5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Climate
Alarmed by 'Rapid, Largely Unregulated Rise' of AI Data Centers, 500+ Groups Demand Congress Pass Moratorium
The coalition called for a nationwide ban "until adequate regulations can be enacted to fully protect our communities, our families, our environment, and our health from the runaway damage this industry is already inflicting."
Jun 11, 2026
Over 500 organizations representing millions of people across the United States wrote to Congress on Thursday to call for "a national moratorium on the approval and construction of new data centers," warning that "the rapid, largely unregulated rise" of such projects already threatens "Americans' economic, environmental, climate, and water security."
"The rapid expansion of data centers across the United States, driven by the generative artificial intelligence (AI) and crypto boom, presents one of the biggest environmental and social threats of our generation," the groups wrote. "This expansion is rapidly increasing demand for energy, driving more fossil fuel pollution, straining water resources, and raising electricity prices across the country."
"All this compounds the significant and concerning impacts AI is having on society, including lost jobs, social instability, and economic concentration," the letter notes. "We urge you to join our call for a national moratorium on new data centers until adequate regulations can be enacted to fully protect our communities, our families, our environment, and our health from the runaway damage this industry is already inflicting."
While the letter doesn't name any specific legislation, it came just a few months after a pair of progressive powerhouses, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), announced the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act, a first-of-its-kind federal bill that would prohibit new construction until a range of safeguards are in place.
Thursday's letter was facilitated by the advocacy group Food & Water Watch (FWW)—a key backer of that bill—and signed by hundreds of other national, regional, and state organizations, including Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, Honor the Earth, Oil Change International, Our Revolution, People's Action Institute, Popular Democracy, Third Act, Women's Earth and Climate Action Network, and more.
"The large and surging national movement to rein in runaway data center build-out was born at the grassroots level, with concerned residents in countless communities across the country reacting to the real harms and hazards this industry brings wherever it lands," said FWW organizing director Emily Wurth in a statement. "We are following their lead, working at the local, state, and federal levels to support these fights and halt Big Tech in its tracks."
In addition to unveiling the letter to Congress on Thursday, the groups announced the Stop Data Centers Coalition. Wurth declared that "the time is right for a national coalition to lift up state and local fights, and drive a national agenda that will allow stakeholders to properly consider not how, but if this industry can operate in a responsible, sustainable manner."
📣 BIG NEWS 📣 Today we’re launching the Stop Data Centers Coalition – a group of advocacy organizations fighting Big Tech’s unregulated data center frenzy. Learn more about the coalition, explore helpful resources and learn how you can plug in here: https://fwwat.ch/datacentercoalition
[image or embed]
— Food & Water Watch (@foodandwater.bsky.social) June 11, 2026 at 11:30 AM
Paco Fabián, deputy director at Our Revolution, said that his organization "is proud to help launch this coalition because a moratorium is necessary to ensure transparency, accountability, and community input before more energy-intensive projects move forward and lock us into decades of higher costs and greater climate risks."
The coalition and letter announcements followed US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator (EPA) Lee Zeldin's saying at the Politico Energy Summit on Wednesday that he would not set national requirements for data centers.
"Ten times out of 10, I'm not going to sit inside of an agency building in Washington, DC, and that we say that we know that local community in Georgia or Florida or Arizona or elsewhere, better than everyone there locally," Zeldin said, as polling demonstrates the unpopularity of data centers and people in communities across the country—including from Monterey Park, California and Seattle, Washington just this month—come together to block new projects.
Responding to Zeldin's remarks, Clara Vondrich, senior policy counsel with Public Citizen's Climate Program, said in a statement that he "just gave Big Tech the green light to build data centers that will consume massive amounts of power and water without any enforcement by the EPA. He says he won't meddle in community affairs, but his inaction dooms communities to higher asthma rates, noise and light pollution, and new fossil fuel infrastructure the climate can't afford."
"Once again, the administration is dangerously out of touch with the needs and wants of the American people: A majority of registered voters oppose building data centers in their local area, and 6 in 10 think that if a data center opened in their local area, their electricity bills would increase," Vondrich continued. "Yet the administration insists on enabling Big Tech companies in the race to be first and fastest, cosigning their reckless build-out of behemoth AI data centers with a combination of gas, diesel, and even coal."
"Zeldin is right that we should follow what communities want. And that's clear: no dirty data centers near their homes, schools, parks, and playgrounds," she added. "Big Tech executives have lobbied hard to ingratiate themselves into the Trump administration's orbit... Zeldin made clear that their investment was money well spent."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Despite Trump's Relentless Attack on Renewables, Solar Surpassed Coal Energy in US for First Time in May
"Solar is cheaper, cleaner, more reliable," said Rep. Jared Huffman. "Trump needs to end his war on clean energy and get on board with what’s best for America."
Jun 11, 2026
Since taking office 16 months ago, President Donald Trump has gone to extreme lengths to try to reverse the undeniable trend in the direction of solar power and away from expensive, planet-heating coal—but two new reports reveal how, despite Trump's relentless efforts, Americans are using renewable solar energy to power their homes and businesses more than ever.
The global energy think tank Ember revealed Wednesday that in May, for the first ever, solar supplied more of the United States' electricity than coal, at 12.8%. Coal dropped to its fourth-lowest point last month, delivering just 12.2% of electricity. Solar also became the third-largest source of electricity in May, behind gas and nuclear power.
The previous month, coal hit an all-time low, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration analyzed by Ember.
Another report from the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and the analytics firm Wood Mackenzie found that solar and battery storage accounted for 91% of all new energy generation capacity in the first quarter of 2026.
The news comes a week after Trump announced $700 million in new funding for the nation's coal industry, some of which is planned for the building of two brand-new coal-fired plants, which would be the first to be built in the US in 13 years.
US Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) compared Trump's latest effort to "lighting $700 million taxpayer dollars on fire," but emphasized that "the proof is there."
"Solar is cheaper, cleaner, more reliable," he said. "Trump needs to end his war on clean energy and get on board with what’s best for America."
Last week's announcement is one of numerous steps Trump has taken to prop up coal, one of the fossil fuels that scientists warn are heating the planet and increasingly causing destructive extreme weather events.
In February the president ordered the Pentagon to sign taxpayer-funded contracts with coal plants that otherwise would have been retired in the coming years, to provide electricity to military installations.
The Department of Energy also pledged $625 million to "expand and reinvigorate America’s coal industry," an effort that has run into opposition even from the industry itself. In Colorado, two utilities, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association and the Platte River Power Authority, which co-own a coal-fired plant the administration has demanded stay in operation, filed a petition earlier this year asking the DOE to allow them to close the facility, saying they've built solar and wind farms and that being forced to buy coal and maintain the plant amounts to a violation of the US Constitution's takings clause.
While demanding that coal production continues, Trump has taken direct aim at the booming solar industry—canceling projects and terminating $7 billion in funding for an affordable renewable energy program.
On the online news show "Breaking Points," Ryan Grim noted that solar and wind power surged in the first quarter before Trump joined Israel in waging war on Iran, a decision that sent oil prices skyrocketing.
"I would imagine the second quarter is going to see 98%" of energy generating capacity coming from solar power, said Grim.
Despite the political attacks and regulatory slowdowns... solar and storage were still 91% of all new grid capacity added in Q1.
Why? "Because solar is cheaper."
Breaking Point's @RyanGrim and @emilyjashinsky explain👇 pic.twitter.com/lhppEVqAR1
— Solar and Storage Industry (@SEIA) June 11, 2026
"Who out there is like, 'You know, what we need to do is invest deeply in building out our fossil fuel infrastructure' at this point?" he said.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Lawsuit Aims to Halt Trump Giveaway of Wildlife Refuge to Appease Elon Musk's SpaceX
"We’re not letting Trump and his political cronies lock the American people out of Texas’ cherished public lands just to give Elon Musk another payday.”
Jun 10, 2026
Several environmental organizations are suing the US Fish and Wildlife Service to stop the agency from handing over hundreds of acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge to Elon Musk's company SpaceX.
The complaint—which was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Save RGV, the Carrizo/Comecrudo Nation of Texas, and South Texas Environmental Justice Network—alleges that the government is violating federal law that requires any transfers of wildlife refuge lands to private ownership to result in net conservation benefits.
Instead, the complaint says the proposed deal with SpaceX would lead to a loss of more 715 acres of wildlife refuge land in exchange for 683 acres of private land.
Bekah Hinojosa, co-founder of the South Texas Environmental Justice Network, expressed particular concerns about SpaceX building facilities on the land given that the company's rockets regularly cause environmental damage by exploding.
"Elon Musk has built his explosive SpaceX facility in the middle of a major wildlife corridor home to endangered and threatened species like ocelots and wetlands," said Hinojosa. "There was never supposed to be space rockets blowing up here."
Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, accused President Donald Trump's administration of handing over vital public lands to "the world’s richest man, who could trash them while playing with his exploding rockets."
"We’re not letting Trump and his political cronies lock the American people out of Texas’ cherished public lands," added Jordahl, "just to give Elon Musk another payday.”
Mary Angela Branch, board member at Save RGV, said that SpaceX's presence in the area has already been an "unmitigated disaster" for the local environment, and she warned the land transfer plan would "permanently sever the very heart of the wildlife corridor established by Congress in 1979."
"This corridor, running along the Rio Grande... is prime wildlife habitat, and nothing gained in this ‘swap’ will be equal," Branch emphasized. "This will be a huge loss."
In addition to opposition from the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the proposed transfer to SpaceX has drawn significant opposition from some local residents. According to a report published last week by the San Antonio Express-News, more than 3,400 letters have been submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service expressing opposition to the transfer.
Musk, who on Wednesday was accused by politicians in the UK of stoking racial hatred that led to violent pogroms in the city of Belfast, is aiming to become the world's first trillionaire ty making SpaceX a publicly traded company this month.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Voluntary Pledges 'Aren’t Working,' Report Shows as Big Banks Continue to Sow Climate Chaos
"Banks keep telling us they’re committed to climate. Then they abandon their own policies the moment political pressure mounts. Voluntary pledges have had their chance. We need binding rules—not promises.”
Jun 09, 2026
Calls for an end to oil, gas, and coal extraction grew louder in 2025 as the impact of fossil-fueled planetary heating was starkly illustrated by devastating wildfires across the Los Angeles area, deadly flash floods in Texas, a European heatwave that was blamed for the deaths of more than 24,000 people, and cyclones and floods that killed thousands.
But as climate action groups demanded that governments and financial institutions end support for fossil fuel projects and companies last year, according to a report released Monday by several organizations, the world's largest banks only committed more financing to projects like the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a planned liquefied natural gas (LNG) "boom" in the Philippines, and fracking in the Permian Basin.
Last year, according to Banking on Climate Chaos—released by groups including the Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, and Oil Change International—the world's largest financial institutions committed $906 billion in financing to fossil fuel companies, representing an 8% increase over funding the previous year.
The groups emphasized that the banks financed pollution-causing oil, gas, and coal projects even as they made "voluntary commitments" to “aligning their lending, investment, and capital markets activities with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050," as a now-defunct United Nations-backed scheme called the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) pledged.
More than a decade after countries agreed to the Paris climate accord and pledged to take action in a push to avert planetary heating over 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures, the report notes, "banks maintain and are expected to uphold climate policies independent of the NZBA."
However, it continues, "the collapse of the NZBA—culminating in its cessation of operations in October 2025—freed banks to further unwind from climate targets and other elements of their climate strategies."
"Notably, throughout 2025 and the first half of 2026, banks have further weakened their commitments to uphold 1.5˚C temperature rise limits, widened loopholes, and undercut sector policies for coal, oil, and gas energy or power supply primarily by removing or diluting exclusion criteria and commitments. Most policy changes in the past year were downgrades of existing policies rather than improvements," reads the report.
"Voluntary commitments aren’t working. No major oil and gas company is doing anything even close to what is needed to hold global heating to 1.5°C, and voluntary banking sector pledges like the Net Zero Banking Alliance aren’t cutting their pipeline of cash."
Diogo Silva, campaign lead for BankTrack and a co-author of the report, said: "Banks keep telling us they’re committed to climate. Then they abandon their own policies the moment political pressure mounts. Voluntary pledges have had their chance. We need binding rules—not promises.”
Banking on Climate Chaos highlights the banks that spent the most money investing in fossil fuel projects, with JPMorgan Chase named the leading financier of oil, coal, and gas. The Wall Street firm spent $58 billion in 2025, the same year it also "weakened" its own climate policy.
"Of the 15 North American banks in scope, 12 now have no meaningful fossil fuel commitments," said Rainforest Action network. "JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs abandoned their coal and Arctic exclusions entirely, converting them into case-by-case due diligence standards."
JPMorgan Chase is one of three US banks listed in the top five fossil fuel backers; Bank of America financed the second-largest amount of pollution-causing projects at $47 billion, while Citigroup poured more than $45 billion into fossil fuels. Two Japanese institutions, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group and Mizuho Financial, were also in the top five.
With President Donald Trump taking executive action last year aimed at pressuring companies to back fossil fuel interests and "disregard social or environmental considerations," the report notes, US banks' share of all global fossil fuel financing increased to 32%, representing "the single largest source of fossil capital in the world." In 2021, US banks provided 28% of fossil fuel investment.
Trump has also aggressively pushed for more coal production since taking office for his second term in January 2025, and financing for coal mining expansion surged 77% in 2025, to $84 billion. Funding for coal power also grew by 40%, with companies pouring $81 billion into coal-fired plants.
Even when asked about the report's findings, top banks pointed to their own voluntary commitments to finance renewable energy projects and "achieve net zero financed emissions by 2050," as a spokesperson for Citigroup said to The Guardian.
The spokesperson said the bank "supports clients in the low‑carbon transition while recognizing the real need for secure, affordable and reliable energy today. We are committed to... advancing our $1 trillion sustainable finance goal, with a focus on balancing the transition with global energy resilience”.
David Tong, global industry campaign manager for Oil Change International and a co-author of the report, warned that "every dollar of finance for oil and gas helps an industry of war profiteers squeeze out short-term profits, further trapping communities into paying higher fossil fuel energy bills, fueling war and conflict, and burning all our futures."
"Voluntary commitments aren’t working. No major oil and gas company is doing anything even close to what is needed to hold global heating to 1.5°C, and voluntary banking sector pledges like the Net Zero Banking Alliance aren’t cutting their pipeline of cash," he said. "Instead, banks have injected over staggering $900 billion into fossil fuel financing in 2025 alone. Governments must step in and take urgent action to hold financial institutions and fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis.”
Since the Paris climate agreement, the report says, banks have poured a staggering $8.7 trillion into the fossil fuel industry, with the "Dirty Dozen," as the authors call the 12 largest fossil fuel financial backers, providing nearly 40% of all investment for coal, oil, and gas extraction.
The report makes demands of banks, calling on them to "exclude all finance for fossil fuel expansion immediately" and "require robust, 1.5°C-aligned transition plans from all existing fossil fuel clients"—but emphasizes that governments must compel financial institutions to end financing for oil, gas, and coal.
"After two consecutive years of fossil fuel finance increases by global banks—especially the increase in fossil fuel expansion finance and the continued backtracking from banks on their climate pledges—it is clear that the banking sector will not voluntarily take the necessary steps to transition out of fossil fuel finance at the pace and scale needed for the world to deliver on the Paris Agreement goals," reads the report.
Instead, it says, governments must mandate transition planning by banks, private equity holders, insurers, and other companies; make polluters pay for climate damages; ensure public finance institutions are subject to transparent reporting and legal accountability to international standards, and rapidly wind down supply-side fossil fuel subsidies, tax exemptions, subsidies, guarantees or other public assistance for new oil, gas, and coal projects.
"A decade after Paris, just twelve banks now drive more than a third of the world’s fossil fuel financing—proof that this is no longer a problem of markets, but of a small set of decision-makers making active choices," said Niko Lusiani, research director for Rainforest Action Network. "They are choosing to lock in an energy system that hands record profits to a few fossil firms while passing the costs onto the three of every four people on Earth who depend on imported fuel."
"The good news is that what a handful of banks built," said Lusiani, "governments and people worldwide have the power to change.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular