You are here
News Feeds
Taxpayer-Funded Trump Ad Violates the Hatch Act
A television ad boosting the image of President Donald Trump, which was paid for by government funds, violates laws prohibiting the use of government resources for propaganda, the Hatch Act, and other related laws, according to a complaint filed today by Public Citizen.
The complaint, sent to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, takes issue with ads airing in two media markets that include a disclaimer: “Paid for by the U.S. government.” Both markets airing the ad contain key districts in the upcoming midterm elections.
“For anyone with a modicum of ethics, common sense or respect for the law, it’s the most basic thing: Taxpayer funds cannot pay for partisan political propaganda,” said Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen. “These ads should immediately be pulled from the air, and the White House’s many apparent violations of the law should be investigated.”
“This administration’s repeated and flagrant violations of the law, including the Hatch Act, are an affront to taxpayers and our democracy,” said Craig Holman, Ph.D., a government ethics expert with Public Citizen. “Public Citizen has filed a dozen Hatch Act complaints with OSC over the past year and, to our knowledge, all have been ignored by the agency. That negligence is dangerous, and creates conditions that allow for the situation we are responding to today.”
The full complaint is available to read here.
Following SCOTUS Ruling, Common Cause Vows Immediate Legal Action Against Any Attempts to Disenfranchise Voters Using Flawed System
Common Cause condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling today allowing the federal government to continue using the flawed SAVE system.
Statement from Common Cause President & CEO Virginia Kase Solomón:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow DHS and states to use an error-ridden system is completely unacceptable and didn’t need to happen this close to the election. This DHS system, which the federal government itself admits is flawed, has always been part of the Trump administration’s campaign to interfere in our elections and sow distrust — and it will fail.
“As the Court noted in its decision, it is flatly illegal for states to conduct mass removals of voters from the rolls within 90 days of an election. If any state official attempts to disenfranchise eligible voters using this flawed database, we will take them to court immediately, just like Common Cause is already doing in Texas.
“Our elections remain safe and secure, and nothing will stop voters from making their voices heard.”
Last year, Texas officials removed multiple eligible voters from the voter rolls based on this same flawed DHS system, without any investigation or further checks into even the state’s own records that could confirm these voters’ citizenship. Common Cause filed a lawsuit to stop this illegal voter purge, and we are ready to do so again.
Common Cause will continue leading the charge to safeguard the right to vote for every American. We urge all voters to check their registration status today and reach out to 866-OUR-VOTE by call or text for accurate, nonpartisan assistance.
Common Cause’s nonpartisan Election Protection volunteers will also be on the ground and staffing hotlines nationwide throughout early voting and on Election Day.
Publicaciones
Publications
assembly:2026:indonesia:cover_bangungreport_small.jpg - created
SCOTUS Greenlights the Misuse of Social Security Data
The following is a statement from Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, in response to today’s Supreme Court decision greenlighting the use of Social Security data for determining voter eligibility:
“In the name of non-existent voter fraud, the Supreme Court has given the Trump administration the power to misuse Social Security data to deprive American citizens of their right to vote. This is an obvious effort to undermine free and fair elections.
The personal data that Americans provide to the Social Security Administration is intended for one purpose only: To get people the benefits they’ve earned. Only those who are lawfully present in this country are eligible for benefits.
Because Social Security data was never intended for verifying voter eligibility, SSA has no reason to keep people’s immigration status up to date in cases where it isn’t relevant for their benefits. Indeed, it would be a misuse of trust fund monies for SSA to spend resources updating that information.
That means that some of the data is inaccurate or outdated. As a result, U.S. citizens could wrongfully lose their right to vote.
Today’s Supreme Court decision is a violation of the trust that the American people place in Social Security.”
Tejiendo esperanza en tiempos de crisis: Informe de la 2.ª Asamblea presencial del Tejido Global de Alternativas
es:assembly:2026:indonesia:cover_bandung_esp.jpg - created
es:assembly:2026:indonesia:esp_bangung_report.pdf - creado
Scientists and Skeptics Gathered at Climate Week NYC for Serious Exploration of Solar Geoengineering
NEW YORK, NY – Once a fringe topic in the climate community, a solar reflection methods (SRM) educational event hosted by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) convened nearly 100 scientists, policymakers, civil society organizations, and other climate leaders at Climate Week NYC on Wednesday, September 23.
Traditionally discussed primarily in technical and academic settings, SRM is increasingly prompting broader public-policy debate. This week, CCAN’s SRM Research Hub Crawl: Building a Community for Responsible Research and Governance demonstrated a growing demand for a seat at the table as the research moves forward. While SRM is not a substitute for rapidly cutting greenhouse gas emissions, participants explored how research, public engagement, oversight, and governance should shape any consideration of the field.
“Climate change is already forcing societies to confront difficult choices, and at the same time SRM research is growing,” said Quentin Scott, Senior Federal Policy Director at CCAN. “That does not mean deployment is inevitable or desirable. It means the public deserves a transparent, inclusive conversation about what research is taking place, what uncertainties remain, and what governance safeguards would be required. Decisions about whether, how, and under what conditions research proceeds must be informed by rigorous science, strong safeguards, public accountability, and the people most affected by climate change.”
At the “Hub Crawl,” participants moved between interactive “hubs” hosted by participating organizations. The hubs examined the science of SRM, emerging governance frameworks, policy debates, and approaches to meaningful public engagement. CCAN’s convening created space for participants with different perspectives to engage directly with the research and governance challenges surrounding the topic.
The Federation of American Scientists (FAS), one of the nation’s leading science-policy organizations, joined CCAN as a co-host. “The science is clear: from glacier collapse and flash flooding in the Himalayas to unbearable heat around the world, climate change is making our world more extreme and more dangerous,” said Dr. Hannah Safford, Associate Director of Climate and Environment at FAS. “We owe it to ourselves, our neighbors, and our kids to rigorously, responsibly explore tools like SRM that could help reduce climate risks, even as we continue to ramp up mitigation and adaptation. CCAN has been a leader in this work, and we look forward to continued collaboration.”
“I’ve been following the field of solar radiation modification closely since 2010, from conferences to field experiments,” said Ben Kalina, Director and Producer of Plan C For Civilization Documentary. “It’s always been dangerously shrouded in mystery, dominated by a small number of researchers and personalities. But then came the SRM Hub Crawl. Not only was it designed with the public as the audience rather than the usual suspects of insiders, but it was FUN. Standing on the roof, talking about the earth’s reflectivity, it was like a Sci-Fi mini-convention sharing what we’ve learned – and what we don’t know – with a curious and questioning climate week community.”
Through this event and other convenings on SRM, CCAN continues to move the needle on climate intervention technology discussions. Participating organizations included: Federation of American Scientists, University of Chicago, Reflective, Degrees Initiative, Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, Environmental Defense Fund, Plan C For Civilization Documentary, and SRM360.
###
Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. Founded in 2002, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, Washington, DC and beyond.
The post Scientists and Skeptics Gathered at Climate Week NYC for Serious Exploration of Solar Geoengineering appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
UNGA: A week that laid bare the world’s fault lines, climate crisis all over it
For António Guterres, it was his final UNGA as UN Secretary-General. And he used the moment to make the case, repeatedly and forcefully, for international cooperation at precisely the moment when it is under greatest strain. In his final General Assembly address, Guterres called on governments to adopt national plans to transition away from fossil fuels, aligned with 1.5°C, and to protect workers and communities through that transition. And then, in words that will resonate far beyond the UN chamber, he landed on three words: “Polluters must pay.”
View this post on Instagram
A post shared by 350.org (@350org)
For us here at 350, that matters. For years, movements around the world have been demanding that those who have profited most from fossil fuels contribute to addressing the damage caused by their pollution. This week, that demand was articulated from the highest level of the UN.
And it wasn’t Guterres alone. The call for greater accountability from major polluters was echoed by political leaders, including the Spanish minister for ecological transition, Sara Aagesen Muñoz
Perhaps one of the most powerful interventions came from Nepal. Prime Minister Balendra Shah addressed the General Assembly following the devastating Bhotekoshi-Trishuli floods, which killed more than 1,400 people and left thousands unaccounted for, according to Nepalese authorities. He spoke not in abstract terms about climate risk, but about families waiting for loved ones who may never come home; communities searching through mud, rocks and floodwater; and homes, schools, roads and livelihoods swept away.
His message was simple: Nepal heard the warnings. But global political action did not move at the speed required.
“The Bhotekoshi-Trishuli disaster was not just a local tragedy, it was a warning to the world.”
Shah also made the injustice explicit. Nepal contributes less than 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet is facing profound consequences from a warming climate. He called for greater climate finance, including grant-based support rather than repeatedly pushing vulnerable countries further into debt. This is what climate injustice looks like in practice: countries that have contributed least to the crisis are being forced to spend scarce resources responding to its consequences.
THE AWKWARD SILENCEScientists, frontline communities and climate movements have been saying for decades that climate breakdown will amplify existing vulnerabilities, undermine livelihoods, drive displacement and interact with conflict and instability. The intelligence assessment adds another powerful voice to that evidence base. But the fundamental problem isn’t a lack of warnings. It is the gap between what governments know and what they are prepared to do.
This brings us to one of the most concerning contradictions at play now: the leaders who will preside over the next stage of the climate negotiations, Australia and Türkiye, both used UNGA and New York Climate Week to talk about energy, electrification and climate action. But they were awfully silent about the elephant in the room: the urgent need to phase-out fossil fuels. It’s not like we’re living the worst energy crisis ever, emphasizing how crucial it is to break our toxic dependency towards oil, coal and gas.
Coal mine in Hunter Valley, Australia. Photo credit: Max Phillips
On the positive side, Türkiye launched its 35-by-35 Global Electrification Pledge, calling for electricity to account for 35% of global final energy consumption by 2035, alongside initiatives covering grids, buildings, transport, industry and AI. Electrification is important. But there is a fundamental question that cannot be avoided: electrifying with what, and for who?
ELECTRIFY NOW, BUT IN THE RIGHT WAYAs 350 and partners argued this week, electrification needs to go hand in hand with rapidly scaling renewables and phasing out coal, oil and gas – and with making climate finance available for developing countries to achieve this. 92+ organizations published this open letter saying that the electrification target counts only if the power is renewable, if it reaches the people who have no electricity today, if the money follows, and if it comes alongside progress in the negotiations on the Just Transition mechanism, finance, and adaptation, and other existing commitments
Otherwise, we risk increasing electricity demand while leaving the fossil-fuel system at the center of the energy system.
That contradiction was particularly visible in the speeches and policies surrounding COP31. Australia is talking about climate action while its government recently approved an expansion of BHP’s Saraji coal mine. Türkiye is promoting electrification while planning further fossil-fuel power capacity. The issue isn’t whether electrification is necessary. It is. The issue is whether governments are prepared to phase out fossil fuels and support a just transition.
AMBITION CANNOT WAITStreet view of the wildfires in Türkiye’s Antalya province, which will host the COP31 summit. (Photo credit: 350.org Türkiye)
As COP32 hosts, Ethiopia showed its hand with President Atske’s UN address demonstrating the leadership East Africa has been waiting for. Inviting world leaders to Ethiopia in November 2027 in order to find solutions to the climate crisis, one of the defining imperatives of our era.At a time when other world leaders are backsliding on climate action, Ethiopia carried the torch of climate ambition high. As the next host of the Conference of Parties (COP32), this is exactly the kind of ambitious agenda-setting Africa needs, one that prioritizes a people-centered transition away from fossil fuels.
However, with the world on the verge of overshooting 1.5C, every fraction of a degree we can avoid heating matters – and so does every political meeting. The World Bank. The IMF. The UN. The climate finance negotiations. The UN Tax Convention. COP31. Each is another opportunity to close the gap between what governments know and what they do. We cannot wait until COP32 to see the fossil fuels phase out in the agenda. We need it now.
UNGA ends. The diplomats leave New York. The speeches disappear from the headlines. But the crises don’t. The world has experienced devastating wildfires, catastrophic floods, extreme heat and a rapidly intensifying El Niño. The impacts are already being felt by people and communities around the world.
Next week, the climate season moves to Fiji for the COP31 pre-COP. All eyes will increasingly turn towards the negotiations in Türkiye and Australia. The question for COP31 should be straightforward:
Will governments finally put a date on the end of fossil fuels, and put the money behind a just transition?
Because after this week in New York, there is little excuse for pretending we don’t know where the world is heading. We know the risks. We know the solutions. We know who has profited. And, who is paying the price.
Now the question is whether governments are prepared to act. Polluters must pay. And the fossil-fuel era must end.
The post UNGA: A week that laid bare the world’s fault lines, climate crisis all over it appeared first on 350.
New Colorado River Rules Buy Time. They Don’t Solve the Crisis
The Future of Food Depends on Water
Water is becoming more scarce across the globe, and the consequences are reaching far beyond the tap. Rivers are shrinking, aquifers are being depleted, oceans are warming, and the pressure is rippling throughout the food systems that depend on them.
“Climate change is a water story. Food security is a water story. Public health, livelihoods, biodiversity, and resilience are all water stories,” says Danielle Nierenberg, President of Food Tank, at the “Water and Blue Foods Summit” at Climate Week NYC, which was held in partnership with the Future Food Institute, Monterey Bay Aquarium, and Venice Climate Week. Click here to watch the full summit replay on YouTube.
The morning began with a discussion of water bankruptcy—when the rate of water consumption and pollution exceeds nature’s capacity to replenish. Kaveh Madani, Director of the U.N. University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, warns that water systems can only absorb so much pressure before they lose their ability to recover.
“Nature at the beginning is generous, resilient, but after a while it loses its resilience and can never go back to where it was,” says Madani. “We are seeing more and more systems getting pushed into that stage and losing their capacity to bounce back.”
Meanwhile, fisheries are struggling to meet global food demand. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, just 62.3 percent of marine fish stocks were fished at biologically sustainable levels in 2021. Aquaculture has become a major part of the global food system, producing 51 percent of aquatic animals for human consumption in 2022—surpassing wild capture fisheries for the first time.
But even beyond blue food production, speakers emphasized that water issues are inseparable from the global food system—water is critical at every step of the food supply chain, from irrigating fields to moving food products from processing to plates.
“When we talk about food, it doesn’t come from the air. We have to grow it. You need water to grow your crops, feed your animals, process your food, and move things around,” says David Laborde, Director at the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.
That makes protecting the landscapes that supply water essential. Brendan Shane of Trust for Public Land says, “It’s all a system. The water is flowing from the land, so if you want to protect the water, you need to protect and sustainably manage the land.”
Those same connections extend into the ocean, where climate change is reshaping both ecosystems and the seafood people eat. For Chef Barton Seaver, a more sustainable future means looking not only at how seafood is produced but how it is consumed: “So much of the sustainability conversation has been about the producers…but there’s an entire behavioral aspect of the consumers” and their seafood purchasing choices.
Wendy Norden, Director of Science and Global Strategies at Monterey Bay Aquarium, points to changing marine ecosystems as an opportunity to rethink how people eat seafood.
“Invasive species are quite important,” says Norden. “It’s often seen as a threat…but it’s really a story of adaptation. It can be a story of hope.” For example, catching and eating invasive aquatic species—known as invasivorism—is a growing conservation strategy used to help reduce the populations of harmful, non-native animals.
That shift will require consumers to become part of the solution. Jenn Kemmerly, Vice President of Global Ocean Conservation at Monterey Bay Aquarium, says U.S. demand has global consequences because so much seafood consumed in the country comes from elsewhere. “To choose sustainable seafood is the easiest, most in your face, top of mind choice to make right now.”
“We need to connect the research to the policymakers, but unfortunately, what we are seeing is that policymakers are not looking at the science at all,” says Sara Roversi, Founder of the Future Food Institute.
Finance can help turn that hope into action. Sarisher Mann of BNP Paribas points to growing investment in water resilience, but says stronger collaboration is needed between scientists and financial institutions. “Finance doesn’t necessarily speak the language of the science…We need much more translation of that science.”
Cities, meanwhile, can serve as laboratories for solutions. Simone Venturini, Mayor of Venice, says, “If something can work in Venice, it can work anywhere…we need to use Venice as an experimental field to put practice into theory.” Riccardo Luna, Co-Curator of Venice Climate Week, puts the challenge even more simply: “Climate change is here to stay. It’s accelerating. But we have an opportunity….We have the playbook; we need to scale the solutions and take action.”
From sustainable fisheries and aquaculture to watershed protection, climate finance, and city-led experimentation, the solutions are already taking shape. The challenge now is connecting them—and scaling them fast enough to keep water systems, food systems, and communities resilient.
“Water is life. If we don’t start from the essentials, we’re going to miss a big part of the story,” says Roversi.
Explore the entire Food Tank event schedule during Climate Week NYC 2026, and live-stream every Summit on FoodTank.com and Food Tank’s YouTube channel.
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 by Ryan Rose for Food Tank.
The post The Future of Food Depends on Water appeared first on Food Tank.
CMMC nurses and community members celebrate landslide union victory
Marine National Monuments and Sanctuaries: Reminders of Our Shared Past and Connected Future
Crane Season Takes a Flock
Points of Connection
The Big Picture
Mac Stone Puts His Photography to Work to Save Southern Swamps
SAFE’s Long-Running Challenge to Illinois Fracking Rules Heads Back to Court December 7
9/24/2026
For more than a decade, Southern Illinoisans Against Fracturing Our Environment (SAFE) has challenged the process by which Illinois adopted regulations governing high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing.
That fight is still going.
On Monday, December 7, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., attorney, Pat Handlin and Vito Mastrangelo, representing SAFE and the other plaintiffs are scheduled to appear before Judge Foster at the Madison County Courthouse in Edwardsville, Illinois, for hearings on two motions seeking dismissal of our complaint.
This is an important moment in a case that stretches all the way back to 2014—and we would like our supporters, allies, and friends to be there.
IDNR Fracking Hearing in Chicago. How Did We Get Here?Illinois enacted the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act in 2013. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) was then responsible for developing the administrative rules that would govern high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing in the state.
Thousands of Illinois residents participated in that rulemaking process. According to the current complaint, IDNR received approximately 38,000 public comments totaling more than 43,000 pages before the rules were finalized.
SAFE was part of that public process. Our organization had already been educating Southern Illinois residents about fracking, the proposed law, and the regulations being developed under it. SAFE’s role in public education concerning the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act and IDNR’s regulations is described in the current complaint.
But SAFE and other participants believed there were serious problems with the way the rulemaking process had been conducted.
Among other things, the plaintiffs allege that IDNR failed to follow mandatory procedures established by Illinois law and that those failures deprived Illinois citizens of their right to participate fully in the development of the regulations.
One example involves something fundamental to public participation: notice of public hearings.
The current complaint states that five public hearings were held during the rulemaking process—in Chicago, Ina, Effingham, Decatur and Carbondale. The plaintiffs allege that none received the 20 days of notice they contend was required under the applicable administrative rule. According to the complaint, Chicago received 11 days’ notice, Ina 18 days, Decatur 11 days, Carbondale 13 days, and the rescheduled Effingham hearing received no notice in the Illinois Register.
The plaintiffs contend that these and other problems impaired the public’s ability to review, understand and respond meaningfully to the proposed rules.
For SAFE, public participation in decisions that can affect our land, water and communities is not a technicality. It matters.
There is another principle underlying SAFE’s long involvement in this fight.
Article XI of the Illinois Constitution is devoted specifically to the environment. Section 1 declares it the public policy of Illinois to “provide and maintain a healthful environment for the benefit of this and future generations.” Section 2 goes further:
“Each person has the right to a healthful environment.”
The Constitution also provides that people may enforce that right against governmental or private parties through appropriate legal proceedings, subject to reasonable limitations established by law.
That constitutional commitment has particular meaning to an organization like SAFE.
We believe decisions involving activities with the potential to affect our water, air, land and communities deserve rigorous scrutiny, sound science and meaningful public participation.
Those principles helped motivate people to become involved when Illinois was developing its fracking regulations. They continue to matter today.
INDR hearing at Rend Lake. SAFE Went to Court in 2014On November 10, 2014, SAFE and individual plaintiffs filed the original lawsuit challenging the rulemaking process.
Four days later, on November 14, IDNR filed the high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing rules with the Illinois Secretary of State, at which point the rules became effective.
The lawsuit has continued, in various forms, ever since.
Today the plaintiffs include SAFE and seven individuals: Marie Smith, Mark Donham, Vito Mastrangelo, Sam Stearns, Tabitha Tripp, Nathan Czuba and Annette McMichael.
Many of those individual plaintiffs are Southern Illinois landowners or mineral-rights owners.
For the people who have carried this case forward, the stakes are personal. This is about protecting the land, water and communities we call home—and ensuring that ordinary citizens have a meaningful voice when government decisions may affect their environment.
It’s about the places where people live.
Video from IDNR Effingham Hearings:
More Than a Decade Later, the World Has Changed
There is something else worth remembering as this case returns to court.
Illinois’s fracking regulations were written more than a decade ago.
Since then, scientific knowledge about oil and gas development, induced seismicity and climate change has continued to grow.
The relationship between oil and gas operations and induced seismicity—earthquakes triggered by human activity—is now well established. The U.S. Geological Survey says hydraulic fracturing itself can induce earthquakes and has been linked to larger earthquakes, although wastewater disposal associated with oil and gas production is responsible for most induced earthquakes in the central United States.
That distinction is important. So is the larger lesson: activities involving the injection of fluids underground can, under certain geological conditions, cause faults to slip and produce earthquakes.
At the same time, the realities of a changing climate have become increasingly difficult to ignore.
Here in Illinois, we have witnessed extraordinary severe weather. The Illinois State Climatologist reports that as of July 1, 2026, Illinois had already recorded 173 tornadoes, breaking the previous full-year state record of 142 set in 2024. At that point, Illinois had recorded twice as many tornadoes as the next-most-active state in the nation. Illinois has now experienced more than 100 tornadoes in four consecutive years; before 2023, that threshold had been crossed only four times since 1950.
Tornado activity is influenced by many factors, and those statistics alone do not establish that climate change caused Illinois’s recent tornado outbreaks.
But the broader climate question cannot be ignored when considering the future of fossil-fuel development.
The environmental and scientific context in which we are having this conversation today is not the same as it was when Illinois’s fracking rules were adopted in 2014.
For SAFE, that makes the principles underlying this fight no less relevant—and perhaps more important.
How carefully should government act when making decisions that can affect the environment?
What opportunity should the public have to participate in those decisions?
And what does Illinois’s constitutional promise of a healthful environment mean in practice?
Those are questions worth asking even after twelve years.
What Is SAFE Asking the Court to Do?
The Fourth Amended Complaint seeks declaratory judgment and permanent injunctive relief.
For example, under one of the remaining claims, the plaintiffs ask the court to find that IDNR failed to comply with required rulemaking procedures and that plaintiffs’ rights to participate fully in the rulemaking process were violated. They ask the court to declare the HFRA rulemaking invalid, prohibit IDNR from implementing or using those rules, and direct the defendants to publish notice that the rulemaking has been invalidated. The complaint also seeks reasonable litigation expenses, including attorney fees as provided by Illinois law.
In other words, this case is not simply an argument over whether someone is “for” or “against” fracking.
It raises a fundamental question about government accountability:
When an Illinois agency creates rules governing an activity with potentially significant consequences for communities, landowners and the environment, must the agency follow the public rulemaking procedures required by law?
SAFE and the other plaintiffs believe that question matters—not only for fracking, but for meaningful public participation in government decision-making.
At the most recent case management conference, the court rescheduled hearings on two motions seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint.
Those hearings are now scheduled for:
Monday, December 7, 2026
9:00 a.m.
Madison County Courthouse
Edwardsville, Illinois
The attorneys are expected to appear in person.
We are also checking on whether a Zoom option will be available for members of the public who cannot attend in person. We will update this page as soon as we know more.
The public is welcome to attend the hearing.
And SAFE would very much like to see supporters there.
Stand With SAFE on December 7Court cases can feel distant from everyday life. They take years. They involve motions, briefs, hearings and procedural questions that rarely make headlines.
But behind all of that paperwork are people.
For more than a decade, individual plaintiffs, attorneys, SAFE volunteers and supporters have continued showing up because we believe Southern Illinois’ land, water and communities are worth protecting—and because the public deserves a meaningful voice in decisions that affect them.
On December 7, we’re asking you to show up with us.
You do not have to be a plaintiff. You do not have to be a lawyer. You don’t have to understand every count in a 66-page complaint.
You can simply be there.
A strong public presence in the courtroom is one way to demonstrate that, after all these years, people are still paying attention.
If you would like to attend but need assistance getting to Edwardsville, please contact SAFE at info@dontfractureillinois.org. We don’t want transportation or distance to prevent someone who wants to stand with us from participating.
We will share additional information about the hearing, transportation coordination and possible remote access as it becomes available. Sign up here to get on the email list.
Demonstration in front of Bradley’s office. Help SAFE Keep GoingThere is another way you can help.
Please consider making a donation to SAFE.
SAFE is a small, grassroots organization. We don’t have a separate legal fund or a large institutional budget behind this work. Donations go to SAFE’s general operating account and support the organization and the work necessary to continue our mission—including public education, outreach, organizing and our continuing efforts to protect Southern Illinois from the impacts of fracking and oil and gas development.
Long-running work like this requires more than attorneys appearing in a courtroom. It requires communicating with the public, maintaining records and research, reaching supporters, keeping people informed, organizing participation and making sure that Southern Illinois voices continue to be heard.
A contribution of any size helps SAFE continue that work.
At the final IDNR hearing, we packed the SIU-C ballroom with standing room only and celebrated our 38,000 comments submitted in opposition. More Than a Decade—and We’re Still HereWhen this lawsuit was first filed in November 2014, no one could have known that we would still be talking about it more than a decade later.
But some fights take time.
SAFE has spent years educating the public about fracking and oil and gas development, advocating for Southern Illinois communities, and insisting that the people who live here deserve a meaningful voice in decisions affecting their homes, property, water and environment.
On December 7, another chapter of that work will unfold in a Madison County courtroom.
We hope you’ll stand with us.
Attend the hearing. Share this story. Support SAFE. Donate if you can. And help us remind Illinois that Southern Illinois is still paying attention.
Interested in attending the hearing, please contact us at info@dontfractureillinois.org
Pages
The Fine Print I:
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) unless otherwise indicated and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s, nor should it be assumed that any of these authors automatically support the IWW or endorse any of its positions.
Further: the inclusion of a link on our site (other than the link to the main IWW site) does not imply endorsement by or an alliance with the IWW. These sites have been chosen by our members due to their perceived relevance to the IWW EUC and are included here for informational purposes only. If you have any suggestions or comments on any of the links included (or not included) above, please contact us.
The Fine Print II:
Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc.
It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.
This site is not the official webpage of the Industrial Workers of the World.
