
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.
"Every tenth of a degree of warming we avoid gives corals a better chance," said one of the researchers. "So action now really does count.”
Nearly half the world's reef-building coral species are at risk of extinction according to a global assessment released Thursday. Researchers warn that the accelerating climate crisis is making the danger even worse than the most recent data shows.
Coral reefs are among the most important ecosystems on Earth, providing food and shelter for around a quarter of all marine species. Their destruction jeopardizes not only entire marine food webs, but also the millions of people who rely on those species for food.
The study, published in the journal Nature, found that as of 2020, about 44% of coral species were threatened, compared with about one-third in 2008.
David Obura, a marine biologist and lead author of the study, said the new assessment "provides the most comprehensive evaluation to date of global extinction risk among reef-building corals, and a stark warning of the accelerating increase in global threats to coral reefs."
But he said it also "highlights the challenges we face in addressing major data and knowledge gaps on the status of species at global scales, at the same time as having to take urgent decisions to reduce the drivers of global declines in critical species and ecosystems.”
The researchers stressed that the data they analyzed understates the danger. The assessment does not take into account the damage from the devastating bleaching event that began in 2023 and lasted until mid-2025. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), it was the largest such event ever recorded, exposing about 84% of the world's coral reef area to bleaching-level heat stress and causing widespread coral deaths.
It also doesn't take into account what meteorologists have projected could be the strongest El Niño ever, which could break ocean temperature records in the coming months, likely leading to another massive die-off of corals.
"It is entirely possible that reassessing the status of corals just after this coming El Niño may show them to have crossed the 50% mark of the proportion of species at elevated risk of extinction," Obura told AFP.
He noted that a previous "super" El Niño, in 1997-98, also caused tremendous damage to reefs.
"That this coming event is worse than that, after three intervening global bleaching events, is a terrifying reality," he said.

In the new assessment, researchers found that human-caused climate change is the primary threat to reef-building coral, determining the fate of about 90% of the species at greatest risk.
They emphasized that coral reef health is more complex than simply "survival" versus "disappearance," and that every reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions matters.
“Coral reefs can feel a world away..." said Françoise Cabada-Blanco, a marine ecologist at the University of Portsmouth and co-author of the study. "But they cover a tiny fraction of the ocean floor, while supporting an enormous share of marine life and the food, coastal protection and livelihoods of millions of people."
"What happens to them affects all of us," she said. "The message from this assessment is that every tenth of a degree of warming we avoid gives corals a better chance—so action now really does count.”
A report published last year concluded that the globe had already passed the 1.2°C warming threshold for widespread coral reef dieback and found that unless global temperatures drop substantially, reefs could largely disappear.
“The crisis facing corals is deadly serious,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “If we don’t take swift action to curb climate pollution, we could lose half of them forever.”
“We’ve already seen a lot of disruptions to sea life from the much warmer waters El Niño has brought this year, and I’m really worried about what that will do to threatened coral species," she added. "Coral reefs are the backbone of the ocean, and we can’t have a healthy marine ecosystem without them.”
"I urge governments everywhere to end these handouts once and for all, and to use the savings for people and planet instead," said António Guterres.
"The food we eat, the water we drink, the very air we breathe—all are the gifts of biodiversity. Yet every day, humankind saws another branch off the tree of life," outgoing United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres declared Friday, before a key global summit in Armenia.
"Climate chaos. Invasive species. Overgrazing and overfishing. Excessive fertilizers, pesticides, plastics, and heavy metals. All these and more are driving the triple planetary crisis of pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate chaos," he warned. "Over 1 million species now face the risk of extinction, edging us ever closer towards an uninhabitable world."
Guterres advocated for both government and financial leadership, calling out funding for "agribusiness that strips the land" as well as the leading driver of the worsening climate emergency: fossil fuels. According to him, "Subsidizing fossil fuels is subsidizing suicide."
"They are boiling our planet, and are the scourge of biodiversity," said the secretary-general—who has often argued for not only phasing out fossil fuels but also making polluters pay for their damage. "I urge governments everywhere to end these handouts once and for all, and to use the savings for people and planet instead."
Four years ago, at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, world leaders agreed to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework—which critics called "weak" and "an open invitation to greenwash." With COP17 kicking off in the Armenian capital on Monday, the UN chief said that "Yerevan is our moment of accountability."
The "good news" is that the framework "has inspired action across the globe," with nearly 90% of parties to the convention establishing national biodiversity targets, Guterres said. The "bad news" is that "progress is uneven, and far too slow. Even if current national commitments are met, only 26% of terrestrial, and 12% of marine ecosystems would be protected by 2030."
"That is well short of the promise made in Montreal to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030. Major gaps also remain in targets linked to economic systems, including those focused on reducing harmful incentives," he noted. "And many of the critical elements of progress—including finance, capacity, cooperation and data—are still largely missing in action."
The figures come from the United Nations Environment Program's "State of Biodiversity Action" report, released in preparation for next week's conference. That followed the September publication of the UNEP's "Limiting Overshoot" report, which warns that the world will at least temporarily surpass the Paris Agreement's temperature target for this century: 1.5°C beyond preindustrial levels.
In response to the overshoot report, Stephanie Roe, global climate and energy lead scientist at the international nonprofit WWF, said last month that "overshooting 1.5°C is not a cliff edge, but neither is it harmless. Every fraction of a degree of warming increases risks for people and nature, while every fraction avoided reduces harm."
"What matters now is how far temperatures rise above 1.5°C and how long they stay there," Roe continued. "The science shows that lower and shorter overshoot means fewer impacts on ecosystems, communities, and economies. Limiting peak warming and returning temperatures to safer levels as quickly as possible can help reduce risks, avoid irreversible losses, and improve resilience for the future."
Roe's organization has also released a series of relevant reports in the weeks before the summit, including a Wednesday analysis it commissioned from the Global Cooperation Institute that lays out "major barriers countries face in delivering the Global Biodiversity Framework and what could help unblock it," and urges "decisive action in Yerevan."
WWF International director general Kirsten Schuijt said that that "COP17 must move countries towards action and implementation. The benefits of collective action for nature are clear: stronger ecological resilience, more secure food and water systems, and reduced economic vulnerability. WWF's latest 'Living Planet Report' shows that nature can recover when the right actions are taken."
Released last month, that report found a 73% decline in the average size of monitored wildlife populations over a 52-year period—with an 85% decline in freshwater ecosystems, followed by 69% in terrestrial, and 59% in marine.
"Lasting progress," said Schuijt, "depends on transforming the systems driving nature loss and shifting decision-making from short-term fixes to long-term solutions. For COP17, this requires governments, businesses, Indigenous peoples, local communities, women, youth, and wider society to all participate actively in decision-making that moves agreements into urgent implementation, to shape and deliver nature-positive solutions."
The political declaration released Friday by heads of state in Yerevan for a leaders' summit preceding the conference already has some advocates, like WWF International president Adil Najam, issuing warnings. Najam explained from the Armenian capital that "leaders came together to discuss the promise made in Montreal in 2022 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. The declaration acknowledges that progress is insufficient and that implementation must accelerate. It also recognizes that our economies, communities, and peace depend on nature. But recognition alone will not fulfill that promise."
"The declaration lacks explicit commitments to align economic and financial decisions with nature goals, including reforming subsidies that harm nature," he said. "Governments must make these choices if they are serious about delivering on their commitments. At COP17, they must turn the global review into clear implementation pathways backed by finance on the scale needed. The declaration signals a commitment to action across government; the real test is whether it changes decisions back home."
The US Fish and Wildlife Service finalized the polar bear-killing rule despite a near universal negative reception from more than 85,000 public comments.
Oil and gas companies will now be permitted to kill polar bears and Pacific walruses off the northern coast of Alaska so long as such killings are "unintentional," according to a new Trump administration rule.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on Friday finalized a rule change that would shield fossil fuel companies from legal liability if they engage in the "incidental, unintentional" killing of the animals "during year-round oil and gas industry activities in the Beaufort Sea... and adjacent northern coast of Alaska."
Under the rule change, which is scheduled to last through 2031, the FWS "will issue letters of authorization" that sign off on the incidental killing of wildlife upon request by oil and gas companies.
As noted by a report in Bloomberg Law, the proposed rule change "drew more than 85,500 public comments, nearly all in opposition," before the FWS ultimately signed off on it.
The rule change was a major priority for the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, which represents fossil fuel giants and requested the revision in September 2025.
Allowing for the incidental killing of polar bears isn't the only controversial rollback of environmental regulations made by the Trump administration in recent weeks.
In September, The New York Times reported that FWS had gutted a key provision in the Endangered Species Act by arguing that only the intentional killing or wounding of protected species counts as illegal "harm."
Last week, it was revealed that the US Department of the Interior is moving ahead with a plan to let fossil fuel companies conduct specific wintertime operations at the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska without undergoing reviews mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Even though the Trump administration has prioritized the development of domestic fossil fuel production by gutting environmental standards, these policies have not translated into the promised cheaper oil and gas prices, which have spiked over the last half year thanks to the president's illegal war with Iran.
Even 67% of Republican voters think states should be allowed to sue oil companies for climate damage. But Trump and GOP lawmakers are pushing to kill these suits for good.
President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have sought to stop state-level lawsuits aimed at holding oil and gas companies responsible for climate-related damage. But most voters don't think they should be immune from accountability.
In a poll released last week by Data for Progress, 75% of likely voters said they would oppose legislation that would give fossil fuel companies "legal immunity from having to pay for the damages they have caused by worsening climate change."
Just 20% said they would either "somewhat" or "strongly" support such legislation. Meanwhile, more than half (53%) said they would "strongly" oppose it.
Opposition was strong across political affiliations: 83% of Democrats and 76% of independents said they opposed giving oil companies immunity from lawsuits, but so did 67% of Republicans.

In recent years, states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel companies over their well-documented history of misleading the public about their products' role in warming the planet. These lawsuits have sought compensation for damages from worsening floods, wildfires, droughts, and other climate-related disasters.
Eleven US states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—as well as the District of Columbia, have active lawsuits, as do at least two tribal governments and dozens of municipalities around the country, according to a tracker by the Center for Climate Integrity.
The new poll suggests voters are even more opposed to shielding oil companies from these lawsuits than they were five months ago. Another Data for Progress poll in May showed just 65% opposed legislation to shield oil companies, compared with 75% now.
"Big Oil is desperate to secure legal immunity and escape accountability for its role in the climate crisis—and the billions of dollars of damages that have followed," said Iyla Shornstein, the political director at the Center for Climate Integrity. "These poll results show that Americans across the political spectrum are opposed to putting Big Oil above the law.”

The oil industry's lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Institute, has described stopping state climate lawsuits as a top priority for 2026. Their Republican allies have pushed at all levels of government to advance that goal.
In April, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and several GOP cosponsors joined Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) to introduce legislation that would shield fossil fuel companies from any climate-related lawsuits, dismiss pending cases, and overturn state "superfund" laws requiring the industry to pay for climate damages.
That bill failed to pass out of the House Judiciary Committee last month but could be brought forth again during the "lame-duck" session after the midterm elections in November.
ProPublica has identified at least 15 bills across 11 states that have either been enacted or proposed to shield companies, either by granting them broad immunity from liability for greenhouse gas emissions or restricting the ability of communities to sue over climate-related damages. Groups linked to Leonard Leo, the co-chair of the right-wing Federalist Society, have coordinated many of these efforts.
Republican attorneys general in 16 states have proposed creating a "liability shield" for fossil fuel companies modeled on the one that protects gun manufacturers from liability for the misuse of their products. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a leading conservative policy shop, approved a model bill in August aiming to establish this shield in state legislatures nationwide.
The oil industry has also pushed for the right-wing Supreme Court to step in to block these lawsuits. Earlier this month, during oral arguments, oil giants ExxonMobil and Suncor urged the court to block a lawsuit brought by Boulder, Colorado, that accused oil companies of deceiving the public about climate change and sought to hold them financially responsible.
If the court blocks the Boulder suit before it gets to trial, it could set a precedent that derails dozens of similar lawsuits around the country.
Meanwhile, Trump, who pledged to help Big Oil executives in exchange for their donations to his presidential campaign, signed an executive order last year directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to identify and challenge state lawsuits that seek to impose financial penalties on fossil fuel companies.
His DOJ has weighed in on the Suncor v. Boulder case on the side of the oil industry and has sued at least five states that have sought to hold fossil fuel companies accountable.
The question about climate lawsuits was part of a broader set of questions Data for Progress asked voters about rising insurance costs and corporate accountability in partnership with the Insurance Fairness Project. Other results showed that many Americans want legal recourse against insurers and other companies that impose costs on consumers.
"As rising home insurance costs directly threaten housing affordability for the majority of Americans, voters are tired of their prices rising while insurance companies, energy providers, and the oil and gas industry go unchecked," said Grace Adcox, senior climate strategist for the Insurance Fairness Project. "There is a strong appetite for holding corporations accountable, both for their role in driving up costs and their role in contributing to the climate crisis."
“This is no longer a warning for the future; it is a diagnosis of the present,” the report's authors warned.
Earth's life-support systems are "moving deeper into uncharted territory," with greenhouse gas concentrations, ocean heat, and other vital indicators reaching unprecedented levels as human activity continues to push the planet toward points of no return, an international team of scientists warned Wednesday.
"We are witnessing the rapid destabilization of the Earth’s climate system. This is no longer a warning for the future; it is a diagnosis of the present," the authors of The 2026 State of the Climate Report wrote. "Earth’s life-support systems are being pushed beyond stable limits, with changes unfolding faster than our ability to respond."
"Human activities are driving profound shifts in the atmosphere, oceans, and biosphere," the report—which was published in the peer-reviewed journal BioScience—continues. "Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are higher now than any time in the last 2 million years. Across the globe, extreme heat, floods, droughts, storms, and wildfires are no longer rare events but defining features of a changing planet. For example, July 2026 was the hottest month on record for the contiguous United States (1895–present), while global ocean temperatures also reached a record high for July."
2026 State of the Climate Report Shows a Planet Reaching Its Limitseos.org/research-and...
[image or embed]
— Prof Ian Hall (@ianhall.bsky.social) October 14, 2026 at 9:48 AM
The report, led by Oregon State University scientists William Ripple and Christopher Wolf, measures 16 key climate indicators, seven of which "are at record extremes and multiple others are also trending in the wrong direction," co-author Johan Rockström explained.
"Climate-related changes appear to be accelerating and intensifying, raising concerns about reinforcing feedbacks and crossing of tipping points, with potential irreversible impacts," the report notes. "Climate change is increasingly interacting with global biodiversity loss, freshwater stress, food insecurity, pathogens, and geopolitical instability, amplifying risks across interconnected human and natural systems."
"Yet, the gap between scientific understanding and societal response continues to widen despite mounting evidence of escalating risks," the authors said. "The evidence for accelerating climate and ecological disruption is now so compelling that attention must shift toward rapid decarbonization as well as adaptation, resilience, scalable responses, and transformative systemic change."
"Crucially, the communities least responsible for historical emissions, particularly in the Global South and small island states, are bearing disproportionately severe and early consequences, raising fundamental questions of climate justice that must inform both policy and science," the publication adds.
The new report comes on the heels of this year's Planetary Health Check assessment, which found that seven of nine measures of the Earth’s health are no longer within the “safe operating space”: ocean acidification, freshwater change, land system change, climate change, modification of biogeochemical flows, introduction of novel entities, and change in biosphere integrity.
Planetary Health Check lead author Boris Sakschewski said the findings indicate that "the risk of large-scale, persistent, and potentially irreversible change is increasing, while our margin for error in tackling these problems is shrinking.”
Some 2026 State of the Climate report authors—described by US meteorologist Jeff Berardelli as "a who's who of the best in the world"—weighed in individually on their findings.
“Global warming appears to be accelerating," Wolf told Scientific American.
“The climate emergency is already here, but the future is not yet determined,” he stressed. “We still have opportunities to avoid some of the worst outcomes through rapid emissions reductions, climate adaptation, and broader societal changes. The window for action is narrowing, but it has not closed.”
Rockström—who co-authored both reports—wrote on LinkedIn that "the global curve of emissions must start bending within the coming year or two."
"A fossil fuel-free global economy must be the landing point within the next 25 years," he said. "A global food system transition towards healthy diets from sustainable production systems must start now. Carbon dioxide removal needs to start scaling, fast."
"We have the solutions," Rockström continued. "They can be scaled. And, on essentially all fronts, we (meaning ALL peoples) come out as healthier, safer, more resilient, prosperous, and just, if we proceed with the transformation to a world within Earth's safe operating space."
"Failure is not inevitable," he added. "It is a choice. Our choice."
"Laggards, including the United States and Japan, are continuing to prop up the fossil fuel industry."
For the first time on record, major international public financial institutions are providing more financing for clean energy around the world than for fossil fuels. But wealthy nations, including the United States, continue to pour billions into oil and gas, hampering the global energy transition, according to a new report.
On Wednesday, two environmental advocacy groups—Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth US—published an analysis of new data on public financing from Group of 20 (G20) nations and multilateral development banks for clean energy projects, such as wind and solar, and planet-warming fossil fuels, including oil, gas, and coal.
They found that from 2023-25, public financing for clean energy averaged at least $52.7 billion annually, compared with just $36.3 billion for fossil fuels. The report attributes the shift mostly to multilateral development banks, while G20 nations' own development and export financing continued to favor fossil fuels.
“This new dataset represents a tipping point. Clean energy financing overtaking fossil fuel financing for the first time is an important milestone," said Claire O'Manique, public finance researcher at Oil Change International. "But it doesn't mean we can sit back and count our wins.”
The level of clean energy financing, the group said, is still far below what is needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, a threshold beyond which the risks of devastating climate impacts increase.
That's largely thanks to four main culprits. Canada, Japan, the United States, and Italy accounted for around 75% of fossil fuel financing from G20 countries during this period.
Canada provided an annual average of $12.5 billion in fossil fuel financing—mostly for domestic projects. Japan averaged about $4.5 billion annually despite a G7 commitment to end public support for new international fossil fuel projects by 2022. Italy likewise averaged $3.8 billion annually, breaking a pledge to end international fossil fuel financing.
Over the same period, the US provided an annual average of about $3.6 billion in fossil fuel financing, mostly through its Export-Import Bank, compared with just $1.5 billion for clean energy.
The data from 2025, the first year of President Donald Trump's second term, is particularly striking. That year, the US provided nearly $8 billion in financing for fossil fuel projects compared with just $2.5 million for clean energy—roughly 3,200 times as much.
This included a loan of up to $4.7 billion for a liquefied natural gas project in Mozambique, despite allegations that soldiers guarding the project committed war crimes. British and Dutch backing has since been withdrawn from the project.
"Important progress is being made to move the world’s largest economies away from supporting fossil fuels and shift that financing toward renewable energy projects," said Kate DeAngelis, economic policy deputy director at Friends of the Earth US. "Unfortunately, laggards, including the United States and Japan, are continuing to prop up the fossil fuel industry instead of helping countries transition to sustainable economies.”
The report also found that less than 2% of the clean energy financing tracked reached low-income countries, despite their unmet energy needs. Meanwhile, nearly half of the funds went toward projects in the highest-income countries, according to World Bank classifications.
The five largest recipients of clean energy financing were all high- or middle-income countries: France, Poland, and Spain fall into the former category, while Brazil and India fall into the latter.
"A just transition will not happen at the scale required without governments actively steering it through redirecting and mobilizing public finance," O’Manique said. "Wealthy governments must move first and fastest to phase out fossil fuels at home and meet their climate finance obligations."
"We are running out of time," she said. "Without a fossil fuel phaseout and public finance being redirected to drive a just energy transition, we will continue to see escalating climate disasters that come at a huge human and economic cost, such as the deadly glacial flood disaster in Nepal.”
"The Trump administration is putting corporate profits ahead of people and the planet, and the Western Arctic will pay the price."
Just over a week after a leading US Senate Democrat described President Donald Trump's relationship with fossil fuel giants as "old-fashioned corruption, by a thuggish government and a desperate industry," his administration on Thursday announced yet another giveaway to climate polluters who want to exploit the Arctic.
The US Department of the Interior is moving forward with a plan to allow oil and gas companies to conduct certain wintertime activities at the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska without reviews generally required by the National Environmental Policy Act—a landmark law long targeted by Trump's Republican Party.
"In issuing this categorical exclusion, this administration is seeking to fast-track large-scale oil drilling and seismic exploration without any further environmental analysis or public input," warned Earthjustice attorney Janet Bering. "It is cutting the public out of this decision and future decisions."
"The administration finalized this new approach with zero public input," Bering noted. "Combined with a similar proposal that rubber-stamps new oil production, this is a one-two punch. It's bad policy, and it is unlawful."
The 60-day public comment period is ongoing for the earlier proposal she cited, which is designed to streamline decision-making for construction and operation of oil and gas production sites in the same 23-million-acre Alaska reserve.
When the Interior Department unveiled that policy in early September, Earthjustice Attorney Erik Grafe declared that "what we're seeing here is a concerted attack by the Trump administration to greenlight oil and gas drilling in the Western Arctic while ignoring the harm it will cause to these irreplaceable public lands and also the government's obligation to protect these lands for wildlife and future generations."
"These are large-scale, industrial activities that cause permanent damage to sensitive Arctic ecosystems, nearby communities, and the climate," Grafe stressed. "The administration's proposal flaunts basic environmental laws meant to protect land, wildlife, and people and allow for fully informed decision-making."
Earthjustice is far from alone in blasting Trump's recent attacks on the Arctic. Dan Ritzman, director of Sierra Club's conservation campaign, condemned last month's proposal as "another piece of the administration’s relentless effort to expand drilling across Alaska's public lands."
"The Western Arctic is home to caribou, migratory birds, and countless other wildlife, and decisions about its future deserve careful scrutiny—not a permitting process designed around the demands of the oil and gas industry," Ritzman said at the time.
His colleague Mike Scott, Sierra Club's national oil and gas campaign manager, was similarly critical of Thursday's announcement.
"The Trump administration is handing Big Oil another free pass to exploit America’s public lands, this time by gutting environmental oversight in one of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet," said Scott. "Oil companies have already shown the risks they pose to the Western Arctic, and now this administration wants to make it even easier for them to drill without scrutiny."
"This isn't about lowering energy costs or helping Alaskans," he continued—as the president drives up fuel costs with an illegal war on Iran. "It's about doing the fossil fuel industry's bidding at the expense of wildlife, Alaska Native communities, and our public lands. The Trump administration is putting corporate profits ahead of people and the planet, and the Western Arctic will pay the price."
Trump campaigned for a second term on a pledge to serve fossil fuel interests—even telling industry executives that he'd roll back climate policies if they poured $1 billion into his campaign. Last week, US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Committee on Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) released a report detailing how the president has delivered on that promise since returning to power last year.
"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. "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."
"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.
"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.