News Feeds

Alors que les fondements de l’alliance transatlantique sont mis à rude épreuve par l’unilatéralisme croissant des États-Unis, l’Europe se voit contrainte d’envisager sa propre défense. Mais à quoi ressemblerait cette défense – et quel en serait le coût, tant sur le plan financier que politique ? Les dirigeants verts Franziska Brantner et Rui Tavares s’entretiennent avec Édouard Gaudot sur la manière dont l’Europe peut se protéger sans perdre de vue les raisons pour lesquelles elle mérite d’être protégée. 

Edouard Gaudot: En quelques mots, comment qualifiez-vous l’état de l’Europe et celui du monde ? 

Rui Tavares: Je dirais une crise généralisée de l’imagination. D’ordinaire, l’imagination vient après la guerre. Là, tout l’enjeu serait d’avoir l’imagination avant le conflit. 

Franziska Brantner: Pour moi, ce serait la confusion et le manque de courage côté européen, et, pour les Américains et le reste du monde, le retour de la puissance et de la folie. 

Rui Tavares: Tout à fait. Il y a une forme de folie qui accompagne cette absence d’imagination, comme si on vivait une réalité parallèle. 

Comment peut-on être un leader écologiste dans un monde plongé dans le chaos et les conflits ? 

Rui Tavares: Il faut être très pédagogique, et très serein à la fois, pour ne pas effrayer les gens, mais les préparer à avoir des débats politiques et à faire des choix qui sont très durs. Mais l’opinion mûrit : il y a 10 ans, il aurait été impossible de parler avec réalisme d’une communauté européenne de défense. Maintenant, tout le monde voit qu’avec Trump, si les Européens ne font pas une communauté européenne de défense, au moment décisif, ils seront démunis. 

Franziska Brantner: Je suis plutôt fière d’avoir anticipé ce débat dans un pays comme l’Allemagne. À l’époque, tout le monde me disait : « mais tu es anti-transatlantique » ; alors que j’expliquais déjà que tout cela n’a rien à voir avec les États-Unis – il s’agit de notre responsabilité. Maintenant, c’est devenu plus ou moins une évidence que les Américains ne seront pas là pour toujours pour nous. La tâche pour l’Europe est donc d’assumer et d’assurer sa sécurité et sa défense, aussi militaire.  

Ça veut dire quoi « défendre l’Europe » pour les écologistes ? 

Franziska Brantner: C’est défendre la paix et la liberté. Ça signifie que la défense de l’Europe ne peut être qu’européenne. Je remarque qu’une grande partie des adhérents du Parti Vert allemand (ils sont à ce jour plus de 180 000) ont beaucoup moins de doutes que les cadres du parti quant à la nécessité d’une capacité militaire.  

C’est surprenant quand même pour des partis, surtout en Allemagne, qui se sont construits dans les années 70, entre autres, autour du pacifisme et de la non-violence. 

Franziska Brantner: Il y a une profonde différence entre pacifisme et non-violence. Bien sûr qu’il faut promouvoir une éducation non-violente, une société non-violente. Mais ce n’est pas le pacifisme. Chez nous, c’est Joschka Fischer [ministre des Affaires étrangères d’Allemagne entre 1998 et 2005] qui a commencé cette révolution culturelle à l’époque du Kosovo. Mais avec l’Ukraine, ça a complètement basculé. Aujourd’hui, je me retrouve au centre de gravité du parti, parce que certains Verts surenchérissent tellement qu’il faut leur rappeler que les armes ne sont pas nécessairement la seule ni la meilleure réponse. 

C’est défendre la paix et la liberté. Ça signifie que la défense de l’Europe ne peut être qu’européenne.

Rui Tavares: On aurait dû avoir le débat sur l’armée européenne après s’être assurés qu’on aurait bien une démocratie européenne, avec tous les instruments de fiscalisation et un Parlement qui peut contrôler cette armée. Mais le problème, c’est que la guerre en Ukraine a installé l’urgence et renversé les priorités. Je le ressens aussi dans mon électorat – quand je suggère d’y aller prudemment, ils répondent que Poutine est à nos portes et que Trump pourrait menacer d’annexer les Açores, où il y a déjà une base américaine, comme il a menacé le Groenland. Cette question a même été posée au premier ministre, qui a répondu : « Le mieux, c’est qu’on n’en parle pas. » 

Ainsi, face à ceux qui veulent accélérer la militarisation de l’Europe, il faut rappeler que l’Europe n’est pas encore prête, car il lui manque les instruments de contrôle et de financement. 

Franziska Brantner: Parmi les verts allemands, il y a un débat sur ces questions de financement au niveau européen. Il y en a qui insistent sur cette interdiction des dépenses militaires par les traités. Même si les moyens étaient là, ils préfèrent défendre d’abord le cadre institutionnel, plutôt que de trouver des façons de faire avancer à la fois le financement et le contrôle démocratique. C’est un problème, car quand on aura trouvé la voie, il vaudrait mieux que tout cela reste sous le contrôle d’un Parlement. 

Comment doit s’articuler la défense européenne dans les équilibres géopolitiques actuels ? Quid de « l’alliance des puissances moyennes » à la Carney, de l’architecture de sécurité globale, de l’offre de parapluie nucléaire français ? 

Franziska Brantner: Il nous faut un budget européen pour la défense commune, avec des objectifs communs. Je préférerais que cela se fasse au sein des institutions, mais si pour des raisons de légalité ou de majorité c’est impossible, alors imaginons des institutions ad hoc. Quant aux alliances, il me paraît absolument nécessaire d’y intégrer le Royaume-Uni, et peut-être la Norvège. Ensuite, la Turquie ou le Canada ont aussi un rôle à jouer, mais à une échelle plus large. 

Pour le nucléaire, soyons lucides : ni a fortiori les États-Unis d’aujourd’hui, ni la France ni la Grande-Bretagne n’accepteront le partage des responsabilités, au sens de partager le pouvoir du « bouton rouge ». Néanmoins, nous devons parler entre Européens, avec la France et la Grande-Bretagne, au sujet d’une doctrine nucléaire européenne. En contrepartie, nous devrons évidemment financer davantage le conventionnel. 

Et la contrepartie politique ? La garantie nucléaire induit une forme de leadership stratégique que les partenaires de la France ne sont peut-être pas prêts à accepter et que la France n’est peut-être pas prête à assumer ? 

Franziska Brantner: C’est possible, mais on n’a pas le choix. La menace de Poutine est réelle et le recul de Trump aussi. Je souhaiterais tellement que nous vivions dans un monde meilleur, mais ce n’est pas ainsi. Si on n’y arrive pas en Europe, il y a déjà des conservateurs allemands qui proposent une force de frappe allemande – je pense que c’est une très mauvaise idée, même si l’Allemagne en aurait les capacités. D’une part, cela violerait notre constitution, et de l’autre, les traités internationaux. 

Rui Tavares: Sur la garantie nucléaire française, la vitesse du débat est étonnante. Ces choses, normalement, avancent à une lenteur glaciale, mais là on l’envisage concrètement. Selon moi, il faudrait faire quelque chose de très simple, mais très visible : inscrire l’emploi du nucléaire français dans le cadre de l’article 47 du traité, qui parle de venir en aide à l’État membre menacé avec « toutes les ressources » – donc l’arsenal nucléaire aussi. 

Quant à cette alliance des puissances moyennes, ça me chagrine toujours un peu qu’on s’arrête au Canada. Et le Brésil, le Mexique, les autres pays ? Voilà des partenaires stratégiques. 

Franziska Brantner: Je crois qu’on les aborde surtout par les intérêts économiques et politiques. 

Rui Tavares: C’est vrai, mais c’est aussi que les Européens négligent ce que ces pays-là disent sur l’état du monde, sur le développement, sur les réformes de l’ONU. Ils ne veulent pas écouter ce que le Brésil aurait à dire aussi sur les questions de la mémoire de l’esclavage, par exemple. Ces pays veulent parler de ça aussi. Si l’Europe veut contrer les puissances autoritaires en ralliant ces puissances moyennes peu attachées au système international fondé sur l’ONU et les règles partagées, nous devons nous mettre à leur écoute – car ces partenaires potentiels en ont marre de l’arrogance européenne. C’est pour ça que nous avons échoué à les engager pleinement dans le soutien à l’Ukraine. L’Europe doit sortir de ses évidences et de sa zone de confort. 

Franziska Brantner: Je crois qu’il y a quand même une différence à faire entre les liens économiques, voire politiques et stratégiques, et les liens de défense. Je suis tout à fait d’accord avec toi sur les premiers, mais pour la défense européenne, je suis moins convaincue. 

Rui Tavares: Pourtant, si tu prends l’exemple de la sécurité contre les narcotrafics dans l’Atlantique du Sud, il faudra parler avec les Sud-Américains. 

Outre les alliances, la « défense de l’Europe en Européens » passe par les questions industrielles. Un budget militaire, soit, mais pour quoi faire ? 

Rui Tavares: Quand les Américains ont construit leur puissance militaire au lendemain de la guerre, ils ont fait des investissements publics colossaux dans la recherche, à travers le MIT et des programmes spécifiques. On sait tous que l’Internet est directement issu de ce genre de recherche. Je trouve inquiétant que la révolution de l’intelligence artificielle, fondamentale dans le domaine de la défense, soit complètement dominée, commandée et organisée par le privé – sans aucune participation publique. Là, l’Europe aurait une énorme opportunité historique de faire des investissements publics massifs, surtout dans la recherche, la science et la technologie, avec des objectifs ambitieux. 

Si on montre que la recherche militaire produit des avancées civiles, on peut sortir de ce piège très efficace qui force les électorats à choisir entre avoir les moyens d’un modèle social et avoir les moyens de le défendre.

Franziska Brantner: En Europe, c’est l’Ukraine qui fait ça. Ce sont les plus créatifs et innovants. Plus encore que les États-Unis. 

À ce propos, comment répondre à la question piège qui dénonce le sacrifice des dépenses sociales sur l’autel des dépenses militaires ? 

Franziska Brantner:  D’abord, il nous faut un marché de la défense unique et intégré, avec des économies d’échelle à la clé et une capacité de créer ainsi notre souveraineté technologique, par exemple l’IA. Ceci doit être fait d’une manière à générer des gains technologiques et économiques, des « dividendes de la défense » pour la productivité et la souveraineté industrielles européennes.  

Mais il est évident qu’on ne peut financer longtemps la défense qu’à travers la dette. Dans le budget allemand, il y a déjà aujourd’hui 80 milliards d’euros annuels de services de la dette. On s’attend à 40 milliards de dettes supplémentaires rien que pour la défense. Pour les plus jeunes générations, c’est intenable. Et il y a aussi le risque d’une dette non soutenable qui peut nous coûter très cher, au sens économique et ensuite social. Donc à un moment, soit on augmente les ressources, soit il faut couper quelque part.  

Il faut aussi devenir plus efficace économiquement. Si la productivité ne progresse plus, ça va nécessairement peser sur le reste du budget. On a eu de la chance, pendant 80 ans, mais les « dividendes de la paix » sont finis. 

En revanche, il y aura des dividendes des dépenses publiques pour la défense, dont il faut s’assurer qu’ils ne soient pas accaparés par les plus riches. Voilà une autre façon de reposer la question de la répartition public-privé. Et soyons lucides : Nous avons besoin d’une industrie de la défense européenne pour protéger notre paix et notre modèle de vie – ce qui à terme produira de nouveaux dividendes, d’une paix nouvelle et souveraine.  

Rui Tavares: Je suis en désaccord sur ça. Je ne voudrais pas revivre les débats de la crise de la zone euro, qui ont été vraiment très douloureux. Il y a une différence, peut-être culturelle, entre Nord et Sud, sur cette question de la dette. Quand on me dit qu’il faut investir dans les dépenses militaires pour répondre aux défis internationaux et qu’il n’est pas sérieux de ne pas prendre sur les dépenses sociales, je réponds que l’investissement sur la défense sans dette, c’est cela qui n’est pas sérieux. L’effort militaire a toujours coûté cher. Si on prend au sérieux une menace existentielle, on ne se tracasse pas à cause de la dette. D’autant que dans le passé, les investissements militaires ont tous été accompagnés ou suivis de près par de nouveaux investissements dans le social. 

Imaginons : il y a une crise du logement en Europe, une question très concrète pour beaucoup de gens. Si on développait de nouvelles technologies de construction, avec de nouveaux matériaux issus de la recherche, si on avait une agence européenne du logement, on pourrait encourager ces progrès. Et puisque les armées ont toujours été pleines d’ingénieurs, il peut y avoir là un bénéfice de l’investissement militaire – un dividende de guerre. 

Si on montre que la recherche militaire produit des avancées civiles, on peut sortir de ce piège très efficace qui force les électorats à choisir entre avoir les moyens d’un modèle social et avoir les moyens de le défendre. En ce sens, l’Allemagne a un rôle clé : il faut que les Allemands comprennent que l’Europe est prête à investir dans une dette sûre. Maintenant que la dette américaine n’est plus sûre, si les Européens font enfin le choix des fameux Eurobonds, il y aura des milliards d’euros prêts à être investis. 

Franziska Brantner: À condition que ce soient vraiment des investissements. Sinon ces ressources sont gaspillées, et ce sont les générations suivantes qui doivent financer. On a engagé près de 100 milliards de dettes pour la défense et 99% de cet argent est allé dans des trucs du passé. 

Il faut donc développer un complexe militaro-industriel européen, qui produise du futur, pas qui comble le passé ? 

Franziska Brantner: Voilà. Il faut rompre avec les inerties du passé. C’est le cas aussi dans notre modèle social en Allemagne : il y a des réformes qui améliorent la qualité des services et permettent en même temps des économies, et il faut les faire. On ne peut pas juste refuser l’économie, c’est impossible. Surtout avec une société qui vieillit. On ne peut pas se cacher derrière les faux-semblants. Je pense qu’il faut investir dans la défense, réformer le secteur économique et social.  

Comment est-ce qu’on prépare les populations aux réalités de la menace et aux réponses ? 

Rui Tavares: J’ai beaucoup aimé le rapport Niinistö, parce qu’il transmet aux Européens le savoir-faire des Nordiques sur ces questions de défense, qui reposent sur la société, les familles, les liens. On peut reproduire certaines choses comme les livrets sur la sécurité chez soi, la défense de proximité, qu’on peut imprimer et donner à tous les foyers européens. Ensuite, il faut tenir compte des réalités culturelles et sociales : s’il faut avoir deux semaines de vivres à la maison pour être préparé, au Portugal, le 10 du mois, quand le salaire est déjà dépensé, je suis sûr que le kit de sécurité ne tient pas. 

Il faut donc peut-être penser aussi à des réseaux de distribution. Mobiliser les mairies d’arrondissement. Inclure les pompiers. Ce sont autant d’opportunités de faire une Europe tangible. Quand on a des inondations, des incendies catastrophiques, les gens s’attendent à une réponse européenne. Avec ce type de kit européen de réponse aux guerres et aux catastrophes, qui pourrait être distribué, ce serait plus clair. 

Franziska Brantner: Je crains que ça ne marche pas, que sans l’urgence, les gens ne soient pas prêts. 

Au-delà de la base industrielle et technologique de défense européenne, quelle politique industrielle faut-il mettre en œuvre à l’échelle de l’UE ? 

Franziska Brantner: Je pense que la compétitivité européenne repose sur trois piliers. D’abord la résilience, avec la réduction de nos dépendances, surtout de la Chine et des États-Unis. Ensuite, l’innovation. Pas seulement dans la défense, mais aussi dans le numérique, la bioéconomie, la médecine. Et enfin, le troisième, c’est la question de la durabilité, pour répondre au changement climatique et aussi aux inégalités. Je veux qu’à la sortie des écoles, il y ait à nouveau une majorité de parents qui pensent que leurs enfants iront mieux qu’eux. Pour ça, il nous faut une éducation qui développe les compétences et les capacités d’innovation de nos jeunes. C’est une compétitivité au service du bien-être social, de la qualité de vie.  

Quelles priorités voyez-vous pour le futur de l’Europe? Selon vous, qu’est-ce qui fait aujourd’hui la cohésion européenne et l’actualité du projet européen ? 

Franziska Brantner: Je pense que la question à se poser est d’abord : « Pourquoi on veut la paix, la liberté et la démocratie ? » Pour nous, Européens, l’enjeu est de donner un sens à la liberté qui ne soit pas celui de JD Vance et un contenu à la paix qui ne soit pas celui de Poutine. C’est à nous de le faire, parce que c’est l’Europe qui porte ces valeurs-là. Et sans elles, le projet européen est vide. 

Rui Tavares: Je suis tout à fait d’accord, et je voudrais ajouter une notion : la qualité de vie. Quand on regarde l’Europe depuis l’extérieur, ce qui la caractérise, c’est une façon de vivre et des standards de qualité de vie. Notre idée de liberté se construit dans le droit universel à cette qualité de vie. Ça ne veut pas dire que tout le monde est riche, mais ça veut sûrement dire que personne n’est pauvre. En mettant cette notion au centre des politiques européennes, on voit rapidement que ça englobe tout : l’économique, le social, l’environnement, la culture, la sécurité, la défense. 

Ce qui m’inquiète, c’est que j’ai l’impression que la qualité de vie a cessé d’être un objectif de la politique. On entend des discours qui proposent de sacrifier tel ou tel service pour faire des économies. Mais je pense qu’épargner pour épargner, ça ne dit rien aux Européens. Personne ne veut être compétitif pour gagner une guerre économique dont on ne voit pas les bénéfices. En revanche, les Européens sont fiers et attachés à leur qualité de vie et pour de bonnes raisons. Si on réussit à les convaincre que les politiques proposées prennent cette qualité de vie au sérieux, je pense que les gens accepteront plus facilement les sacrifices.

This is a guest blog written by Ziada Kassimu, Executive Director at Green Conservers. Green Conservers (GC) is a youth-led movement working at the vital intersection of climate action and social equity. Recognizing that environmental degradation disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations, GC advocates for structural climate justice while deploying real-world solutions. Their  work centers on two transformative pillars: advancing decentralized Renewable Energy to end fossil-fuel dependency, and pioneering Agroecology to replace extractive agricultural systems for resilient, biodiverse, and community-governed food systems.

The sun had barely risen over the dusty plains when women in Diloda began their daily journeys. Some walked long distances in search of water. Others headed to small farms that once provided food for their families. A few sat outside their homes, reflecting on a life that looked very different before the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project arrived in their communities.

For many women, land was more than a piece of property. From the soil came maize, beans, sunflowers, and vegetables that fed families and generated income. The land paid school fees, covered medical expenses, and offered hope during difficult seasons. Today, many women say that hope has become increasingly difficult to find.

During community discussions, women described how the acquisition of land for the EACOP project disrupted livelihoods that had sustained families for generations. While compensation and livelihood restoration programs were presented as solutions, many community members believe these initiatives have fallen short of restoring what was lost. “We were told our lives would improve,” one woman explained. “Instead, we are struggling to rebuild what we already had.” Her words hung in the air like a cloud before a storm.

 Ziada Kassimu Executive Director at Green Conservers and Savio Carvalho (Managing Director at 350.org) Credit: Ziadah

Across affected communities, women continue to carry the heaviest burden. As primary caregivers, food producers, and managers of household welfare, they often absorb the impacts of economic disruption first and most intensely. The consequences stretch far beyond income.

When productive farmland is lost, women must work harder to feed their families. Household expenses rise while economic opportunities shrink. Food security becomes uncertain. Children become vulnerable. The entire social fabric of a community begins to strain.

In Diloda, women also spoke about another challenge that rarely appears in project reports: the growing tensions between farmers and pastoralists. Before the project, communities already faced occasional disputes over land and natural resources. However, as available land becomes increasingly limited, many residents believe tensions have intensified. The result is a growing atmosphere of uncertainty.

Communities that once shared resources are now competing for shrinking spaces. Women, often responsible for maintaining household stability, find themselves navigating conflicts they neither created nor control.

Meanwhile, many of the development promises associated with EACOP remain largely invisible to residents. Community members recall hearing about improved roads, better schools, healthcare facilities, and economic opportunities. These promises generated excitement and optimism.

Yet years later, many residents still travel on poor roads that become difficult to navigate during rainy seasons.Children continue to face challenges accessing education. Families still struggle to obtain clean and safe water. The promised dispensaries and social services remain absent from daily life.

For women carrying water containers under the scorching sun, development is not measured by project announcements or corporate presentations. It is measured by whether water flows from a nearby tap. It is measured by whether a sick child can receive treatment at a local health facility. It is measured by whether a mother can harvest enough food to feed her family. It is measured by whether livelihoods are truly restored. It is measured by energy access and affordability. 

Women in Diloda walking to the market: Credit: Ziadah

Community members repeatedly raised concerns about the effectiveness of livelihood restoration programs. While training and support activities have been implemented in some areas, many women argue that these interventions have not fully replaced the stability and independence that their land once provided. A small business cannot always replace fertile farmland. A short-term training cannot easily restore generations of agricultural knowledge and economic security. And a promise cannot fill an empty plate.

The story unfolding in communities affected by EACOP is not only about infrastructure or energy development. It is about people. It is about women whose daily lives have been transformed by decisions made far from their villages. It is about mothers searching for ways to support their children. It is about communities asking whether development can truly be called development when those most affected feel left behind.

As global conversations continue about energy, climate, and economic growth, the voices of women from Diloda offer an important reminder. Development should never be measured solely in kilometers of pipeline constructed or profits generated. It should be measured in stronger livelihoods, improved well-being, energy access, social harmony, and opportunities created for future generations. Until women can confidently say their lives are better than before, the question remains: Who truly benefits from development, and who is left carrying its costs? For the women of Diloda, the answer is written not in project reports but in the realities they face every day.

The post The Women Left Behind appeared first on 350.

Heatwave insomnia Channel News brendan 7th July 2026 Teaser Media

Hoo boy. Many of us slogged through a July 4 more vigil - "act of purposeful wakefulness" - than celebration as hostages of a dark timeline wherein history's smallest, weakest political "leader" and his racist cabal screech about "godless communists," one-party rule and forced sterilization of brown people who will "suicide your civilization" while masked Nazis march in the streets. Welcome to "exceptionalism," stripped of its pieties. The "danger of this age," notes one sage, "isn't merely organized hate (but) indifference to it."

In the summer of 1776, a few dozen brave men with much to lose who had "watched power gather dangerously into one man’s hands" came together in Philadelphia to pledge "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to stop it. Concluding a long list of grievances against King George in their Declaration of Independence, they issued their ultimate moral and legal justification for the American colonies to sever ties with Great Britain: "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Today, in his new show, Larry David echoes them.

On this Fourth of July, wrote John Pavlovitz, "Most of us were pulled between the despair of what this nation has become (or always has been) and the hope of what we might still be," leaving us "not knowing quite where to stand." We are "told today by the men who would humiliate us," he adds, "that America was founded in a spirit of innocence, that its leaders never did anything wrong, and that patriotism means insisting on our own blamelessness and assigning all evil to others" - this, in a country founded in genocide that blithely went on to institutionalize slavery and racism, then took to rampaging imperialism.

Despite the right's longtime myths about American "exceptionalism," for decades the arc of our political history has bent toward liberalism and the egalitarian ideals of its founding. No more. The last ten years, and especially the last two, have seen us hurtling backwards, obviously in large part due to the toxic rise of Trump, who "didn't invent America’s oldest prejudices (but) exploited them, legitimized them, rewarded them (and) transformed grievance into political identity." Writes Congressional candidate Fred Wellman, "The level of racism and bigotry this pathetic small man spits out daily could fill an algae-filled pool."

Last week saw some of what it's wrought. Death by firing squad - really - is on the rise: Idaho just became the first state to adopt it as its primary method of state murder, which can inflict "prolonged and agonising death," and it's the seventh state to include it in grisly execution rosters. SCOTUS hacks just stripped legal protections from over half a million Haitians and almost as many Syrians, prompting hateful vampire Megyn Kelly to spew, "Get out. Go home. Go back to fucking Haiti. We know our country’s better than yours (because) we filled it with our work ethic and culture and values. You being here only dilutes it for us."

MAGA ghouls emitted more vicious racist bilge after SCOTUS barely struck down Trump's "BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL" move to strip birthright citizenship from U.S-born kids of non-citizens despite a 14th Amendment clearly stating anyone born here, even with dark skin, is a citizen. It was widely deemed a win for the rule of law, but it was also "one step away" from a scary "birthright precipice" that saw four judges construct 100 pages of legal arguments "to write immigrants’ children out of the Constitution and still call it jurisprudence." The ruling was "very nice," wrote Jonathan Last, like "it's nice when a person walking past you doesn't pull out a gun and shoot you...(The) majority followed the Constitution. Yay."

Still, the right freaked out, raving it was "a betrayal of the republic (that) cheapens the sacred value of American citizenship." Sample rants: "We are supposed to be a country, not an orphanage," "Any woman illegal alien who is capable of having a child needs to be rounded up and ejected," the "obvious lesson" of traitor Amy Barrett upholding "birth tourism of China's communist party" is to stop nominating female justices, "Mass deportations. Round every illegal up. Don’t pull back when the lesbian activists start screeching about it," and, "If you see a pregnant foreigner, contact ICE immediately - the future of our country depends on it.”

They want to ban foreign-born pregnant women, ban all female foreigners, do pregnancy screenings for those women, "require sterilization of all foreign visitors before entry," dissolve the Union. Todd Blanche will fight (imaginary) "birth tourism." J.D. Vance says his faith is why "we don't like low-wage foreigners stealing" jobs: "We want normal Americans to be able to live a dignified life, and I think that's a very Christian concept." Texas Rep.Troy Nehls wants a 10-year moratorium on immigration - "We gotta put a big bedsheet over the Statue of Liberty," maybe with cut-out eye holes and pointy hat? - "because we’re not letting anybody in."

As usual, a not-at-all-unhinged Stephen Miller won the Mein Kampf Award by arguing the ruling “requires you to suicide your civilization.” After proposing the case serve as a litmus test for all future judges, he warned - under a Fox chyron blaring “Birth Tourism Is A Ticking Bomb” - that it offers "a direct line into American cash (for) the rest of that child’s life (as mothers) send welfare checks back home to support a whole family." "They can just come into the country, have a baby in a hospital, paid for by you and me, and then that baby is automatically a citizen?" he howled. "And that baby can sit on a jury when he turns 18, and sit in judgment of...me?“

That baby won't be the only one. In The Empire Loses the Ball, a terrific piece about the World Cup, Troy Nahumko describes colonial powers who've "spent centuries confusing dominance with superiority," Africa's "arrival" this year as a force to be reckoned with, and soccer's contempt for and inexorable repudiation of racial hierarchy. "There comes a time when the people who used to draw the maps no longer get to decide what the world looks like," he writes. "The World Cup has become that moment." And Stephen Miller, "a man who has made the question of human belonging his life’s organizing principle," has been or will be made to confront it.

As part of his racist rant, Miller denigrated people "from third world nations (that) on their own would have never invented the wheel, let alone modern technology, medicine, air travel." Hold my beer, says Nahumko: The wheel emerged in Mesopotamia, now Iraq, writing in Sumer and Egypt, algebra in ninth-century Uzbekistan, agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, the "numerical system Miller uses to count the families he splits up and deports" in India. "That is the birthright Miller calls worthless," he writes. "On the pitches where he would have their descendants excluded, (they) are eliminating European football powers in front of the watching world."

The beautiful game "rolled downhill" from "a damp little island" through oil towns in Algeria, fishing villages in Senegal, barrios, favelas, refugee camps "where the goalposts are flip-flops." "We come from the red earth," said Paraguay’s coach after they beat Germany. "We learned to play football barefoot." Europe long bragged about a diversity that "won trophies for France," but proved "less popular in Dakar than in Paris." This year, nine of ten "shithole countries" - Morocco, South Africa, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cape Verde, Egypt, DRC, Algeria - advanced. The final will be in New Jersey, "across the river from where millions of immigrants arrived and received the protection of an amendment Stephen Miller would now like to declare worthless."

Cockroach-like, Miller has also declared "divine providence“ the reign of a moronic narcissist con man who, says a report from House Democrats, hijacked and twisted a landmark 250th anniversary into ”a hotbed of corruption and self-enrichment,“ packed with pay-to-play schemes through a DOGE-run, wire-fraud-committing shadow corporation, all ”in service of the President’s ego, political ideology and pet projects.“ The resulting grift and incompetence is now everywhere, from the trashed “Reflecting Lakes” with “criminally-made algae” to the post-rapture-like State Fair where Fox bobbleheads yammered about non-existent “crowds,” there were no chairs, shade or AC in the steamy heat, but if desperate you could find relief in the baptism pool.

Meanwhile, the "festivities" lurched on. Speaking at Mt. Rushmore, amidst millions going hungry, losing health care or voting for Democrat Socialists in primaries, Trump back-tracked to the 1950s and blamed it all on "godless communists" who are "finally making their move," also "illegal immigrants, criminals and everybody that doesn’t want to work,“ who he'll "send into exile." Saturday, in a still-broiling D.C, officials cancelled the parade due to "heat," aka rumors nobody would show, but Patriot Front Nazis turned up to march, wave Confederate flags and chant "Reclaim America," evidently for racist morons with socks on their patriotic faces in 100-degree temps.

That night, back at the Great American Shitshow on the Mall, looming thunderstorms prompted chaos and a mass evacuation; it was close to midnight by the time limp crowds snaked again through security lines and Trump ranted, “You can be a communist or a patriot - you cannot be both.” He bragged he’s taking America’s “Golden Age” to “new levels” and he’d insisted the show go on “so it was even more spectacular (than) it would have been as normalized.” Then they set off 850,000 fireworks - experts had urged viewers wear N95 masks - which made so much smoke it was all people could see. Some said it looked like war footage or the,end of the world; Trump dozed off.

Sunday morning, D.C. officials issued a Code Red Air Quality Alert for the most polluted air of any major city on the planet; some observers wondered if Trump had hired his pool guy for the fireworks. The pool itself, thick with algae and guarded by soldiers, fencing, signs and security cameras, was now also littered with menacing black husks of spent fireworks. "What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July?" asked Frederick Douglass, who bared the hypocrisies of this nation's founding. "To him, your celebration is a sham; your national greatness, swelling vanity...your prayers and hymns, mere bombast, (a) thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages."

"Stand out - someone has to," historian Timothy Snyder urges today. "Whenever you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken." For the Fourth of July, who better than New York City's Zohran Mamdani to take on that task, to sit at George Washington's desk among new Americans, "take measure of who we are as a nation," see "an opportunity to begin anew," and join with the city's immigrants, peasants, serfs, those "treated as less than, for whom power was something that someone else had " - to come together in "the work of rendering America, year after year, a little more faithful to its founding ideals." The core of our exceptionalism: Nothing is fixed in its place." Our "special power": "To determine what America means." For the Black woman in this image, for all of us: Not this, please.

A lone tense Black woman rides the D.C. subway surrounded by masked Nazis in an "image that indicts an era."Photo by Cheney Orr/REUTERS/TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Gareth Thompson reviews a nail-biting history of environmentalist direct action

The post Fires in the Night – review appeared first on Red Pepper.

Popularitas Spaceman tidak hanya didukung oleh tampilannya yang menarik, tetapi juga karena permainan ini memberikan pengalaman interaktif yang berbeda dibandingkan permainan digital lainnya. Hal tersebut menjadikan Spaceman sebagai salah satu pilihan hiburan yang banyak dibicarakan oleh berbagai kalangan.

Terbang Tinggi Bersama Spaceman Raih Kemenangan Melalui Strategi

Keberhasilan dalam bermain Spaceman bukan hanya dipengaruhi oleh keberuntungan semata. Pemahaman terhadap mekanisme permainan menjadi faktor penting yang dapat membantu pemain mengambil keputusan secara lebih rasional.

Salah satu pendekatan yang banyak diterapkan adalah menentukan target sejak awal sebelum permainan dimulai. Dengan memiliki batas kemenangan maupun batas risiko, pemain dapat menjaga konsistensi tanpa mudah terbawa emosi ketika permainan berlangsung.

Selain itu, pengelolaan modal juga memiliki peran yang sangat penting. Mengatur nominal permainan sesuai kemampuan akan membantu menjaga keseimbangan sehingga pengalaman bermain tetap terasa nyaman. Pendekatan ini sering menjadi rekomendasi dari pemain berpengalaman karena mampu mengurangi keputusan impulsif yang berpotensi meningkatkan risiko.

Pentingnya Memahami Pola Permainan

Setiap permainan digital memiliki karakteristik tersendiri, termasuk Spaceman. Oleh sebab itu, memahami pola permainan menjadi langkah yang bijak sebelum mulai bermain secara aktif.

Banyak pemain meluangkan waktu untuk mengamati ritme permainan terlebih dahulu. Walaupun hasil setiap putaran bersifat independen dan tidak dapat dipastikan, proses observasi dapat membantu pemain lebih memahami dinamika permainan sehingga keputusan yang diambil terasa lebih terukur.

Pendekatan analitis seperti ini menunjukkan bahwa pengalaman dan pemahaman terhadap mekanisme permainan memiliki nilai yang tidak kalah penting dibandingkan sekadar mengejar hasil instan.

Pengalaman Bermain yang Bertanggung Jawab

pengalaman bermain yang positif selalu didukung oleh pengambilan keputusan yang bertanggung jawab. Menentukan batas waktu bermain, mengelola anggaran, serta memahami aturan permainan merupakan bagian dari praktik yang lebih bijaksana.

Pemain yang memiliki disiplin umumnya lebih mampu menikmati setiap sesi permainan tanpa tekanan berlebihan. Dengan demikian, aktivitas bermain tetap menjadi bentuk hiburan digital yang menyenangkan sekaligus terkendali.

Selain itu, memilih platform yang memiliki sistem keamanan yang baik, layanan pelanggan responsif, serta informasi permainan yang transparan juga menjadi aspek penting dalam menciptakan pengalaman pengguna yang lebih terpercaya.

Kesimpulan

Tema “Terbang Tinggi Bersama Spaceman Raih Kemenangan” menggambarkan semangat untuk mencapai hasil terbaik melalui persiapan, strategi, dan pengambilan keputusan yang tepat. Memahami mekanisme permainan, menerapkan pengelolaan modal yang disiplin, serta bermain secara bertanggung jawab merupakan fondasi penting dalam memperoleh pengalaman bermain yang lebih optimal.

As the foundations of the transatlantic alliance strain under the weight of the US’s growing unilateralism, Europe is being forced to imagine a defence of its own. But what would that defence look like – and what would it cost, financially and politically? Green leaders Franziska Brantner and Rui Tavares talk to Edouard Gaudot about how Europe can protect itself without losing sight of why it’s worth protecting.

Edouard Gaudot: Amid heightened geopolitical tension and the growing prevalence of military conflict, can you briefly describe the state of Europe and the world today? 

Rui Tavares: I’d say there’s a general crisis of imagination. Usually, imagination comes after war. But today, the challenge is finding imagination before conflict. 

Franziska Brantner: For me, it’s confusion and a lack of courage from Europeans, and from the Americans and the rest of the world, it’s the return of madness and “might makes right.” 

Rui Tavares: Exactly. There’s a form of madness that comes with this absence of imagination, as if we’re living in a parallel reality. 

What does green leadership look like in a world plunged into chaos and conflict? 

Rui Tavares: We need to educate people but stay calm at the same time. We must avoid scaring them and instead prepare them for political debates and tough choices. Public opinion matures: 10 years ago, it would have been impossible to talk realistically about a European defence community. Now, with Trump, everyone can see that if the Europeans don’t create one, they’ll be defenceless at the decisive moment. 

Franziska Brantner: I’m rather proud to have seen this debate taking shape in a country like Germany. Previously, everyone would say to me, “You’re just an anti-Atlanticist,” even as I explained that my emphasis on defence autonomy had nothing to do with the United States but was about our responsibility. Now, it’s become very clear that the Americans won’t always be there for us. The task for Europe, then, is to step up and take responsibility for its own defence and security.  

For the Greens, defending Europe means safeguarding peace and freedom. Therefore, Europe’s defence can only be European. I note that many German Green party members (of whom there are over 180,000 today) have far fewer reservations than the party’s leaders do about the need for a stronger military capability.  

That’s surprising for a party that was founded in the 1970s on, among other things, pacifism and non-violence. 

Franziska Brantner: There’s a profound difference between pacifism and non-violence. Of course, we must promote non-violent education and a non-violent society, but that isn’t pacifism. In our party, it was Joschka Fischer [German foreign minister from 1998 to 2005] who started this cultural shift at the time of the Kosovo conflict. But with Ukraine, everything changed. Today I find myself in the party’s centre, because some Greens have gone so far that they need reminding that weapons are not necessarily the only answer, nor the best. 

For the Greens, defending Europe means safeguarding peace and freedom. Therefore, Europe’s defence can only be European.

Rui Tavares: Ideally, we would be having this debate on a European army after making sure that we really have a European democracy, with full tax-raising powers and a parliament that could oversee this army. But the war in Ukraine has brought urgency and upended priorities. I sense it in my voters [in Portugal], too: when I suggest moving cautiously, they reply that Putin is at the gates and that Trump could threaten to annex the Azores – where there is already an American base – just as he threatened Greenland. This question was even put to the prime minister, whose answer was: “It’s best we don’t talk about it.” 

So, to those who want to accelerate Europe’s militarisation, we must point out that Europe is not yet ready because it lacks the mechanisms for oversight and funding. 

Franziska Brantner: Among German Greens, there’s a debate about funding at the European level. Some insist that European treaties prohibit military spending. And even if the resources were there, they would rather defend the institutional framework than find ways to move ahead on funding and democratic oversight. This is a problem, because once we find the path forward, it would be better if all this remained under parliamentary oversight. 

What about the “alliance of middle powers” proposed by Mark Carney, the global security architecture, and the French nuclear umbrella? How should European defence fit into the current geopolitical landscape?  

Franziska Brantner: We need a European budget for common defence, with common goals. I’d rather this were created within the institutions, but if it’s impossible for reasons of legality or majority, let’s devise ad hoc institutions. As for alliances, it’s absolutely essential to include the United Kingdom, and maybe Norway. Turkey and Canada also have roles to play, but on a broader level. 

When it comes to nuclear weapons, let’s be clear-eyed: neither the United States – especially today – nor France nor the United Kingdom will agree to sharing responsibility, in the sense of sharing the power to press the “red button”. That said, Europeans must talk to each other, to France and the United Kingdom, about a European nuclear doctrine. In return, we will obviously have to increase funding for conventional weapons. 

A nuclear guarantee would entail a sort of strategic leadership from France that its partners may not be willing to allow, and that Paris may not be willing to accept.  

Franziska Brantner: That’s possible, but we don’t have a choice. Putin’s threat is real, and so is Trump’s retreat. I really wish we lived in a better world, but we don’t. If Europe can’t do it, there are already German conservatives proposing a German nuclear deterrent. I think this is a very bad idea, even if Germany has the capability. It would violate both our constitution and international treaties. 

Rui Tavares: On the French nuclear guarantee, the speed of the debate is astonishing. These things usually move forward at a glacial pace, but this is now actually being considered. I think we need to do something very simple, but very visible: expand French nuclear doctrine to include Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union. It talks about coming to the aid of threatened member states with all available resources. That would mean nuclear weapons, too. 

As for this alliance of middle powers, it always bothers me a bit that we stop at Canada. What about Brazil, Mexico, and other countries? There’s some strategic partners for you. 

Franziska Brantner: I think that our approach to them is primarily driven by economic and political interests. 

Rui Tavares: True, but Europeans also ignore what these countries say about the state of the world, about development and UN reforms. They don’t want to listen to what Brazil might also have to say about the remembrance of slavery, for example. If Europe wants to counter authoritarian powers by courting middle powers that are not particularly invested in the UN-led rules-based international order, we need to listen to them. These potential partners are fed up with European arrogance, and that’s why we failed to secure their full backing for Ukraine. Europe must challenge its assumptions and get out of its comfort zone. 

Franziska Brantner: I still think there’s a distinction to be made between economic ties – political and strategic ties even – and defence ties. I completely agree with you on the first three, but when it comes to European defence, I’m less convinced. 

Rui Tavares: But to fight drug trafficking in the South Atlantic, for example, you’ll have to speak to the South Americans. 

Alliances aside, a European defence of Europe means grappling with questions of industrial policy. A military budget is all well and good, but what for? 

Rui Tavares: When the Americans built up their military power after the [Second World] War, they made colossal public investments in research through the likes of MIT and special programmes. As we all know, the Internet was a direct result of this type of research. So I find it worrying that the revolution in artificial intelligence, fundamental in the realm of defence, is completely driven, shaped, and dominated by the private sector, with no public involvement. Here, Europe has an enormous historic opportunity to make massive public investments – especially in research, science, and technology – with ambitious goals. 

If we show that military research produces civilian advances, we can escape this pernicious trap that forces voters to choose between funding a welfare state and funding its defence.

Franziska Brantner: In Europe, it’s the Ukrainians who are doing this. They are the most creative and innovative. Even more so than the Americans. 

And how should we respond to those who claim social spending is being sacrificed on the altar of military expenditure? 

Franziska Brantner:  First of all, we need a single, integrated defence market with economies of scale and the capacity to develop our own technological sovereignty, in AI for example. This must be done in a way that delivers technological and economic benefits – “defence dividends” for European industrial productivity and sovereignty.  

But it’s obvious that in the long run we can’t fund defence through borrowing. Germany already spends 80 billion euros a year on servicing debt. An extra 40 billion euros of debt is expected to be added just for defence. For younger generations, it’s unsustainable. And there’s also the risk that unsustainable borrowing could cost us dearly, both economically and socially. So at some point, we must either increase resources or make cuts somewhere.  

We also have to become more economically efficient. If productivity stops growing, it will put more pressure on the budget. We got lucky for 80 years, but the peace dividend is gone. 

That said, there will be dividends from public spending on defence, though we’ll have to make sure that they’re not pocketed by the richest. That’s another way of asking how we draw the line between public and private.  

Let’s be clear about this: we need a European defence industry to protect our peace and our way of life – and in the long run, this will pay fresh dividends from a new and sovereign peace.  

Rui Tavares: This is where I disagree with you. I don’t want to reopen arguments from the Eurozone crisis, which was extremely painful. But there’s a difference, perhaps cultural, between north and south on the question of debt. When I’m told that we must invest in defence spending to meet global challenges and that doing so without cutting social spending is unrealistic, my response is that investing in defence without borrowing is what’s unrealistic. Military investment has always been expensive. If we take an existential threat seriously, we don’t fret about debt. Especially given that, in the past, military investment has always been accompanied or followed by new social investment. 

Just take into account the fact that there’s a housing crisis in Europe, an issue that’s very real for many people. If we developed construction technologies, with new materials invented through research and development, and if we had a European housing agency, we could build on this progress. And since armies have always been full of engineers, this might be another benefit of military spending – a war dividend. 

If we show that military research produces civilian advances, we can escape this pernicious trap that forces voters to choose between funding a welfare state and funding its defence. This is where Germany has a key role to play: Germans must understand that Europe is willing to invest in safe debt. Now that American debt is no longer safe, if Europeans were to finally opt for the famous Eurobonds, there would be billions of euros ready to invest. 

Franziska Brantner: So long as these are really investments. Otherwise, they’re a waste of resources, and future generations will have to pay for them. We’ve taken on almost 100 billion euros in defence debt, and 99 per cent of this money has gone into stuff that’s obsolete. 

So, we need to develop a European military-industrial complex, one that builds for the future, not the past. 

Franziska Brantner: Exactly. We must break free from past inertias. It’s also the case for our welfare state in Germany: there are reforms that will improve the quality of services while also making savings, and they have to be implemented. We can’t just refuse to make savings. It’s impossible, especially with an ageing society. We can’t hide behind false pretexts. I think we have to invest in defence while also reforming the economy and public services.  

How do we prepare people for the reality of the security threats facing Europe and the responses they require? 

Rui Tavares: I loved the Niinistö report [drawn up by Sauli Niinistö, former president of Finland and special adviser to the president of the European Commission] because it shares with the rest of Europe Nordic know-how on defence, which is based around society, families, and bonds. Some materials – like booklets on preparedness and local defence – can be reproduced, printed, and distributed to all European households. But it’s important to take into account cultural and social realities: you’re supposed to have two weeks’ supplies in the house to be prepared, but in Portugal, where wages are often spent by the 10th of the month, I’m sure the survival kit won’t last. 

So, we should perhaps think about distribution networks, mobilise local councils, and even involve the fire service. These are also opportunities to make Europe tangible. When devastating fires or floods break out, people expect a European response. With a European war and disaster survival kit that could be distributed to citizens, Europe’s role in helping people would be clearer to see. 

Franziska Brantner: I fear that it won’t work – that without a sense of urgency, people won’t be ready. 

Besides the European defence technological and industrial base, what industrial policy should be implemented at the EU level? 

Franziska Brantner: I believe European competitiveness rests on three pillars. First, resilience, which requires a reduction in our dependencies, especially on China and the United States. Next, innovation. Not just in defence, but in tech, medicine, the bioeconomy. And the third is sustainability, which is a necessary response to climate change and inequality.  

To succeed, we need education that develops our young people’s skills and capacity for innovation. It’s competitiveness in the service of social wellbeing and a better quality of life.  

Going forward, what objectives do you think Europe should prioritise? How can the European project gain more relevance and foster cohesion?  

Franziska Brantner: I think the question we must ask ourselves first is: “Why do we want peace, freedom, and democracy?” For us Europeans, the challenge is to give a meaning to freedom that isn’t JD Vance’s, and a substance to peace that isn’t Putin’s. It’s up to us to do this, because it’s Europe that upholds these values. And without them, the European project is hollow. 

Rui Tavares: I couldn’t agree more, and I’d like to add another idea: quality of life. Seen from the outside, Europe is defined by a way of life and a standard of living. Our notion of freedom is built on a universal right to this quality of life. It doesn’t mean that everybody is rich, but it does mean that nobody is poor. When we put this idea at the core of European policies, we soon see that it touches on everything: the economy, social policy, the environment, culture, security, and defence. 

What worries me is a sense that the quality of life has stopped being a goal of politics. We keep hearing calls to sacrifice this or that service to save money. But I think that saving for saving’s sake doesn’t appeal to Europeans. Nobody wants to stay competitive just to win an economic war they don’t see any benefits in. Europeans are proud of their quality of life and are deeply attached to it – and for good reason. If we manage to convince them that the policies that affect them take this quality of life seriously, I think people will be more willing to make sacrifices. 

In the northeastern corner of the department of Tolima, on the banks of the Magdalena River,  Colombia's main waterway, stretching more than 1,600 kilometers, lies a colonial municipality called...

“MAGA Inc.: A Guide to Trump’s World of Crypto Czars, Tech Titans and Prison Profiteers” – CorpWatch’s latest report – is a deep dive into the companies that have bankrolled…

A group of former United States government employees recently relaunched the defunct website Climate.gov as Climate.us, reviving the nation’s leading online platform for climate data after it was shuttered by the Trump administration in 2025.

Climate.us is now home to 15 years’ worth of climate-related news, visual reports, educational tools, and more that were once found at Climate.gov. The government website was shut down last June shortly after President Donald Trump signed an executive order on federal science research. Just four months prior, the Trump administration also fired hundreds of staff members at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including all of Climate.gov’s full-time staff. 

Over the past 12 months, a handful of those laid-off NOAA employees—led by Climate.us Managing Director Rebecca Lindsey, who served as Climate.gov’s head editor—have been rebuilding the website as an independent, nonprofit platform, tediously working through thousands of articles, links, and datasets. Among those efforts was the digital recovery of key resources such as the Fifth National Climate Assessment. The report was conducted by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, whose website the Trump administration also took down last year.

“Trusted climate information should not disappear when politics change,” Lindsey writes in a press release. “Climate.us is building an independent, durable platform so people can continue to find the data and information they need to understand and talk about climate, and to teach, report, plan, prepare, and make informed decisions.” 

Launched in 2010, Climate.gov provided the public with easy-to-understand climate resources, including interactive maps, robust curriculum materials for educators, and a dashboard of global climate change indicators. The Climate.us team continues that mission with the support of volunteers and donations, including over 80 scientists who review its content and around US$280,000 from crowdsourcing.

“Climate.gov was never about—and Climate.us will never be about—telling Americans what to do about climate change,” Lindsey tells NPR. “The site will continue to be nonpartisan but will be focusing on the science and explaining science and showing people what the data show.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Tina Rolf, Unsplash

The post Climate.gov is Back With a New Name—From Employees Fired by Trump appeared first on Food Tank.

We talk with Survival International researcher Paul Renaut about the model of “fortress conservation,” that is driving forced evictions of Maasai people in Tanzania and how the UNESCO World Heritage status is amplifying that pressure.

More than 350 gas-powered generators could soon be operating just outside Philadelphia as part of Amazon’s proposed data center in Fairless Hills, Bucks County. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is hosting a public meeting about this proposal July 14. 

Over the July 4 holiday heatwave, existing data centers were instructed to run their gas generators on already polluted days, severely endangering local public health. We need our elected officials to prevent this from happening again.  

On hot summer days, when the region is already struggling with unhealthy air quality, those generators could add significant pollution to the air we breathe. Unless elected officials act now, this proposal could become a model for future data center development across southeastern Pennsylvania. 

Meeting growing electricity demand doesn’t mean building more fossil fuel infrastructure.

Data centers rely on massive amounts of electricity, and how we meet that demand will shape Pennsylvania’s energy future. Electricity costs are rising in Philadelphia, but expanded solar deployment has helped moderate those increases. 

Rather than responding to growing electricity demand with more fossil fuel development, city residents should demand that new data center development bring more solar onto our grid, making it easier for homes and commercial spaces to electrify while reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. 

The City is already taking steps in this direction. A planned 1.5 megawatt solar farm near the Northeast Philadelphia Airport would give the City government a set electricity rate for 25 years, in addition to a 20-year contract with a solar farm in Clearfield County, PA, further locking in long-term electricity rates for municipal operations, but not for residents.  

This should be extended to include Pennsylvania households. Pennsylvanians are still waiting for the state legislature to pass House Bill 1155, which would allow households to benefit from community solar projects and see savings on their electric bills while supporting clean energy.   

We can’t allow data center growth to become an excuse for slowing the transition away from fossil fuels. 

Regardless of nearby industrial development, residents can take action on their own. Moving from gas cooking and heating appliances to electric devices will improve air quality inside your home and throughout the region.

In the middle of a polluted, summer heat wave, it doesn’t make much sense to heat a tank of water with an open flame so you can wash your hands. Tankless, electric water heaters that only heat the water you need could have a massive impact on the city’s public health while reducing energy bills.  

Nationwide, electricity consumption is increasing, yet new solar generation — not additional gas-fired power — is meeting much of that demand. Pennsylvania should follow that example.

Courts have affirmed that states have the right to set a standard for the air pollution that’s emitted by gas appliances in buildings. Transitioning away from your own household gas appliances is one way to remove gas pollution from your life. Contacting your elected officials to ask them to push back against the hundreds of gas generators proposed in the region is another. 

Click here to tell your state and local officials to support a three-year pause on data center development.

 In a world where sustainability and agricultural efficiency are more important than ever, we present an essential guide that will transform your vision of field production: the Sugarcane and Rice...

As the world's most bird-diverse country, Colombia is home to 1,969 recorded bird species. Many of these birds inhabit landscapes that overlap with nearly 1.5 million acres of oil palm plantations...

Statement from Executive Director Jim Warren —

Don’t be surprised if Duke Energy soon reduces power generation from its nuclear fleet in the Carolinas as record-breaking drought and heatwaves continue across the region.

It’s happened in Europe. It happened in the US South a few years ago.

Each of Duke’s nuclear plants requires a vast amount of cool water – as much as a city – each day, both to produce steam for power and to prevent the reactor core from overheating.

When river and lake water get warmer and the levels drop, safety limits can require Shearon Harris and other plants to stop generating power.

The irony: As air conditioning becomes more vital to health and business in a rapidly warming world, the Achilles Heel of new nuclear is its need for massive amounts of cool water.

Duke leaders propose to bank our future on up to ten very large AP1000 reactors – the same model Duke failed six times trying to build between 2005 and 2017.

By contrast, solar plus battery storage (SPS) requires no water, is far cheaper and fairer to the people of North Carolina. Yet Duke leaders continue to stifle SPS.

We again call on Governor Josh Stein to press Duke Energy to finally begin a transition to renewable power.

###

Now in its 38th year, NC WARN is building people power in the climate and energy justice movement to persuade or require Charlotte-based Duke Energy – one of the world’s largest climate polluters – to make a quick transition to renewable, affordable power generation and energy efficiency in order to avert climate tipping points and ongoing rate hikes. 

The post Nuclear Plants Could Fail During Heat and Drought — Statement from Executive Director Jim Warren appeared first on NC WARN.

This is a re-post from The Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler

I am finalizing a textbook on climate risk and am posting chapters as I finish them. I’d previously posted chapters about embedded energy, physical climate risk, and transition risk. This post is a chapter on attribution of extreme weather to climate change. It is an emerging battleground in the public debate over climate change, so this chapter is an opportunity to get up to speed on the science.

Introduction

In the aftermath of any major weather disaster, the question inevitably arises: “Did climate change cause this disaster?” However, this is a bad way to think about the problem.Climate change does not cause a rainstorm, a heatwave, or a hurricane in a direct sense. These hazards would still occur in a world without human influence on the climate: hurricanes would still form over warm ocean waters, heatwaves would remain a product of stationary high-pressure systems, and low-pressure systems will always generate rain and the occasional flood.

But climate change can make these events more intense. It takes a heatwave and pushes the temperature higher. It adds moisture to a rain event, generating more intense rainfall, enhancing flooding. Warmer oceans make a hurricane’s winds stronger and its rainfall more severe.

Therefore, the scientifically interesting question is not “Did climate change cause this?”, but about influence:

1.How much morelikely did climate change make this event?

2.How much moreintense did climate change make this event?

Answering these questions is the work of a rapidly advancing field of science called Extreme Event Attribution. This chapter will explore the methods scientists use to disentangle the roles of natural variability and climate change.

To understand the two different ways of looking at the problem, let’s examine a hot 38°C (99°F) day in a hypothetical city (like Houston, Texas) and examine each question in turn.

1. How much more likely has climate change made a 38°C day?

This figure sets up how scientists look at the problem.It shows two hypothetical distributions of daily temperature for the city. The red curve is the present-day distribution: the climate as it actually is today. The distributions tell you how often each temperature occurs in that world.For example, today’s temperature distribution peaks around 35°C with a value of 17%, meaning that 17% of days have temperatures around 35°C.

The blue curve is a counterfactual: the distribution that would occur in a world without climate change. For this hypothetical example, climate change has shifted the climate a few degrees toward warmer temperatures.

Given the two distributions, we can now answer the question of how much more likely a 38°C day is.In the counterfactual no-climate-change world, a 38°C day occurred on roughly 1.5% of days; in the present-day climate, it occurs on about 6% of days.

We define the relative risk to be the risk of the event in today’s climate divided by the risk in the counterfactual climate:

where Pa is the probability of the event in the world with climate change (6%) and Pc is the probability in the counterfactual world (1.5%). Thus, the relative risk in this example is 6%/1.5% = 4. We can therefore say that, “Climate change made this 38°C day four times as likely” or that, “The relative risk of a 38°C day is four.”

Because of the shape of the distributions, the relative risk increases with temperature.Using the same curves, a 42°C day occurs on 0.013% of days in the counterfactual world and 0.19% in the world with climate change, implying a relative risk of 15.This confirms that the hotter the day, the more the relative risk of that day has increased.In fact, we are approaching a world (if we’re not already there) with so much climate change that events occur that could not have occurred in the counterfactual world (Pc ≈ 0).For those events, the risk ratio is infinity.

Temperatures near average have a risk ratio around 1, meaning their probability isn’t changing much due to climate change.Below average temperatures (e.g., 27°C) have risk ratios less than one, indicating that they are occurring less often than in the counterfactual world.

2. How much did climate change warm this day?

This is a different way to ask the same question: how much hotter was the day because of climate change?To answer this, we look at the graph horizontally. We find the probability of a 38°C day on the present-day curve and trace it back to the same probability on the counterfactual curve.

In this example, we find that the same probability for today’s 38°C corresponds to a temperature of 36°C in the counterfactual climate. In this case, we can say, “Climate change made this hot day 2°C warmer.”

While some economic actors (e.g., governments, insurers) may focus on probability, most impact evaluations are clearer when examined through magnitude changes. In other words, it may be of more practical use to know that climate change warmed this day by 2°C or increased total rainfall by 30% than knowing that climate change increased the probability by a factor of four.

Thus, we can express climate change’s contribution to this hypothetical 38°C day in two ways.We can say that 1) climate change made the event four times more likely, or that 2) climate change added 2°C to the temperature.

Determining the counterfactual world

As discussed in the last section, estimating the impact of climate change on a meteorological event requires assessing the distribution of those events in the present-day world and in a counterfactual world without climate change.

To establish the present-day distribution of climate events (red curves in the plots above), researchers rely primarily on a combination of real-world observational records and numerical climate-model simulations of the present-day climate. To estimate the counterfactual climate (blue curves), the world that would have existed had human activities not altered the climate system, scientists will often run these same climate models but with human influences removed (e.g., carbon dioxide and other climate forcers set at pre-industrial values).

Researchers can also use historical observations to estimate the counterfactual climate. In some cases, researchers can use observations from a time period when human influence on the climate was small, such as the late 19th or early 20th century. As an example, this is a plot of Houston’s daily maximum temperature in the 1970s and 2016-2025:

There is a clear shift in the climate between these two periods, much — but not necessarily all of it — due to climate change.This shift made a day with a maximum temperature of 37°C (99°F) about 6.5 times more likely (i.e., risk ratio = 6.5); alternatively, it increased the temperature of this day by 2.3°C (4.1°F).

Notably, in the 1970s, daily maximum temperatures above 40°C (104°F) never occurred in Houston, but they did occur in the 2016-2025 period.Such days would therefore be considered virtually impossible without climate change.

One thing to look out for: After every extreme event, fossil-fuel interests will take to social media to point out that a more severe event — e.g., more rain, higher winds, and higher temperatures — occurred in, e.g., 18XX (some year in the late 19th century). They use this to incorrectly imply that climate change therefore could not have influenced the event.

But that’s a logical error.If you look at the probability distributions from Houston, you’ll see that you could have had a 39°C day in the counterfactual 1970s world (it’s just very unlikely). But the existence of a 39°C day in the 1970s doesn’t contradict the conclusion that the 37°C day you just lived through was enhanced by climate change.

Traditional detection and attribution

There is another way scientists connect climate change to extreme events known as detection and attribution.This approach focuses on trends in some quantity — for example, the trend in the annual maximum 1-day precipitation amount, with units of mm/decade.This is different from extreme event attribution, which focuses on individual extreme weather events.

As a simple example, suppose we have an observational time series of the aforementioned maximum daily rainfall at a station in the U.S. This gives us one number each year: the maximum daily rainfall in 1950, the maximum daily rainfall in 1951, and so on:

We want to know whether the variations in in this observed (synthetic) time series can be attributed to greenhouse gases from human activities, aerosols (basically air pollution and dust, this is partially due to human activities), or some combination of them. These different drivers have different trends over time: greenhouse gases have been steadily increasing, while aerosols in the U.S. increased until around 1970 and have declined since then.

The first step in detection and attribution is to run climate models to estimate the fingerprint of each process. To do this, scientists run climate models with just the increase in greenhouse gases, and then run the models again with just the changes in air pollution.These runs tell us what the observations would look like if just this forcing was present in the atmosphere.

We then compare the observed time series to the model fingerprints. A simple way to do this is with a regression model:

Here, obs(t) is the observed time series. G(t) is the greenhouse gas fingerprint timeseries, and A(t) is the aerosol fingerprint timeseries.

We then use regression techniques to estimate the coefficients bGHG and bAER, which tell us how much of each fingerprint is present in the observations. e is the residual, the part of the observations not explained by the fingerprints.

Here are the results:

In the left panel, the blue line is the synthetic observations and the orange line is the fit:

where G(t) and A(t) are the fingerprints above.As you can see, we can closely fit the observations with the fingerprints for greenhouse gases and aerosols.

Next, we examine the estimated coefficients (bGHG and bAER) and their uncertainty ranges (right panel). If a coefficient is statistically different from zero, we say that fingerprint has been detected. That’s the case here — the uncertainty bars do not cross zero — so the fingerprints for greenhouse gases and aerosols are detected.

This is the basic logic of detection and attribution.

Importantly, detection and attribution does not allow us to link specific events (e.g., Hurricane Harvey) to climate change.Rather, it allows us to connect the trend in some type of extreme weather (hurricanes) to human activities.

If you want to play around with a simple demonstration that shows how this works, click here.

This is an extremely powerful technique that has laid the foundation for much of our understanding of how climate change is affecting extreme weather.Here are some key results:

• Hot extremes and heatwaves: Humans are clearly making hot extremes more frequent and more intense through human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

• Heavy precipitation: Human influence, especially greenhouse gas emissions, is likely the main driver of the observed global-scale intensification of heavy precipitation over land.

• Flash flooding due to extreme rainfall: Scientists have high confidence that stronger extreme precipitation leads to more frequent and larger surface-water and flash floods.

• Drought: Scientists have medium confidence that human-caused climate change has increased drought1 in some regions.

• Tropical cyclones: Scientists have medium confidence that human influence has contributed to extreme tropical cyclone rainfall.In addition, the global proportion of the strongest tropical cyclones has likely increased over the past four decades, a change that cannot be explained with natural factors alone.

• Fire weather: Scientists have concluded with medium confidence that compound hot, dry, and windy conditions have become more likely in some regions.

Confidence in attribution studies

In reading the previous section, you saw that scientists have varying levels of confidence in the attribution statements.Some conclusions are termed likely or very likely, and confidence may be medium or high.How is this confidence determined?

The foundation of any attribution study is a solid physical understanding of why climate change would affect a particular type of event. If we can’t provide a mechanism, you really can’t believe an attribution study.

For many extreme events, the physics is well-understood and there is a clear connection between the climate and the severity of the events:

• Heatwaves: Greenhouse gases trap heat, shifting the distribution of temperatures toward warmer values, thereby making extreme heat more probable.

• Rainfall: The connection is the physical fact that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor. This means that when a storm system develops, there is more available moisture to convert into rain, leading to more intense downpours.

• Wildfires: Warmer temperatures produce a drier atmosphere, dry out vegetation and make it more flammable.Thus, wildfires are expected to be bigger and more intense in a warmer climate.

For other phenomena, the physics is murkier. For example, there is no robust theory explaining how the total number of tropical cyclones will change as the climate warms (tropical cyclone is the general term for storms known as hurricanes in the Atlantic, typhoons in the Pacific, and cyclones in the Indian Ocean).Right now, there are around 80 tropical cyclones per year around the planet, and we can’t explain why that’s the number.Why isn’t it 8?Or 800?We don’t know.Without such an understanding, we can’t really trust climate models’ counterfactual world for this.

But this doesn’t mean that we know nothing about tropical cyclones.There are strong physical arguments that tropical cyclones will get more intense (higher wind speeds) and rainier as the climate warms, which will cause more damage.As an example, severalgroupsanalyzed the impact of climate change on Hurricane Harvey’s enormous rainfall totals over Houston, Texas and they found that climate change increased rainfall by ~20%.The increase in wind speed means that we expect the fraction of tropical cyclones reaching the major storm category (cat 3-5) will increase as the climate warms, in general agreement with our observational record.

Once you have a physical mechanism, the other factors that determine confidence are things like:

• How good is the observational record?For some things, like temperature, we have good observations going back to the 19th century.For others, like tropical cyclones, good observations are only available during the satellite era, i.e., since the 1970s.With a shorter dataset, your confidence in any attribution study will be lower.

• How good are climate models at simulating the weather phenomenon?Most attribution studies require climate models to generate the various counterfactual worlds (the world without climate change).Climate models do a really good job with temperature, which is a large-scale atmospheric phenomenon.But they do a much poorer job with precipitation, which is a very small-scale process that models struggle with.

• How many independent studies have confirmed an attribution statement?In science, the gold standard for a rigorous conclusion is that it has been multiply replicated by independent scientific groups.While any individual study might be flawed, the odds of a major error go down significantly if several groups have independently reached the same conclusion.

It is also worth noting that there may be times when detection and attribution studies fail but extreme event attribution studies can still identify a contribution of climate change to an extreme event. For example, high quality time series of some extreme events (e.g., tropical cyclones) may go back only a few decades, which may be too short for confident detection and attribution. Extreme event attribution approaches, which do not rely on long time series of observations, are nevertheless able to conclude that climate change is making specific hurricanes stronger.

Conclusion

The science of extreme event attribution has transformed our ability to discuss the impacts of climate change. We can now make statements about how climate change affected the likelihood and intensity of individual events as well as the trends in extreme events. This helps demonstrate that climate change is indeed increasing the ‘hazard’ component of climate risk.

As the science of extreme event attribution has developed, it has increasingly moved into the legal and public policy arenas. Fossil fuel interests are terrified that someone will use extreme event attribution science to sue them for their contribution to a natural disaster, or that policymakers will use extreme event attribution science to justify policies to restrict fossil-fuel use.

Because of this, the legitimacy of extreme event attribution is frequently contested by fossil-fuel interests. So don’t be surprised if you hear a lot of misinformation about extreme event attribution in the future.And don’t think that, just because people are criticizing these studies, that criticism is legitimate.

Note that the techniques described in this chapter deal with the effects of climate change on hazards.A new subfield, extreme event impact attribution connects climate change to the actual impacts (e.g., number of houses burned down in a wildfire, dollars of flood damage).This is an emerging area of research, and I expect that this is something we’re going to hear a lot more about in the future.

This is a draft of a section of my climate risk textbook (slightly edited & reformatted to make it appropriate for Substack). I’d very much like to identify errors now, so if you see any, please let me know in the comments.

1 Different types of drought respond differently to climate change. In this case, we are talking about agricultural and ecological droughts.

Very often, in cities, rural areas, and along roads, we see birds perched on power lines. For many people, this image is part of the everyday landscape: a bird resting on a power line, or small...

More than 600 financially vulnerable hospitals across the United States are set to experience an aggregate increase in financial deficits of between 50 and 75 percent. The financial losses, estimated in a new research study, present an extreme risk of cuts and closures of essential health care services for millions of people across the country.

This article The strategic satire of India’s Gen Z ‘Cockroach’ movement was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

On June 29, thousands of people gathered at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar — the capital’s designated site for public demonstration — in the second week of a growing sit-in accompanied by a wave of online dissent. What is being called India’s first “Gen Z protest” was spurred by an education system that many young Indians believe has failed to offer fair opportunities.

Protesters arrived carrying the Indian flag, copies of the constitution and red roses, which they handed to police officers stationed at the venue. Volunteers reminded participants to remain disciplined, avoid confrontation and document events on their phones.

“The truth has no spokesperson except your camera,” organizers told the crowd.

Many participants carried signs reading “Main Bhi Cockroach,”  or “I too am a cockroach,” and wore cockroach masks, reclaiming the label that inspired the movement.

From simmer to outrage

On May 12, the government invalidated the results of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), India’s highly competitive medical entrance examination, citing allegations of exam paper leaks and widespread irregularities.

Nine days after taking the exam, more than two million students found themselves back to where they had started — preparing for one of the world’s toughest examinations with less than a month’s time, competing for fewer than 130,000 undergraduate medical seats. Reports of severe student distress, including at least 13 cases of student suicides, emerged from across the country.

The cancellation reignited longstanding criticism of how India’s examination system is administered and the mounting psychological pressure placed on students seeking professional careers. Since 2021, at least 93 suicides linked to the intense competition and financial burden of the NEET exams have come to light. Meanwhile, the NEET papers have leaked at least 89 times over the last 10 years, affecting 65 million students. 

#newsletter-block_0d523ad4fb1a67c475d5e9dbc9661439 { background: #ECECEC; color: #000000; } #newsletter-block_0d523ad4fb1a67c475d5e9dbc9661439 #mc_embed_signup_front input#mce-EMAIL { border-color:#000000 !important; color: #000000 !important; } Sign Up for our Newsletter

We’ll send you a weekly email with the latest articles.

Amid growing public anger, Supreme Court Chief Justice Surya Kant made a remark on May 15 that turned an already simmering online conversation into a wave of collective outrage. 

While questioning the conduct of lawyers he suspected of having fraudulent degrees, he turned toward the country’s unemployed youth, describing them as “cockroaches” and “parasites.”

“There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don’t get any employment or have any place in the profession,” he said. “Some of them become media, some of them become social media and activists, and they start attacking everyone.”

Justice Kant later said that his comments referred to individuals accused of obtaining fake degrees, and not the nation’s youth, whom he called the “pillars of a developed India.” 

But by then, the discussion had moved past the clarification.

In the midst of the online uproar, Abhijeet Dipke, a 30-year-old Indian student based in Boston, casually posted a question on X, “What if all cockroaches came together?”

​The birth of Cockroach Janta Party

​Dipke’s call quickly sparked a wave of responses, with millions of young Indians embracing the cockroach as a symbol of resilience.

On May 16, Dipke announced the launch of Cockroach Janta Party, or CJP, a satirical political outfit. It was widely seen as a jibe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political party, the Bharatiya Janta Party, or BJP, which has been in power since 2014.

“The CJP began as an idea after we saw millions of youth were repeatedly being denied a voice,” Dipke told me. “When authorities suppress people’s voices, that’s exactly when people should come together and raise their voices.”

The party introduced itself as “the voice of the burnt-out youth” and “a political party for the people the system forgot to count.”

DipkeHe set up a party website, outlining its objectives and inviting supporters to pledge their membership. Its requirements reflected the movement’s irreverent tone. Prospective members, the website joked, should be unemployed, lazy, chronically online and possess “the ability to rant professionally.”

Within a few days, tens of thousands of people had signed up through an online registration form, while the hashtag #MainBhiCockroach (“I too am a cockroach”) spread widely across social media. The movement also drew public support from several opposition politicians.

The party’s Instagram account has now surpassed 22 million followers, overtaking the official BJP account, which has around 9.4 million followers despite being widely regarded as the world’s largest political party by membership.

Its presence on X, however, has faced restrictions multiple times. The CJP account, which has attracted more than 200,000 followers, has been inaccessible twice within India, with users receiving a notification that “the account has been withheld in response to a legal notice.”

The manifesto

Behind the satire lay serious political concerns.

“We are not here to set up another PM CARES, holiday in Davos on the taxpayer’s salary slip or rebrand corruption as strategic spending,” the website said. “We are here to ask — loudly, repeatedly, in writing — where the money went.”

Its mission statement speaks directly to the generation driving the movement — a cohort that came of age amid economic uncertainty, competitive examinations and near-constant political engagement online.

“Build a party for a generation raised on promises, notifications and low battery warnings,” the statement reads. “A generation that is overqualified, frustrated, angry at what’s broken and financially confused,” the website further explained.

For supporters, the satire succeeded because it gave voice to frustrations that had been building for years. Behind the absurdity of a political party named after one of the world’s most resilient insects was a manifesto addressing issues that have long dominated public debate in India: the lack of judicial independence, doubts over free and fair elections, growing corporate control of media, frequent party defections and the underrepresentation of women in politics.

One proposal called for retired Chief Justices of India to be barred from accepting seats in the Rajya Sabha — the upper house of Parliament — after leaving office. The demand reflects concerns raised by critics that post-retirement appointments to political office blur the separation between the judiciary and the executive.

Another focused on electoral integrity. In deliberately hyperbolic language, the manifesto declared that election officials responsible for removing legitimate voters from electoral rolls be arrested under India’s principal anti-terror law — a key tool that the Modi administration uses to silence its critics — because “taking away voting rights of citizens is no less than terrorism.” The proposal referred to a recent controversy in which 9.1 million names were stripped from voter rolls in the West Bengal state elections won by the BJP in April.

Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke leads chants during a CJP protest on June 6, 2026. (Getty/Arun Sankar)

Gender equality also features prominently. While India’s Parliament passed legislation in 2023 reserving one-third of parliamentary seats for women — a reform that has yet to be implemented — the CJP argued that women should instead hold half of all cabinet positions and seats in Parliament.

The manifesto also took aim at India’s media, proposing that television channels and news organizations owned by some of the country’s largest business conglomerates lose their broadcasting licenses to make way for independent journalism. Although framed satirically, the proposal echoed longstanding criticism from media watchdogs and opposition groups that growing corporate ownership has weakened the independence of India’s mainstream press.

It also targeted one of the country’s most persistent political problems: party defections. The manifesto proposed permanently disqualifying elected lawmakers who switch political parties after winning office, a practice that has repeatedly altered governments at both the national and state levels despite existing anti-defection laws.

Taken together, the manifesto is less a conventional political program than a vehicle for expressing public frustration through humor. Its proposals were intentionally exaggerated, but the concerns they referenced were familiar to many Indians.

From meme to movement

“Time to turn this tiny joke into a revolution,” the official CJP account on X posted after Dipke announced he was returning to India from Boston.

Upon his return on on June 6, Dipke travelled directly from the airport to New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, the capital’s designated site for public demonstration, where the party held its first protest, demanding the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the repeated paper leaks and other alleged failures in conducting competitive examinations that affect millions of students and job seekers.

Despite the movement’s massive online reach, fewer than 2,000 people attended the inaugural rally, according to media reports. The turnout highlighted the gap that often exists between digital support and physical mobilization.

Standing before the crowd in Delhi’s summer heat, Dipke gave Pradhan until 5 p.m. that day to resign. When no response came, he extended the deadline by another week.

“But this doesn’t end here. Dharmendra Pradhan has wronged an entire generation. If he is not removed or does not step down within the next seven days, we will be forced to continue our protest on the ground,” he wrote later on X.

Rather than fading, the movement continued to gain momentum and has now entered into its second month.

“So far, we have not seen any substantial and meaningful effort from the government to address our demands,” Dipke told me. “If our demands are not met, our movement will still remain peaceful and continue through constitutional and democratic means.”

Beginning June 11, CJP supporters organized demonstrations across cities like Pune, Lucknow, Amritsar, Hyderabad and Bangalore. The demand remained unchanged: Pradhan must quit.

When the minister refused, the organization escalated its campaign, announcing an indefinite sit-in at Jantar Mantar beginning June 20. “This protest will go on for as long as it takes,” Dipke declared. “Nobody will move till Dharmendra Pradhan resigns.”

“I am appealing to all cockroaches, parents and teachers from Delhi to come and join us at Jantar Mantar,” he continued. “We will stay put for as long as we can, but we will not be able to pull this off unless we have your support.”

Students, teachers, parents, lawyers, activists, trade union members and farmers began arriving from across the country. Volunteers coordinated food, water and medical assistance, while supporters continued to amplify the movement online. So far, 800,000 online petitions have been signed demanding Pradhan’s sacking.

Major support has come from student organizations such as All India Students Association and Students Federation of India, or SFI. SFI has been protesting against examination irregularities since early May, with several members detained during demonstrations in different parts of the country. 

“The students and youth have been frustrated for quite some time,” said Aishe Ghosh, joint secretary of SFI. “The repeated incidence of paper leaks and rising unemployment has made the students and youth hostile towards the government.”

India is home to the world’s largest population of youth between the ages of 15 to 29, and has recorded the highest unemployment rate among graduates, estimated at 15.2 percent.

For Ghosh, the demonstrations reflected more than a single policy failure. “The ongoing protest is just a combination of the long-term anger and frustration,” she said.

Among those who answered Dipke’s call was Dr. Dighe, a Mumbai-based physician whose son took the NEET examination in May.

He said the cancellation of the results had taken a significant toll on his son’s mental health, but that his decision to protest also came from his experience as a doctor.

“I understand how important this examination is for the medical students who later become doctors,” he said. “I am here at the protest for my son, for the future of several other NEET aspirants and to save the medical profession of this country.”

The protest was also expected to draw support from several farmers’ unions, which announced plans to join the demonstration on June 28. However, on the morning of the protest, several leaders were reportedly placed under house arrest, preventing them from reaching the site.

“If leaders are placed under house arrest before joining any peaceful democratic movement, it is a matter of grave concern,” Dipke told me. “In a democracy, every citizen and organization has the right to express their views peacefully. We believe that dialogue and participation strengthen democracy, while restrictions and oppression do not.”

A distinctly Gen Z protest

As the protest grows, the CJP has developed a style of resistance that looks very different from the traditional political demonstrations in India. Memes and satire heavily drawn from internet culture are becoming central to how young people express political anger. Videos shared across Instagram, X and YouTube show protesters blending humor with dissent, creating a protest culture that feels distinctly Gen Z while addressing long-standing concerns over education, unemployment and government accountability.

The movement’s online identity quickly spilled onto the streets. At Jantar Mantar on June 29, protesters carried hand-painted placards filled with political criticism with meme culture, Bollywood references and internet humor. One sign read, “We asked for ‘Make in India,’ you gave us ‘Leak in India,’” referring to Modi’s flagship manufacturing campaign and the repeated examination paper leaks that triggered the movement. Another simply read, “Bro is still employed,” alongside a photograph of the Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, while others promoted the campaign “Pradhan Go Back.”

Between speeches and performances, groups of students were also seen playing cricket, giving the protest the feel of a community gathering as much as a political demonstration.

The familiar slogan of “Azaadi” (freedom) was reinterpreted to express frustration with the education system. Organizers also asked demonstrators to bring candles “in memory of each student who committed suicide, and the ones whose government failed to protect.”

Thousands of young people and activists gather at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar for the Cockroach Janta Party’s indefinite peaceful sit-in. (Samrat Sonawane / CJP)

Visual symbolism has become another defining feature of the movement. Groups beat steel plates and spoons, reversing Modi’s 2020 call for Indians to bang utensils in support of frontline workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. This time, the gesture became a demand for accountability from the government. Organizers launched  a “Diaper Donation Drive,” encouraging supporters to write messages on diapers demanding the education minister’s resignation and send them to his office.

Despite these colorful tactics, Ghosh said the movement has received little attention from the mainstream media.

“The state is careful and alert to any eruption of collective anger or dissent,” Ghosh said. “Hence, it is using all mechanisms to control the narrative of the ongoing protests. Except for a section of social media, mainly the mainstream media has been blacked out from coverage.”

But throughout, students documented the protest as it happened, filming Instagram Reels, livestreaming speeches and posting photographs that carried the movement beyond the protest site and onto social media in real time.

Under state surveillance

As the CJP protest gathers momentum, the police presence has become increasingly visible. Protesters arriving at Jantar Mantar were required to show identification and pass through a scanning machine before entering. 

The security arrangements extended well beyond the entrance. Plainclothes police photographers and videographers blended into the crowd, documenting the gathering from within. CCTV cameras have been installed and around 270 body cameras are being used by Delhi Police. Several police buses remained parked outside the protest site throughout the day, while drones hovered overhead, keeping a close watch on the demonstration from the air. The CJP alleges that the government is also monitoring protesters’ phone calls and chats. 

“If people participating in peaceful protests are placed under excessive surveillance or made to feel intimidated, it is contrary to democratic values,” Dipke said.

As evening fell, the atmosphere grew more tense. Police repeatedly announced that protesters would have to vacate the site.

Soon after, electricity to the stage was cut, silencing the sound system. Demonstrators allege that police then temporarily blocked food and drinking water from entering the venue and cut off the water supply in nearby restrooms.

Several hours later, electricity was restored, food and water supplies resumed and restrictions on movement in and out of the protest site were eased. Yet the sit-in continued under heavy police surveillance as it entered its third week.

Police intimidation extends beyond the protest site itself. Delhi Police put up a notice declaring the protest unlawful and has tracked down organizers in person to intimidate and interrogate them.

“Many supporters who have been helping the protesters with food and water are being targeted by the authorities,” said Samrat Sonawane, a CJP volunteer. “Large teams from the Delhi Police and Crime Investigation Department have been visiting homes of several Delhi-based protesters in the early hours of the morning.”

“The authorities are also going to protesters’ relatives’ homes and warning them not to participate in the protest, claiming it is linked to terrorist activities,” Samrat added.

Despite the growing restrictions, CJP organizers continued to seek dialogue with the government. They say they have received no response. “The government has become totally deaf, dumb and blind to the demands of the youth,” CJP spokesperson Sourav Das said.

Ghosh believes the government’s reluctance to engage with the protesters is deliberate.

#support-block_c0e4e73e52494214074e0dbf3a5cabad { background: #000000; color: #ffffff; } Support Us

Waging Nonviolence depends on reader support. Make a donation today!

Donate

“The government is actually avoiding engaging with the ongoing protest as a tactical strategy to further avoid antagonizing the larger student community,” she said.

On June 28, the education reformist, climate activist and Ramon Magsaysay Award recipient Sonam Wangchuk, who had been at Jantar Mantar since June 6, announced an indefinite hunger strike — a form of nonviolent protest with a long history in India. 

“Hunger strike is not the first but the final democratic expression of a movement,” Dipke said of the strategic decision to move toward hunger strikes. “The purpose of this strike is not to confront anyone, but to seriously draw the attention of the government and society towards this issue.” 

Democracy in question

Many protesters spent their nights sleeping on roads and pavement despite Delhi’s sweltering summer heat. For many, it was the first time they had ever participated in a public demonstration. Several students chose to remain at the protest site even after retaking the examination on June 21, saying the movement had grown beyond the paper leak and had become a fight for accountability in India’s education system.

For much of this generation, Modi’s government is the only political administration they have known. Their protest unfolded against the backdrop of a decade in which demonstrations over issues ranging from the Citizenship Amendment Act to the years-long farmers’ movement have faced heavy policing, legal action against organizers and administrative restrictions. Civil liberties groups and opposition leaders have argued that these measures reflect a shrinking space for peaceful dissent. 

Previous Coverage

India’s farmers’ protests are about more than reform — they are resisting the corporate takeover of agriculture

“This government doesn’t want the coming generation to question it,” Samrat said. “The more the public turns towards illiteracy, the easier it becomes for the BJP to continue running the government.”

When asked about the ongoing protests, Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan dismissed the CJP as a “B team of disruptive elements,” a remark that fueled further criticism from protesters, who said the government was choosing confrontation over conversation.

The heavy surveillance at Jantar Mantar, combined with repeated attempts to end the sit-in, reinforced the students’ belief that the government was unwilling to engage directly with their demands. Yet despite the barricades, police presence and administrative restrictions, they continue to return each day, insisting that their struggle was no longer only about a leaked examination, but about the future of public education and the right to be heard.

“Our protest is fully nonviolent and falls within the scope of our constitution,” Dipke said. “Instead of breaking the morale of the protesters, this situation has created more awareness towards their rights.”

Whether the protest ultimately compels political action remains uncertain. But for the hundreds of young people who have spent days and nights at Jantar Mantar, it has already become something larger than a demand to reconduct an examination or remove a minister. 

It is a test of whether peaceful dissent can still compel those in power to listen. As Dipke said, “Prime Minister Narendra Modi must decide whether [ten million] students or one incompetent minister is more important.”

This article The strategic satire of India’s Gen Z ‘Cockroach’ movement was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.