Sen. Joe Manchin infuriated progressives on Monday as he announced his refusal to support President Joe Biden\u0026#039;s nomination of Sarah Bloom Raskin to a key position at the Federal Reserve—only the latest of the West Virginia senator\u0026#039;s obstructions of his own party\u0026#039;s climate action agenda.\r\n\r\nNo Republicans have indicated that they might support Raskin\u0026#039;s nomination to serve as vice chair of supervision at the Fed, a role in which she would be the agency\u0026#039;s top banking regulator. Without Manchin\u0026#039;s support in the evenly-split U.S. Senate, Raskin\u0026#039;s nomination is likely doomed.\r\n\r\n\u0022The fossil fuel industry gave more money to Manchin than anyone else in D.C. The return on that modest investment has been staggering.\u0022\r\n\r\nManchin suggested that the former Obama administration official\u0026#039;s call for action regarding banks\u0026#039; climate risks as they pour trillions of dollars into fossil fuel projects.\r\n\r\n\u0022Her previous public statements have failed to satisfactorily address my concerns about the critical importance of financing an all-of-the-above energy policy to meet our nation\u0026#039;s critical energy needs,\u0022 Manchin said of Raskin Monday. \u0022I have come to the conclusion that I am unable to support her nomination to serve as a member of the Federal Reserve Board.\u0022\r\n\r\nRaskin wrote in a column last year that U.S. bank regulators must \u0022leave their comfort zone\u0022 and begin regulating how financial institutions are contributing to the planetary emergency by funding fossil fuel emissions.\r\n\r\n\u0022They need to ask themselves how their existing instruments can be used to incentivize a rapid, orderly, and just transition away from high-emission and biodiversity-destroying investments,\u0022 Raskin wrote.\r\n\r\nRepublicans on the Senate Banking Committee have boycotted a hearing to advance several nominations for Federal Reserve positions, saying they object to Biden\u0026#039;s selection of Raskin due to her comments about the climate and accusing her of impropriety when she served on the board of a payments firm.\r\n\r\nOn Monday, the White House said it would continue to seek Raskin\u0026#039;s confirmation, adding that she has been targeted by an \u0022unprecedented, baseless campaign led by oil and gas companies that sought to tarnish her distinguished career.\u0022\r\n\r\nAs Jane Mayer wrote in The New Yorker earlier this month, fossil fuel companies, fearing that at the Fed Raskin could identify the climate crisis as a long-term systemic risk to the economy and regulate accordingly, have led right-wing senators in their campaign to stop Raskin\u0026#039;s confirmation:\r\n\r\n\r\nThe industry\u0026#039;s fears were made clear at the end of January, when a coalition of forty-one energy-business trade associations that opposed Bloom Raskin\u0026#039;s nomination wrote a letter to the committee in which they called Bloom Raskin \u0022a strong advocate for debanking\u0022 fossil-fuel companies... In their letter, the associations called Bloom Raskin an environmental \u0022alarmist\u0022 with \u0022a crisis mentality\u0022 because she has stated that climate change could result in \u0022an unlivably hot planet.\u0022\r\n\r\n\r\nThe U.S. Chamber of Commerce—which counts among its board members executives from natural gas company ConocoPhillips, a top contributor to Manchin this year, and other fossil fuel firms—also wrote to the committee warning senators to reject Raskin.\r\n\r\nClimate advocates including Bill McKibben linked Manchin\u0026#039;s ties to the fossil fuel industry with his decision to block Raskin\u0026#039;s confirmation.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nRaskin is \u0022super qualified, would be good at the job, but Manchin\u0026#039;s corporate donors don\u0026#039;t love her,\u0022 said Faiz Shakir, founder of pro-worker media outlet More Perfect Union. \u0022That\u0026#039;s what\u0026#039;s really going on.\u0022\r\n\r\nLast year, Manchin forced Democrats to eliminate key climate provisions including a methane fee and the\u0026nbsp;Clean Electricity Performance Program from the Build Back Better Act, before announcing he would not support the drastically cut package.\r\n\r\nKate Aronoff, climate reporter for The New Republic, noted that Manchin attended CERAWeek, an annual meeting of fossil fuel executives and politicians, last week. As Russia\u0026#039;s military assault on Ukraine continues, a key message pushed by attendees was the need to develop \u0022energy independence\u0022 in the U.S.—while continuing the dominance of the oil and gas industry as other wealthy countries shift toward renewable sources.\r\n\r\nAs Aronoff reported last week, Manchin urged the executives assembled at the conference to seek a \u0022return on investment\u0022 when they talk to politicians about policy.\r\n\r\n\u0022Demand more,\u0022 he said. \u0022If you do that you all can turn this around.\u0022\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\u0022I\u0026#039;m sure these things are unrelated!\u0022 Aronoff said of Manchin\u0026#039;s CERAWeek appearance and his objection to Raskin.