News Feeds

Registered nurses with the National Nurses Organizing Committee / National Nurses United are hosting a community town hall with Graham Platner on Wednesday, May 20, in Portland, Maine, to discuss the current state of health care and what it would take to truly transform our system.

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Rafael Méndez Tejeda

El Niño is (probably) coming back later this year.

And this time, it’s unfolding against a backdrop of unusually warm oceans and an even warmer climate system than the last time we experienced this natural climate pattern.

Here is what you need to know about it.

What is El Niño?

The term El Niño is part of a broader phenomenon called El Niño-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO. It’s a recurring climate pattern involving changes in sea surface temperatures across the central and eastern tropical Pacific.

Copernicus, a European climate data service, reported that in March 2026, the average sea surface temperatures in the Pacific reached 20.97°C – the second-highest value ever recorded for March, which suggests a likely transition toward El Niño conditions.

The El Niño-Southern Oscillation is one of the planet’s most important natural mechanisms through which the ocean and atmosphere exchange energy and reorganize the global climate from year to year.

The phenomenon has three phases: the warm phase is El Niño, the cool phase is La Niña, and between the two lies a neutral or transitional phase, when neither dominates clearly. The changes occur in the tropical region of the Pacific Ocean, within 700 miles of the equator.

The consensus among climate models – including those from NOAA – indicates with high probability the onset and subsequent intensification of El Niño starting in fall 2026, with some models suggesting it could be an unusually intense event.

We can anticipate more heat waves with a strengthening El Niño, along with more extreme events ranging from heavy rainfall to drought. El Niño tends to intensify the subtropical jet stream, favoring wetter conditions and greater storm activity across the southern United States and northern Mexico, while the northern United States and Canada experience a relatively warmer and drier pattern, affecting snow cover and water availability. At the same time, the effects of El Niño usually reduce the frequency and intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean.

The return of El Niño is not synonymous with climate change

El Niño is a natural phenomenon of the ocean-atmosphere system. But when it coincides with a planet already warmed by human activity, its effects can be amplified. The World Meteorological Organization warned that during the last El Niño period (2023–2024), the combination of El Niño and climate change hit Latin America and the Caribbean with greater force, worsening droughts, heat waves, wildfires, extreme rainfall, and other impacts with significant human and economic costs.

El Niño affects more than the Pacific region

Although El Niño originates in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, its effects extend to other regions of the planet through processes known as climate teleconnections – atmospheric links that allow massive cloud formations to develop as a result of the enormous evaporation generated by the warming of ocean waters.

El Niño disrupts what is known as the Walker Cell or Walker Circulation, a tropical atmospheric circulation system that transports heat, moisture, and energy on a large scale. These disturbances propagate through the atmosphere in the form of planetary waves, modifying global pressure and wind patterns. As a result, El Niño’s influence reaches the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean, where significant changes in regional climate occur.

Among these effects are a tendency toward drier conditions in certain periods due to descending air and a redistribution of heat that contributes to higher temperatures and more intense heat waves. In short, even though El Niño occurs far from where most Yale Climate Connections readers live, its impact is clearly felt because Earth’s climate system is interconnected, and atmospheric disturbances can travel vast distances.

During El Niño, increased variability in wind direction and speed – which inhibits hurricane formation – can act as a buffer against hurricane activity. However, hurricane formation in the Atlantic depends on multiple factors, including conditions in the Atlantic itself – such as sea surface temperatures, atmospheric moisture, and the Azores High, a large semipermanent center of high atmospheric pressure that sits over the North Atlantic near the Azores islands. And when it comes to hurricanes, we should never let our guard down completely.

How El Niño affects hurricane formation in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. (Image credit: NOAA / Climate.gov)

In general terms, precipitation tends to be greater during La Niña or neutral years than during El Niño years. This does not mean the disappearance of all rainfall. But it does suggest a greater probability of rainfall deficits, water stress, and, in some cases, the development of drought conditions – which could worsen the drought already affecting Southern and Western U.S. states.

El Niño is not here yet

According to the most recent diagnostic discussion from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, current conditions are ENSO-neutral. That same assessment indicates that neutral conditions are likely through May, April, June, and July 2026, potentially extending through September, at which point a transition to the warm phase of ENSO could begin. All forecasting centers emphasize that significant uncertainty remains regarding its ultimate intensity.

El Niño does not arrive on a fixed schedule

Both NOAA and other scientific bodies agree that it appears irregularly, generally every two to seven years, though the average tends to fall closer to every three to four years. Episodes typically last between nine and 18 months, and in some cases, somewhat longer due to the effects of global warming.

As migratory birds travel thousands of miles across continents each year, scientists and conservationists are finding new ways to understand where birds go, where they stop, and what habitats they...

05-22 * 13:00 - RD-TG meeting (Bea)

05-20 * 13:00 - Toolkit for Weaving (Bea)

This spring our Pine Island Sanctuary on the Outer Banks welcomed back nesting Osprey, Purple Martins, Tree Swallows, and more thanks to volunteers who cleared out nest boxes and made the sanctuary...

EWG’s 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens finds market progress, a promising new ingredient but a stubborn UVA protection gap Monica Amarelo May 18, 2026

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Working Group today released its 20th Annual Guide to Sunscreens, and after evaluating nearly 2,800 SPF products, the most comprehensive review in the guide’s history, the news is mixed.

The sunscreen market is measurably better. Finding a safer and more effective sunscreen that works for your skin and your routine remains important in making sun protection a lifelong habit. The product you will actually use is the right one.

“The market has improved. The number of harmful ingredients like oxybenzone has nosedived, the percentage of products that are mineral sunscreens has nearly tripled and consumers are more informed than ever,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., chief science officer at EWG.

“But the fundamental problem remains unsolved: Most American sunscreens fail to deliver adequate UVA protection, critical for reducing skin cancer risk, including melanoma. 

“That is not a marketing problem but a failure of sunscreen companies to develop the data showing their ingredients are safe,” said Andrews.

Twenty years ago, most Americans had no independent, science-based resource to consult when buying sunscreen. The market was flooded with harmful chemicals, misleading SPF claims and products that offered little meaningful protection against the radiation most responsible for skin cancer.

So EWG built a guide.

This year, 550 of the 2,784 SPF products EWG evaluated meet its criteria for both ingredient safety and balanced UV protection. 

Sixty-two sunscreens bear the EWG Verified® mark. To qualify, they must:

• Meet EWG’s highest standards for safety and ingredient transparency
• Satisfy EWG’s standard for ultraviolet A, or UVA, and ultraviolet B, or UVB protection 
• Surpass both U.S. and European requirements for UVA protection. 

In total 130 SPF products, including moisturizers and lip balms, are EWG Verified.

20 years of measurable progress

“Wearing any sunscreen at all is key to reducing health concerns about excess UV exposure,” said Andrews.

“But not all sunscreens are created equal. EWG’s guide is a trusted, science-based resource that consumers can turn to every year to find the sunscreens that offer the strongest broad-spectrum protection without concerning ingredients.”

When EWG launched the first Guide to Sunscreens, in 2007, oxybenzone – a chemical linked to hormone disruption and environmental harm – appeared in 70% of non-mineral sunscreens on the market. Today it’s an ingredient in just 5%.

Vitamin A, which can degrade in sunlight and potentially accelerate rather than prevent skin damage, has plummeted from 41% of sunscreens to just 2%.

Mineral sunscreens using zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, the only active sunscreen ingredients the Food and Drug Administration has proposed as generally recognized as safe and effective, have grown from 17% to 47% of products EWG reviews.

These are not small victories. They represent a sea change in how an entire industry formulates its products, driven in significant part by consumers armed with better information.

A promising new ingredient on the horizon

For the first time in more than a quarter-century, EWG has cause for optimism about what is coming to U.S. sunscreen shelves. In late 2025, the FDA proposed classifying bemotrizinol, a UV filter used safely since 1999 in European and Asian sunscreens, as safe and effective for the U.S. market. 

“Bemotrizinol is the most significant development in American sunscreen regulation in 25 years, and EWG is proud to have pushed for its inclusion in U.S. products for more than a decade,” said Alexa Friedman, Ph.D., senior scientist at EWG.

Bemotrizinol provides several advantages, including:

• strong broad-spectrum UVA and UVB protection
• greater stability in sunlight than avobenzone, currently the only chemical filter in the U.S. that provides meaningful UVA protection 
• minimal skin absorption
• potential for combination with zinc oxide for even greater UVA coverage, unlike avobenzone.

If the FDA finalizes its proposal, American consumers who prefer non-mineral sunscreens will have a better option for the first time in nearly three decades.

“But one new ingredient does not fix a marketplace that has been stuck in neutral for a generation,” said Melanie Benesh, EWG vice president of government affairs.

“The FDA proposed meaningful reforms to sunscreen regulation in 2019 and again in 2021 – stronger UVA standards, SPF value limits, better labeling, updated safety data requirements.

“None of those reforms have been finalized, and sunscreen manufacturers have failed to provide the FDA with the safety data it needs to approve better UV filters,” she said. 

“Congress must force the issue by setting enforceable deadlines for companies to submit the required data and empower the FDA to remove noncompliant ingredients from the market,” Benesh added.

Most sunscreens still fail on UVA

Progress is real. But the gap in American sun protection has not closed.

EWG’s peer-reviewed research, published in Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine, tested 51 U.S. sunscreens and found that products delivered on average just 59% of their labeled UVB protection and only 24% of the UVA protection implied by their SPF labels.

UVA radiation penetrates deeper into the skin than UVB, is a driver of melanoma and photo-aging, and causes damage year-round through car and office windows, on cloudy days and at high altitudes. 

Melanoma cases are projected to rise 10.6% this year, according to the American Cancer Society. The rate of new melanoma cases has tripled since the 1970s.

The problem is compounded by misleading high-SPF marketing.

In perfect laboratory conditions, an SPF 50 product blocks 98% of UVB rays. SPF 100 blocks 99%. The difference is negligible, yet manufacturers continue to push SPF 70, 80 and 100+ products using chemical boosters that may inflate the number without improving UVA protection.

SPF tests triggered a regulatory reckoning in Australia, where independent tests found that one product labeled SPF 50+ tested at just SPF 4. The scandal triggered government investigations and mass product recalls. The U.S. has the same testing inconsistencies, but the FDA has not acted.

Europe adopted more accurate, objective laboratory testing protocols in 2024. 

The U.S. still relies on subjective in vivo tests, which involves technicians visually judging skin redness on human subjects, a method so inconsistent that the same formula can produce results of SPF 51 at one lab and SPF 28 at another.

“The SPF number on your sunscreen bottle doesn’t tell you the whole story,” said Friedman. “Consumers who reach for the highest SPF because they want maximum protection are often getting the least reliable UVA coverage of all. 

“That is a public health problem, and the FDA has the authority and the obligation to fix it,” she added.

Undisclosed “fragrance” in 36% of SPF products

More than one in three sunscreens EWG evaluated in 2026 list undisclosed “fragrance” on the label. That word can conceal hundreds of chemicals, including allergens, hormone disruptors and carcinogens.

For daily sunscreen users, those exposures accumulate. A 2025 peer-reviewed paper found the cumulative health effects of repeated fragrance ingredient exposure remain poorly understood and inadequately regulated. Congress set a 2024 deadline for the FDA to address fragrance allergen labeling in cosmetics, a rule that would have covered moisturizers with SPF. The agency missed it.

There is no equivalent fragrance disclosure requirement for sunscreens, so consumers have no way to know what is hidden behind that word on a product label.

“‘Fragrance’ on a sunscreen label doesn’t describe a single ingredient,” said Jilly Senk, science analyst at EWG Verified. 

“When you apply that product every day – to your face, your children’s skin, year after year – those undisclosed exposures add up. The EWG Verified mark exists precisely because the law does not require the transparency consumers deserve,” she said

How to find a sunscreen that works for you

The 2026 Guide to Sunscreens also offers important lists, including a selection of the top-rated recreational sunscreens, the safest for kids and babies, moisturizers with SPF and lip balms. They’re the products EWG scientists ranked the highest for their overall protection from UVA and UVB rays and other factors.

EWG also recommends “12 Bang for Your Buck Kids Sunscreens,” all priced at less than $20.

Here is EWG’s guidance for choosing a sunscreen that works and that you will use:

Choose mineral protection. Look for zinc oxide, which provides stable, balanced UVA and UVB coverage. EWG also recommends titanium dioxide for daily use.

Choose lotions or sticks over sprays. Sprays raise concerns about inhalation and often result in uneven coverage, especially in wind.

Skip high SPF numbers. Stick with SPF 50 or lower. Products with SPF 70, 80, or 100+ may not provide better UVA protection and can create a dangerous false sense of security.

Avoid chemicals of concern and undisclosed fragrance. Ingredients like oxybenzone and octinoxate are linked to hormone disruption and environmental harm. Undisclosed fragrance masks potentially harmful chemicals.

Use EWG’s tools. Search EWG’s Guide to Sunscreens, use the EWG Healthy Living app to scan products while you shop, and look for the EWG Verified mark, which requires sunscreens to exceed both U.S. and European UVA protection standards.

Finding a safer and more effective sunscreen that works for your skin and your routine is the final step in making sun protection a lifelong habit. The time of year does not matter. The weather does not matter. Every day is a sunscreen day – and the right product you will actually use.

###

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

Areas of Focus Personal Care Products Sunscreen Family Health Children’s Health 80% of almost 2,800 reviewed SPF products rate poorly for skin protection or concerning ingredients Press Contact Monica Amarelo monica@ewg.org (202) 939-9140 May 19, 2026

EPA is undoing PFAS protections. How can you remove ‘forever chemicals’ from tap water? JR Culpepper May 18, 2026

“Do I have PFAS in my tap water? How can I get rid of PFAS in drinking water?”

If you’re asking these questions, you’re not alone. The Environmental Protection Agency formally proposed to undo enforceable limits for four toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS in drinking water: PFNA, PFHxS, GenX and PFBS. 

The agency is stripping protections from millions of Americans whose tap water is already contaminated, an unprecedented and likely unlawful move.

The EPA is leaving in place PFAS limits for the two most notorious and well-studied forever chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, which will help reduce levels of those chemicals in drinking water.

But the agency is also proposing to delay by two years the deadline water systems have to comply – until 2031, for utilities that ask. That risks continuing the PFOA and PFOS contamination in communities that have already waited decades for clean water.

The alarming move to scrap the four other PFAS limits may leave millions of people exposed to tap water chemicals linked to cancer, immune suppression and many other risks.

EWG estimated in 2020 that 200 million Americans could have PFAS in their tap water. The EPA’s latest national tap water data update says the number is at least 176 million.

So far, that’s all bad news. 

Here’s the good news: You can take steps that may help to reduce the amount of PFAS in your home’s tap water.

EWG is here to guide you through your options.

Are PFAS in my tap water? How to find out.

First, find out whether your tap water contains PFAS. Here are two tools:

• EWG’s Tap Water Database lets you enter your ZIP code, showing you the most up-to-date information about PFAS and other contaminants in your community's tap water. It contains data from water systems across the country, showing you exactly which chemicals have been detected and at what concentrations. 
• EWG’s interactive PFAS map shows where forever chemicals have been detected below and above the EPA’s first-time tap water limits. The map was updated with the EPA’s most recent national PFAS test data from March 2026, and includes communities, military bases and other locations. 

If you rely on a private well, your water is not monitored or tested by any public utility. If you live near a military base, industrial facility, airport or area with known PFAS contamination, consider getting your water tested.

How do I remove PFAS from my tap water?

“PFAS are in my tap water. Can I do anything about it?”

The simple answer is yes; there is something you can do – find and use a home filter designed to reduce PFAS in your drinking water. There are many brands and varieties available, at a range of prices. Not all filters remove PFAS effectively. Do not assume a filter removes PFAS unless it specifically states that it does.

There are a few different ways to filter water for PFAS. 

EWG’s guide to countertop water filters helps you navigate through some other accessible choices. EWG reviewed 10 of the leading brands and models, telling you which filter is most effective at removing PFAS, how much it costs, how quickly the filter parts must be replaced, and how easy it is to use, among other important considerations.

What’s key is the right PFAS filter option will depend on your budget and preferences:

• Carbon-based. Absorbs contaminants like PFAS as water flows through granular-activated carbon or a carbon block. Used in pitchers, under-sink filters and faucet-mounted filters, it’s often the most accessible and affordable option.
• Reverse osmosis. Pushes tap water through a semi-permeable membrane that separates particles from water molecules, cutting PFAS and other contaminants. It is typically installed under a sink, but some new counter top models are available. Reverse osmosis is a highly effective option for reducing PFAS in drinking water. 
• Ion exchange. Exchanges contaminants in the water for less-harmful ions to trap certain contaminants. Not as common in home filters and sometimes used in whole-house filtration systems, so often ends up being more expensive than point-of-use systems like filters you attach to a faucet.
• Whole-house filtration. These systems are often more expensive than other options. They’re not necessary for most homes – they’re typically just used by those with the worst contamination.

Renters may prefer counter-top, faucet-mounted or pitcher-type filters, technologies that don’t require changes to a property’s plumbing and can be easily removed when they move out. 

The best filter is the one that’s most suitable for your situation and that you will use.

Tell the EPA not to roll back PFAS standards

EWG strongly opposes the EPA’s rollback of four PFAS limits. The move could violate the Safe Drinking Water Act, the law that the agency used to first develop the standards.

If you’re also alarmed, you can make your voice heard. 

Tell the agency to keep PFAS protections in place. Preserving the limits for PFAS in water will protect health, save lives and clean up drinking water.

The EPA is taking public comment on the proposal through July 16. Use docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2025-1742 or EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654 to tell the agency who you are, where you live and whether PFAS are in your water. Let the regulators know why these protections matter to you and your family. 

Personal stories from affected community members carry significant weight. The agency needs to hear from concerned Americans to understand just how misguided its plan is.

You can also contact your members of Congress and urge them to investigate whether the EPA’s rollback of PFAS regulations violates the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Areas of Focus Water Toxic Chemicals PFAS Chemicals Authors Anthony Lacey May 18, 2026

Trees as lived memories serve us citizens and residents, a culinary or recreational experience of engaging with them at regular intervals in our lives. A mango or jackfruit tree may bring back past relationships with our forefathers, and their ritualistic pickling processes or preservation through frying of chips. A banyan or peepal tree of the […]

May 14, 2026—Politico’s Eric He reports on Gov. Newsom’s May Revise budget proposal, which calls for deferring $3.9 billion in Proposition 98 school funding despite revenues coming in $16.5 billion above projections. The move has drawn swift condemnation from teachers unions, school boards, and Democratic lawmakers who argue the constitutionally-guaranteed funding is urgently needed — including by Los Angeles Unified, which is counting on state dollars to honor $1.2 billion in new union contracts. On the positive side for education advocates, the governor preserved $1 billion for community schools expansion. Public Advocates Managing Attorney John Affeldt weighed in on the deferral, saying that while restraints are warranted, it’s “not a crazy maneuver given the volatility of our revenue picture.”

Read the Story

The post Politico Pro: Newsom sticks with controversial funding deferral in mixed-bag schools budget appeared first on Public Advocates.

Nobody thinks they’re doing the popular front

Here’s the problem with arguing against the popular front inside DSA: Nobody in this organization thinks they’re doing it. That’s not a rhetorical observation. It’s the actual difficulty. Nobody wakes up and says, “I think we should subordinate working-class politics to bourgeois democratic forces.” That’s not how popular frontism arrives. It doesn’t announce itself. It accumulates through a hundred individual decisions, each looking reasonable until, at some point, the organization’s political orientation has shifted into something that would have been recognizable as wrong if proposed directly.

This document is not an accusation. Calling something popular frontism in DSA’s context isn’t a charge of bad faith; it’s a structural observation about what happens to socialist organizations under conditions of intense conjunctural pressure. And the pressure right now is real. Trump’s second term has produced a genuine emergency for millions of people. Immigrants are being deported. Civil liberties are being dismantled. Democratic institutions are being hollowed out or captured outright. People responding to this with urgency are not wrong about the urgency.

Popular frontism doesn’t announce itself. It accumulates through a hundred individual decisions, each looking reasonable until, at some point, the organization’s political orientation has shifted into something that would have been recognizable as wrong if proposed directly.

The question is not whether to respond. The question is how, and specifically on what political basis. That question has a strategic answer and getting it wrong doesn’t just produce ineffective politics. It reproduces the conditions that got us here.

What the popular front actually is

Before making the argument, we need precision about the target. The popular front gets used loosely, and that looseness lets people slide past the critique.

The popular front is not coalition work. Socialists do coalition work all the time and should. It’s not working alongside people we disagree with, and it’s not even working in formations dominated by non-socialist forces. The popular front is specifically the subordination of working-class political independence to a cross-class coalition organized around bourgeois political goals. The test isn’t whether DSA maintains formal independence—whether we keep our name and publish our newsletter. The test is whether the political content of our work is determined by the coalition’s framework or by an independent working-class program.

The popular front is specifically the subordination of working-class political independence to a cross-class coalition organized around bourgeois political goals.

Leon Trotsky’s Struggle Against Fascism in Germany makes this case: In the 1930s, the popular front meant communist parties entering electoral alliances with “progressive” bourgeois parties, adopting their demands, deferring to their leadership, and bracketing socialist politics as divisive. The theory was that fascism posed such an extreme threat that the immediate task was to defend bourgeois democracy, with socialist demands to follow once the emergency had passed.1The standard account of the 1930s debates remains Leon Trotsky, The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany (New York: Pathfinder Press, 1971), which collects the key documents from popular front. For the consequences of the Popular Front turn, see Felix Morrow, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain (New York: Pioneer Publishers, 1938).

The emergency never passed. Socialist demands never came back. The organizations that had disciplined themselves into becoming coalition partners emerged without the political independence they’d begun with, in cases where they emerged at all.

What is being proposed and, in some cases, practiced within DSA today has the same structural features, even if it goes by different names. Coalition partners are the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, liberal NGOs, and civil society organizations. The bracketed demands are socialist ones. The logic is identical: The emergency–framed as either authoritarianism or fascism–is too severe for the luxury of political independence.

How you get there without deciding to

Coalition gravity is real. It’s not a character flaw–it’s a structural problem that operates on organizations, not just individuals.

The Democratic-Party-aligned liberal-left is large, active, and well-resourced. When a crisis hits, that infrastructure mobilizes first and fastest. The coalitions form around it. The demands, the slogans, the framing, and the action calendar are set before socialist organizations have finished their internal discussions.

For example, a DSA member shows up at an immigrant defense meeting. The meeting is mostly liberals, a few DSA members, and some NGO staff. The immediate task of supporting people facing deportation is urgent and correct. Nobody is going to walk out because politics aren’t pure enough. That would be sectarian and wrong. So, you participate. You agree with the common statement. The common statement is framed around “defending American values” and “the rule of law”—not around class power, not around the system that produces both Trump and the deportation regime he’s intensifying. You table that argument because the meeting isn’t the time. Next meeting, same dynamic.

Over months of such activity, DSA’s public face becomes indistinguishable from that of the progressive liberal opposition. The people being recruited come in through that political framework. New members’ understanding of what this organization is gets shaped by what it visibly does, which is to background the socialist politics of working class power from below.

There is nothing explicitly stated requiring anyone to abandon socialist politics. The abandonment happens through accumulation, through the logic of each individual situation. This is what conjunctural pressure does to small organizations without a consciously held, collectively maintained, regularly reasserted strategic orientation.

The antidote isn’t sectarian abstention. It’s deliberate political clarity about what we’re doing and why it’s maintained actively, not assumed.

The fascism question is doing all the work

The strategic argument for popular front practice in the current moment always rests, explicitly or implicitly, on a characterization of Trump as fascist. That characterization is doing more work than it should be trusted to do.

In contrast to the popular front, Trotsky developed the united front strategy, which is often invoked imprecisely to justify current coalition practices, particularly in response to fascism. His argument was that fascism threatened to physically destroy working-class organizations, which required those organizations to act in common, despite political differences, to survive. Even then, he insisted on a united front among labor organizations, not a cross-class coalition with bourgeois democratic forces.2Trotsky, “For a Workers’ United Front Against Fascism” (1931) and “What Next? Vital Questions for the German Proletariat” (1932), both in The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany. The key formulation: the united front is “a practical agreement for struggle” between organizations “that base themselves on the working class”—not with bourgeois parties.

If Trump’s second term represents a Bonapartist conjuncture rather than a fascist one, the entire strategic logic should shift. Bonapartism, in the classical Marxist sense, describes a regime in which the state achieves relative autonomy because the ruling class is politically paralyzed—no fraction can establish stable hegemony—while the working class lacks independent political expression to fill the vacuum. The executive floats above class conflict, presenting itself as a national solution to a political impasse. This describes the current situation with considerable precision.3The Bonapartism framework originates in Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852). For its theoretical elaboration and relation to fascism, see Nicos Poulantzas, Fascism and Dictatorship (London: New Left Books, 1974) and State, Power, Socialism (London: New Left Books, 1978). Poulantzas’s critique of instrumentalist accounts of the state is particularly relevant to the question of regime characterization.

The distinction matters because Bonapartism and fascism call for different strategic responses. Fascism requires defensive mobilization to protect existing working-class organizational infrastructure from physical destruction. Bonapartism requires something harder: building independent working-class political capacity to fill the vacuum currently occupied by the Bonapartist solution.

The “no kings” framing … is the ideological form of the popular front.

The popular front’s response to Bonapartism doesn’t just fail strategically. It actively worsens the underlying condition. Bonapartism arises from two simultaneous problems: bourgeois political fragmentation and working-class political subordination to bourgeois politics. The popular front deepens the second problem by re-subordinating working-class politics to bourgeois democratic forces. You defeat this Bonaparte—if you defeat him—only to have reproduced exactly the conditions that made him possible.

The “no kings” framing that dominates current opposition politics is not accidental. It is the ideological form of the popular front: The enemy is personal despotism, the solution is constitutional democracy, and the agent of change is a broad cross-class coalition of people who love freedom. Working-class power doesn’t appear in this picture as a distinct force with distinct interests. It appears as part of the democratic people, whose political expression is progressive liberalism. Socialists who adopt this framing aren’t just making a rhetorical concession. They’re accepting a framework that makes independent working-class politics invisible by definition.

Trotsky against the Trotskyists

It’s worth being direct about the theoretical tradition being invoked to justify current practice because the invocation is wrong, and demonstrating that it’s wrong matters for the internal argument.

When comrades say, “united front, not popular front,” they’re invoking a real and important distinction from Trotsky’s work in the early 1930s. The problem is that what’s being practiced in many cases is the popular front, not the united front—and the distinction between them is precisely what Trotsky spent years insisting on.

Trotsky’s united front was between working-class organizations: German socialist and communist formations, acting in common against the Nazi threat, maintaining their distinct political programs and organizational independence, and striking together on specific, defined objectives. Political independence wasn’t incidental to the strategy—it was the whole point. A united front dissolves the moment participating organizations can no longer advance their own politics within it.4Trotsky, “The United Front for Defense” (1933), in The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany. The “march separately, strike together” formulation appears in several documents from this period. Its precondition—that independent organizations capable of marching separately actually exist—is rarely emphasized in contemporary invocations.

“March separately, strike together” is frequently quoted. What’s less frequently noted is that marching separately requires that you be marching and that there be an independent working-class political formation capable of entering a united front as a distinct pole. DSA joining a Democratic Party-led coalition isn’t a united front. There is no independent march. There is a large march that has absorbed us.

The Comintern’s move to the popular front in 1935 was not an abandonment of the united front in favor of something obviously different. It was a collapse of the united front into a cross-class coalition, dressed in the language of anti-fascist necessity. Dimitrov’s Congress speeches don’t read like a capitulation—they read like a strategic adaptation to overwhelming circumstances.5Georgi Dimitrov, “The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International,” report to the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International (1935), in The United Front: The Struggle Against Fascism and War (New York: International Publishers, 1938). The rhetorical sophistication of the popular front turn is worth attending to: it was presented as a creative application of united front principles, not an abandonment of them.

The people who built the popular front thought they were being realistic, flexible, and responsive to conditions. They were wrong. The popular front delivered the Spanish Republic to Franco and the French Left to paralysis. The lesson isn’t that unity is bad. It’s that unity organized on bourgeois-democratic terms—with socialist politics bracketed as divisive, and its socialist demands deferred as premature—produces defeat even when it yields votes.

What independent politics actually looks like

The case against popular frontism is not a case for abstention, and saying so directly matters because the charge of sectarianism is always the first response.

DSA members should be in immigrant defense work. We should be in the streets around May Day and every moment of mass mobilization. We should be in coalition with whoever is organizing working-class people. None of that is in question. What’s in question is the political basis on which we’re there and the organizational form we maintain within it.

Independent politics in practice means several difficult things. It means being visibly, publicly socialist in coalition spaces, not as a condition of participation but as a contribution to it. The people being radicalized at this moment need to find a distinct pole. If DSA’s presence is indistinguishable from progressive liberalism, we’re not offering them an alternative; we’re delivering them to the Democratic Party’s orbit.

It means framing every attack as class politics, not democratic politics. Deportations are not an assault on American values. They are an assault on working people by a capitalist state that serves ruling-class interests—interests that the Democratic Party also represents, differently but genuinely. The distinction matters because it points toward a different solution. “Restore democracy” points toward the Democratic Party. “Build working-class power” points to something that doesn’t yet exist at the required scale, which means the task is to build it.

Independent politics … means treating the conjuncture as a radicalization opportunity, which requires having a distinct socialist pole for people to find.

It means doing genuine united-front work where it is actually possible, with DSA’s left currents, with socialist labor militants, with other genuine working-class formations, on terms that maintain political independence rather than dissolving into the lowest common denominator of anti-authoritarianism.

And it means treating the conjuncture as a radicalization opportunity, which requires having a distinct socialist pole for people to find. People are moving right now. The question is where they move to. If socialist organizations are invisible as a distinct political force, if our public presence is liberal coalition work, then the people being radicalized by Trump’s attacks get absorbed into the Democratic Party opposition. That is a long-term failure with consequences that will outlast the current crisis.

The organizational honesty problem

One more thing deserves to be said, even though it’s uncomfortable.

Organizations under pressure tend toward popular frontism in part because it solves an immediate organizational problem: isolation. Coalition work provides activity, visibility, a sense of mass connection, and recruiting opportunities that independent socialist politics can’t provide. This is a real organizational need being met in a politically costly way. Naming it isn’t an accusation of bad faith. It’s an attempt at honesty about the pressures that drive political drift.

The solution is not to pretend that the isolation problem doesn’t exist; it does, and it’s serious. The solution is to refuse to solve it through absorption into formations whose political gravity we need to escape. That means accepting that independent politics is harder, slower, and less immediately satisfying than coalition work. It has always been true. The organizations that maintained independence through the 1930s conjuncture were the ones that came out the other side with something to offer. The ones that dissolved into the popular front came out as smaller versions of the liberal parties, they’d subordinated themselves to—in the cases where they came out at all.

Conclusion: We’ve been here before

The argument of this document is not that DSA should disengage from the current moment of political crisis. It is precisely the crisis’s intensity that makes it necessary to be as clear as possible about our political orientation, not the reason to defer clarity until conditions are easier.

Bonapartism won’t fall to the Left that currently exists in the United States. The socialist movement is too small, too organizationally fragmented, and too politically subordinated to bourgeois parties for that. The question the conjuncture poses is not whether we can defeat Trump’s regime directly. It is whether we can use this moment to build the organizational and political infrastructure that might, eventually, constitute a genuine working-class political force, or whether we will spend it as the left wing of a liberal coalition that will absorb our energy, recruit our cadre into its own formations, and leave us smaller and less politically distinct than we started.

The popular front has always promised the second option while selling the first. We have enough history now to know how that story ends. The question is whether we’ve learned from it.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”
Featured Image credit: OsannaChil; modified by Tempest.

The post The coalition that swallows you appeared first on Tempest.

Nurses at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, say they voted to join the union because it is critical that nurses have a say in making decisions about staffing and working conditions, which leads to improved patient care.

Massive Florida-based power company NextEra Energy announced today its plan to acquire Virginia’s Dominion Energy, citing the growth of A.I. data centers as the impetus for the move. In response, Public Citizen Energy Program director Tyson Slocum issued the following statement:

“This absurd proposal to merge two massive, well-capitalized utilities should be dead on arrival for state and federal regulators. Household customers have everything to lose and nothing to gain by allowing two behemoths, NextEra and Dominion, to merge.

“The claim that the tie-up is needed to address data center demand is a false narrative; the merger will do nothing to increase generating capacity, let alone desperately-needed renewable generating capacity. These mega-utilities are merely using rising concern about data centers as an excuse to concentrate political and economic power of two giant utilities to maximize financial returns to shareholders. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state regulators should reject this outlandish, unnecessary merger as completely contrary to the public interest.“

EnviroReporter.com’s 20th anniversary 2006-2026 Michael Collins & Denise Duffield’s reporting valued at $9.6 BILLION!

Protein is everywhere – it probably isn't making us healthier JR Culpepper May 18, 2026

Protein used to be the domain of bodybuilders and fitness fanatics. Now it’s everywhere: high-protein claims on Doritos chips, Dunkin’ Donuts lattes, breakfast toaster pastries and even pints of ice cream. 

There is even, somehow, “high performance man cereal” packed with protein. 

The protein powder market has become a more than $20 billion dollar industry, and demand for whey protein is so high that food and beverage companies may soon face a shortage.

But more isn’t always better. And not all protein sources are the same.

Despite mountains of marketing claims suggesting otherwise, we are not all walking around with protein deficits. In fact, some protein products being sold as a silver bullet for better health may pose their own risks.

American diets have a problem – but it’s not protein

Many of us don’t need to worry about getting more in our diets. The average U.S. adult’s consumption exceeds daily protein recommendations.

But some groups may benefit from a protein boost, including older or postmenopausal adults, pregnant or lactating individuals, athletes engaging in resistance or endurance training and, potentially, people taking GLP-1 medications.

Foods like beans, lentils, nuts, seeds and whole grains can provide protein, along with another nutrient few people get enough of: fiber. More than 90% of women and 97% of men fall short of recommended daily fiber intake, around 25 to 38 grams per day. Diets low in fiber are linked to higher risk of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and colorectal cancer.

A bonus of foods high in both protein and fiber: They are often more affordable than traditional protein sources. For example, a cup of cooked lentils contains about 18 grams of protein and 16 grams of fiber – often for less than a dollar per serving.

Concerns about supplements’ safety

Much of the protein boom is driven by the marketing of protein powders. 

These are classified as dietary supplements, so the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t regulate them the same way as food and drinks. Companies themselves are responsible for verifying the health and safety of their products.

Potential contamination of protein powders is also a significant concern. A 2025 Consumer Reports investigation found detectable lead in nearly every sample of protein powder and shake tested. Some single servings contained enough lead to cause a woman of childbearing age to exceed the FDA’s recommended daily limit for lead from food.

Another study revealed that nearly half of protein supplements tested exceeded at least one state or federal safety limit for lead, cadmium, mercury or arsenic.

Many brands also contain artificial food dyes, sweeteners and other highly processed ingredients that offer no nutritional value and may be linked to other health harms.

Ultra-processed protein products

New products boasting added protein should also give you pause.

Many snacks, drinks and desserts now boasting protein claims – from chips to cereals to flavored coffee drinks – are ultra-processed.

Ultra-processed foods, or UPF, are industrially manufactured products that contain colors, additives or ingredients not commonly found in home kitchens. In the U.S., these foods make up more than two-thirds of children’s diets and more than half the typical adult diet. 

Leading health experts now consider UPF a key driver of chronic disease, including Type 2 diabetes, depression, and heart, kidney and gastrointestinal diseases.

Extra protein in an ultra-processed product doesn’t reduce any of these risks. It’s also unlikely to provide other beneficial nutrients, like fiber, found in minimally processed or whole foods.

What you can do

Consumers shouldn’t have to figure all of this out alone.

Companies should be required to routinely test supplements like protein powders and disclose the results, including any findings of heavy metals in powders, shakes and bars.

States like California have already successfully adopted these requirements for baby food. By reducing contamination levels in many product categories, they showed that transparency drives cleaner sourcing and safer manufacturing.

Last year, California also signed landmark legislation to ban the most harmful UPF from public schools. Now, California lawmakers are considering a state-run non-UPF certification program to make grocery shopping easier for concerned consumers.

In the meantime, people looking to learn more about their protein sources can use EWG’s Food Scores to identify nutrition, ingredient and processing concerns in more than 150,000 foods. Food Scores also flags unhealthy UPF and can help you identify alternatives. 

Or if you’re on the go, EWG’s Healthy Living app puts that information in your pocket while you shop.

Areas of Focus Food Ultra-Processed Foods Authors Sarah Reinhardt, MPH, RDN May 18, 2026

The global annual production of plastics rose to 400 million metric tons in 2022 and is projected to double by 2050. Many items produced are used once and then thrown away, including more than 30 billion plastic water bottles sold each year in the United States alone. Less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled.

Clearly the problem of plastic pollution in land and marine environments isn’t going away. This series looks at some approaches to dealing with it, including this examination of the increasing demand for water in disposable bottles.

A whopping 88% of Americans say they consume bottled water, according to an industry survey released in 2024. In fact that year we drank an estimated 16.4 billion gallons of it — 47.1 gallons and a shocking average of about 340 individual bottles per person. The retail cost of all those bottles reached $50.6 billion.

But there’s another cost to this practice: serious effects on our health.

Recent research from Concordia University in Canada shows that people who drink bottled water ingest up to 90,000 more microparticles of plastic a year than those who drink tap water. Microplastic particles range in size from 1 micron (a thousandth of a millimeter) to 5 millimeters. For perspective, a credit card is about 1 millimeter thick.

More concerning is another study that found higher amounts of nanoparticles in water bottles than previously reported. Nanoparticles are smaller than 1 micron.

An ever-growing body of research suggests that exposure to these particles, particularly the nano-sized ones, affects our immune systems, causes reproductive issues, impairs cognitive function, and increases cancer risk.

Why We Drink Bottled Water

Why do we drink so much water from plastic bottles in the first place?

In one survey reported by Statista, reasons given by consumers included convenience, better taste, mistrust of household water quality, unsuitability of tap water, preference for sparkling or flavored water, and the fact that some of the bottled stuff has more minerals.

Researchers at Canada’s University of Waterloo suggest that the choice also taps into something deeper: our fear of death. Their 2018 paper argued that this fear makes us want to avoid risks — and many people see bottled water as safer, purer, or more controlled.

The industry promotes those perceptions with marketing campaigns using celebrities and feel-good imaging. Some even directly play on fears about the safety of tap water and mistrust in government entities (think Flint, Michigan), according to Peter H. Gleick, president emeritus and chief scientist at the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security and author of the 2010 book Bottled and Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession With Bottled Water.

But is bottled water truly safer than tap?

Image by Wilson Blanco from Pixabay Bottled Versus Tap

In the United States, tap water is significantly more regulated than the bottled stuff. The Environmental Protection Agency oversees municipal tap water systems, which must meet safety standards and are regularly inspected.

The water itself is treated to remove particles, chemicals, bacteria, and other contaminants and must be frequently tested. Water suppliers are required to provide testing results to customers every year in the form of Consumer Confidence Reports, also published online.

Not that there haven’t been problems with tap water systems. A 1986 EPA report, Reducing Lead in Drinking Water, showed that 36 million Americans were using tap water with high levels of lead. Much of that exposure came from lead pipes in homes. Congressional investigations and updates to the Safe Drinking Water Act followed and most of the problems were fixed, but not all (again, Flint).

More recently per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known as “forever chemicals,” have been found in water sources around the world. These chemicals break down very slowly and have turned up in the blood of people and animals and at low levels in a variety of food products and soil. Studies have linked exposure to some PFAS to harmful health effects.

In 2024 the EPA adopted national standards for acceptable levels of PFAs in tap water, requiring water utilities to test for it until 2027. Testing results will be used to determine future regulations for regular PFAS sampling and reporting, and after 2029 utilities must use treatment processes to remove PFAS from drinking water. Researchers are studying the effectiveness of various removal technologies.

Contaminants or pathogens sometimes end up in municipal water supplies due to issues such as flooding or equipment malfunctions. Thankfully we know about these incidents because of the required testing. But hearing about them can sow doubt, causing people to switch to bottled water even if their water source is safe.

The Food and Drug Administration regulates bottled water, but only if it’s sold across state lines. Water that is both packaged and sold within the state of origin represents most of the bottled water market, according to Erik Olson, senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Individual states are responsible for these products, but 1 in 5 states have no regulations covering them, he adds.

And while the PFAS standards are supposed to apply to bottled water as well, Olson says: “As far as we know they haven’t been. Most bottled water probably doesn’t have PFAS, but how do we know?”

A study led by New York University researchers found that plastics — including but not limited to water bottles — are responsible for 93% of the exposure to PFOA, one of the most widely studied PFAS.

NRDC also found that about 22% of bottled water brands they tested contained chemicals at levels above state health limits or industry recommendations in at least one sample.

Ironically, an estimated 25 to 45% of bottled water is simply municipal tap water, repackaged and marked up in price, sometimes further treated, sometimes not. PepsiCo’s Aquafina and Coca-Cola’s Dasani, for example, are filtered tap water. Some brands, like Smartwater, promote that they use distillation to purify their water, but that process uses a lot of energy. Spring water typically requires minimal treatment but may come from stressed natural springs. The process of bottling water can be wasteful; for example, it takes 1.63 liters of water to make every liter of Dasani.

Olson points out that making and shipping plastic bottles uses a lot of fossil fuel, too. “It’s incredibly wasteful. Consuming tap water is more energy efficient and has a lower carbon footprint.”

Then there are those particles.

On April 2 the EPA announced plans to study microplastics and added microplastics as a priority contaminant group on a draft list under consideration for regulation in drinking water (along with pharmaceuticals as a group, 75 individual chemicals, and nine microbes). However, the agency has had significant layoffs and attrition under the second Trump administration. It is dispersing staff in its defunct Office of Research and Development to other programs and faces a proposed 52% cut to its budget. Food and Water Watch, a safe food, water, and climate advocate, warned that the announcement falls short of what we really need, which is a comprehensive nationwide monitoring program.

On top of that, the effort will address microplastics but not nanoplastics.

Sarah Sajedi, Ph.D., coauthor of the previously mentioned particle studies, has done experiments that found as many as 10 million nanoparticles in a liter water bottle. A major concern, she says, is that these particles accumulate in human tissues. Nanoparticles can enter the bloodstream and reach vital organs, causing chronic inflammation, oxidative stress on cells, hormonal disruption, impaired reproduction, neurological damage, and various kinds of cancer.

“We’ve only had technology in the past three to five years to detect the nanosized particles,” Sajedi says. “First you have to prove there is exposure, and now we have shown that it exists with bottled water.”

In another ironic twist, when companies started using thinner plastic in water bottles to help reduce plastic pollution, it made the particle problem worse.

Bottled water containers now typically use almost a third less PET plastic on average than other packaged beverages like soft drinks, which need thicker containers due to carbonation. But these thinner bottles shed more particles. Movement, such as from being carried around, and exposure to sunlight both increase release of particles.

“Shaking the bottle or UV exposure from leaving it in your car increases tenfold the shedding of the plastic,” says Sajedi.

Improving the quality of material used in bottles would reduce particle exposure but exacerbate the problem of plastic waste. Gleick’s book noted that people in the United States throw away 30 billion plastic water bottles each year. Only a small percent of those are recycled; many end up in the environment, often the ocean. The harms caused by this plastic pollution are well documented, with the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimating its environmental damages at about $75 billion per year back in 2018 and a 2025 study blaming it for over $1.5 trillion in health-related economic losses per year.

Image by Hans from Pixabay So What’s a Thirsty Person to Do?

In general the safest thing to do is drink tap water — absent any specific problems in your area — and drink bottled water only on (rare) occasions.

“Say you’re at a baseball game and there’s no drinking fountains,” Olson says. “You’re not evil for consuming it once in a while. We just encourage people to think about it.”

If you’re concerned about your tap water, he suggests using a home filter system, which costs much less overall than bottles. One example shows that a family of four could save $2,878 a year using a pitcher-style filter system instead of bottled water.

“Another thing is, don’t be fooled by the names and pictures on the label that imply the water is from a mountain stream or pristine spring,” Olson says. “If the label says it is from a municipal source, it probably is just untreated tap water because that’s what rules require they say.”

When you need to buy bottled water, Sajedi suggests buying larger containers. “The quality of plastic is better with the jugs, which cuts down on your exposure to particles.”

Water is an essential human need. In places without reliable, safe water sources, many of these issues are moot, although experts argue the solution is to provide or improve infrastructure rather than relying on bottled water. But for the rest of us, it may be time to rethink our drinking habits.

Republish this article for free! Read our reprint policy.

The post Dangerous Drinking: Is Bottled Water Really Safer Than Tap Water? appeared first on The Revelator.

Many right-leaning figures have tried to push the idea that the UK is an outlier on net-zero.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has claimed that other countries are “not following us” in aiming to cut emissions to net-zero, while GB News owner Paul Marshall said in March that the UK is “pursuing a path of unilateral economic disarmament”.

Both are among those on the right of UK politics who have falsely claimed that the UK’s net-zero target is “unilateral” and that this is a reason why the goal should be abandoned.

However, these claims ignore that 140 of the world’s 198 countries (71%) have net-zero targets. 

In fact, Iran and the US are the only two of the world’s top 20 carbon dioxide (CO2) emitters that lack a net-zero target, as shown in the map below.

If the UK were to scrap its net-zero target, as called for by both the opposition Conservatives and hard-right Reform UK, this is the group of major emitters it would be joining.

Countries with net-zero targets, as of May 2026. Data source: Net Zero Tracker

The latest assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s foremost authority on climate science, said the only way to stop global warming was to reach net-zero CO2 emissions.

The UK was the first major economy to set a net-zero target in 2019.

Since then, almost all of the world’s major emitters have followed suit, with China announcing a net-zero target in 2020 and India, Saudi Arabia and Russia launching goals in 2021.

Around 74% of global emissions are now covered by some kind of national net-zero target, according to data from the Net Zero Tracker, a consortium tracking net-zero policies.

According to the Net Zero Tracker, 34 nations – including the UK – have set a net-zero target into law, signifying the highest possible level of commitment.

In addition, 63 nations have stated their goal in a policy document, 16 nations have made a net-zero “pledge” and 23 nations have a net-zero “proposal”. (Four nations have declared that they have already reached net-zero.)

Types of net-zero targets across countries. Data source: Net Zero Tracker

The US, the world’s largest historical emitter when counting its cumulative climate impact since the start of the industrial revolution, had a net-zero target under former president Joe Biden. However, it was abandoned by the current Trump administration.

Despite this, some 18 regions and 43 cities in the US still have some form of net-zero commitment, according to the Net Zero Tracker.

John Lang, lead of the Net Zero Tracker, tells Carbon Brief:

“Ironically, of the world’s 20 largest emitters, only the US and Iran lack net-zero targets – precisely as the Iran crisis exposes the risks of dependence on fossil fuels and volatile oil markets.

“Arguing against net-zero is arguing for greater exposure to geopolitical instability and energy price shocks. The UK has already shown that cutting fossil-fuel dependence can go hand in hand with economic growth, reducing emissions by 54% since 1990 while almost doubling the size of the economy.”

Factcheck: Trump’s false claims about the IPCC and ‘RCP8.5’ climate scenario

Factchecks

|

19.05.26

Factcheck: What the UK car industry is not saying about EV targets

Factchecks

|

08.05.26

Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas

Energy

|

25.03.26

Factcheck: What it really costs to heat a home in the UK with a heat pump

Factchecks

|

30.01.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_7ca539661f3dc59b33382489358c8e48 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Factcheck: US and Iran are world’s only major emitters without net-zero targets appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Interview with Ian Angus, author of Metabolic Rifts: Capitalism's Assault on the Earth System

Source

The Federal Bird Safe Building Act will require all federal buildings to incorporate proven bird-safe building materials and design features.