News Feeds

Brexit trade meetings remain a state secret Channel News brendan 23rd July 2025 Teaser Media

While India is in the middle of negotiating a trade agreement with the US, Indonesia has already entered into a deal that grants American agricultural goods duty-free access—moves that farmers say will lead to long-term dependency and harm.

The post US Trade Deals: Peasant Unions in Indonesia and India Sound Alarm, Warn of Erosion of Food Sovereignty appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Alex de Jong reviews the Filipino activist-scholar Walden Bello’s new memoir, Global Battlefields: My Close Encounters with Dictatorship, Capital, Empire, and Love. Chronicling Bello’s political development, Global Battlefields provides us with an informative and entertaining portrait of a committed internationalist.

In Global Battlefields: My Close Encounters with Dictatorship, Capital, Empire, and Love, Walden Bello remembers a rich life as a scholar and activist, from agitating against U.S. support for Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s and 1980s to becoming a leading critic of neoliberal globalization to joining the Philippine House of Representatives and running for vice-president.

As Bello describes in Global Battlefields, his life went through very different phases. Only once Bello was already in the U.S. to work on his PhD at Princeton did he jump into political activism. Quite literally; in April 1970, as the U.S. was expanding the Vietnam War into Cambodia, he passed by a crowd blocking the entrance of the Pentagon-linked Institute of Defense Analysis. As he saw police breaking up the human chain in front of the entrance, “something snapped,” and he joined the protestors, “linking up with two people that I later learned were Arno Mayer, a distinguished professor of diplomatic history, and Stanly Stein, an equally prominent professor of Latin American history.” It makes one wonder which Ivy League professors today are willing to engage in such civil disobedience.

The making of an activist

Joining the anti-war activists might have been a snap decision but it did not come out of nothing. In the early chapters of Global Battlefields, unfortunately left out of the U.S. edition for reasons of space, Bello remembers being a budding existentialist and atheist at the deeply Catholic Ateneo de Manila University. At this university, a breeding ground for conservative members of the elite, Bello was all too conscious of his “middle-middle class status.” For much of his life, Bello was somewhat of an outsider, going on to become a Filipino activist, and a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), in the United States. During the 1990s and early 2000s, he was a prominent spokesperson and intellectual in the alter-globalization movement that opposed the extension of the neoliberal model, especially as it was forced upon countries in the Global South. Differing from the quasi-anarchist sentiment that was, at least in Western countries, so prevalent in this movement, Bello always saw politics and states as not only parts of the problem but also as parts of potential solutions.

Differing from the quasi-anarchist sentiment that was, at least in Western countries, so prevalent in th[e alter-globalization] movement, Bello always saw politics and states as not only parts of the problem but also as parts of potential solutions.

European and U.S. audiences are probably most familiar with the work Bello did in the period of the alter-globalization movement. Building on his work investigating the role of the World Bank in supporting the dictatorship of Marcos in the Philippines, which he wrote about in Development Debacle: the World Bank in the Philippines (1982), Bello became an analyst and critic of the role of supposedly non-political international institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. Such institutions played a key-role in the neoliberal globalization that had its heyday in the two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Bello wrote influential studies of what were then called the “Newly Industrializing Countries” (NICs) in Asia: South-Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong. Common to all these countries was that their economic policies were not those of the unbridled free market recommended by neoliberal ideologues.

The state and its willingness to intervene in economic development was crucial to enabling the economic growth seen in these countries. The rapid economic growth of South Korea, for example, sharply contrasted with the stagnation in the Philippines, even though the latter was once seen as one of the most “promising countries” in Asia. Bello writes how IMF- and World Bank-style policies such as “cutting wages, reducing government spending, devaluation and export orientation” led to economies becoming stuck in a ‘‘low-level trap’’ of low investment, low wages, and reduced growth, effectively locking countries in as suppliers of cheap resources and cheaper labour for an international market. To escape this trap, Bello writes, “what you needed was an external agent, the state, to counteract the systemic logic leading to stagnation.” This was probably always the weakest part in Bello’s analysis: the state is hardly an external agent in implementing neoliberal policies, starting with Pinochet’s dictatorship in Chile. One needs only to think of its role introducing market mechanisms where those did not exist before and most of all of its role in repressing social protest and disciplining labour.

Crossing borders and generations

Not just the record of the engaged life of an impressively productive activist-intellectual, Global Battlefields provides a valuable, “border crossing” perspective. It is the perspective of an anti-imperialist from the Global South for whom the struggle against the U.S. War in Vietnam was a formative experience. Bello’s political trajectory also crossed movements that can be considered emblematic of their time. Being based in the U.S., Bello joining the resistance against the regime of Ferdinand Marcos meant agitating against Washington’s support for the Philippine dictator. As part of this movement, Bello joined the CPP.

Leaving the party

The CPP embodied some of the best and worst characteristics of the kind of Marxist-Leninist movements that dominated much of the Left in the seventies. It was clear-eyed about the need for deep-going social-economic transformation for the Philippines to break free from imperialism. It had deep social roots and consisted of committed revolutionaries. Bello emphasises the kind of dedication this movement inspired. In the Philippines it meant a willingness to risk torture and death. He seems unsure that new generations are able to fully grasp this kind of political faith.

The flip-side of the CPP’s conviction was a stifling dogmatism and authoritarianism. Based on a largely mythical view of Soviet and Chinese history, the Maoist CPP thought that revolution meant its own coming to power, not the emancipation of the popular masses. When history refused to follow its supposed laws, and, for example, the allegedly  powerless liberal opposition revived in the Philippines in the early- to mid-1980s, the CPP found itself sidelined. The party had no role in the 1986 protests that brought down Marcos, the so-called “EDSA revolution.”

Upon hearing the news that Ferdinand Marcos had been brought down, Bello rushed to the Philippine Embassy together with John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies, the progressive think tank for which he worked at the time. “The two of us took possession of the building, ordering the stunned and dejected staff to leave.” The police did not intervene as a growing group of opposition supporters celebrated with champagne and cigars in the ambassador’s office.

Whereas the CPP was convinced that it had discovered “the laws of history,’’ the alter-globalisation movement around the turn of the century was characterised by a deep questioning of the paradigms of much of the socialist Left. The movement was a healthy break with the false certainties of a Left that thought it had deciphered the laws of history. With its lack of not only an alternative vision but also of a strategy, opting instead for conjunctural meetings of the so-called movement of movements, the movement quickly became exhausted.

Important to Bello’s decision to leave the CPP was his study of the internal party purges that ripped through the movement in the 1980s. Up to two thousand party members and sympathizers were killed by their own comrades in a witch-hunt for government spies. The use of torture led to a disastrous dynamic: under duress, prisoners said whatever they thought their tormentors wanted to hear, naming names and coming up with new “revelations.” Bello wrote a study of this murderous episode, pointing to the movement’s instrumental view of people, its poor procedures for dispensing justice, and its lack of ‘‘guidelines for the preservation of common sense’’ as its causes.

Important to Bello’s decision to leave the CPP was his study of the internal party purges that ripped through the movement in the 1980s. Up to two thousand party members and sympathizers were killed by their own comrades in a witch-hunt for government spies.

Supposedly, a lesson the CPP learned from it was the need to respect human rights. Its assassination campaign against former CPP leaders and activists from other left-wing groups in the early 2000s and its initial alliance with Rodrigo Duterte give the lie to this claim. The CPP leadership, in which after his release from prison in 1986 founding chairperson Jose Maria Sison once again would play a domineering role, used torture and killings as a political cudgel. It attributed the overwhelming blame on cadres who had become dissatisfied with the CPP’s strategy and attempted to explain both “purges” and “deviationism” from Maoism as expressions of “petty bourgeois impatience.’’ Bello does not make it explicit but the quotes from Sison he provides show the founding chairperson himself was exceptionally “impatient,” severely overestimating the chances of victory in the near future.

In 2004, the CPP published a list of supposed counter-revolutionary individuals and groups that named Bello as well as the organisation with which I work. Despite this Bello included Sison among the people to whom he dedicated Global Battlefields. That can be taken as speaking to Bello’s generosity as the argument that Sison did not play a decisive role in the CPP’s sectarianism is not very convincing.

In an attempt to make the reader understand the CPP’s appeal, Bello quotes from an article he wrote in the early 1980s, when the CPP was nearing its peak and it seemed to have figured out the laws of history. Briefly, after the famous Battle of Seattle protests, it seemed the alterglobalization movement was carried along by the winds of history. “From Seattle onwards,” Bello writes, “I felt myself as a participant in a movement that was on a roll. Those years passed by like a long, hot summer.” In the words of Bello, the two main movements that he was part of, the CPP and the alterglobalization movement, both “crashed.” Global Battlefields attempts to show that both movements were not total failures, from the CPP building the opposition to the Marcos dictatorship to the struggle against the dominance of neoliberal development models.

Adventures in Philippine politics

Less well known outside the Philippines might be Bello’s political career in the country. In 2007, Bello became a member of the Philippine House of Representatives. He was elected on behalf of the party-list Akbayan. The Philippine Party-list reserves 20 percent of seats in the House of Representatives for election on the basis of nation-wide proportional representation. This system allowed the Left to win some representation but in recent years party-list elections have become increasingly dominated by capitalists.

The decline of the CPP inevitably gave birth to a process of questioning and reorienting. Akbayan was formed by the coming together of different social-democratic and socialist groups. A significant part of the new organisation had its political roots—like Bello himself—in the Communist Party of the Philippines.

In 2010, Benigno Aquino, the son of former President Corazon Aquino, was elected president of the Philippines. Aquino was carried along by a wave of nostalgia for the enthusiasm that had been called forth by the mass protest that brought down Marcos in 1986. The “people power uprising,” many hoped, would make a more democratic and just society possible. The ensuing decades proved a disappointment. Aquino’s campaign, promising a strengthening of democracy and especially a fight against corruption, seemed for many a chance to finally fulfil the potential of people power. Akbayan was among those who joined the government camp.

In the House of Representatives, an institute dominated by the representatives of the wealthiest families of the country, Bello once again was something of an outsider. “I am not much into decorum,” he writes. When former president Gloria Arroyo, under whose administration political killings and corruption had reached new peaks, was elected to the House, Bello did not pull his punches in a speech in which he described her as a role model on “how to behave to impunity” and as someone who should be hauled to jail. Bello’s “colleagues were shocked, demanding that the remark be deleted from the record.”

Eventually the Aquino government became bogged down in scandals. Aquino himself was seen as detached and arrogant, not surprising for a scion of one of the country’s most patrician families. More fundamentally, the benefits of economic growth were distributed highly unevenly and corruption remained pervasive. Rather than a failure of the state-system, a symptom of its “weakness,” the systemic intertwining of economic wealth and political power is a constitutive element of capitalist rule in the Philippines. As Bello’s fellow party-member Nathan Quimpo put it, Aquino followed an “untenable strategy fighting corruption through patronage” that brought the “country back to the old politics of patronage and privilege of the oligarchic elite.” This, Bello writes, “went back on the foundation stone” of the coalition between Akbayan and Aquino’s Liberal Party. In protest, Bello resigned his seat in 2015, a unique step in Philippine politics.

What is not always well remembered is that Duterte initially also claimed to be of the Left…A significant part of the Left in the Philippines went along with this, most of all the National-Democratic movement that takes its political line from the CPP.

The following year, Bello again showed he is not afraid to go against the tide. The disappointment caused by the Aquino administration played a significant part in the rise of popularity of Rodrigo Duterte. Rather than progressive reforms, Duterte promised authoritarian leadership and violence against scapegoats, especially drug users. What is not always well remembered is that Duterte initially also claimed to be of the Left and used social demagogy against U.S. imperialism and for workers’ rights to gather support. A significant part of the Left in the Philippines went along with this, most of all the National-Democratic movement that takes its political line from the CPP. Used to substituting their organisations for the emancipation movements of the popular classes, leaders of this movement accepted Duterte’s invitation to serve his government in an opportunistic grab for resources.

Undeterred by the criticism and attempts at intimidation by supporters of Duterte, Bello on the other hand was among the early voices sounding the alarm. Duterte’s rise was prepared by the ‘deadly combination of elite monopoly of the electoral system, the continuing concentration of wealth, and neoliberal economic policies and the priority placed on foreign debt repayment imposed by Washington’, Bello writes. Having studied far-right movements in other countries, Bello was aware that such figures can enjoy genuine support. At the end of Duterte’s term, tens of thousands of people had been murdered in the so-called “war on the drugs.”

In 2022, Bello, not satisfied with “teaching, writing books, or enjoying meals with a 20 percent seniors’ discount,” as he wrote at the time, ran for vice-president under the presidential campaign of Leody de Guzman of the socialist Partido Lakas ng Masa. This campaign broke new ground: it was the first openly socialist presidential campaign in Philippine history. Despite its ultimately disappointing electoral result, it brought socialist ideas to a broader audience and provided valuable experience for the future.

One does not need to agree with Bello’s views—for example, on the collapse of the Soviet Union, which he refers to as “socialist”— to be informed and entertained by Global Battlefields. One of Bello’s most charming characteristics is that although he takes politics seriously, he also finds joy in the struggle. From dressing up as Kermit the Frog in front of the IMF headquarters to occupying the Philippine embassy or bluntly declaring “fuck you Marcos” on prime time television to then candidate and now President Marcos Jr. in 2021, Bello has a flair for the dramatic. When police came to arrest him in 2022 after the Duterte camp filed libel charges, Bello insisted that police put handcuffs on him, the seventy-six-year-old former congressman.

Apparently Walden Bello needed some convincing from friends before deciding to write his memoirs. It is good that they convinced him.

Opinions expressed in signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Tempest Collective. For more information, see “About Tempest Collective.”

Featured Image credit: Marcello Casal Jr.; modified by Tempest.

The post An internationalist looks back  appeared first on Tempest.

Madhuresh Kumar

Over the past few years, the phrase “just transition” has travelled across climate policy corridors, from international negotiations to national energy plans. It suggests a promise: of fairness, of repair, of moving away from fossil fuels without leaving …

Each summer, as the spring snowpack dwindles and stream flows recede, work crews put on their waders, grab a variety of tools, and get to work restoring Colorado’s natural stream systems...

Image description: Event flyer that reads “State Transit Funding, Updates form Harrisburg, and HOW WE’LL WIN Statewise Virtual Call July 29 5:50-7pm bit.ly/729transit” Join us for a statewide all-hands call to learn what’s happening with the PA budget, and how we can win Transit for All PA! Tuesday, 7/29, 5:30-7 on Zoom RSVP on Mobilize

We know that public transit is a lifeline for everyone in Pennsylvania, no matter if they live in small towns, big cities, suburbs, or rural areas. But funding for transit is in peril in all 67 counties of our state.

Legislators have once again missed the state budget deadline of June 30th, so it’s time to put the pressure on. We’re running a campaign telling Harrisburg: no budget without transit! We need a budget that prevents transit system collapse across the state.

Join our meeting to connect with transit advocates across the state, and learn:

• What’s happened in Harrisburg so far regarding the transit budget
• How our movement has grown, adapted, and driven this fight
• What’s next for our movement, and how we can win expanded, equitable transit for all 67 counties

The fight for transit that truly meets our needs–whether we live in Pittsburgh or Pottstown, Altoona or Allentown–is far from over. Though we’re past the deadline, we expect PA to pass a budget soon, and we know we’re in for a long fight for transit restoration and expansion. Join our statewide all-call for an update on where our fight goes from here!

Accessibility

• This event meets ADA standards
• ASL interpretation
• Live captioning
• Audio descriptions for video
• Notes from the organizer: This virtual event will offer live captioning, alongside ASL interpretation.
• Have accessibility questions? Reply to your registration email to confirm your requirements or request more information.

RSVP on Mobilize

The post Transit for All PA! Statewide All-Hands Call on July 29th appeared first on Pittsburghers for Public Transit.

By Anne Hedges, Daily Montanan You can’t take your bird dog hunting on lands being mined or filled with oil rigs, even if they are “public” lands. While Montanans were right to celebrate removing the sale of public lands from the recent Congressional budget bill, some may not know that our representatives still voted to …

The post Montana Congressional delegation’s public lands bait-and-switch appeared first on Montana Environmental Information Center - MEIC.

We all learn from a young age about the three branches of government, but what they actually mean for protecting Alaska’s public lands often feels murky. How we affect change varies drastically based on which branch we’re trying to shake.

When it comes to decisions like drilling in the Arctic Refuge, protecting Special Areas, or opening the Arctic Ocean to oil exploration, the Executive Branch—especially the Department of the Interior—holds the power. These decisions don’t go through Congress. They happen in federal agencies, under whichever administration is in charge.

That’s where public comment periods come in—and why they matter more than you might think.

When You Speak, They Have To Listen

Image: Public Comment Project

When federal agencies want to create, change, or roll back a regulation, they’re usually required by law to open it up for public input. That means you have the right to weigh in—whether you’re a scientist, a teacher, a guide, or someone who just loves our public lands. And yes, your voice counts even if you’re not an “expert.” You care. That’s enough.

Many of our major issues undergo a comment period–such as the most recent proposed rescission of Special Areas regulations.  During friendly administrations, comment periods allow us to offer positive and science-based feedback in favor of additional conservation measures. .

Under less friendly administrations like the current Trump administration, we function under more difficult circumstances. Recently, public comment periods have been shortened, rule changes have come quickly, and the push toward industrialization of the Arctic feels relentless. While the typical length of a comment period ranges anywhere from 30-60 days, we’ve seen more truncated timelines (some as short as 14 days!) in an attempt to stifle engagement and show limited opposition.

But showing up still matters. Every comment is a signal: We are watching. We are paying attention. And we are not backing down.

Even when we can’t stop a bad rule today, our comments are added to the official record. They stand as proof—for future courts, future lawmakers, and future administrations—that people cared, resisted, and made their voices heard. And ultimately, agencies are not allowed to base their final decision based on the number of comments submitted. We don’t have to be an overwhelming majority, but we do need to get our voices on the record.

Why Comments Are More Than a Formality

Our end goal with most comment periods is to submit enough evidence and opposition that the agency can terminate the rulemaking or change parts of the rule to reflect our feedback.

However, it’s abundantly clear that this Administration is NOT operating under normal circumstances. As we endure another Trump administration, the most important thing we can do is refuse to remain silent when the sacred lands in the Arctic remain threatened.

We’re given very few chances to influence government decision-making outside of elections. That’s why participating in public comment periods isn’t just a bureaucratic checkbox—it’s a civic responsibility. In a time when civil liberties feel increasingly fragile, the power to raise our collective voice should never be underestimated.

These comments do more than respond to a single rule—they leave a record. They stand as a testament to our values, documenting our dissent or support no matter who holds power. When we clearly outline the reasons we oppose harmful policies, we help pave the way for future change under more responsive leadership.

We’ve never been quiet about our love for the Arctic. Fragile ecosystems, globally significant wildlife, and Indigenous communities depend on us to engage with even the most complex, behind-the-scenes processes—and to do so with unwavering commitment to conservation over industrial development.

Keep Showing Up!

Over 1,000 people rallied at the White House and marched to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, calling on the Obama administration to stop offshore drilling and protect the Arctic, Atlantic, and Gulf Coast. (Photo: Alaska Wilderness league - Mladen Mates)

Whether it’s during elections, major legislative fights, or public comment periods, your continued engagement is what makes this movement strong. It’s how we show up as the fiercest advocates for the places we love.

At Alaska Wilderness League, we’re deeply grateful for the longtime defenders who’ve been in this fight for decades—and we’re just as excited to welcome those who are new to the cause. Time and again, our members rise to the moment: signing petitions, submitting comments, and making their voices heard when it matters most.

We’ll always honor that legacy by continuing to campaign for real change.

You can always find the most urgent public comment opportunities on our homepage. And if you haven’t yet, sign up for our email list to get timely updates delivered straight to your inbox.

The post What Good is a Public Comment Period? appeared first on Alaska Wilderness League.

Joint blog by MiningWatch Canada and Earthworks

Versión en español a continuación

People living near the world’s sixth-largest gold mine are taking legal action to protect their communities, ecosystems, and their rights.

Local communities and civil society organizations have filed two constitutional protection actions (amparos) calling for an immediate halt to Barrick Mining Corporation’s recent efforts to begin construction of their massive new dam that would hold mine waste, including tailings and waste rock. 

The “Naranjo Tailings Storage Facility (TSF),” as it is known, is adjacent to Barrick’s Pueblo Viejo gold and silver mine in Sánchez Ramírez province. Hundreds of families living in six nearby rural communities are concerned that the project poses serious risks to the land, water, and their health. 

Concerns about Environmental and Social Risks

An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) conducted by Barrick for the Naranjo project, submitted in 2022 and released to the public in 2023, proposes the disposing of 344.7 million tons of tailings and 452.7 million tons of potentially acid-generating waste rock in the facility. The ESIA has faced strong criticism from U.S.-based geophysicist Dr. Steven Emerman and community advocates who contend that it lacks crucial data. 

Barrick has stated that the existing El Llagal tailings dam will reach capacity by 2027, necessitating the construction of a second, new mine waste facility. Barrick has classified the consequences of the proposed Naranjo facility—planned to operate until 2049—as “Extreme” meaning that a dam failure is predicted to result in over 100 fatalities. Dr. Emerman estimates that a dam failure could impact a 227-kilometer area that includes key waterways including the Maguaca and Yuna Rivers, Hatillo Lake, and ends at the Bay of Samaná. 

Growing Protests and Opposition

Tensions escalated on January 8, 2025 when, according to multiple media reports, police and military forces converged on the community of Zambrana in what community members believe was an attempted violent eviction. Security forces used tear gas and rubble bullets, and eight people were injured, including a local priest.

In response, community members have engaged in peaceful protests, including chaining themselves to trees to prevent deforestation and ecological destruction. On May 30, 2025, tensions rose again. Military forces “dispersed with gunshots and tear gas” protestors who denounced the arrest of community members. Community members believe that a neighbor, Jesús Tejada, “died from a heart attack” because of the tear gas bombs the police launched. Barrick contends that “the process has been negatively impacted by a small group of individuals who are, among other things, instigating the illegal blockage of public roads to serve their own economic self-interest.”

Legal Action Submitted to Protect Rights and the Environment

In response to the escalating crisis, local communities—supported by organizations such as the Institute of Lawyers for the Protection of the Environment (INSAPROMA)—have recently filed two constitutional protection actions before the Superior Administrative Court. The filings argue that the Naranjo project violates rights enshrined in the Dominican Constitution, including their rights to life, health, dignity, water, food security, and a healthy environment.

These petitions call for an immediate halt to all construction activities and the cancellation of related environmental permits. They also demand an independent safety review of both the existing and the proposed dams, public release of all findings, and a thorough evaluation of safer waste disposal options.

The petitions further request a moratorium on tree felling and road construction near the Naranjo River; a reviewed environmental and social impact assessment that meets international standards; a funded plan for ongoing monitoring, maintenance, and water treatment post-mine closure; and a detailed hydrogeological risk and mitigation plan. 

Through these legal actions, communities are seeking to defend their rights, protect vital ecosystems, and demand accountability from both the government and Barrick in the face of intensifying industrial threats. A hearing is scheduled for August 5, 2025.

Please see Barrick’s response to an earlier draft of this blog.

Comunidades en riesgo: nueva presa de relaves de Barrick desata preocupaciones sobre el medioambiente y los derechos humanos en la República Dominicana

Los residentes que viven cerca de la sexta mina de oro más grande del mundo han emprendido acciones legales para proteger sus comunidades, ecosistemas y derechos.

Comunidades locales y organizaciones de la sociedad civil han presentado dos recursos de amparo constitucional, solicitando la suspensión inmediata de los recientes esfuerzos de Barrick Mining Corporation para iniciar la construcción de una nueva inmensa  presa que albergaría los desechos mineros que incluye relaves y la roca estéril.

La Instalación de Almacenamiento de Relaves El Naranjo, como se la conoce, se encuentra junto a la mina de oro y plata de Barrick en Pueblo Viejo, en la provincia de Sánchez Ramírez.  Cientos de familias que habitan en seis comunidades rurales cercanas advierten que el proyecto representa graves riesgos para la tierra, el agua y su salud.

Preocupaciones ambientales y sociales

La evaluación de impacto ambiental y social (ESIA) realizada por Barrick para el proyecto El Naranjo, presentada en 2022 y publicada en 2023, propone el depósito de 344,7 millones de toneladas de residuos y 452,7 millones de toneladas de roca estéril potencialmente generadora de ácido en la instalación. La ESIA ha sido objeto de  críticas por parte del experto geofísico estadounidense Dr. Steven Emerman y las comunidades, quienes sostienen que carece de datos esenciales para evaluar adecuadamente los riesgos.

Según Barrick, la actual presa de relaves El Llagal alcanzará su capacidad máxima en 2027, lo que hace necesaria la construcción de una segunda instalación para residuos mineros. Barrick ha clasificado las consecuencias de un posible colapso del depósito El Naranjo, como “extrema”, lo que significa que una falla de la presa podría ocasionar más de 100 muertes. El Dr. Emerman estima que  una falla de la presa podría afectar una zona de 227 kilómetros, que incluye cursos de agua como los ríos Maguaca y Yuna, el lago Hatillo y la bahía de Samaná.

Crecientes protestas y oposición

Las tensiones se intensificaron el 8 de enero de 2025, cuando según varios informes de los medios, la policía y las fuerzas militares se concentraron en la comunidad de Zambrana en los que los miembros de la comunidad consideran un intento de desalojo violento. Las fuerzas de seguridad usaron gases lacrimógenos, balas de goma, y ocho personas resultaron heridas, entre ellas un sacerdote local.

En respuesta, los miembros de la comunidad han participado en protestas pacíficas, como encadenarse a los árboles para impedir la deforestación y la destrucción ecológica. El 30 de mayo de 2025, las tensiones escalaron cuando fuerzas militares “dispersaron con disparos y gases lacrimógenos” a manifestantes que denunciaban la detención de varios miembros de la comunidad. La comunidad sostiene que un vecino, Jesús Tejada, “murió de un ataque al corazón” a causa de las bombas de gas lacrimógeno lanzadas por la policía. Por su parte, Barrick declaró que “el proceso se ha visto afectado negativamente por un pequeño grupo de personas que, entre otras cosas, están instigando el bloqueo ilegal de las vías públicas para servir a sus propios intereses económicos”.

Acciones legales para proteger los derechos y el medio ambiente

En respuesta a la creciente crisis, las comunidades locales, con el apoyo de organizaciones como el Instituto de Abogados para la Protección del Medio Ambiente (INSAPROMA), presentaron recientemente dos recursos de amparo ante el Tribunal Superior Administrativo. Las demandas sostienen que el proyecto El Naranjo viola derechos fundamentales consagrados en la Constitución dominicana, incluyendo el derecho a la vida, la salud, la dignidad, el agua, la seguridad alimentaria y un medio ambiente saludable.

Estas peticiones exigen la suspensión inmediata de todas las actividades de construcción y la cancelación de los permisos ambientales correspondientes. También exigen una revisión independiente de la seguridad de las presas existente y propuesta, la divulgación pública de todos los resultados, y una evaluación exhaustiva de opciones más seguras para la eliminación de residuos.

Así mismo solicitan una moratoria de la tala de árboles y la construcción de carreteras cerca del río Naranjo; una revisión de la evaluación de impacto ambiental y social que cumpla con los estándares internacionales; un plan financiado para el monitoreo continuo, el mantenimiento y el tratamiento del agua después del cierre de la mina; y un plan detallado de riesgos hidrogeológicos y de mitigación.

A través de estas acciones legales, las comunidades buscan defender sus derechos, proteger ecosistemas vitales y exigir responsabilidades tanto al gobierno como a Barrick ante la intensificación de las amenazas industriales. La audiencia está programada para el 5 de agosto de 2025.

Ver la respuesta de Barrick a un borrador de este blog.

The post Communities at Risk: New Barrick Tailings Dam Sparks Environmental and Human Rights Concerns in the Dominican Republic  appeared first on Earthworks.

WASHINGTON – National Farmers Union (NFU) proudly supports the Strengthening Local Food Security Act, introduced today by Senators Justice and Reed. This vital legislation establishes a federal program to fund […]

The post NFU Celebrates Introduction of the Strengthening Local Food Security Act first appeared on National Farmers Union.

NEW YORK, NY (July 22, 2025) — The National Audubon Society has certified all 15 family ranches in the Thousand Hills Lifetime Grazed network across the Great Plains and Midwest as Audubon...

Image description: Photo of dozens of riders holding signs behind a speaker at the Save Our Service rally in May. Pittsburgh Regional Transit’s Board Meeting is scheduled for Friday, 7/25 at 9:30 am, and we want to make sure they hear our voices loud and clear. Register with us by Tuesday, 7/22 and we will make sure you’re signed up and prepared to speak online or in-person at the PRT Board Meeting. RSVP here to testify!

Pittsburgh Regional Transit and ACCESS Riders are facing catastrophic service cuts and fare increases starting Feb 2026, and our state legislature has still not passed a budget that includes transit funding.

And so, while we continue to put pressure on our state legislature to do their job, we are demanding the following actions from Pittsburgh Regional Transit now: 

• DELAY THE SERVICE CUTS. Pittsburgh Regional Transit has the ability to use some of their reserves to delay the proposed February 2026 service cuts until October 2026. Although using PRT’s limited reserve funding is not a long-term or sustainable solution, it is currently necessary to give the agency, PA legislators and riders the time to ensure that the Governor’s budget proposal for transit passes, and to give us the ability to fight for more transit funding next year. The harms of the proposed 35% fixed route transit and 62% ACCESS service cuts will be catastrophic to our communities and very hard or impossible to reverse. 

• STOP FARE INCREASES. There seems to be some push from the state legislature to increase transit fare costs even if state funding comes through. Pittsburgh Regional Transit currently has the 10th highest fares in the country, and increasing from $2.75 to $3 fares would make our transit more expensive than the MTA in New York City. The cost of living is already going through the roof for working and low-income people, and this would be an additional hardship. We also know that increasing fares decreases ridership, and so any revenue benefit from increased fare costs will likely be offset by having fewer riders. 

• MAKE ALLEGHENY GO A ZERO FARE PROGRAM. Now is the time for transit cost relief for low-income families. For the last 8 years, we have been clear that we are organizing for a fully zero fare low-income fare program that is funded by the County Department of Human Services (DHS). The County Executive and DHS have publicly supported this goal. The permanent low-income fare program we won last year, Allegheny Go, is currently only a half-fare program. Now is the time to transition Allegheny Go from a half-fare to fully zero fare program (particularly if fares are proposed to be raised further), and utilizing DHS funding will help us do this even if we do not win additional funding from Harrisburg. We are calling on PRT to provide the cost estimate and implementation plan for the County Department of Human Services to transition Allegheny Go to a fully zero fare program. 

RSVP to join us and give testimonhy on 7/25. Read on Below to Understand the Latest and For Talking Points for the PRT Board Meeting.  What’s Going On with the State Budget and Proposed PRT Cuts

Pittsburgh Regional Transit projects that in coming years their expenses will be higher than their income, because the level of state funding for transit has not increased in over a decade. They- like other transit agencies across the state including Philadelphia’s SEPTA system and Allentown’s LANTA system– are projecting the need for big service cuts next year to account for that. The service cuts PRT are proposing to implement starting February next year are huge and terrible- 35% service cuts to fixed route transit (the complete elimination of 40 bus lines and the Silver line), 62% cuts to ACCESS services (severely limiting where people can take ACCESS to and from), no transit after 11 pm, and significant fare increases to $3.00 for fixed route transit and increases of between 14-24% for ACCESS fares.

Our Pennsylvania state legislators were supposed to pass a budget by the deadline of June 30th. However, they have missed their deadline and to date have not passed a budget. 

There is a proposal that Pennsylvania legislators are considering based on Governor Shapiro’s budget proposal. The Governor’s proposal would increase the allocation of the existing sales tax to transit by 1.75% – and while that is better than nothing, it would only provide Pittsburgh Regional Transit $40 million of the anticipated $100 million they need next year to maintain existing levels of service. We also know that existing levels of service are themselves not meeting our needs. 

So although the Governor’s proposal is important to pass right now – as a band aid solution – we (as Transit for All PA!) will continue to organize for a bigger, dedicated pot of money in the coming year that allows PRT (and all PA transit agencies) to not just maintain existing levels of service but restore the 20% of service that has been cut over the last 5 years of the pandemic.

Our organizing is working! Pennsylvania legislators have been hearing our demands loud and clear that they cannot pass a budget without transit funding, AND that maintaining our transit service status quo is not enough. That is why there are proposals at the negotiating table – including our Transit for All PA funding package – that would enable agencies all around the Commonwealth to restore and expand transit to fully meet our needs.

Need help writing your testimony for the PRT Board? Use these talking points below to help uplift the demands listed at the start of this blog:

• Talk about the impacts of the proposed Pittsburgh Regional Transit fixed bus/rail service cuts and ACCESS cuts to you/your community. You can find a summary here (scroll to bottom to see eliminated bus lines. It is useful to say how your life would be impacted even if the cuts were temporary.

• Talk about all the advocacy you have done to fight for state funding – signing petitions, meeting with legislators, rallying in Harrisburg, canvassing/petitioning, phonebanking riders in other communities, speaking up at the PRT service hearings, or developing transit funding solutions and transit communications in the PPT research or comms committees. We want to highlight how we are doing our part, and will continue to fight for funding, but PRT needs to do theirs by providing PA legislators and riders with more time to negotiate a full transit funding solution. 

• Talk about the impacts of proposed fare increases on you/your community. Share stories about the high cost of living and the high cost of transit fares, and why we both need to prevent further fare increases AND transition Allegheny GO into a fare free program for low-income riders. Talk about the benefit of that to you and your communities.

The post Tell Pittsburgh Regional Transit on 7/25: Delay the Service Cuts and Ensure that Transit Fares are Affordable to All  appeared first on Pittsburghers for Public Transit.

Copper futures hit a new record on Tuesday as the US market continues to brace itself for a 50% tariff next month.

The most active September contracts on the CME soared as much as 1.6% to $5.732 per lb., a new all-time high.

Since US President Donald Trump’s tariff announcement earlier this month, copper prices have soared past the $5/lb. level to new heights. Following a double-digit move on July 8 (see chart below), the metal has risen by another 2%.

Click on chart for live prices.

This takes copper’s year-to-date gains to over 40%, making it one of the best performing commodities of 2025, even surpassing that of gold.

Meanwhile, corresponding contracts in London rose 0.8% to approximately $9,860 a tonne.

Despite the rally, ANZ Bank analysts told Reuters that the copper tariff is expected to lead the US market to rely more heavily on domestic inventories in the near term, which could place downward pressure on prices in both New York and London.

Meanwhile, copper inflows into the US have slowed as traders prepare for the implementation of tariffs ahead of the August 1 deadline.

From Texas clear to Georgia, from the Gulf Coast on up to the Canadian border, a mass of dangerous heat has started spreading like an atmospheric plague. In the days and perhaps even weeks ahead, a high-pressure system, known as a heat dome, will drive temperatures over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in some places, impacting some 160 million Americans. Extra-high humidity will make that weather even more perilous — while the thermometer may read 100, it might actually feel more like 110. 

So what exactly is a heat dome, and why does it last so long? And what gives with all the extra moisture? 

A heat dome is a self-reinforcing machine of misery. It’s a system of high-pressure air, which sinks from a few thousand feet up and compresses as it gets closer to the ground. When molecules in the air have less space, they bump into each other and heat up. “I think about it like a mosh pit,” said Shel Winkley, the weather and climate engagement specialist at the research group Climate Central. “Everybody’s moving around and bumping into each other, and it gets hotter.”

But these soaring temperatures aren’t happening on their own with this heat dome. The high pressure also discourages the formation of clouds, which typically need rising air. “There’s going to be very little in the way of cloudiness, so it’ll be a lot of sunshine which, in turn, will warm the atmosphere even more,” said AccuWeather senior meteorologist Tom Kines. “You’re just kind of trapping that hot air over one part of the country.”

In the beginning, a heat dome evaporates moisture in the soil, which provides a bit of cooling. But then, the evaporation will significantly raise humidity. (A major contributor during this month’s heat dome will be the swaths of corn crops across the central U.S., which could help raise humidity in states like Minnesota, Iowa, and Indiana above that of Florida.) This sort of high pressure system also grabs moisture from the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, which evaporate more water the hotter they get. And generally speaking, the warmer the atmosphere becomes, the more moisture it can hold. Once that moisture in the landscape is all gone, more heat accumulates — and more and more. A heat dome, then, essentially feeds off itself, potentially for weeks, a sort of giant blow drier pointed at the landscape. 

On their own, temperatures soaring over 100 are bad enough for human health. Such high humidity makes it even harder for the human body to cool itself, because it’s harder for sweat to evaporate. Hence 100 degrees on the thermometer feeling more like 110. The elderly and very young can’t cool their bodies as efficiently, putting them at higher risk. Those with heart conditions are also vulnerable, because the human body tries to cool itself by pumping more blood. And those with outdoor jobs — construction workers, garbage collectors, delivery drivers on bikes or scooters — have little choice but to toil in the heat, with vanishingly few laws to protect them.

Read Next After deadly flash floods, a Texas town takes halting, painful steps toward recovery Naveena Sadasivam

The humidity effect is especially pronounced in areas whose soils are soaked with recent rainfall, like central Texas, which earlier this month suffered catastrophic flooding. There’s the potential for “compound disasters” here: relief efforts in inundated areas like Kerr County now have to reckon with soaring temperatures as well. The Gulf of Mexico provided the moisture that made the flooding so bad, and now it’s providing additional humidity during the heat dome.

A heat dome gets all the more dangerous the longer it stagnates on the landscape. And unfortunately, climate change is making these sorts of heat waves longer and more intense. According to Climate Central, climate change made this heat dome at least five times more likely. “These temperatures aren’t necessarily impossible, but they’d be very hard to happen without a fingerprint of climate change,” Winkley said.

Summer nights are warming almost twice as fast as summer days, Winkley adds, which makes heat waves all the more dangerous. As this heat dome takes hold, nighttime low temperatures may go up 15 degrees above average. For those without air conditioning — or who can’t afford to run it even if they have AC — their homes will swelter through the night, the time when temperatures are supposed to come down and give respite. Without that, the stress builds and builds, especially for those vulnerable groups. 

“When you look at this heat wave, yes, it is going to be uncomfortable during the day,” Winkley said. “But it’s especially those nighttime temperatures that are the big blinking red light that this is a climate change-boosted event.”

Grist has a comprehensive guide to help you stay ready and informed before, during, and after a disaster.

• Explore the full Disaster 101 resource guide for more on your rights and options when disaster hits.

• Are you affected by the flooding in Texas? Learn how to navigate disaster relief and response.

• Get prepared. Learn how to be ready for a disaster before you’re affected.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The science behind the heat dome — ‘a mosh pit’ of molecules on Jul 22, 2025.

If you live in California and have been following the news recently, there’s a four-letter acronym that you haven’t been able to escape seeing or hearing: CEQA.

On June 30th, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a pair of major reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, that will significantly reshape how and where the law applies.

In the immediate aftermath, the only clear winner was hyperbole. Media coverage ran the gamut from exuberant to cataclysmic, with pundits and opinion writers predicting either a historic end to California’s housing woes or the destruction of our premier environmental law as we know it.  Within hours of the changes, pieces began popping up with titles such as “How The Enviros Lost CEQA” (Politico) and “California Rolls Back Its Landmark Environmental Law” (New York Times).  Housing advocates heralded the changes as monumental steps for new homebuilding, with Calmatters writing that “One Of The Biggest Obstacles to Building New CA Housing Has Now Vanished.” At the same time, many environmental organizations excoriated the governor for what they have referred to as “the worst anti-environment bill in recent memory” and “an unprecedented rollback to California’s fundamental environmental and community protections.”

Much of what has been written on these changes in traditional media has provided a range of opinions, but little in the way of substance. Amidst all the fervor and fury, and with the dust now beginning to settle, many are left wondering how this all unfolded and what the new laws do. We unpack what happened and what we expect next below:

The Backstory

To understand the events of late June, we have to begin at the start of the legislative session in January. At the time, two new CEQA reform measures were introduced: AB 609, by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, and SB 607, by Senator Scott Wiener.

AB 609 created an exemption from CEQA as a statute for projects that are deemed “environmentally friendly” housing.  The bill was limited to housing in incorporated areas and census-designated places (infill), included a minimum density requirement, would not apply on sites larger than 20 acres, and established a list of criteria to ensure developers could not use the law to build on environmentally sensitive areas, such as wetlands, critical species habitat, or contaminated areas. Crucially, usage of AB 609 was restricted to parcels that had either been developed before or were 75% surrounded by urban uses, preventing it from being used to build sprawling greenfield developments.

Greenbelt Alliance proudly supported AB 609, as we believed it to be a straightforward solution to a vexing problem: the misuse of CEQA to stall badly needed infill housing projects. Read our take on AB 609 here.

SB 607, in contrast, was broader in scope, more complex, and immediately controversial.  The bill exempted a swath of different types of projects (not just infill housing) from environmental review and proposed to fundamentally alter CEQA in several critical ways.

First, the bill introduced what has become known as the “near miss” concept, allowing projects of all types that narrowly failed to qualify for full exemptions to still benefit from streamlined review under certain conditions.

Next, it placed new limitations on the scope of the administrative record (restricting what materials courts could consider during CEQA litigation), required the mapping of all infill areas statewide by the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and exempted housing element rezonings from CEQA, provided they met specific statutory criteria.

Finally, and most importantly, SB607 proposed redefining CEQA’s evidentiary standard, raising the threshold for challengers to demonstrate that a project would result in significant environmental impacts.  This change would have marked a fundamental shift in how the law functions and prompted the most controversy and outcry.

To The Budget We Go

Both AB 609 and SB 607 were proceeding apace in the legislative session, making their way through various committee hearings as the authors engaged with stakeholders, committee staff, and other legislators. However, business as usual was upended by an announcement from Governor Gavin Newsom in mid-May: as part of the budget revision process that would occur over the next month, the Governor wanted language from both CEQA reform bills to be folded into budget trailer bills, legislation which implements the budget itself, declaring that California needed to “remove endless regulatory delays that have held us back for decades.”

After the May 15th announcement, legislative leadership (Senate Pro Tempore McGuire and Assembly Speaker Rivas), the Governor’s Office, and the authors of the bills came together to work out an agreement on what language would make it into the final bill. This caused considerable consternation amongst critics of the legislation: the process was opaque, and many advocates were unable to lobby the legislature in the way they were accustomed to. But despite pressure from advocates, the Governor made his position very clear: there would be no budget deal without significant reforms to CEQA, and leadership would have to come to the table and negotiate to get it done.

The Saga Concludes Jordan Grimes and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks at the AB 130 Press Conference, on June 30.

Everything came to a head during the last week of June, when the budget trailer bills themselves were released. AB 609 remained functionally intact and became AB/SB 130. After contentious last-minute negotiations over labor language, a deal was eventually struck: projects under 85ft, or 8 stories, would not be automatically required to use union labor. Projects above 85ft, however, would. Though some opposition and concern remained, the bill passed through both committee and floor votes without much fanfare.

The provisions of SB 607, now in print as AB/SB131, were modified significantly: the “near miss” provision was scaled back and now only applied to housing projects; the limitations on what documents can be included in the administrative record were pared back; and, critically, the major modifications to and weakening of CEQA’s evidentiary standard – that previously had many environmentalists apoplectic – was struck.  A more comprehensive analysis of all provisions can be found at the resource at the end of the blog.

Despite those significant wins by advocates initially opposed to the bill, including labor unions and environmental organizations, the 11th-hour addition of a broad exemption for advanced manufacturing facilities and concerns that provisions to protect sensitive habitat and species were not comprehensive enough roused environmentalists to mount a final push to stop the bill that was ultimately unsuccessful. After hours of testimony, a litany of questions from other senators, and acknowledgment of the desire to address potential unintended consequences of the bill via subsequent clean-up legislation, it passed out of both the Senate Budget Committee and the floor of the legislature.

Hours later, Governor Newsom signed both AB/SB 130 and AB/SB 131 into law. They became effective immediately, ushering in a new era of CEQA.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Despite the rhetoric surrounding the CEQA reform package, there is cause for both optimism and concern, as well as a clear need for continued action in the near term.

Many of these reforms are truly monumental and will help make California a more sustainable and equitable place. Building more homes in already developed areas, known as infill, is essential to meeting our climate goals and preserving natural and working lands. Ensuring that CEQA can no longer be misused to block environmentally beneficial infill housing is a long-overdue achievement and one worthy of celebration.

At the same time, however, serious issues remain.  As UC Berkeley environmental law professor Eric Biber points out, the bill’s list of protected lands and natural areas is woefully inadequate, leaving species and habitat far too vulnerable to potential harm.  Additionally, the broad nature of the advanced manufacturing provisions is cause for considerable concern–groups like California Forever, for example, are already clamoring at the prospect of utilizing those parts of the law to develop industrial megaprojects in greenfield areas.  As environmental advocates, we will need to remain vigilant and push for stronger safeguards, including during the legislative cleanup process that will unfold in the near future.

Ultimately, our work, as always, is far from over. Greenbelt Alliance remains committed to advancing policies that deliver the housing Californians need while safeguarding the environment we love, cherish, and depend on.

Additional information can be found on a new CEQA exemption briefing for economic development released by the California Association for Local Economic Development (CALED).

The post Now You CEQA, Now You Don’t: Unpacking Major New Reforms to the California Environmental Quality Act appeared first on Greenbelt Alliance.

Feathers can turn up in some unusual places: The nostrils of a murder victim who was smothered with a pillow. The cockpit of a jet that hit a flock of geese and crashed. Even the dryer lint trap of...

Nurses at USC Keck & Norris Hospitals in Los Angeles, California will hold an informational picket on July 24 to protest the administration’s refusal to address RNs’ deep concerns about safe staffing and patient care issues.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) recently released a report entitled “Transforming Food and Agriculture Through a Systems Approach.” Published ahead of the U.N. Food Systems Summit +4 Stocktake (UNFSS+4), this food systems transformation report tries to lay the groundwork for governments to make unified, strategic efforts in addressing mounting food security challenges globally.

The report, authored by Corinna Hawkes, Director of the Agrifood Systems and Food Safety Division at the FAO, aims to demystify an interconnected approach to transforming food and agriculture. Hawkes argues that systems thinking isn’t a buzzword; it’s a necessary shift if the world hopes to solve overlapping food, health, and environmental challenges.

Hawkes links this call for transformation to her high expectations for the upcoming UNFSS+4. This year’s event provides an opportunity for countries to reflect on progress since the 2021 U.N. Food Systems Summit and first Stocktake in 2023, and align on next steps for food system reform.

UNFSS+4 “will create a greater sense of solidarity between countries,” Hawkes tells Food Tank. She also shares that, “at a deeper level, this is what I believe is key to multilateralism: a sense, a feeling that it’s better to work together on issues of common interest, and there is so much that can be learned from each other.”

This spirit of collaboration and shared learning is at the heart of “Transforming Food and Agriculture Through a Systems Approach.” The report argues that real progress requires interconnected, system-wide solutions. And it highlights case studies, called “pockets of progress,” from around the globe to show where this is already happening.

Ethiopia, for example, has brought different ministries together to create a holistic plan that improves food systems, health, and sustainability since 2021. Supported by cross-ministerial coordination and monitoring aligned with national, regional, and global goals, the country is now sharing lessons learned from the process. And in Switzerland, the government worked to improve agrifood policy by applying true cost accounting to expose hidden social, environmental, and economic costs—fostering transparent, evidence-based decisions across sectors.

This food systems transformation report highlights six core elements to help policymakers and practitioners think, organize, and act differently. These include systems thinking, systems knowledge, systems governance, systems doing, systems investment, and systems learning.

The approach the report advocates for begins with systems thinking, Hawkes writes. Practitioners start a systems approach by identifying how different parts of agrifood systems connect and who needs to be involved. It helps build a shared vision and pinpoint key opportunities for change. Systems thinking relies on systems knowledge, which draws on diverse evidence to uncover root causes, anticipate impacts, and support better decision-making.

Effective systems governance coordinates sectors, shares leadership, and addresses power imbalances to unite efforts and ensure equity. Furthermore, systems doing focuses on aligning actions, policies, and programs to work together smoothly, maximizing impact rather than working in silos. Systems investment can provide the long-term funding needed for transformation. And systems learning embeds ongoing monitoring, adaptation, and knowledge-sharing to improve strategies over time. This can help governments respond to the ever-changing complexities of agrifood systems.

Overall, the six elements aim not just to inform, but to guide concrete, coordinated action. And Hawkes believes that the momentum to employ this systems based approach is growing. “Countries are not about starting from the beginning – they are already making the shift, as the examples in the report show,” she tells Food Tank.

Hawkes emphasizes that she wants to see the report support that shift in mindset and action: “I hope this report stimulates policymakers and practitioners to ask the question: What does taking a systems approach mean for what we need to do differently? What does it mean to me?”

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 Chantal Garnier, Unsplash

The post FAO Report Calls for System-Wide Action on Food and Agriculture appeared first on Food Tank.

image description: event flyer has a photo of a Penn Penn Plaza Support & Action rally with text that says “Penn Plaza 10 Year Commemoration Rally for Justice & Action on Affordable Housing. Monday July 28 6pm Enright Park” Join the 10-Year Penn Plaza Rally to Demand Affordable Housing Solutions NOW – July 28th, 6-8pm, East Liberty RSVP HERE Ten Years Later: Penn Plaza Refugees Speak Out and Demand Action on Affordable Housing

It’s been ten years since the mass displacement of hundreds of residents of the Penn Plaza apartment buildings in East Liberty, at the intersection of Penn and Negley. The site where Penn Plaza stood held over 300 affordable apartments where families had lived for more than 40 years… While a Whole Foods and a massive parking garage now occupy the same site that used to hold hundreds of affordable apartments, the struggle continues to fight displacement and keep Pittsburgh home for all.

Pittsburgh’s Housing Justice movement has had some serious wins that have been propelled by the resident-led movement to fight the Penn Plaza evictions. On this 10-year anniversary of the evictions, past residents, neighbors, and supporters are getting together to honor the Penn Plaza story, reflect on lessons, and uplift housing justice demands.

Join us on July 28th, 6-8pm, starting in Enright Park in East Liberty for a rally and march through East Liberty. We will hear from residents who were evicted from Penn Plaza and remember the many who have died during (and because of) the displacement. We will walk down Penn Ave, stopping at the Kelly Strayhorn Theater where a black-led arts organization is under threat of displacement and other locations important to the Penn Plaza story. We will end at the corner of Penn Ave and Shady Ave where advocates were able to win affordable units that can house Section 8 voucher-holders, and demand that City Council pass an Inclusionary Zoning policy and make other important changes to ensure that other families will not experience the harms that the Penn Plaza refugees have lived through.

RSVP for the Rally & March on July 28th Video Description: featuring Helen Gerhardt, of PPT and Just Harvest, and Myrtle and Mabel, Penn Plaza refugees and members of the Penn Plaza Support and Action Coalition The Story of Penn Plaza

In 2015, hundreds of residents, many of them seniors, received a letter from LG Realty that they would be required to move within ninety days. It was clear that the company had planned this for years and would be forcing hundreds of long-time residents from their homes with short notice. Most of the residents had lived in East Liberty for decades and had built community and networks of support there. With the accelerating gentrification happening in the neighborhood, they could not find housing nearby.

This sparked community outrage and hundreds mobilized to defend their homes, communities, and neighbors, culminating in the Penn Plaza Support and Action Coalition, of which PPT played a key role. 

LG Realty failed to meet even the minimum requirements of the Memorandum of Agreement with the residents before the sale took place. They turned off heat in the bitter cold winter months, started removing windows and asbestos tiling while residents were still living in the property, and sought to create an inhospitable and hostile environment. Most of the residents ended up in unstable housing situations, displaced to areas far outside the city with limited to no transit options, and were left with immense trauma from their forced removal. 

Penn Plaza is the largest mass displacement in recent Pittsburgh history, but it is far from the only one. In 2009, on a site right down the street from Penn Plaza, the 519 unit East Mall public housing was cleared to make way for the Target. During that decade, East Liberty street vendors and local businesses were also cleared in favor of luxury retail brands, tech offices, and national chains.  Despite the lessons of the early 2000s, the displacement of low-income families has only continued to accelerate. Census data shows that 7,000 people of color left the City of Pittsburgh in just the four years between 2014 and 2018.

The Penn Plaza struggle has become synonymous with the harms of gentrification and the consequences of a lack of a just housing policy in Pittsburgh. It brought the housing struggle front and center and forced the city to contend with the fight for housing justice as a fight that will not be silenced and cannot be ignored. 

The Penn Plaza Fight and Affordable Housing’s Relationship to Transit

Transit riders across the city are being pushed out of the City and away from access to good transit because of the lack of affordable housing. This is bad for transit riders and our transit system.

The East Liberty Transit Center, a key stop on the MLK East Busway, is located less than a half mile from the former Penn Plaza site. The Penn Plaza residents, many of whom were core transit riders, were forced to find housing in communities that have worse transit access – like Verona, North Versailles, and Penn Hills. This means it is even harder for these people to get to jobs, healthcare, food, schools, childcare and the social connections that are the foundation of a healthy, thriving life. And it means that out transit agency loses riders (which results in lower funding from the state, which results in transit cuts and fare hikes, which again lowers ridership…and the downward spiral continues!)

PPT continues to fight for dense and plentiful affordable housing in neighborhoods that have the best access to transit, grocery stores, jobs, and education because it helps transit riders and it helps our transit system. When we prioritze the needs of our most marginalized communities, and support our public systems, we benefit everyone.

Organizing for Solutions

Since 2015, PIttsburghers for Public Transit, along with partners in the Pittsburgh Housing Justice Table, have been organizing for solutions to ensure that low-income transit riders can afford to live in the communities that they call home- and where transit access is accessible and robust. In 2017, we hired Penn Plaza leader Crystal Rivera-Jennings as our Housing and Transit Organizer. She developed and led a survey of displaced transit riders, asking about the impacts of displacement on costs, time, and access to critical needs, and showing that the combination of housing insecurity and transit inaccessibility caused riders to increase job commute cost and commute times to work, and to participate less frequently in social and community events. 

In 2019, PPT organized for and won affordable housing and free transit passes for the future residents at the Giant Eagle Shakespeare site in East Liberty alongside partners Just Harvest, Pittsburgh United and the Pittsburgh Food Policy Council. In 2021, we included demands around affordable housing and transit through equitable transit-oriented development and citywide inclusionary zoning in the Pittsburgh 100 Day Transit Platform for incoming Mayor Ed Gainey. These proposals were ultimately included in Mayor Ed Gainey’s transition plan, in which Pittsburghers for Public Transit played a key role. PPT is currently developing equitable transit-oriented development policy recommendations for the City of Pittsburgh as a member of the City’s Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee.

In 2025, PPT organized dozens of riders alongside members of other partner orgs like 412 Justice, 1Hood, The Human Rights City Alliance, Pittsburgh United and Lawrenceville United to win a positive recommendation from the City of Pittsburgh Planning Commission for citywide inclusionary zoning. Citywide Inclusionary Zoning would require new developments of 20 units of more to set aside a minimum of 10% of those units as affordable units (which could also be paid for with housing choice vouchers). This policy has been recommended as part of the solution to the affordable housing crisis for the last 10 years, with the first report calling for its implementation coinciding with the Penn Plaza mass eviction in 2015. 

>>Read Neighborhood Community Development Fund Director Mark Masterson’s op-ed about the need to implement Citywide Inclusionary Zoning NOW.

TAKE ACTION! Join us on Monday 7/28 at 6pm as we take the fight to the streets to hear from Penn Plaza refugees and recognize the trauma of their mass displacement, and fight to ensure the passage of real solutions to stop gentrification and displacement.  RSVP for the Rally & March on July 28th

The post We Can’t Afford to Wait for Housing: 10 Years After the Penn Plaza Mass Displacement appeared first on Pittsburghers for Public Transit.

The 2020s have been tumultuous. Kicked-off by a global pandemic, the last few years are described as an era of “polycrisis” — with people facing numerous, often interconnected global crises. Geopolitical conflict, increasing social inequality, the...