rendered fragile by decades of neoliberal globalization—Kroger, Albertsons, and other mega-grocers have capitalized on these crises as well as the bird flu outbreak, citing them to justify price hikes that far outpace the increased costs of doing business.

    Such price gouging has been exacerbated by preceding rounds of supermarket consolidation, and the coalition warns that if the proposed merger between Kroger and Albertsons goes through, it “will no doubt create a monopoly in the grocery industry.”

    Less competition, says the coalition, would result in even higher food prices and hundreds of shuttered stores—intensifying unequal access to healthy food. It also threatens to destroy thousands of jobs and hurt the ability of farmers and other suppliers to sell their products.

    “It’s simple: This merger will be bad for workers, bad for customers, and bad for our communities.”

    Cincinnati-based Kroger trails only Walmart in grocery sales, while Boise-based Albertsons is the fourth largest grocery chain in the U.S., behind Costco. Together, Kroger and Albertsons, including their numerous subsidiaries, employ more than 700,000 workers at roughly 5,000 retail stores and more than 50 manufacturing facilities across 48 states plus Washington, D.C.

    According to the campaign’s fact sheet, “If this merger goes through, the resulting company will become the largest supermarket by revenue in the United States with a current national market share of 36% and a combined annual sales of more than $200 billion.”

    As Michelle Freitas, a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 7 member who works at a Safeway in Gunnison, Colorado, noted: “My town only has two standalone grocery stores. If one closes and we only have one option, it will be a monopoly which means this new grocery company could raise food prices to exorbitant amounts.”

    “If the prices for essential goods go up, how are people who are lower-income or middle-income going to be able to survive?” she asked. “Many people who work at my store live paycheck to paycheck, including parents with small children and single moms.”

    Lawanna Archer, a UFCW Local 770 member who works at a Vons in Gardena, California, described the devastation that accompanied a merger between Albertsons and Haggen eight years ago.

    “The deal between Albertsons and Haggen in 2015 was really bad for workers,” said Archer. “I saw massive layoffs, cars being repossessed, foreclosures, and loss of benefits. I am a single mother and I provide for my daughter and myself. The Kroger and Albertsons merger could possibly impact us in the most harmful way ever.”

    Christina Robinett, another UFCW Local 770 member who endured that merger and now works at a Vons in Ojai, California, said, “After Haggen went bankrupt and shut down my store, I applied for work at four different stores.”

    “I wasn’t able to get a job for three months and I had to take side jobs as a seamstress and cleaning houses to make ends meet,” she said. “That merger caused me a lot of anxiety. No worker should go through this kind of hardship again.”

    The campaign’s website features several videos, including one in which Robert Reich, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley and former U.S. labor secretary, explains how the proposed merger “could send skyrocketing food prices through the stratosphere unless government sees the deal for what it is: a rotten egg.”

    Soon after the proposed deal was announced in October, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) implored the FTC to block it.

    Although consolidation in the grocery sector has, according to the American Economic Liberties Project, “previously been mismanaged by antitrust enforcers,” approval of Kroger’s buyout of Albertsons—the largest supermarket deal since Supervalu, CVS, and a group of investment firms bought Albertsons for $9.7 billion in 2006—is far from guaranteed.

    Federal officials, including FTC Chair Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, have both taken a more hard-nosed approach to mergers following decades of lax enforcement.

    The decision before regulators should be easy, the coalition argues.

    Its members have “written numerous letters to the FTC and state attorneys general, held meetings with federal and state elected officials and regulators, held press conferences and virtual town halls, attended public events on the merger hosted by government officials, and participated in various local community activities opposing the merger,” the coalition said in a statement. “All this activity has helped reveal growing evidence that shows the real motives for the proposed merger: corporate greed at the hands of C-suite executives and the private equity firms that are significant owners of their stock.”

    “It’s simple: This merger will be bad for workers, bad for customers, and bad for our communities,” reads the campaign website. “Union grocery workers, consumers, elected officials, and community members are standing together to fight for access to nutritious food, safe shopping experiences, and investment in good jobs in our communities.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • China Condemns US Plan to Sell Nuclear Submarines to Australia

    China accused Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of threatening peace in the Pacific region after leaders of the so-called AUKUS military partnership unveiled further information about their plan to expand the reach of Washington’s nuclear-powered submarine technology. “The latest joint statement from the U.S., U.K., and Australia demonstrates that the three countries…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Applause as Michigan House Dems Vote to Repeal Anti-Union ‘Right-to-Work’ Laws



    Progressives celebrated Thursday after Michigan’s Democratic-led House approved legislation that would rescind anti-union “right-to-work” laws imposed by Republican lawmakers in 2012 and restore prevailing wage requirements eliminated by the GOP in 2018.

    “Everyone deserves fairness and respect when they’re on the job, so seeing House Democrats vote to repeal the anti-union legislation and reinstate prevailing wage is incredible news for Michigan’s working families,” Progress Michigan executive director Lonnie Scott said in a statement.

    “The Legislature stood up yesterday and rejected the harmful pro-corporate, anti-worker policies of the past,” said Scott. “It’s a great example of what can happen when voters come together to elect a progressive majority.”

    State Rep. Jim Haadsma (D-44), chair of the House Labor Committee, made the same point Wednesday, saying that “exactly 120 days ago, Michiganders chose new leadership in the Michigan Legislature, and today demonstrates they chose leaders who will stand up for workers.”

    In party-line 56-53 votes, Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday night passed H.B. 4004 and H.B. 4005. The bills seek to nullify the state’s Republican-authored “right-to-work” laws affecting public and private sector workers.

    The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Janus vs. AFSCME barring public sector unions from collecting “fair share” fees “renders H.B. 4004 unenforceable,” Detroit Free Press reported. “But proponents of the bill want to change Michigan’s labor laws for public employees in the event the court overturns the decision.”

    Contrary to what the misleading name suggests, “right-to-work” laws do not guarantee employment to job-seekers. Instead, they prohibit employers and unions from entering into agreements that require every worker covered by a contract to pay union dues—making it harder for organized labor groups to sustain themselves financially, undermining workers’ collective bargaining power, and lowering wages by an average of $11,000 per year.

    The GOP’s so-called “right-to-work” agenda “has done nothing but hurt hardworking Michiganders,” said recently elected state Rep. Regina Weiss (D-27), the lead sponsor of both bills. “It has allowed people who don’t pay union dues to take advantage of union benefits.”

    “House Democrats will always stand in solidarity with working families, and the bills that were passed today restore the power of Michigan workers, give them the freedom to expand their rights, and deliver on our promise to put Michigan workers first,” Weiss added. “We are proud to stand with workers across our state and ensure that they have a seat at the bargaining table and their rights are restored.”

    “The bills passed last night are the first step in restoring the power of working people and unions after a decade of attacks by the DeVos family and Michigan Republicans.”

    Democrats also approved H.B. 4007 by a margin of 56-53. The bill aims to bring back the prevailing wage law that Republicans axed five years ago. It would require contractors hired for public construction projects to pay workers union-level wages.

    “House Democrats promised we would restore prevailing wage, and we have kept our promise. Michigan workers deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and that starts by ensuring fair wages,” said state Rep. Brenda Carter (D-53), the bill’s lead sponsor. “We must ensure our hardworking residents receive pay that’s in line with the value of their skills and services. We must also offer competitive wages in order to attract and retain a highly trained workforce because we do not want to see critical infrastructure projects built by contractors that cut corners.”

    Also on Wednesday, the lower chamber approved legislation that would codify LGBTQ+ protections and strengthen background checks for gun purchases. To become law, the bills must be passed by the Democratic-led state Senate and signed by Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

    In a statement, Whitmer applauded the House Labor Committee, which led the effort to reverse Republicans’ anti-union legislation, for prioritizing Michigan’s working class. “Working people,” the governor said, “should always have basic freedoms in the workplace without interference from the government.”

    To date, GOP lawmakers in 28 states have enacted so-called “right-to-work” laws, but Michigan Democrats are now on the verge of reducing that number to 27.

    State Rep. Matt Hall (R-63) has attempted to throw a wrench into the works by attaching a $1 million appropriation to H.B. 4004 and H.B. 4005.

    “The appropriation means that the legislation is not subject to a public referendum in which voters could reject the law,” Detroit Free Press explained. “Whitmer in her first term issued an executive directive promising to veto any legislation ‘that circumvents the right to a referendum.’”

    Scott, meanwhile, argued Thursday that “Republicans passing right-to-work in 2012 and repealing prevailing wage in 2018 had one goal: to undermine unions and workers’ ability to organize in the workplace.”

    “Those two actions were part of a generational fight by greedy corporate interests to eliminate unions so they can control the workplace and political institutions,” he added. “The bills passed last night are the first step in restoring the power of working people and unions after a decade of attacks by the DeVos family and Michigan Republicans.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Free Press Advocates Say FTC Has No Business Probing Journalist Interactions With Twitter



    Press freedom defenders on Wednesday expressed outrage after it was revealed that the Federal Trade Commission, as part of its investigation into Twitter’s data privacy practices, demanded that the social media giant “identify all journalists” given access to company records, including in relation to owner Elon Musk’s dissemination of the so-called “Twitter Files” purporting to expose censorship on the platform.

    “Anyone who cares about the free press should be concerned by the FTC’s demand that Twitter identify journalists who have received information that might embarrass the [Biden] administration, regardless of what they think of Elon Musk or Twitter,” Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) advocacy director Seth Stern said in a statement.

    According to FPF: “Government-compelled identification of journalists is dangerous on its own and enables further surveillance of those identified. Administrations from both political parties have overreached to spy on journalists—especially journalists investigating those in power.”

    “The Department of Justice has adopted policies against surveilling journalists,” the advocacy group noted, “but other agencies like the FTC have not.”

    The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that in addition to the names of journalists granted access to Twitter records, the FTC also sought internal communications related to Musk as well as information regarding layoffs, which the agency said could undermine the corporation’s capacity to protect users, and the launch of the Twitter Blue subscription service.

    FTC spokesperson Douglas Farrar told the newspaper that the agency is “conducting a rigorous investigation into Twitter’s compliance with a consent order that came into effect long before Mr. Musk purchased the company.”

    Farrar explained Wednesday on social media that Twitter in 2011 “agreed to a 20-year consent order over its data security practices and how it uses your private information.”

    “In 2022, the FTC charged Twitter with violating the 2011 order for misusing personal information. The company then paid a $150 million penalty and entered a new consent order,” he continued. “Besides the penalty, the FTC added further provisions to protect consumers’ sensitive data. This order was issued in May of 2022,” several months before Musk’s acquisition of the company was finalized.

    “The FTC should not have to violate the privacy of journalists to protect the privacy of Twitter users.”

    Farrar added that the 12 demand letters the FTC has sent to Twitter since Musk took over in late October “are nonpublic, but cherry-picked portions of some have recently been made public.”

    This happened after the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government published excerpts of the letters in an interim staff report about the FTC’s Twitter probe.

    As part of its investigation, the FTC on December 13 “asked about Twitter’s decision to give journalists access to internal company communications, a project Mr. Musk has dubbed the ‘Twitter Files’ and that he says sheds light on controversial decisions by previous management,” the Journal reported.

    According to the newspaper: “The agency asked Twitter to describe the ‘nature of access granted each person’ and how allowing that access ‘is consistent with your privacy and information security obligations under the order.’ It asked if Twitter conducted background checks on the journalists, and whether the journalists could access Twitter users’ personal messages.”

    Journalist Matt Taibbi—whose December 2 thread on Twitter’s 2020 decision to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story and subsequent reporting have put him at the center of the “Twitter Files” saga—tweeted Tuesday: “Which journalists a company or its executives talks to is not remotely the government’s business. This is an insane overreach.”

    In response, Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project, an anti-monopoly think tank, wrote that “the FTC is seeing whether Twitter is violating its consent decree on privacy.”

    Farrar doubled down on that claim Wednesday, writing: “FTC investigations are straightforward and nonpolitical. They are to ensure that companies are following the law, including protecting people’s privacy. The consent order the FTC has with Twitter isn’t about Musk’s acquisition of the company or their content moderation policies. This isn’t about free speech, it’s about the FTC doing its job to protect Americans’ privacy.”

    Stern, for his part, was unconvinced by Farrar and Stoller’s attempts to justify the FTC’s actions as an exercise in protecting consumers’ data.

    “The FTC,” said Stern, “should not have to violate the privacy of journalists to protect the privacy of Twitter users.”

    “It’s especially disturbing,” he continued, “that the demand could enable future efforts to obtain the journalists’ newsgathering materials.”

    The FTC’s actions underscore why Americans of all political persuasions “should support passing the PRESS Act,” Stern added. “It’s the only way to ensure that all administrations, and all government agencies, are prohibited from surveilling or retaliating against journalists.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘It’s Not an Accident, It’s a Crime’: Thousands March for Justice After Greek Train Disaster



    Tens of thousands of people marched throughout Greece on Wednesday—amid a nationwide walkout organized by labor unions and student associations—to demand accountability and reforms in the wake of the country’s deadliest train disaster, which has been attributed to austerity imposed from abroad.

    The February 28 crash that killed 57 people and injured another 72 has sparked public outrage over the deteriorating quality of the rail network. As Reuters reported, “Striking workers say years of neglect, underinvestment, and understaffing—a legacy of Greece’s decade-long debt crisis—are to blame.”

    “Greece sold its state-owned railway operator, now called Hellenic Train, to Italy’s state-owned Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane in 2017 during its debt crisis,” the news outlet noted. “The sale was a term in the country’s bailout agreements with the European Union and the Washington-based International Monetary Fund.”

    More than 40,000 workers and students hit the streets of Athens, where they chanted “murderers!” and “we are all in the same carriage.” Demonstrators in Greece’s capital and largest city also waved signs reading, It’s not an accident, it’s a crime” and, “It could have been any of us on that train.”

    Another 20,000-plus people rallied in Thessaloniki, Greece’s second-largest city. Meanwhile, near the scene of the train collision in Larrisa, protesters declared, “No to profits over our lives!”

    The demonstrations coincided with a daylong strike called by trade unionists. Greece’s largest public sector union participated in the work stoppage, disrupting a wide range of transit services, while a teachers’ union made clear that “it’s not the time to fall silent.”

    Rail workers, for their part, “have staged rolling, 24-hour strikes since Thursday, bringing the network to a halt,” Reuters reported. “The workers say their demands for improvement in safety protocols have gone unheard for years.”

    Police have responded to protests held across Greece since the disaster occurred with violent repression.

    Many of the roughly 350 passengers aboard an intercity train that collided with a freight train while traveling on the same track—including 12 victims—were university students returning to Thessaloniki from Athens.

    The stationmaster was arrested hours after the crash and is facing felony charges for disrupting transport and endangering lives.

    “You feel angry because the government did nothing for all of those kids,” 19-year-old Nikomathi Vathi told Reuters. “The public transport is a mess.”

    The main rail workers’ union has vowed to “impose safe railways so that no one will ever experience the tragic accident at Tempi ever again,” adding that “we have an obligation toward our fellow humans and our colleagues who were lost in the tragic accident.”

    Leftist former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis this week accused the Greek government of trying to “cover-up the real causes of our railway tragedy… by bypassing parliamentary scrutiny and appointing arbitrarily its own three-member investigative committee—on which, remarkably, they included a gentleman who oversaw the botched privatization of our railways—not to mention the prime minister’s pronouncement that the cause was human error.”

    Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the leader of Greece’s conservative government who is up for re-election this year, orginally blamed the crash on human error before apologizing Sunday and “acknowledging that decades of neglect could have contributed to the disaster,” Al Jazeera reported.

    Hours after the collision, former Transport Minister Kostas Karamanlis resigned. Mitsotakis appointed one of his closest allies, George Gerapetritis, to replace him.

    At a Wednesday morning press conference, Gerapetritis said that he understands why people are angry, apologized for the crash and promised to identify its causes, and announced that rail services are being suspended until at least the end of March while the government conducts a safety review.

    “No train will set off again if we have not secured safety at the maximum possible level,” said Gerapetritis. Greece’s new transport minister said the government plans to invest in upgrading infrastructure and hiring more staff.

    According to Al Jazeera correspondent John Psaropoulos, the press conference raised “more questions than answers” and is likely to make “the families of the victims even angrier.”

    As the news outlet reported:

    “First of all, we’ve learned that some of the automated systems that should have been in place throughout the Greek network, were in fact operational on the night of the accident in Larissa station,” said Psaropoulos.

    He explained that an automated optimal route selection for the train would have been possible, but was not used.

    “Secondly, it also doesn’t answer why two additional station masters who should have been on duty until 11:00 pm took off at 10:00 pm without permission. Thirdly, it does not answer why the train was about 15 minutes late in leaving,” he added, explaining how all these things contributed to the collision.

    “It suggests enormous problems in the operation and training of personnel,” said Psaropoulos.

    E.U. Railway Agency executive director Josef Doppelbauer told Euronews on Wednesday that his organization repeatedly warned Greek authorities of the need to shore up rail safety prior to the deadly crash.

    Despite years of warnings from regulators and the provision of funding to modernize the country’s railway network, Doppelbauer said, Greek officials failed to fully implement an automated rail traffic management system and other recommended changes. If they had, he added, the disaster likely would have been averted.

    European Commission (EC) President Ursula von der Leyen has pledged to provide technical support. Gerapetritis was set to meet with Doppelbauer and other transportation experts from the bloc later on Wednesday.

    Varoufakis, who served as Greece’s finance minister in 2015 when the “troika”—the EC, the European Central Bank, and the IMF—rammed through a devastating “structural adjustment” program, balked at Leyen’s offer, arguing that she helped bring about the crisis in the first place.

    The EC was part of the unelected troika that “railroaded the Greek government into the botched privatization that caused the tragedy,” he noted. “Keep your assistance dear Ursula. We have had enough.”

    Last week, the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25), which was co-founded by Varoufakis, argued that “the E.U. has blood on its hands.”

    The deadly collision “has further brought the negligence and corruption of the Greek government under scrutiny, and rightly so,” the group said. “However, the role of the European Union in the tragedy cannot go unmentioned either, as it was the E.U. and its institutions who forced Greece to sell off public utilities for a pittance to private—and in the case of the railways, bankrupt and incompetent—companies.”

    Erik Edman, spokesperson of the European Realistic Disobedience Front (MeRA25), a left-wing Greek political party founded by Varoufakis, denounced the E.U.’s posturing after it lowered its flags to half-mast on Friday to symbolically pay tribute to the victims of the crash.

    “The architects of the permanent impoverishment of the Greek state and the disastrous privatization of its public property are lowering their flags today,” said Edman. “The EC were the brains behind the haphazard privatization that forced the Greek state to sell the entirety of its national railways to the bankrupt (!) Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane for—I kid you not—a measly 45 million euros.”

    “They view demonstrations, such as those by Greek rail workers, as backward unionists opposing the efficiency of privatization,” Edman continued. “People who had been warning of an inevitable accident as a result of underinvestment. Their colleagues had been injured in past years, and now.”

    “They constantly praise the corrupt government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis as a ‘success story,’” he added. “So, they should either stand by the policies they’ve been supporting and keep the flags up, or take them down and put them away in shame. Anything else is hypocrisy of the worst kind.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • ‘The Movement Has Spread’: Strikes Across France Aim to Block Macron Attack on Pensions



    Hundreds of thousands of French workers walked off the job Tuesday and marched against the government’s effort, led by neoliberal President Emmanuel Macron, to raise the nation’s retirement age from 62 to 64.

    For the sixth time this year, French unions organized strikes and rallies to protest Macron and his legislative allies’ deeply unpopular attack on pension benefits. Police anticipated between 1.1 million and 1.4 million participants at more than 260 demonstrations nationwide. Laurent Berger, secretary-general of the French Democratic Confederation of Labor, estimated, based on initial figures, that Tuesday’s protests were the biggest since mobilizations started in mid-January.

    “The strike has begun everywhere,” said Eric Sellini of the General Confederation of Labor (CGT), which urged people to “bring France to a halt.”

    “If Emmanuel Macron doesn’t want France to come to a standstill and a dark week for the energy industry, it would be better for him to withdraw his reforms.”

    Energy workers impeded fuel deliveries, transit workers shut down most services, teacher walkouts prompted the closure of many schools, and garbage collectors’ ongoing work stoppage has led to a build-up of trash. Meanwhile, BBC News reported that “there will be calls to extend the strikes to include power generation” in the coming days.

    Thirty-eight-year-old activist Sarah Durieux, part of a massive, largely family-friendly crowd in Paris, told The Associated Press, “To see so many people today gives me hope.”

    “The movement has spread because to defend workers’ rights means defending a social model based on solidarity,” she added.

    Unionized workers blocked the exits to all eight oil refineries in mainland France on Tuesday, striking fear in Thierry Cotillard, president of Les Mousquetaires retail chain, who warned that “if the refineries are blocked we could run out of petrol by the end of the week.”

    It is unclear how long the blockades will last. But Emmanuel Lépine, leader of a trade union representing refinery workers, said last week that the aim is to “bring the French economy to its knees.”

    Prior to Tuesday’s actions, labor leader Sébastien Ménesplier declared that “if Emmanuel Macron doesn’t want France to come to a standstill and a dark week for the energy industry, it would be better for him to withdraw his reforms.”

    As BBC News noted Tuesday, the campaign so far “has caused little damage to the economy, and the bill is proceeding through parliament.”

    The legislation, discussed last month in the National Assembly—where members of the New Ecological and Social People’s Union, a leftist opposition coalition, tried to derail debate by proposing thousands of amendments—is being considered in the Senate this week. A vote on the final version is expected later this month.

    “Unions and the left know time is running out before the reform becomes a reality—which is all the more reason for them to up the pressure now,” BBC News observed.

    Macron and his supporters have called the proposed changes “essential,” citing projected budget deficits. But union leaders and left-wing lawmakers have stressed that parliament could bolster France’s pension system—without raising the retirement age or increasing the number of years workers must contribute before qualifying for full benefits—by hiking taxes on the wealthy.

    “The mobilizations will continue and grow until the government listens to workers.”

    “The job of a garbage collector is painful. We usually work very early or late… 365 days per year,” Regis Viecili, a 56-year-old garbage worker, told AP. “We usually have to carry heavy weight or stand up for hours to sweep.”

    Trash collectors’ early retirement age would be raised from 57 to 59 if the reform proposal is enacted.

    “A lot of garbage workers die before the retirement age,” said Viecili.

    A record 1.3 million people took part in mass demonstrations against the legislation on January 31. At subsequent protests, the number of people hitting the streets—while still in the hundreds of thousands—began to decrease.

    According to BBC News, “Union leaders now believe rolling strikes are their best hope of success.”

    Citing CGT secretary-general Philippe Martinez, AP reported that unionized workers “will decide locally” on Tuesday night whether to engage in open-ended strikes.

    A majority of French citizens support the ongoing strikes. According to an opinion poll conducted recently by the French survey group Elabe, two-thirds of the public supports the movement against the government’s planned pension changes in general, 59% back efforts to bring the country “to a standstill,” and 56% support rolling strikes.

    Martinez said in an interview Sunday that unions “are moving up a gear.”

    “The mobilizations,” he predicted, “will continue and grow until the government listens to workers.”

    Xavier Bregail, a 40-year-old train driver in northern Paris, told AP on Tuesday that “the government will step back only if we block the economy.”

    “The subject behind this is inflation, soaring food and energy prices,” he added. “I just want to live decently from my work.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Groups Sue to Stop Biden From Offering 73 Million Acres to Oil Drillers in Gulf of Mexico



    Seven groups on Monday filed a legal challenge to the U.S. Interior Department’s Lease Sale 259, which would offer 73.3 million acres of public waters in the Gulf of Mexico to the highest-bidding oil and gas drillers.

    Earthjustice, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Healthy Gulf, Bayou City Waterkeeper, and Friends of the Earth filed the lawsuit in federal court in the District of Columbia. The complaint asks the court to “vacate or enjoin any leases issued or actions taken pursuant to the unlawful [sale] unless and until defendants comply with the law.”

    President Joe Biden’s administration “previously canceled this and other sales, citing delays and ‘conflicting court rulings,’” the groups explained in a joint statement. But then right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia—the top congressional recipient of fossil fuel industry cash during the 2022 election cycle and a long-time coal profiteer—made his support for Biden’s landmark climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), contingent on the inclusion of oil and gas leasing provisions.

    Congressional Democrats, with zero votes to spare in the Senate amid unified Republican opposition, passed a Manchin-approved version of the IRA last August. Lease Sale 259, one of the largest offshore auctions in U.S. history, is now scheduled for March 28, less than a month before the 13th anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon BP disaster.

    The groups acknowledged that the IRA directs the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to hold the lease sale. However, they stressed, “it does not require such a vast area to be auctioned to industry, nor does it exempt the sale from any existing laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act.”

    “Holding this offshore oil lease sale without careful environmental review is both unlawful and morally reprehensible.”

    “Lease Sale 259 would offer up all unleased areas in the western and central Gulf of Mexico, which could lock in a massive drilling operation to extract more than 1 billion barrels of oil and 4.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over the next 50 years,” the groups warned.

    Such a move would fly in the face of the Biden administration’s purported commitment to slashing planet-heating pollution and speeding up the adoption of renewables, critics argued.

    “This administration has pledged to oversee a historic transition to clean energy, but actions speak louder than words,” said Earthjustice attorney George Torgun. “We don’t need a billion new barrels of crude oil threatening people and ecosystems in the Gulf.”

    Hallie Templeton, legal director of Friends of the Earth, said, “Yet again we find ourselves in the courtroom with the Biden administration over another unlawful and disastrous oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico.”

    Last year, a federal judge blocked Lease Sale 257, the nation’s largest-ever offshore lease sale wherein more than 80 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico were put on the auction block.

    “With each carbon bomb he drops, the president’s pledge to end oil and gas drilling feels long forgotten,” said Templeton. “BOEM should be proceeding with the utmost caution and ensuring that its oil and gas decisions comply with federal laws, not adding to our climate crisis.”

    According to the complaint, BOEM’s approval of Lease Sale 259 “was based on insufficient and arbitrary environmental analyses” in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

    The agency’s final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) “failed to take the required ‘hard look’ at the significant impacts of this massive lease sale,” the suit alleges.

    Specifically, the complaint says, BOEM “did not rationally evaluate the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, relying instead on problematic modeling and assumptions to conclude that this massive lease sale will result in only ‘slightly higher domestic emissions’ than not leasing at all, and further failed to consider the impacts of such fossil fuel development on climate goals and commitments.”

    In addition, BOEM “arbitrarily dismissed the impacts of onshore oil and gas infrastructure—refineries, petrochemical plants, and other industrial sources that process fossil fuels and related products from Lease Sale 259—on Gulf communities,” according to the suit. The groups also accuse the agency of ignoring “the latest air quality data” and presenting “an incomplete and misleading picture of oil spill impacts and risks based on flawed modeling that failed to properly consider reasonably foreseeable accidents.”

    Moreover, the complaint continues, BOEM “failed to properly disclose and consider the significant harm from ship strikes, pollution, and oil spills on endangered species such as the Rice’s whale” and five of the world’s seven species of sea turtles. The agency claimed that such impacts would be “negligible,” even as experts fear the Rice’s whale population has dropped below 50.

    Finally, the suit accuses BOEM of failing “to consider reasonable scaled-back alternatives to its proposed action,” and refusing “to adequately respond to plaintiffs’ comments on the draft SEIS, offering only boilerplate responses and failing to grapple with and respond to substantive technical and legal critiques.”

    “The Biden administration needs to end new extraction, phase out drilling, and start taking its commitment to climate action seriously.”

    Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program, said that “selling off more of our lands and waters to the fossil fuel industry is the last thing we should do at a time when we need to be rapidly transitioning away from oil and gas to meet our nation’s climate goals and create a livable planet for all.”

    “Offshore drilling devastates millions of acres of nature, contributes to an increasing number of climate disasters, and creates a quarter of our greenhouse gas emissions,” said Manuel. “While the IRA represents a historic step forward in achieving our nation’s climate goals, we cannot let the bad provisions of the bill, including oil and gas leasing, undercut what we stand to gain.”

    Kristen Schlemmer, legal director for Bayou City Waterkeeper, echoed Manuel, noting that vulnerable residents of the Gulf Coast are already reeling from petrochemical pollution, sea-level rise, coastal erosion, and intensified storms.

    “We’re at a point where we should be moving away from fossil fuels, not enabling an astounding amount of drilling for more than a generation to come,” said Schlemmer. “For communities along the Houston Ship Channel, which are predominantly Black, brown, and lower-income, Lease Sale 259 creates an especially toxic combination of risks.”

    “More drilling means more facilities in their backyards,” she added. “This will compound already elevated rates of cancer and heart and lung diseases, while also increasing risks during major storms.”

    In the words of Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at CBD, “Holding this offshore oil lease sale without careful environmental review is both unlawful and morally reprehensible.”

    “More oil drilling in the Gulf is too big a risk for the communities and wildlife living there, and too harmful to the climate,” said Monsell. “The Biden administration needs to end new extraction, phase out drilling, and start taking its commitment to climate action seriously.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Groups Sue to Stop Biden From Offering 73 Million Acres to Oil Drillers in Gulf of Mexico



    Seven groups on Monday filed a legal challenge to the U.S. Interior Department’s Lease Sale 259, which would offer 73.3 million acres of public waters in the Gulf of Mexico to the highest-bidding oil and gas drillers.

    Earthjustice, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, Healthy Gulf, Bayou City Waterkeeper, and Friends of the Earth filed the lawsuit in federal court in the District of Columbia. The complaint asks the court to “vacate or enjoin any leases issued or actions taken pursuant to the unlawful [sale] unless and until defendants comply with the law.”

    President Joe Biden’s administration “previously canceled this and other sales, citing delays and ‘conflicting court rulings,’” the groups explained in a joint statement. But then right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia—the top congressional recipient of fossil fuel industry cash during the 2022 election cycle and a long-time coal profiteer—made his support for Biden’s landmark climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), contingent on the inclusion of oil and gas leasing provisions.

    Congressional Democrats, with zero votes to spare in the Senate amid unified Republican opposition, passed a Manchin-approved version of the IRA last August. Lease Sale 259, one of the largest offshore auctions in U.S. history, is now scheduled for March 28, less than a month before the 13th anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon BP disaster.

    The groups acknowledged that the IRA directs the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to hold the lease sale. However, they stressed, “it does not require such a vast area to be auctioned to industry, nor does it exempt the sale from any existing laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act.”

    “Holding this offshore oil lease sale without careful environmental review is both unlawful and morally reprehensible.”

    “Lease Sale 259 would offer up all unleased areas in the western and central Gulf of Mexico, which could lock in a massive drilling operation to extract more than 1 billion barrels of oil and 4.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over the next 50 years,” the groups warned.

    Such a move would fly in the face of the Biden administration’s purported commitment to slashing planet-heating pollution and speeding up the adoption of renewables, critics argued.

    “This administration has pledged to oversee a historic transition to clean energy, but actions speak louder than words,” said Earthjustice attorney George Torgun. “We don’t need a billion new barrels of crude oil threatening people and ecosystems in the Gulf.”

    Hallie Templeton, legal director of Friends of the Earth, said, “Yet again we find ourselves in the courtroom with the Biden administration over another unlawful and disastrous oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico.”

    Last year, a federal judge blocked Lease Sale 257, the nation’s largest-ever offshore lease sale wherein more than 80 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico were put on the auction block.

    “With each carbon bomb he drops, the president’s pledge to end oil and gas drilling feels long forgotten,” said Templeton. “BOEM should be proceeding with the utmost caution and ensuring that its oil and gas decisions comply with federal laws, not adding to our climate crisis.”

    According to the complaint, BOEM’s approval of Lease Sale 259 “was based on insufficient and arbitrary environmental analyses” in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

    The agency’s final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) “failed to take the required ‘hard look’ at the significant impacts of this massive lease sale,” the suit alleges.

    Specifically, the complaint says, BOEM “did not rationally evaluate the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, relying instead on problematic modeling and assumptions to conclude that this massive lease sale will result in only ‘slightly higher domestic emissions’ than not leasing at all, and further failed to consider the impacts of such fossil fuel development on climate goals and commitments.”

    In addition, BOEM “arbitrarily dismissed the impacts of onshore oil and gas infrastructure—refineries, petrochemical plants, and other industrial sources that process fossil fuels and related products from Lease Sale 259—on Gulf communities,” according to the suit. The groups also accuse the agency of ignoring “the latest air quality data” and presenting “an incomplete and misleading picture of oil spill impacts and risks based on flawed modeling that failed to properly consider reasonably foreseeable accidents.”

    Moreover, the complaint continues, BOEM “failed to properly disclose and consider the significant harm from ship strikes, pollution, and oil spills on endangered species such as the Rice’s whale” and five of the world’s seven species of sea turtles. The agency claimed that such impacts would be “negligible,” even as experts fear the Rice’s whale population has dropped below 50.

    Finally, the suit accuses BOEM of failing “to consider reasonable scaled-back alternatives to its proposed action,” and refusing “to adequately respond to plaintiffs’ comments on the draft SEIS, offering only boilerplate responses and failing to grapple with and respond to substantive technical and legal critiques.”

    “The Biden administration needs to end new extraction, phase out drilling, and start taking its commitment to climate action seriously.”

    Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program, said that “selling off more of our lands and waters to the fossil fuel industry is the last thing we should do at a time when we need to be rapidly transitioning away from oil and gas to meet our nation’s climate goals and create a livable planet for all.”

    “Offshore drilling devastates millions of acres of nature, contributes to an increasing number of climate disasters, and creates a quarter of our greenhouse gas emissions,” said Manuel. “While the IRA represents a historic step forward in achieving our nation’s climate goals, we cannot let the bad provisions of the bill, including oil and gas leasing, undercut what we stand to gain.”

    Kristen Schlemmer, legal director for Bayou City Waterkeeper, echoed Manuel, noting that vulnerable residents of the Gulf Coast are already reeling from petrochemical pollution, sea-level rise, coastal erosion, and intensified storms.

    “We’re at a point where we should be moving away from fossil fuels, not enabling an astounding amount of drilling for more than a generation to come,” said Schlemmer. “For communities along the Houston Ship Channel, which are predominantly Black, brown, and lower-income, Lease Sale 259 creates an especially toxic combination of risks.”

    “More drilling means more facilities in their backyards,” she added. “This will compound already elevated rates of cancer and heart and lung diseases, while also increasing risks during major storms.”

    In the words of Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at CBD, “Holding this offshore oil lease sale without careful environmental review is both unlawful and morally reprehensible.”

    “More oil drilling in the Gulf is too big a risk for the communities and wildlife living there, and too harmful to the climate,” said Monsell. “The Biden administration needs to end new extraction, phase out drilling, and start taking its commitment to climate action seriously.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Anti-Plastic Coalition: East Palestine Disaster Exposes Need for ‘Systemic Change’

    One month after a fiery train crash in East Palestine, Ohio sparked an ongoing environmental and public health crisis, an anti-plastic coalition on Friday highlighted how the petrochemical industry poisons communities across the United States and called for “systemic change.”

    The Norfolk Southern-owned train that derailed and ignited near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border on February 3 was overloaded with hazardous materials, many of them derived from fossil fuels. To avert a catastrophic explosion, authorities released and burned vinyl chloride—a carcinogenic petrochemical used to make plastic—from five tanker cars, provoking residents’ fears about the long-term health impacts of toxic air pollution and groundwater contamination.

    “This is a plastics and petrochemical disaster,” the global Break Free From Plastic (BFFP) coalition said Friday in a statement.

    According to the coalition:

    A preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that the train derailment was caused by a hot axle that heated one of the train cars carrying polypropylene plastic pellets, according to NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy. These plastic pellets serve as the pre-production materials that corporations manufacture into shampoo bottles, plastic cups, and other single-use items. The highly combustible, fossil fuel-derived pellets ignited the initial fire aboard the Norfolk Southern train, which led to its derailment.

    In addition to the pellets, yet another plastic building block is at the heart of this disaster: vinyl chloride. Vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen used almost exclusively to produce polyvinyl chloride, also known as PVC plastic, which is often turned into pipes, flooring, shower curtains, and even plastic food wrap. Not only is vinyl chloride toxic and harmful itself, Norfolk Southern’s burning of the chemical likely resulted in dioxins, one of the most persistent and toxic chemicals, even at low levels of exposure.

    In response to public pressure, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Thursday ordered Norfolk Southern to test for dioxins, a class of highly toxic industrial byproducts that the agency had previously opted to ignore in the East Palestine disaster zone.

    “While we’re glad to see this announcement, we wish it had come sooner,” said Graham Hamilton, U.S. policy officer at BFFP. “Justice delayed is justice denied, and we expect more from an administration that claims to prioritize environmental justice.”

    Mike Schade, director of Toxic-Free Future’s Mind the Store campaign, said that “the EPA must not only test for dioxins in soil, but also in indoor dust, sediments, fish, and on farms impacted by the massive plume.”

    “Importantly, the EPA should be conducting the testing itself and/or hiring independent scientists to test for dioxins, rather than requiring the community of East Palestine to rely on Norfolk Southern for that accountability,” said Schade.

    “This disaster is yet another painful reminder of the dangers of making, transporting, using, and disposing of chemicals in plastics, especially polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic,” Schade added. “Governments, retailers, and brands must redouble their efforts to phase out PVC plastic and other highly hazardous plastics and chemicals and move towards safer solutions.”

    The U.S. is home to more than 1,000 train derailments per year, and according to one estimate, the country is averaging one chemical disaster every two days.

    Low-income communities in the Ohio River Valley and along the Gulf Coast are disproportionately harmed by the petrochemical industry.

    “These communities subsidize the cost of cheap disposable plastic at the fenceline of oil rigs, petrochemical plants, incinerators, and the trains and trucks used for transporting the toxic and deadly chemicals,” said Yvette Arellano, the founder and director of Fenceline Watch, a Texas-based advocacy group and BFFP member.

    “The price we pay is with our lives, from shortened lifespans [to] reproductive harm [and] developmental issues; these toxics trespass our bodies and harm our communities for generations,” added Arellano, whose organization helped pressure the EPA to halt the 1,300-mile shipment of contaminated wastewater from East Palestine to the Houston area, where it had been slated to be injected underground.

    “The petrochemical industry is inherently unsafe. Even standard operations pollute and damage communities, and regulators continue to fail to do the bare minimum to hold polluters accountable.”

    As BFFP pointed out, the ongoing East Palestine disaster “is not the only petrochemical crisis” hurting residents of the Ohio River Valley.

    “Less than 15 miles from the derailment site,” a new Shell facility in Beaver County, Pennsylvania “has received numerous violations and exceeded its annual emissions limits since coming online in November of 2022,” the coalition pointed out.

    As Andie from the Eyes on Shell watchdog group observed: “With the community already on edge, just one week following the release and burn in East Palestine, Shell activated an enormous emergency flare which, without warning, continued flaring for hours. The derailment and emergency flare are terrifying reminders of the risks the petrochemical industry poses to our community every single day.”

    Earthworks campaigner Anaïs Peterson stressed that “the petrochemical industry is inherently unsafe.”

    “Even standard operations pollute and damage communities,” said Peterson, “and regulators continue to fail to do the bare minimum to hold polluters accountable.”

    Amanda Kiger of River Valley Organizing (RVO)—a Columbiana County-based group that has been working to support East Palestine residents since the derailment—said that “nobody should have their entire lives upended because Norfolk Southern and makers of these hazardous chemicals put their profits ahead of the safety of our communities and our country.”

    “With people developing rashes and breathing problems, it’s clear people are still being exposed to dangerous chemicals,” said Kiger. “Norfolk Southern should give residents the resources to relocate and should pay for independent testing of the soil, water, and air, as well as medical exams and follow-up for years to come.”

    Ultimately, BFFP argued, “we need systemic reforms to stop the petrochemical industry from having carte blanche to profit off of poisoning people and the planet.”

    Despite BFFP’s demands for a robust, legally binding global plastics treaty that prohibits corporations from manufacturing an endless stream of toxic single-use items, Inside Climate News reported this week that the initial proposal from the Biden administration’s delegation to the United Nations was described as “low ambition” and “underwhelming” because it “sidesteps calls for cuts in production, praises the benefits of plastics, and focuses on national priorities versus global mandates.”

  • Groups Tell UN Experts That Overturning of “Roe” Violates International Law

    The June 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court’s reactionary majority to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, which has enabled Republican lawmakers to prohibit or restrict abortion in more than half of the states, unleashed a life-threatening crisis and should be condemned as a violation of the country’s obligations under international law. So wrote nearly 200 organizations and…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Hundreds Rally Outside Supreme Court Amid ‘Baseless’ Attack on Student Debt Relief



    Borrowers, advocates, and lawmakers converged on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday night and Tuesday morning to defend President Joe Biden’s stalled student debt relief plan as justices prepared to consider a pair of right-wing challenges to the popular proposal.

    Attendees argued that Biden’s move to erase up to $20,000 in student debt for federal borrowers with individual incomes under $125,000 and modify the income-driven repayment program is just, legal, and necessary. Although it falls short of progressives’ demands for universal cancellation, speakers made clear that the White House’s plan is key to improving economic security.

    “You should not have to face financial ruin because you want a damn education!” Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said during Tuesday morning’s rally. “Education, from child care to graduate school, is a human right. It should be free to all.”

    “Today we say to the Supreme Court, listen to the needs of millions of struggling people,” Sanders added. “Do the right thing. Support Biden’s proposal to cancel student debt.”

    “President Biden’s executive authority to provide student debt relief to borrowers is abundantly clear.”

    After Monday night’s rally, some campaigners planned to camp out overnight in a bid to secure seats in the courtroom for Tuesday’s oral arguments, which began at 10:00 am ET.

    In both Biden v. Nebraska—brought by the Republican-led states of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina—and Department of Education v. Brown—filed with the support of billionaires by a pair of plaintiffs who claim they were unfairly excluded from relief—the right-wing-controlled Supreme Court will decide whether Biden’s plan exceeds the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) authority and whether the lawsuits have legal standing.

    In a Tuesday statement released ahead of the hearing, Democratic Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri said, “Today, far-right Republican attorneys general will bring baseless and politically motivated arguments to the Supreme Court in opposition to providing student debt relief promised to 40 million borrowers across our country.”

    “Regardless,” said Bush, “President Biden’s executive authority to provide student debt relief to borrowers is abundantly clear—just look at the facts.”

    Bush continued:

    Fact: The basis of the Republican AG’s case relies on the claim that this relief plan threatens the profits of loan servicers such as MOHELA and states will be financially injured. Yet, in response to an October letter I sent to MOHELA, they denied involvement in the case and discredited Republicans by stating that they don’t operate to make profits and remain committed to complying with contractual obligations set forth by the U.S. Department of Education.

    Fact: Republicans claim that states, like Missouri, also rely on revenue from loan servicers like MOHELA. Yet, MOHELA hasn’t paid their bills to the state in over a decade and owes over $100 million to the state of Missouri.

    Fact: President Biden’s student debt relief plan would provide 40 million borrowers across our country—including 144,000 of my constituents—with life-changing financial relief. Following the economic devastation of the pandemic, we need transformative policy solutions to foster an equitable economic recovery.

    “I know what it’s like to carry crushing student debt and to have to make impossible choices between paying rent or paying an exorbitant student loan bill,” said Bush. “And I’ve heard from people across the country who have shared how this relief would change their lives—from being able to afford child care, to paying their medical bills, to being able to put food on the table.”

    “The facts are clear, and I implore the Supreme Court to affirm the president’s executive authority to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt,” she added. “I’m confident the Biden-Harris administration’s plan will withstand these hurdles and provide the much-needed relief to borrowers.”

    Right-wing lawmakers and activists filed numerous lawsuits after the White House announced its student debt cancellation bid in August. Applications for relief closed in November after a federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump blocked Biden’s plan. At the time, 26 million borrowers had already applied for or were automatically eligible for relief, and 16 million applications were given the green light and sent to loan servicers.

    While GOP members of Congress argue that student debt relief is a regressive policy whose benefits would flow disproportionately to wealthy households, DOE data released earlier this month dispels that myth. According to a Politico analysis of the data, over 98% of people who applied before the portal was frozen reside in ZIP codes where the average per-capita income is under $75,000. Nearly two-thirds of applicants live in neighborhoods where the average person makes less than $40,000 per year.

    With his relief initiative on hold, Biden extended the pause on federal student loan repayments—a measure that was introduced at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 and had been set to expire on December 31, 2022—through June 30, 2023. Payments are set to restart 60 days after that date, or 60 days after the high court hands down its decision, whichever comes first.

    The Debt Collective, however, tweeted Monday night: “We’re not paying that damn student debt no matter what the Supreme Court and its corrupted judges say.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Sanders Warns of ‘Primary Care Cliff’ as Federal Funds for Local Clinics Set to Expire



    Sen. Bernie Sanders warned Monday that without swift congressional action, the $5.8 billion in federal funding relied on each year by community health centers around the United States will expire on September 30, resulting in a devastating “primary care cliff.”

    “Congress can and must avoid” such a scenario, says a statement from the Vermont Independent’s office.

    Sanders announced that the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee he chairs is scheduled to hold a hearing this Thursday at 10:00 am ET titled, “Community Health Centers: Saving Lives, Saving Money.”

    Millions of people in the U.S. currently receive lifesaving services from community health centers in thousands of neighborhoods nationwide.

    “In America today, community health centers are providing cost-effective primary medical care, dental care, mental health counseling, and low-cost prescription drugs to 30 million people regardless of a person’s bank account or insurance status,” said Sanders.

    “Not only do these health centers save lives and ease human suffering,” Sanders continued. “They save Medicare, Medicaid, and our entire healthcare system billions of dollars each year because they avoid the need to go to expensive emergency rooms and hospitals.”

    “In the midst of a broken and dysfunctional healthcare system, I will be doing everything I can to expand community health centers so that every American has access to the primary care that they need and deserve,” he added.

    According to the senator’s office:

    Nearly 100 million Americans live in a primary care desert, nearly 70 million live in a dental care desert, and some 158 million Americans—nearly half the country’s population—live in a mental healthcare desert. Today, 85 million people are uninsured or under-insured, over 500,000 people go bankrupt each year because of medically related debt, and more than 68,000 people die each year because they cannot afford the healthcare they desperately need. Expanding community health centers will begin to address this urgent crisis.

    The following individuals are scheduled to testify at the hearing: Amanda Pears Kelly, chief executive officer of Advocates for Community Health and executive director of the Association of Clinicians for the Underserved; Ben Harvey, chief executive officer of Indiana Primary Health Care Association; Robert Nocon, assistant professor at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine; Sue Veer, president and chief executive officer of Carolina Health Centers; and Jessica Farb, managing director at the Government Accountability Office.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • US and EU Groups Call for ‘Ceasefire’ on Trade Challenges to Climate Policies



    A coalition of more than three dozen progressive advocacy groups based in the United States and the European Union on Monday implored E.U. policymakers to stop pursuing challenges to the Inflation Reduction Act and urged governments on both sides of the Atlantic to start prioritizing decarbonization over corporate-friendly trade rules.

    “As part of any E.U.-U.S. transatlantic sustainable trade initiative, we urge the E.U. to refrain from challenging the IRA with trade instruments. And we call on the U.S. and E.U. to commit to a Climate Peace Clause to protect climate policies around the world from trade disputes, as well as to make good on climate financing and green technology transfer to countries in the Global South,” says a letter sent to the U.S.-E.U. Trade and Technology Council.

    The letter comes as European Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis travels to Washington, D.C. for meetings this week with top U.S. officials, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai.

    Amid an ongoing disagreement over North American electric vehicle manufacturing incentives, renewable energy tax credits, and other green provisions in the IRA, Dombrovskis plans to “negotiate better outcomes for the E.U.,” according to Politico, just as the U.S. Treasury Department prepares to release “a list of criteria for what qualifies as a free trade agreement, potentially making more countries eligible to receive tax credits under the IRA,” which was passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Joe Biden last August.

    “Countries desperately need to enact bold climate measures and cannot allow outdated trade rules to get in the way.”

    The letter’s 41 signatories—including the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Transnational Institute, and other civil society organizations representing millions of people—noted that “at the most recent meeting of the U.S.-E.U. Trade and Technology Council, the Global Trade Working Group announced its intent to embark on a transatlantic sustainable trade initiative.”

    Melinda St. Louis, the director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, said Monday in a statement that if the U.S. and the E.U. are serious about this, “they first need to commit to ‘do no harm’ by refraining from attacking one another’s climate legislation.”

    While the IRA “was far from the comprehensive legislation needed to address the urgent climate crisis,” states the letter, “it was the result of a difficult compromise negotiated in a narrow but historic window of political opportunity and is a critical step that the U.S. has taken to meet its climate commitments.”

    Despite this, the E.U. “claims that the structure and the domestic content requirements of tax incentives for electric vehicle, electric battery, and renewable energy production offered through the IRA violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules,” the letter continues. “And it has repeatedly threatened to refer the matter to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body, attempting to force the U.S. to change this law. The E.U. even publicly complained about the incentives before the bill had passed, potentially threatening passage of the important legislation, which passed by the narrowest of margins.”

    “Time is running out to meet our climate commitments,” it adds. “Investments in green jobs and production of green products will be needed to usher in the clean energy transition the world needs,” and that requires “adapt[ing] the rules to accelerate a just transition.”

    “Will the Biden administration stand up to these trade threats and implement the law as intended to create green jobs and boost manufacturing in the clean energy economy?” asked St. Louis. “And will they commit to supporting other countries as they enact their own bold climate policies?”

    Fabian Flues, a trade campaigner with PowerShift Germany, insisted that there is no other reasonable choice.

    “This is simple: climate action has to take precedence over trade rules,” said Flues. “The E.U. would do the fight against climate change a huge disservice if it challenged the Inflation Reduction Act in trade tribunals. Instead, the E.U. should increase its efforts to pursue a genuine ecological and fair industrial policy. Such efforts must be accompanied by increased climate financing and green technology transfer so that countries in the Global South don’t lose out from increased climate action in the U.S. and E.U.”

    According to the coalition:

    As advanced economies and major current and historic emitters of greenhouse gases, it would be a powerful step for the U.S. and E.U. to agree to a Climate Peace Clause—a binding commitment by these governments to refrain from using dispute settlement mechanisms in the WTO or other trade and investment agreements to challenge each other’s climate policies. Not only should the E.U. refrain from using trade rules to challenge the IRA, but both should commit to refraining from challenging other countries’ policies meant to hasten the green transition. This would set an example and create the much-needed space for governments to adopt and maintain the climate policies needed to create green jobs and meet their commitments under the Paris climate agreement.

    Such an agreement between these two powers must also include climate financing for countries in the Global South and the sharing of green technologies, as outlined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris agreement, to support/contribute to climate solutions that are truly sustainable and equitable for all. This will be necessary to support the clean energy transition in countries that cannot afford similar subsidy-based incentives. A true transatlantic collaboration to address catastrophic climate change, and related global social, health, and biodiversity crises, will entail supporting—rather than undermining—green industrial policies on both sides of the Atlantic. Further, we must work together to meet commitments for financial support and technological transfer to developing countries and to transform inequitable global structures in order to facilitate a just transition for all.

    This is not the first time labor and environmental groups have demanded that policymakers stop impeding sorely needed climate action by weaponizing global trade rules. As Biden hosted French President Emmanuel Macron just before a December meeting of the U.S.-E.U. Trade and Technology Council, activists held a protest outside the White House to denounce the leading role that Macron has played in fostering E.U. opposition to the IRA.

    On the same day, the Sierra Club and the Trade Justice Education Fund published an analysis outlining the need for a Climate Peace Clause.

    As the groups’ research explained, North American production requirements were key to securing the political support needed to enact the IRA, but progress on creating green jobs and slashing planet-heating pollution remains at risk of being derailed by Investor-State Dispute Settlement complaints and other objections filed at neoliberal trade institutions.

    As Trade Justice Education Fund executive director Arthur Stamoulis said Monday, “Countries desperately need to enact bold climate measures and cannot allow outdated trade rules to get in the way.”

    “By committing to not challenge other nations’ climate initiatives as violations of old trade rules,” Stamoulis added, “the United States can simultaneously encourage countries to take more ambitious climate action and better defend its own climate-focused industrial policy.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Millions Face Financial Disaster If Supreme Court Ends Student Debt Relief

    Striking down President Joe Biden’s student debt relief plan would have devastating impacts on millions of borrowers, advocacy groups warned in a report released Monday, one day before the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments over the White House’s cancellation bid. “Denying student debt cancellation would cause financial disaster for millions of Americans,” says the report…

    Source

  • Groups Warn of ‘Financial Disaster for Millions’ If Supreme Court Kills Student Debt Relief



    Striking down President Joe Biden’s student debt relief plan would have devastating impacts on millions of borrowers, advocacy groups warned in a report released Monday, one day before the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments over the White House’s cancellation bid.

    “Denying student debt cancellation would cause financial disaster for millions of Americans,” says the report, which was assembled after Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) asked the Debt Collective, NAACP, and more than a dozen other organizations last month to explain how upholding or rejecting Biden’s plan would affect borrowers.

    “Reducing debt burdens through cancellation will help avoid defaults when student loan payments resume and ensure borrowers do not face financial ruin as the economy continues its recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic,” according to the report, which was provided exclusively to Insider. This would disproportionately benefit low-income households.

    However, “if the Supreme Court sides with the extremist judges, millions of Americans’ monthly costs will rise significantly when student loan payments resume later this year,” the report cautions.

    “I’m putting all of my hope into this process finally getting approval. I haven’t allowed myself to imagine another scenario because I may not continue even trying to exist everyday if that happens.”

    Although Biden ignored progressives’ demands for universal student debt cancellation, his administration in August announced several relief measures, including a move to wipe out up to $10,000 in debt for federal borrowers with individual incomes under $125,000—and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients—as well as proposed changes to the income-driven repayment program.

    Republican lawmakers and right-wing activists responded with a barrage of lawsuits. Applications for relief opened in October but closed a month later after a federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump blocked Biden’s plan, deeming it “unlawful” on legal grounds criticized by experts as dubious. At the time, 26 million borrowers had already applied for or were automatically eligible for relief, and 16 million applications were fully approved and sent to loan servicers.

    With his relief initiative on hold, Biden extended the moratorium on federal student loan repayments—a policy that was first implemented at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 and had been set to expire on December 31, 2022—through June 30, 2023. Payments are set to resume 60 days after that date, or 60 days after the Supreme Court hands down its decision, whichever comes first.

    The nation’s chief judicial body agreed in December to hear oral arguments in two student loan-related cases on Tuesday.

    In both Biden v. Nebraska—brought by the GOP-led states of Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina—and Department of Education v. Brown—brought by two plaintiffs who claim they were unfairly excluded from relief—the right-wing-dominated high court will decide whether Biden’s plan exceeds the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE) authority and whether the lawsuits have legal standing.

    As TIME explained:

    Six Republican-led states filed Biden v. Nebraska, arguing that in addition to the administration overreach, the program would cause states to lose tax revenue as a result of debt cancellation. U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey initially dismissed the case saying that it lacked legal standing. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, later decided that Missouri had legal standing because a loan servicer in the state would lose substantial revenue.

    Department of Education v. Brown was filed by Alexander Taylor and Myra Brown. Brown is not eligible for any relief, and Taylor is only eligible for $10,000 (rather than the up to $20,000 given to Pell Grant recipients). They also argue that the administration did not go through the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment procedure, which requires agencies to notify the public of their proposal and take comments.

    Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan is contingent on the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act of 2003, which allows the Department of Education to modify student financial assistance programs in response to national emergencies to alleviate borrowers’ financial hardship. Former President Donald Trump used the act for the student loan moratorium, which began during the pandemic and is still in place for the next few months. Programs implemented under the HEROES Act are exempt from the notice-and-comment period, but plaintiffs in the Department of Education v. Brown case say that the Education Department does not have the authority to act under this law.

    The Debt Collective tweeted Monday that Taylor and Brown “are just political pawns for billionaire-funded groups—they’re not actually harmed by people getting debt relief.”

    In a recent video, More Perfect Union detailed how the plaintiffs’ lawsuit is being backed by “a shady network of conservative billionaires trying to keep you in debt.”

    An unnamed White House official previously told TIME that “our debt relief plan is needed to prevent defaults and delinquencies as student borrowers transition back to repayment after the end of the payment pause.”

    “There was a national emergency that impacted millions of student borrowers,” said the official. “Many of those borrowers still face risk of default on their student loans due to that emergency. Congress gave the Secretary of Education the authority under the HEROES Act to take steps to prevent that harm, and he is.”

    Those who responded to Warren’s inquiry echoed the Biden administration’s warnings about the harmful economic consequences of a ruling against student debt relief, which would likely come in late June or early July.

    One member of the Debt Collective said: “I’m putting all of my hope into this process finally getting approval. I haven’t allowed myself to imagine another scenario because I may not continue even trying to exist everyday if that happens. This debt follows me daily.”

    While GOP lawmakers contend that student debt relief is a regressive policy whose benefits would flow disproportionately to high-income households, DOE data released earlier this month debunks such arguments. According to a Politico analysis of the data, over 98% of people who applied before the portal was shut down live in ZIP codes where the average per-capita income is under $75,000. Nearly two-thirds of applicants reside in neighborhoods where the average person makes less than $40,000 per year.

    As Common Dreams reported last week, supporters of Biden’s stalled relief proposal plan to rally outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Locals Alarmed Over Plan to Inject Toxic Ohio Wastewater Underground in Texas

    Residents and officials in Harris County, Texas have expressed alarm since learning that contaminated water used to extinguish a fiery train crash in East Palestine, Ohio has been transported more than 1,300 miles to a Houston suburb for disposal. Houston’s Coalition for Environment, Equity, and Resilience tweeted Thursday: “We are disturbed to learn that toxic wastewater from East Palestine…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • To Prevent More ‘Catastrophic Derailments,’ Rail Workers Outline Plan for Immediate Reforms



    Three weeks after the lives of East Palestine, Ohio residents were upended by a fiery wreck involving a Norfolk Southern-owned train overloaded with hazardous materials, rail union leaders on Friday implored federal regulators and lawmakers to “focus on the primary reasons for the derailment and take immediate action to prevent future disasters.”

    In a statement, Railroad Workers United (RWU) pointed to the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) newly published preliminary report on the February 3 crash and subsequent burnoff of vinyl chloride and other carcinogenic chemicals, which suggests that an overheated wheel bearing likely caused the train to derail. The inter-union alliance of rail workers also cited NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy, who said Thursday at a press conference: “This was 100% preventable. We call things accidents—there is no accident. Every single event that we investigate is preventable.”

    RWU, which has previously highlighted how industry-led deregulation and Wall Street-backed policies such as “precision-scheduled railroading” have made the U.S. rail system more dangerous, said Friday that “Class 1 freight rail carriers, including Norfolk Southern, have prioritized profits over safety, cutting maintenance, equipment inspections, and personnel in all crafts while increasing the average train size to three miles or more.”

    In the words of RWU co-chair Gabe Christenson: “Railroad workers experience firsthand every day the dangers inherent in this style of railroading. It has impacted their safety and health, state of mind, and lives on and off the job.”

    “Limits on train lengths and weights are necessary to prevent catastrophic derailments.”

    Jason Doering, general secretary of RWU, echoed Christenson’s message, saying: “Every day we go to work, we have serious concerns about preventing accidents like the one that occurred in Ohio. As locomotive engineers, conductors, signal maintainers, car inspectors, track workers, dispatchers, machinists, and electricians, we experience the reality that our jobs are becoming increasingly dangerous due to insufficient staffing, inadequate maintenance, and a lack of oversight and inspection.”

    “We recognize,” Doering added, “that limits on train lengths and weights are necessary to prevent catastrophic derailments.”

    One week ago, RWU made the case for nationalization, arguing that the U.S. “can no longer afford private ownership of the railroads; the general welfare demands that they be brought under public ownership.”

    In the absence of such sweeping transformation, which remains far-off given the current state of the beleaguered U.S. labor movement, the alliance on Friday demanded that federal agencies and Congress move quickly to “rein in” Norfolk Southern and other profit-maximizing rail corporations that have fought regulations, laid off workers, and purchased billions of dollars in stock rather than investing in employees and safety upgrades.

    Specifically, RWU called on regulators and lawmakers to:

    • Ensure sufficient staffing to do the job properly, efficiently, and safely, with all trains operating with a minimum of a two-person crew;
    • Cap train length and weight at a reasonable level to mitigate the increased likelihood of breakdowns, train separations, and derailments;
    • Implement adequate and proper maintenance and inspections of locomotives and rail cars, tracks and signals, wayside detectors, and other infrastructure; and
    • Standardize ample training and time off without the harassment of draconian attendance policies.

    Of these measures, only a proposed rule to require two-person crews—described by RWU as loophole-ridden—was included in the blueprint the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) unveiled Tuesday to hold rail companies accountable and protect the well-being of workers and fenceline communities.

    The DOT also encouraged rail carriers to voluntarily provide sick leave. Norfolk Southern—facing intense scrutiny and backlash amid the ongoing East Palestine disaster—agreed Wednesday to provide up to a week of paid sick leave per year to roughly 3,000 track maintenance workers.

    But because the Biden administration and Congress recently imposed a contract without paid sick leave on rail workers who were threatening to strike, the vast majority still lack this basic lifesaving benefit, as do millions of private sector workers in other industries who are also awaiting legislation to address the issue.

    Characterizing the DOT’s plan as inadequate, RWU said Tuesday that “rank-and-file railroad workers can diagnose and fix the problems” and urged U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to enact “some of our solutions.”

    RWU treasurer Hugh Sawyer reiterated that call on Friday.

    “We demand that the railroad be run safely, efficiently, and professionally, and not as some ‘cash cow’ for Wall Street investors and billionaires,” said Sawyer. “Much of what is wrong with the rail industry today can be fixed easily and quickly by acting on what is outlined above. We demand action NOW.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • As Trump Visits East Palestine, Critics Say ‘He Should Be Apologizing’ for Safety Rollbacks

    Ahead of former President Donald Trump’s Wednesday visit to East Palestine, Ohio—where a Norfolk Southern-owned train transporting carcinogenic chemicals derailed on February 3, prompting a mass evacuation and release of pollutants—progressive critics highlighted the key role his administration played in making the fiery crash and its toxic aftermath more likely.

    During his speech, Trump—considered a leading GOP presidential candidate for 2024 despite spearheading a deadly coup attempt following his 2020 loss—criticized how President Joe Biden’s administration has responded to the environmental and public health disaster unfolding in East Palestine, a poor rural town of about 4,700 people located a few miles west of the Pennsylvania border.

    But as critics noted beforehand, the Trump administration’s gutting of train safety rules at the behest of railroad industry lobbyists was instrumental in creating the conditions for the derailment and ensuing chemical spill and burnoff, which has provoked fears of groundwater contamination and air pollution.

    “He should be apologizing to that community for his administration rolling back rail regulations,” progressive stalwart Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator, tweeted prior to Trump’s address.

    Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch made a similar point in an opinion piece published earlier this week.

    “If residents of East Palestine—a modern news desert of downsized or disappeared news sources, which allows misinformation to fester—truly knew the reality, a delegation of townsfolk would likely greet Trump with tiki torches and pitchforks,” Bunch wrote, comparing the former president’s visit to “the tendency of a criminal to return to the scene of his crime.”

    Bunch noted that “Trump acted specifically to sabotage a nascent government effort to protect citizens from the growing threat posed by derailments of outdated, poorly equipped, and undermanned freight trains that were increasingly shipping both highly flammable crude oil from the U.S. fracking boom as well as toxic chemicals like the ones that would derail in East Palestine.”

    “Trump had been in office for less than a year when he moved to kill the 2015 rule change initiated by the Obama administration that would have required freight trains to upgrade the current braking technology that was developed in the 19th century for state-of-the-art electronic systems,” wrote Bunch, who pointed out that this came after Norfolk Southern and other rail carriers donated more than $6 million to Republican candidates in 2016 and spent millions more on lobbying.

    “With the investigation into the East Palestine wreck still in its early phases, it’s not clear if the modern brakes—originally required for installation by 2021—could have prevented the toxic derailment or whether the specific Obama rule would have applied,” Bunch continued. “But experts do believe the new brakes could have mitigated the wreckage—and thus the release of so many hazardous chemicals.”

    “The rule reversal wasn’t the only time that Team Trump sided with Big Rail over the forgotten Americans who live on the wrong side of their tracks,” he added. “In 2019, for example, the Trump administration moved to not strengthen but relax regulations on shipping fracked natural gas through communities like East Palestine. The same year, Trump’s White House also killed an Obama-era proposal that would have required two crew members in freight-train locomotives.”

    “The Trump approach to the rail industry was to let the companies do what they wanted, which was to avoid regulations, slash jobs, and extract profit.”

    Ahead of Trump’s visit, More Perfect Union also argued on social media that the ex-president’s “attempt to portray himself as a friend of the town and as someone who would have stood up to Norfolk Southern… couldn’t be further from the truth.”

    As the progressive media outlet observed, the Trump administration “withdrew multiple rail safety recommendations and moved toward a ‘self-regulatory approach’ where rail companies could do as they pleased.”

    “It’s no surprise that the Trump years were filled with dangerous deregulation,” More Perfect Union asserted, describing his decision to nominate top rail industry executives to lead the Federal Railroad Administration and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration as “a prime example of the revolving door between business and government.”

    “The Trump approach to the rail industry was to let the companies do what they wanted, which was to avoid regulations, slash jobs, and extract profit,” the outlet continued. “This approach, and rail companies’ greed, has led to over 1,000 derailments each year. Some are massive catastrophes like East Palestine. But every single one is harmful. And if the industry isn’t regulated and forced to change, we’ll soon be seeing more disasters.”

    When Trump “pretends to care about rail workers, or the people of East Palestine, we can’t believe him,” More Perfect Union added. “His record tells a very different story, the story of his own role in creating this problem in the first place.”

    Even some conservative critics of Trump have questioned the sincerity of his visit.

    “It’s clear that it’s a political stunt,” Ray LaHood, a Republican ex-member of Congress who led the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) during former President Barack Obama’s first term, told Politico on Wednesday. “If he wants to visit, he’s a citizen. But clearly his regulations and the elimination of them, and no emphasis on safety, is going to be pointed out.”

    Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wasted little time in doing exactly that, calling the GOP’s indignation “fake” soon after Trump announced his travel plans.

    Bunch acknowledged that “it’s beyond hypocritical for Trump to bring his Harold Hill-huckster shtick to East Palestine when residents are still experiencing headaches and breathing foul air from the kind of catastrophe he didn’t lift a finger to stop from the Resolute Desk.”

    “But also it’s a bit baffling why Biden or his Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg—who seems to be channeling his inner McKinsey & Co. these days—haven’t gone to Ohio,” he argued. “Especially when Trump and any other Republicans hoping to make political hay off of East Palestine’s misery are coming to town empty-handed.”

    “None of the anti-Biden critics on this issue have offered a solution, because they can’t,” wrote Bunch. “The only fix for the kind of runaway abuses of modern capitalism that cause these environmental catastrophes is government regulation, aided by empowering worker safety with strong unions—two things that the Trump-led GOP has opposed at every turn.”

    Even in the wake of the disaster, Republican lawmakers have refused to demand stronger regulations, as HuffPost reported:

    Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), a vocal Biden critic who represents East Palestine, on Tuesday dismissed immediate calls for stricter rail regulations, saying actions toward accountability will hinge on the findings of a National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] investigation into the derailment.

    “That will dictate whether there are laws, regulations that need to be changed, whether there were rules that were violated,” he said during a news conference in East Palestine. “We don’t know any of that yet, and we won’t know that until NTSB releases its report.”

    Hours before Trump spoke, Buttigieg announced that he plans to travel to East Palestine on Thursday. His visit is expected to coincide with the publication of the NTSB’s preliminary report about its ongoing probe into the crash.

    “Trump and any other Republicans hoping to make political hay off of East Palestine’s misery are coming to town empty-handed.”

    On Tuesday, Buttigieg unveiled DOT’s recommendations for improving the safety of the nation’s rail system, though an inter-union alliance of rail workers immediately criticized the plan as inadequate.

    Given the scale of the problems—and in light of the transportation secretary’s ongoing refusal to exercise his authority to reinstate previously gutted rules along with his consideration of an industry-backed proposal to further weaken the regulation of train braking systems—union leaders have called for nationalizing the railways and implementing their proposed solutions.

    Turner, for her part, emphasized that she has “been outspoken about the two years the Biden administration had [to] fix these problems.”

    “The Trump administration is at fault, as is the Obama administration,” Turner contended, referring to the fact that the latter’s regulations were also watered down in response to industry pressure.

    “The Ohio GOP is to blame as well,” she added, echoing recent reporting on Norfolk Southern’s campaign to influence state-level lawmakers and officials. “Failure at every level of government and multiple administrations led to this.”

  • Investigation Shows Rail Giant Donated to Ohio Governor a Month Before Toxic Crash



    An investigation published Monday revealed that just weeks before a Norfolk Southern-owned train overloaded with hazardous materials derailed and caused a toxic chemical fire in East Palestine, Ohio, the rail giant donated $10,000—the maximum amount allowed—to help fund the inauguration of the state’s Republican Gov. Mike DeWine.

    According to WSYX, the Columbus-based news outlet that conducted the investigation, “This contribution, which is part of $29,000 the Virginia-based corporation has contributed to DeWine’s political funds since he first ran for governor in 2018, is merely one piece of an extensive, ongoing effort to influence statewide officials and Ohio lawmakers.”

    “In all, the railway company has contributed about $98,000 during the past six years to Ohio statewide and legislative candidates, according to data from the secretary of state,” WSYX reported. “Virtually all went to Republicans, although Norfolk Southern hedged its support for DeWine in 2018 with a $3,000 check to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Richard Cordray.”

    In addition to shelling out loads of campaign cash, Norfolk Southern has also extensively lobbied DeWine, statewide officials, and Ohio lawmakers.

    Quarterly reports disclosing the company’s lobbying activities show that DeWine and other statewide officials were targeted 39 times over the past six years, while Ohio lawmakers were targeted 167 times during the same time period.

    “Most of the disclosed attempts to influence Ohio leaders came on generic rail or transportation issues,” WSYX reported. “Some efforts, however, were devoted to defeating legislation that would have established tougher safety standards for rail yards and train operations.”

    River Valley Organizing, a local progressive group, declared on social media that “this is what we’re up against.”

    Norfolk Southern’s successful bid to thwart at least one Ohio bill aimed at improving railroad safety—explained in depth by the local news outlet—mirrors the company’s triumphant campaign to weaken federal regulations.

    Before dozens of its train cars careened off the tracks and burst into flames in East Palestine on February 3—leading to the discharge of vinyl chloride and other carcinogenic chemicals—Norfolk Southern “helped kill a federal safety rule aimed at upgrading the rail industry’s Civil War-era braking systems,” The Lever reported earlier this month.

    U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who has been criticized by progressive advocacy groups and lawmakers for his lackluster response to the crisis in East Palestine, sent a letter to Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw on Sunday stating that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is investigating the cause of the derailment and that the Federal Railroad Administration is examining whether safety violations occurred and intends to hold Norfolk Southern accountable if they did.

    Buttigieg insisted that the company “demonstrate unequivocal support” for the poor rural town’s roughly 4,700 residents as well as the populations of surrounding areas potentially affected by air and groundwater contamination.

    “Norfolk Southern must live up to its commitment to make residents whole—and must also live up to its obligation to do whatever it takes to stop putting communities such as East Palestine at risk,” the transportation secretary wrote. “This is the right time for Norfolk Southern to take a leadership position within the rail industry, shifting to a posture that focuses on supporting, not thwarting, efforts to raise the standard of U.S. rail safety regulation.”

    As The Associated Press reported Monday:

    Buttigieg also said that Norfolk Southern and other rail companies “spent millions of dollars in the courts and lobbying members of Congress to oppose commonsense safety regulations, stopping some entirely and reducing the scope of others.” He said the effort undermined rules on brake requirements and delayed the phase-in for more durable rail cars to transport hazardous material to 2029, instead of the “originally envisioned date of 2025.”

    The transportation secretary said the results of the investigation are not yet known, but “we do know that these steps that Norfolk Southern and its peers lobbied against were intended to improve rail safety and to help keep Americans safe.”

    Nevertheless, as The Lever reported earlier this month, Buttigieg is actively considering an industry-backed proposal to further erode federal oversight of train braking systems.

    The outlet has published an open letter urging Buttigieg “to rectify the multiple regulatory failures that preceded this horrific situation,” including by exercising his authority to reinstate the rail safety rules rescinded by the Trump administration at the behest of industry lobbyists.

    The full environmental and public health consequences of the ongoing East Palestine disaster are still coming into view, as residents question the validity of initial water testing paid for by Norfolk Southern.

    Despite state officials’ claims that air and water in the area remain safe, thousands of fish have died in polluted local waterways and people in the vicinity of the derailment have reported headaches, eye irritation, and other symptoms.

    Just days after his company skipped a town hall meeting, Shaw visited East Palestine on Saturday and said that “we are here and will stay here for as long as it takes to ensure your safety.”

    “Something’s wrong with corporate America and something’s wrong with Congress and administrations listening too much to corporate lobbyists.”

    Norfolk Southern, which reported record-breaking operating revenues of $12.7 billion in 2022, originally offered to donate just $25,000 to help affected residents—an amount equivalent to about $5 per person—but recently announced the creation of a $1 million charitable fund instead.

    Lawmakers in Ohio “are now scrambling to make sure the railroad is held accountable,” WSYX reported. “The House Homeland Security Committee is scheduled to hear ‘informal testimony’ Wednesday from Karen Huey, assistant director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety, and John Esterly, chairman of the Ohio State Legislative Board with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers.”

    In Washington, U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) on Friday requested information regarding the handling of hazardous materials from the CEOs of several large rail corporations, including Norfolk Southern.

    “Over the past five years, the Class I railroads have cut their workforce by nearly one-third, shuttered railyards where railcars are traditionally inspected, and are running longer and heavier trains,” Cantwell wrote. “Thousands of trains carrying hazardous materials, like the one that derailed in Ohio, travel through communities throughout the nation each day.”

    Notably, Norfolk Southern announced a $10 billion stock buyback program last March. The company has routinely raised its dividend, rewarding shareholders while refusing to invest in safety upgrades or basic benefits such as paid sick leave.

    Just days after he sent co-authored letters raising safety and health concerns to the NTSB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said during a Sunday appearance on CNN‘s “State of the Union” that Norfolk Southern is responsible for the East Palestine disaster, which he characterized as another chapter in “the same old story.”

    “Corporations do stock buybacks, they do big dividend checks, they lay off workers,” said Brown. “Thousands of workers have been laid off from Norfolk Southern. Then they don’t invest in safety rules and safety regulation, and this kind of thing happens. That’s why people in East Palestine are so upset.”

    “They know that corporate lobbyists have had far too much influence in our government and they see this as the result,” Brown continued. “These things are happening because these railroads are simply not investing the way they should in car safety and in the rail lines themselves.”

    “Something’s wrong with corporate America and something’s wrong with Congress and administrations listening too much to corporate lobbyists,” he added. “And that’s got to change.”

    Another Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous materials crashed last week near Detroit, Michigan. Like Brown, union leaders and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have attributed the recent derailments to Wall Street-backed policies that prioritize profits over safety.

    As David Sirota, Rebecca Burns, Julia Rock, and Matthew Cunningham-Cook of The Lever pointed out in a recent New York Times opinion piece, the U.S. is home to more than 1,000 train derailments per year and has seen a 36% increase in hazardous materials violations committed by rail carriers in the past five years.

    The rail industry “tolerates too many preventable derailments and fights too many safety regulations,” the journalists wrote. “The federal government must move quickly to improve rail safety overall.”

    An inter-union alliance of U.S. rail workers, meanwhile, has called on organized labor to back the nationalization of the country’s railroad system, arguing that “our nation can no longer afford private ownership of the railroads; the general welfare demands that they be brought under public ownership.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Tens of Thousands in Israel Rally Against ‘Dictator’s Bill’ as Lawmakers Vote on Judicial Overhaul



    Tens of thousands of people opposed to the far-right Israeli government’s proposed judicial overhaul once again hit the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv on Monday, where they implored lawmakers to vote against the measures during the afternoon’s first reading.

    “On the morning of the vote, small groups of protesters sat down outside the front doors of some coalition lawmakers’ homes in a bid to block them from leaving for parliament. They were removed by the police,” The New York Times reported. After blocking highways to Jerusalem, protesters gathered outside parliament, where doctors “set up a mock triage station for ‘casualties of the judicial reform.’”

    Despite weeks of massive demonstrations, members of the Israeli Knesset are expected to pass the legislation, which is supported by right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his close ally, Justice Minister Yariv Levin.

    If that happens, the Supreme Court’s ability to overrule parliament would be weakened, as a simple 61-vote majority could override the court’s decisions; the Supreme Court’s ability to review and strike down attempts to change Israel’s 13 quasi-constitutional “Basic Laws” would be abolished; and the ruling coalition would gain control of the Judicial Appointments Commission, a panel tasked with picking new judges.

    The legislation must be approved three times to become law, with Monday afternoon’s vote marking the first step in the process. Israeli President Isaac Herzog, a largely ceremonial figure, and opposition leader Yair Lapid have pleaded for Netanyahu’s government to delay the legislation, to no avail.

    On the eve of the initial vote, Levin said, “We won’t stop the legislation now, but there is more than enough time until the second and third readings to hold an earnest and real dialogue and to reach understandings.”

    But as the Times noted, “critics have dismissed the government’s position as disingenuous, arguing that once the bills have passed a first vote, only cosmetic changes will be possible.”

    Organizers, for their part, said Monday that “with the passage of the dictator’s bill, the protests will intensify,” according to i24 News.

    Opponents “say the proposed overhaul would place unchecked power in the hands of the government, remove protections afforded to individuals and minorities, and deepen divisions in an already fractured society,” the Times reported. They also worry that “Netanyahu, who is standing trial on corruption charges, could use the changes to extricate himself from his legal troubles.”

    In addition, Al Jazeera reported, opponents fear that “Netanyahu’s nationalist allies want to weaken the Supreme Court to establish more settlements on land the Palestinians seek for a state. But settlements, which are considered illegal under international laws, have continued under successive Israeli governments. Nearly 600,000-750,000 Israelis now live in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.”

    Last week, Netanyahu’s administration granted retroactive “legalization” to nine such settlements, and the prime minister has also intensified deadly raids, killing at least 50 Palestinians in occupied territories so far this year.

    A right-wing neutering of the Supreme Court could exacerbate Israel’s regime of violent dispossession and ethnic cleansing.

    But the weekslong demonstrations against the proposed judicial overhaul “include very few Palestinians,” Jewish Currents editor Peter Beinart observed Sunday in a Times op-ed titled “You Can’t Save Democracy in a Jewish State.”

    “In fact, Palestinian politicians have criticized them for having, in the words of former Knesset member Sami Abu Shehadeh, ‘nothing to do with the main problem in the region—justice and equality for all the people living here,’” Beinart wrote.

    “The reason is that the movement against Mr. Netanyahu is not like the pro-democracy opposition movements in Turkey, India, or Brazil—or the movement against Trumpism in the United States,” he added. “It’s not a movement for equal rights. It’s a movement to preserve the political system that existed before Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition took power, which was not, for Palestinians, a genuine liberal democracy in the first place. It’s a movement to save liberal democracy for Jews.”

    For Palestinians, Israel is not a democracy but rather an apartheid state, an assessment shared by numerous human rights groups around the world. The Israeli government has enacted discriminatory laws against Palestinians and colonized their land for decades, including under Lapid.

    According to Beinart: “The principle that Mr. Netanyahu’s liberal Zionist critics say he threatens—a Jewish and democratic state—is in reality a contradiction. Democracy means government by the people. Jewish statehood means government by Jews. In a country where Jews comprise only half of the people between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, the second imperative devours the first.”

    “Ultimately, a movement premised on ethnocracy cannot successfully defend the rule of law,” he added. “Only a movement for equality can.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Pesticide Use and Climate Crisis Locked in ‘Vicious Cycle’ Backed by Polluting Industries



    Even though synthetic pesticides—the majority of which are derived from fossil fuels—contribute significantly to planet-heating pollution and increase the vulnerability of food systems, industrial agriculture interests continue to recklessly portray further pesticide use as a sensible response to the climate emergency’s worsening impacts.

    That’s according to a recent report published by the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), which details how agrochemical corporations exacerbate the climate crisis by refusing to admit that pesticides are part of the problem and instead promoting “false” solutions that enable them to keep peddling their highly profitable petroleum-based products.

    The January report outlines how policymakers can help mitigate the climate crisis and build just and sustainable food systems by setting targets to drastically curb pesticide use, supporting agroecological farming practices, and protecting the rights of low-income individuals, disproportionately people of color, who are most harmed by pesticides, including farmworkers and residents of areas where the toxic substances are produced and applied.

    “Governments are investing billions of dollars to address climate change, but these investments will fall woefully short unless they incorporate pesticide use reduction strategies and promotion of agroecological growing practices.”

    “Reductions in pesticide use and the adoption of agroecology would decrease greenhouse gas emissions, while also reducing acute poisonings, long-term diseases like cancer, and other health impacts that rural communities face from pesticide exposure,” Nayamin Martinez, executive director of Central California Environmental Justice Network, said in a statement.

    As the report explains: “Pesticides contribute to climate change throughout their lifecycle via manufacturing, packaging, transportation, application, and even through environmental degradation and disposal. Importantly, 99% of all synthetic chemicals—including pesticides—are derived from fossil fuels, and several oil and gas companies play major roles in developing pesticide ingredients.”

    Pesticides, the offspring of a World War II-era marriage of Big Ag and Big Oil, help drive global warming to a greater extent than many realize, as the authors document:

    Other chemical inputs in agriculture, such as nitrogen fertilizer, have rightly received significant attention due to their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. Yet research has shown that the manufacture of one kilogram of pesticide requires, on average, about 10 times more energy than one kilogram of nitrogen fertilizer. Like nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides can also release greenhouse gas emissions after their application, with fumigant pesticides shown to increase nitrous oxide production in soils seven- to eight-fold. Many pesticides also lead to the production of ground-level ozone, a greenhouse gas harmful to both humans and plants. Some pesticides, such as sulfuryl fluoride, are themselves powerful greenhouse gases, having nearly 5,000 times the potency of carbon dioxide.

    Despite mounting evidence that pesticides are helping to accelerate planetary heating, “climate change impacts are expected to lead to increases in pesticide use, creating a vicious cycle between chemical dependency and intensifying climate change,” the report notes. “Research shows that declining efficacy of pesticides, coupled with increases in pest pressures associated with a changing climate, will likely increase synthetic pesticide use in conventional agriculture. An increase in pesticide use will lead to greater resistance to herbicides and insecticides in weeds and insect pests, while also harming public health and the environment.”

    That agricultural production is a substantial contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is increasingly acknowledged, but the role played by pesticides is “infrequently addressed” and “many proposed solutions would not result in meaningful GHG emission reductions,” says the report.

    It continues:

    An example of a false solution is precision agriculture, which promises to reduce the use of petroleum-derived pesticides and fertilizers by using computer-aided technologies to more accurately determine need (pest presence) and then more accurately apply pesticides to intended targets. However, precision agriculture maintains a system dependent upon chemical- and energy-intensive technologies and materials, while diverting attention from and investment in more effective climate-friendly strategies in agriculture that have additional social and public health co-benefits, such as agroecology. Precision agriculture also increases the power and control of agrochemical companies, many of which own the precision agriculture platforms and the data inputted by farmers.

    Another flawed solution, carbon markets, allows agribusinesses or farmers to sell carbon credits to corporations to “offset” continued greenhouse gas emissions—perpetuating reliance on fossil fuels. Carbon markets have a poor track record in terms of long-term climate mitigation, and have been shown to worsen economic and racial disparities.

    Co-author Asha Sharma, organizing co-director at PANNA, said that “our new report reveals how oil and gas companies and pesticide manufacturers have followed a similar playbook—strategically promoting flawed solutions to the climate crisis, like carbon capture and storage and new digital agriculture tools, which in reality offer minimal climate benefits.”

    “Corporations tout these novel technologies to protect their reputation, while they continue to profit from fossil fuels,” said Sharma. “We need deeper, transformative approaches to actually solve the root problems of our broken food system.”

    The report makes the case for agroecology, which it defines as “a way of farming rooted in social justice that focuses on working with nature rather than against it.”

    Agroecology “relies on ecological principles for pest management, minimizing the use of synthetic pesticides, while prioritizing the decision-making power of farmers and agricultural workers,” the report notes, adding that such an approach improves “the resilience of our agricultural systems to better withstand climate change impacts.”

    The report makes three key recommendations for policymakers:

    • Establish measurable goals in climate policies to reduce synthetic pesticide use in agriculture;
    • Promote the transition to biodiverse, agroecological food and farming systems, such as by establishing and funding programs that provide increased technical assistance and incentives to farmers to adopt or continue these farming practices; and
    • In line with international law, adopt regulations that uphold and promote the rights of groups most impacted by synthetic pesticide use.

    “Transitioning our agricultural systems to those that uplift ecological and social justice principles will not only help mitigate climate change, but also reduce the negative health impacts of industrial agriculture,” says the report. “While the work toward future policy and practice change continues, we can collectively support the advocacy work of impacted communities and organizations fighting for more equitable and sustainable food and farming systems right now.”

    Co-author Margaret Reeves, a senior scientist at PANNA, argued that “governments are investing billions of dollars to address climate change, but these investments will fall woefully short unless they incorporate pesticide use reduction strategies and promotion of agroecological growing practices.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Biden DOJ Supporting Rail Giant Norfolk Southern’s Effort to Block Future Lawsuits



    Norfolk Southern—the railroad giant whose train derailed and caused a toxic chemical fire in a small Ohio town earlier this month—has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 2017 lawsuit filed by a cancer-afflicted former rail worker, and the Biden administration is siding with the corporation, fresh reporting from The Lever revealed Thursday.

    If the high court, dominated by six right-wing justices, rules in favor of Norfolk Southern, it could be easier for the profitable rail carrier to block pending and future lawsuits, including from victims of the ongoing disaster in East Palestine. Moreover, it “could create a national precedent limiting where workers and consumers can bring cases against corporations,” wrote two of the investigative outlet’s reporters, Rebecca Burns and Julia Rock.

    Former Norfolk Southern worker Robert Mallory was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2016. The following year, he filed a lawsuit alleging that his illness stemmed from workplace exposure to asbestos and other hazardous materials and that the rail carrier failed to provide safety equipment and other resources to ensure he was adequately protected on the job.

    Although he had never worked in Pennsylvania, Mallory filed his lawsuit in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas because his attorneys were from the state and “he thought he would get the fairest access to justice there,” Ashley Keller, the lawyer representing him before the Supreme Court, told The Lever.

    As Burns and Rock explained:

    Pennsylvania has what’s known as a “consent-by-registration” statute—something states have had on the books since the early 19th century—which stipulates that when corporations register to do business in the state, they are also consenting to be governed by that state’s courts. Norfolk Southern asserts that being forced to defend the case in Pennsylvania would pose an undue burden, thereby violating its constitutional right to due process.

    Even though Norfolk Southern owns thousands of miles of track in the Keystone State, the Philadelphia county court sided with the railroad and dismissed the case. Mallory appealed, and the case wound its way through state and federal courts before landing at the U.S. Supreme Court last year.

    The rail carrier is asking the high court “to uphold the lower court ruling, overturn Pennsylvania’s law, and restrict where corporations can be sued, upending centuries of precedent,” the journalists noted. “If the court rules in favor of Norfolk Southern, it could overturn plaintiff-friendly laws on the books in states including Pennsylvania, New York, and Georgia that give workers and consumers more leeway to choose where they take corporations to court—an advantage national corporations already enjoy, as they often require customers and employees to agree to file litigation in specific locales whose laws make it harder to hold companies accountable.”

    Unsurprisingly, the American Association of Railroads (AAR) and other powerful corporate lobbying groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the American Trucking Association want to undercut the ability of workers and consumers to file lawsuits in the venue of their choosing. AAR, the rail industry’s biggest lobby, filed a brief last September on behalf of Norfolk Southern.

    Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) also filed a brief siding with the railroad giant. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the coming months.

    “This is totally insane,” The Lever‘s editor, David Sirota, wrote on social media.

    “Wow. Just wow,” Pennsylvania Sen. Katie Muth (D-44) tweeted in response to the report. “Sadly, this isn’t that surprising, but WTAF.”

    “Should Norfolk Southern prevail, the company could use the ruling to challenge other lawsuits on the grounds that they’re filed in the wrong venue,” The Lever reported, citing Scott Nelson, an attorney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group, which filed a brief backing Mallory. “Such a decision could affect lawsuits filed by residents exposed to hazardous chemicals as the result of accidents in other states,” including victims of air or water pollution caused by the recent derailment in East Palestine, five miles west of the Pennsylvania state border.

    “[Norfolk Southern] might say, ‘You can only sue us in Ohio or Virginia [where Norfolk Southern is headquartered],’ even if you were injured at your home in Pennsylvania from an accident that took place five miles away in Ohio,” Nelson told the outlet.

    In its brief, AAR argued that if the high court rules in favor of Mallory, he and other plaintiffs suing railroads under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA)—a law protecting rail workers injured on the job—”could have a wide range of jurisdictions to choose from.”

    However, Burns and Rock reported, “groups weighing in on Mallory’s side pointed out that ‘forum shopping’ is the norm for corporations,” including when companies with no physical presence in Delaware register in that state to dodge taxes or when firms file bankruptcy cases in states more likely to hand down favorable opinions.

    Notably, “Norfolk Southern freely utilizes the Pennsylvania courts to enforce its rights,” the Academy of Rail Labor Attorneys, a group of lawyers who represent rail workers, pointed out in a brief. “The railroad certainly is not prejudiced in any way by defending lawsuits in the state. For purposes of jurisdiction, there is no valid reason that a corporation such as Norfolk Southern should be treated differently than an individual within the state.”

    During oral arguments in the case last fall, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal appointed by former President Barack Obama, asked Deputy Solicitor General Curtis Gannon why the Biden administration decided to involve itself in this case.

    In response, Gannon said, “We pointed out not just that… the excessive availability of general jurisdiction could cause international concerns for trade with the United States and our commercial interests, but also the petitioner had called into question the constitutionality of a federal statute, and so we thought that it was important to make sure that the court’s decision here wouldn’t implicate the constitutionality of federal statutes.”

    The Biden administration’s contention that Pennsylvania’s law amounts to an overreach of state authority and calls into question the constitutionality of a federal statute is nonsensical, Keller, the plaintiff’s lawyer, told The Lever.

    “The United States relies on consent-by-registration statutes [like the Pennsylvania law] to obtain personal jurisdiction over various foreign entities,” said Keller. “If it’s unconstitutionally coercive when Pennsylvania does it, why isn’t it unconstitutionally coercive when the United States does it?”

    Burns and Rock warned that the high court’s decision could have implications for future lawsuits as well as pending ones.

    At least five class-action negligence lawsuits have been filed in Ohio against Norfolk Southern since the company’s February 3 freight train crash in East Palestine.

    While progressive advocacy groups and lawmakers have demanded that U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg move immediately to improve rail safety rules in response to that unfolding environmental and public health catastrophe, The Lever reported last week that Buttigieg is actively considering an industry-backed proposal to further weaken the regulation of train braking systems.

    Another Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous materials careened off the tracks on Thursday near Detroit, Michigan. Union leaders and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have described the recent derailments as the predictable result of Wall Street-backed policies that prioritize profits over safety.

    As Sirota, Burns, Rock, and Matthew Cunningham-Cook of The Lever pointed out in a Friday op-ed in The New York Times, the U.S. is home to more than 1,000 train derailments per year and has seen a 36% increase in hazardous materials violations committed by rail carriers in the past five years.

    The rail industry “tolerates too many preventable derailments and fights too many safety regulations,” the journalists wrote. “The federal government must move quickly to improve rail safety overall.”

    “It shouldn’t take a chemical cloud over a community in the American heartland to compel the government to protect its people,” they added. “If we want to get train derailments much closer to zero, the rail industry must evolve.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • Sanders-Warren Plan Would Expand Social Security by Taxing the Rich

    As congressional Republicans threaten to cut Social Security and other key federal programs, progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren led a group of lawmakers Monday in unveiling legislation that would increase Social Security benefits by at least $200 per month and prolong the program’s solvency for decades by finally requiring wealthy Americans to pay their fair share.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sanders-Warren Plan Would Tax the Rich to Increase Social Security by $2,400 a Year

    As congressional Republicans threaten to cut Social Security and other key federal programs, progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren led a group of lawmakers Monday in unveiling legislation that would increase Social Security benefits by at least $200 per month and prolong the program’s solvency for decades by finally requiring wealthy Americans to pay their fair share.

    The Social Security Expansion Act, introduced by Sanders (I-Vt.) and Warren (D-Mass.) in the Senate and by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) in the House, would put an additional $2,400 in beneficiaries’ pockets each year and ensure the program is fully funded through 2096.

    The bill would accomplish this by lifting the cap on the maximum amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax—a change that would not raise taxes on the 93% of U.S. households that make $250,000 or less per year, according to an analysis conducted by the Social Security Administration at the request of Sanders.

    Currently, annual earnings above $160,200 are not subject to the Social Security payroll tax, which means that millionaires will stop contributing to the program later this month. The legislation proposes lifting this cap and subjecting all income above $250,000 per year to the Social Security payroll tax. If enacted, the bill would have raised more than $3.4 billion from the nation’s top 11 highest-paid CEOs alone in 2021, including $2.9 billion from Tesla and Twitter executive Elon Musk.

    “The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years.”

    “At a time when nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and almost 50% of our nation’s seniors are trying to survive on an income of less than $25,000 a year, our job is not to cut Social Security,” Sanders said in a statement.

    “Our job is to expand Social Security so that every senior in America can retire with the dignity that they deserve and every person with a disability can live with the security they need,” the chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions continued. “The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years by making sure that the wealthiest people in our society pay their fair share into the system.”

    “Right now, a Wall Street CEO who makes $30 million pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $160,000 a year,” the Vermont Independent added. “Our bill puts an end to that absurdity which will allow us to protect Social Security for generations to come while lifting millions of seniors out of poverty.”

    As Sanders’ office noted:

    Before 1935, when it was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, about 50% of the nation’s seniors were living in poverty, as well as countless Americans living with disabilities and surviving dependents of deceased workers. Nearly 90 years later, the senior poverty rate is down to 10.3% and in 2021 alone, during the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic, Social Security lifted 26.3 million Americans out of poverty, including more than 18 million seniors.

    Despite this long legacy of combatting poverty, more must be done to strengthen the program, not cut it. While the average Social Security benefit is only $1,688 a month, nearly 40% of seniors rely on Social Security for a majority of their income; one in seven rely on it for more than 90% of their income; and nearly half of Americans aged 55 and older have no retirement savings at all.

    Schakowsky warned that “instead of working to protect Social Security, my Republican colleagues are plotting to cut benefits and raise the retirement age.”

    Contrary to the claims of GOP lawmakers who are clamoring to slash benefits and postpone eligibility, the latest annual Social Security trustees report showed that the program has a $2.85 trillion surplus in its trust fund, enabling it to pay 100% of promised benefits through 2035, 90% for the next 25 years, and 80% for the next 75 years.

    “While House Republicans are willing to put Social Security on the chopping block, we are fighting hard to protect Americans’ hard-earned benefits and expand coverage,” said Hoyle. “With the rising cost of living, it’s time to modernize and expand the program.”

    “While House Republicans are willing to put Social Security on the chopping block, we are fighting hard to protect Americans’ hard-earned benefits and expand coverage.”

    In addition to lifting the tax cap to boost benefits by $200 each month for all recipients, the Social Security Expansion Act would increase Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments by adopting a more accurate measure of inflation, improve the Special Minimum Benefit to help keep low-income workers out of poverty, and restore student benefits up to age 22 for children of disabled or deceased workers.

    Endorsed by 56 labor unions and progressive advocacy groups, the legislation is overwhelmingly popular among voters, who have consistently expressed opposition to cutting or privatizing Social Security.

    According to polling results published Monday by Data for Progress, 78% of likely voters support the Social Security Expansion Act, including 85% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 72% of Republicans. The survey, commissioned by Social Security Works, was conducted online from January 27 to January 30.

    “Social Security Works is proud to endorse the Social Security Expansion Act,” the group’s executive director, Alex Lawson, said in a statement. “This bill is the answer to any politician or pundit who claims we ‘can’t afford’ Social Security. It protects and expands benefits, and it is fully paid for by finally requiring the wealthy to contribute their fair share.”

    “During the State of the Union, nearly every member of Congress stood and clapped for protecting seniors,” Lawson noted. “They should prove it by passing this bill into law.”

  • Over 30 Million in US Face ‘Hunger Cliff’ as Food Benefit Cuts Loom

    Hunger is expected to soar across the United States next month when more than 30 million people enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) see their food benefits slashed significantly. “This hunger cliff is coming to the vast majority of states, and people will on average lose about $82 of SNAP benefits a month,” Ellen Vollinger, director for SNAP at the Food Research &

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.