Now Is the Time to Stop Using Dehumanizing Language to Describe Migrants


The more of this language we use, the more likely it is that we will see immigrants as the “other” to justify cruel immigration policies.

Venezuelan and Nicaraguan migrants are transferred by agents of the Border Patrol after crossing the Rio Grande river from Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua state, Mexico to El Paso, Texas, US to ask for political asylum on December 27, 2022.
(Photo: Herika Martinez/AFP via Getty Images)

DANIELLA PRIESHOFF
May 07, 2023

OtherWords

Last year, my client Susan called me to discuss her immigration case.

During our conversation she referenced the news that immigrants were being bused from the southern border to cities in the North, often under false promises, only to be left stranded in an unknown city.

In confusion and fear, Susan asked me: “Why do they hate us so much?”

While I couldn’t answer Susan’s question, her underlying concern highlights a startling escalation of public aggression against migrants over the past year.

Many outlets describe recent migration through the Americas as a “flood,” “influx,” “wave,” or “surge”—language that reinforces the notion that migration is akin to an imminent, uncontrollable, and destructive natural disaster.

There seems to be a growing “us” versus “them” mentality towards immigrants. This divisive language serves no purpose other than to divide our country, undermine the legal right to seek asylum in the United States, and cultivate a fear of the most vulnerable.

A clear example is showcased in recent media coverage of northbound migration across the U.S.-Mexico border. Many outlets describe recent migration through the Americas as a “flood,” “influx,” “wave,” or “surge”—language that reinforces the notion that migration is akin to an imminent, uncontrollable, and destructive natural disaster.

These descriptions are accompanied by sensational photographs and videos of long lines of brown and Black immigrants wading across the Rio Grande, crowding along the border wall, or boarding Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) vehicles to be transported to detention.

Woven into this framing is the near-constant use of the term “illegal” or “unlawful” to describe unauthorized crossings. As an advocate for immigrant survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and trafficking, I’m alarmed by the use of this language to describe a migrant’s attempt to survive.

Moreover, it’s often simply incorrect. A noncitizen who has a well-founded fear of persecution in the country from which they’ve fled has a legal right—protected under both U.S. and international law—to enter the United States to seek asylum.

When mainstream media wield the term “illegal” as though it were synonymous with “unauthorized,” they misinform readers and falsely paint asylum seekers as criminals.

Worse still, they encourage politicians who call immigrants themselves “illegals,” a deeply dehumanizing term. And the more dehumanizing language we use, the more likely it is that we will see immigrants as the “other” to justify cruel immigration policies.

We must retire the use of this inflammatory rhetoric, which distracts from real solutions that would actually serve survivors arriving at our borders.

Migrants expelled back to their home countries are at grave risk of severe harm or death at the hands of their persecutors. Those forced to remain in Mexico as they await entry to the United States are increasingly vulnerable to organized crime or abusive and dangerous conditions in detention.

And those who have no choice but to desperately navigate dangerous routes to the United States to avoid apprehension are increasingly dying by dehydration, falling from cliffs, and drowning in rivers.

The words we use in everyday discourse mean something—they can spell out life or death for those among us who are most vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Now more than ever, I’d urge the public and the media to retire the use of sensationalizing, stigmatizing, and misleading imagery and rhetoric surrounding immigration.

Now is the time to apply accuracy and humanity in our depictions of migrants. Let’s not repeat the errors of our past.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.


DANIELLA PRIESHOFF is a Senior Supervising Attorney at the Tahirih Justice Center, a nonprofit that supports immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. She thanks Phoebe Quinteros for her contributions to the research for this piece.
Full Bio >

EPA Report on Neonics Proves US Has 'Five-Alarm Fire' on Its Hands, Green Groups Say

"There's now no question that neonicotinoids play an outsized role in our heartbreaking extinction crisis," said one advocate. The EPA must "ban these pesticides so future generations don't live in a world without bees and butterflies and the plants that depend on them."


Research has shown that a "serious reduction in pesticide usage" is essential to prevent the extinction of up to 41% of the world's insects in the coming decades.
(Photo: Sunchild57 Photography/cc/flickr)

KENNY STANCIL
May 05, 2023

A newly published assessment from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warns that three of the most commonly used neonicotinoid insecticides threaten the continued existence of more than 200 endangered plant and animal species.

"The EPA's analysis shows we've got a five-alarm fire on our hands, and there's now no question that neonicotinoids play an outsized role in our heartbreaking extinction crisis," Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), said Friday in a statement.

"The EPA has to use the authority it has to take fast action to ban these pesticides," said Burd, "so future generations don't live in a world without bees and butterflies and the plants that depend on them."

The agency's new analysis found that clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam likely jeopardize the continued existence of 166, 199, and 204 plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), respectively. This includes 25 distinct insects, more than 160 plants reliant on insect pollination, and dozens of fish, birds, and invertebrates.

"The Biden administration will have the stain of extinction on its hands if it doesn't muster the courage to stand up to Big Ag and ban these chemicals."

Species being put at risk of extinction include the whooping crane, Indiana bat, Plymouth redbelly turtle, yellow larkspur, Attwater's greater prairie-chicken, rusty patched bumblebee, Karner blue butterfly, American burying beetle, Western prairie fringed orchid, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and the spring pygmy sunfish.

"The EPA confirmed what we have been warning about for years—these neonicotinoid insecticides pose an existential threat to many endangered species and seriously undermine biodiversity," Sylvia Wu, senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety (CFS), said in a statement. "Unfortunately, this dire news is what we have told EPA all along. EPA should be ashamed that it still has yet to ban these life-threatening pesticides."

The EPA is well aware of the risks associated with the three neonicotinoids in question. One year ago, the agency released biological evaluations showing that the vast majority of endangered species are likely harmed by clothianidin (1,225 species, or 67% of the ESA list), imidacloprid (1,445, 79%), and thiamethoxam (1,396, 77%). Its new analysis focuses on which imperiled species and critical habitats are likely to be driven extinct by the trio of insecticides.

As CBD pointed out: "For decades the EPA has refused to comply with its Endangered Species Act obligations to assess pesticides' harms to protected species. The agency was finally forced to do the biological evaluations by legal agreements with the Center for Food Safety and the Natural Resources Defense Council. After losing many lawsuits on this matter, the EPA has committed to work toward complying with the act."

"Given the Fish and Wildlife Service's refusal to lift a finger to protect endangered species from pesticides, we commend the EPA for completing this analysis and revealing the disturbing reality of the massive threat these pesticides pose," said Burd. "The Biden administration will have the stain of extinction on its hands if it doesn't muster the courage to stand up to Big Ag and ban these chemicals."

CFS science director Bill Freese said that "while we welcome EPA's overdue action on this issue, we are closely examining the agency's analysis to determine whether still more species are jeopardized by these incredibly potent and ubiquitous insecticides."

As CFS explained:
Chemically similar to nicotine, neonicotinoids kill insects by disrupting their nervous systems. Just billionths of a gram can kill or impair honeybees. Introduced in the 1990s, neonicotinoids have rapidly become the most widely used insecticides in the world. Neonics can be sprayed or applied to soil, but by far the biggest use is application to seeds. The neonic seed coating is absorbed by the growing seedling and makes the entire plant toxic. CFS has a separate case challenging EPA's regulation of these seed coatings.

Bees and other pollinators are harmed by exposure to neonic-contaminated nectar and pollen, with studies demonstrating disruptions in flight ability, impaired growth and reproduction as well as weakened immunity. Neonic-contaminated seed dust generated during planting operations causes huge bee kills, while pollinators also die from direct exposure to spray.

Neonics are also persistent (break down slowly), and run off into waterways, threatening aquatic organisms. EPA has determined that neonics likely harm all 38 threatened and endangered amphibian species in the U.S., among hundreds of other organisms. Birds are also at risk, and can die from eating just one to several treated seeds.

Neonicotinoids have long been prohibited in the European Union, but as recently as a few months ago, a loophole enabled governments to grant emergency derogations temporarily permitting the use of seeds coated with these and other banned insecticides. In January, the E.U.'s highest court closed the loophole for neonicotinoid-treated seeds—a decision the post-Brexit United Kingdom refused to emulate.

In the U.S., neonicotinoids continue to be used on hundreds of millions of acres of agricultural land, contributing to an estimated 89% decline in the American bumblebee population over the past 20 years.

According to Freese, "EPA has thus far given a free pass to neonicotinoids coated on corn and other crop seeds—which represent by far their largest use—that make seedlings toxic to pollinators and other beneficial insects."

"Our expert wildlife agencies—the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service—have the final say on this matter," Freese added, "and may well find that neonicotinoids put even more species at risk of extinction."

A 2019 scientific review of the catastrophic global decline of insects made clear that a "serious reduction in pesticide usage" is essential to prevent the extinction of up to 41% of the world's insects in the coming decades.

There’s Still Time to Avoid Climate Catastrophe

If we fail to reach the goal of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2030, it won’t be for lack of options

Aerial view of solar power station and solar energy panels
(Getty)


DAVID SUZUKI
May 07, 2023

David Suzuki Foundation

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to keep the world from heating to catastrophic levels is entirely possible and would save money. Although emissions continue to rise, there’s still time to reverse course. Ways to slash them by more than half over the next seven years are readily available and cost-effective — and necessary to keep the global average temperature from rising more than 1.5 C.

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report includes a chart that shows how. Compiled by the world’s top scientists using the most up-to-date research, it illustrates potential emissions reductions and costs of various methods.

At the top are wind and solar power, followed by energy efficiency, stopping deforestation and reducing methane emissions. Nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage and biofuels bring much poorer results for a lot more money.

Wind and solar together can cut eight billion tons of emissions annually — “equivalent to the combined emissions of the US and European Union today” and “at lower cost than just continuing with today’s electricity systems,” the Guardian reports.

Nuclear power and carbon capture and storage each deliver only 10 percent of the results of wind and solar at far higher costs. It’s telling that those less effective, more expensive pathways are the ones touted most often by government, industry and media people who are determined to keep fossil fuels burning or are resistant to power sources that offer greater energy independence.

Making buildings, industry, lighting and appliances more energy efficient could cut 4.5 billion tons of emissions a year by 2030 — and there’s no doubt that simply reducing energy consumption could add to that.

Because forests, wetlands and other green spaces sequester carbon, stopping deforestation could cut four billion tons a year by 2030, almost “double the fossil fuel emissions from the whole of Africa and South America today,” the Guardian reports.

Cutting methane emissions, especially those that leak from fossil fuel operations, could cut three billion tons. This is especially important because methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over the short term. It also shows that fracking for fossil gas and production of so-called “liquefied natural gas” are not viable solutions.

Other ways to lower emissions include switching to sustainable diets, such as eating less meat (1.7 billion tons), shifting toward public transit and active transportation (which has more potential than electric cars) and better agricultural methods.

We’re constantly told that quickly transitioning from coal, oil and gas is not realistic and that renewables aren’t ready to replace them, and that we need expensive, often unproven or dangerous methods like nuclear and carbon capture and storage. But those claims ignore the rapid pace at which renewable energy and storage technologies have been advancing — and dropping in price.

We could get even further than this research suggests by using less energy and fewer products that require energy to produce and transport. Shifting from a consumer-based system is especially important in light of the fact that even renewable energy is not impact-free. Mining for materials, replacing aging infrastructure and making space for installations means our ultimate goal should be to use less.

Likewise with electric cars. Although electric cars are far better than fossil-fuelled, all personal vehicles waste resources, require massive infrastructure and are not efficient at moving people around, regardless of how they’re powered.

But what this chart and mountains of other research show is that even with current technologies, methods and systems, cutting emissions and avoiding catastrophic consequences of climate disruption are entirely possible and affordable.

If we fail to reach the goal of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2030, it won’t be for lack of options.

The problem isn’t a shortage of solutions, or exorbitant costs, or any benefits of fossil fuels over renewable energy; it’s a lack of political will, and to some extent, public support. This is driven to a large degree by the efforts of industry to protect its interests in raking in huge profits and perpetuating a system that mostly benefits a small and dwindling number of people at the expense of human health, well-being and survival.

Nature is speaking, and science is confirming that we have no time to lose. We can’t afford not to change.


With contributions from Senior Editor and Writer Ian Hanington

'This Land Is Our Life': Indigenous Shipibo-Konibo-Xetebo People Defend Forest From Illegal Destruction in Peru


More than 300 community members participate in La Guardia Indigena, protecting around 8 million hectares of one of the most biodiverse regions on Earth from logging, fishing, and coca growing.

Members of the Shipibo-Konibo-Xetebo Indigenous Guard.
(Photo: Guardia Indígena of the Shipibo-Konibo-Xetebo)

OLIVIA ROSANE
May 05, 2023

The Shipibo-Konibo-Xetebo people of the Peruvian Amazon are organizing themselves to protect their ancestral forests and waters from illegal fishing, logging, and coca growing amidst conservation and development efforts from both the government and international nonprofits that they say are ineffective at best and actively harmful to Indigenous ways of life at worst.

More than 300 members of the community participate in La Guardia Indigena—or the Indigenous Guard—that works from around 25 bases in the Ucayali region of Peru to protect around 8 million hectares.

"We've been resisting, and we continue to resist generation after generation because this land is our life," Lizardo Cauper Pezo, president of the Shipibo-Konibo-Xetebo Council, told reporters at the virtual Peasant and Indigenous Press Forum April 27.

"Without the forest, the world would be chaos."

The Peruvian Amazon is one of the most biodiverse places on Earth, but, like much of the rest of the rainforest, it is under threat. Beyond outright tree clearing, one threat is the illegal growing of coca that leads to both deforestation for planting and air pollution when it is burned during processing. Another is illegal fishing from bodies of water like Lake Imiría. Fifteen percent of more than 20,000 hectares of forest in the Flor de Ucayali community has been either cut or burned down.

To counter this threat, the guard patrols the area carrying their ancestral weapons.

"That's what represents our strength, our spirit, and it also represents our ancestors," Indigenous Guard president Marco Tulio told reporters.

However, the guard does not threaten or seek to harm fishers, loggers, or drug traffickers. Instead, they attempt to speak with them and explain that the land belongs to the Shipibo-Konibo-Xetebo people. If fishers return for a second time, the guard may destroy their equipment. In total, the guard has confronted fishers 45 times.

Sometimes, the fishers or loggers are themselves armed and threaten the Indigenous Guard. The guard will act in self-defense and also explain to authorities their right to do so.

"We don't threaten, we only need to care for the forest, because the forest is for everyone," Tulio said. "Without the forest, the world would be chaos."

This work—like land defense everywhere—is not without significant risk. The most recent annual Global Witness report found that two environmental defenders were killed every two days of the last 10 years. During 2021, 40% of the murders targeted Indigenous activists, despite the fact that they make up only 5% of the global population.

Tulio told reporters that a week before speaking at the forum he received a death threat telling him he only had days left to live.

The violence comes despite the fact that the area is technically protected as the Lake Imiría regional conservation area, or ACR, and has been since 2010. In fact, many Indigenous people oppose the ACR, which they say was established without full community consent, according to an investigation published by Grist last month.

The Shipibo Konibo-Xetebo claim that the government allows poachers, coca growers, and loggers to enter the area while focusing its enforcement efforts on Indigenous people catching and selling fish to survive.

"What kind of protection and conservation are we talking about?" Pezo asked rhetorically at the press forum.

For example, a Shipibo-Konibo-Xetebo woman named Sorayda Cruz Vesada was arrested and fined the equivalent of $400 in 2016 for attempting to sell a large Amazonian fish called the paiche in order to pay for her daughter's school supplies, Grist reported.

Things came to a head in 2020, when the Shipibo-Konibo-Xetebo community learned of plans between the ACR, the Ucayali Department of Fisheries, and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to open Lake Imiría to commercial fishing. It was this news that prompted the Shipibo-Konibo-Xetebo to reform their Indigenous Guard, as well as to occupy a park guard post in Junín Pablo in July 2022. That occupation was formalized in August as the community waits to hear from Peru's national government on a proposal to have their lands excluded from the park for them to manage themselves.

Tulio said the people wanted to live and work freely without the government harming their forest or inserting itself into their way of life.

"The forests, the rivers, the waters, they are our market," he told the forum.

The occupation in July succeeded in ousting the USAID-backed company Pro Bosques from the area, but the threat of the project lingers, and the status of the protected area remains uncertain. Tulio believes the regional government—or its supporters—is behind the death threats against him. The president of the Autonomous Government of the Shipibo-Konibo-Xetebo People shared the community's concerns with the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York on April 19.

The Shipibo-Konibo-Xetebo's struggle comes at a crucial time for both conservation and Indigenous rights. As world leaders pledged in Montreal last December to protect 30% of land and water by 2030, there is growing recognition in the scientific and international community that Indigenous people are the best protectors of their lands. Their 5% of the population protects 80% of Earth's remaining biodiversity, and a 2022 study found that protecting Indigenous lands could help four Latin American countries—including Peru—meet their climate goals.

Yet the growing business of carbon offsetting is raising new concerns about conservation strategies that work by excluding these very communities from their forests, as a January exposé of top carbon credit standard Verra reported happened in Alto Mayo, Peru.

It remains to be seen if the 30% goal will be met by acknowledging the rights and role of Indigenous communities or repeating the colonial fortress conservation mindset of the past. While the agreement states that Indigenous rights must be considered in its implementation, it does not allow Indigenous territories to count toward the target, as Survival International pointed out at the time.

"What we saw in Montreal is evidence that we can't trust the conservation industry, business, and powerful countries to do the right thing," Survival research and advocacy Officer Fiore Longo said in a statement. "We will keep fighting for the respect and recognition of Indigenous land rights. Whoever cares about biodiversity should be doing the same thing."

Meanwhile, the Shipibo Konibo Xetebo have a message for the people and nonprofits of the U.S.

"You need to stop supporting the things that exploit our rights, or that support these different activities and projects that trample on our rights and ways of living as Indigenous people," Pezo said.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

https://www.ursulakleguin.com/the-word-for-world-is-forest

Ursula K. Le Guin — The Word for World is Forest 

The Word for World Is Forest was originally published in the anthology Again, Dangerous Visions in 1972. It was published as a standalone book in 1976 by ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Word_for_World_Is_Forest

The Word for World Is Forest - Wikipedia 

The Word for World Is Forest is a science fiction novella by American writer Ursula K. Le Guin, first published in the United States in 1972 as a part of ...

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ursula-k-le-guin-the-word-for-world-is-forest-1

The Word for World Is Forest PDF | The Anarchist Library 

Written in the glare of the United States' war on Indochina, and first published as a separate book in that war's dire aftermath, The Word for World is Forest ...

ACLU, Allies Warn Internet Bills 'Would Undermine Free Speech, Privacy, and Security'

While these bills' supporters aim to hold tech giants accountable for not protecting vulnerable communities, one expert warned, "increasing censorship and weakening encryption would not only be ineffective at solving these concerns, it would in fact exacerbate them."


Children use laptops in a classroom.
(Photo: shironosov/Getty Images)

JESSICA CORBETT
May 04, 2023

As the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee considered a series of bills on Thursday, the ACLU and other digital rights advocates warned against federal legislation that would promote censorship, disincentivize protecting users with strong encryption, and expand law enforcement access to personal data.

A trio of ACLU policy experts sent a letter to the committee about three bills: the Cooper Davis Act, the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act, and the Strengthening Transparency and Obligation to Protect Children Suffering from Abuse and Mistreatment (STOP CSAM) Act.

"These bills purport to hold powerful companies accountable for their failure to protect children and other vulnerable communities from dangers on their services when, in reality, increasing censorship and weakening encryption would not only be ineffective at solving these concerns, it would in fact exacerbate them," said one of the experts, ACLU senior policy counsel Cody Venzke.

Named for a Kansas teenager who died after taking a pill laced with fentanyl, the Cooper Davis Act (S. 1080) would require social media companies and other communication service providers to give federal agencies information about illicit activity related to the synthetic opioid on their platforms.

The EARN IT Act (S. 1207)—which targets Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—would remove tech companies' blanket liability protection for civil or criminal law violations related to online child sexual abuse material and establish a national commission to craft voluntary "best practices" for providers.

Sponsored by committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the STOP CSAM Act (S. 1199) would, among other provisions, enable survivors of online child sexual exploitation to bring a civil cause of action against tech companies that promoted or facilitated the abuse.

The ACLU warns that the proposals "would undermine free speech, privacy, and security." As the letter explains:

First, they incentivize platforms to monitor and censor their users' speech and interfere with content moderation decisions. Second, they disincentivize platforms from providing end-to-end encrypted communications services, exposing the public to abusive commercial and government surveillance practices and as a result, dissuading people from communicating with each other electronically about everything from healthcare decisions to business transactions. And third, they expand warrantless government access to private data. As longtime champions of privacy, free speech, and an open internet, we strongly urge you to vote against reporting these bills out of committee.

Despite the ACLU's argument that "there are other avenues to protect children, privacy, and safety online that do not lead to increased surveillance, censorship, and policing," the committee on Thursday unanimously advanced the EARN IT Act, spearheaded by Ranking Member Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

As Common Dreamsreported Tuesday, the Center for Democracy & Technology led 132 other groups—including the ACLU—in a letter to the panel which says: "We support curbing the scourge of child exploitation online. However, EARN IT will instead make it harder for law enforcement to protect children. It will also result in online censorship that will disproportionately impact marginalized communities."

Fight for the Future, another signatory to that letter, tweeted Thursday that "the dangerous, anti-encryption #EARNITAct passed out of committee this morning. We know this bill—it's back from the dead to restrict the internet and make everyone less safe online."

The group also thanked Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) for entering the coalition's letter about the EARN IT Act into the record.

Representatives from the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Equality Arizona, Fight for the Future, Reframe Health and Justice, and Woodhull Freedom Foundation came together with grassroots organizer Melissa Kadri and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) on Wednesday for a press conference on some of the internet bills being considered by Congress.

Along with criticizing the EARN IT and STOP CSAM proposals, the event's speakers sounded the alarm about the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act.

Specifically naming Bolivia, China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Russia as "foreign adversaries," the RESTRICT Act (S. 686) would empower the U.S. Department of Commerce to "review, prevent, and mitigate information communications and technology transactions that pose undue risk to our national security."

KOSA, which was officially reintroduced on Tuesday, would increase parental controls, force social media platforms to prevent and mitigate certain harms to minors, and require independent audits.

"I'm a parent of a 12-year-old, and I care deeply about my 12-year-old's future. And for me, I want to ask not just what policies will make the internet more sanitized or safer for my child, but what policies governing the internet will lead to the type of world that I want my child to grow up in," said Fight for the Future director Evan Greer.

"That's a world where she has access to human rights, where she has access to accurate life-saving information about issues like mental health and substance abuse, and where she has access to online community," she continued. "And that is true for so many children, particularly LGBTQ kids who are facing unprecedented assaults across the country."

Citing Fred Rogers' philosophy that what can be mentioned can be managed, Greer added that "a lot of these bills are based on the idea that we protect our kids by sequestering them off from discussion of these important topics; unfortunately, we actually know from evidence and data that that harms our kids, and that our kids are safer when they are able to discuss... with their peers and with experts these issues that affect them. These bills would, unfortunately, cut kids off from those resources, and that's why we believe that they will make kids less safe, and not more safe

 

Wyden agreed that "these bills are going to make kids less safe." Specifically, he expressed concern about EARN IT and STOP CSAM bills attacking "the single strongest technology protecting kids and families online," warning that "weakening encryption is probably the premier gift you could give to predators and god-awful people who want to stalk and spy on kids."

"I want to make one quick point about the Kids Online Safety Act: Giving extremist governors the power to decide what content is safe for kids is a nonstarter," he said, calling out the GOP leaders of Florida and Texas. "Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott are using every bit of power they have to go after queer and trans kids, censor information about reproductive health, and scrub basic history about race in America. I'm not about to give them even more power... I urge my colleagues to focus on elements that are actually going to protect kids rather than just handing big quantities of more power to MAGA Republicans to wage a culture war against children."

"I think the most important thing Congress can do to improve the internet for kids and everybody else is to pass comprehensive privacy legislation," Wyden asserted. "This fight... has been the longest-running battle since the Trojan War, and it's time to take on the special interests and get a strong bill passed."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

UAW Holds Off on Endorsing Biden in Bid to Secure Just EV Transition


"We need to get our members organized behind a pro-worker, pro-climate, and pro-democracy political program that can deliver for the working class," says a memo from the union's new president.


Ford workers build an electric F-150 Lightning at a factory in Dearborn, Michigan on September 8, 2022.
(Photo: Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images)

KENNY STANCIL
May 04, 2023

The United Auto Workers is withholding its endorsement of U.S. President Joe Biden in the early stages of the 2024 race in an attempt to extract concessions that would ensure the nascent transition to all-electric vehicles benefits labor as well as the environment.

"We need to get our members organized behind a pro-worker, pro-climate, and pro-democracy political program that can deliver for the working class," says a memo written by UAW president Shawn Fain and shared internally on Tuesday.

Fain, an electrician from Indiana, won a March runoff election to lead the Detroit-based union, defeating incumbent Ray Curry of the powerful Administration Caucus in a major upset. Fain's victory, one of several in which challengers from the insurgent Members United slate prevailed, gave reformers control of UAW's direction. The new president quickly promised a more confrontational approach, decrying "give-back unionism" and vowing to "put the members back in the driver's seat, regain the trust of the rank and file, and put the companies on notice."

A reinvigorated UAW is also putting Biden on notice by holding onto its coveted endorsement. With 400,000 active members and a heavy presence in the battleground state of Michigan, the union remains a significant political force. Its goal is to pressure Biden into improving federal policies related to electric vehicle (EV) manufacturing.

"The federal government is pouring billions into the electric vehicle transition, with no strings attached and no commitment to workers," Fain wrote in his new memo. "The EV transition is at serious risk of becoming a race to the bottom. We want to see national leadership have our back on this before we make any commitments."

As The New York Timesreported Wednesday:
In April, the Biden administration proposed the nation's most ambitious climate regulations yet, which would ensure that two-thirds of new passenger cars are all-electric by 2032—up from just 5.8% today. The rules, if enacted, could sharply lower planet-warming pollution from vehicle tailpipes, the nation's largest source of greenhouse emissions. But they come with costs for autoworkers, because it takes fewer than half the laborers to assemble an all-electric vehicle as it does to build a gasoline-powered car.

But it's not just potential job losses that are of concern to UAW leaders. They also want to see higher wages and better benefits for workers at EV facilities.

A 2021 report from the Economic Policy Institute made clear that the consequences of the EV transition for U.S. workers depend on how policymakers manage the shift. With "smart policy," lawmakers can turn the coming auto industry "upheaval" into an opportunity to create up to 150,000 "good jobs" by 2030, the analysis found. But if the move to EVs is not accompanied by policies to onshore manufacturing and improve job quality, then more than 75,000 jobs could be lost, it warned.

UAW made a similar point in a 2021 update to its EV white paper:
The growth of EVs must be an opportunity to re-invest in American manufacturing, with union workers making the vehicles of the future. But, to make sure this disruption does not leave American autoworkers behind, government subsidies and tax breaks for the transition to new technology must be paired with a commitment to locate these jobs in the United States at comparable wages and benefits to the jobs they replace. And we must ensure our laws level the playing field and give workers a voice on the job, which is why we are calling on Congress [to] strengthen our labor laws and pass the PRO Act. Protecting jobs and wages during this transition will only happen if workers have a seat at the table.

The Inflation Reduction Act passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by Biden last August contains North American EV manufacturing incentives. Such provisions have been met with threats of trade challenges from Europe, however, leading progressive advocacy groups to urge governments on both sides of the Atlantic to start prioritizing decarbonization over corporate-friendly trade rules.

As CNBCreported Wednesday, Fain's memo lamented "the pay rate at a recently opened Ultium Cells LLC battery plant near Lordstown, Ohio—a joint venture between General Motors and LG Energy Solution—compared with that of traditional automotive assembly plants."

According to the outlet:
Ultium has said hourly workers currently make between $16 and $22 an hour with full benefits, incentives, and tuition assistance. That compares to traditional hourly UAW members that can make upward of $32 an hour at GM plants.

Joint venture battery facilities are viewed as crucial for the UAW to grow and add members, as automakers such as GM transition to EVs.

"The situation at Lordstown, and the current state of the EV transition, is unacceptable," Fain wrote. "We expect action from the people in power to make it right."

Fain and other UAW leaders met with White House officials last week to lay out the union's case for a just EV transition that simultaneously slashes life-threatening carbon dioxide pollution and enhances the well-being of workers involved in the process.

"We were very adamant that if the government is going to funnel billions in taxpayer money to these companies, the workers must be compensated with top wages and benefits," wrote Fain. "A 'just transition' has to include standards for our members and future workers."

UAW endorsed Biden in the 2020 race, citing his support for labor. But the union is in no rush to renew its blessing before it wins concessions for the workers behind the shift to EVs.

Noting that 150,000 autoworkers are organizing for a new contract with the "Big Three"—Ford, GM, and Stellantis (formerly Chrysler)—in September, Fain wrote that "we'll stand with whoever stands with our members in that fight."

"Right now, we're focused on making sure the EV transition does right by our members, our families, and our communities," Fain continued. "We'll be ready to talk politics once we secure a future for this industry and the workers who make it run."

Nevertheless, the union has no intention of backing former President Donald Trump—the leading candidate to win the Republican Party's 2024 nomination—given the GOP's long track record of greater hostility to organized labor.

A second Trump term "would be a disaster," Fain added. "But our members need to see an alternative that delivers real results."
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

As White House Unveils Plan, A Fresh Call to Halt 'Runaway Corporate AI'


"President Biden should call for, and Congress should legislate, a moratorium on the deployment of new generative AI technologies," Public Citizen's Robert Weissman argued.

A growing number of experts are calling for a pause on advanced AI development and deployment.
(Photo: Monsitj/Getty Images)

BRETT WILKINS
May 04, 2023

As the White House on Thursday unveiled a plan meant to promote "responsible American innovation in artificial intelligence," a leading U.S. consumer advocate added his voice to the growing number of experts calling for a moratorium on the development and deployment of advanced AI technology.

"Today's announcement from the White House is a useful step forward, but much more is needed to address the threats of runaway corporate AI," Robert Weissman, president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement.

"But we also need more aggressive measures," Weissman asserted. "President Biden should call for, and Congress should legislate, a moratorium on the deployment of new generative AI technologies, to remain in effect until there is a robust regulatory framework in place to address generative AI's enormous risks."



The White House says its AI plan builds on steps the Biden administration has taken "to promote responsible innovation."

"These include the landmark Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights and related executive actions announced last fall, as well as the AI Risk Management Framework and a roadmap for standing up a National AI Research Resource released earlier this year," the administration said.

The White House plan includes $140 million in National Science Foundation funding for seven new national AI research institutes—there are already 25 such facilities—that "catalyze collaborative efforts across institutions of higher education, federal agencies, industry, and others to pursue transformative AI advances that are ethical, trustworthy, responsible, and serve the public good."

The new plan also includes "an independent commitment from leading AI developers, including Anthropic, Google, Hugging Face, Microsoft, NVIDIA, OpenAI, and Stability AI, to participate in a public evaluation of AI systems."

Representatives of some of those companies including Google, Microsoft, Anthropic, and OpenAI—creator of the popular ChatGPT chatbot—met with Vice President Kamala Harris and other administration officials at the White House on Thursday. According toThe New York Times, President Joe Biden "briefly" dropped in on the meeting.



"AI is one of today's most powerful technologies, with the potential to improve people's lives and tackle some of society's biggest challenges. At the same time, AI has the potential to dramatically increase threats to safety and security, infringe civil rights and privacy, and erode public trust and faith in democracy," Harris said in a statement.

"The private sector has an ethical, moral, and legal responsibility to ensure the safety and security of their products," she added.



Thursday's White House meeting and plan come amid mounting concerns over the potential dangers posed by artificial intelligence on a range of issues, including military applications, life-and-death healthcare decisions, and impacts on the labor force.

In late March, tech leaders and researchers led an open letter signed by more than 27,000 experts, scholars, and others urging "all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4."

Noting that AI developers are "locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no one—not even their creators—can understand, predict, or reliably control," the letter asks:

Should we let machines flood our information channels with propaganda and untruth? Should we automate away all the jobs, including the fulfilling ones? Should we develop nonhuman minds that might eventually outnumber, outsmart, obsolete, and replace us? Should we risk loss of control of our civilization?

"Such decisions must not be delegated to unelected tech leaders," the signers asserted. "Powerful AI systems should be developed only once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable."

Last month, Public Citizen argued that "until meaningful government safeguards are in place to protect the public from the harms of generative AI, we need a pause."

"These systems demonstrate capabilities in question answering, and the generation of text, image, and code unimagined a decade ago, and they outperform the state of the art on many benchmarks, old and new," the group said in a report. "However, they are prone to hallucination, routinely biased, and can be tricked into serving nefarious aims, highlighting the complicated ethical challenges associated with their deployment."

According to the annual AI Index Report published last month by the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, nearly three-quarters of researchers believe artificial intelligence "could soon lead to revolutionary social change," while 36% worry that AI decisions "could cause nuclear-level catastrophe."

151 Groups Blast Biden Admin for Backing 'Destructive' Mountain Valley Pipeline

"This project is not inevitable, and is completely counter to the overwhelming evidence that we must stop creating new fossil fuel infrastructure immediately."

Empty pipeline segments are shown on the property of Maury Johnson, a local farmer and landowner challenging the Mountain Valley Pipeline, on August 26, 2022 in Greenville, West Virginia.
(Photo: Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images)

JESSICA CORBETT
May 04, 2023

A coalition of climate groups this week called out the Biden administration's support for the partially completed Mountain Valley Pipeline, highlighting how its ongoing construction and potential operation threaten "the well-being of people, endangered species, streams, rivers, farms, national forests, and the planet."

The letter, led by Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) and 7 Directions of Service and backed by 149 other organizations, is in response to U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm writing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) last month to reiterate the administration's position on the contested 303-mile fracked gas pipeline across Virginia and West Virginia.

"We are incredibly disappointed with your recent actions to promote the destructive and unneeded Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP)," the climate coalition wrote to Granholm, noting that her letter to FERC coincided with President Joe Biden signing an executive order to implement "environmental justice policy across the federal government."

"You should be supporting environmental justice as the bedrock of every new policy and piece of infrastructure, advocating for climate reparations, and aggressively promoting distributed, decentralized renewable energy and energy democracy."

After condemning the administration's endorsement of the pipeline and recent approvals of the Willow oil and Alaska liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects as "hypocritical betrayals," given Biden's campaign trail pledges, the coalition laid out how the MVP impacts "livelihoods, drinking water sources, property values, and important cultural resources," pointing to Indigenous cultural sites as well as communities of "low-income, elderly, and medically underserved populations" dependent on private wells.

MVP construction has involved over 500 violations of permit conditions, laws, and regulations, the letter emphasizes, and almost 75% of the route "slices through 'moderate-high' or 'high' landslide risk terrain."

The pipeline developer's website states that "MVP's total project work is nearly 94% complete, which includes 55.8% of the right-of-way fully restored." While proponents of the project often cite the former figure, letter signatories are drawing attention to the latter—and that completion would require complex construction involving "incredibly complex and fragile" water crossings.



"The MVP, its greedy political backers, and some journalists continue to claim that the project is nearly complete despite the company's own repeated reports that it is just over half complete with some of the hardest construction yet to come, including hundreds of stream crossings," POWHR managing director Russell Chisholm told Common Dreams.

"This disinformation is not only an insult to frontline communities monitoring and enduring the unfinished pipeline's construction, but it furthers the risk of another planet-killing fossil fuel pipeline built during a climate crisis... on a planet that we all live on," Chisholm added. "Shame on all people in power who tout this falsehood."

Released as climate scientists continue to stress the need for a swift global transition to renewable energy, the letter argues that "this project is not inevitable, and is completely counter to the overwhelming evidence that we must stop creating new fossil fuel infrastructure immediately."

Taking aim at claims in the energy secretary's letter, the coalition wrote:
Asking the commission to proceed "expeditiously" with any further action on the project and misstating the project's relation to "national security" while providing no evidence undermines the administration's commitment to advancing environmental justice. An economy tied to fossil fuels during a climate crisis is unpredictable and makes us vulnerable to foreign governments and the greed of corporate CEOs. This country's energy independence can only come from a swift and just renewable energy transition. This will help protect us from foreign supply chain disruptions and conflicts, as well as deliver lower costs to consumers. The MVP will not assist our allies in Europe, and nor is it needed in the Southeast as you claim. No matter where MVP's gas is intended to be delivered, sacrificing communities to free up gas to export overseas for corporate profit is not "national security." Building this project prolongs fracked gas buildout, accelerates LNG infrastructure buildout and export, and sacrifices communities, all of which are counter to the just future we deserve.

Your letter contains open appeals for dangerous distractions that will prop up the fossil fuel industry for decades to come. The dangerous distractions of carbon capture and hydrogen propagate the untrue belief that we can continue wholesale destruction of the earth, continue creating sacrifice zones, release millions of tons of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuel projects, and continue massive corporate capture of regulatory agencies while embarking on a just transition off of fossil fuels. Instead, you should be supporting environmental justice as the bedrock of every new policy and piece of infrastructure, advocating for climate reparations, and aggressively promoting distributed, decentralized renewable energy and energy democracy.

"Your letter states that MVP is part of the clean energy transition. In reality, MVP would exacerbate the very climate crisis that is causing an increasing number of extreme weather events," the organizations continued, referencing expert estimates that its "lifecycle would be comparable to the operation of 26 to 37 new coal-fired power plants."
"We request that you immediately rescind your letter of support for the project," the coalition concluded, "and that you meet with directly impacted communities as soon as possible who live on the route of the project, so you can gain an increased understanding of the destruction and danger that you are promoting."

The groups' letter comes as U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)—whose personal fortune and political campaigns are tied to fossil fuels—renews his push for a "dirty deal" on energy permitting reforms, despite three defeats last year. On Tuesday he introduced the Building American Energy Security Act, which calls for the completion of the MVP.



In a backroom deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) last summer, Manchin agreed to vote for the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) if Democrats—who then controlled both chambers of Congress—subquently pushed through his permitting measure. Progressive lawmakers and grassroots opposition have so far blocked such efforts, but the House is now narrowly held by Republicans willing to serve Big Oil, and Manchin expressed confidence this week that he can advance a bipartisan bill.

Despite Manchin's recent votes to gut some of Biden's climate and environmental policies, the White House is backing his bill. "We supported it last year, we'll support it this year," John Podesta, who directs IRA implementation for the president, toldReutersTuesday. "It's a high priority for us to try to find a path forward on bipartisan, permanent reform."

Meanwhile, "dirty deal" critics remain committed to killing it. According to Chisholm, "Sen. Manchin is desperate to complete the Mountain Valley Pipeline through federal shortcuts that circumvent normal regulatory and judicial processes because he knows our movement is growing stronger every day and we will stop the unnecessary, unwanted climate nightmare that is the MVP."
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

To End 'Disgrace' of Poverty Wages, Sanders Bill Would Hike Federal Minimum to $17

MAKE IT A LIVING WAGE $20


"The overwhelming majority of Americans support raising the minimum wage to a living wage."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks during a news conference with labor leaders and service workers on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on May 4, 2023.
(Photo: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)

JAKE JOHNSON
May 04, 2023

Decrying the "national disgrace" of poverty wages in the world's richest country, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday introduced legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage to $17 an hour over a period of five years.

Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, lamented that Congress hasn't raised the federal minimum wage in more than a decade, leaving tens of millions of workers with what the senator described as "starvation wages."

"Now is the time to raise the minimum wage," Sanders (I-Vt.) said at a Capitol Hill press conference alongside union leaders and service workers. "Let's be clear: This is not a radical idea. The overwhelming majority of Americans support raising the minimum wage to a living wage."

"It is not acceptable today that nearly 35 million American workers earn less than $17 an hour," the senator added.

Sanders pledged to push his legislation "as quickly and as hard" as possible in the Senate, where the bill faces long odds given likely opposition from several members of the chamber's Democratic caucus and every Republican. The Senate HELP Committee will hold a mark-up hearing for the new legislation on June 14, Sanders announced Thursday.

The full text of the bill is not yet available.

Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said during Thursday's press conference that "we are going to be watching any congressperson—senator or in the House—that dares to say that they are not going to vote yes for Senator Sanders' bill."

"They need to be held accountable at the ballot box," said Henry.



More than a decade has passed since Congress last raised the federal minimum wage, and efforts in recent years to enact a $15-an-hour wage floor nationally have fallen short amid opposition from the GOP, corporate-friendly Democrats, and the business lobby.

While some lawmakers are sure to balk at the idea of more than doubling the federal minimum wage, a working paper released this week showed that counties that have enacted large minimum wage increases have seen higher employment, higher earnings for workers, and lower inequality.

"Nobody in this country can survive on $7.25 an hour," Sanders said Thursday. "Maybe some of my colleagues in Congress might want to live for a month on seven-and-a-quarter an hour and see what that's like."

As Congress has failed to act, many states, cities, and counties across the U.S. have raised their minimum wages substantially, with progress continuing this year. According to a recent report by the National Employment Law Project, a record 86 U.S. jurisdictions are set to raise their minimum wages in 2023.

But 15 states have their minimum wages set at the federal floor of $7.25 an hour, according to the Economic Policy Institute's Minimum Wage Tracker, and five other states have no minimum wage laws—meaning the federal minimum applies.

"As it becomes more and more expensive to get by in America, $15 is no longer an adequate goal. We need to go higher to reflect what it actually costs to live in America."

In an analysis earlier this year, EPI estimated that "a worker in one of the 20 states with a $7.25 minimum wage is 46% more likely to make less than $15 an hour than a worker in the other 30 states or District of Columbia with higher minimum wages."

"There is no part of this country where even a single adult without children can achieve an adequate standard of living with a wage of less than $15 an hour," EPI noted. "With the lack of congressional action, the federal minimum wage has lost more than a third of its value since its inflation-adjusted high point of 1968."

Sanders said Thursday that with living costs rising across the country, a $15 minimum wage would still be insufficient—a point that supporters of the new legislation echoed.

"As it becomes more and more expensive to get by in America, $15 is no longer an adequate goal," Stephen Prince, vice chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement. "We need to go higher to reflect what it actually costs to live in America. Sanders is right to revise his minimum wage push to $17 an hour to save workers across the country from further suffocation."

"On a larger scale, raising the minimum wage would give millions of people more money to buy more products and services from businesses around the country, which is good for our bottom lines," said Prince. "From a business standpoint, 60% of the country living paycheck to paycheck is unsustainable and precarious. Sanders' $17 minimum wage will change this reality and I’m all for it."