Articles & Videos

With inventories falling and ships under fire in Hormuz, “it's too optimistic to believe that the global economy is off the hook,” Birol told the Aspen Security Forum.

The missions the foundations’ original donors champion during their lifetimes can become outdated after they’ve died.

US shoppers are seeing higher fruit and vegetable prices thanks to trade tensions, extreme weather and geopolitics, just to name a few reasons.

Courts have long let utilities seize private property to build transmission lines. Does that hold if the power flows to a single data center?

Beijing’s planned restrictions underscored the country’s chokehold over an industry that is critical to the global economy.

Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to impose tariffs on Brazil over what he says is the unfair prosecution of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro.

“The court should add this far-fetched claim to the growing list of meritless climate lawsuits the state and federal courts have already dismissed.” That’s how Chevron’s lawyer Theodore Boutrous responded last year when Misti Leon filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit in Washington State against major oil and gas companies for the wrongful death of her mother, Julie Leon, who died during the record-breaking Pacific Northwest heat dome that killed over 1,400 people in 2021.Last week, a Washington state court published its response to Big Oil’s effort to throw out Leon’s “far-fetched” claim. Boutrous was no doubt disappointed, for the court rejected the defendants’ motion to dismiss—meaning Misti Leon’s case to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for her mother’s climate-induced death will now be proceeding toward discovery and trial.This is a big deal. First, it’s striking how clearly the court ruled that Leon’s pathbreaking new theory of climate accountability is “not about regulating emissions,” as the defendants had argued. Leon’s lawsuit alleges that Big Oil companies should be liable for her mother’s death based on two state law causes of action: their failure to warn the public about the climate catastrophes they knew their fossil fuel products would cause, and their deceptive advertising—both climate denial and greenwashing—that have misled the public about these dangers for decades.The defendants refused to accept those claims on their own terms. Big Oil’s primary arguments to dismiss Leon’s suit—the same arguments it is currently pushing at the Supreme Court against a more traditional climate case—are that her case is preempted by the Clean Air Act (and also, somehow, the Constitution) and that her claims would “usurp the power of the legislative and executive branches to set climate policy.” The court’s response to these claims was unequivocal: Failure to warn and deceptive advertising are state law causes of action. They are adjudicated by courts all the time. And they have nothing to do with—and are therefore not preempted by—the Clean Air Act. “This case is about a single individual and an allegation that a single weather event contributed to her untimely passing,” the court wrote. “It is seeking damages for her death and nothing else”—pointedly, damages that are “not an attempt to regulate future emissions.” Such claims are not preempted because the Clean Air Act “does not address product liability or deceptive marketing.” And they are not non-justiciable political questions because they are “simple torts” that do not “implicate separation-of-powers concerns.” This ruling is a major boon to Leon’s new legal theory. Naturally, surviving a motion to dismiss doesn’t mean a case will succeed—not by a long shot. But this ruling confirms that such a lawsuit is legally plausible. The court essentially asks if there would be a cognizable claim if it accepted the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true. If one has confidence in Leon’s allegations—regarding Big Oil’s climate deception, the role of this deception in furthering climate change, and the impact of climate change on heat waves like the Pacific Northwest heat dome—then there is every reason to believe that a judge’s gatekeeping regarding these legal questions is as big an obstacle to a suit like Leon’s as the willingness of a jury of regular people to respond to evidence of Big Oil’s deception by ruling in favor of a bereaved daughter like Misti Leon.As such, this ruling could encourage other victims of climate disasters to file their own wrongful death suits against Big Oil—and it could give other plaintiffs’ attorneys confidence to take on these cases. That should make the fossil fuel industry very nervous. Julie Leon is far from the only victim of Big Oil’s climate misconduct. Dozens of people in New Jersey and Philadelphia were just killed in the Fourth of July heat wave, which climate scientists have already determined would have been “virtually impossible” but for climate change. Maricopa County, Arizona, experienced 430 heat-related deaths in 2025, and its death count this year is outpacing that figure “at a troubling rate.” Figures like these could be on track to explode in the near future. Already, some regions are experiencing orders of magnitude more carnage—a recent analysis found that extreme heat from climate change may have caused over 20,000 deaths in Europe last month alone.The progression of Leon’s case could also help inspire a powerful and previously untapped category of legal actors to join the fight for climate accountability: prosecutors. Though criminal prosecution requires a higher burden of proof than civil litigation, the core legal argument being made by Misti Leon is similar to the one prosecutors would rely on to charge Big Oil companies with criminal offenses—like homicide, reckless endangerment, or risking catastrophe—in relation to the climate disasters that are, in some instances, killing more of their constituents than are being lost to traditional homicides.It seems the fossil fuel industry is becoming concerned about this possibility. The latest draft legislation being put forward by the American Legislative Exchange Council to immunize oil and gas companies from liability for climate harms includes language creating a shield for all “criminal charges, indictments, or prosecutions based on or arising from” Big Oil’s climate-related misconduct.Corporations like ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP are desperately looking for get-out-of-jail-free cards like these because they know that claims like those of Misti Leon are not, in fact, “far-fetched” or “meritless,” as Boutrous bluffed. They know that people like Julie Leon should not be losing their lives. People like Misti should not be losing their mothers. These are not natural tragedies. They’re the result of the conduct of a small number of companies that knew their fossil fuels would cause, in their own words, “globally catastrophic” climate harms that would create “more violent weather” and cause “suffering and death due to thermal extremes.” Despite this knowledge, they spent years preventing the public from understanding the risks their products were creating, in order to protect their obscene profits.These companies have blood on their hands. The volume of that blood is growing every year. Following this latest court decision, they are one step closer to being held accountable for their lethal conduct. And it’s all thanks to the courage of Misti Leon, a regular person going up against some of the most powerful corporations on the planet to win justice for her mother. For now, at least, she’s winning.

It’s not just an affordability crisis. While inflation has been a national story for years and President Trump’s sporadic tariffs and war against Iran have only made matters worse, there’s another big stress on household budgets: Wages aren’t keeping up with rising costs.Advocates and think tanks aligned with progressives are pushing Democrats to focus not only on affordability but on increasing worker pay, as well. The One Fair Wage campaign has introduced bills to increase the minimum wage around the country, to varying success. An effort to hike the D.C. minimum wage to $25 an hour will not make the November ballot, but efforts in California and New York are ongoing. Allies in the U.S. House and Senate have introduced the Living Wage for All Act to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $25.Saru Jayaraman, who leads One Fair Wage and also worked on the Fight for $15 campaign, said that her organization used the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Living Wage Calculator to arrive at a minimum of $25: Nowhere in the country is the living wage lower than that figure, which shows just how much the economy has changed in the 14 years since this fight began.“When we were running the Fight for $15, we were talking about maybe 15, maybe 20 percent of the population that was earning less than $15 an hour,” she said. “Now we’re talking about a $25 living wage for all, and literally 50 percent of working Americans earn less than $25 an hour. So it is no longer this fringe issue.”The Living Wage for All Act would also eliminate the subminimum wage for youth, disabled, and tipped workers. Many more workers are staying in the service sector—as waiters, bartenders, baristas, and so on—than in the past, turning what was once seen as transitional work into a career. The fact that many tipped jobs pay a lower minimum wage means that those workers’ incomes can vary widely over the course of a week or month, making it harder to budget for the future.“I make $8 before I get tipped,” said Sylvie Kling, a 26-year-old bartender who lives in Bridgeport, Connecticut, where the nontipped minimum wage is $16.94. “I work 40 hours a week. I am thankful for the position that I have, and that’s crazy because things have only gotten more expensive since I started working in restaurants in 2018. It’s definitely not gotten any easier.”But raising the federal minimum wage isn’t the only way to raise wages across the board. On Wednesday, the progressive nonprofit Economic Policy Institute released a new report showing how increasing union membership in the U.S. would boost incomes for everyone.The unionization rate in the U.S. hit its historic high point, accounting for around 30 percent of private-sector workers, during the 1950s. Increasing union membership to that share today would raise wages for the median worker—all workers, not just union members—by $7,700 a year, shifting an estimated $1.2 trillion to workers annually overall. This would narrow the K-shaped pattern of economic growth we see now, where labor is earning a decreasing share of gross domestic product while CEOs get even richer. It would also decrease racial pay disparities affecting Black and Latino workers.Of course, there are other benefits to unionization. Unions tend to score better benefits for workers, including health insurance, retirement savings, paid time off, and job protections. Such a high rate of unionization would fundamentally transform the economy, and politics more broadly.“Strong unions also give workers a voice in shaping the fabric of their communities,” said Heidi Shierholz, the EPI’s president, on a press call. “High-union-density states invest more in public education. They deliver unemployment insurance benefits to a much greater share of jobless workers. They have all expanded Medicaid, and on and on and on. So, to the extent that strong unions are a driving force behind those things, tripling union density will create better outcomes on a huge array of factors, and unions protect democracy.”Unions are more popular than ever, and membership ticked up slightly last year by almost half a million workers compared to 2024, to 11.2 percent, the first time it’s increased in 16 years. And a number of House candidates this year have won the Democratic nomination after stressing their own union experience, including Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York City and a firefighter, Bob Brooks, in Pennsylvania. In past interviews, Valdez told me that being a member of the union helped her get involved in politics in the first place.Of course, many right-to-work states, especially in the South, remain hostile to unions, as does the Trump administration. And for the past several decades, federal laws have eaten away at union power. The EPI pointed to three bipartisan bills active in Congress now—the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, and the Protecting America’s Workforce Act—that would reform labor law and make it easier for public- and private-sector workers to organize. Shierholz noted that a piece of the PRO Act, the Faster Labor Contracts Act, which would speed up the timeline employers have to approve a first contract, was separated from the larger bill to be acted on more quickly. It passed the House with 20 Republicans joining the Democrats, and Missouri Republican Josh Hawley supports it in the Senate—a rare instance of bipartisan agreement, on an unlikely issue.Without ambitious legislation, increasing union density to its midcentury peak would be tough if not impossible. But these efforts, as well as the proposals to increase the minimum wage, point to how conversations about high prices and affordability are drawing attention to broader, structural economic issues—and to the solutions that groups and politicians on the left have put out, in the hope that one day the Democrats will regain power and take them up.

There’s a simple way to prevent most workplace falls off ladders. Corporations don’t want to do it. The post After Industry Request, OSHA Moves to Roll Back Ladder Safety Regulation appeared first on The American Prospect.