
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.
"This giveaway to fossil fuel executives is foolish and shortshsighted, and reveals who the Trump administration really works for—its political donors," said one campaigner.
The US Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday announced plans to further weaken federal protections against methane pollution from oil and gas operations, prompting environmental advocates to accuse the Trump administration of once again putting fossil fuel interests ahead of public health and the climate.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin made the announcement during the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association’s annual meeting in Santa Fe. The EPA said it will propose changes to the Biden administration's 2024 oil and gas rules in the coming days, claiming the proposed rollback will save $45 billion in regulatory costs.
The proposal's changes include rescinding the Biden-era Super Emitter Program, which allows third parties to identify major methane leaks and require companies to address them.
“The Trump EPA is days, not weeks, away from announcing our proposal for the second part of the oil and gas reconsideration," Zeldin said in a statement. "Americans must be able to afford to heat their homes in the winter and fill up their car and drive to work. They can’t do that when the people producing the energy are weighed down by unnecessary burdens."
The biggest factor driving high US gasoline prices right now is the global oil supply shock caused by President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice on Iran.
Environmental and climate groups disputed Zeldin's framing.
"Trump’s Environmental Destruction Agency continues its rampage by torching limits on superheating methane, some of the last remaining protections against climate-heating pollution,” said Maggie Coulter, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute.
“This move will compound the climate chaos we see mounting all around us in deadly heatwaves, floods, and storms," she added. "Vulnerable communities will be exposed to worse smog and intensified respiratory pollution, increasing kids’ asthma and other health harms. We’ll fight this disastrous rollback with everything we’ve got.”
Today, EPA Admin. Zeldin announced a rollback of federal rules that ensure oil and gas operators don't pollute our air. This decision clearly shows that Trump is putting polluters first over the wellbeing of the American people. #Methane
[image or embed]
— Conservation Voters New Mexico (@protectnm.bsky.social) October 7, 2026 at 10:01 AM
Dr. Rev. Jessica Moerman, president and CEO of the Evangelical Environmental Network, said that “families in oil and gas country should not have to wonder what is leaking from the wells and equipment near their homes, churches, and schools."
"The plan to weaken methane pollution protections means this worry remains a reality," she added. "Leaking methane is not only a wasted product. The same leaks can carry benzene and other harmful pollutants linked to cancer and birth defects into the air that children and seniors breathe."
Methane—which has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere—is emitted during the production and transportation of oil, gas, and coal, as well as from municipal landfills and livestock.
"Any proposed rollback to the federal methane rule is a slap in the face to families who are exposed to oil and gas pollution where they live, work, and play,” Celerah Hewes, senior manager for state field campaigns at Moms Clean Air Force, said in a statement.
Hewes continued:
For over a decade, Moms Clean Air Force has been fighting for methane protections for our families—and we were making progress. Today’s announcement from EPA is a massive blow to the efforts to safeguard our children’s health and our climate. Over 900,000 comments were submitted to the Federal Register in support of the commonsense methane pollution protections that EPA finalized in 2024, including many from the moms, dads, and caregivers with Moms Clean Air Force.
"Now communities across the country will once again have to show up and demand EPA provide strong federal methane pollution standards that protect families from this known public health threat and climate super pollutant," she added. "It is outrageous that we have to fight so hard just for our children's right to breathe clean air."
Lauren Pagel, senior policy director at Earthworks, alleged that "by rolling back commonsense methane standards, the Trump administration has once again chosen polluters over people, sacrificing the health of communities living next to extraction and our climate to make even more money for fossil fuel billionaires."
“While families struggle with the high cost of living, everything Trump and his oil and gas company cronies do makes life harder for everyday people—including making the air we breathe dirtier," she continued.
“The Trump administration is delivering dirtier air, more pollution, and greater risks for communities in order to boost Big Oil’s profits," Pagel added. "It’s time for states to step up and do what the White House won’t: Put people first, hold polluters accountable, and cut methane pollution to protect health and climate.”
While running for reelection on a “drill, baby, drill” energy platform, Trump reportedly promised Big Oil executives that he would eviscerate climate regulations enacted by the Biden administration if they gave $1 billion to his campaign. Fossil fuel interests spent nearly $450 million during the 2024 election cycle on campaign contributions, lobbying, and efforts supporting Republican causes and candidates, including Trump.
EPA signaled it is going to propose weakened #methane regulations for oil and gas, including for low-producing wells, which are responsible for almost half of the sector’s methane emissions despite producing less than 5% of the country’s oil and gas.www.catf.us/2026/10/epa-...
[image or embed]
— Clean Air Task Force (@cleanaircatf.bsky.social) October 7, 2026 at 1:59 PM
Environmental Defense Fund associate vice president of energy transition Jon Goldstein said: "At a time when Americans are facing high energy costs, EPA should not give oil and gas companies more room to waste a domestic resource... Rolling back these safeguards would mean more wasted energy, more methane pollution, and greater health risks for communities living near oil and gas operations.”
Natural Resources Defense Council senior strategist David Doniger accused the EPA of "trying to give a free pass to the worst actors in the oil and gas industry."
"Many companies had already complied with these rules, but a few rogue actors refuse to check for leaks or monitor their equipment adequately," he explained. "Those deadbeats would get bailed out by this action."
“Methane leaks are the dumbest kind of pollution because the industry is losing the very product it is selling," Doniger continued. "That’s what made the standards so cost-effective: Checking for leaks means the industry has more gas to sell."
“These leaks are not just bad for the climate, they result in more smog and cancer-causing pollution for nearby communities," he added. "But with his announcement today, Lee Zeldin made clear that oil companies come first, while protecting families from toxic pollution and the ravages of extreme weather is not on this administration’s agenda.”
Mahyar Sorour, who heads Sierra Club's Beyond Fossil Fuels Policy program, noted that “it took many years and carefully considered input from health experts, community advocates, and even the oil and gas industry itself to craft the achievable, commonsense methane standards."
"Yet, the Trump administration, with pockets lined by the biggest polluters, has unceremoniously worked to roll back this and other standards meant to protect our health and safety," Sorour added. "This giveaway to fossil fuel executives is foolish and shortsighted, and reveals who the Trump administration really works for—its political donors.”
"Big Oil is doing everything in its power to turn this beautiful, miraculous world into a wasteland."
The population of the world's largest penguin colony has collapsed, according to a new study. The researchers say the climate crisis is to blame.
Zavodovski Island, a speck of land in the remote subantarctic South Sandwich archipelago, was once home to about 1.09 million breeding chinstrap penguins. By 2025, there were just over 400,000 of them left, according to research published Wednesday in the journal Current Biology—a 63% population decline.
For years, Zavodovski had been considered an exception to the penguin declines seen elsewhere around Antarctica. But the sudden drop over the past 15 years is the fastest ever for the chinstrap species, which is marked by the thin black line beneath its beak.
Norman Ratcliffe, a penguin ecologist with the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), said that after an "enormous population crash," Zavodovski Island—which he said once resembled a "Penguin Mordor"—can no longer even claim the title of the world's largest colony. That distinction now belongs to Cape Adare in Antarctica's Ross Sea, which is dominated by Adélie penguins.
The decline is so severe that the BAS says chinstraps may now be eligible for the "endangered" category on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's list of threatened species.
Ratcliffe said the most likely explanation is a climate-driven upheaval in the penguins' food supply. Chinstrap penguins feed exclusively on Antarctic krill, which reside in the colder waters near Zavodovski.
"Chinstrap penguins are krill specialists," Ratcliffe explained in a video posted by the BAS. "That's pretty much all they eat throughout their entire range."
But the Antarctic has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on Earth—reaching 5°C above temperatures from half a century ago in some places.
"What we found is that the krill distribution is contracting southwards with warming," Ratcliffe said. "Chinstraps... like cool waters, but they're really averse to sea ice.
"One of the problems chinstraps are facing: they like cool waters, but they're really averse to sea ice. So there's a limit to how far they can go south," he continued. "Chinstraps are therefore left with less food to eat. That affects their survival and breeding success, and hence their numbers tend to decline."
Researchers at the BAS have raised concerns that rapid fluctuations in penguin populations could disrupt the wider southern marine ecosystem. But they said the problem is much bigger than just the Antarctic.
"Our study is another example of a warming climate impacting even the most remote parts of our planet," said BAS penguin researcher Peter Fretwell. "The South Sandwich Islands are far from any humans, home to almost a third of the world’s chinstrap penguins—but not even they can escape the impacts of climate change.”
Despite the accelerating consequences of global heating, international consumption of oil, gas, and coal rose again last year, according to the International Energy Agency. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions reached nearly 38.4 billion metric tons in 2025, 5% higher than in 2019.
Responding to news of the dramatic decline of penguins in the Antarctic, Aaron Regunberg, the director of Public Citizen’s Climate Accountability Project, remarked, "Big Oil is doing everything in its power to turn this beautiful, miraculous world into a wasteland."
“We don’t have to choose between protecting our most endangered animals and plants and building a clean energy future."
More than 200 environmental groups are calling on US lawmakers to halt a bipartisan permitting reform bill they say would gut protections for endangered species.
The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026—introduced last week by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Mike Lee (R-Utah)—is aimed at speeding up the federal permitting process to accelerate clean energy and infrastructure development.
One way the bill does this is by shortening permitting and environmental consultation timelines, including reviews under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which are meant to ensure government-approved projects don't jeopardize endangered species or their habitats.
The 215 signatories of a letter sent Tuesday—which include the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, WildEarth Guardians, the Western Environmental Law Center, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare—said that the bill includes “sweeping attacks on the Endangered Species Act."
If passed, the groups said, it would raise the evidentiary bar under the law's “best available science” mandate, making it much harder to protect species when the science is less than 100% settled.
It would also allow states—many of which do not recognize the same protections as the federal Endangered Species Act—to take over Section 7 consultations currently handled by federal wildlife authorities.
"What happens when Utah, which does not protect insects under state law, must complete a consultation on the Silverspot butterfly?" the groups asked. "It is unconscionable that this Senate would condemn endangered species to extinction by handing over authority to states that have fought federal protections and lack even the most basic legal and institutional safeguards."
The groups said the bill's most "insidious" feature was that it would redirect all Section 7 challenges away from district courts and into the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which they warned would "result in significantly more backlog, strained judicial capacity, and make meaningful review far more difficult."
The Democrats who have supported the bill have argued for its environmental benefits, including that it will speed up permitting for clean energy projects, including wind and solar, as well as transmission lines to rapidly deliver the energy they produce.
“If we can pass this bill, we will flood the grid with clean, affordable energy," Whitehouse said as he announced it last week.
But the environmental coalition said this should not come at the expense of protecting vulnerable species and warned that it would also be used to speed up permitting for energy sources that pollute the environment.
“We don’t have to choose between protecting our most endangered animals and plants and building a clean energy future," said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Hollowing out the Endangered Species Act only benefits energy-hungry data centers and the fossil fuel industry while leaving monarchs, manatees, and countless other species to pay the ultimate price.”
"Wherever there is resistance to this industry, more people learn that they are not powerless and that they can play a role in determining what happens in their community and with the future of AI and data centers," one organizer said.
As the national backlash against hyperscale data centers and the artificial intelligence they power grows, hundreds of people turned out to 19 events across Washington state on Sunday as part of a day of action to demand a statewide moratorium on data centers.
The call for a Washington-wide pause builds on momentum at the city and county level, as Seattle became the largest US city to halt the data center buildout in June, followed by other major municipalities including Spokane and Tacoma’s Pierce County.
Several of the communities that organized events on Sunday are also trying to stop projects already planned in their backyards. But concerned residents across the state—mobilized under the banner of Washington AI Resistance (WAAIR) in partnership with several other environmental and public interest organizations—want state-level protections to ensure that no community falls through the regulatory cracks. To do that, they aimed to raise their voices louder than the powerful Big Tech lobby in a state where both Microsoft and Amazon have headquarters.
"Communities have a right to determine which industries get to move into their backyards."
“We need to demonstrate to candidates and sitting legislators that there is real public demand for a data center moratorium in every corner of the state,” Evan Sutton, a Seattle-based activist with WAAIR, told Common Dreams.
Lauren Redfield, WAAIR president and co-chair of the Seattle Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Ecosocialism working group, said the day of action was significant “because it demonstrates wide-ranging support from diverse communities across Washington that people are angry about data centers.”
“Communities have a right to clean air, clean water, affordable energy. Communities have a right to determine which industries get to move into their backyards. Representatives who are more responsive to the tech industry than their community constituents, who are allowing data centers to drive up electricity prices and pollute air, water, and land systems—these representatives are going to be held accountable,” Redfield told Common Dreams.

In Seattle, activists held four separate events over the course of the day: one at a freeway bridge in the north of the city, another in West Seattle, a third outside the light rail station in the south Seattle neighborhood of Beacon Hill, and a fourth at a central square of the University of Washington.
Sutton, who organized the north Seattle action, said it was important to look beyond local regulations and stand in solidarity with communities across the state.
“In the end our natural resources are shared by everyone,” he told Common Dreams, explaining that Seattle's moratorium might push developers to look to unincorporated parts of the county, and if Seattle’s King County passed a moratorium, they would then turn to other parts of the state.
“We shouldn't have to play whack-a-mole with billionaire developers and AI tech bros,” Sutton said as passing cars honked in support of the protest. “Our legislature should step up and pass rules that everybody has to follow everywhere in the state.”
Thomas Meyer, the deputy political director of Food & Water Watch, who led a group of 10 volunteers in distributing flyers and gathering signatures for a moratorium in Beacon Hill, said that “data centers in Seattle are most likely to be proposed in the south end or in nearby cities like Tukwila, Burien, and Renton. Just like in other parts of the state and the country, data centers are more often proposed in areas with larger populations of people of color.”
Indeed, a study by Washington environmental justice group Front and Centered found that 57% of the data centers it surveyed were placed in census tracts with the highest proportion of people of color.
“It's important to pass a data center moratorium to protect Washington residents from the pollution and extraction from these facilities, and to prevent big tech companies from further concentrating their wealth and power at our expense,” Meyer told Common Dreams.

In Wenatchee in central Washington, concerned residents gathered by the Loop Trail along the Columbia River and asked passersby if they would like to see a data center moratorium.
“We had them sign their initials on a poster board under ‘YES’ or ‘NO,’ one of the organizers explained. “During the time that we were there, we collected 24 ‘YESes’ and zero ‘NOs.’"
The activists plan to bring the board to a meeting with Chelan County Commissioner Kevin Overbay on Wednesday to oppose data centers in Malaga, an unincorporated community in the county.
“Malaga is ground zero for hyperscale data centers in Chelan County, and currently hosts a 288 megawatt Microsoft data center,” the organizer said. “We want to show Overbay that the Wenatchee community as a whole does not want to see any more data centers. The Columbia is the lifeblood of our community. It provides us with power as well as water. These resources do not belong to private corporations like Microsoft to use as they please.”
While Wenatchee is focused on the county fight, a statewide moratorium would ease their efforts.
“A statewide moratorium would save us from having to spend our time fighting for a moratorium on a county-wide level,” the organizer said. “We could spend our time fighting instead for long-term protections to ensure that our region is permanently protected from exploitation.”

In Olympia, the state capital, activists gathered to put pressure on state Rep. Beth Doglio (D-22). Doglio introduced a bill in the 2026 legislative session with some basic data center regulations that was watered down due to pressure from the tech lobby before dying in committee. Protesters wanted Doglio to know she would have public support to back a moratorium and push for stronger regulations.
“Washington needs to halt the out-of-control tech oligarchs with a moratorium on data center construction,” said Tina Simcich of Olympia DSA. “Working-class jobs and our land, water, energy, and air resources must be protected from this greed-driven grab.”

In Walla Walla, residents are mobilizing to stop a planned Amazon data center after the Port of Walla Walla sold land to the company in the nearby Wallula Gap.
“Everyone has their own concerns” about the proposed data center—which is projected to use as much power as Seattle–Allison Carney, a member of the Walla Walla Anti Data Center League, told Common Dreams, “whether it be not knowing if their power bills are going to go up, not knowing if their land is going to be seized through eminent domain,” water pollution and availability, noise, light, and the fact that it will be located near the McNary National Wildlife Refuge and could potentially harm endangered wildlife.
However, she said, “The biggest thing that unites everyone's concerns is the fact that we don't trust Amazon. We don't trust this company coming into our community. We don't trust that they're going to be doing what's best for us. We trust that they're going to do what's best for their profits."
Beginning at 2:00 pm PT on Sunday, around 60 people attended a rally and march in downtown Walla Walla to the County Office of Community Development, where Community Development Department Director Melissa Shumake will determine whether to require a full environmental impact statement for the project, something community members are demanding.
A statewide pause would assist in their efforts by increasing the chance that any data center would be governed by stronger rules to protect the community and environment.
“A statewide moratorium would give time for regulators to catch up with this industry,” Carney said.

The largest action of the day took place starting at 3:30 pm PT in Spokane, where 150 people marched from Riverfront Park, past the City Hall and the Public Works Building where the County Commission meets, and back to the park to say, "This is what we're fighting for: our river,” Zenthia Peterson, the lead organizer for the event, told Common Dreams.
Demonstrators, including members of WAAIR, 350 Spokane, the Visibility Brigade, West Plains Water Coalition, and long-time local environmental campaigner Terry Horne, demanded statewide action but also expressed concern about how local data centers would impact a region already under pressure from the climate crisis. The march came about two months after a devastating wildfire scorched Spokane in August, destroying homes and forcing 600,000 to evacuate. Locals are concerned that a large data center could deplete the water resources needed to fight the next blaze.
“We're doing a march tomorrow to save the literal world."
In particular, activists are watching a 1,000-megawatt project slated for the nearby community of Airway Heights, outside the bounds of the city moratorium. While Spokane County has also announced a pause, it ends in December. It is unclear whether it will be extended, and the ordinance that was supposed to follow it has been delayed.
These concerns make a statewide moratorium all the more important, Peterson said, as that “would protect us even if the county sits on their asses."
Organizers had intended to have participants call Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson to demand state action, only to discover the night before that he had turned off his voicemail. Peterson encouraged participants to call him during the week instead.
"My speech was quite literally, ‘May you get bit back tenfold,” Peterson said, referring to Ferguson.
Jeremiah Harding, who organizes with WAAIR and the Spokane Community Organized Response Network, also decried the use of AI technology for layoffs, mass surveillance, and military targeting.
“We're doing a march tomorrow to save the literal world,” Harding told Common Dreams the night before the protest.
He continued: “It's bad enough that it pollutes the environment and fills the air with noise, while draining our water and destroying local homes. It's bad enough that Spokane just had the single largest fire in our history, and we need all the water we can get. But the technology itself is also used to disempower, leech, destroy, and kill people.”

Now that the day of action has passed, WAAIR will continue to put pressure on state lawmakers and Gov. Ferguson, Sutton told Common Dreams. After the November election, activists will also seek out lawmakers to sponsor moratorium legislation and other AI regulations while “pushing forward with future actions that people can take to make sure that legislators understand this isn’t an issue they can ignore.”
At the same time, organizers realize that the actions in Washington are part of a national struggle.
Meyer of Food & Water Watch said Washington was "one of dozens of states with active grassroots campaigns against data centers. Wherever there is resistance to this industry, more people learn that they are not powerless and that they can play a role in determining what happens in their community and with the future of AI and data centers.”
Within that broader movement, Washington may have a unique role to play, Sutton said.
“As the home of Microsoft and Amazon and a state that is deeply tied to Big Tech, if we can achieve this here, then I think it creates momentum for states everywhere else to believe that they can do the same,” he told Common Dreams.
Editor’s note: Olivia Rosane is a member of WAAIR and Seattle DSA.
“The fossil fuel industry’s conduct has become some of the most harmful and culpable in human history," said one campaigner. "Eventually, it will be held to account.”
The US Supreme Court on Monday appeared skeptical of efforts by ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy to prevent a Colorado climate liability lawsuit from going to trial, with justices across the ideological spectrum questioning the fossil fuel companies’ arguments for shutting down the case before evidence of their alleged deception can be heard.
The case—Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County—could determine the fate of nearly 60 similar lawsuits filed by states, counties, cities, and Indigenous tribes seeking to hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate-related harms.
Boulder sued ExxonMobil and Suncor in 2018, alleging that the companies knew for decades about the dangers associated with burning fossil fuels while misleading the public about those risks. The city and county seek compensation for costs associated with wildfires, drought, flooding, extreme heat, and other climate impacts.
The companies, backed by the Trump administration, argue that federal law preempts the state law claims because greenhouse gas pollution crosses state and national borders. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in May 2025 that the climate lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor could proceed under state law.
Today at the Supreme Court, my home town of Boulder, Colorado is going head-to-head against ExxonMobil in a case that could determine the future of climate litigation and holding Big Oil accountable for the toll of its harms and lies.Boulder County residents who have lost homes and health spoke.
[image or embed]
— Antonia Juhasz (@antoniajuhasz.bsky.social) October 5, 2026 at 7:55 AM
Kannon Shanmugam, an attorney for the companies, contended in oral arguments Monday that climate accountability lawsuits "reflect an all-too-regrettable trend of trying to resolve political issues in court rather than in the political branches where they belong.”
However, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared unconvinced that the interstate argument means that state courts can't consider climate claims.
“There are a lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of a state has broad effects among other states,” the conservative justice said, “and yet we allow state courts in a particular state to bring litigation that affects that.”
Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberals, also pressed the companies over their claim that federalism prevents Boulder’s lawsuit from proceeding. Kagan repeatedly demanded a legal foundation for the argument, asking: “Where’s the text for that? Where’s the support for that? Where’s the precedent for that?”
Kagan also compared the case to successful lawsuits against tobacco and opioid companies, calling the fossil fuel cases “Chapter 3” in that legal history.
“This is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actors for the same kind of harm,” she said. “And I guess I’m not understanding how this one would be preempted, and the other is not?”
Climate defenders rallied outside the Supreme Court Monday as the justices heard oral arguments in the case.
Corey Riday-White, legal director at the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement Monday that "Big Oil’s desperation to escape trial for climate deception is still in search of a legal justification. Justices across the ideological spectrum asked good, skeptical questions that poked holes in Big Oil’s attempt to stop Boulder’s case before it can go to trial."
“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct, and the people of Boulder should have their day in court to present the evidence of Exxon and Suncor’s deception," he added.
Kathy Mulvey, director of the Fossil Fuel Accountability program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said Monday that “today’s oral arguments in Suncor v. Boulder were the latest act in Big Oil’s desperate attempt to preempt state tort lawsuits and prevent evidence of the fossil fuel industry’s campaign of deception from being heard in court."
"ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy’s efforts to evade accountability hinge on misrepresenting Boulder’s lawsuit as an attempt to regulate emissions," she stressed.
“This last-ditch effort before the Supreme Court is part of a coordinated, well-resourced push to shut down fossil fuel accountability efforts across the country," Mulvey noted. "So far, Big Oil has not achieved its top federal lobbying priority—a bill to grant the industry sweeping immunity from climate laws and lawsuits such as Boulder’s."
“Communities deserve to have their day in court," she added. "The Supreme Court should let this case be heard on its merits in Colorado, and Congress must not stand in the way by gifting Big Oil a get-out-of-jail-free card.”
“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct."
In August, UCS and other experts filed an amicus brief in the case "offering a historical account of ExxonMobil’s and Suncor Energy’s concealment and denial of the hazards they knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products."
The brief notes that in 1965, "Frank Ikard, then president of the American Petroleum Institute, informed the organization’s member companies—including Exxon and Suncor’s predecessor Sun Oil—that then-President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee had concluded continued fossil fuel combustion could produce significant climatic changes by the end of the 20th century."
"Ikard warned industry leaders the report would generate significant public concern, noting that ‘there is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out,'" the brief added.
In 1977, an Exxon senior scientist briefed company leadership that the “general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.”
Exxon then conducted rigorous research on the matter, and concluded in a 1982 internal document that there was “little doubt” that atmospheric carbon dioxide was rising due to fossil fuel burning and that the resulting greenhouse effect “would warm the Earth’s surface, causing changes in climate affecting atmospheric and ocean temperatures, rainfall patterns, soil moisture, and … potentially melting the polar ice caps.”
Despite this, starting in the late 1980s, Exxon—later ExxonMobil—publicly stressed uncertainties, questioned models, and supported organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition that challenged the need for climate action.
Local governments sued to hold Big Oil accountable. So on Monday, with backing from the Trump administration, fossil fuel companies like Suncor will ask the Supreme Court to let them off the hook for their lies. Why? Because giant corporations know they have an ally in the corrupt Roberts majority.
[image or embed]
— Demand Justice (@wedemandjustice.bsky.social) October 2, 2026 at 9:28 AM
David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen's Climate Program, said Monday that “this case is about whether local communities experiencing devastating climate harms should get their day in court against Big Oil companies that spread climate deception."
"The fossil fuel industry has been going to extraordinary lengths to attack these climate cases, not just asking the Supreme Court to end the lawsuits, but also pushing Congress and state legislatures to grant fossil fuel companies immunity from all climate-related liability," Arkush noted.
"The current offensive isn’t just about defeating the cases. It’s also about preventing the public from learning the extent and severity of the industry’s wrongdoing," he continued. "It’s about fossil fuel CEOs’ profound fear of sitting in front of a jury of 12 Americans and trying to defend their companies’ deceptive conduct—because they know it’s indefensible."
“Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in Suncor, it’s hard to imagine these companies can bury the evidence and escape accountability indefinitely," Arkush added. "The fossil fuel industry’s conduct has become some of the most harmful and culpable in human history. Eventually, it will be held to account.”
The justices are expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. Far-right Justice Samuel Alito—who holds stock in fossil fuel companies facing dozens of lawsuits that could be affected by the Suncor decision—last week recused himself from the case, leaving his eight colleagues to decide it, and raising the prospect of a 4-4 split that would leave the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling intact.
One environmental advocate said the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards "will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices."
A coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to block the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards, which they called a "giveaway" to the oil and auto industries.
Earlier this week, the US Department of Transportation finalized a rule weakening Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles each year.
The Biden administration required annual fuel-efficiency improvements aimed at bringing the average for new vehicles to 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. Under the Trump administration’s new rule, the 2031 requirement would fall below the 35.4 mpg already achieved by the 2024 fleet, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) own analysis.
NHTSA estimated that as a result of the rule change, Americans will consume roughly 122 billion more gallons of gas by 2050 than they would have under the old standards, increasing average lifetime fuel costs by more than $1,600 per vehicle—more than the roughly $1,300 the administration has claimed they'll save on average in upfront vehicle costs.
It is also projected to add about 1 billion additional metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2050 compared with retaining the previous standards—equivalent to more than six months' worth of emissions from the entire US transportation sector.
“Oil companies will profit from less efficient cars, but drivers will take a hit to their wallets and our kids will breathe dirtier air," said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Climate Law Institute. "We’ll all pay the price for more tailpipe pollutants spewing everywhere from playgrounds to wild places. We’re asking the courts to put a stop to this callous giveaway to Big Oil and Big Auto.”
CBD was joined by the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Public Citizen, and Sierra Club, which filed a petition on Friday to ask an appeals court to review the rule change. They argue that the rollback is illegal because federal law requires NHTSA to set fuel-economy standards at the “maximum feasible” level manufacturers can achieve.
“The Trump administration’s rollback will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices,” said Andy Su, senior transportation attorney at Environmental Defense Fund. “We’re going to court to oppose this dangerous U-turn away from decades of successful work to make our cars more efficient and less expensive to drive.”
"The ocean is transforming before our eyes: Warming, rising seas, and ecosystem degradation are interconnected signs of significant and long-term change."
The 10th annual Copernicus Ocean State Report, released Wednesday by a team of more than 100 international scientists, provided the latest reminder that, as one United Nations official said, "the ocean is one of the clearest indicators of the profound shifts" that the climate crisis is causing.
Data gathered by Mercator Ocean International, the nonprofit that produced the report, revealed "an ocean warming at an alarming pace, with far-reaching consequences for marine life, coastlines, and communities worldwide," said the group.
The study delivers ocean scientists' "starkest warning yet of the profound changes sweeping across the ocean, as a likely unprecedented El Niño takes shape in the Pacific," said Mercator, referring to the natural warming trend that is expected to be made more intense this year by planetary heating.
Drawing on four decades of data from satellites, buoys, sensors, and modeling, the scientists found that 2024 was marked by record-breaking marine heatwaves as well as an unprecedented extreme low sea level event, causing levels in the Bothnian Bay between Sweden and Finland to plunge 60 inches, bringing ferries to a halt for 18 hours.
Heatwaves in the Mediterranean and Black seas lasted more than 30 days and raised water temperatures by more than 8.3°F (4.6°C) above average.
“These are not isolated hot spells; they are occurring against a backdrop of sustained ocean warming that is changing the conditions marine ecosystems experience,” Blanca Fernández-Álvarez, a report author and a conresearcher at the Mediterranean Institute for Advanced Studies, told CNN.
But along with extreme events documented in the report, the scientists found unmistakable trends showing no sign of letting up, including persistent damage to marine life due to ocean heating fueled by continued oil and gas extraction.
Small island states—some of the countries least responsible for carbon emissions that are leading to record heat absorption by the oceans—face worsening, "overlapping pressures" including sea-level rise that could wipe out coastal and island communities and the growing threat of more intense tropical cyclones.
Over the last three decades, reads the report, "ongoing reorganization of marine ecosystems around the world" hasr been made clear by persistent changes in growth patterns of phytoplankton, which support food webs and carbon flows, in nearly 5% of the ocean.
Heat stress also contributed to coral bleaching in 84% of the world's reefs, threatening marine ecosystems as well as coastal communities that rely on reefs for protection and tourism.
"The ocean is transforming before our eyes: Warming, rising seas, and ecosystem degradation are interconnected signs of significant and long-term change," said Pierre Bahurel, director general of Mercator Ocean International.
As humans have continued to emit carbon and other greenhouse gases despite warnings from energy experts and scientists, the rate of ocean heating has doubled over the past two decades, causing sea surface temperatures to skyrocket to record highs in 2023, 2024, and this year.
In 2025, the report says, the ocean absorbed an additional 23 zettajoules—about 40 times the energy consumed by the entire world last year. The energy absorption is equivalent to 12 atomic bombs going off every second for one year.
The global mean sea level rose by 3.8 ± 0.3 millimeters each year between 1999-2025, and the ocean has become about 17% more acidic over the last four decades, wreaking havoc on crucial underwater ecosystems.
Peter Thomson, the UN secretary-general's special envoy for the ocean, emphasized that the dangers posed to the world's oceans by continued fossil fuel extraction have been made clear over 10 years of reports by Mercator, as well as other warnings from scientists.
"What it tells us is unmistakable: The ocean is changing, and those changes are reaching into the lives, livelihoods, and security of people everywhere," said Thomson. "We have the knowledge. We have the evidence. Now we need the political will to act."
Oil companies warned Alito that if the Supreme Court didn't exempt them from state climate lawsuits, it could adversely affect his personal investments.
Following years of pressure from critics who called out his severe conflicts of interest, the right-wing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from a major climate case on Monday, just days before the lawsuit was scheduled to be heard.
Next week, the court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a case nearly a decade in the making that could determine whether oil giants can face billions of dollars worth of lawsuits for climate-related damages and misleading the public about the planet-heating effects of fossil fuels.
A coalition of environmental groups and anti-corruption watchdogs has pushed for Alito to recuse himself from the case because the justice personally holds stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66—companies that face around two dozen climate lawsuits that could be directly affected by his ruling.
As Hannah Story Brown, the deputy research director on climate and governance issues at the Revolving Door Project, explained back in 2023, the Suncor case was promoted strategically by oil companies to allow Alito to get around his oil investments.
"While most of the lawsuits were brought against a dozen or so different fossil fuel companies, the Colorado municipalities are only suing ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy—the stocks of which Alito does not own," she wrote for The American Prospect. "This presents an opportunity to get around Alito’s likely recusal from considering the other four petitions to which ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 are parties."
In May, a Supreme Court spokesperson said Alito had declined to recuse because he had no financial interest in either company that is a party to the Boulder case and had been advised by court counsel that recusal was not required.
However, in September, just weeks before oral arguments, the group Consumer Watchdog found that shareholders, including Alito, had received warnings from the two companies that climate lawsuits could adversely impact their businesses and, in turn, his investments. Oil industry groups, meanwhile, told the court in briefs that a ruling in the Suncor case could make those lawsuits go away.
“Justice Alito has a direct and documented financial stake in the outcome of Suncor v. Boulder," explained Alexandra Nagy, Organizing Director of Consumer Watchdog. "Under the Supreme Court’s own Code of Conduct, Alito should recuse.”
Federal law expressly states that judges—including Supreme Court justices—must disqualify themselves from cases where their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." However, there has historically been a lack of enforcement for Supreme Court justices, because there is no higher court to rule on whether those ethics rules have been violated.
In 2023, following revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas' receipt of gifts and travel from billionaire donor Harlan Crow, the Supreme Court adopted its own nonbinding ethics code.
Also informing that ethics policy were revelations about Alito, who was found to have taken a luxury fishing vacation with GOP billionaire investor Paul Singer, whose hedge fund has invested billions of dollars in Suncor. Singer’s hedge fund had business before the court at least 10 times, during which Alito did not recuse himself.
The justices ultimately still determine whether to disqualify themselves from cases, and critics have derided the ethics code as a “PR stunt.”
On Monday, however, the clerk of the Supreme Court sent a single-sentence notice to the parties in Suncor v. Boulder that "Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case." It provided no further explanation for the justice's decision.
In a post on social media, the Revolving Door Project called it “bad news for Exxon, and a win for the power of public pressure calling out the blatant corruption" of the court led by Chief Justice John Roberts, adding that the group had been “calling for [Alito’s] recusal for YEARS.”
Kathy Mulvey, director of the Fossil Fuel Accountability Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), also celebrated the decision but emphasized that it should never have taken this long to come to fruition.
“Justice Alito’s recusal in this case should’ve been a foregone conclusion," Mulvey said. "While we welcome today's announcement as a step toward a fairer, more impartial process for all parties involved, Justice Alito's decision is the bare minimum we should expect from a justice on our nation’s highest court."
UCS filed an amicus curiae brief before the court last month documenting what it described as ExxonMobil and Suncor’s “concealment and denial of the hazards they knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products.”
“Internal corporate documents and other evidence now in the public domain show that the fossil fuel industry employed many of the same deceptive strategies used by the tobacco and lead industries, which have been the subject of extensive litigation," Mulvey explained. "In those cases, courts addressed claims that manufacturers possessed substantial internal knowledge regarding the dangers of their products while simultaneously conducting coordinated public campaigns to minimize, obscure, or cast doubt upon those dangers."
She added that "communities like Boulder deserve their day in court, through a process protected from financial conflicts of interest and from an industry hell-bent on securing immunity from liability.”
Alito's recusal could have major ramifications for the case's outcome. With only eight justices participating, a 4-4 split would leave intact a Colorado Supreme Court ruling allowing Boulder’s climate lawsuit to proceed, while producing no nationwide precedent that could shut down similar cases elsewhere.
The question of whether states and municipalities can sue fossil fuel companies takes on new urgency as the Trump administration halts federal action on the climate crisis and states and municipalities are left to fend for themselves.
An analysis commissioned in 2018 projected that the area around Boulder County would require between $96 million and $157 million to make only some of the necessary adaptations to climate change through 2050.
"What [Boulder] was saying was: 'We want damages for this because we’re spending a ton of money dealing with climate change," explained Sam Sankar, senior vice president at Earthjustice, in an interview with Slate. "'We’re having to reinforce roads to deal with extreme heat or extreme precipitation. We’ve got to rebuild infrastructure to deal with hundred-year floods that are happening every other year now. We’re dealing with heat stress and heat stroke and all the things that the people in our town are being affected by. We’ve never had wildfire seasons like this in the past. It’s very hard for us to deal with, and we’re spending a ton of money to upgrade systems, to fight the fires, or even to deal with the aftermath of these things."'
"What Suncor and Exxon are trying to do right now is stop the case from going forward," Sankar said. "What they’re saying is that this kind of case shouldn’t even get off the ground. There shouldn’t be a trial; there shouldn’t be any kind of judgment. They should be let off the hook before the trial begins."
“Clearly, the White House has bet on the wrong horse.”
The Trump administration has waged a multi-front war on clean energy during the president's second term. But according to newly published government data, it hasn't worked.
Over the past 18 months, despite the administration’s best efforts, solar, wind, and battery storage added nearly 89 gigawatts of capacity—more than 30 times the growth of fossil fuels and nuclear power combined.
That is according to an analysis of new data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) released Monday by the nonprofit SUN DAY Campaign, which tracks federal renewable energy data.
From February 2025 through July 2026, utility solar capacity—large-scale projects that provide electricity to power grids—rose 33% over the previous year compared with the same time during 2025, while wind capacity rose 8%. The storage capacity for batteries, meanwhile, roughly doubled.
By contrast, US coal capacity dropped by 2.4%. Natural gas capacity rose by just 1.5%, while the capacity for fossil fuels and nuclear power combined rose by just 0.3%.
At the start of the second Trump administration, renewables accounted for a combined 22.3% share of US electrical generation. Eighteen months later, they now account for 29%.
“Over the last 18 months, the Trump administration has used every conceivable trick to delay, hinder, or cancel new clean energy projects,” said the SUN DAY Campaign’s executive director, Ken Bossong.
This has included an effective ban on wind development, a repeal of clean-energy tax credits in last year's Republican budget law, a rollback of electric vehicle subsidies, and the cancellation of solar grants, as well as a host of policies meant to ramp up the production of oil, coal, and gas.
The growth of solar and wind reflects an economic reality that Trump has struggled to reverse: Wind and solar are among the cheapest sources of new electricity in much of the country, according to data from the EIA, which expects solar to remain the fastest-growing US source of power generation through 2027.
"Clearly," Bossong said, "the White House has bet on the wrong horse.”
"Oil companies will get a windfall from gutting the fuel economy standards, but the rest of us are going to be handing over more of our hard-earned paychecks to fill up the tank," said one environmental lawyer.
Scientists and environmental advocates are warning that the Trump administration's rollback of fuel economy standards for cars and trucks will not only lead to more pollution but also hurt cash-strapped consumers already reeling from gas price spikes.
The administration announced on Monday that it was weakening the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles each year.
Biden administration rules required a 2% annual increase in fuel-efficiency standards, with the goal of bringing most vehicles to an average of 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. Under President Donald Trump, the annual target has been reduced to just a 1% improvement each year, meaning five years from now the average car would be required to get just under 34.9 mpg.
The Department of Transportation, which finalized the rule, has argued that efficiency standards put an unnecessary burden on carmakers and has projected that lowering them will “reduce the average cost of a new vehicle by $1,300 for American families" and "save the American people $138 billion over the next five years."
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy described the Biden-era increase as one that "forced automakers to produce more expensive electric vehicles that American families didn’t want."
But Dave Cooke, senior vehicles analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) Clean Transportation Program, argues that rather than being a benefit to consumers, “the federal government’s decision to gut fuel economy standards is a handout to automakers and oil companies that will strap American consumers already struggling with an affordability crisis.”
His group has estimated that since CAFE standards were first introduced in 2010, they have saved auto owners about $321 billion at the gas pump. And over just the past seven months, during which Trump's war with Iran has caused gas prices to soar around the country, UCS estimates that consumers have saved $32 billion.
"Any small reduction in upfront vehicle costs will be outweighed by higher fuel expenses," Cooke said.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) itself estimated in an impact analysis for the rule days ago that, as a result of the rule change, Americans will consume roughly 122 billion more gallons of gas than they would under the 2024 standards, resulting in average lifetime fuel costs of more than $1,600 more per vehicle—more than the administration estimates consumers will save by buying cheaper cars.
Transportation already accounted for about 17% of average US household spending in 2024, the latest year for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has published data. Meanwhile, as the war with Iran has driven up costs, oil companies are reporting record profits. The top eight brought in nearly $93 billion in earnings in the second quarter of this year alone, according to an analysis by The Guardian.
"Oil companies will get a windfall from gutting the fuel economy standards, but the rest of us are going to be handing over more of our hard-earned paychecks to fill up the tank," said Atid Kimelman, an attorney at the NRDC.
Americans won't just spend more money; they'll also produce way more planet-heating greenhouse gases. The standards being rolled back were projected by NHTSA to prevent about 659 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, 825,000 metric tons of methane, and roughly 24,000 metric tons of nitrous oxide emissions through 2050.
The Center for Biological Diversity pointed out that the US is already the world's largest oil guzzler, accounting for 20% of global use, and that transportation is the No. 1 consumer of that oil.
"This move spells short- and long-term disaster for people’s health, the planet, and even US automakers who’ll sit on the sidelines while clean cars advance around the world," said Dan Becker, the director of the group's Safe Climate Transport Campaign. "This standard was the biggest single step any nation has taken to save gas, money at the pump, and auto pollution.”
Matthew Davis, vice president of federal policy for the League of Conservation Voters, emphasized that fuel efficiency standards are popular with the American public. A nationwide survey last month by the Global Strategy Group found that 73% of voters nationwide said they'd support "reestablishing fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks."
"It is no secret that Trump promised handouts to Big Oil in exchange for campaign spending," Davis said, "and he is delivering for those billionaire CEOs and polluters while he hurts working families, American manufacturing competitiveness, public health, and the environment at every turn.”
"Our new report exposes this old-fashioned corruption, by a thuggish government and a desperate industry, that is squeezing every last dollar out of Americans' pocketbooks while they still can."
While running for president in 2024, Donald Trump told oil and gas executives that he would pursue their policy priorities if the industry raised $1 billion for his campaign—and after returning to office last year, the Republican did just that, enriching those invested in fossil fuels, including himself, at the expense of the public and planet.
That's according to "The Billion Dollar Deal: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Bought the Trump Administration, Cashed In, and Left Americans to Pay the Price," a report released Thursday by US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Committee on Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).
"The fossil fuel industry and their allies bought their way into the Trump White House with hundreds of millions of dollars in political donations, after Trump promised fossil fuel bigwigs at a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser that he’d do anything and everything they wanted, for the right price," Whitehouse said in a statement.
"Now, their minions run the government from the inside, driving up energy bills to deliver payouts to the donors that put Trump back in office," he continued. "Our new report exposes this old-fashioned corruption, by a thuggish government and a desperate industry, that is squeezing every last dollar out of Americans' pocketbooks while they still can."
The report is based on 19 investigations into Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory rollbacks, 13 probes of nine other agencies, and 13 investigations into 88 separate polluters. Investigators from Schumer's Anti-Corruption Working Group examined campaign finance filings, corporate earnings, and investor communications.
The document details how, in the aftermath of Trump's quid pro quo offer at the Mar-a-Lago fundraiser in 2024, fossil fuel executives, along with their corporate political action committees (PACs) and dark money groups, contributed an estimated $201 million to support Trump and allied Republican lawmakers—plus $19 million toward the inaugural fund.
"These figures capture only traceable donations," the report emphasizes. "Other substantial sums flowed to candidate Trump through 501(c)(4) organizations that are not legally required to disclose their contributors. Dark money groups—nonprofits and shell companies that do not reveal their donors—contributed over $1.9 billion into the 2024 elections, up from $1 billion in 2020."
The report names key figures from "the fossil fuel donor class" and includes their estimated contribution to Trump's latest election:
There's also former Liberty Energy CEO Chris Wright, who is now Trump's energy secretary and gave an estimated $795,000. According to the report, "Lobbyists say that many CEOs now keep Secretary Wright's personal phone number on speed dial."
Wright is among at least a dozen former oil executives and lobbyists Trump installed at the EPA and departments of Energy, the Interior, and Justice to systematically dismantle "the regulatory architecture built over decades to protect American families from pollution and climate change," the publication points out. "Those captured agencies delivered for the fossil fuel industry."
The report calls out not only Wright but also Trump's other "polluter worker bees," including EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and various other officials at their agencies who have ties to polluting industries.
It also calls out the GOP-controlled Congress, which last year sent to Trump's desk the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a law that includes "tens of billions in new and expanded direct subsidies to fossil fuel companies through tax breaks, royalty cuts, a suspension of the charge on methane pollution, and other giveaways. Combined with the subsidies already on the books, independent analysts estimate the industry will collect some $190 billion in tax breaks and subsidies over the next 10 years."
"The costs of these gifts to the fossil fuel industry fall on everyone else," the report stresses. "Climate-related disasters cost the United States at least $115 billion in direct damages in 2025 alone. Each year, the damages to public health from fossil fuel air pollution run at about $820 billion, or $2,500 per American, and contribute to approximately 91,000 premature deaths and 216,000 new cases of childhood asthma. Homeowners’ insurance has become unaffordable or unavailable across many parts of the country. These are just some of the existing costs associated with fossil fuel production and combustion."

"The Trump administration's regulatory rollbacks will drive them higher, as air and water pollution as well as climate change will all get worse," the document warns, as the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency worsens, with deadly consequences worldwide.
The report notes that "canceled and delayed wind and solar projects are also raising electricity prices for consumers in multiple states, sending billions to fossil fuel plants. And the EPA itself has estimated that the elimination of tailpipe emission standards will cost Americans a minimum of $580 billion in added fuel costs alone over the next three decades. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being lost as the United States cedes its industrial competitiveness in clean energy technologies to China and Europe."
Trump also partnered with Israel to launch an illegal war on Iran—which has responded by restricting ship traffic through the the Strait of Hormuz, sending global fuel prices soaring. The publication highlights that "the 100 biggest oil and gas companies collectively earned an extra $30 million per hour in the first month of the Iran conflict alone—amounting to $23 billion in windfall profits—with $234 billion projected by year's end if oil prices remain near $100 a barrel."
"As the Trump administration's war in Iran drives up gas prices—with analysts warning crude prices could reach $200—American
consumers pay directly for the chaos that Big Oil's political investments helped purchase," the report warns. Brown University's Costs of War Project estimates the higher diesel and gasoline prices have so far cost Americans $115.7 billion, or $883 per household.
Trump's war is also filling his own pockets. CNBC estimated earlier this month that the president has made up to $4.4 million from his investments in fossil fuel companies—and as Common Dreams reported earlier this week, he continues to make related trades.
"Donald Trump will always choose self-enrichment over helping American families, and as this report reveals, his fossil fuel corruption is costing Americans billions," said Schumer. "Instead of using the presidency to address the affordability crisis, lower costs, and protect Americans' health and safety, Trump has used his power to deliver for his billionaire buddies in the fossil fuel industry. The message from this administration is clear: Big Oil gets the profits, and American families get the bill."
Released less than six weeks away from the midterm elections, Senate Democrats' report not only lays out a range of issues, but offers some fixes, including demands to tax the windfall profits of Big Oil, as well as legislation that would "shine a light behind the dark money front groups and shell organizations that fossil fuel interests use to hide their spending."
The report also calls for making polluters pay for planet-heating emissions and empowering lawsuits to hold them accountable. It further advocates for ending fossil fuel subsidies and directing that money to clean energy, consumer relief, and infrastructure resilience.
"The Trump administration is pumping public money into the fossil fuel industry and stripping public protections to pad the profits of some of the wealthiest corporations in the nation," David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Climate Program, said in response to the report. "The campaign contributions to Donald Trump by Big Oil have paid dividends and have allowed the fossil fuel industry to continue to pollute our communities."
"This administration has ceded our nation's clean energy future to dirty energy and is doing its best to sacrifice the economy, public health, and the environment to Big Oil's profits," he added. "Every American family struggling with high costs is suffering because of the corrupt relationship between Donald Trump and the fossil fuel industry."