Menu
Menu
States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
\"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
<\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Environmental and humanitarian groups caution that military strikes could harm humanitarian efforts and undermine long-standing nuclear negotiations. They stress that destabilizing the nuclear extensions could spark regional proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Environmental and humanitarian groups caution that military strikes could harm humanitarian efforts and undermine long-standing nuclear negotiations. They stress that destabilizing the nuclear extensions could spark regional proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Despite this, intelligence estimates and analysts suggest any delay to Iran\u2019s program is temporary. Without effective monitoring, Iran may now accelerate its efforts in secret, risking global stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Environmental and humanitarian groups caution that military strikes could harm humanitarian efforts and undermine long-standing nuclear negotiations. They stress that destabilizing the nuclear extensions could spark regional proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The U.S. framed the strike as necessary<\/a> to halt Iran\u2019s nuclear ambitions and protect Israel. Secretary Hegseth said the strikes \u201cobliterated Iran\u2019s ability to create nuclear weapons,\u201d while Vance added that Iran is \u201cmuch further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite this, intelligence estimates and analysts suggest any delay to Iran\u2019s program is temporary. Without effective monitoring, Iran may now accelerate its efforts in secret, risking global stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Environmental and humanitarian groups caution that military strikes could harm humanitarian efforts and undermine long-standing nuclear negotiations. They stress that destabilizing the nuclear extensions could spark regional proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
The U.S. framed the strike as necessary<\/a> to halt Iran\u2019s nuclear ambitions and protect Israel. Secretary Hegseth said the strikes \u201cobliterated Iran\u2019s ability to create nuclear weapons,\u201d while Vance added that Iran is \u201cmuch further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite this, intelligence estimates and analysts suggest any delay to Iran\u2019s program is temporary. Without effective monitoring, Iran may now accelerate its efforts in secret, risking global stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Environmental and humanitarian groups caution that military strikes could harm humanitarian efforts and undermine long-standing nuclear negotiations. They stress that destabilizing the nuclear extensions could spark regional proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Conversely, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the operation, stating: \u201cCongratulations, President Trump. Your courageous choice to strike Iran's nuclear installations\u2026 will alter history.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S. framed the strike as necessary<\/a> to halt Iran\u2019s nuclear ambitions and protect Israel. Secretary Hegseth said the strikes \u201cobliterated Iran\u2019s ability to create nuclear weapons,\u201d while Vance added that Iran is \u201cmuch further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite this, intelligence estimates and analysts suggest any delay to Iran\u2019s program is temporary. Without effective monitoring, Iran may now accelerate its efforts in secret, risking global stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Environmental and humanitarian groups caution that military strikes could harm humanitarian efforts and undermine long-standing nuclear negotiations. They stress that destabilizing the nuclear extensions could spark regional proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Legal scholars have pointed out that the strike violates not just the NPT but also the UN Charter\u2019s prohibition on war aggression. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the U.S. of infringing on Iran\u2019s sovereignty and international law, declaring: \u201cIran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conversely, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the operation, stating: \u201cCongratulations, President Trump. Your courageous choice to strike Iran's nuclear installations\u2026 will alter history.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S. framed the strike as necessary<\/a> to halt Iran\u2019s nuclear ambitions and protect Israel. Secretary Hegseth said the strikes \u201cobliterated Iran\u2019s ability to create nuclear weapons,\u201d while Vance added that Iran is \u201cmuch further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite this, intelligence estimates and analysts suggest any delay to Iran\u2019s program is temporary. Without effective monitoring, Iran may now accelerate its efforts in secret, risking global stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Environmental and humanitarian groups caution that military strikes could harm humanitarian efforts and undermine long-standing nuclear negotiations. They stress that destabilizing the nuclear extensions could spark regional proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Legal scholars have pointed out that the strike violates not just the NPT but also the UN Charter\u2019s prohibition on war aggression. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the U.S. of infringing on Iran\u2019s sovereignty and international law, declaring: \u201cIran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conversely, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the operation, stating: \u201cCongratulations, President Trump. Your courageous choice to strike Iran's nuclear installations\u2026 will alter history.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S. framed the strike as necessary<\/a> to halt Iran\u2019s nuclear ambitions and protect Israel. Secretary Hegseth said the strikes \u201cobliterated Iran\u2019s ability to create nuclear weapons,\u201d while Vance added that Iran is \u201cmuch further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite this, intelligence estimates and analysts suggest any delay to Iran\u2019s program is temporary. Without effective monitoring, Iran may now accelerate its efforts in secret, risking global stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Environmental and humanitarian groups caution that military strikes could harm humanitarian efforts and undermine long-standing nuclear negotiations. They stress that destabilizing the nuclear extensions could spark regional proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Although such attacks did not target reactor plants, only the enrichment sites, the example bothers analysts. The warnings issued by the IAEA on the compounding effect of radio absorbent risks reiterates on the dangers posed by targeting nuclear facilities to those within the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Legal scholars have pointed out that the strike violates not just the NPT but also the UN Charter\u2019s prohibition on war aggression. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the U.S. of infringing on Iran\u2019s sovereignty and international law, declaring: \u201cIran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conversely, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the operation, stating: \u201cCongratulations, President Trump. Your courageous choice to strike Iran's nuclear installations\u2026 will alter history.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S. framed the strike as necessary<\/a> to halt Iran\u2019s nuclear ambitions and protect Israel. Secretary Hegseth said the strikes \u201cobliterated Iran\u2019s ability to create nuclear weapons,\u201d while Vance added that Iran is \u201cmuch further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite this, intelligence estimates and analysts suggest any delay to Iran\u2019s program is temporary. Without effective monitoring, Iran may now accelerate its efforts in secret, risking global stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Environmental and humanitarian groups caution that military strikes could harm humanitarian efforts and undermine long-standing nuclear negotiations. They stress that destabilizing the nuclear extensions could spark regional proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Although such attacks did not target reactor plants, only the enrichment sites, the example bothers analysts. The warnings issued by the IAEA on the compounding effect of radio absorbent risks reiterates on the dangers posed by targeting nuclear facilities to those within the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Legal scholars have pointed out that the strike violates not just the NPT but also the UN Charter\u2019s prohibition on war aggression. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the U.S. of infringing on Iran\u2019s sovereignty and international law, declaring: \u201cIran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conversely, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the operation, stating: \u201cCongratulations, President Trump. Your courageous choice to strike Iran's nuclear installations\u2026 will alter history.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S. framed the strike as necessary<\/a> to halt Iran\u2019s nuclear ambitions and protect Israel. Secretary Hegseth said the strikes \u201cobliterated Iran\u2019s ability to create nuclear weapons,\u201d while Vance added that Iran is \u201cmuch further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite this, intelligence estimates and analysts suggest any delay to Iran\u2019s program is temporary. Without effective monitoring, Iran may now accelerate its efforts in secret, risking global stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Environmental and humanitarian groups caution that military strikes could harm humanitarian efforts and undermine long-standing nuclear negotiations. They stress that destabilizing the nuclear extensions could spark regional proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Saudi Arabia and Russia described the U.S action as being titillating and a dangerously provocative move. UN Secretary General Anto Guterres asked for restraint and diplomacy. The brittle ceasefire still hangs precariously as both sides are threatening to act anew.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although such attacks did not target reactor plants, only the enrichment sites, the example bothers analysts. The warnings issued by the IAEA on the compounding effect of radio absorbent risks reiterates on the dangers posed by targeting nuclear facilities to those within the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Legal scholars have pointed out that the strike violates not just the NPT but also the UN Charter\u2019s prohibition on war aggression. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the U.S. of infringing on Iran\u2019s sovereignty and international law, declaring: \u201cIran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conversely, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the operation, stating: \u201cCongratulations, President Trump. Your courageous choice to strike Iran's nuclear installations\u2026 will alter history.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S. framed the strike as necessary<\/a> to halt Iran\u2019s nuclear ambitions and protect Israel. Secretary Hegseth said the strikes \u201cobliterated Iran\u2019s ability to create nuclear weapons,\u201d while Vance added that Iran is \u201cmuch further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite this, intelligence estimates and analysts suggest any delay to Iran\u2019s program is temporary. Without effective monitoring, Iran may now accelerate its efforts in secret, risking global stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Environmental and humanitarian groups caution that military strikes could harm humanitarian efforts and undermine long-standing nuclear negotiations. They stress that destabilizing the nuclear extensions could spark regional proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By spreading false information, attacking climate scientists and activists, and controlling democratic decision-making platforms like the yearly UN climate talks, the industry and its allies have systematically blocked access to this knowledge and meaningful climate action for 60 years. People also have a right to know about this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fossil fuel playbook has undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades,\u201d said Morgera in the imperative of defossilizing our economies report.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States must outlaw lobbying and advertisements for fossil fuels, criminalise the fossil fuel industry, media, and advertising companies for spreading false information, and impose severe penalties for assaults on climate activists who are increasingly the targets of physical violence, cyberbullying, and malicious lawsuits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Sea level rise, desertification, drought, melting glaciers, intense heat, floods, and other climate-related effects are posing an increasing threat to communities worldwide. In addition, every stage of the fossil fuel lifecycle is linked to biodiversity loss, water shortages, fatal air pollution, and the forced relocation of rural and Indigenous peoples.<\/p>\n","post_title":"UN official calls for fossil fuel ad ban, disinformation crackdown, lobbying prohibition","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"un-official-calls-for-fossil-fuel-ad-ban-disinformation-crackdown-lobbying-prohibition","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8156","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"next":false,"prev":true,"total_page":34},"paged":1,"column_class":"jeg_col_2o3","class":"epic_block_3"};
Iran retaliated by launching missiles on a U.S base located in Qatar, but there were no casualties. However, 657 individuals have previously died in Iran as a result of Israel-Iran conflicts, 263 of whom were civilians. In Iran there were 24 deaths as a result of Iran related attacks in Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Saudi Arabia and Russia described the U.S action as being titillating and a dangerously provocative move. UN Secretary General Anto Guterres asked for restraint and diplomacy. The brittle ceasefire still hangs precariously as both sides are threatening to act anew.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although such attacks did not target reactor plants, only the enrichment sites, the example bothers analysts. The warnings issued by the IAEA on the compounding effect of radio absorbent risks reiterates on the dangers posed by targeting nuclear facilities to those within the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Legal scholars have pointed out that the strike violates not just the NPT but also the UN Charter\u2019s prohibition on war aggression. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the U.S. of infringing on Iran\u2019s sovereignty and international law, declaring: \u201cIran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conversely, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the operation, stating: \u201cCongratulations, President Trump. Your courageous choice to strike Iran's nuclear installations\u2026 will alter history.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S. framed the strike as necessary<\/a> to halt Iran\u2019s nuclear ambitions and protect Israel. Secretary Hegseth said the strikes \u201cobliterated Iran\u2019s ability to create nuclear weapons,\u201d while Vance added that Iran is \u201cmuch further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite this, intelligence estimates and analysts suggest any delay to Iran\u2019s program is temporary. Without effective monitoring, Iran may now accelerate its efforts in secret, risking global stability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Environmental and humanitarian groups caution that military strikes could harm humanitarian efforts and undermine long-standing nuclear negotiations. They stress that destabilizing the nuclear extensions could spark regional proliferation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These events mark a turning point in international nuclear norms. The operation\u2019s immediate success does not eliminate long\u2011term risks. Possible disintegration of non\u2011proliferation regimes and the precedence of the law to attack nuclear facilities deserve attention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran's actions following the strike, including its determination to leave the NPT and to obstruct inspections, demonstrate how the military can yield short-term gains while devoting those gains to long-term security. Absent the renewal of diplomacy and the establishment of effective methods of verification, the world runs the threat of downhill into the growing proliferation and war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","post_title":"Why U.S. bombing risks global nuclear instability?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"why-u-s-bombing-risks-global-nuclear-instability","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_modified_gmt":"2025-07-03 07:07:44","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8170","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8163,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content":"\n The U.S. Senate cut the suggested remittance tax from 5% to 1 % and MAGA supporters are outraged, asking <\/p>\n\n\n\n \"Who is lobbying Republicans?\" <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n to get a deal for this benefit for immigrant communities sending money abroad? The cut has raised questions about the influence of special interests and diaspora lobbies in the late night theatrics in front of Republican lawmaker during the soft closing of the \"One Big Beautiful Bill.\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the beginning, the tax reform plan conceptualized during the Trump administration proposed a 5% tax on international remittances sent by non-U.S. citizens. The purpose of the tax was to generate federal revenue. The tax would have applied to a wide scope of money transfers out of the U.S. The proposal also included cash as well as electronically sent remittances. The previous proposal and subsequent proposal sparked controversy with critics arguing they would disadvantage immigrant families making remittances to support family members overseas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The House of Representatives lowered the tax to 3.5% and included exemptions for some types of transfers. Then, the Senate cut the tax down to 1%, and only from cash or physical payment methods, exempting transfers from U.S. bank accounts and domestic debit\/credit cards. This seriously limited the scope and potential revenue of the tax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAGA-oriented critics are interpreting the decline from 5% to 1% as bending to lobbying, and calling into question the integrity of those supporting the reduction. They are raising up the concern that the tax reduction benefits immigrant communities without respect to wider tax-neutral satisfactory fiscal responsibility, even accusing republicans of listening to big interest groups or diaspora lobbyists. This is reflected in the sentiment of reading and hearing and misattributed erosion of comment to embrace a facetious ubiquitous question: \u201cWho is lobbying Republicans?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although there has been no formal announcement naming specific lobbyists, there is consensus that Diaspora advocacy organizations, especially those representing Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), among other immigrant groups, sought out legislative interventions to preserve remittance flows. Commercial banks and remittance services could have logically advocated for exemptions on electronic transfer transactions to sustain levels of volume. Legitimately, some political actors within the Republicans themselves, maybe, did not want to stigmatize immigrant voters or constituencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The cut on remittance taxes comes as part of a larger bipartisan Republican-driven tax and spending package referred to as the \u201cOne Big Beautiful Bill\u201d and hastily passed in time for the July 4th deadline. The heated debate over the remittance tax indicates internal conflict among the Republican party between fiscally conservative representatives and more pragmatic politicians who recognize the reality of the state's fiscal situation, the growing political clout of immigrant communities and their advocacy groups on U.S. policy issues, and the challenges political officials have in balancing the need for tax revenue with the various political pressures they face.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For immigrant families sending money overseas, the 1% tax (which is confined mostly to cash transfers) is much less than many expected, and will represent a small fraction of the true cost. Most remittances sent through banks or digital platforms are exempt from the 1% tax<\/a>, and so the funds needed to facilitate remittances can continue to be sent around the world, impacting millions of households. There will still be additional costs for some cash-based remitters.<\/p>\n","post_title":"Who is lobbying Republicans to slash the remittance tax?","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"who-is-lobbying-republicans-to-slash-the-remittance-tax","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_modified_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:34:54","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/dctransparency.com\/?p=8163","menu_order":0,"post_type":"post","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"},{"ID":8156,"post_author":"7","post_date":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_date_gmt":"2025-06-30 21:22:13","post_content":"\n As part of a drastic overhaul to protect human rights and prevent a global disaster, a top UN expert is advocating for criminal sanctions against anyone spreading false information about the climate problem, as well as a complete prohibition on lobbying and advertising by the fossil fuel<\/a> sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, is presenting her damning new report to the general assembly in Geneva on Monday. She contends that wealthy fossil fuel nations, including the US, UK, Canada, and Australia, are legally required by international law to phase out oil, gas, and coal completely by 2030 and to make amends to communities for the harms they have caused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition to fossil fuel exploration, subsidies, investments, and phoney tech solutions that will bind future generations to polluting and increasingly expensive coal, oil, and gas, fracking, oil sands, and gas flaring should all be prohibited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDespite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle \u2026 these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action,\u201d said Morgera, professor of global environmental law at the University of Strathclyde.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThese countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing \u2013 biodiversity loss, plastic pollution and economic inequalities \u2013 caused by fossil fuels extraction, use and waste.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The climate crisis and other environmental harms associated with the extraction, transportation, and use of fossil fuels for energy, fuel, plastics, and synthetic fertilisers have exacerbated the harms already experienced by island nations, Indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable communities, who have benefited the least from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the report, there is ample evidence that the fossil fuel industry\u2014which includes coal, oil, gas, fertilizers, and plastics\u2014causes serious, extensive, and cumulative harm to nearly every human right, including the rights to life, self-determination, health, food, water, housing, education, information, and livelihood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Morgera argues for the \"defossilization\" of our whole economy, which means that fossil fuels should be eliminated from all spheres of life, including politics, economics, food, media, technology, and knowledge. She contends that the shift to clean energy is insufficient to address the pervasive and growing damages brought about by fossil fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n States are required by current international human rights legislation to educate their populations about the pervasive damages caused by fossil fuels and the fact that<\/a> the best approach to combat the climate issue is to phase out the usage of coal, oil, and gas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Voices from civil society and analysts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Voices from civil society and analysts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Voices from civil society and analysts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Strategic trade\u2011offs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Voices from civil society and analysts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Strategic trade\u2011offs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Voices from civil society and analysts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Strategic trade\u2011offs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Voices from civil society and analysts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Legality and international norms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Strategic trade\u2011offs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Voices from civil society and analysts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Legality and international norms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Strategic trade\u2011offs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Voices from civil society and analysts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Nuclear and environmental hazards<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Legality and international norms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Strategic trade\u2011offs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Voices from civil society and analysts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Nuclear and environmental hazards<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Legality and international norms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Strategic trade\u2011offs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Voices from civil society and analysts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Nuclear and environmental hazards<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Legality and international norms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Strategic trade\u2011offs<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Voices from civil society and analysts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A defining moment for global nuclear order<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
What was the original proposal for the remittance tax?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How did the remittance tax change through the legislative process?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Why are MAGA supporters upset about the tax reduction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Which groups might have influenced the Senate\u2019s decision?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What are the broader political implications of this tax cut?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for immigrant communities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
How do fossil fuels violate human rights obligations?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What legal duties do rich fossil fuel nations face?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Should governments ban fossil fuel lobbying and promotion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n