Among the many lessons to be learnt by Australia’s defeated Liberal-National coalition parties from the election is that they should stop getting into bed with News Corporation.
Why would a political party outsource its policy platform and strategy to people with plenty of opinions, but no experience in actually running a government?
The result of the federal election suggests that unlike the coalition, many Australians are ignoring the opinions of News Corp Australia’s leading journalists such as Andrew Bolt and Sharri Markson.
Last Thursday, in her eponymous programme on Sky News Australia, Markson said:
For the first time in my journalistic career I’m going to also offer a pre-election editorial, endorsing one side of politics […] A Dutton prime ministership would give our great nation the fresh start we deserve.
Sharri Markson issues own Dutton endorsement as ACM says ‘Australia is Tanya Plibersek’https://t.co/UYh0xKeXPR
After a vote count that sees the Labor government returned with an increased majority, Bolt wrote a piece for the Herald Sunadmonishing voters:
No, the voters aren’t always right. This time they were wrong, and this gutless and incoherent Coalition should be ashamed. Australians just voted for three more years of a Labor government that’s left this country poorer, weaker, more divided and deeper in debt, and which won only by telling astonishing lies.
That’s staggering. If that’s what voters really like, then this country is going to get more of it, good and hard.
The Australian and most of News’ tabloid newspapers endorsed the coalition in their election eve editorials.
Repudiation of minor culture war
The election result was a repudiation of the minor culture war Peter Dutton reprised during the campaign when he advised voters to steer clear of the ABC and “other hate media”. It may have felt good alluding to “leftie-woke” tropes about the ABC, but it was a tactical error.
The message probably resonated only with rusted-on hardline coalition voters and supporters of right-wing minor parties.
But they were either voting for the coalition, or sending them their preferences, anyway. Instead, attacking the ABC sent a signal to the people the coalition desperately needed to keep onside — the moderates who already felt disappointed by the coalition’s drift to the right and who were considering voting Teal or for another independent.
Attacking just about the most trusted media outlet in the country simply gave those voters another reason to believe the coalition no longer represented their values.
Reporting from the campaign bus is often derided as shallow form of election coverage. Reporters tend to be captive to a party’s agenda and don’t get to look much beyond a leader’s message.
But there was real value in covering Dutton’s daily stunts and doorstops, often in the outer suburbs that his electoral strategy relied on winning over.
What was revealed by having journalists on the bus was the paucity of policy substance. Details about housing affordability and petrol pricing — which voters desperately wanted to hear — were little more than sound bites.
Steered clear of nuclear sites
This was obvious by Dutton’s second visit to a petrol station, and yet there were another 15 to come. The fact that the campaign bus steered clear of the sites for proposed nuclear plants was also telling.
— C h r i s @chrishehim.bsky.social (@ChrisHeHim1) May 4, 2025
The grind of daily coverage helped expose the lateness of policy releases, the paucity of detail and the lack of preparation for the campaign, let alone for government.
On ABC TV’s Insiders, the Nine Newspapers’ political editor, David Crowe, wondered whether the media has been too soft on Dutton, rather than too hard as some coalition supporters might assume.
He reckoned that if the media had asked more difficult questions months ago, Dutton might have been stress-tested and better prepared before the campaign began.
Instead, the coalition went into the election believing it would be enough to attack Labor without presenting a fully considered alternative vision. Similarly, it would suffice to appear on friendly media outlets such as News Corp, and avoid more searching questions from the Canberra press gallery or on the ABC.
Reporters and commentators across the media did a reasonable job of exposing this and holding the opposition to account. The scrutiny also exposed its increasingly desperate tactics late in the campaign, such as turning on Welcome to Country ceremonies.
If many Australians appear more interested in what their prospective political leaders have to say about housing policy or climate change than the endless culture wars being waged by the coalition, that message did not appear to have been heard by Peta Credlin.
The Sky News Australia presenter and former chief-of-staff to prime minister Tony Abbott said during Saturday night’s election coverage “I’d argue we didn’t do enough of a culture war”.
“Mayday, mayday, mayday” is not a celebration of the first day of May, but “an emergency procedure word used internationally as a distress signal” for a life-threatening emergency. And right now, it’s the once-pristine Gallatin River crying “mayday” as it faces the life-threatening emergency of being further — and most likely permanently — degraded by the Big Sky area’s sewage and nutrients.
How bad is it? Well, the Department of Environmental Quality just approved yet another application for a 45-condo development using septic systems within a quarter mile of the already-hammered river. Mind you, this is after the Gallatin was formally declared “impaired” last year due to nutrient overload which now feeds the neon green algae blooms in this once gin-clear river downstream from Big Sky.
The state agency is obviously ignoring the fact that putting even more nutrients in the Gallatin will only exacerbate its “impaired” status — the exact opposite of what “regulatory” agencies are supposed to do to uphold Montanans’ “inalienable right to a clean and healthful environment” (according to the state’s constitution, Article II, Section 3), as well as the constitutional mandate that “the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations.” (Article IX, Section 1)
It’s tough to find any other interpretation of those plain language constitutional guarantees than if there’s already an environmental pollution problem, the onus is on the state to “maintain and improve” the environment, not approve and allow even more pollution.
Gov. Greg Gianforte, a religious man, swore an oath on the Bible to uphold the Constitution — but that obviously doesn’t mean much when the big money at Big Sky wants yet more overdevelopment and more pollution.
This is the second phase of the Quarry development which, as reported by Brett French, wants “136 single-family condos, 130 multifamily condos and 11 mixed-use buildings.” Yet, that’s just a tiny fraction of the 1,354 additional homes the Big Sky Resort Area District says it will need in the next three years as housing for their underpaid workers.
What’s even more shocking is the fact this decision comes only days after the release of a hydrogeologic study by Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology that compared the undeveloped side of the Gallatin with the Big Sky side. Their conclusion? The aquifer is “shallow, unconfined, and vulnerable to contamination.” In other words, the septic effluent has a short trip from the drain field to the aquifer to the Gallatin.
In the meantime, DEQ is claiming that most of the nitrogen polluting the Gallatin is “natural” — and that septic effluent is only a minor input. Which begs the question: How was it possible that the Gallatin ran clear and clean for thousands of years before Big Sky, the Yellowstone Club, and the ever-growing cluster of real estate developments started dumping their waste on the mountain and in the river?
It’s no mystery where the nutrients causing the algae blooms are coming from — and no, it’s not from the bison in Yellowstone National Park. It’s from the pollution emanating from this bizarre enclave of the wealthy stuffed into a narrow canyon with nowhere for their waste to go but down to the Gallatin.
In short, what we’re seeing is an abject failure of Montana’s so-called “environmental regulatory” agency — aided and abetted by the Gallatin County Commissioners who, when the rich say “jump,” they jump to approve.
As for a “clean and healthy environment for present and future generations of Montanans” — without enforcement that prescient mandate of our Constitution is just words on paper as the Gallatin River cries “mayday, mayday, mayday” to deaf ears.
Nauru’s ambition to commercially mine the seabed is likely at risk following President Donald Trump’s executive order last month aimed at fast-tracking ocean mining, anti-deep sea mining advocates warn.
The order also increases instability in the Pacific region because it effectively circumvents long-standing international sea laws and processes by providing an alternative path to mine the seabed, advocates say.
Titled Unleashing America’s Offshore Critical Minerals and Resources, the order was signed by Trump on April 25. It directs the US science and environmental agency to expedite permits for companies to mine the ocean floor in US and international waters.
It has been condemned by legal and environmental experts around the world, particularly after Canadian mining group The Metals Company announced last Tuesday it had applied to commercially mine in international waters through the US process.
The Metals Company has so far been unsuccessful in gaining a commercial mining licence through the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
Currently, the largest area in international waters being explored for commercial deep sea mining is the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, located in the central Pacific Ocean. The vast area sits between Hawai’i, Kiribati and Mexico, and spans 4.5 million sq km.
The area is of high commercial interest because it has an abundance of polymetallic nodules that contain valuable metals like cobalt, nickel, manganese and copper, which are used to make products such as smartphones and electric batteries. The minerals are also used in weapons manufacturing.
Benefits ‘for humankind as a whole’
Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Clarion-Clipperton Zone falls under the jurisdiction of the ISA, which was established in 1994. That legislation states that any benefits from minerals extracted in its jurisdiction must be for “humankind as a whole”.
Nauru — alongside Tonga, Kiribati and the Cook Islands — has interests in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone after being allocated blocks of the area through UNCLOS. They are known as sponsor states.
In total, there are 19 sponsor states in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Nauru is leading the charge for deep sea mining in international waters. Image: RNZ Pacific/Caleb Fotheringham
Nauru and The Metals Company Since 2011, Nauru has partnered with The Metals Company to explore and assess its block in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone for commercial mining activity.
It has done this through an ISA exploration licence.
At the same time, the ISA, which counts all Pacific nations among its 169-strong membership, has also been developing a commercial mining code. That process began in 2014 and is ongoing.
The process has been criticised by The Metals Company as effectively blocking it and Nauru’s commercial mining interests.
Both have sought to advance their respective interests in different ways.
In 2021, Nauru took the unprecedented step of utilising a “two-year” notification period to initiate an exploitation licencing process under the ISA, even though a commercial seabed mining code was still being developed.
An ISA commercial mining code, once finalised, is expected to provide the legal and technical regulations for exploitation of the seabed.
In the absence of a code
However, according to international law, in the absence of a code, should a plan for exploitation be submitted to the ISA, the body is required to provisionally accept it within two years of its submission.
While Nauru ultimately delayed enforcing the two-year rule, it remains the only state to ever invoke it under the ISA. It has also stated that it is “comfortable with being a leader on these issues”.
To date, the ISA has not issued a licence for exploitation of the seabed.
Meanwhile, The Metals Company has emphasised the economic potential of deep sea mining and its readiness to begin commercial activities. It has also highlighted the potential value of minerals sitting on the seabed in Nauru’s block in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
“[The block represents] 22 percent of The Metals Company’s estimated resource in the [Clarion-Clipperton Zone and] . . . is ranked as having the largest underdeveloped nickel deposit in the world,” the company states on its website.
Its announcement on Tuesday revealed it had filed three applications for mining activity in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone under the US pathway. One application is for a commercial mining permit. Two are for exploration permits.
The announcement added further fuel to warnings from anti-deep sea mining advocates that The Metals Company is pivoting away from Nauru and arrangements under the ISA.
Last year, the company stated it intended to submit a plan for commercial mining to the ISA on June 27 so it could begin exploitation operations by 2026.
This date appears to have been usurped by developments under Trump, with the company saying on Tuesday that its US permit application “advances [the company’s] timeline ahead” of that date.
The Trump factor Trump’s recent executive order is critical to this because it specifically directs relevant US government agencies to reactivate the country’s own deep sea mining licence process that had largely been unused over the past 40 years.
President Donald Trump signs a proclamation in the Oval Office at the White House last month expanding fishing rights in the Pacific Islands to an area he described as three times the size of California. Image: RNZ screenshot APR
That legislation, the Deep Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act, states the US can grant mining permits in international waters. It was implemented in 1980 as a temporary framework while the US worked towards ratifying the UNCLOS Treaty. Since then, only four exploration licences have been issued under the legislation.
To date, the US is yet to ratify UNCLOS.
At face value, the Deep Sea Hard Mineral Resources Act offers an alternative licensing route to commercial seabed activity in the high seas to the ISA. However, any cross-over between jurisdictions and authorities remains untested.
Now, The Metals Company appears to be operating under both in the same area of international waters — the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition’s Pacific regional coordinator Phil McCabe said it was unclear what would happen to Nauru.
“This announcement really appears to put Nauru as a partner of the company out in the cold,” McCabe said.
No Pacific benefit mechanism
“If The Metals Company moves through the US process, it appears that there is no mechanism or no need for any benefit to go to the Pacific Island sponsoring states because they sponsor through the ISA, not the US,” he said.
McCabe, who is based in Aotearoa New Zealand, highlighted extensive investment The Metals Company had poured into the Nauru block over more than 10 years.
He said it was in the company’s financial interests to begin commercial mining as soon as possible.
“If The Metals Company was going to submit an application through the US law, it would have to have a good measure of environmental data on the area that it wants to mine, and the only area that it has that data [for] is the Nauru block,” McCabe said.
He also pointed out that the size of the Nauru block The Metals Company had worked on in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone was the same as a block it wanted to commercially mine through US legislation.
Both are exactly 25,160 sq km, McCabe said.
RNZ Pacific asked The Metals Company to clarify whether its US application applied to Nauru and Tonga’s blocks. The company said it would “be able to confirm details of the blocks in the coming weeks”.
It also said it intended to retain its exploration contracts through the ISA that were sponsored by Nauru and Tonga, respectively.
Cook Islands nodule field – photo taken within Cook Islands EEZ. Image: Cook Islands Seabed Minerals Authority
Pacific Ocean a ‘new frontier’ Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG) associate Maureen Penjueli had similar observations to McCabe regarding the potential impacts of Trump’s executive order.
Trump’s order, and The Metals Company ongoing insistence to commercially mine the ocean, was directly related to escalating geopolitical competition, she told RNZ Pacific.
“There are a handful of minerals that are quite critical for all kinds of weapons development, from tankers to armour like nuclear weapons, submarines, aircraft,” she said.
Currently, the supply and processing of minerals in that market, which includes iron, lithium, copper, cobalt and graphite, is dominated by China.
Between 40 and 90 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals are processed by China, Penjueli said. The variation is due to differences between individual minerals.
As a result, both Europe and the US are heavily dependent on China for these minerals, which according to Penjueli, has massive implications.
“On land, you will see the US Department of Defense really trying to seek alternative [mineral] sources,” Penjueli said.
“Now, it’s extended to minerals in the seabed, both within [a country’s exclusive economic zone], but also in areas beyond national jurisdictions, such as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which is here in the Pacific. That is around the geopolitical [competition] . . . and the US versus China positioning.”
Notably, Trump’s executive order on the US seabed mining licence process highlights the country’s reliance on overseas mineral supply, particularly regarding security and defence implications.
He said the US wanted to advance its leadership in seabed mineral development by “strengthening partnerships with allies and industry to counter China’s growing influence over seabed mineral resources”.
The Metals Company and the US She believed The Metals Company had become increasingly focused on security and defence needs.
Initially, the company had framed commercial deep sea mining as essential for the world’s transition to green energies, she said. It had used that language when referring to its relationships with Pacific states like Nauru, Penjueli said.
However, the company had also begun pitching US policy makers under the Biden administration over the need to acquire critical minerals from the seabed to meet US security and defence needs, she said.
Since Trump’s re-election, it had also made a series of public announcements praising US government decisions that prioritised deep sea mining development for defence and security purposes.
In a press release on Trump’s executive order, The Metals Company chief executive Gerard Barron said the company had enough knowledge to manage the environmental risks of deep sea mining.
“Over the last decade, we’ve invested over half a billion dollars to understand and responsibly develop the nodule resource in our contract areas,” Barron said.
“We built the world’s largest environmental dataset on the [Clarion-Clipperton Zone], carefully designed and tested an off-shore collection system that minimises the environmental impacts and followed every step required by the International Seabed Authority.
“What we need is a regulator with a robust regulatory regime, and who is willing to give our application a fair hearing. That’s why we’ve formally initiated the process of applying for licenses and permits under the existing US seabed mining code,” Barron said.
ISA influenced by opposition faction
The Metals Company directed RNZ Pacific to a statement on its website in response to an interview request.
The statement, signed by Barron, said the ISA was being influenced by a faction of states aligned with environmental NGOs that opposed the deep sea mining industry.
Barron also disputed any contraventions of international law under the US regime, and said the country has had “a fully developed regulatory regime” for commercial seabed mining since 1989.
“The ISA has neither the mining code nor the willingness to engage with their commercial contractors,” Barron said. “In full compliance with international law, we are committed to delivering benefits to our developing state partners.”
President Trump’s executive order marks America’s return to “leadership in this exciting industry”, claims The Metals Company. Note the name “Gulf of America” on this map was introduced by President Trump in a controversial move, but the rest of the world regards it as the Gulf of Mexico, as recognised by officially recognised by the International Hydrographic Organisation. Image: Facebook/The Metals Company
‘It’s an America-first move’
Despite Barron’s observations, Penjueli and McCabe believed The Metals Company and the US were side-stepping international law, placing Pacific nations at risk.
McCabe said Pacific nations benefitted from UNCLOS, which gives rights over vast oceanic territories.
“It’s an America-first move,” said McCabe who believes the actions of The Minerals Company and the US are also a contravention of international law.
There are also significant concerns that Trump’s executive order has effectively triggered a race to mine the Pacific seabed for minerals that will be destined for military purposes like weapons systems manufacturing, Penjueli said.
Unlike UNCLOS, the US deep sea mining legislation does not stipulate that minerals from international waters must be used for peaceful purposes.
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition’s Duncan Currie believes this is another tricky legal point for Nauru and other sponsor states in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone.
Potentially contravene international law
For example, should Nauru enter a commercial mining arrangement with The Metals Company and the US under US mining legislation, any royalties that may eventuate could potentially contravene international law, Currie said.
First, the process would be outside the ISA framework, he said.
Second, UNCLOS states that any benefits from seabed mining in international waters must benefit all of “humankind”.
Therefore, Currie said, royalties earned in a process that cannot be scrutinised by the ISA likely did not meet that stipulation.
Third, he said, if the extracted minerals were used for military purposes — which was a focus of Trump’s executive order — then it likely violates the principle that the seabed should only be exploited for peaceful purposes.
“There really are a host of very difficult legal issues that arise,” he added.
The Metals Company says ISA is being influenced by a faction of states aligned with environmental NGOs that oppose the deep sea mining industry. Image: Facebook/The Metals Company/RNZ
The road ahead Now more than ever, anti-deep sea mining advocates believe a moratorium on the practice is necessary.
Penjueli, echoing Currie’s concerns, said there was too much uncertainty with two potential avenues to commercial mining.
“The moratorium call is quite urgent at this point,” she said.
“We simply don’t know what [these developments] mean right now. What are the implications if The Metals Company decides to dump its Pacific state sponsored partners? What does it mean for the legal tenements that they hold in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone?”
In that instance, Nauru, which has spearheaded the push for commercial seabed mining alongside The Metals Company, may be particularly exposed.
Currently, more than 30 countries have declared support for a moratorium on deep sea mining. Among them are Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, New Caledonia, Palau, Samoa, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and Tuvalu.
On the other hand, Nauru, Kiribati, Tonga, and the Cook Islands all support deep sea mining.
Australia has not explicitly called for a moratorium on the practice, but it has also refrained from supporting it.
New Zealand supported a moratorium on deep sea mining under the previous Labour government. The current government is reportedly reconsidering this stance.
RNZ Pacific contacted the Nauru government for comment but did not receive a response.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
In a major blow to the Paris ’15 climate agreement, last year witnessed one more nail in the coffin of the celebrated agreement to slow down CO2 emissions by 2030, as CO2, for the first time in modern history, enters the scientifically established danger zone. This agreement was/is meant to curtail global warming and hopefully save major ecosystems from collapse. But now, with too much noncompliance by countries and rapidly ascending CO2 emissions, Paris ’15 is at rest in a coffin awaiting an un-ceremonial burial. Nobody wants to attend.
CO2 emissions went bonkers in 2024, up 3.75 ppm, a new all-time-record, smashing all prior years and looking very ominous with trouble likely ahead as global warming kicks into higher gear, raising the question of whether property/casualty insurance companies will survive the onslaught: (1) raging wildfires (2) atmospheric river cloudbursts (3) widespread flooding (4) skies blackened by tornados (5) scorching droughts (6) category 5+ hurricanes, all of which follow in the footsteps of excessive greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
It should be noted that the property/casualty insurance industry was already on the ropes with CO2 emissions lower. They’ve publicly admitted it! The following is a must-read article written by a key player in the worldwide insurance industry; frankly, a must-read for anybody concerned about the future: “Climate, Risk, Insurance: The Future of Capitalism,” March 25, 2025.
Within only a couple weeks of that standalone earth-shattering article that lays out the climate change-global warming disaster scenario from a senior member of the property/casualty insurance industry, Arctic News published a startling notice on April 14, 2025, “Record High Increase in Carbon Dioxide,” CO2, the primary target of the now-infamous Paris 2015 climate agreement. Oops! All Paris ’15 bets are off, as CO2 increased by a thundering record-shattering 3.75 ppm, a rocket ship blastoff by historic standards, and the future likely higher yet:
1960 +0.96 ppm
1970 +1.13 ppm
2000 +1.24 ppm
2024 +3.75 ppm
And that’s before the Trump administration turned the oil and gas spigot wide open along with a big push for coal as well as an ultra-ultra-massive rollback of environmental regulations, meaning the fossil fuel and chemical industries are deeply indebted to the administration for removing costly regulations that forced them to adhere to a clean environment!
Additionally, according to a recent article inScience: “Trump Administration Fires Staff for Flagship U.S. Climate Assessment” (subtitle: Move Could Open Door to Using High-Profile Report to Attack Science), April 9, 2025. This is obviously devious to an extreme, possibly altering climate reports. But unfortunately the truth remains, as the insurance industry continues to raise rates and/or drop coverage because the reality of harmful climate change takes precedence over doctored reports.
The 430 ppm CO2 Danger Zone
Reality is inescapable: Of all the greenhouse gases, CO2 alone is responsible for 2/3rds of the warming effect by greenhouse gases. This is 100% a proven fact that was discovered by Exxon’s scientists years ago (“Exxon Scientists Predicted Global Warming with ‘Shocking Skill’,” Harvard Gazette, Jan. 12, 2023).
Effective January 2025, CO2 registered 426.03 ppm versus 422.25 ppm in 2024. By way of comparison, in 1960 CO2 in the atmosphere was 316.00 ppm. And until advent of the industrial revolution mid 18th century, CO2 levels were below 300 ppm for ages.
According to an IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report: “In 2016, a worldwide body of climate scientists said that a CO2 level of 430 ppm would push the world past its target for avoiding dangerous climate change.” (MIT Climate Portal)
Acceleration of CO2 is getting to be downright spooky +200%-t0-300% since the start of the new century. It’s never increased at such a rapid pace throughout recorded history. According to current readings by Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, CO2 exceeded 430 ppm for six days in a row in April 2025 and hit 430.51 on April 21. And the new year is still young. Clearly, CO2 emissions are out of control running roughshod over any pretense of climate change mitigation efforts by parties to the Paris ‘15 climate agreement (RIP?).
Moreover, the U.S., one of the world’s major influencers of economic behavior and climate change, is pushing in the wrong direction, encouraging more CO2 emissions via increased production of oil and gas and coal while falsely claiming “climate change is a hoax.” This is an extreme position, bold-faced lie, not supported by facts, making Emperor Nero look like a lightweight. It’s the whole planet, stupid, not just Rome!
Meanwhile, a casual Google search of four words: “climate change and insurance” reveals the startling truth, bringing up page after page after page filled with titles such as: “Climate Change is Driving an Insurance Crisis.” Business gets it: “Property Values to Crater up to 60% Due to Climate Change,” Business Insider, August 9, 2024. Yes, the word “crisis” fills the pages. It’s a crisis! Crises end badly, but we’ve only just begun.
According to the Arctic News’ article, it’s about to get much, much worse. But what’s worse than a crisis? A worsening crisis seems to be on the docket. As clearly stated, “Not only are concentrations of CO2 very high, but additionally, there has been an increase in total solar irradiance.” This is therefore the ole one-two punch to the gut as increased solar irradiance means more solar energy reaches the surface absorbed, ipso facto, increasing global temperatures as excessive levels of CO2 blanket and trap heat. This is a fatal formula for life on Earth, just ask sister planet Venus, 95% CO2 atmosphere, surface temperature 870°F, which melts lead.
It should be noted that Arctic News has a reputation for taking the more extreme view of where climate change is headed, but it should also be noted that it” footnotes a lot of peer-reviewed climate science,” albeit taken to an extreme conclusion, which happens to be the prospect of an oncoming “extinction event” with climate change a wild stallion that can’t be tamed.
It’s difficult to ignore heightened concern of the property/casualty insurance industry alongside Arctic News both publicly exposing a rapidly descending climate system that’s literally changing the landscape of property ownership, starting with coastal properties and working inland, as homeowners find insurance premiums, if available where they reside, squeezing throats, stated as such in the following quote from the insurance industry article included herein: “The insurance industry has historically managed these risks. But we are fast approaching temperature levels 1.5°C, 2°C, 3°C where insurers will no longer be able to offer coverage for many of these risks. The math breaks down: the premiums required exceed what people or companies can pay. This is already happening. Entire regions are becoming uninsurable. (See: “State Farm and Allstate exiting California’s home insurance market due to wildfire risk,” 2023).
Already, the climate crisis that started on the West Coast is spreading fast: “The Home Insurance Crisis Hits the US Heartland,” Business Insider, April 6, 2025.
It was only a couple of months ago when James Hansen (Columbia – Earth Institute) said 2C is dead: “Climate Change Target of 2C is ‘Dead’ says Renowned Climate Scientist,” Guardian, Feb. 4, 2025. If medals are ever awarded for correct calls, James Hansen, Ph.D. gets the gold medal for the following: “Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate,” New York Times, June 24, 1988. He nailed it!
The insurance article insinuation of “entire regions becoming uninsurable,” standing alone, should be enough motivation to turn the screws of climate change mitigation efforts to whatever level necessary at whatever costs! Who cares how much a Worldwide Marshall Plan to ‘hopefully’ control radical climate change costs? The alternative is unspeakable, and there’s little time to waste.
Now that the insurance industry is feeling the wrath of numerous climate change warnings issued by Arctic News over many years, it may be a good idea to at least consider what the extreme publication has to say.
Here’s the Arctic News’ summation of climate change:
Climate Emergency Declaration
The situation is dire and the precautionary principle calls for rapid, comprehensive and effective action to reduce the damage and to improve the situation, as described in this 2022 post, where needed in combination with a Climate Emergency Declaration, as discussed at this group.
Climate Emergency in bold red letters is how Arctic News sees the current situation.
As for the property/casualty insurance industry: “There is only one path forward: Prevent any further increase in atmospheric energy levels. That means keeping emissions out of the atmosphere.” So far, this solution is not even close to working as CO2 emissions are currently cranking up faster than ever before, knocking on the door of the 430 ppm danger zone, which is starting to look like a cake walk.
At 1am on Saturday 26 April, cops raided an Axe Drax supporter’s house. Police have now released them under investigation for burglary. This was all over an action where activists had written on some windows and a whiteboard with dry wipe pen in a private office.
Axe Drax: police raid activist’s house
Police seized their phone and laptop and denied them a phone call for 13 hours. While inside, police arrested and released arrestee supporter waiting at the station.
This follows Axe Drax and Reclaim the Power occupying the European headquarters of one of Drax’s biggest suppliers, Enviva, on Friday 25 April:
BREAKING: We stormed Enviva HQ today demanding an end to forest destruction & toxic pollution.
— Axe Drax @axedrax.bsky.social (@axe_drax) April 25, 2025
The arrest was over the action targeting Enviva, the world’s biggest wood pellet exporter. Despite this, the majority of the bail conditions are focused on Drax.
They include banning them from Drax’s AGM on 1 May and from Drax sites across the UK. Additionally, these also bar them and from Enviva’s European headquarters in York. Further to this, their bail conditions prohibit them from speaking about the arrest and raid over the internet.
Drax and Enviva: partners in deforestation
Drax Power Station, located near Selby in Yorkshire, is the world’s biggest woody biomass power station and the UK’s single largest carbon emitter.
The company sources from around the world, primarily the US, Canada, and the Baltic States. In many of these places, the company is responsible for razing high-risk forests, including old growth, ancient trees.
What’s more, Drax’s has situated its wood pellet production sites, predominantly in environmental justice communities. There, its operations emit large amounts of pollutants, such as PM10, PM2.5 and VOCs. Notably, these are linked to respiratory and pulmonary health impacts.
The UK government counts woody biomass as carbon neutral, allowing Drax to claim renewable energy subsidies.
Meanwhile, Enviva is the world’s largest producer of biomass wood pellets. Enviva is one of Drax’s main suppliers, providing about 15% of the wood pellets that Drax burns at is power station.
Its operations destroy 175,000 acres of Southern forests every year and it exports approximately 6.2 million metric tons of pellets per year.
Enviva’s plants are located in predominantly Black and brown, and low-income neighborhoods, where its facilities expose residents to tonnes of air pollution each year.
Whistleblowers have accused Enviva of sourcing almost exclusively whole trees and failing to replant forests. Scientific studies have concluded what on the ground research has been showing for years: that Enviva is contributing to deforestation in the US Southeast.
Police acting as Drax’s ‘private security’
Axe Drax spokesperson Rosie Gloster said:
What we are seeing here is yet another example of Drax treating the Police like their own private security. It’s beyond clear the raid and arrest were an attempt from Drax to crush dissent once again. Why else would the bail conditions focus on Drax – when it was an action targeting Enviva? Drax and Enviva are both companies who make their money from poisoning communities in the Southern US and destroying vital forests. We will not stop disrupting their destruction, this response alone shows we are having an impact.
A spokesperson from Reclaim the Power said:
Just like last summer, when Police spent over £3 million shutting down our peaceful climate camp, Drax have once again treated the Police like their own private security. It is clear that Drax and Enviva will do anything they can to avoid a light being shone on their poisonous pollution and destruction. Using Police as a tool to repress dissent is an age old technique by polluters like Drax – we will not let them intimate us.
“St. George’s Kermis with the Dance Around the Maypole,” Pieter Breughel the Younger, 1627.
The dominant culture of the world teaches us that The Other is a threat, that our fellow human beings are a danger. We will all continue to be exiles in one form or another as long as we continue to accept the paradigm that the world is a racetrack or a battlefield.
– Eduardo Galeano
+ What if the remarkable string of federal court decisions against Trump’s policies (several rendered by his own appointees) isn’t evidence of an inept, blundering executive, but the intended result, where in the ultimate goal isn’t just to execute mass deportations, but to consolidate executive power by villifying and impugning the federal judiciary as an impediment to the popular will.
+ Indeed, this has long been the strategy advocated for years by Trump’s malevolent amanuensis Stephen Miller.As detailed in Jonathan Blitzer’s excellent book on the recent history of immigration from Central America, Everyone Who is Gone Is Here, during the first Trump administration Miller pushed for intentionally breaking federal laws and regulations and forcing the courts to rule against the administration, then ignoring the court rulings in the confident that the Trump-majority Supreme Court would ultimately rule in your favor.
+ But now Miller and his cohort are willing to go even further, by jailing members of the federal judiciary who stand in the way. This week, White House spokesperson Kathleen Leavitt even refused to rule out arresting Supreme Court justices who attempt to hold the Trump administration to account for constitutional violations.
+ Here’s a sample from MAGA Central…
+ JD Vance (like John Yoo, a Yale Law School Grad); “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power…If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general on how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.”
+ Vance: “When the courts stop you, stand before the country like [early US president] Andrew Jackson did and say: ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”
+ Vance on the jailing of judges: “What we are really doing is fixing 40 years of accumulated bogus bureaucratic BS. We’re fixing 40 years of judges thinking they rule the country instead of the American people. We’re fixing 40 years of judges telling the American president what to do… It had to happen and thankfully, we’re getting it done.”
+ AG Pam Bondi: “What has happened to our judiciary is beyond me. I think some of these judges think they are beyond and above the law. And they are not.”
+ Fox News Sandra Smith asked Bondi, “So when you see these judges trying to obstruct your efforts to make this country safer, what is your message to them?”
“We are going to prosecute you, and we are prosecuting you,” Bondi vowed.
+ Fox News’ Steve Doocy asked White House spokesperson Kathleen Leavitt: “You guys arrested a Milwaukee County Circuit judge for allegedly helping illegal immigrants get away. As you guys look at other judges, would you ever arrest somebody higher up on the judicial food chain, like a federal judge or even a Supreme Court justice?”
Leavitt: “That’s a hypothetical question, again I defer you to the Department of Justice for individuals that they are looking at or individual cases. But let’s be clear about what this judge did: She obstructed federal law enforcement who were looking for an illegal alien in her courthouse. She showed that illegal alien the door to evade law enforcement officials. That is a clear-cut case of obstruction. And so anyone who is breaking the law or obstructing federal law enforcement officials from doing their jobs is putting themselves at risk of being prosecuted, absolutely.”
+ Stephen Miller: “This is the choice facing every American: Either we all side, and get behind President Trump to remove these terrorists from our communities, or we let a rogue, radical left judiciary shut down the machinery of our national security apparatus.”
+ Then there’s the popgun Congressman from New Orleans, Clay Higgins…
+++
+ In a May Day ruling, Trump-appointed Federal Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr, of the Southern District of Texas, will permit those targeted by the Alien Enemies Act in South Texas to proceed with a class action against the government.
+ Two weeks after a family from Maryland moved into a new rental house in Oklahoma City, 20 armed ICE agents burst into their home. “I didn’t know who they were,” the mother later said. “It was dark. All the lights were off. I kept asking them, ‘Who are you? What are you doing here? What’s happening? And they said, ‘We have a warrant for the house, a search warrant.’”
+ “You can’t just walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Show me your papers,” said U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, before issuing a preliminary injunction forbidding the Border Patrol from conducting warrantless immigration stops throughout a wide swath of California.
+ Federal Judge Brian Murphy has barred DHS from transferring migrants to other agencies (like DOD) in a backdoor effort to evade due process guarantees before deportation.
On Tuesday, a DHS official told a federal court that agency leadership diverted 10-20 employees to run 1.3 million names of international students through a database that tracks criminal charges. It took 2-3 weeks. There were fewer than 6,400 hits (0.004%). But thousands of those were for charges that never led to convictions or were dropped. These are the students who had their F1 status revoked by ICE, many of whom also had their State Department visas revoked. ICE put the blame on Rubio and the State Department.
+ As the New York Times reported this week, Trump’s original deal with Bukele was that El Salvador would only accept deportees with criminal convictions, whom he was willing to take for a fee in order to help subsidize his massive prison complex. Bukele told Trump that he couldn’t spin holding non-criminal deportees as being in the best interest of El Salvador. But after the first three shipments of deportees, it became clear to Bukele that 90 percent of the people deported by ICE to El Salvador had no criminal records at all.
+ Other than money, why was Bukele so eager to get MS-13 gang members out of the US court system and back to El Salvador? Because he feared they might expose his own deals with MS-13 before he imposed the State of Exception: “Both the Treasury Department and Justice Department have accused Mr. Bukele’s government of making a secret pact with MS-13, offering its leaders behind bars special privileges to keep homicides down in El Salvador.”
+ The deportation process was so disorganized and sloppy that eight women were among those flown to be incarcerated in the all-male Salvadoran prison…
+ Two weeks after a family from Maryland moved into a new rental house in Oklahoma City, 20 armed ICE agents burst into their home. “I didn’t know who they were,” the mother later said. “It was dark. All the lights were off. I kept asking them, ‘Who are you? What are you doing here? What’s happening? And they said, ‘We have a warrant for the house, a search warrant.’”
Flashing the warrant, ICE raided the house, seizing cellphones, computers, and the family’s life savings. While ICE agents ransacked the house, they forced the mother and three daughters to stand outside in their underwear. “We are citizens!” the mother screamed at the ICE officers. “You have guns pointed in our faces. Can you just reprogram yourself and see us as humans, as women?”
When she was allowed to read the warrant, the mother noticed that it referred to the house’s previous tenants. She pointed this out to the agents: “They were very dismissive, very rough, very careless,” she said. “I kept pleading. I kept telling them we weren’t criminals. They were treating us like criminals. We were here by ourselves. We didn’t do anything. One of them said, ‘I know it was a little rough this morning.’ It was so denigrating. That you do all of this to a family, to women, your fellow citizens. And it was ‘a little rough?’ You literally traumatized me and my daughters for life. We’re going to have to go get help or get over this somehow. I asked, ‘When are we going to get our stuff back?’ They said it could be days or it could be months.”
They didn’t even leave a contact card.
+ Defense attorney Andrew Fleischman: “It would be unfair to say that all ICE agents are dumb, thieving, perverts. But [in this case] they did break into an American home, steal everything that wasn’t nailed down, and force the daughters to stand outside in their underwear due to gross negligence and rank incompetence.”
+ A Trump administration memo disclosed this week urged ICE to break into homes in search of noncitizens to kidnap without a warrant. The memo stated that ICE can curb the “proactive procedures” put in place to obtain a warrant, since they “will not always be realistic or effective in swiftly identifying and removing alien enemies.”
+ The Guardian reported this week on internal ICE documents showing that the agency is seeking out unaccompanied immigrant children in operations nationwide with the intent of deporting them or pursuing criminal cases against them or their guardians.
+ ICE is luring noncitizens who are trying to follow the law into traps. Take the case of Rosmery Alvarado, the wife of a naturalized US citizen, and mother of a daughter who is also a US citizen. Alvardo, a native of Guatemala who lives in Pittsburg, Kansas, had applied for a green card as the wife of a US citizen. A couple of weeks ago, Rosmery received a summons from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office to come to Kansas City for her spousal interview. When Rosmery arrived for her interview, she was immediately taken into custody by ICE and told she would be deported to Guatemala. The summons was a ruse. Rosmery had no criminal record. Alvardo’s daughter, Carina Moran: “My father was then approached by an ICE officer, and he was told, ‘We arrested your wife and she’s going to be deported. We didn’t get any kind of warning. They didn’t let us say goodbye.”
+ Last year, a family of three turned themselves in to immigration after crossing the border in Texas and were separated by ICE. The father, Maiker Espinoza Escalona, was sent to a men’s detention prison, and the mother, Yorely Bernal Inciarte, was detained in a women’s prison, as their asylum claim was being processed. Their two-year-old daughter was sent into government custody. After a few months, the couple rescinded their asylum claim and asked to be deported so that they could be reunited with their daughter. Instead, Maiker was sent first to Guantanamo, then deported to Bukele’s concentration camp in El Salvador. Meanwhile, Yorely was put on a deportation flight to Venezuela without her daughter, who remained in ICE custody: “I started yelling at the officers asking where my baby was, but ICE officers ignored me.”
When the Venezuelan government protested the kidnapping of the couple’s daughter, the Trump administration responded by smearing Maiker and Yorely with the dubious charge of being leaders of the Tren De Aragua gang. “The child’s father, Maiker Espinoza-Escalona, is a lieutenant of Tren De Aragua who oversees homicides, drug sales, kidnappings, extortion, sex trafficking, and operates a torture house,” DHS said in a statement. ”The child’s mother, Yorely Escarleth Bernal Inciarte, oversees recruitment of young women for drug smuggling and prostitution.”
Neither Maiker nor Yorely has a criminal record in the US or Venezuela. However, they do both have tattoos. Maiker is a barber and tattoo artist who inked the birthdates of Yorely’s mother and father, the name of her son, and some flowers on her chest. Neither has any gang tattoos.
Yorely, who has no way of contacting her 2-year-old daughter, told ABCNews: “I wouldn’t wish this on any mother.”,
+ Cliona Ward, a 54-year-old Irish woman who has been living legally in the United States for decades, was taken into detention by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after a trip to Ireland to visit her sick father. Ward moved to the US in her early teens and is the sole carer for a son with special needs. She is being held in an ICE facility in Tacoma, Washington.
+ Harvard cancer researcher Kseniia Petrova on being kidnapped and locked up in an ICE prison:“I would call it a grinding machine. We are in this machine, and it doesn’t care if you have a visa, a green card, or any particular story… It just keeps going.”
+ Jack Herrera: “When Texas started arresting migrants for trespassing in ‘21, many paid hefty bail to get out of jail. But instead of releasing them, Texas handed them over to ICE.I spent over a year investigating: One county has made over $1 million by taking bail from deported migrants.”
+ Marco Rubio: “We are actively searching for other countries to take people from third countries. Not just El Salvador. We are working with other countries to say, ‘We want to send some of the most despicable to your countries. Will you do that as a favor to us?’ And the further from the US the better.”
+ Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi walked out of ICE detention on Wednesday, freed by federal judge Geoffrey Crawford in Vermont, who referred to the Trump administration’s deportation of pro-Palestinian students as similar to the Red Scare: “Legal residents–not charged with crimes or misconduct–are being arrested and threatened with deportation for stating their views on the political issues of the day.”
+ In front of a large crowd singing “We Shall Overcome” outside the ICE detention center, Mohsen Mahdawi said: “To my people in Palestine: I feel your pain, I see your suffering; and I see freedom and it is very very soon.”
Judge Crawford said: “Yes, Mohsen’s a peaceful figure—but he has rights even if he were a firebrand.”
+++
+ 45% of Americans give Trump’s first 100 days an “F.” That’s higher than:
Obama: 11%
Biden: 26%
And Trump’s first term: 32%
+ Jim Naureckas: “I would give Trump’s first term an F. This term gets a grade of ‘Call 911–there’s an active shooter in the building.’”
+ According to the courtier scribes at Axios, Trump has been “lashing out” at “fake polls” depicting his plunging approval ratings and raging that news outlets that publish them should be “investigated for election fraud.” So he’s running again?
+ Even with his failing grades, Trump’s still less loathed than his opponents.
Who’d do a better job as president?
Trump 45%
Harris 43%
Who can better deal with the main U.S. problems?
Trump 40%
Dems in Congress’ 32%
– CNN Poll
+ Kamala Harris: “And folks, what we are experiencing right now is exactly what they envision for America. Right now, we are living in their vision for America. But this is not a vision that Americans want.”
+ Fortunately, Harris is so bad at the politics thing that she could never be elected. But if she is elected through some nationwide glitch in electronic voting machines, the blacklash will whip us back to the early Pleistocene…
+ DemAnon: So authentic and believable they wouldn’t even put their name to the sentiment…
+ When Strom Thurmond filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 25 hours, he didn’t turn around two weeks later and vote to approve Ike’s nominee to run the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department…
+ The Bulwark reports that Democratic Minority Leader in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, wants Democratic members of Congress to stop making trips to check on the status and well-being of deported constituents. This, after Trump’s poll numbers have finally shifted into reverse on his signature issue. It’s hard to imagine the Democrats could have hand-picked two more incompetent and spineless leaders than Schumer and Jeffries. A top staffer, Jeffries, said: “One trip was sufficient; it made sense that Van Hollen went, but when the safest possible members go, it gives fodder for the National Republican Campaign Committee to start using it against other Democrats. They should understand what they’re doing is going to be hurting us in the long run.”
+++
+ Trump on China: “They made a trillion dollars with Biden selling us stuff. Much of it we don’t need. Somebody said, ‘Oh, the shelves are gonna be open.’ Well, maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls, and maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more.”
Less stuff (including made-in-China MAGA caps), but more expensive. What a bargain!
+ Expected price increase of Apple products to cover the cost of Trump’s tariffs
+ Bloomberg News reports that Chinese purchases of American oil are down 90% year-over-year, while Chinese purchases of Canadian oil are up +700% year-over-year.
+ Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to Fox Business:“I’m told that in parts of Florida, gasoline is $1.93, and that’s an automatic tax cut for the American people. We’re probably gonna see a lot more car travel this summer. So I think things are in good shape.”
The average price of regular gas in Florida is nowhere near $1.93 per gallon and has increased over the last week:
Current Ave. $3.179.
Yesterday Ave. $3.148.
Week Ago Ave. $3.123…
+ On Monday, Trump said Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg are “great” and billionaires like them “hold me in a higher level of respect.”
+ On Tuesday morning, after Amazon announced it would post the cost of tariffs included in the price of each item, the White House responded by calling it a “hostile political act” by a “China-aligned” company….
+ I thought they were proud of their tariffs and would appreciate it if Bezos showed them how they would replace the income tax.
+ By Tuesday afternoon, Amazon had folded, going from Ben & Jerry’s-like defiance to IG Farben-like compliance in less than two hours! And Trump was back to calling Bezos a “smart guy.”
+ David Warrick, CEO of Overhaul, is sticking to his guns, calling the display of tariffs costs “transparency” in retail sales: “Consumers should understand that this is what you’re paying for, and what the cost of trade policy is and how it’s uplifting prices. It’s useful, and a good demonstration of how tariffs are impacting daily spending.”
+ Since April 30, the online swimwear company Triangle has been displaying tariff charges on its items, including a one-piece swimsuit that retails for $119, but after taxes and costs $362.46.
+ In a new letter to shareholders, General Motors has cut its profit guidance and said that tariffs could cost the automaker up to $5 billion.
+ Bjørn Gulden, CEO of Adidas: “Since we currently cannot produce almost any of our products in the U.S., these higher tariffs will eventually cause higher costs for all our products for the U.S. market.”
+ One reason Trump declared a national energy emergency was to keep his non-stop gaslighting fueled…
+ US GDP for Q1 contracted by -0.3%, below estimates of +0.2%, pushing the odds of a recession in 2025 to 64%.
+ Looks like the tariffed are kicking the ass of the tariffer…
Q1 GDP data
+0.6% Spain
+0.4% Eurozone
+0.32% Ireland
+0.3% Italy
+0.2% Germany
+0.2% Austria
+0.1% France
+0.2% Mexico
-0.3% U.S.
+ According to the Financial Times,Trump’s top economic adviser, Stephen Miran, met with top bond investors last week, and he was described as incoherent” and “out of his depth.”
+ The amount most Americans believe they’ll need to retire comfortably:$1.26 million.
+ Median amount of savings for most Americans at retirement age (65-70): $200,000
+ But many millions of Americans have almost no retirement savings at all. In fact, an AARP survey from last year found that 20% of adults ages 50+ have no retirement savings, and nearly have no savings in retirement accounts.
+ The federal minimum wage is now officially a “poverty wage.” A single adult working full-time all year round at $7.25 an hour would fall beneath the poverty line of $15,650 a year.
+ I’m sure ChatGPT is as good as any Freudian analyst. Unfortunately, most Gen Zers can’t afford a couch…
+++
+ Elon Musk has packed up his stuff and left the White House. Now, who will run what remains of the government?
+ Despite DOGE’s cut-and-run assault on the federal workforce and social welfare programs, the federal government spent nearly $220 billion more than in Trump’s first 100 days than it did last year.
+ Finally, someone Americans dislike more intensely than Trump, the GOP and the Democrats: Elon Musk: 34% favorable, 54% unfavorable. (NPR poll)
+ The House GOP wants to spend another $45 billion to extend the Trump border wall–four times as much as the cost of the original wall. In four years under Trump, the existing border wall was breached at least 3,200 times. How’s that for efficiency in government?
+ On April 8th, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who sits on the House Homeland Security Committee, bought stock in Palantir. On April 17th, ICE announced a $30 million deal with Palantir. Palantir’s stock price has now risen 48% in the three weeks since its purchase.
+ Jacob Silverman explains why the Trump family’s crypto venture may be the biggest financial scandal in presidential history, even though it’s happening right before our eyes.
+ I won’t be convinced AOC means it, until I see “Against Oligarchy” hand-stitched by Haitian seamstresses in a Port-au-Prince sweatshop onto her $100,000 gown at the next Met Gala.
+ A Morgan Stanley estimate of the number of human workers expected to be replaced by humanoid robots in the US…
2030: 40 thousand
2035: 500 thousand
2040: 8.4 million
2045: 26.7 million
2050: 62.7 million
+ Duolingo, the language program, announced it’s going “AI-first” and plans to replace contract workers with AI. The company also plans to utilize AI in its hiring process and performance reviews. “Duolingo will remain a company that cares deeply about its employees,” said Duolingo’s CEO, Luis von Ahn. He didn’t clarify whether he meant human or cyber.
+ Mark Zuckerberg claims that Meta is creating personalized AI “friends” to supplement your real ones: “The average American has three friends, but has a demand for 15.”
Sam Stein: “This sounds more like a confession than a business plan.”
+ According to a study by the Getulio Vargas Foundation, Brazil experienced a historic drop in income inequality in 2024.Income for the nation’s poorest quintile increased by 10.7% compared to a 6.7% increase for the wealthiest 10%. This resulted in a 2.9-point drop in the GINI Coefficient’s measure of income inequality.
+++
+ Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and his deputy Alex Wong are out. Did Trump’s Cromwell, Laura Loomer, wield the axe again? Or was there just too much winning?
+ Trump says Waltz’s role will be filled on an “interim basis” by Marco Rubio, which means that Rubio’s portfolio will now include: Secretary of State, interim National Security Advisor, acting administrator of USAID, acting Archivist of the United States, and personal revoker of student visas for pro-Palestinian international students. Either Rubio’s a remarkable multitasker (for which there’s no empirical evidence; indeed, he had one of the worst attendance records in the US Senate) or his job just isn’t that demanding.
+ Move over, Alger Hiss! According to a piece in The Daily Beast: “Marco Rubio’s State Department has launched a dystopian hunt for staff who spoke ill of Trump, Elon Musk, Alex Jones, Joe Rogan, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and mentioned keywords like Black Lives Matter, January 6, Q-Anon, immigration, and anti-vaxx.”
+ Travis Akers: “Since hiring Kristina Wong from Breitbart News as the Secretary of the Navy Communications Director this week, the Secretary of the Navy’s Twitter account has twice posted the incorrect date of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, ‘a date which will live in infamy.’”
+ Northwestern, one of the universities Trump has threatened to withhold federal money from unless it bends the knee to him, reported this week, “As of this writing, we have received 98 stop-work orders, mostly for Department of Defense-funded research projects.” So not all bad, right?
+ Paramount owner Shari Redstone asked Paramount/CBS CEO George Cheeks to delay sensitive ’60 Minutes’ stories about Trump or his policies, especially one on Gaza, until after she had closed the Skydance deal. Redstone’s meddling prompted the resignation of 60 Minutes’ executive producer, Bill Owens.
+ Of course! The ultimate blood libel gets an exemption, but then it was never about protecting Jews but shielding Israeli atrocities from public opprobrium…
+ A British doctor who returned from Gaza speaks on amputating the limbs of children gravely wounded by Israeli airstrikes.
Dr.: I had with me, because I’m prepared for these mass casualty events, I had some Ketamine. I had two syringes of ketamine and that was my sedation. And I had to pick and choose who to give the sedation to and who not to give the sedation to. Ketamine can also be used as a painkiller as well as a sedative.
Interviewer: How do you even make that decision? What’s the thought process?
Dr.: I was just very pragmatic, right? The thought process was: if I knew this child was going to die, even if they’re in agony and in pain, I wouldn’t give them the ketamine. And the reason was because the children that could live, I didn’t want them traumatized for the rest of their lives with what I was about to do to them (amputations), so I would sedate them. And I would leave those other children to die. Those are the decisions you have to make every day when you’re in Gaza.
+ Raviv Drucker, former Israeli ambassador: “God did the state of Israel a favor that Biden was president during this period, because it could have been much worse. We fought in Gaza for over a year, and the administration never came to us and said, ‘Ceasefire now.’ It never did. And that’s not to be taken for granted.”
+ I seem to recall someone telling us team Biden was “working tirelessly for a ceasefire.”
+ The Observer reports “members of [Columbia’s] board of trustees were in direct communication with Republicans in Congress and… the Trump administration, offering information and advice on what demands to make and how to present them.” Columbia wasn’t so much negotiating or caving to Trump, as using Trump as an excuse for what they wanted to do on their own.
+ Massive Attack’s defense of Kneecap…
+ In the last two weeks, Kneecap has soared from 100,000 listeners on Spotify to more than 1.1 million.
+ Albert Pinto and Kate Mackenzie, April is the Cruelest Month: “In international relations, trade, security and capital markets, the themes are the same: in place of decades of reliance on the US and its assets, the rest of the world is now seeing to diversify, decarbonize, defend and dedollarize….[while the US] has decided that it now needs to engage in full-scale demolition of the same system it created….The US is becoming weaker as it dismantles the very system it once built.”
+ The US military apparently took the coordinates of an alleged Houthi bunker from a public Twitter account (VleckieHond)and then programmed a drone strike on the supposed “base,” killing eight innocent people. The command-and-control base was actually a … quarry.
+ Who could Nazi this coming? Trump’s DC attorney nominee Ed Martin “apologized” for praising convicted Capitol rioter and white supremacist, Timothy Hale-Cusanelli. Martin said he didn’t know about the alleged Nazi sympathizer’s views that he repeatedly praised on his podcast. Martin called Hale “an extraordinary man, and an extraordinary leader” and presented him with an honorary award last August from Martin’s nonprofit groupat Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. In July of 2020, Martin told Hale: “In your case, they used your phone and took a photo and leaked a photo to say, ‘Ah, look … MAGA people are antisemitic. You had like a mustache shaved in such a way that you looked vaguely like Hitler and making jokes about it. Again, you know, not your best moment, but not illegal.”
+++
+ David Geir, the man RFK Jr. tapped to help run his autism study, was penalized by the Maryland State Medical Board for injecting autistic children with puberty blockers. He has no medical degree or license to practice medicine, though he was cited for doing so without one.
+ RFK Jr on the measles vaccine: “The MMR vaccine contains a lot of aborted fetus debris…parents should do their own research.”
+ Because like climate change, cancer’s no longer a thing in America…
+ Eric Reinhart, social psychologist and political anthropologist: “There’s a scary, superficial paradox at the heart of Trump and RFK Jr’s calls to reopen asylums and ship off people with mental illnesses and substance use disorders to cells and work camps: the asylum model of care hinges on psychiatric authority, but RFK Jr is adamantly anti-psychiatry, undermining its diagnoses and treatments at every turn. Why is this so frightening? Because the paradox dissolves when we realize that what Kennedy wants is even worse than asylums: he wants just prisons and concentration camps without any pretense of treatment.”
+ RFK, Jr. told Dr. Phil this week, he may appoint a “Chemtrails Czar“: “I’m going to do everything in my power to stop it, or bring on somebody who’s going to think only about that, find out who’s doing it, and holding them accountable.”
+ The National Institute of Health is now prohibiting the awarding of new grants to any institutions that boycott Israeli companies. Boycotts of companies from other countries are perfectly okay.
+ 53: number of Palestinian children starved to death in Gaza while food waits just meters away behind a fence, blocked by Israel.
+++
+ The worst of the living neoliberals, Tony Blair, continues to make even Bill Clinton look good by comparison. Here he is fronting for dubious carbon capture scams, that will further enrich fossil fuel companies and do almost nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2: “Any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.”
+ Stephen Miller: “Children will be taught to love America. Children will be taught to be patriots. Children will be taught civic values for schools that want federal taxpayer funding. So as we close the Department of Education and provide funding to states, we’re going to make sure these funds are not being used to promote communist ideology.”
+ I don’t know, Stephen, this sounds kind of Maoist to me…
+ Doug Henwood on the scabrous turncoat, professional hysteric and academic witch hunter David Horowitz, who died this week:
“Now that the evil David Horowitz is dead, I can tell a story that my late friend Bob Fitch, who worked with him at Ramparts in the late 60s before his turn to the right, told me years ago; Horowitz would commission three articles on the same subject, plagiarize the best bits of each, and publish the resulting bricolage under his own name. Oh, a footnote: By the end of Ramparts’s run, they’d burned every printer in North America and were looking to Italy to get the last issue printed. Horowitz thought it was cool not to pay your printing bills.”
+ But his predacious progeny lives on, as the (Ben) Horowitz of the $42 billion Trump-backing Andreesen Horowitz venture capital firm in Menlo Park, a primary underwriter in the AI scourge.
“Now, in contemporary industrialized democracies, the legitimate administration of violence is turned over to what is euphemistically referred to as ‘law enforcement’–particularly to police officers, whose real role, as police sociologists have repeatedly demonstrated, has much less to do with enforcing cimrinal law than with the scientific application of physical force to aid in the resolution of administrative problems. Police are, essentially, bureaucrats with weapons.”
Leading administration officials have publicly repeated fossil fuel industry-backed disinformation. And in a very disturbing recent move, a federal prosecutor has sent threatening letters to medical journals, revealing the administration’s authoritarian impulse to censor scientific findings that challenge their agenda.
The release goes on to claim that the administration is promoting “energy innovation.” But the technologies it boasts about — carbon capture and storage and nuclear energy — are polluting, expensive, infeasible scams. Meanwhile the government is making every effort to set back the development of wind and solar.
Even when they’re trying to greenwash their environmental record, the administration can’t seem to hold back from bragging about their ideologically motivated attempts to help polluters.
Finally, the press release uses the classic disinformation tactic of shifting blame elsewhere, labeling China “the most prolific polluter in the world.”
China is a major polluter and needs to take responsibility for its own pollution. But on a per person basis, China’s greenhouse gas emissions are about 37 percent less than ours. And our historical, cumulative emissions — the ones heating the planet today — are almost twice as big as China’s.
A commitment to follow science only if and when it gives you answers that are convenient for your political agenda is not a commitment to follow science — period. Trump’s Earth Day lies have profound consequences.
The scientific consensus is clear: Humanity needs to radically reverse course and transition away from fossil fuels and other pollutants that are heating up the earth. The Trump administration’s policies are pointing us firmly in the opposite direction, all to make more money for the fossil fuel industry.
Reversing this administration’s assault on our shared Earth, and the people who live on it, starts with seeing through the fog of deception emanating from the White House — and recognizing the underlying agenda of serving powerful, polluting corporations at our expense.
Flooded farmlands on the Oregon Coast. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.
Since its inauguration, the Trump administration has embarked on an aggressive agenda to dismantle vital environmental regulations and climate change initiatives, both at home and abroad. It has manifested through numerous deregulatory actions, the dismantling of established legal and administrative frameworks, and a blatant disregard for climate science.
The international response to this assault on climate politics is evolving, shaped largely by the strategic interests and geopolitical ambitions of major world powers. The U.S. withdrawal from global environmental and climate efforts has created a significant void that other major powers are all too eager to exploit for their strategic gains.
In its first three months, the administration unleashed at least 20 Executive Orders, 16 memorandums, numerous federal guidelines, and various secretory-level orders, all orchestrated to roll back essential environmental regulations, policies, and institutions. These instruments are deliberately crafted to erode the foundational pillars of environmental protection, sustainability, and climate initiatives. They threaten the principles of environmental justice, the advancement of clean energy policies, the conservation of wildlife, and ultimately the safeguarding of both people and nature from the corrosive influence of corporate greed and exploitative practices.
The actions taken by the administration have included the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, the targeting of states’ climate laws, a plan to dismantle FEMA, the termination of American Climate Corps, the dismantling of renewable energy initiatives, and an attempt to terminate the employment of over 1,000 scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In another significant move, the administration dismissed nearly 800 staff members and scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency who have played critical roles in weather, marine, fisheries, and climate research. Furthermore, the administration reduced budgets for environmental justice initiatives by nearly $2 billion, dismantled essential air quality and carbon dioxide regulations, and halted the enforcement of pollution rules for energy facilities.
The administration also revoked the classification of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants. The administration’s campaign extended beyond its policy actions. It also attacked climate science, facts, and consensus by promoting false and unscientific narratives in public discourse.
Global Implications on Climate Science and Politics
The United States has been a pivotal actor in global climate initiatives since at least the 1980s, making substantial contributions through its scientific prowess, financial support, political influence, and agenda-setting strategies. However, its recent retreat from these vital global engagements is already having a global ripple effect, especially in the field of climate science.
In late February, the Trump administration barred American scientists from attending a crucial meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in China. Established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations, the IPCC stands as the premier scientific authority on climate issues, boasting a coalition of thousands of scientists appointed by member states. By delivering regular assessments of climate change, its effects, and potential risks, the IPCC is responsible for producing influential climate assessment reports. The meeting in China focused on preparing for the seventh assessment cycle report due in 2029. The absence of the United States is already causing a fracture in global consensus.
Member states, for instance, split into two blocs over the timing of the report’s release. The High Ambition Coalition (HAC), which includes about 20 countries from the EU, Latin America, and Island Nations, called for an early release before the UN Global Stocktaking in mid-2028. The stocktaking, part of the Paris Climate Agreement, assesses national progress on emissions and climate goals every five years. The HAC wanted the report released early to ensure that it contributes to global climate policy and discussions in 2028.
On the other side was a group of about a dozen major polluters, including China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, who opposed the accelerated timeline for the IPCC assessment report’s release. They didn’t want updated stocktaking data to influence global climate action plans for 2028. This effort received backing from the fossil fuel industry and carries significant implications for science and the role of the IPCC in shaping global climate initiatives.
Ultimately, the meeting was unable to reach an agreement on the release of the assessment report. This most significant potential rupture in the role of the IPCC since its establishment in 1988 will end up benefiting polluters and fossil fuel interests. The absence of American scientists from the IPCC and the lack of the United States as a leading state in global climate discussions has contributed to this rupture.
China’s Global Climate Performative Reaction
In the realm of global climate politics, China has been characterized as a performative state. Although its actions related to climate on the global stage are impressive, they are largely influenced by its strategic and economic interests. The U.S. withdrawal from global climate politics has created an opportunity for China to step into the void and position itself as a reliable leader in international environmental politics and climate policies.
During the IPCC plenary in China, representatives from the host country reiterated their commitment to climate science cooperation and asked the community for scientific integrity. The head of the China Meteorological Administration pledged the country’s dedication to the IPCC and its willingness to collaborate on global warning systems. This occurs at a time when the Trump administration is significantly cutting funding for climate-related scientific initiatives and agencies.
Although China seeks to assume the climate leadership role that the US has vacated, many of its domestic and global environmental practices are counterproductive to the fight against climate change. The country is not only the largest polluter in terms of gross greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but it is also facing a significant environmental crisis, particularly in air quality. As the world’s largest coal producer, it accounts for half of global coal consumption. In 2024, the country approved the highest number of coal-fired power plants since 2015, planning to add nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of coal-generated electricity to its national grid.
While China has been increasing its coal-fired power plants, the Trump administration appears to be competing with Beijing by implementing policies that facilitate the resurgence of coal in the U.S. energy sector. These measures include exempting nearly 50 large private power plants from federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Additionally, the administration has directed the Interior and Commerce Departments to identify regions with existing coal-fired infrastructure to meet the energy demands of AI data centers.
EU’s Climate U-Turn
Until recently, the EU was regarded as a “Green normative power.” Utilizing its soft power, the EU positioned itself as a global leader in environmentalism and climate politics, prioritizing Green transitions in its economic and political policies. However, the outbreak of the war in Ukraine prompted a significant shift away from clean energy toward increased reliance on conventional fossil fuels, including coal, albeit temporarily.
During President Trump’s first term, the U.S. withdrawal from global climate initiatives faced strong criticism from EU member countries. The same reaction occurred during Trump’s second term, as his administration again pulled out of these initiatives. However, the ongoing trade war initiated by his administration seemed to compel the EU to prioritize its strategic interests over its commitment to climate change.
In late February, the European Council (EC) proposed loosening its environmental and sustainability regulations, as well as the reporting standards and supply chain transparency requirements for European companies. This decision came in response to concerns from European corporations, who claimed that these social and sustainability regulations hinder their competitiveness in the global economy. Greenpeace criticized the European Council’s proposal, arguing that the council competes with Trump and Musk by diminishing protections for both people and the planet. Environmental organizations, activists, and advocacy groups have formally filed complaints against the EC‘s proposal with the EU Watchdog.
Russia’s Geopolitical Ambitions
During the Cold War, Soviet scientists were among the pioneers in climate change science. Politically, the Soviet Union was also a forerunner in advocating for international cooperation on environmental degradation, sustainability, and man-induced destruction of the planet’s ecology. For instance, in 1985, the last premier of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, appealed for global collaboration on these issues.
At first, it seemed as though Russia would continue in this tradition. In 2004, when the United States and Australia chose not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol—the first legally binding international climate agreement for developed nations—Russia signed and ratified it to prevent the agreement from collapsing. By doing so, Russia effectively ensured the protocol’s survival.
But Russia under President Vladimir Putin has stepped back from environmental stewardship and active climate politics. It has subordinated climate policy to its geopolitical ambitions. U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, for instance, creates just the kind of chaos in global climate politics and financing that aligns with Russia’s geopolitical ambitions. As a revisionist power alongside China, Russia seeks to influence world politics through alternative global institutional arrangement such as the BRICS. The U.S. retreat offers BRICS an opportunity to promote its alternatives to the World Bank and IMF financial systems, such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), particularly in the areas of climate financing and sustainability projects.
Among the two financial initiatives, the NDB, which began operating in 2016, offers loans focused on climate finance, sustainable development, clean energy, and social development. The NDB, in alignment with global climate goals, does not finance coal-fired power plants or power generation. Although the size and operations of this financial institution are currently limited, the unpredictability of Western-led climate financial mechanisms—exacerbated by the erratic policies of the Trump administration—may drive developing countries with high climate vulnerabilities and low levels of preparedness to bandwagon around the alternative financial institutions of the BRICS. This situation presents an opportunity for Russia to extend its strategic tentacles into these countries, including those in the African Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
India’s Expediency
India, one of the world’s largest importers of crude fossil fuels and the second-largest consumer of coal, is significantly impacted by climate change, experiencing severe effects such as altered monsoon patterns, droughts, and heat waves. Amid the turmoil in global climate and environmental politics, India appears to be leveraging this disarray to its advantage.
After the inauguration of Trump, U.S. crude oil exports to India hit a two-year high. Furthermore, during their initial meeting, Indian Prime Minister Modi supported Trump’s energy policies by increasing imports of American fossil fuels.
India’s growing demand for American fossil fuel is driven in part by sanctions on nearby Iran but also by pragmatic economic considerations. To reduce its trade deficit with the United States, India is seeking more favorable tariff arrangements by boosting its fossil fuel purchases. To achieve this aim, the Modi government is pursuing an end to the import tax on U.S. liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Officials in New Delhi have pledged to significantly expand energy purchases from the United States, aiming for an increase from $10 billion to $25 billion in the near future.
The increased import of cheap American fossil fuels poses a long-term challenge to India’s efforts to enhance the share of clean energy sources in its economy. The Modi government’s pragmatic and opportunistic approach to energy politics is not a response solely to the Trump administration’s assault on climate and environmental deregulation. Rather, it is a continuation of policies that began with the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with the resulting global sanctions on Russian natural gas and oil, presented the Modi government with an opportunity to leverage India’s geopolitical significance, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. As a member of the Quad, which aims to counter China’s geostrategic expansionism, India was able to increase imports of fossil fuels, including liquefied natural gas, oil, and even coal from Russia, at prices significantly lower than those in the global market.
Now, taking advantage of the Trump administration’s tendency to prioritize energy over climate regulations, prime minister Modi is looking to expand the Indian market for American fossil fuels as part of its strategy to support U.S. energy needs.
Future of Global Climate Politics
Climate policy has emerged as a necessity on the international stage due to the threats posed by environmental degradation and climate change to people, communities, and nations. Although environmental and climate politics have scientific and instrumental facets, they also possess significant political imperatives. Countries, particularly major powers, often support these initiatives not merely to address environmental threats but also to advance their political and strategic interests. With its scientific prowess, financial resources, institutional arrangements, grand strategic vision, and normative preferences, the United States has assumed a leadership role in advancing collective climate goals and institutionalizing global climate politics.
The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the climate leadership role has opened the field to competition among other major powers eager to assert their influence. Although the Trump administration has damaged the credibility of U.S. climate leadership, making it appear unreliable and unpredictable, other powers, particularly revisionist states like China and Russia, are poised to fill this vacuum and align these politics with their strategic ambitions.
Although global environmental and climate politics may face challenges due to this shift in leadership, resulting in difficulties in meeting established goals or smoothly implementing the agenda, they will not vanish from the international stage. Environmental and climate politics is an integral part of the contemporary international political landscape. However, the consequences will be felt most acutely by the vulnerable communities and nations around the world, who will continue to suffer from climate shocks based on their degree of vulnerability and level of preparedness.
Ultimately, no community is immune to the impacts of climate shocks, including those in the United States. The Trump administration is thus subjecting hundreds of millions of people, including American communities, to the harsh realities of climate shocks and environmental degradation. But it also defying rationality and strategic calculation by strengthening the hands of its adversaries in global climate politics.
Flooded farmlands on the Oregon Coast. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.
Since its inauguration, the Trump administration has embarked on an aggressive agenda to dismantle vital environmental regulations and climate change initiatives, both at home and abroad. It has manifested through numerous deregulatory actions, the dismantling of established legal and administrative frameworks, and a blatant disregard for climate science.
The international response to this assault on climate politics is evolving, shaped largely by the strategic interests and geopolitical ambitions of major world powers. The U.S. withdrawal from global environmental and climate efforts has created a significant void that other major powers are all too eager to exploit for their strategic gains.
In its first three months, the administration unleashed at least 20 Executive Orders, 16 memorandums, numerous federal guidelines, and various secretory-level orders, all orchestrated to roll back essential environmental regulations, policies, and institutions. These instruments are deliberately crafted to erode the foundational pillars of environmental protection, sustainability, and climate initiatives. They threaten the principles of environmental justice, the advancement of clean energy policies, the conservation of wildlife, and ultimately the safeguarding of both people and nature from the corrosive influence of corporate greed and exploitative practices.
The actions taken by the administration have included the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, the targeting of states’ climate laws, a plan to dismantle FEMA, the termination of American Climate Corps, the dismantling of renewable energy initiatives, and an attempt to terminate the employment of over 1,000 scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In another significant move, the administration dismissed nearly 800 staff members and scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency who have played critical roles in weather, marine, fisheries, and climate research. Furthermore, the administration reduced budgets for environmental justice initiatives by nearly $2 billion, dismantled essential air quality and carbon dioxide regulations, and halted the enforcement of pollution rules for energy facilities.
The administration also revoked the classification of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants. The administration’s campaign extended beyond its policy actions. It also attacked climate science, facts, and consensus by promoting false and unscientific narratives in public discourse.
Global Implications on Climate Science and Politics
The United States has been a pivotal actor in global climate initiatives since at least the 1980s, making substantial contributions through its scientific prowess, financial support, political influence, and agenda-setting strategies. However, its recent retreat from these vital global engagements is already having a global ripple effect, especially in the field of climate science.
In late February, the Trump administration barred American scientists from attending a crucial meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in China. Established in 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations, the IPCC stands as the premier scientific authority on climate issues, boasting a coalition of thousands of scientists appointed by member states. By delivering regular assessments of climate change, its effects, and potential risks, the IPCC is responsible for producing influential climate assessment reports. The meeting in China focused on preparing for the seventh assessment cycle report due in 2029. The absence of the United States is already causing a fracture in global consensus.
Member states, for instance, split into two blocs over the timing of the report’s release. The High Ambition Coalition (HAC), which includes about 20 countries from the EU, Latin America, and Island Nations, called for an early release before the UN Global Stocktaking in mid-2028. The stocktaking, part of the Paris Climate Agreement, assesses national progress on emissions and climate goals every five years. The HAC wanted the report released early to ensure that it contributes to global climate policy and discussions in 2028.
On the other side was a group of about a dozen major polluters, including China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, who opposed the accelerated timeline for the IPCC assessment report’s release. They didn’t want updated stocktaking data to influence global climate action plans for 2028. This effort received backing from the fossil fuel industry and carries significant implications for science and the role of the IPCC in shaping global climate initiatives.
Ultimately, the meeting was unable to reach an agreement on the release of the assessment report. This most significant potential rupture in the role of the IPCC since its establishment in 1988 will end up benefiting polluters and fossil fuel interests. The absence of American scientists from the IPCC and the lack of the United States as a leading state in global climate discussions has contributed to this rupture.
China’s Global Climate Performative Reaction
In the realm of global climate politics, China has been characterized as a performative state. Although its actions related to climate on the global stage are impressive, they are largely influenced by its strategic and economic interests. The U.S. withdrawal from global climate politics has created an opportunity for China to step into the void and position itself as a reliable leader in international environmental politics and climate policies.
During the IPCC plenary in China, representatives from the host country reiterated their commitment to climate science cooperation and asked the community for scientific integrity. The head of the China Meteorological Administration pledged the country’s dedication to the IPCC and its willingness to collaborate on global warning systems. This occurs at a time when the Trump administration is significantly cutting funding for climate-related scientific initiatives and agencies.
Although China seeks to assume the climate leadership role that the US has vacated, many of its domestic and global environmental practices are counterproductive to the fight against climate change. The country is not only the largest polluter in terms of gross greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but it is also facing a significant environmental crisis, particularly in air quality. As the world’s largest coal producer, it accounts for half of global coal consumption. In 2024, the country approved the highest number of coal-fired power plants since 2015, planning to add nearly 100 gigawatts (GW) of coal-generated electricity to its national grid.
While China has been increasing its coal-fired power plants, the Trump administration appears to be competing with Beijing by implementing policies that facilitate the resurgence of coal in the U.S. energy sector. These measures include exempting nearly 50 large private power plants from federal Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. Additionally, the administration has directed the Interior and Commerce Departments to identify regions with existing coal-fired infrastructure to meet the energy demands of AI data centers.
EU’s Climate U-Turn
Until recently, the EU was regarded as a “Green normative power.” Utilizing its soft power, the EU positioned itself as a global leader in environmentalism and climate politics, prioritizing Green transitions in its economic and political policies. However, the outbreak of the war in Ukraine prompted a significant shift away from clean energy toward increased reliance on conventional fossil fuels, including coal, albeit temporarily.
During President Trump’s first term, the U.S. withdrawal from global climate initiatives faced strong criticism from EU member countries. The same reaction occurred during Trump’s second term, as his administration again pulled out of these initiatives. However, the ongoing trade war initiated by his administration seemed to compel the EU to prioritize its strategic interests over its commitment to climate change.
In late February, the European Council (EC) proposed loosening its environmental and sustainability regulations, as well as the reporting standards and supply chain transparency requirements for European companies. This decision came in response to concerns from European corporations, who claimed that these social and sustainability regulations hinder their competitiveness in the global economy. Greenpeace criticized the European Council’s proposal, arguing that the council competes with Trump and Musk by diminishing protections for both people and the planet. Environmental organizations, activists, and advocacy groups have formally filed complaints against the EC‘s proposal with the EU Watchdog.
Russia’s Geopolitical Ambitions
During the Cold War, Soviet scientists were among the pioneers in climate change science. Politically, the Soviet Union was also a forerunner in advocating for international cooperation on environmental degradation, sustainability, and man-induced destruction of the planet’s ecology. For instance, in 1985, the last premier of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, appealed for global collaboration on these issues.
At first, it seemed as though Russia would continue in this tradition. In 2004, when the United States and Australia chose not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol—the first legally binding international climate agreement for developed nations—Russia signed and ratified it to prevent the agreement from collapsing. By doing so, Russia effectively ensured the protocol’s survival.
But Russia under President Vladimir Putin has stepped back from environmental stewardship and active climate politics. It has subordinated climate policy to its geopolitical ambitions. U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, for instance, creates just the kind of chaos in global climate politics and financing that aligns with Russia’s geopolitical ambitions. As a revisionist power alongside China, Russia seeks to influence world politics through alternative global institutional arrangement such as the BRICS. The U.S. retreat offers BRICS an opportunity to promote its alternatives to the World Bank and IMF financial systems, such as the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), particularly in the areas of climate financing and sustainability projects.
Among the two financial initiatives, the NDB, which began operating in 2016, offers loans focused on climate finance, sustainable development, clean energy, and social development. The NDB, in alignment with global climate goals, does not finance coal-fired power plants or power generation. Although the size and operations of this financial institution are currently limited, the unpredictability of Western-led climate financial mechanisms—exacerbated by the erratic policies of the Trump administration—may drive developing countries with high climate vulnerabilities and low levels of preparedness to bandwagon around the alternative financial institutions of the BRICS. This situation presents an opportunity for Russia to extend its strategic tentacles into these countries, including those in the African Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
India’s Expediency
India, one of the world’s largest importers of crude fossil fuels and the second-largest consumer of coal, is significantly impacted by climate change, experiencing severe effects such as altered monsoon patterns, droughts, and heat waves. Amid the turmoil in global climate and environmental politics, India appears to be leveraging this disarray to its advantage.
After the inauguration of Trump, U.S. crude oil exports to India hit a two-year high. Furthermore, during their initial meeting, Indian Prime Minister Modi supported Trump’s energy policies by increasing imports of American fossil fuels.
India’s growing demand for American fossil fuel is driven in part by sanctions on nearby Iran but also by pragmatic economic considerations. To reduce its trade deficit with the United States, India is seeking more favorable tariff arrangements by boosting its fossil fuel purchases. To achieve this aim, the Modi government is pursuing an end to the import tax on U.S. liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Officials in New Delhi have pledged to significantly expand energy purchases from the United States, aiming for an increase from $10 billion to $25 billion in the near future.
The increased import of cheap American fossil fuels poses a long-term challenge to India’s efforts to enhance the share of clean energy sources in its economy. The Modi government’s pragmatic and opportunistic approach to energy politics is not a response solely to the Trump administration’s assault on climate and environmental deregulation. Rather, it is a continuation of policies that began with the outbreak of the war in Ukraine.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine, along with the resulting global sanctions on Russian natural gas and oil, presented the Modi government with an opportunity to leverage India’s geopolitical significance, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region. As a member of the Quad, which aims to counter China’s geostrategic expansionism, India was able to increase imports of fossil fuels, including liquefied natural gas, oil, and even coal from Russia, at prices significantly lower than those in the global market.
Now, taking advantage of the Trump administration’s tendency to prioritize energy over climate regulations, prime minister Modi is looking to expand the Indian market for American fossil fuels as part of its strategy to support U.S. energy needs.
Future of Global Climate Politics
Climate policy has emerged as a necessity on the international stage due to the threats posed by environmental degradation and climate change to people, communities, and nations. Although environmental and climate politics have scientific and instrumental facets, they also possess significant political imperatives. Countries, particularly major powers, often support these initiatives not merely to address environmental threats but also to advance their political and strategic interests. With its scientific prowess, financial resources, institutional arrangements, grand strategic vision, and normative preferences, the United States has assumed a leadership role in advancing collective climate goals and institutionalizing global climate politics.
The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the climate leadership role has opened the field to competition among other major powers eager to assert their influence. Although the Trump administration has damaged the credibility of U.S. climate leadership, making it appear unreliable and unpredictable, other powers, particularly revisionist states like China and Russia, are poised to fill this vacuum and align these politics with their strategic ambitions.
Although global environmental and climate politics may face challenges due to this shift in leadership, resulting in difficulties in meeting established goals or smoothly implementing the agenda, they will not vanish from the international stage. Environmental and climate politics is an integral part of the contemporary international political landscape. However, the consequences will be felt most acutely by the vulnerable communities and nations around the world, who will continue to suffer from climate shocks based on their degree of vulnerability and level of preparedness.
Ultimately, no community is immune to the impacts of climate shocks, including those in the United States. The Trump administration is thus subjecting hundreds of millions of people, including American communities, to the harsh realities of climate shocks and environmental degradation. But it also defying rationality and strategic calculation by strengthening the hands of its adversaries in global climate politics.
It’s been more than two weeks since the world watched Blue Origin blast off for an 11-minute flight with an all-female crew. Civil rights activist Amanda Nguyen, rocket scientist Aisha Bowe, and film producer Kerianne Flynn were among the passengers, along with TV presenter Gayle King and journalist Lauren Sánchez (wife of Amazon founder and Blue Origin owner Jeff Bezos). Rounding out the crew: pop star Katy Perry.
The mission has sparked plenty of questions about the ethics of celebrity space travel—and an avalanche of criticism aimed specifically at Perry. Since returning to Earth (and kissing the ground while holding a daisy), Perry has been relentlessly trolled on social media. One of the loudest voices? Wendy’s.
Blue Origin
“When we said women in STEM this isn’t what we meant,” the fast-food chain posted on X. “Can we send her back?” they added. After backlash, Wendy’s walked it back: “We always bring a little spice to our socials, but Wendy’s has a ton of respect for Katy Perry and her out-of-this-world talent.”
Others in support of Blue Origin’s all-female crew have called out the trolling, asserting that it’s fueled by sexist notions. In a video posted to Instagram, Jenny Stojkovic, founder of Vegan Women’s Summit, highlighted the sexist undertones of the criticism surrounding the space mission. “There have been 30 male-led civilian space flights that have happened in the last two years, and I have not seen a single criticism of them,” she asserts.
She goes on to compare press coverage of Star Trek actor William Shatner’s space flight to the recent all-female mission. “Let’s look at The New York Times: ‘In a Blue Origin Rocket, William Shatner Finally Goes to Space.’ Finally our Captain Kirk! But what about the women? ‘One Giant Stunt for Womankind’ [reads The New York Times.] So when William Shatner does it, it’s awesome, but when women do it, I guess we’re just a stunt.”
Jenny Stojkovic | Instagram
Despite Stojkovic’s valid claims, the online conversation surrounding Blue Origin’s recent space mission leans negative. Much of the outrage over it, and other celebrity space travel, focuses on environmental damage. But how does it stack up against the behavior of the biggest polluters here on Earth? Like Wendy’s, for example.
Comparing the environmental cost of space travel and fast food
According to QSR, with more than 5,500 franchised stores, Wendy’s lands at number nine among the top 10 biggest fast-food chains in the US, coming in after names like McDonald’s and Burger King. At Wendy’s, just like with many other fast-food giants, beef is king. But beef is also one of the worst meats for the planet.
In fact, research suggests that just one four-ounce beef burger can emit up to 9.7 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent. There is no public data on Wendy’s sales, but we can make an estimate about how many beef burgers it sells based on its customer details. It welcomes around 200 million customers each year. If around 70 percent of those customers buy a beef burger, Wendy’s is likely selling around 168 million burgers per year. In emissions? That’s approximately 1.63 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually.
Wendy’s | Facebook
So how does this look next to space travel? Well, Blue Origin claims that its all-female space mission didn’t emit any carbon dioxide at all. However, it’s important to note that BBC has debunked the idea that this means the rocket wasn’t pollutive.
“Anything that combusts at a high temperature, like rocket fuel, converts nitrogen already in the atmosphere into harmful nitrogen oxide gases,” explains BBC correspondent Victoria Gill after speaking to an atmospheric chemist. “These gases can damage the ozone layer, which is the protective layer in the upper atmosphere that shields us from the sun’s most harmful radiation.”
The Blue Origin rocket also released water vapor (another pollutant and greenhouse gas) into the upper layers of the atmosphere.
“Those emissions linger for a much longer time, mainly due to the lack of weather up there,” adds Gill. “You don’t get rain 100 kilometers above the Earth to wash those pollutants down to the ground.”
The key difference, perhaps, is what we can learn from space exploration.
What we can learn from space
On Earth Day 2023, NASA published an article highlighting how studies from the International Space Station are helping us tackle the climate crisis. It orbits Earth 16 times a day, passing over 90 percent of the population and enabling continuous data collection on global climate patterns. It can also measure ground temperatures, identify super emitters, and enable astronauts to take valuable images of the Earth’s environment from above.
This important work is partly why some scientists found the recent Blue Origin all-female expedition frustrating. “These flights are significant and exciting, but I think maybe they can also be a source of frustration for space scientists,” Kai-Uwe Schrogl, special advisor for political affairs at the European Space Agency, told BBC. “We see space flight as being for science, knowledge, and the interests of humanity. Celebrities do it for amusement but get a lot more attention than the regular astronauts.”
Blue Origin
Others, like Stojkovic, accept the mission might have had some positives. “Gayle King and Aisha Bowe became only the fifth and sixth Black women to ever go to space,” she noted on Instagram. “Aisha Bowe is the first person ever from the Bahamas to go to space. Amanda Nguyen was the first Vietnamese woman to ever go to space. They are literally breaking racial barriers and increasing diversity.”
Stojkovic isn’t alone. Tanya Harrison, PhD, CEO of the Earth and Planetary Institute of Canada, echoes this sentiment. “[It might] change the demographics a little bit of who might want to do something like this,” she told BBC. “Socially, they might have had some impact.”
It’s also important to note that not everyone on the recent flight was actually a celebrity. Bowe, for example, is a Bahamian-American aerospace engineer, entrepreneur, and advocate for STEM education who worked at NASA for six years.
“I didn’t go to space just for the view,” she wrote in a statement on social media. “I went as a science payload operator flying multiple experiments on Blue Origin’s New Shepard making history in the process.”
She added: “Yes, rockets have an environmental impact. So do planes, data centers, and cargo ships. The goal is to make launch vehicles reusable and more sustainable. Space is essential to monitor climate, track disasters, and support Earth from above.”
In fact, part of Bowe’s mission was to explore how crops like sweet potatoes and chickpeas grow in microgravity. This kind of research is crucial for supporting future food systems, particularly for long-duration space missions where astronauts will need to grow their own food.
“Be curious. Be critical,” wrote Bowe. “But don’t be so quick to dismiss the research, impact, or inspiration this kind of mission can carry.”
This post was originally published on VegNews.com.
Greenpeace has condemned an announcement by The Metals Company to submit the first application to commercially mine the seabed.
“The first application to commercially mine the seabed will be remembered as an act of total disregard for international law and scientific consensus,” said Greenpeace International senior campaigner Louisa Casson.
“This unilateral US effort to carve up the Pacific Ocean already faces fierce international opposition. Governments around the world must now step up to defend international rules and cooperation against rogue deep sea mining.
“Leaders will be meeting at the UN Oceans Conference in Nice in June where they must speak with one voice in support of a moratorium on this reckless industry.”
Greenpeace Aotearoa spokesperson Juressa Lee said: “The disastrous effects of deep sea mining recognise no international borders in the ocean.
“This will be another case of short-term profits for a very few, from the Global North, with the Pacific bearing the destructive impacts for generations to come.”
Bypassed ISA rules
Trump’s action bypasses the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the regulatory body which protects the deep sea and decides whether deep sea mining can take place in international waters.
“The Metals Company and Donald Trump are wilfully ignoring the rules-based international order and the science that deep sea mining will wreak havoc on the oceans,”said Lee.
“Pacific Peoples have deep cultural ties to the ocean, and we regard ‘home’ as more ocean than land. Our ancestors were wayfarers and ocean custodians who have traversed the Pacific and protected our livelihoods for future generations.
“This is the Indigenous knowledge we should be led by, to safeguard our planet and our environment. Deep sea mining is not the answer to the green transition away from carbon-based fossil fuels — it’s another false solution.”
President Trump’s order follows negotiations in March at the ISA, at which governments refused to give wannabe miners The Metals Company a clear pathway to an approved mining application via the ISA.
Thirty two countries around the world publicly support a moratorium on deep sea mining.
Millions of people have spoken out against this dangerous emerging industry.
Claire Charters, an expert in indigenous rights in international and constitutional law, has told the United Nations the New Zealand government is pushing the most “regressive” policies she has ever seen.
“New Zealand’s policy on the Declaration (on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples) sits alongside its legislative strategy to dismantle Māori rights in Aotearoa New Zealand, which has received global attention for its regressiveness,” said Charters.
While in New York, Charters organised meetings between senior UN officials, New Zealand diplomats, and Māori attending UNPFII.
The officials included the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights, Dr Albert Barume, Sheryl Lightfoot, the Vice-Chair of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP), and EMRIP Chair Valmaine Toki (Ngāti Rehua, Ngātiwai, Ngāpuhi).
Charters said the New Zealand government should be of exceptional concern to the UN, given that the country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, had publicly expressed his rejection of the declaration.
In the same year, Peters claimed Māori were not indigenous peoples.
“New Zealand’s current government, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs specifically, has expressly rejected the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It has committed to not implementing the declaration,” said Charters.
Indigenous people’s forum at the United Nations. Video: UN News
Charters invited the special rapporteur to visit New Zealand but also noted that the government ignored EMRIP’s request for a follow-up visit to support New Zealand’s implementation of UNDRIP.
She also called on the Permanent Forum to take all measures to require New Zealand to implement the declaration.
Republished from Te Ao Māori News with permission.
Claire Charters presenting her intervention on the implementation of UNDRIP – this year’s theme for the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigneous Issues. Image: Te Ao Māori News
Promoted as “Just Paradise,” Lord Howe Island hundreds of kilometers east of Australia is a unique environment home to plants and fauna found nowhere else in the world.
This pristine and remote remnant of an ancient volcano is also the nesting site of a far-ranging species of seabird that has become a signature casualty of the vast amounts of plastic waste entering the oceans.
A recent study by Australian researchers has provided alarming new evidence of the plastics burden on wildlife. It points to profound changes in Sable Shearwater chicks unwittingly fed plastic by their parents – from signs of failing organs to brain damage that could impair the ability to mate.
Every year, dead birds wash up on the beaches of Lord Howe Island, sometimes in their hundreds, with what researchers say are severe symptoms of swallowing large amounts of plastic – emaciation, poorly developed feathers and deformities.
For their study, the researchers turned their attention to Shearwater chicks that appeared outwardly healthy to understand what deeper changes could be occurring.
“These apparently healthy chicks are already compromised,” said Jack Rivers-Auty, an immune system expert at University of Tasmania’s medical school. “We’re now seeing that reflected in poorer survival outcomes and weight trajectories over time,” he told Radio Free Asia.
“By studying birds that seem outwardly well, we can more clearly assess the hidden impact of plastic on their long-term survival and physiology,” he said.
More than 400 pieces of plastic removed from the stomach of a 90-day-old Sable Shearwater chick are shown on the right of this photo.(Justin Gilligan)
Lord Howe is close to the east Australian current that carries warm Coral Sea waters south. Relatively still ocean eddies that form off the current are places where floating debris including plastics can accumulate into rafts of debris. Shearwaters likely mistake the objects for prey, especially squid, a main part of their diet – ingesting it themselves and also feeding it to their offspring.
The birds’ migration takes them over most of the Pacific Ocean, which Jennifer Provencher, a conservation biologist not involved in the study, said means they “have an incredible exposure to plastics for their entire lifecycle.”
The stress of ingesting lots of plastic – which the species, unlike gulls, can’t regurgitate unassisted – likely also manifests itself in hormonal changes that impair the robustness of eggs and chicks, Provencher told RFA.
“It’s a combination of this bird’s inability to barf things back up and the fact that they live and migrate throughout the entire Pacific Ocean,” she said.
The study uses “very cool” techniques, Provencher said, but more research is needed to gauge the relevance to seabirds in general, which number in the hundreds of species.
“It’s hard to generalize,” she said. “More understanding is needed of how applicable this work is beyond this species and this place.”
Tugboats assist a damaged British destroyer at Lord Howe Island, Aug. 6, 2002.(Tim Wimborne/Reuters)
Convenient and cheap, plastics are produced in ever growing volumes and found in every nook and cranny of daily life – from the flimsy stools at street food stalls in Southeast Asia to the componentry of sophisticated smartphones and the hundreds of billions of water bottles and plastic bags discarded worldwide every year after just seconds of use.
Mostly unrecycled, plastic waste has a lifespan of centuries and is exacting an increasing toll on the environment including in the oceans where it injures and kills marine and bird life.
Oil producers including Russia and Saudi Arabia slowed negotiations on an international treaty to control plastic waste to a crawl.
In April and May of 2023, the Australian researchers captured healthy looking Shearwater chicks on Lord Howe Island and flushed their stomachs with water – a technique known as gastric lavage – to induce regurgitation.
If they vomited less than five pieces of plastic or 0.5 grams in total, they were categorized as being less plastic exposed and vice versa.
One chick vomited up 403 pieces of plastic.
Researchers perform gastric lavage on a Sable Shearwater to safely flush and remove ingested plastics in this undated photo from Lord Howe Island, Australia.(Jack Rivers-Auty)
Using a relatively novel technique, the blood of the chicks was analyzed for an array of proteins and other signatures, which provided telltale signs of greater health effects for chicks that had larger quantities of plastic in their stomachs.
Cell contents that should not be found in the blood were frequently detected, which the researchers said was indicative of cell breakdown.
Proteins secreted by organs were less abundant, indicating that the stomach, liver and kidneys were not functioning normally, according to the study.
The signatures included evidence of neurodegeneration in chicks less than three months old that has the potential to affect the birds’ “song-control system” – crucial for identifying the opposite sex and courtship.
The researchers’ theory is that the swallowed plastic is shedding very small fragments known as microplastics that are transported into the organs.
Leaching of chemicals from the plastic is another possibility.
“It’s a bit like smoking: from the outside, a smoker might look fine, but internally, significant health issues are often developing,” said Auty.
“We’ve documented plastic items originating from all over the Pacific, including debris with non-English writing, which shows how far these plastics are traveling,” Auty said.
“It’s not just local pollution. It’s a global issue washing up and circulating in the region.”
Edited by Mike Firn and Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Stephen Wright for RFA.
On April 24, thousands of Panamanians took to the streets to protest the recent approval of the pension reform in Panama promoted by the neoliberal government of José Raúl Mulino. Law 462 has been the source of a lot of controversy in the Central American country because, according to several unions, it will reduce retirement pensions compared to the previous system. The mobilization was called by the Association of Professors of Panama (ASOPROF) and the Single National Union of Industry and Construction and Similar Workers (SUNTRACS), who have announced that they will embark on an indefinite national strike on April 28.
World now in era of repressive regimes’ impunity, climate inaction and unchecked corporate power, says report
The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency have “supercharged” a global rollback of human rights, pushing the world towards an authoritarian era defined by impunity and unchecked corporate power, Amnesty International warns today.
In its annual report on the state of human rights in 150 countries, the organisation said the immediate ramifications of Trump’s second term had been the undermining of decades of progress and the emboldening of authoritarian leaders.
A groundbreaking new study has challenged a long-standing belief in conservation science, revealing that climate change, intensified by increasingly extreme El Niño events, is the true force accelerating the extinction and decline of Brazil’s amphibians. Contrary to decades of assumptions, researchers have found that the aquatic fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), once blamed as the main cause, plays only a secondary role in the crisis.
Climate change and El Niño: the extinction of Brazil’s amphibians
The study delivers a striking revelation: while Bd is undeniably harmful, it acts not as the trigger but as an opportunistic invader, targeting amphibian populations already weakened by climate stress, loss of immunity, and reduced genetic diversity.
Rather than causing mass deaths directly, Bd outbreaks tend to emerge years after populations have already declined, revealing the real danger: environmental instability. Intense droughts, rising temperatures, and erratic weather patterns fuelled by El Niño have severely damaged amphibian habitats, stripping species of their ability to adapt and survive.
The research also highlights a surprising twist, Brazilian amphibians, through generations of exposure, have developed herd immunity to Bd. Their vulnerability originates not from the fungus itself, but from a changing environment.
Shifts in temperature and rainfall have disrupted ecosystems and damaged the skin microbiomes that amphibians rely on for defence. As water sources dry up, frogs and other species are forced into smaller, crowded areas, perfect conditions for disease to spread.
This study marks a critical turning point in our understanding of amphibian decline, redirecting attention from disease to the broader and more urgent threat of a destabilised climate.
Loss of Brazil’s amphibians: a blow to global conservation efforts
Célio Fernando Baptista Haddad, biologist in the department of biodiversity and CBioClima centre at São Paulo State University (UNESP), and one of the authors of the study, mentioned that adapting conservation strategies to address human-induced climate change is a multifaceted challenge that requires profound changes in our way of life. He further explained:
We must urgently transition to cleaner energy sources, but this is obstructed by powerful oil and coal lobbies that resist ending the exploitation of polluting resources – resources that are not only heating the planet but also pushing wildlife and ecosystems toward extinction.
Haddad also emphasised that deforestation remains a major concern, driven by a growing global population, now over eight billion, exceeding the Earth’s carrying capacity and prompting land clearing for agriculture and livestock.
From 1923 to 2014, scientists documented the extinction or decline of 90 Brazilian frog species, with at least eight possibly extinct. One species was classified as critically endangered, while another was deemed endangered. This trend began in the 1970s and shows no signs of stopping, driven by a combination of factors: loss of biodiversity, agricultural expansion, pesticide use, disruption of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, and, most significantly, climate change.
A hotspot of biodiversity hurtling towards collapse
The lead author of the study, Lucas Ferrante, said:
Our research refutes the hypothesis that the decline of Brazilian amphibians was primarily caused by the Bd fungus. Using causal effect equations, we demonstrate that climate change, extreme weather events, and rising temperatures are in fact the main culprits. This is particularly important because the declines began after the Industrial Revolution – the same period during which humans began significantly altering the planet’s climate.
He further stressed that current mitigation targets are no longer sufficient. Brazil plays a significant role in this scenario: when deforestation alone is considered, the country ranks as the fourth-largest global emitter of greenhouse gases.
Moreover, emissions from wildfires – which have increased under the current government – have yet to be fully accounted for. The situation is further worsened by President Lula’s plans to expand oil exploration, including in environmentally sensitive areas such as the Amazon River mouth, as well as in several other sites within the Amazon rainforest.
Brazil is home to the world’s largest number of amphibian species, the majority of which are found nowhere else on Earth. This makes the country a critical hotspot for biodiversity, and the ongoing amphibian crisis is a blow to global conservation efforts.
Zoonotic spillovers
Adding another layer of concern, climate change and extreme weather events, such as the severe droughts and rising temperatures linked to El Niño, are also accelerating the spread of zoonotic diseases, which pose significant risks to both wildlife and human populations.
In the Amazon region, record-breaking temperatures and unusual weather patterns – combined with deforestation driven by road projects like the BR-319 highway and the expansion of cattle farming into conservation areas – are amplifying the risk of disease spillover. As ecosystems are disrupted and human activities encroach deeper into wildlife habitats, the likelihood of disease transmission increases, posing a growing threat to both animals and humans.
Haddad highlighted how deforestation and infrastructure projects not only disrupt ecosystem, but also contribute to the spread of infectious diseases and climate instability:
Human-driven environmental degradation is a key driver of climate change, with deforestation altering critical abiotic factors like temperature, humidity, and light, often making habitats uninhabitable for many species. While the link between deforestation and diseases like chytridiomycosis is complex and context-dependent, one principle holds true: the more intact and undisturbed an ecosystem is, the greater the resilience of its wildlife, including against disease.
Infrastructure such as roads not only accelerates deforestation by enabling easier access for logging and agriculture but also serves as a vector for the spread of infectious agents. In regions like the Amazon, a moratorium on deforestation, highway and dam construction, and extractive industries is urgently needed. Sustainable, economically viable alternatives for local communities are not only possible, but they’re also essential for the survival of both the forest and the planet.
Research indicates that intensified agriculture and the conversion of forests into farmland and cattle pastures increase interactions between humans and pathogens, thereby facilitating the emergence of viral, bacterial, fungal, and parasitic infections.
An unmistakable signal of ecological crisis
The rising frequency of these extreme climate events not only strains the survival of amphibians but also compromises the overall health of the Amazon’s delicate ecosystem.
Haddad warns that human disruption of ecosystems not only threatens wildlife but also increases our own vulnerability to future pandemics:
Human-induced environmental degradation increases the exposure of wildlife to infections and parasites, often introducing pathogens into species that have never encountered them before.
While Bd is unlikely to infect humans, diseases affecting birds and mammals, species with physiologies closer to ours, pose a much greater risk. As we’ve seen with COVID-19, environmental disruption can bring humans into contact with novel pathogens capable of adapting to our bodies and causing serious public health crises.
As the situation grows more dire, the study highlights the urgency of addressing climate change and its cascading effects. The decline of amphibians, once considered a silent environmental crisis, is now an unmistakable signal that broader ecological changes are underway.
Haddad underscored that environmental restoration, and systemic change must occur simultaneously, despite the political and economic challenges. He said:
We need immediate local actions like halting deforestation, road and dam construction, and extractive projects, alongside global measures such as transitioning away from fossil fuels and restoring degraded ecosystems.
Forest restoration can help absorb excess carbon, but implementing these solutions in a world driven by economic power and home to over 8 billion people is far more difficult than it sounds.
The extinction of amphibians, especially in a biodiversity-rich country like Brazil, serves as a clear warning of the broader environmental challenges confronting humanity. If we fail to take meaningful action to combat climate change and safeguard ecosystems, the planet’s vulnerable species, particularly those that rely on fragile habitats, will continue to suffer the consequences of our collective neglect.
An ocean conservation non-profit has condemned the United States President’s latest executive order aimed at boosting the deep sea mining industry.
President Donald Trump issued the “Unleashing America’s offshore critical minerals and resources” order on Thursday, directing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to allow deep sea mining.
The order states: “It is the policy of the US to advance United States leadership in seabed mineral development.”
NOAA has been directed to, within 60 days, “expedite the process for reviewing and issuing seabed mineral exploration licenses and commercial recovery permits in areas beyond national jurisdiction under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act.”
Ocean Conservancy said the executive order is a result of deep sea mining frontrunner, The Metals Company, requesting US approval for mining in international waters, bypassing the authority of the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
US not ISA member
The ISA is the United Nations agency responsible for coming up with a set of regulations for deep sea mining across the world. The US is not a member of the ISA because it has not ratified UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
“This executive order flies in the face of NOAA’s mission,” Ocean Conservancy’s vice-president for external affairs Jeff Watters said.
“NOAA is charged with protecting, not imperiling, the ocean and its economic benefits, including fishing and tourism; and scientists agree that deep-sea mining is a deeply dangerous endeavor for our ocean and all of us who depend on it,” he said.
He said areas of the US seafloor where test mining took place more than 50 years ago still had not fully recovered.
“The harm caused by deep sea mining isn’t restricted to the ocean floor: it will impact the entire water column, top to bottom, and everyone and everything relying on it.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
BANGKOK – U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered his administration to speed development of the deep sea mining industry, including in international waters governed by a U.N. treaty that most nations are signatory to.
A Trump executive order signed Thursday says the U.S. must “counter China’s growing influence over seabed mineral resources,” – namely the potato sized nodules that carpet vast areas of the seabed and contain rare earths and minerals such as nickel, cobalt and manganese.
Like Trump’s tariff shock therapy, the deep sea mining policy threatens to upend an established part of the global order. Under the framework of the international law of the sea, nations have sought to fashion a consensus on if and how deep sea minerals should be exploited.
“The United States has a core national security and economic interest in maintaining leadership in deep sea science and technology and seabed mineral resources,” the executive order said.
“The United States faces unprecedented economic and national security challenges in securing reliable supplies of critical minerals independent of foreign adversary control,” it said.
Mining of the nodules from depths of several kilometers has been touted by companies in the nascent industry as a source of minerals needed for green technologies, such as electric vehicles, that would reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
Amid a general retreat by large corporations from commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, deep sea mining companies have more recently emphasized defense uses and security of mineral supply.
Skeptics say the minerals in so-called polymetallic nodules are already abundant on land and warn that mining the seabed could cause irreparable damage to an ocean environment that is still poorly understood by science.
Trump’s executive order said the Commerce Secretary should within two months expedite the process of issuing mineral exploration licenses and commercial exploitation permits in seabed areas beyond American national jurisdiction.
The instruction sets the U.S. against the International Seabed Authority, or ISA, which was established in 1996 to regulate exploitation of mineral endowments in international waters. About 54% of the seabed is under the ISA’s jurisdiction.
The ISA’s secretary-general, Leticia Carvalho, last month said the authority was the “only universally recognized legitimate framework” for regulating mining in international waters.
“Any unilateral action would constitute a violation of international law and directly undermine the fundamental principles of multilateralism, the peaceful use of the oceans and the collective governance framework,” she said in a statement.
The U.S. has not signed the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is the enabling treaty for the ISA, and is only an observer at the authority.
Trump’s executive order was in part foreshadowed by Nasdaq-traded The Metals Company’s application last month for U.S. government approval to mine the seabed under its 1980 minerals law.
The Metals Company has been collaborating with the Pacific island nations of Nauru and Tonga to mine areas allocated to them in international waters of the Pacific Ocean.
Nauru in particular has chafed against the ISA’s consensus-based decision making, which means that after nearly three decades it hasn’t agreed rules for the deep sea mining industry.
Other countries, from Norway to the Cook Islands in the South Pacific, are investigating deep sea mining in their own waters, which doesn’t require ISA approval.
Edited by Mike Firn and Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Stephen Wright for RFA.
Puyé Ruins, northern New Mexico. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.
“If we approach nature and the environment without [an] openness to awe and wonder, if we no longer speak the language of fraternity and beauty in our relationship with the world, our attitude will be that of masters, consumers, ruthless exploiters, unable to set limits on their immediate needs. By contrast, if we feel intimately united with all that exists, then sobriety and care will well up spontaneously.”
On the day Pope Francis released his encyclical on the fate of the Earth, I was struggling to climb a near-vertical cliff on the Parajito Plateau of northern New Mexico. My fingers gripped tightly to handholds notched into the rocks hundreds of years ago by Ancestral Puebloans, the anodyne phrase now used by modern anthropologists to describe the people once known as the Anasazi. The day was a scorcher and the volcanic rocks were so hot they blistered my hands and knees. Even my guide, Elijah, a young member of the Santa Clara Pueblo, confessed that the heat radiating off the basalt had made him feel faint, although perhaps he was simply trying to make me feel less like a weather wimp.
When we finally hurled ourselves over the rimrock to the top of the little mesa, the ruins of the old city of Puyé spread before us. Amid purple blooms of cholla cactus, piñon pines and sagebrush, two watchtowers rose above the narrow spine of the mesa top, guarding the crumbling walls of houses that once sheltered more than 1,500 people. I was immediately struck by the defensive nature of the site: an acropolis set high above the corn, squash and bean fields in the valley below; a city fortified against the inevitable outbreaks of turbulence and violence unleashed by periods of prolonged scarcity.
The ground sparkled with potsherds, the shattered remnants of exquisitely crafted bowls and jars, all featuring dazzling polychromatic glazes. Some had been used to haul water up the cliffs of the mesa, an arduous and risky daily ordeal that surely would only have been undertaken during a time of extreme environmental and cultural stress. How did the people end up here? Where did they come from? What were they fleeing?
“They came here after the lights went out at Chaco,” Elijah tells me. He’s referring to the great houses of Chaco Canyon, now besieged by big oil. Chaco, the imperial city of the Anasazi, was ruled for four hundred years by a stern hierarchy of astronomer-priests until it was swiftly abandoned around 1250 AD.
“Why did they leave?” I asked.
“Something bad happened after the waters ran out.” He won’t go any further and I don’t press him.
Cliff dwelling, Puyé, northern New Mexico. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.
The ruins of Puyé, now part of the Santa Clara Pueblo, sit in the blue shadow of the Jemez Mountains. A few miles to the north, in the stark labs of Los Alamos, scientists are still at work calculating the dark equations of global destruction down to the last decimal point.
This magnificent complex of towers, multi-story dwellings, plazas, granaries, kivas and cave dwellings was itself abandoned suddenly around 1500. Its Tewa-speaking residents moved off the cliffs and mesas to the flatlands along the Rio Grande ten miles to the east, near the site of the current Santa Clara (St. Clair) Pueblo. A few decades later, they would encounter an invading force beyond their worst nightmare: Coronado and his metal-plated conquistadors.
Again, it was a prolonged drought that forced the deeply egalitarian people of Puyé — the place where the rabbits gather — from their mesa-top fortress. “The elders say that the people knew it was time to move when they saw the black bears leaving the canyon,” Elijah told me.
Elijah is a descendant of one of the great heroes of Santa Clara Pueblo: Domingo Naranjo, a leader of the one true American Revolution, the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, which drove the Spanish out of New Mexico. Naranjo was half-Tewa and half-black, the son of an escaped slave of the Spanish. That glorious rebellion largely targeted the brutal policies of the Franciscan missionaries, who had tortured, enslaved and butchered the native people of the Rio Grande Valley for nearly 100 years. As the Spanish friars fled, Naranjo supervised the razing of the Church the Franciscans had erected — using slave labor – in the plaza of Santa Clara Pueblo.
Now the hope of the world may reside in the persuasive powers of a Franciscan, the Hippie Pope, whose Druidic encyclical, Laudato Si’, reads like a tract from the Deep Ecology movement of the 1980s, only more lucidly and urgently written. Pope Francis depicts the ecological commons of the planet being sacrificed for a “throwaway culture” that is driven by a deranged economic system whose only goal is “quick and easy profit.” As the supreme baptizer, Francis places a special emphasis on the planet’s imperiled waters, both the dwindling reserves of freshwater and the inexorable rise of acidic oceans, heading like a slow-motion tsunami toward a coast near you.
Climate change has gone metastatic and we are all weather wimps under the new dispensation. Consider that Hell on Earth: Phoenix, Arizona, a city whose water greed has breached any rational limit. Its 1.5 million residents, neatly arranged in spiraling cul-de-sacs, meekly await a reckoning with the Great Thirst, as if Dante himself had supervised the zoning plans. The Phoenix of the future seems destined to resemble the ruins of Chaco, with crappier architecture.
Puyé Cliffs, looking across the Rio Grande. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.
I am writing this column in the basement of our house in Oregon City, which offers only slight relief from the oppressive heat outside. The temperature has topped 100 degrees again. It hasn’t rained in 40 days and 40 nights. We are reaching the end of something. Perhaps it has already occurred. Even non-believers are left to heed the warnings of the Pope and follow the example of the bears of the Jemez.
Yet now there is no hidden refuge to move toward. There is only a final movement left to build, a global rebellion against the forces of greed and extinction. One way or another, it will either be a long time coming or a long time gone.
The UN has called the detention of Pablo López Alavez ‘arbitrary’, while human rights organisations say his sentence is part of a systematic and alarming pattern of criminalisation of Mexico’s environmental activists
The meeting room in the prison of Villa de Etla, a town in Oaxaca, Mexico, doubles as a classroom with school desks and a small library. The walls feature motivational phrases such as “First things first”, “Live and let live” and “Little by little, you’ll go far”.
Pablo López Alavez, a 56-year-old environmental defender, has had nearly 15 years to contemplate these sentiments – and faces 15 more, after being imprisoned for murders he says he did not commit.
The Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Yellowstone to Uintas Connection filed a federal lawsuit this month to stop a proposed pipeline corridor that would cut through six roadless areas in a National Forest in Idaho. The area is habitat for imperiled species like the greater sage grouse, grizzly bears, lynx, and wolverine, and the pipeline would result in a permanent 20-mile road across otherwise roadless public lands. The new permanent pipeline corridor could be used for additional pipelines in the future, and will undoubtedly increase illegal ATV use in the region.
The Forest Service authorized a special use permit in March to clear-cut a 50-foot wide, 18.2-mile-long corridor through six National Forest Inventoried Roadless Areas for construction of a private company’s pipeline from Montpelier, Idaho to Afton, Wyoming. The decision allows a 50-foot right-of-way that will be clearcut during construction, and a permanent 20-foot right-of-way to maintain the pipeline. In addition to the pipeline itself and the utility corridor, there will also be above-ground facilitiessuch as valves and staging areas. But since the project violates a number of federal laws, the Alliance and Yellowstone to Uintas Connection have filed a lawsuit against the Forest Service to stop construction of the pipeline.
This pipeline would create a road through designated roadless areas, further fragments security habitat for deer and elk, and further degrades already impacted habitat for the threatened Canada lynx.
This is the second time the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Yellowstone to Uintas have sued to stop this pipeline. We filed our first lawsuit in April of 2020 and two years later the Forest Service tucked its tail and ran, pulling their decision without even waiting for a final court order. But now they’re trying again, and the simple truth is that the pipeline corridor will actually be a permanent road through National Forest lands despite the fact that these public lands have been classified and protected as federal Inventoried Roadless Areas.
That means motorized vehicles will be allowed to permanently use this corridor to maintain and inspect the pipeline. Which will cause permanent vegetation removal, increased sight-lines for poaching, increased noxious weed introductions, and abundant new opportunities for illegal motor vehicle use in these currently roadless areas.
The basis for our lawsuit is that the Forest Service failed to disclose and demonstrate compliance with its own Forest Plan requirements for sage grouse. The agency also failed to analyze the cumulative effects on sage grouse as required.
In this case, the Forest Service also failed to demonstrate that the new pipeline corridor is in the public interest; is compatible and consistent with other Forest resources; that there is no reasonable alternative or accommodation on National Forest lands; that it is impractical to use existing right-of-ways; and that the rationale for approving the new pipeline corridor is not solely to lower costs for the energy company. This violates the Forest Plan, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Forest Service Manual, the National Forest Management Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act. National Forests were designated for the benefit of all Americans, not to maximize the profits of the oil and gas industry. Instead of needlessly destroying this rare habitat for endangered species on publicly-owned lands, the private company should use existing right-of-ways or private lands.
We will never stop fighting to protect our wild public lands but we need your help. Please donate today so we can keep fighting.
It’s that time of year when honey bee swarms start taking flight across the UK. Swarming is usually limited to a couple of months, but many may not survive without the public’s help.
It’s why the British Beekeepers Association (BBKA) is urging the public to support it in its campaign to safely rehome populations of the important pollinator.
Rehoming the honey bee: the Swarm Savers initiative
The UK charity has launched its annual Swarm Savers initiative. Thousands of trained beekeepers across the country will be on standby to safely rescue and rehome honey bee swarms completely free of charge.
While swarming is a natural and vital part of a honey bee colony’s life cycle, up to 80% of swarms perish if they don’t find a suitable home. The statistic underscores the urgency of public awareness and support.
With the growing threat of the yellow-legged Asian hornet – a predator that can decimate honey bee colonies – supporting the survival and safe rehoming of these swarms has never been more important.
Commenting on the situation, Diane Drinkwater, chair of the BBKA said:
There’s something truly magical about witnessing a honey bee swarm. It’s how a colony reproduces; a natural marvel where thousands of bees work together to protect their queen and find a new home. But without help, many never make it.
What should you do if you see a swarm?
Stay calm. Despite the noise and size, swarming honey bees are usually docile. Their main focus is protecting their queen and not hurting humans.
Keep a safe distance and do not attempt to move or destroy the swarm.
Correctly identify whether it is a honey bee swarm – if you’re unsure, take a clear photo and contact a BBKA swarm collector. You can find identification resources here.
Use the BBKA’s interactive Swarm Map to locate a local volunteer swarm collector.
Drinkwater added:
We know many people are fascinated or concerned by swarms but by knowing what to do, we can all help honey bees and make sure they’re around for generations to come.
Honey bees are the only insect to swarm in the UK and the BBKA beekeepers are unable to help with the removal of the nests of any of the other more than 250 species of bees found in the UK.
Bosses of oil and gas companies, and a privatised water utility company, have been targeted with attempted citizen’s arrests by a new direct action group hoping to achieve environmental justice.
Actions by the Citizen’s Arrest Network (CAN) started appearing on social media feeds in March and April 2025, showing smartly dressed members of the group approaching senior executives of companies and attempting to perform citizen’s arrests.
The Citizen’s Arrest Network: a new direct action group fighting the CEOs of big polluters
The activists said they had dossiers which they say provide evidence of crimes ranging from public nuisance to mismanagement of customer funds.
CAN claims it has been successful in placing the company representatives under citizen’s arrest, but it appears that it has not physically held the individuals, and no police action appears to have taken place.
The companies did not provide comment when approached by the Canary.
CAN: a response to crackdown on mainstream protests
The Canary spoke with Citizen’s Arrest Network spokesperson Gail Lynch, who said CAN started because there was no response to the climate crisis “by anyone with any true power” and “things were only getting worse” despite petitions, letters, marches, and protests.
Lynch said:
This is mirrored in other industries where profit comes first and the impacts are ignored.
She continued:
It feels like this relentless, almost desperate drive to maximise financial return at all costs is well and truly out of control.
Lynch said protests against environmentally damaging activities:
get panned in the media and activists are increasingly penalised for their attempts to raise awareness.
More than a dozen activists from Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil have been jailed for their parts in direct action protests in recent years. The custodial sentences were handed out following a crackdown on environmental activism by the Conservative government. The Labour government appears content to carry on with the authoritarian treatment of protesters.
Therefore, Lynch said that:
It was time for something different, and so almost two years ago, the idea was borne and a huge amount of research began. How could we approach the individuals behind the logos and request that they cease and desist The executives at the helm of these organisations are the ones taking the decisions, and therefore need to be held to account.
Killing of health insurance exec threw focus on corporate leaders
In December 2024, United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson was killed in New York City, in an attack apparently motivated by a hatred of the conduct of private health insurance companies and their denial of care to Americans.
The killing of Thompson sent jitters around corporate executives that they might personally be targeted because of public perceptions of the conduct of their companies.
In the aftermath of the attack, mainstream media outlets expressed shock at the lack of sympathy expressed by the public towards the CEO’s family, and the admiration some showed towards suspect Luigi Mangione.
In a March 2025 statement on its website, CAN said it handed “draft indictment papers” against executives at BP and Shell to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) because the group:
believes that all executive staff at both oil majors have been instructed to stay away from head offices.
The statement said CAN believed the “stay away” notice has been issued “in response to citizen’s arrests” carried out by the group.
How legitimate are citizen’s arrests?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 says that:
A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant … anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence
And it states that:
anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
Lynch said:
Whilst we might imagine a stand up citizen tearing after and rugby tackling a bank robber to the ground, that’s not how it reads in law.
University of Reading’s Reading Centre for Climate and Justice director professor Chris Hilson told the Canary there are “technical risks” to performing citizen’s arrests.
The risks include the possibility of the citizen’s arrest itself being a criminal offence or being sued in a civil court for assault or false imprisonment, he said.
Why is CAN using citizen’s arrests in particular?
Lynch said CAN is:
simply motivated by the need for these individuals to stop, think twice about the harm their work causes and recognise that they have the power to make the change that is needed.
She continued that executives who don’t stop and change their ways:
need to be arrested, charged and prosecuted on grounds of Public Nuisance for the serious harm they inflict by virtue of their employment.
She also said CAN:
is not a protest, it’s a legal campaign operating within the bounds of the law.
Lynch told the Canary that CAN wants the companies the group is targeting to:
realise they can not hide anymore, we see them, and we know the individuals leading the charge towards irreparable damage to our planet’s health.
Moreover, she expressed that:
If people think twice about taking up such jobs in the future, that’s a win, but the best thing would be that they accept that their days are done and start in earnest a true shift to cheaper, cleaner energy for all.
She also said she wants the campaign to pass “the pub test” and get the public talking about why CAN is carrying out its actions:
We want local communities everywhere talking about why we did what we did, do what we do and agree that it’s an important way to shine a light on people behind the scenes taking harmful decisions and doing damaging business.
CAN needs support for its legal endeavours
She also made a plea for funding to support the legal side of CAN’s work:
We need funds to support our legal endeavours and to bring justice to bear on people who are breaking the law.
Lynch said that:
Lawyers are committed and generous with their time but they need to be paid and the research takes time to uncover and be carefully checked. In short we need resource and money to help us hold the biggest culprits to account.
In the end these arrests are more performative than real.
However, the performativity of the act does not necessarily mean it is not effective. He explained:
Throwing paint at works of art and stopping traffic no longer really work for the climate and environmental movement.
Those types of protests have been criminalised, making them harder; but they are in any event viewed by many members of the public as ‘irresponsible’, which has put them off the message.
Hilson added that he thought:
climate and environmental messages need to be landing now more than ever.
This new tactic of citizens’ arrests, in contrast, looks much more like ‘responsible’ citizenly behaviour.
And the arrests squarely target those who are, in a very different sense, responsible for climate and environmental harm, and not members of the public.
Those being arrested now become seen as the irresponsible ones.
Pope Francis has died on Easter Monday, aged 88, the Vatican announced. The head of the Catholic Church had recently survived being hospitalised with double pneumonia.
“Dear brothers and sisters, with deep sorrow I must announce the death of our Holy Father Francis. At 7:35 this morning, the Bishop of Rome, Francis, returned to the house of the Father.”
There were many unusual aspects of Pope Francis’ papacy. He was the first Jesuit pope, the first from the Americas (and the southern hemisphere), the first to choose the name “Francis” and the first to give a TED talk.
He was also the first pope in more than 600 years to be elected following the resignation, rather than death, of his predecessor.
From the very start of his papacy, Francis seemed determined to do things differently and present the papacy in a new light. Even in thinking about his burial, he chose the unexpected: to be placed to rest not in the Vatican, but in the Basilica of St Mary Major in Rome – the first pope to be buried there in hundreds of years.
Vatican News reported the late Pope Francis had requested his funeral rites be simplified.
“The renewed rite,” said Archbishop Diego Ravelli, “seeks to emphasise even more that the funeral of the Roman Pontiff is that of a pastor and disciple of Christ and not of a powerful person of this world.”
Straddling a line between “progressive” and “conservative”, Francis experienced tension with both sides. In doing so, his papacy shone a spotlight on what it means to be Catholic today.
The Pope’s Easter Blessing Video: AP
The day before his death, Pope Francis made a brief appearance on Easter Sunday to bless the crowds at St Peter’s Square.
Between a rock and a hard place Francis was deemed not progressive enough by some, yet far too progressive by others.
His apostolic exhortation (an official papal teaching on a particular issue or action) Amoris Laetitia, ignited great controversy for seemingly being (more) open to the question of whether people who have divorced and remarried may receive Eucharist.
He also disappointed progressive Catholics, many of whom hoped he would make stronger changes on issues such as the roles of women, married clergy, and the broader inclusion of LGBTQIA+ Catholics.
The reception of his exhortation Querida Amazonia was one such example. In this document, Francis did not endorse marriage for priests, despite bishops’ requests for this. He also did not allow the possibility of women being ordained as deacons to address a shortage of ordained ministers. His discerning spirit saw there was too much division and no clear consensus for change.
Francis was also openly critical of Germany’s controversial “Synodal Way” – a series of conferences with bishops and lay people — that advocated for positions contrary to Church teachings. Francis expressed concern on multiple occasions that this project was a threat to the unity of the Church.
At the same time, Francis was no stranger to controversy from the conservative side of the Church, receiving “dubia” or “theological doubts” over his teaching from some of his Cardinals. In 2023, he took the unusual step of responding to some of these doubts.
Impact on the Catholic Church In many ways, the most striking thing about Francis was not his words or theology, but his style. He was a modest man, even foregoing the Apostolic Palace’s grand papal apartments to live in the Vatican’s simpler guest house.
He may well be remembered most for his simplicity of dress and habits, his welcoming and pastoral style and his wise spirit of discernment.
He is recognised as giving a clear witness to the life, love and joy of Jesus in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council – a point of major reform in modern Church history. This witness has translated into two major developments in Church teachings and life.
Pope Francis on respecting and protecting the environment. Image: Tandag Diocese
Love for our common home The first of these relates to environmental teachings. In 2015, Francis released his ground-breaking encyclical, Laudato si’: On Care for Our Common Home. It expanded Catholic social teaching by giving a comprehensive account of how the environment reflects our God-given “common home”.
Consistent with recent popes such as Benedict XVI and John Paul II, Francis acknowledged climate change and its destructive impacts and causes. He summarised key scientific research to forcefully argue for an evidence-based approach to addressing humans’ impact on the environment.
He also made a pivotal and innovative contribution to the climate change debate by identifying the ethical and spiritual causes of environmental destruction.
Francis argued combating climate change relied on the “ecological conversion” of the human heart, so that people may recognise the God-given nature of our planet and the fundamental call to care for it. Without this conversion, pragmatic and political measures wouldn’t be able to counter the forces of consumerism, exploitation and selfishness.
Francis argued a new ethic and spirituality was needed. Specifically, he said Jesus’ way of love – for other people and all creation – is the transformative force that could bring sustainable change for the environment and cultivate fraternity among people (and especially with the poor).
Synodality: moving towards a Church that listens Francis’s second major contribution, and one of the most significant aspects of his papacy, was his commitment to “synodality”. While there’s still confusion over what synodality actually means, and its potential for political distortion, it is above all a way of listening and discerning through openness to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It involves hierarchy and lay people transparently and honestly discerning together, in service of the mission of the church. Synodality is as much about the process as the goal. This makes sense as Pope Francis was a Jesuit, an order focused on spreading Catholicism through spiritual formation and discernment.
Drawing on his rich Jesuit spirituality, Francis introduced a way of conversation centred on listening to the Holy Spirit and others, while seeking to cultivate friendship and wisdom.
With the conclusion of the second session of the Synod on Synodality in October 2024, it is too soon to assess its results. However, those who have been involved in synodal processes have reported back on their transformative potential.
Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge, explained how participating in the 2015 Synod “was an extraordinary experience [and] in some ways an awakening”.
Cardinals use a centuries-old voting process to elect a new pope, complete with smoke signals to indicate the outcome. And the next papal conclave will be the most diverse in Catholic history.
— The Conversation U.S. (@ConversationUS) April 21, 2025
Catholicism in the modern age Francis’ papacy inspired both great joy and aspirations, as well as boiling anger and rejection. He laid bare the agonising fault lines within the Catholic community and struck at key issues of Catholic identity, triggering debate over what it means to be Catholic in the world today.
He leaves behind a Church that seems more divided than ever, with arguments, uncertainty and many questions rolling in his wake. But he has also provided a way for the Church to become more converted to Jesus’ way of love, through synodality and dialogue.
Francis showed us that holding labels such as “progressive” or “conservative” won’t enable the Church to live out Jesus’ mission of love – a mission he emphasised from the very beginning of his papacy.
BANGKOK – U.S. President Donald Trump has opened a vast Pacific marine sanctuary to commercial fishing in a move the administration says will benefit American Samoa, a U.S. territory economically reliant on a single tuna cannery.
A Trump proclamation last week allows U.S.-flagged vessels to fish 50-200 nautical miles from land inside the protected area. The sanctuary encompasses waters around several islands, atolls and reefs that scientists say harbor among the most diverse marine life on the planet.
Protection of the 1.3 million square kilometer (495,000 square mile) sanctuary is doing little to guard against overfishing because tuna and other open seas fish species are migratory, according to the proclamation.
American fishing fleets have lost access to nearly half of the United States’ exclusive economic zone in the Pacific as a result of prohibitions on commercial fishing, it said.
“This has driven American fishermen to fish further offshore in international waters to compete against poorly regulated and highly subsidized foreign fleets,” the proclamation said. A White House fact sheet on the decision specified Chinese-flagged fishing vessels as the most notable of the foreign fishing fleets.
China’s high seas fishing fleet is the world’s largest, comprising thousands of vessels and a significant proportion of the global fish catch. Subsidized by Beijing and prone to illegality, it plays a key role in both the depletion of ocean fish populations and feeding China’s 1.4 billion people.
The U.S. proclamation is an about-face for its ocean conservation efforts. The previous U.S. administration of President Joe Biden had planned to expand the sanctuary to 2 million square kilometers (770,000 square miles), larger than the Gulf of Mexico.
Some research suggests that marine sanctuaries, if sufficiently large, have spillover effects that boost the populations of migratory fish such as tuna.
Using publicly available data from nine sanctuaries in the Pacific and Indian oceans, researchers at the University of Hawaii and Stanford University last year said tuna catches increased by 12% to 18% near protected area boundaries. Further away from the boundaries, the increase was smaller.
American Samoa, which as an unincorporated territory has only a non-voting representative in Congress, had opposed the sanctuary expansion. Local officials had said it would likely devastate the territory’s economy.
Tuna fishing provides about 5,000 jobs in American Samoa, where a South Korean-owned StarKist tuna cannery is its largest business, but has been in decline. The American Samoan islands, located to the south of the marine sanctuary, are home to fewer than 50,000 people after suffering a shrinking population for at least the past decade.
Rep. Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, R-American Samoa, attends a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on China on Feb. 28, 2023, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Credit: Jacquelyn Martin/AP
American Samoa’s member of Congress, Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, said allowing fishing in the sanctuary is a “sensible” decision.
The proclamation is “important to the stability and future of American Samoa’s economy, but it also is fantastic news for U.S. food security,” Amata said in a statement.
“The vast Pacific Islands area cannot fall under the domination of an increasingly aggressive CCP,” she said, referring to China’s ruling Communist Party.
Edited by Mike Firn and Taejun Kang.
This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Stephen Wright for RFA.
Despite the self-imposed chaos disrupting the federal government, public health watchdogs say the Trump administration’s strategy for axing pollution protections on behalf of its allies in wealthy industries is more sophisticated than what was seen during the president’s first term. Advocates for communities overburdened by industrial pollution and the impacts of climate change say years of…
According to the 40th annual America’s Most Endangered Rivers report by American Rivers, half the rivers in the United States contain unsafe pollution levels, with freshwater species becoming extinct faster than land or ocean species.
The Mississippi River topped the list, with federal flood management changes putting the health of the river at risk, jeopardizing the safety and clean water of those who depend upon it.
Flooding is the most common and costly natural disaster within the Mississippi River Basin, according to the report. More severe and frequent floods have damaged homes, agriculture and businesses.
There are calls for greater transparency about what the HMNZS Manawanui was doing before it sank in Samoa last October — including whether the New Zealand warship was performing specific security for King Charles and Queen Camilla.
The Manawanui grounded on the reef off the south coast of Upolu in bad weather on 5 October 2024 before catching fire and sinking. Its 75 crew and passengers were safely rescued.
The Court of Inquiry’s final report released on 4 April 2025 found human error and a long list of “deficiencies” grounded the $100 million vessel on the Tafitoala Reef, south of Upolu, where it caught fire and sank.
Equipment including weapons and ammunition continue to be removed from the vessel as its future hangs in the balance.
The Court of Inquiry’s report explains the Royal New Zealand Navy was asked by “CHOGM Command” to conduct “a hydrographic survey of the area in the vicinity of Sinalei whilst en route to Samoa”.
When it grounded on the Tafitoala Reef, the ship was following orders received from Headquarters Joint Forces New Zealand. The report incorrectly calls it the “Sinalei Reef”.
Sinalei is the name of the resort which hosted King Charles and Queen Camilla for CHOGM — the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting — which began in Samoa 19 days after the Manawanui sank from 25-26 October 2024. The Royals arrived two days before CHOGM began.
Support of CHOGM
Speaking at the release of the court’s final report, Chief of Navy Rear Admiral Garin Golding described the Manawanui’s activity on the south coast of Upolu.
“So the operation was done in support of CHOGM — a very high-profile security activity on behalf of a nation, so it wasn’t just a peacetime operation,” he said.
“It was done in what we call rapid environmental assessment so we were going in and undertaking something that we had to do a quick turnaround of that information so it wasn’t a deliberate high grade survey. It was a rapid environmental assessment so it does come with additional complexity and it did have an operational outcome. It’s just, um you know, we we are operating in complex environments.
“It doesn’t say that we did everything right and that’s what the report indicates and we just need to get after fixing those mistakes and improving.”
Sinalei Resort . . . where the royal couple were hosted. Image: Dominic Godfrey/RNZ Pacific
The report explained the Manawanui was tasked with “conducting the Sinalei survey task” “to survey a defined area of uncharted waters.” But Pacific security fellow at Victoria University’s Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University Iati Iati questions what is meant by “in support of the upcoming CHOGM”.
“All we’ve been told in the report is that it was to support CHOGM. What that means is unclear. I think that needs to be explained. I think it also needs to be explained to the Samoan people, who initiated this.
“Whether it was just a New Zealand initiative. Whether it was done for CHOGM by the CHOGM committee or whether it was something that involved the Samoa government,” Iati said.
What-for questions
“So a lot of the, you know, who was behind this and the what-for questions haven’t been answered.”
Iati said CHOGM’s organising committee included representatives from Samoa as well as New Zealand.
“But who exactly initiated that additional task which I think is on paragraph 37 of the report after the ship had sailed, the extra task was then confirmed. Who initiated that I’m not sure and I think that needs to be explained. Why it was confirmed after the sailing that also needs to be explained.
“In terms of security, I guess the closest we can come to is the fact that you know King Charles was staying on that side and Sinalei Reef. It may have something to do with that but this is just really unclear at the moment and I think all those questions need to be addressed.”
The wreck of the Manawanui lies 2.1 nautical miles — 3.89km — from the white sandy beach of the presidential suite at Sinalei Resort where King Charles and Queen Camilla stayed during CHOGM.
Just over the fence from the Royals’ island residence, Royal New Zealand Navy divers were coming and going from the sunken vessel in the early days of their recovery operation, and now salvors and the navy continue to work from there.
AUT Law School professor Paul Myburgh said the nature of the work the Manawanui was carrying out when it ran aground on the reef has implications for determining compensation for people impacted by its sinking.
Sovereign immunity
“Historically, if it was a naval vessel that was the end of the story. You could never be sued in normal courts about anything that happened on board a naval vessel. But nowadays, of course, governmental vessels are often involved in commercial activity as well,” he said.
“So we now have what we call the restrictive theory of sovereign immunity which states that if you are involved in commercial or ordinary activity that is non-governmental you are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, so this is why I’ve been wanting to get to the bottom of exactly what they were doing.
“Who instructed whom and that sort of thing. And it seems to me that in line with the findings of the report all of this seems to have been done on a very adhoc basis.”
RNZ first asked the New Zealand Defence Force detailed questions on Friday, April 11, but it declined to respond.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
@chrishehim.bsky.social
(@ChrisHeHim1) May 4, 2025
BREAKING
Grind forests into pellets
Pollute the air with deadly toxins
Profit from poisoning communities
Blue Origin
Wendy’s | Facebook
Blue Origin
