SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The Ratcliffe On Soar Power Station, one of the U.K. last coal plants, emits steam on January 10, 2024 in Nottingham, England.
"People clearly understand that the most severe forms of environmental destruction harm all of us, and that there is real deterrent potential in creating personal criminal liability."
Nearly two-thirds of people living in the world's largest economies believe it should be "a criminal offense" for decision-makers in government or big businesses to knowingly cause serious harm to the climate, according to polling published Friday.
Conducted by Ipsos U.K. for Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance (GCA), the Global Commons Survey focuses on residents of Austria, Denmark, Kenya, Sweden, and all countries that represent themselves at the G20 other than Russia.
Across the 22 countries, 72% of people agreed that "it should be a criminal offense for leaders of large businesses or senior government officials to approve or permit actions they know are likely to cause damage to nature and climate that is widespread, long-term, or cannot be reversed."
"The majority support (72%) for criminalizing actions which allow serious damage to the climate surprised us," said Earth4All co-lead Owen Gaffney in a statement. "The majority of people want to protect the global commons; 71% believe the world needs to take action immediately. Our survey demonstrates that people across the world's largest economies are acutely aware of the urgent need to safeguard our planet for future generations."
Keyna had the greatest share of people signaling support for ecocide legislation, at 91%, followed by Argentina, Mexico, and South Africa, all at 85%. The United States was 68%. The only country with less than a majority was Japan, at 43%.
"We're seeing significant policy shifts in favor of ecocide legislation at the domestic, regional, and international levels," said Jojo Mehta, co-founder and CEO of Stop Ecocide International. "Most notably, at the start of this year, the European Union included 'qualified offenses' in its newly revised Environmental Crime Directive that can encompass 'conduct comparable to ecocide.' This means E.U. member states now have two years to bring these rules into national law—a huge moment felt across the globe."
"We know this policy-level progress has been significantly driven by widespread civil society demand," she continued. "The new Global Commons Survey makes it obvious that there is already a strong foundation of public support for this law. People clearly understand that the most severe forms of environmental destruction harm all of us, and that there is real deterrent potential in creating personal criminal liability for top decision-makers. Damage prevention is always the best policy, which is precisely what ecocide law is about."
Other legal responses to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency have included filing civil lawsuits against oil and gas giants for their decades of deception and exploring the possibility of bringing criminal charges against corporate polluters for deaths tied to extreme weather that's becoming more frequent and devastating.
In addition to the ecocide findings, the Global Commons Survey shows that 69% of all respondents believe Earth is close to climate and nature tipping points, 61% are advocating for strong action to protect the environment, 59% are very or extremely worried about the state of nature, and 52% feel very or somewhat exposed to climate and environmental risks.
The groups that commissioned the poll noted that "people in emerging economies such as India (87%), China (79%), Indonesia (79%), Kenya (73%), and Turkey (69%) feel more personally exposed to climate change compared to those in Europe and the United States."
There were also gender disparities—women exhibited higher levels of concern and were less likely to think claims about environmental risks are exaggerated or believe technology can solve such problems without individuals making big lifestyle changes.
"People everywhere are very worried about the state of our planet and they're feeling the pain already," said GCA executive director Jane Madgwick. "Awareness that we are close to tipping points is high, as is concern that political priorities lie elsewhere."
"It all comes down to what we can do collectively to safeguard and restore the global commons which sustain all life on Earth and protect us from the most severe impacts of climate change," she added. "This is going to take bold leadership and a truly global effort, connecting actions across nations and from the ground up."
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Nearly two-thirds of people living in the world's largest economies believe it should be "a criminal offense" for decision-makers in government or big businesses to knowingly cause serious harm to the climate, according to polling published Friday.
Conducted by Ipsos U.K. for Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance (GCA), the Global Commons Survey focuses on residents of Austria, Denmark, Kenya, Sweden, and all countries that represent themselves at the G20 other than Russia.
Across the 22 countries, 72% of people agreed that "it should be a criminal offense for leaders of large businesses or senior government officials to approve or permit actions they know are likely to cause damage to nature and climate that is widespread, long-term, or cannot be reversed."
"The majority support (72%) for criminalizing actions which allow serious damage to the climate surprised us," said Earth4All co-lead Owen Gaffney in a statement. "The majority of people want to protect the global commons; 71% believe the world needs to take action immediately. Our survey demonstrates that people across the world's largest economies are acutely aware of the urgent need to safeguard our planet for future generations."
Keyna had the greatest share of people signaling support for ecocide legislation, at 91%, followed by Argentina, Mexico, and South Africa, all at 85%. The United States was 68%. The only country with less than a majority was Japan, at 43%.
"We're seeing significant policy shifts in favor of ecocide legislation at the domestic, regional, and international levels," said Jojo Mehta, co-founder and CEO of Stop Ecocide International. "Most notably, at the start of this year, the European Union included 'qualified offenses' in its newly revised Environmental Crime Directive that can encompass 'conduct comparable to ecocide.' This means E.U. member states now have two years to bring these rules into national law—a huge moment felt across the globe."
"We know this policy-level progress has been significantly driven by widespread civil society demand," she continued. "The new Global Commons Survey makes it obvious that there is already a strong foundation of public support for this law. People clearly understand that the most severe forms of environmental destruction harm all of us, and that there is real deterrent potential in creating personal criminal liability for top decision-makers. Damage prevention is always the best policy, which is precisely what ecocide law is about."
Other legal responses to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency have included filing civil lawsuits against oil and gas giants for their decades of deception and exploring the possibility of bringing criminal charges against corporate polluters for deaths tied to extreme weather that's becoming more frequent and devastating.
In addition to the ecocide findings, the Global Commons Survey shows that 69% of all respondents believe Earth is close to climate and nature tipping points, 61% are advocating for strong action to protect the environment, 59% are very or extremely worried about the state of nature, and 52% feel very or somewhat exposed to climate and environmental risks.
The groups that commissioned the poll noted that "people in emerging economies such as India (87%), China (79%), Indonesia (79%), Kenya (73%), and Turkey (69%) feel more personally exposed to climate change compared to those in Europe and the United States."
There were also gender disparities—women exhibited higher levels of concern and were less likely to think claims about environmental risks are exaggerated or believe technology can solve such problems without individuals making big lifestyle changes.
"People everywhere are very worried about the state of our planet and they're feeling the pain already," said GCA executive director Jane Madgwick. "Awareness that we are close to tipping points is high, as is concern that political priorities lie elsewhere."
"It all comes down to what we can do collectively to safeguard and restore the global commons which sustain all life on Earth and protect us from the most severe impacts of climate change," she added. "This is going to take bold leadership and a truly global effort, connecting actions across nations and from the ground up."
Nearly two-thirds of people living in the world's largest economies believe it should be "a criminal offense" for decision-makers in government or big businesses to knowingly cause serious harm to the climate, according to polling published Friday.
Conducted by Ipsos U.K. for Earth4All and the Global Commons Alliance (GCA), the Global Commons Survey focuses on residents of Austria, Denmark, Kenya, Sweden, and all countries that represent themselves at the G20 other than Russia.
Across the 22 countries, 72% of people agreed that "it should be a criminal offense for leaders of large businesses or senior government officials to approve or permit actions they know are likely to cause damage to nature and climate that is widespread, long-term, or cannot be reversed."
"The majority support (72%) for criminalizing actions which allow serious damage to the climate surprised us," said Earth4All co-lead Owen Gaffney in a statement. "The majority of people want to protect the global commons; 71% believe the world needs to take action immediately. Our survey demonstrates that people across the world's largest economies are acutely aware of the urgent need to safeguard our planet for future generations."
Keyna had the greatest share of people signaling support for ecocide legislation, at 91%, followed by Argentina, Mexico, and South Africa, all at 85%. The United States was 68%. The only country with less than a majority was Japan, at 43%.
"We're seeing significant policy shifts in favor of ecocide legislation at the domestic, regional, and international levels," said Jojo Mehta, co-founder and CEO of Stop Ecocide International. "Most notably, at the start of this year, the European Union included 'qualified offenses' in its newly revised Environmental Crime Directive that can encompass 'conduct comparable to ecocide.' This means E.U. member states now have two years to bring these rules into national law—a huge moment felt across the globe."
"We know this policy-level progress has been significantly driven by widespread civil society demand," she continued. "The new Global Commons Survey makes it obvious that there is already a strong foundation of public support for this law. People clearly understand that the most severe forms of environmental destruction harm all of us, and that there is real deterrent potential in creating personal criminal liability for top decision-makers. Damage prevention is always the best policy, which is precisely what ecocide law is about."
Other legal responses to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency have included filing civil lawsuits against oil and gas giants for their decades of deception and exploring the possibility of bringing criminal charges against corporate polluters for deaths tied to extreme weather that's becoming more frequent and devastating.
In addition to the ecocide findings, the Global Commons Survey shows that 69% of all respondents believe Earth is close to climate and nature tipping points, 61% are advocating for strong action to protect the environment, 59% are very or extremely worried about the state of nature, and 52% feel very or somewhat exposed to climate and environmental risks.
The groups that commissioned the poll noted that "people in emerging economies such as India (87%), China (79%), Indonesia (79%), Kenya (73%), and Turkey (69%) feel more personally exposed to climate change compared to those in Europe and the United States."
There were also gender disparities—women exhibited higher levels of concern and were less likely to think claims about environmental risks are exaggerated or believe technology can solve such problems without individuals making big lifestyle changes.
"People everywhere are very worried about the state of our planet and they're feeling the pain already," said GCA executive director Jane Madgwick. "Awareness that we are close to tipping points is high, as is concern that political priorities lie elsewhere."
"It all comes down to what we can do collectively to safeguard and restore the global commons which sustain all life on Earth and protect us from the most severe impacts of climate change," she added. "This is going to take bold leadership and a truly global effort, connecting actions across nations and from the ground up."
"The Trump administration's political efforts to use immigrants' tax data against them should send chills down the spine of every U.S. taxpayer who disagrees with this administration," said one watchdog.
The acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service is reportedly expected to resign over a new agreement that would allow the tax agency to give immigration authorities access to highly sensitive data to aid U.S. President Donald Trump's lawless mass deportation campaign.
Numerous outlets reported late Tuesday that Acting IRS Commissioner Melanie Krause and other top agency officials intend to leave their positions imminently, news that comes in the heat of tax season. Krause is the third person to lead the IRS since the start of Trump's second term, and the president's pick to lead the agency, Billy Long, has yet to receive a Senate confirmation hearing.
Central to Krause's decision to leave her role was reportedly a deal between Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who oversees the IRS, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Under the deal, a redacted version of which was disclosed in a Monday court filing, ICE officials "can ask the IRS for information about people who have been ordered to leave the United States or whom they are otherwise investigating," The New York Times reported. The newspaper characterized the agreement as "a fundamental departure from decades of practice at the tax collector, which has sought to keep information submitted by undocumented immigrants confidential."
"Undermining the legal protections for sensitive taxpayer information is dangerous, and Krause's resignation signals the severity of this unconscionable move by the Trump administration."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement that Krause's impending resignation "highlights concerns about the ethics and legality of the deal." The Public Citizen Litigation Group is representing advocacy groups that are suing the Trump administration in an effort to prevent ICE from accessing taxpayer information.
"Our laws were intended to keep taxpayer data confidential," said Gilbert. "This backroom deal by Secretary Bessent and Secretary Noem, partly disclosed in a court filing, violates those laws. The Trump administration's political efforts to use immigrants' tax data against them should send chills down the spine of every U.S. taxpayer who disagrees with this administration. Undermining the legal protections for sensitive taxpayer information is dangerous, and Krause's resignation signals the severity of this unconscionable move by the Trump administration."
The Washington Post reported that the deal comes after Treasury Department officials "sought to circumvent IRS executives so immigration authorities could access private taxpayer information," efforts that "largely excluded Krause's input."
Krause found out about the deal between Bessent and Noem "after representatives from the Treasury Department released it to Fox News," according to the Post.
Trump immigration officials' push for sensitive data on millions of people has left undocumented immigrants fearful of filing taxes this year. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that undocumented immigrants paid nearly $97 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022, with $59.4 billion of that total going to the federal government.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, warned over the weekend that "even though the Trump administration claims it's focused on undocumented immigrants, it's obvious that they do not care when they make mistakes and ruin the lives of legal residents and American citizens in the process."
"A repressive scheme on the scale of what they’re talking about at the IRS would lead to hundreds if not thousands of those horrific mistakes," said Wyden, "and the people who are disappeared as a result may never be returned to their families."
A spokesperson for the news agency said the ruling "affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation."
A federal judge appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump during his first term ruled Tuesday that the White House cannot cut off The Associated Press' access to the Republican leader because of the news agency's refusal to use his preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico.
"About two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the president," wrote Judge Trevor N. McFadden, who is based in Washington, D.C.
Specifically, according to the news outlet, "the AP has been blocked since February 11 from being among the small group of journalists to cover Trump in the Oval Office or aboard Air Force One, with sporadic ability to cover him at events in the East Room."
The AP responded to the restrictions by suing White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, "seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from excluding it because of its viewpoint," McFadden noted in his 41-page order. "Today, the court grants that relief."
The judge explained that "this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the president or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views."
"The court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints," he stressed. "The Constitution requires no less."
McFadden blocked his own order from taking effect before next week, giving the Trump administration time to respond or appeal. Still, AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said Tuesday that "we are gratified by the court's decision."
"Today’s ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation," Easton added. "This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution."
NPR reported that "an AP reporter and photographer were turned back from joining a reporting pool on a presidential motorcade early Tuesday evening, almost two hours after the decision came down."
"The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only applies to warlike actions," the lawsuit asserts.
The ACLU and allied groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday in a bid to stop U.S. President Donald Trump from "abusing the Alien Enemies Act"—an 18th-century law only ever invoked during wartime—to deport foreign nationals to a prison in El Salvador with allegedly rampant human rights abuses.
According to a statement, the ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union, "in partnership with the Legal Aid Society whose clients are plaintiffs in the litigation, filed an emergency lawsuit this morning in federal court in New York to again halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for people within that court's judicial district."
The lawsuit—which names Trump, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other officials as plaintiffs—follows Monday's 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that largely reversed a lower court's decision blocking the deportation of Venezuelan nationals to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison in El Salvador.
BREAKING: Today the NYCLU and @aclu.org filed an emergency lawsuit to ensure the Trump administration does not deport people under the Alien Enemies Act without due process. No one should face the horrifying prospect of lifelong imprisonment without a fair hearing, let alone in another country.
— NYCLU (@nyclu.org) April 8, 2025 at 11:00 AM
While the high court said the Trump administration can resume deportations under the 1798 AEA, the justices included the caveat that people subject to such removals must be afforded due process under the law.
"The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only applies to warlike actions," the ACLU argued in the new lawsuit. "It cannot be used here against nationals of a country—Venezuela—with whom the United States is not at war, which is not invading the United States, and which has not launched a predatory incursion into the United States."
Not only has Trump sent foreign nationals—including at least one wrongfully deported man—to CECOT, he has also floated the idea of sending U.S. citizens there at the invitation of right-wing Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who is scheduled to visit the White House next week.
This, despite widespread reports of serious human rights violations at the facility and throughout El Salvador in general.