

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Kelly Trout, 240-396-2022, 717-439-0346 (cell), kelly@chesapeakeclimate.org
Marching and chanting with signs like "Gas exports: Worse than Coal" and "FERC: My safety matters," dozens of protesters launched a week-long picket outside the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's headquarters in Washington, D.C. today to challenge the agency's handling of controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) export proposals. The picketers are demanding that FERC place a moratorium on its approval of gas export permits until the commission has accounted for alarming new federal data showing that such exports to Asia could be worse for the climate in coming decades than if overseas countries burned coal.
"FERC has provoked this unprecedented picket line by willfully ignoring the unprecedented harm fracked gas exports pose to our climate and to our communities," said Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. "In response to mounting evidence that exporting fracked gas from Cove Point and other sites nationwide will help cook the planet, our nation's energy commissioners are in effect covering their ears and closing their eyes, while giving a giant thumbs up to the gas industry. Simply put, this must stop."
Last month, a Department of Energy study revealed that--even when using conservative estimates of planet-heating methane emissions--exports of U.S. fracked gas to Asia provide no climate benefits for decades, if ever, and would almost certainly be worse for the climate over the next critical 20 years than if Asian countries burned coal.
In recent weeks, as opponents of the Cove Point liquefied natural gas export facility proposed in Maryland generated 150,000 comments nationwide against the project, FERC continued to defy health and environmental leaders--and, groups allege, the law--by refusing to conduct a standard Environmental Impact Statement. It also defied U.S. Senators and a U.S. EPA official by refusing to extend the 30-day public comment period for the project. Environmental and clean water groups are poised to sue FERC for illegally dismissing the climate change, fracking and human safety impacts of the proposal in its draft environmental review, which also drew criticism from the EPA.
"Residents living next door to Dominion's proposed Cove Point facility are coming to FERC this week because we refuse to let this agency sacrifice our safety to the gas industry," said Tracey Eno, a founding member of Calvert Citizens for a Healthy Community. "FERC has failed to conduct a transparent, quantitative risk assessment that considers the very real threat of explosions compromising our safety in our own homes due to Dominion's proposed addition of extremely hazardous liquefaction equipment at Cove Point. It's clear it will take a citizen uprising to change the status quo at FERC, which is why we're picketing this week."
Each day this week groups of picketers from across the region will converge on FERC's Washington, DC headquarters at lunchtime, highlighting the accumulating evidence that FERC is a secretive and dysfunctional regulatory agency in need of significant reform. Delegations of residents from southern Maryland and Myersville, Maryland will lead the picket Tuesday and Wednesday respectively, drawing attention to the ways FERC has sidelined their voices in reviewing the Cove Point plan and a related gas compressor station in central Maryland.
"From Lusby to Myersville to Minisink and beyond, mothers like me see FERC repeatedly failing to protect the health and safety of our children," said Ann Nau, vice president of Myersville Citizens for a Rural Community. "With a FERC rubber-stamp in hand, Dominion sued my small town to force a toxin-spewing compressor station on us, defying community and local government opposition. We are here to shine a bright spotlight on FERC's practices, and to demand a change in course before more communities see hazardous pipelines or polluting compressors in their backyards."
FERC is facing growing public backlash because of its role in green-lighting the massive expansion of gas pipeline and other infrastructure triggered by the surge of fracking in recent years. In early June, a federal appeals court ruled that FERC had illegally "segmented" its approval of a major East Coast gas pipeline project, and thereby ignored its potential cumulative environmental impacts. This court victory should set precedent for similar legal challenges to FERC's rubber-stamping of gas industry projects.
"Maryland's religious communities are heartbroken by the harm climate change is already causing to our neighbors, close to home and around the world," says Joelle Novey, Director of Interfaith Power & Light (DC.MD.NoVA). "We're not going to let a Goliath corporation stomp into Maryland and make a mockery of our good work to protect our air, our water, and our climate. We're picketing outside FERC because we're trying to faithfully do what David did: we're giving this our best shot."
In all, FERC is currently reviewing 14 fracked gas export proposals. The $3.8 billion Cove Point facility, proposed by Virginia-based Dominion Resources just 50 miles south of the White House in southern Maryland, would take gas from fracking wells across Appalachia, liquefy it, and ship it to customers in Japan and India. A CCAN analysis found that, from fracking wells to final smokestacks, the Cove Point project could alone trigger more greenhouse gas pollution than all seven of Maryland's existing coal-fired power plants combined. The Cove Point project would be the first fracked gas export facility on the East Coast and the first ever built in a densely populated residential area.
View photos of the picket launch at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chesapeakeclimate/sets/72157644914012429.
The Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) is the first grassroots, nonprofit organization dedicated exclusively to fighting global warming in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Our mission is to build and mobilize a powerful grassroots movement in this unique region that surrounds our nation's capital to call for state, national and international policies that will put us on a path to climate stability. - See more at: https://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view;=itemlist&...
Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."