Olivia Rosane, Common Dreams

More than a decade after it sparked massive protests in the state capital, a Wisconsin judge on Monday struck down a controversial law that effectively ended public sector collective bargaining in the state.

In his final judgement, Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost crossed out 85 sections of the 2011 law known as Act 10, which was championed by then-Republican Gov. Scott Walker. Frost's ruling restored the union rights of teachers, sanitation workers, nurses, and other public sector employees.

"After 14 years of battling for our collective bargaining rights, we are thrilled to take this step forward," Rocco DeMark, a building service worker and SEIU Wisconsin worksite leader, said in a statement. "This victory brings us immense joy. Our fight has been long, but we are excited to continue building a Wisconsin where we can all thrive."

"We realize there may still be a fight ahead of us in the courts, but make no mistake, we're ready to keep fighting until we all have a seat at the table again."

Act 10 severely weakened the power of public sector unions in Wisconsin by only permitting them to bargain for wage increases that did not surpass inflation. It also raised what public employees paid for healthcare and retirement, ended the automatic withdrawal of union dues, and required workers to recertify their union votes every year.

The law has had a major impact on the Wisconsin workforce. Between 2000 and 2022, no state saw a steeper decline in its proportion of unionized employees, a drop that the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum partly attributed to Law 10. Unions say that the law has caused a "crisis" for the state's education workforce, as 40% of new teachers leave within six years due to low pay and an unequal wage system. There is also a 32% vacancy rate for state correction officers.

Act 10 had one exception, however: Certain "public safety" employees such as police and firefighters were exempt from the collective bargaining restrictions imposed on "general" employees. It was this division that unions used to challenge the law in November 2023, arguing that it violated the equal protection clause of the Wisconsin Constitution. In July, Frost affirmed that the law was unconstitutional when he struck down an attempt to dismiss the suit. Then, on Monday, he specified exactly which parts of the law would be struck down.

"Judge Frost's ruling is a monumental victory for Wisconsin's working class," Democratic Wisconsin State Assembly Member Darrion Madison told Courthouse News Service. "All Wisconsinites deserve the opportunity to live in a state that treats all workers with respect and dignity."

The lawsuit was brought by Ben Gruber, Matthew Ziebarth, the Abbotsford Education Association (WEAC/NEA), AFSCME Local 47, AFSCME Local 1215, Beaver Dam Education Association (WEAC/NEA), SEIU Wisconsin, Teaching Assistants Association (TAA/AFT) Local 3220, and Teamsters Local 695.

"Today's decision is personal for me and my coworkers," said Gruber, who serves as president of AFSCME Local 1215. "As a conservation warden, having full collective bargaining rights means we will again have a voice on the job to improve our workplace and make sure that Wisconsin is a safe place for everyone."

The news was also celebrated by state›wide advocacy groups and national leaders.

"We applaud today's ruling as a win for workers' rights and as proof that when we come together to ensure our courts and elected leaders are working on behalf of our rights and freedoms instead of partisan antics, we can accomplish great things," said A Better Wisconsin Together deputy director Mike Browne.

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said: "This decision is a big deal. Act 10 stripped workers of the freedom and power to have a voice on the job to bargain wages, benefits, and working conditions. It's about the dignity of work. And when workers have a voice, they have a vehicle to improve the quality of the services they provide to students, patients, and communities."

"Former Gov. Scott Walker tried to eliminate all of that, and it hurt Wisconsin," she continued. "Now, many years later, the courts have found his actions unconstitutional."

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) wrote on social media, "I voted against Act 10 more than 13 years ago, and am thrilled our public servants are able to once again organize and make their voices heard."

This is not the first time that Act 10 has been challenged in court, but it is the first time since the state's Supreme Court switched from a conservative to a liberal majority in 2023. Since Republican lawmakers have promised to appeal Frost's ruling, the law's ultimate fate could depend on elections in April 2025, which will determine whether the court maintains its liberal majority, according toThe Associated Press.

As they celebrated, the plaintiffs acknowledged the legal fight was not yet over.

"We realize there may still be a fight ahead of us in the courts, but make no mistake, we're ready to keep fighting until we all have a seat at the table again," Gruber said.

WEAC President Peggy Wirtz-Olsen said: "Today's news is a win and, while there will likely be more legal legwork coming, WEAC and our allies will not stop until free, fair, and full collective bargaining rights are restored."

Betsy Ramsdale, a union leader who teaches in the Beaver Dam Unified School District, said that public sector collective bargaining rights ultimately helped the state.

"We're confident that, in the end, the rghts of all Wisconsin public sector employees will be restored," she said. "Educators' working conditions are students' learning conditions, and everyone benefits when we have a say in the workplace."

Environmental organizations cheered as Norway's controversial plans to move forward with deep-sea mining in the vulnerable Arctic Ocean were iced on Sunday.

The pause was won in Norway's parliament by the small Socialist Left (SV) Party in exchange for its support in passing the government's 2025 budget.

"Today marks a monumental victory for the ocean, as the SV Party in Norway has successfully blocked the controversial plan to issue deep-sea mining licenses for the country's extended continental shelf in the Arctic," Steve Trent, CEO and founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation, said in a statement. "This decision is a testament to the power of principled, courageous political action, and it is a moment to celebrate for environmental advocates, ocean ecosystems, and future generations alike."

"Today, thanks to the SV Party and all those around the world who spoke up against this decision, the ocean has won. Now, let's ensure this victory lasts."

Norway sparked outrage in January when its parliament voted to allow deep-sea mining exploration in a swath of its Arctic waters larger than the United Kingdom. Scientists have warned that mining the Arctic seabed could disturb unique hydrothermal vent ecosystems and even drive species to extinction before scientists have a chance to study them. It would also put additional pressure on all levels of Arctic Ocean life—from plankton to marine mammals—at a time when they are already feeling the impacts of rising temperatures and ocean acidification due to the burning of fossil fuels.

"The Arctic Ocean is one of the last pristine frontiers on Earth, and its fragile ecosystems are already under significant stress from the climate crisis," Trent said. "The idea of subjecting these waters to the destructive, needless practice of deep-sea mining was a grave threat, not only to the marine life depending on them but to the global community as a whole."

"Thankfully, this shortsighted and harmful plan has been halted, marking a clear victory in the ongoing fight to protect our planet's blue beating heart," Trent continued.

In June, Norway announced that it would grant the first exploratory mining licenses in early 2025. However, this has been put on hold by the agreement with the SV Party.

"This puts a stop to the plans to start deep-sea mining until the end of the government's term,” party leader Kirsti Bergstø said, as The Guardian reported.

Norway next holds parliamentary elections in September 2025, so no licenses will be approved before then.

The move comes amid widespread opposition to deep-sea mining in Norway and beyond. A total of 32 countries and 911 marine scientists have called for a global moratorium on the practice. More than 100 E.U. parliamentarians wrote a letter opposing Norway's plans specifically, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has sued to stop them.

"This is a major and important environmental victory!" WWF-Norway CEO Karoline Andaur said in a statement. "SV has stopped the process for deep seabed mining, giving Norway a unique opportunity to save its international ocean reputation and gain the necessary knowledge before we even consider mining the planet's last untouched wilderness."

Haldis Tjeldflaat Helle, the deep-sea mining campaigner at Greenpeace Nordic, called the decision "a huge win."

"After hard work from activists, environmentalists, scientists, and fishermen, we have secured a historic win for ocean protection, as the opening process for deep-sea mining in Norway has been stopped," Helle said in a statement. "The wave of protests against deep-sea mining is growing. We will not let this industry destroy the unique life in the deep sea, not in the Arctic nor anywhere else."

However, Norway's Arctic waters are not entirely safe yet.

Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere, of the Labour Party, toldTV2, on Sunday, "This will be a postponement."

The government said that other work to begin the process of deep-sea mining, such as drafting regulations and conducting environmental impact surveys, would move forward. Norway is currently governed by the Labour and Center parties. The two parties leading in polls for September's elections—the Conservatives and Progress Party—also both back deep-sea mining, according toReuters.

"If a new government attempts to reopen the licensing round we will fight relentlessly against it," Frode Pleym, who leads Greenpeace Norway, told Reuters.

Other environmental groups tempered their celebrations with calls for further action.

Trent of the Environmental Justice Foundation said that "while today is a cause for celebration, this victory must not be seen as the end of the struggle."

"We urge Norway's government, and all responsible global actors, to make this a lasting victory by enshrining protections for the Arctic Ocean and its ecosystems into law, and coming out in favor of a moratorium or ban on deep-sea mining," Trent added. "It is only through a collective commitment to sustainability and long-term stewardship of our oceans that we can ensure the health of the marine environment for generations to come."

Trent concluded: "Today, thanks to the SV Party and all those around the world who spoke up against this decision, the ocean has won. Now, let's ensure this victory lasts."

Andaur of WWF said that this was a "pivotal moment" for Norway to "demonstrate global leadership by prioritizing ocean health over destructive industry."

As WWF called on Norway to abandon its mining plans, it also urged the nation to reconsider its exploitation of the ocean for oil and gas.

"Unfortunately, we have not seen similar efforts to curtail the Norwegian oil industry, which is still getting new licenses to operate in Norwegian waters, including very vulnerable parts of the Arctic," Andaur said. "Norway needs to explore new ways to make money without extracting fossil fuels and destroying nature."

Greenpeace also pointed to the role Norway's pause could play in bolstering global opposition to deep-sea mining.

"Millions of people across the world are calling on governments to resist the dire threat of deep-sea mining to safeguard oceans worldwide," Greenpeace International Stop Deep-Sea Mining campaigner Louisa Casson said. "This is a huge step forward to protect the Arctic, and now it is time for Norway to join over 30 nations calling for a moratorium and be a true ocean champion."

Existing policies and actions taken by world governments put the world on track for a median estimate of 2.7°C of warming by the end of the century, Climate Action Tracker revealed on Thursday at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Baku, Azerbaijan.

If global leaders make no further effort to reduce emissions, temperatures have a 33% chance of spiking past 3°C of warming by 2100 and a 10% chance of overtaking 3.6°C, which report lead author Sofia Gonzales-Zuniga called "an absolutely catastrophic level of warming."

"The combined global effect of government action on climate change has flatlined over the last three years, underscoring a critical disconnect between the reality of climate change and the lack of urgency on policies to cut emissions," Climate Action Tracker (CAT) announced during its annual update at COP29.

The report attributes the lack of progress to the fact that few governments announced new climate targets in 2024 while they continued to facilitate the increased burning of fossil fuels, despite the pledge made at last year's COP28 to transition away from oil, gas, and coal.

It comes on the heels of a series of reports released ahead of or during COP29 that paint a consistent picture of escalating greenhouse gas emissions and climate extremes paired with government inaction. The U.N. Emissions Gap Report, published in late October, projected that the world was on track for 3.1°C of warming based on current policies. The World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, also published last month, found that all three main greenhouse gases reached record atmospheric levels in 2023.

"The impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly dramatic, yet we still see no sign that burning of fossil fuels has peaked."

2023 was also the hottest year on record, but the WMO's State of the Climate 2024 update for COP29 warned that 2024 was likely to surpass it. Further, global temperatures from January to September averaged 1.54°C above preindustrial levels, temporarily surpassing the 1.5°C warming limit enshrined in the Paris agreement.

"The record-breaking rainfall and flooding, rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones, deadly heat, relentless drought, and raging wildfires that we have seen in different parts of the world this year are unfortunately our new reality and a foretaste of our future," WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo said in a statement. "We urgently need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen our monitoring and understanding of our changing climate."

Yet this is precisely what is not happening: Another study from the Global Carbon Budget released on Wednesday projected that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels would increase by 0.8% from 2023 to reach 37.4 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent, a record high.

"The impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly dramatic, yet we still see no sign that burning of fossil fuels has peaked," study leader Pierre Friedlingstein, a professor at Exeter's Global Systems Institute, said in a statement. "Time is running out to meet the Paris agreement goals—and world leaders meeting at COP29 must bring about rapid and deep cuts to fossil fuel emissions to give us a chance of staying well below 2°C warming above preindustrial levels."

The Climate Action Tracker report adds to these findings, concluding that while renewables have surged in recent years, continued reliance on fossil fuels have undermined that progress. While clean energy like wind and solar and clean transit like electric vehicles now receive double the investments of oil, gas, and coal, funding for the latter still ballooned by a factor of four between 2021 and 2022 while fossil fuel subsidies are at a record high.

"We are clearly failing to bend the curve," Gonzales-Zuniga said. "As the world edges closer to these dangerous climate thresholds, the need for immediate, stronger action to reverse this trend becomes ever more urgent."

CAT called on the world's largest emitters to lead the way. It recommended 1.5°C-aligned 2035 targets for the world's seven biggest climate polluters—China, the U.S., India, the E.U., Indonesia, Japan, and Australia—as well as the "troika" countries of Brazil, UAE, and Azerbaijan. To bring its policies in line with the 1.5°C goal, the U.S. would have to cut its total emissions (including from land-use and forests) by 65% of 2005 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2035.

This is unlikely to happen under the administration of President-elect Donald Trump, who has promised to "drill, baby, drill" as soon as he retakes the White House in January. CAT concluded that Trump's promised energy policies would raise its projection for 2100 temperatures based on current actions by 0.04°C. However, if the U.S. permanently axes its net-zero goals, and if other countries decide to follow Trump's lead, that temperature increase could be higher.

"Clearly, we won't know the full impact of the U.S. elections until President-elect Trump takes office, but there is a clean energy momentum in the U.S. now that will be difficult to stop," Bill Hare, the CEO of Climate Analytics, said in a statement. "While the Trump administration will undoubtedly do its best to throw a wrecking ball into climate action, the clean energy momentum created by President [Joe] Biden, being actioned across the country, is likely to continue at significant scale."

"The key issue is whether countries stick together and continue to move forward with action," Hare concluded. "A Trump rollback of U.S. policies, as damaging as it is, can be overcome."

Climate-heating carbon dioxide is accumulating in the atmosphere more rapidly than at any time since humans evolved.

That's just one of the alarming findings from the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, released Monday, which found that all three main greenhouse gases reached record atmospheric levels in 2023.

"Words fail," the group Climate Defiance wrote on social media in response to the news.

"Greenhouse gas pollution at these levels will guarantee a human and economic trainwreck for every country, without exception."

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 hit 420.0 parts per million (ppm) in 2023, an increase of 151% since the Industrial Revolution and a level not seen since 3 to 5 million years ago, when global temperatures was 2-3°C hotter than today and sea levels were 10-20 meters higher. Methane hit 1,934 parts per billion (ppb)—or 265% higher than preindustrial levels—and nitrous oxide rose to 336.9 ppb, 125% of pre-1750 levels.

"Another year. Another record," WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo said in a statement. "This should set alarm bells ringing among decision-makers. We are clearly off track to meet the Paris agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C and aiming for 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. These are more than just statistics. Every part per million and every fraction of a degree temperature increase has a real impact on our lives and our planet."

Carbon dioxide rose by 2.3 ppm in 2023. While that was higher than the 2022 increase, it was lower than in 2019-2021. However, on a longer-term scale, atmospheric CO2 rose by 11.4% in the past 10 years, a record increase during human existence. The burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of this increase.

"The report is very clear: This crisis is driven by the profit-driven production of coal, oil, and gas," Climate Defiance wrote. "Because of these fuels, planet-heating pollution levels have gone up by 51.5%—since 1990 alone."

However, 2023's CO2 increases were also caused by forest fires—including a record-breaking fire season in Canada—as well as a possible reduction in the ability of Earth's natural carbon sinks to absorb the greenhouse gas. While vegetation-related CO2 emissions are partially influenced by natural cycles—El Niño years like 2023 are drier and tend to see more fires—they could also be a sign of dangerous feedback loops.

"The Bulletin warns that we face a potential vicious cycle," said WMO Deputy Secretary-General Ko Barrett. "Natural climate variability plays a big role in carbon cycle. But in the near future, climate change itself could cause ecosystems to become larger sources of greenhouse gases."

"Wildfires could release more carbon emissions into the atmosphere, whilst the warmer ocean might absorb less CO2. Consequently, more CO2 could stay in the atmosphere to accelerate global warming," Barrett explained. "These climate feedbacks are critical concerns to human society."

The report also said that even if emissions were to cease rapidly, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means that the current rise in temperatures would linger for decades.

The rise in methane is also a concern. While it increased less in 2023 than in 2022, it hit a record-high increase over the last five years, and some of this could be due to climate feedback loops such as the melting of the Arctic permafrost or greater emissions from wetlands and other natural ecosystems as temperatures rise.

As Climate Defiance noted, WMO's graph showing the rise of methane appears to move from a linear to an exponential progression as it approaches 2023.

"It could literally be the graph that defines human history," Climate Defiance wrote.

"The most infuriating part is it didn't have to be this way," the group continued. "Had we started taking action in the 1970s—when the threat became clear—we could have easily stopped the crisis by now. Instead we gorged ourselves on SUVs and McMansions as politicians dithered and delayed."

The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin is one of several annual reports released ahead of United Nations climate conferences; this year, world leaders are scheduled to gather in Baku, Azerbaijan starting on November 11 for COP29. The Bulletin comes alongside other reports finding that national policies are not on track to reduce emissions in line with the Paris agreement temperature goals.

Last week, the U.N. Emissions Gap Report concluded that current policies put the world on course for as much as 3.1°C of warming. Also on Monday, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) released its 2024 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) Synthesis Report, in which it assesses the commitments that different nations have made to reduce emissions under the Paris agreement.

It found that current NDCs would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2.6% of 2019 levels by 2030, a far cry from the 43% needed to have a chance at limiting global heating to 1.5°C by 2100 and preventing ever-worsening climate impacts.

"Greenhouse gas pollution at these levels will guarantee a human and economic trainwreck for every country, without exception," U.N. Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said in a statement of the current 2030 trajectory.

"Today's NDC Synthesis Report must be a turning point, ending the era of inadequacy and sparking a new age of acceleration, with much bolder new national climate plans from every country due next year," Stiell said. "The report's findings are stark but not surprising—current national climate plans fall miles short of what's needed to stop global heating from crippling every economy, and wrecking billions of lives and livelihoods across every country."

"By contrast," Stiell continued, "much bolder new national climate plans can not only avert climate chaos—done well, they can be transformational for people and prosperity in every nation."

Climate Defiance also called for renewed ambition.

"It is not too late," the group said. "There is still a small window of opportunity. Together, we will unite to stop our own demise. We will rise. We will defy all odds. There is no alternative."

A group of 44 climate scientists from 15 different countries warn there is a "serious risk" that soaring global temperatures will trigger the "catastrophic" collapse of a crucial system of ocean currents—and possibly sooner than established estimates considered likely.

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, moves warm water up from the tropics to the North Atlantic, where it sinks and cools before returning south. It is, as letter signatory and oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf toldThe Guardian, "one of our planet's largest heat transport systems." If it collapsed, it could lower temperatures in some parts of Europe by up to 30°C.

That's why the scientists sent a letter to the Council of Nordic Ministers over the weekend urging them to take action to understand and prevent a potential collapse.

"A string of scientific studies in the past few years suggests that this risk has so far been greatly underestimated," the scientists wrote. "Such an ocean circulation change would have devastating and irreversible impacts especially for Nordic countries, but also for other parts of the world."

In the letter, the scientists detailed some of the potential "catastrophic" impacts of such a collapse, including "major cooling" in northern Europe, extreme weather, and changes that would "potentially threaten the viability of agriculture in northwestern Europe."

One study cited in the letter shows that London could cool by 10°C and Bergen, Norway by 15°C.

"If Britain and Ireland become like northern Norway, (that) has tremendous consequences. Our finding is that this is not a low probability," Peter Ditlevsen, a University of Copenhagen professor who signed the letter, toldReuters. "This is not something you easily adapt to."

Globally, the scientists said, the end of AMOC could cause the ocean to absorb less carbon dioxide, thereby increasing its presence in the atmosphere. It could also further augment sea-level rise along the U.S. Atlantic coast and alter tropical rainfall patterns.

The most recent synthesis report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed "medium confidence" that the current would not cease functioning before 2100. Since its publication in March 2023, however, a rash of studies have come out upping the risk.

"Given that the outcome would be catastrophic and impacting the entire world for centuries to come, we believe more needs to be done to minimize this risk."

A Nature Communications study, also published last year, looked at 150 years of temperature data and determined with 95% confidence that AMOC would collapse between 2025 and 2095 if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise as currently predicted.

Another, published in Science Advances in February, concluded that AMOC was currently "on route to tipping."

There are already signs that AMOC has begun to stall over the last six to seven decades, Rahmstorf told The Guardian, such as the cold blob in the North Atlantic that is defying global warming trends. The water in North Atlantic is also becoming less salty due to meltwater from the Greenland ice sheets and increased precipitation due to climate change. Less salty water is lighter and does not sink, interrupting the process that makes AMOC flow.

"It is an amplifying feedback: As AMOC gets weaker, the subpolar oceans gets less salty, and as the oceans gets less salty then AMOC gets weaker," Rahmstorf explained. "At a certain point this becomes a vicious circle which continues by itself until AMOC has died, even if we stop pushing the system with further emissions."

"The big unknown here—the billion-dollar question—is how far away this tipping point is," Rahmstorf said.

The scientists acknowledged that the chance of the AMOC tipping "remains highly uncertain."

They continued:

The purpose of this letter is to draw attention to the fact that only 'medium confidence' in the AMOC not collapsing is not reassuring, and clearly leaves open the possibility of an AMOC collapse during this century. And there is even greater likelihood that a collapse is triggered this century but only fully plays out in the next.

Given the increasing evidence for a higher risk of an AMOC collapse, we believe it is of critical importance that Arctic tipping point risks, in particular the AMOC risk, are taken seriously in governance and policy. Even with a medium likelihood of occurrence, given that the outcome would be catastrophic and impacting the entire world for centuries to come, we believe more needs to be done to minimize this risk.

To respond to this threat, the scientists urged the council—a group that includes Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Åland—to launch a study of the risk posed to these countries by an AMOC collapse and to take measures to counter that risk.

"This could involve leveraging the strong international standing of the Nordic countries to increase pressure for greater urgency and priority in the global effort to reduce emissions as quickly as possible, in order to stay close to the 1.5°C target set by the Paris agreement," they wrote.

Johan Rockström, a letter signatory who leads the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, wrote on social media that global politics, "particularly in [the] Nordic region, can no longer exclude [the] risk of AMOC collapse."

And there is one way that political leaders can stave off such a collapse, as well as other climate tipping points, according to Rahmstorf.

"This is all driven mainly by fossil fuel emissions and also deforestation, so both must be stopped," he told The Guardian. "We must stick to the Paris agreement and limit global heating as close to 1.5°C as possible."

Following their historic vote to join the United Auto Workers in April, workers at a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee held a rally on Sunday as they prepare to head into their first round of negotiations with the company next week.

With their vote, the Chattanooga workers became the first Southern automakers not affiliated with one of the Big Three auto companies to win a union.

"Just a few months ago, you voted 3-1 to join the UAW," the union's president Shawn Fain told the assembled workers, adding, "You had faith, and you moved mountains, you overcame opposition, and you won your union."

"With the kinds of profits you're generating, Volkswagen could double your wages, not raise prices, and still make billions of dollars. It's a choice."

At a rally that began at 1:30 pm Eastern Time on Sunday, Fain told gathered workers that they were now ready for the "next step."

"We tell Volkswagen, get out your pens, because it's time to put it down in writing," Fain said.

Heading into negotiations, the UAW is set to make several demands of Volkswagen, among them improved health and safety; competitive wages including cost of living allowances, profit sharing, and no tiers; improved paid-time-off polices; more retirement security; affordable healthcare; and union protections such as due process, union representation, paid time for union work, job training, and fair promotion policies.

Fain warned the workers that the company and the corporate media would try to fearmonger about the union's demands.

"They're going to say that our righteous fight for a high quality of life for the working class will wreck the economy or derail the transition to EV," Fain said, adding, "The only economy that's going to get wrecked in this is their economy that only works for the rich and the corporate class."

Fain shared figures showing that Volkswagen had increased its profits since 2021 by 49% compared with the previous three years, securing $24 billion in profits in 2023 alone. But instead of sharing that windfall equitably with the workforce and the local economy, it paid CEO Oliver Blume $10.5 million and wealthy shareholders $12.7 billion. Shareholders have seen their dividends jump by 288% in two years.

"That's billions of dollars that have been robbed from the workers who generated those profits," Fain said. "It's billions of dollars that weren't spent on the EV transition. It's billions of dollars being spent on mansions in faraway countries and yachts in private marinas, and not being spent in the local businesses right here in Tennessee."

At the same time, workers at the Chattanooga plant had produced more than 1.5 million vehicles for over $50 billion in sales since 2011.

"You're the backbone of this plant, you're the backbone of this company, and you deserve your fair share of the wealth that you create," Fain said, adding, "With the kinds of profits you're generating, Volkswagen could double your wages, not raise prices, and still make billions of dollars. It's a choice."

Ultimately, Fain said the figures he cited had one cause: "corporate greed."

Fain noted that the Chattanooga workers were entering negotiations for their first union contract roughly one year after UAW workers at the Big Three car makers launched their historic "stand up strike, ultimately winning record-breaking contracts from General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis.

"Since that moment, workers everywhere including here at Volkswagen are standing up to fight corporate greed and demand your fair share in the economy," Fain said.

He told the Chattanooga workers, "Now is your time to win a record contract and make history again."

U.S. President Donald Trump escalated his attack on the Haitian immigrant community of Springfield, Ohio on Friday when he promised to begin his mass deportation plan there if elected president.

"We will do large deportations from Springfield, Ohio, large deportations," Trump told reporters at his golf course near Los Angeles, California. "We're going to get these people out. We're bringing them back to Venezuela."

Trump's remarks come despite the fact that most of the immigrants in Springfield are from Haiti and are in the country legally. Trump had previously pledged to deport the 15 to 20 million people who he says are or will be in this country illegally by the time he takes office. Speaking on Friday, he repeated his vow to carry out the "largest deportations in the history of our country," starting in Springfield and Aurora, Colorado, where online rumors have exaggerated isolated incidents of Venezuelan gang activity.

Schools and city buildings in Springfield have received bomb threats in recent days after Trump and his running mate Ohio Sen. JD Vance elevated unfounded online rumors that newly arrived Haitian immigrants in the city were stealing and eating pets. One journalist referred to the Trump campaign's rhetoric as "blood libel."

Around 12,000 to 15,000 Haitian immigrants have moved to Springfield in recent years, and the overwhelming majority are there legally with temporary protected status.

"The majority of Americans who reject this dark and dystopic vision and the lies courting violence should come together to denounce this outrageous spectacle of hatred and to chart a different direction for our nation."

"It's essential to recognize the larger strategy on display from the Republican Party and their allies," Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of America's Voice, said in a statement Friday. "The lies and conspiracies about Haitians are part of a larger volume of anti-immigrant and dehumanizing rhetoric that actively courts political violence."

Cárdenas continued: "In addition to the lies about Haitians, which echo tropes like the antisemitic blood libel, Trump described this nation in increasingly violent and graphic terms... What's the potential response from an unhinged supporter hearing those words and believing those threats? It is violence like the Haitian community is fearful of, and Jewish, Latino, and Black Americans have already experienced in places like Pittsburgh, El Paso, and Buffalo."

Cárdenas also referenced a promise Trump made last Saturday that his mass deportations would be "bloody."

"The majority of Americans who reject this dark and dystopic vision and the lies courting violence should come together to denounce this outrageous spectacle of hatred and to chart a different direction for our nation," Cárdenas said.

Meanwhile, an immigrant rights group in Colorado also spoke up against Trump's deportation threats.

"Trump's fear mongering is as dangerous as it is dishonest," Gladis Ibarra, the co-executive director of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, said in a statement. "He doesn't care about Aurora or Colorado. He's using us as political pawns to push a racist agenda that paints our entire community in a bad light, and we won't fall for it. Immigrants are our teachers, our neighbors, our parents, and our children. We will not let them be demonized or ripped from our communities."

Methane emissions are rising faster than expected, a new study has warned, and the surge is putting global climate goals at risk.

The study, published Monday in Frontiers in Science, found that methane emissions have risen quickly since 2006, with the growth rates for atmospheric methane seeing an "abrupt and rapid increase" in the early 2020s.

"The growth rate of methane is accelerating, which is worrisome," lead study author and Duke University climate scientist Drew Shindell, toldThe Guardian. "It was quite flat until around 20 years ago, and just in the last few years we've had this huge dump of methane. It's made the job of tackling anthropogenic warming all the more challenging."

"Reducing CO2 will protect our grandchildren—reducing methane will protect us now."

Methane is the second leading greenhouse gas heating the atmosphere and contributing to the climate crisis. It is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide during the first 20 years after being emitted, but it also fades from the atmosphere much more quickly—in around 12 years rather than centuries. Methane emissions released between the industrial era and 2019 have caused 65% as much global heating as carbon dioxide, according to the new paper.

Methane emissions have spiked in recent years, reaching record levels in 2021 and 2022. The increase in atmospheric methane concentrations in 2021 was also the highest ever recorded. The growth rates in the early 2020s "far exceeded" predictions, and the situation is not expected to improve on its own.

"This study shows that emissions are expected to continue to increase over the remainder of the 2020s if no greater action is taken and that increases in atmospheric methane are thus far outpacing projected growth rates," the authors wrote.

Methane is emitted primarily by leaks and flaring during fossil fuel production, animal and rice agriculture, and the decaying of organic matter. The authors considered what had caused methane production to spike in the early 2020s specifically, and concluded that the two main drivers were fossil fuels—primarily oil and gas production—and an increase in decomposition rates from wetlands as higher temperatures interacted with La Niña conditions in the tropics.

Despite the significant role that methane plays in accelerating the climate emergency, only around 2% of climate finance is dedicated to targeting it, and current policies only respond to around 13% of total methane emissions. Given the rising rates of methane growth, the authors argued that this must change.

"It is imperative to rapidly reduce methane emissions to reduce the accelerating climate damages so many people around the world are suffering," Shindell said in a statement.

Why has the world dragged its feet on methane so far?

"The world has been rightly focused on carbon dioxide, which is the largest driver of climate change to date," Shindell explained. "Methane seemed like something we could leave for later, but the world has warmed very rapidly over the past couple of decades, while we've failed to reduce our CO2 emissions. So that leaves us more desperate for ways to reduce the rate of warming rapidly, which methane [cuts] can do."

Methane, Shindell told The Guardian, "is the strongest lever we can quickly pull to reduce warming between now and 2050."

"There's just such a rapid response to cutting it," Shindell continued. "We've already seen the planet warm so much that if we are to avoid worse impacts we have to reduce methane. Reducing CO2 will protect our grandchildren—reducing methane will protect us now."

Refusing to curb methane could also undermine efforts to reduce CO2: for every 50 megatons of methane that are not eliminated in keeping with low-warming projections, the remaining carbon dioxide budget is reduced by 150 gigatons.

The scientists outlined three "imperatives" for tackling methane:

1. Reverse the rise in emissions;
2. Make a plan to tackle CO2 and methane together; and
3. Optimize methane-reduction plans and technologies for maximum effect.

To that end, the study authors developed an online tool that policymakers and other interested parties can use to gauge the effectiveness and economic benefits of different technologies and strategies.

"The benefits of methane mitigation nearly always outweigh the net costs," Shindell said in a statement.

Each ton of methane emitted in 2020 caused between $470 and $1,700 in damages, without considering methane's contribution to deadly air pollution. If that is taken into account, the true cost per ton could be $7,000 or more.

The most effective action a stakeholder can take to reduce emissions will depend on where they live and their position in society. For governments in countries with large fossil fuel industries, for example, the most important tools would be regulating production, offering incentives for companies to capture any methane, or charging the companies for emitting methane, the study authors argue.

For individuals, the most effective actions may be altering their consumption patterns or taking political action.

"People can make sure they avoid overconsumption of beef and dairy, and compost their organic waste whenever possible," said Shindell in a statement.

"If it's not possible where they live, they can vote for those who'll create programs for composting in their towns. They can also vote for those who will make polluters pay for methane emissions rather than letting them profit while society picks up the tab for the damages they're inflicting."

As the Midwestern and Eastern U.S. braced for what could be the longest heatwave in decades for some locations, a wildfire near Los Angeles forced more than 1,000 people to evacuate over Father's Day weekend.

The climate crisis caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels is making both heatwaves and wildfires more frequent and extreme, and politicians and environmental advocates pointed out the role that state and national policy can play in fueling extreme weather.

"Each of the last 12 months have been the hottest on record," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on social media on Sunday. "This week, cities across the country will see record-high temperatures. A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to surrender the fight against the devastation of climate change. We cannot let that happen."

"Politicians making bad policy decisions (like killing congestion pricing) is the number one cause of climate change, which makes heatwaves like this one worse."

Former U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly told oil and gas executives this spring that donating $1 billion to his campaign would be a "deal" for them because he would dismantle the Biden administration's climate regulations.

Sanders' remarks came as the National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Prediction Center forecast that "record-breaking heat" would "expand from the Midwest and Great Lakes to the Northeast this week, potentially lingering through early next week."

NWS said the heatwave would be the "first significant" heatwave of the season and could break daily temperature records and some monthly June temperature records for the portion of the country stretching from the Ohio Valley to the Northeast between Monday and next Saturday.

"The longevity of dangerous heat forecasted for some locations has not been experienced in decades," NWS said.

The heat index could come close to 105°F in many places, and nighttime temperatures of around 75°F mean that those without cooling infrastructure will see "little to no relief."

The high temperatures could impact millions of people from Michigan to Maine. As of Saturday, 22.6 million people were under extreme heat warnings, watches, or advisories, according toThe New York Times.

University of California, Los Angeles, climate scientist Daniel Swain told the Times that the heat would "affect a bunch of highly populated areas where there hasn't been quite as many stories about extreme heat recently," adding, "Now, it's New England's turn."

The NWS warned, "With the intense heat and high humidity it is important to take precautions to protect one's health, particularly those without effective cooling and/or adequate hydration."

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul issued a warning on social media on Saturday, pointing out that extreme heat is the leading weather-related cause of death in the U.S.

However, climate advocates criticized Hochul for exacerbating the root cause of more extreme heatwaves with her last-minute cancellation of a New York City congestion pricing plan earlier this month.

"Politicians making bad policy decisions (like killing congestion pricing) is the number one cause of climate change, which makes heatwaves like this one worse," the Sunrise Movement wrote in response to Hochul's post.

Long-time climate advocate and author Bill McKibben said: "This governor just blocked congestion pricing, one of the most important climate policy advances possible. She's redefining trolling."

Climate Central noted that, "while heatwaves are common in summer, this early season excessive, likely record-breaking heat is made as much as two times to five times MORE likely to occur in mid-June due to human-caused climate change (particularly overnight warmth)."

Meanwhile, on the West Coast, the Post Fire ignited at around 1:45 pm on Saturday local time in Los Angeles County, California, about 65 miles from downtown Los Angeles, The Washington Post reported.

As of Sunday afternoon, it had spread 12,265 acres and was 2% contained, according to California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire). Fire officials said the blaze was fanned by heat, low humidity, and wind and had damaged two structures.

"Currently crews are working to construct perimeter fire lines around the flakes of the fire. Aircraft are working to stop forward progress but have limited visibility," Cal Fire wrote on Sunday, adding that "the fire is pushing up into Hungry Valley Park. California State Park Services have evacuated 1,200 people from Hungry Valley Park. Pyramid Lake is closed because of the threat of the Post Fire."

One of those evacuated was 33-year-old Oscar Flores, who was visiting Hungry Valley Park with his 12-year-old son on Saturday.

"It looked like it was the last day of the world," Flores told the Los Angeles Times. "People were loading quickly and merging out, driving fast. The ranger said you have 10 minutes [to get] whatever you can pack."

A Trump-appointed judge on Friday delivered a win for big banks when he granted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce a temporary injunction halting a Biden administration rule that would cap credit card fees at $8.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rule, which would have gone into effect May 14, could save U.S. consumers more than $10 billion each year. The decision to pause its implementation, issued by U.S. District of the Northern District of Texas Judge Mark Pittman, will cost ordinary Americans around $27 million each day it is in effect.

"In their latest in a stack of lawsuits designed to pad record corporate profits at the expense of everyone else, the U.S. Chamber got its way for now—ensuring families get price-gouged a little longer with credit card late fees as high as $41," Liz Zelnick, the director of the Economic Security and Corporate Power Program at Accountable.US, said in a statement.

"It's time the U.S. Chamber stops clogging the courts with baseless lawsuits designed to enrich corporate CEOs on the backs of working families—and it's time the judiciary stops legitimizing venue shopping from big industry."

The CFPB issued the rule on March 5 as part of the Biden administration's commitment to crack down on "junk fees." However, the Chamber of Commerce and other banking trade associations—including the American Bankers Association and the Consumer Bankers Association—quickly sued to block it. The executives of Bank of America, Capital One, Citibank, and JPMorgan Chase sit on the boards of the groups behind the suit, according toThe Washington Post.

"Banks make billions in profits charging excessive late fees," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media Saturday in response to the ruling. "Now a single Trump-appointed judge sided with bank lobbyists to block the Biden administration's new rule capping these junk fees."

Accountable.US also criticized the fact that the suit was before Pittman at all, arguing that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed the suit in Texas federal court so that it would end up under the jurisdiction of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has 19 Republican-appointed justices out of a total of 26. The chamber has filed nearly two-thirds of its lawsuits since 2017 with courts covered by the 5th Circuit.

"The U.S. Chamber and the big banks they represent have corrupted our judicial system by venue shopping in courtrooms of least resistance, going out of their way to avoid having their lawsuit heard by a fair and neutral federal judge," Zelnick said. "It's time the U.S. Chamber stops clogging the courts with baseless lawsuits designed to enrich corporate CEOs on the backs of working families—and it's time the judiciary stops legitimizing venue shopping from big industry."

The 5th Circuit's treatment of the case has also come under fire, as Trump-appointed Judge Don Willett has not recused himself despite the fact that he owns tens of thousands of dollars in Citigroup shares. While Willett has argued that Citigroup is not a party to the case, it belongs to trade groups that are, and any ruling on credit card fees would significantly impact the bank. Collectively, all the judges on the 5th Circuit have invested as much as $745,000 in credit card or credit issuing companies, according to the most recent publicly available information.

Donald Sherman, Gabe Lezra, and Linnaea Honl-Stuenkel of Citizens for Ethics in Washington wrote: "Judge Willett's refusal to recuse, and the lack of transparency about the rationale, reinforces the need for more judicial ethics reform to ensure that everyday Americans and government agencies have a level playing field when they go into court against corporate interests."

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said that he would not attempt to ban abortion on the federal level, a claim that earned instant skepticism from reproductive rights groups.

Johnson's remarks came as part of an interview published by Politico on Friday, as Johnson responded to questions from Politico's Ryan Lizza and Rachael Bade:

Lizza: Some like lightning round questions: Do you anticipate putting forward any legislation on abortion before the election?

No.

Bade: If there is Republican control of both chambers of Congress and the White House next year, do you anticipate passing any sort of nationwide abortion ban?

No, I don't.

President Trump said this is in the states' purview now. After the Dobbs decision, I think that's where it is. Look, I am a lifelong pro-lifer. I’m a product of a teen pregnancy. And so I believe in the sanctity of human life. It's also an important article of faith for me. But I have 434 colleagues here. All of us have our own, philosophical principles that we live by, but you have to have a political consensus.

In response to Johnson's answer, Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju said it reflected a growing awareness among Republicans that restricting abortion is not politically popular. Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, every electoral attempt to protect abortion rights on the state level has succeeded.

"Mike Johnson's flip-flopping on abortion just proves our movement is winning and that Republicans know they're losing," Timmaraju said.

However, she pointed out that "'leaving abortion to the states' is not a moderate position, as 21 states are already enforcing horrifying bans with devastating consequences."

"Don't be conned. They can't be trusted with our rights."

Further, she warned against taking Johnson at his word.

"Voters have made it clear to the GOP that we will not tolerate abortion bans," she continued. "Mike Johnson and congressional Republicans have shown time and time again they are willing to do anything in their power to restrict our reproductive freedom, and we can't trust them."

Other abortion rights and pro-democracy campaigners issued similar warnings.

"The technical political science term for this is 'lying,'" Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin wrote on social media in response to the interview.

Activist Olivia Julianna pointed out that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had calledRoe v. Wade "settled precedent" before helping to overturn it in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Elected Democrats also expressed suspicion.

Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) pointed out that Johnosn was one of 127 Republicans who had co-sponsored a bill to ban abortion at the federal level.

"If he really isn't for a national abortion ban, he should withdrawal his co-sponsorship first thing when we are back next week," Frost wrote on social media.

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) wrote that "these people have been working to ban abortion and deny women the freedom to control our own bodies their entire careers."

"Don't be conned. They can't be trusted with our rights," she said.

In a second post, she asked incredulously, "I'm really supposed to believe Mike Johnson, the lifelong anti-abortion zealot, is suddenly just going to leave it alone?"

Even if the Republicans did steer clear of a federal ban, it would not be enough to ensure abortion rights in the U.S.

"We demand a federal response to the abortion crisis and call on the press to ask the speaker if he will support federal protections," Timmaraju said. "We demand nothing less from our federal government than locking in the federal right to abortion and expanding access."

Nearly 80% of top-level climate scientists expect that global temperatures will rise by at least 2.5°C by 2100, while only 6% thought the world would succeed in limiting global heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, a survey published Wednesday by The Guardian revealed.

Nearly three-quarters blamed world leaders' insufficient action on a lack of political will, while 60% said that corporate interests such as fossil fuel companies were interfering with progress.

"I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the Global South," one South African scientist told The Guardian. "The world's response to date is reprehensible—we live in an age of fools."

"What blew me away was the level of personal anguish among the experts who have dedicated their lives to climate research."

The survey was conducted by The Guardian's Damian Carrington, who reached out to every expert who had served as a senior author on an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report since 2018. Out of 843 scientists whose contact information was available, 383 responded.

He then asked them how high they thought temperatures would rise by 2100: 77% predicted at least 2.5°C and nearly half predicted 3°C or more.

"What blew me away was the level of personal anguish among the experts who have dedicated their lives to climate research," Carrington wrote on social media. "Many used words like hopeless, broken, infuriated, scared, overwhelmed."

The 1.5°C target was agreed to as the most ambitious goal of the Paris agreement of 2015, in which world leaders pledged to keep warming to "well below" 2°C. However, policies currently in place would put the world on track for 3°C, and unconditional commitments under the Paris agreement for 2.9°C.

The survey comes on the heels of the hottest year on record, which already saw a record-breaking Canadian wildfire season as well as extreme, widespread heatwaves and deadly floods. The first four months of 2024 have also been the hottest of their respective months on record, and the year has already seen the fourth global bleaching event for coral reefs.

"They can say they don't care, but they can't say they didn't know."

"I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years," Gretta Pecl of the University of Tasmania told The Guardian. "[Authorities] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future."

Scientists said that governments and companies that profit from the burning of fossil fuels had prevented action. Many also blamed global inequality and the refusal of the wealthy world to step up, both in terms of reducing their own emissions and helping climate vulnerable nations adapt.

"The tacit calculus of decision-makers, particularly in the Anglosphere—U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia—but also Russia and the major fossil fuel producers in the Middle East, is driving us into a world in which the vulnerable will suffer, while the well-heeled will hope to stay safe above the waterline," Stephen Humphreys at the London School of Economics said.

Despite their grim predictions, many of the scientists remained committed to researching and speaking out.

"We keep doing it because we have to do it, so [the powerful] cannot say that they didn't know," Ruth Cerezo-Mota, who works on climate modeling at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, told The Guardian. "We know what we're talking about. They can say they don't care, but they can't say they didn't know."

Others found hope in the climate activism and awareness of younger generations, and in the finding that each extra tenth of a degree of warming avoided protects 140 million people from extreme temperatures.

"I regularly face moments of despair and guilt of not managing to make things change more rapidly, and these feelings have become even stronger since I became a father," said Henri Waisman of France's Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations. "But, in these moments, two things help me: remembering how much progress has happened since I started to work on the topic in 2005 and that every tenth of a degree matters a lot—this means it is still useful to continue the fight."

Peter Cox of the University of Exeter added: "Climate change will not suddenly become dangerous at 1.5°C—it already is. And it will not be 'game over' if we pass 2°C, which we might well do."

"I'm not despairing, I'm not giving up. I'm pissed off and more determined to fight for a better world."

Many of the scientists who still saw a hope of keeping 1.5°C alive pinned it on the speeding rollout and falling prices of climate-friendly technologies like renewable energy and electric vehicles. Also on Wednesday, energy think tank Ember reported that 30% of global electricity came from renewables in 2023 and predicted that the year would be the "pivot" after which power sector emissions would start to fall. Experts also said that abandoning fossil fuels has many side benefits such as cleaner air and better public health. Though even the more optimistic scientists were wary about the unpredictable nature of the climate crisis.

"I am convinced that we have all the solutions needed for a 1.5°C path and that we will implement them in the coming 20 years," Henry Neufeldt of the United Nations' Copenhagen Climate Center told The Guardian. "But I fear that our actions might come too late and we cross one or several tipping points."

Several scientists gave recommendations for things that people could do to move the needle on climate. Humphreys suggested "civil disobedience" while one French scientist said people should "fight for a fairer world."

"All of humanity needs to come together and cooperate—this is a monumental opportunity to put differences aside and work together," Louis Verchot, based at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture in Colombia, told The Guardian. "Unfortunately climate change has become a political wedge issue… I wonder how deep the crisis needs to become before we all start rowing in the same direction."

The publication of The Guardian's survey prompted other climate scientists to share their thoughts.

"As many of the scientists pointed out, the uncertainty in future temperature change is not a physical science question: It is a question of the decisions people choose to make," Texas Tech University climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe wrote on social media. "We are not experts in that; And we have little reason to feel positive about those, since we have been warning of the risks for decades."

Aaron Thierry, a graduate researcher at the Cardiff School of Social Sciences, pointed out that The Guardian's results were consistent with other surveys of scientific opinion, such as one published in Nature in the lead-up to COP26, in which 60% of IPCC scientists said they expected 3°C of warming or more by 2100.

James Dyke of the University of Exeter's Global Systems Institute argued that there was room for scientists to share more negative thoughts without succumbing to or encouraging defeatism.

"I hear the argument that we must temper these messages because we don't want people to despair and give up. But I'm not despairing, I'm not giving up. I'm pissed off and more determined to fight for a better world," Dyke said on social media.

NASA climate scientist Peter Kalmus shared the article with a plea to "please start listening."

"Elected and corporate 'leaders' continue to prioritize their personal power and wealth at the cost of irreversible loss of essentially everything, even as this irreversible loss comes more and more into focus. I see this as literally a form of insanity," Kalmus wrote, adding that "capitalism tends to elevate the worst among us into the seats of power."

However, he took issue with the idea that a future of unchecked climate change would be only "semi-dystopian."

"We're also at risk of losing any gradual bending toward progress, and equity, and compassion, and love," Kalmus said. "All social and cultural struggles must recognize this deep intersection with the climate struggle."

In a decision that the largest U.S. Muslim civil rights organization called "cowardly," the University of Southern California announced Monday that it would not allow a Muslim valedictorian to speak at its commencement ceremony, citing safety concerns.

USC's 2024 valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, is a first-generation South Asian Muslim student majoring in biomedical engineering with a minor in resistance to genocide. Her selection as valedictorian drew criticism from pro-Israel groups because of a link pasted into her Instagram profile that advocates for a single Palestinian state where "both Arabs and Jews can live together without an ideology that specifically advocates for the ethnic cleansing of one of them."

"This campaign to prevent me from addressing my peers at commencement has evidently accomplished its goal: Today, USC administrators informed me that the university will no longer allow me to speak at commencement due to supposed security concerns," Tabassum said in a statement. "I am both shocked by this decision and profoundly disappointed that the university is succumbing to a campaign of hate meant to silence my voice."

"I am not surprised by those who attempt to propagate hatred," Tabassum continued. "I am surprised that my own university—my home for four years—has abandoned me."

"USC cannot hide its cowardly decision behind a disingenuous concern for 'security."

In announcing the university's decision, provost and senior vice president for academic affairs Andrew Guzman said that, in recent days, "discussion relating to the selection of our valedictorian has taken on an alarming tenor."

Several groups had called for Tabassum's removal as valedictorian entirely because they argued the link that she shared, a slideshow titled "Free Palestine," was antisemitic.

"Trojans for Israel strongly supports the right to free expression—including informed criticism of the Israeli government. However, rhetoric that denies the right of the Jewish people to self-determination or calls for the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world must be denounced as antisemitic bigotry," a campus group wrote in a social media post calling on USC to choose a new valedictorian.

The slideshow Tabassum shared includes a page explaining that anti-zionism is not antisemitism and linking to a debate on the topic featuring former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan and Israeli-Jewish historian Ilan Pappé.

Tabassum toldNBC Los Angeles that she had added the link to her Instagram bio five years ago—long before Hamas' deadly October 7 attack on Israel and Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza—and that she had not written the text herself.

However, Israel's current war on Gaza has led to widespread campus protests at U.S. universities, as well as repression of pro-Palestinian student groups and national attention on university leaders' responses to the conflict, which has led to the resignation of at least two high-profile university presidents.

"The intensity of feelings, fueled by both social media and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, has grown to include many voices outside of USC and has escalated to the point of creating substantial risks relating to security and disruption at commencement," Guzman said in the university announcement. "We cannot ignore the fact that similar risks have led to harassment and even violence at other campuses."

Guzman continued that he had spoken with the university's Department of Public Safety and campus security teams.

"After careful consideration, we have decided that our student valedictorian will not deliver a speech at commencement," Guzman said. "While this is disappointing, tradition must give way to safety."

The provost maintained that this was not a free speech issue.

"There is no free-speech entitlement to speak at a commencement," Guzman said. "The issue here is how best to maintain campus security and safety, period."

However, in her statement, Tabassum said that she attended a meeting with the provost and the associate senior vice president of safety and risk on Sunday, during which they told her that campus security would be able to protect her from any threats while speaking, but that taking appropriate measures would result in a commencement ceremony that was not what the university wants to "'present as an image.'"

"Because I am not aware of any specific threats against me or the university, because my request for the details underlying the university's threat assessment has been denied, and because I am not being provided any increased safety to be able to speak at commencement, there remain serious doubts about whether USC's decision to revoke my invitation to speak is made solely on the basis of safety," Tabassum said.

Council on American-Islamic Relations-Los Angeles (CAIR-LA) executive director Hussam Ayloush also cast doubt on the university's motives in a statement.

"USC cannot hide its cowardly decision behind a disingenuous concern for 'security,'" Ayloush said. "Asna is an incredibly accomplished student whose academic and extracurricular accomplishments made her the ideal and historic recipient of this year's valedictorian's honor. The university can, should, and must ensure a safe environment for graduation rather than taking the unprecedented step of cancelling a valedictorian's speech."

"The dishonest and defamatory attacks on Asna are nothing more than thinly-veiled manifestations of Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism, which have been weaponized against college students across the country who speak up for human rights—and for Palestinian humanity," Ayloush continued.

Earlier this month, CAIR released its 2024 civil rights report, stating the organization received more complaints of anti-Muslim bias than during any other year in its three decades of existence.

Ayloush argued that USC's decision to cancel Tabassum's speech "empowers voices of hate and censorship, violates USC's obligation to protect its students, and sends a terrible signal to both Muslim students at USC and all students who dare to express support for Palestinian humanity."

Washington Post columnist and Columbia adjunct Karen Attiah also saw the university's decision as a setback for academic freedom.

"What is happening at USC shows that the credibility/legitimacy of many liberal institutions died in Gaza," Attiah wrote on social media. "Western journalistic objectivity died in Gaza. True academic freedom died in Gaza. Do we see how much violence it takes to uphold an imperial status quo?"

Writer and editor Tom Gara called out the university for the discrepancy between its actions and its course offerings.

"Incredible story. USC offers a minor in 'resistance to genocide,' this girl minored in it, was named valedictorian, and then they cancelled her speech because she might talk about genocide," Gara said on social media.

CAIR-LA is calling on USC to reverse its decision and circulating a petition in support of this demand.

Tabassum, meanwhile, addressed her fellow students.

"As your class valedictorian, I implore my USC classmates to think outside the box—to work toward a world where cries for equality and human dignity are not manipulated to be expressions of hatred," she said. "I challenge us to respond to ideological discomfort with dialogue and learning, not bigotry and censorship. And I urge us to see past our deepest fears and recognize the need to support justice for all people, including the Palestinian people."