"As the tribes suffer the latest in a string of legal defeats, however, the fight against DAPL has been winning a series of major victories in different territory: the pipeline's financial backing.
Campaigns to divest from the pipeline and thus starve it of funding have been growing across the U.S. and around the world. Large cities such as San Francisco and Seattle have divested billions of dollars, and similar campaigns have emerged in New York, Albuquerque, N.M., and Raleigh, N.C., among other U.S. cities. ...
Other cities have already severed those ties. 'Between Davis, [Calif.,] Santa Monica, and Seattle alone—the three cities that have opted to sever their ties with Wells Fargo—the campaign will ultimately deprive Wells Fargo of more than $4 billion in deposits, fees, and more,' writes Jimmy Tobias in The Nation.
In Norway, meanwhile, indigenous Sami people last week convinced the country's second-largest pension fund to divest from the pipeline. The Green Party in the UK has also urged British banks to stop funding the pipeline."
-->Leave it to our newspaper of record to leave out any mention of Dakota Access Pipeline and the campaign to divest from banks like Wells Fargo. Why don't you divest?
"US Pressures G20 Into Dropping Climate Reference from Joint Statement. ... Finance ministers for the Group of 20 (G20), which comprises the world's biggest economies, dropped a joint statement mentioning funding for the fight against climate change after pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia.
A G20 official taking part in the annual meeting told Reuters that efforts by this year's German leadership to keep climate funding in the statement had hit a wall.
'Climate change is out for the time being,' said the official, who asked to remain anonymous.
At the last G20 meeting in July 2016, the group's financial leaders urged all countries that had signed onto the landmark Paris climate accord to bring the deal into action as soon as possible. But President Donald Trump, who has referred to global warming as a 'Chinese hoax,' took office vowing to remove the U.S. from the voluntary agreement."
-->Why didn't the NYT cover this story? Maybe because it makes the empire look too bad. But is protecting the image of the empire more important than readers getting accurate information?