

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.

Alan Barber, (202) 293-5380 x115
Last
week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that lifted some
restrictions on oil drilling in America's outer continental shelf. The
bill was supported by many Democrats but was criticized by many
Republicans for not going far enough and for not opening up enough
areas to drilling. Senator John McCain supports lifting all
restrictions on drilling in the outer continental shelf. He argues that
increased offshore production will reduce dependence on foreign oil, in
addition to lowering gas prices.
However, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) has concluded that
even Senator McCain's proposal for comprehensive drilling would have no
impact in the near-term, since it will be close to a decade before any
oil can be extracted from the coastal areas in question. The EIA
estimates that actual production would not begin until 2017 and would
not reach peak production until 2030. Further, the EIA projects that
this will only increase domestic oil production by 200,000 barrels a
day (0.2 percent of projected world production), an amount too small to
have any significant effect on oil prices.1
It is interesting to compare the potential impact on oil prices of the
proposal to remove restrictions on offshore drilling with the impact of
the recently passed Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This
legislation included regulations designed to increase production of
renewable fuels and increase energy efficiency. Most significantly, the
measure raised the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for
automobiles. Under the legislation, the minimum CAFE standard for
passenger vehicles must average at least 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by
2020, up from the previous minimum standard of approximately 27.5 mpg
at present.2
CAFE standards were first implemented in 1975 at 20 mpg and increased
to 27.5 mpg in 1985. The CAFE program had the direct effect of reducing
national oil consumption by compelling automakers to produce more
fuel-efficient cars. The Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
estimates that without CAFE standards, gasoline consumption (and crude
oil imports) would be about 2.8 million barrels a day greater.3 Currently, our consumption of oil is estimated at 20.8 million barrels a day.4
Figure 1 shows the relative impact on oil production of lifting
drilling restrictions on the Outer Continental Shelf, compared with the
impact on oil consumption of increasing standards of automobile fuel
efficiency.
FIGURE 1
The Relative Impact of Offshore Drilling and Increasing Fuel Efficiency Standards in 2030
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 should have a similar
impact on fuel efficiency and oil consumption, also lowering
consumption by approximately 2.8 million barrels per day by 2027, the
year when the EIA projects that peak production could be reached from
drilling in the currently protected offshore area.5
If this is the case, then the increase in fuel economy standards
contained in the recent legislation will decrease oil dependency by an
amount fourteen times greater than any comprehensive offshore drilling
effort.
Senator Obama has proposed a slightly more ambitious fuel efficiency
schedule which would increase mileage standards at the rate of 4
percent a year. This would lead to somewhat greater energy savings,
especially if the increases are continued beyond the 2020 date. In this
case, the mileage standard will reach 52 miles per gallon by 2027,
which will raise the average for all cars driven to just less than 42
miles per gallon by that date. In this case, the savings in oil
consumption would be equal to 4.2 million barrels a day by 2027.6 This amount would be 21 times as large as the impact of opening up the protected offshore areas to drilling.
While Senator McCain opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, his running mate Governor Sarah Palin strongly supports lifting
the restrictions on drilling. The EIA has estimated that drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would have no effect in the
near-term. Production would not begin until 2018, and in 2030,
production would plateau at 710,000 barrels a day. This amount of oil
is projected to decrease the price of oil by about $2.00 a barrel,
which would bring down the price of gasoline by less than 5 cents a
gallon.7
In conclusion, the increase in CAFE standards signed into law by
President Bush will have four times the impact on oil dependency as
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and fourteen times the
impact as drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf. The addition of
Senator Obama's conservation proposal to the increased CAFE standards
would have 21 times the impact of opening up drilling in protected
offshore areas and 6 times the impact of drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. The impact of opening drilling in either area
will be zero for close to a decade. Even when these regions attain peak
production in close to twenty years, the potential impact on gasoline
prices will still be negligible.
________________________________
1.
The projections for oil output for the protected areas can be found in:
United States. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
Annual Energy Outlook with Projections to 2030. Washington: GPO, 2007. https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo07/issues.html. Accessed September 8, 2008.
2. White House. Fact Sheet: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Washington: White House, 2007. https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071219-1.html.
Accessed September 9, 2008. The current 25 miles is a rough average of
the 27.5 MPG requirement for cars and the 22.2 MPG requirement for
light trucks.
3. Board on Energy and Environmental Systems. Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. Washington: National Academy Press, 2002. https://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10172&page=3. Accessed September 9, 2008.
4. Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook. Rank Order - Oil - Consumption. Washington: CIA, 2005. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html. Accessed September 11, 2008.
5.
This calculation assumes that the efficiency of the fleet of cars sold
increases at the rate of 0.85 MPG per year between now and 2020. It
also assumes that each year a car is on the road it is driven 10
percent less (e.g. 2005 cars are driven 10 percent less than 2006 cars)
and that it is pulled off the road altogether after 20 years. It also
assumes a baseline where gasoline consumption rises by 10 percent from
9 million barrels per day in 2008 to 10 million barrels per day in
2027.
6. This calculation makes the same assumption about the rate at which cars are pulled off the road.
7.
The projections for oil output for the protected areas can be found in:
United States. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.
Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf. Accessed September, 9 2008.
By Matthew Sherman and Dean Baker
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380"It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address," said the state attorney general.
The US Department of Justice on Monday continued President Donald Trump's crusade against transgender youth competing in sports in line with their identity by suing the Minnesota Department of Education and the state's high school league.
"The United States files this action to stop Minnesota's unapologetic sex discrimination against female student athletes," says the complaint, filed in a federal court in the state by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.
"The state of Minnesota, through its Department of Education, and the Minnesota State High School League require girls to compete against boys in athletic competitions that are designated exclusively for girls and share intimate spaces, such as multiperson locker rooms and bathrooms, with boys," the complaint continues. "This unfair, intentionally discriminatory practice violates the very core of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972."
The Associated Press noted that "the administration has filed similar lawsuits against Maine and California, and has threatened the federal funding of some universities over transgender athletes, including San José State in California and the University of Pennsylvania."
Tim Leighton, a spokesperson for the league, told the AP that it does not comment on threatened or pending lawsuits. According to The New York Times, Emily Buss, a spokesperson for the state department, said Minnesota's leadership was reviewing the complaint while remaining "committed to ensuring every child—regardless of background, ZIP code, or ability—has access to a world-class education."
While Trump and his allies have aimed to stop all trans women and girls from competing as they identify—including at the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles—the fight with Minnesota specifically traces back to the president's February 2025 executive order, after which the administration began investigating the state.
The Minnesota Department of Education gets over $3 billion in federal funding. Democratic state Attorney General Keith Ellison sued to stop the administration from pulling that money last April. In September, the US departments of Education and Health and Human Services concluded that the state agency and league violated Title IX, and the case was referred to the DOJ in January.
In a Monday statement, Ellison said that the DOJ's lawsuit "is just a sad attempt to get attention over something that's already been in litigation for months."
"Donald Trump is currently facing an unpopular war that he launched, rising gas prices, massive health insurance price hikes, and a partial government shutdown caused in part by his ICE agents killing two Minnesotans in broad daylight," Ellison said, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address."
The DOJ filing about trans student-athletes came less than a week after Ellison and other Minnesota officials sued the Trump administration over its refusal to cooperate with state investigators probing the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents earlier this year, as well as the shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was wounded but survived.
“Trump has shown he will abuse every inch of power we give him," said one critic. "So you would think that given an opportunity to check his authority and protect Americans, Democrats would jump at the chance."
Critics denounced the top Democrat on the US House Intelligence Committee after he said Monday that he would vote to extend a highly controversial authorization for warrantless government spying sought by President Donald Trump that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times under various administrations.
While acknowledging that many of his Democratic colleagues will vote against reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they do not trust Trump to use the provision's sweeping surveillance powers legally, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) signaled that he would support renewal and vote against any efforts for privacy protections.
“There’s a lot of people who are going to switch from yes two years ago to no today," Himes told The Hill. "Because even though Donald Trump’s been president for five years, and he has never abused the program—I would know it pretty much in real time if he did—even though that’s true, people don’t trust Donald Trump."
"And you know, that word came up a lot in the classified briefing; there’s a huge trust gap here," he added. "So there’s going to be a lot of people switching on the Democratic side from yes to no.”
While Section 702 ostensibly limits warrantless surveillance to non-US citizens, such spying also captures the communications of Americans. The measure has been abused at least hundreds of thousands of times, including to spy on protestors, congressional donors, journalists, and others.
“Donald Trump has shown he will abuse every inch of power we give him," Sean Vitka, executive director of the pro-democracy group Demand Progress, said in a statement Monday. "So you would think that given an opportunity to check his authority and protect Americans, Democrats would jump at the chance."
"But instead, Rep. Jim Himes is failing his critical role as an overseer of intelligence agencies and using his political power to lobby his fellow Democrats in service of the Trump administration domestic surveillance agenda," Vitka continued. "It is unforgivably cynical and reckless for Rep. Himes to make it easier for this administration to spy on Americans, especially at a time when government agencies’ have made it clear that they intend to supercharge surveillance with [artificial intelligence], and when their misuse of these powers is horrifically on display.”
Nearly 100 civil society groups including Demand Progress are urging congressional Democrats to "stand firm" and vote against Section 702 reauthorization without reforms, including closing the so-called data broker loophole.
Among the Democratic lawmakers reportedly considering voting against the extension is Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who voted for reauthorizing Section 702 in 2024—when Congress extended the spying power until April 20, 2026.
“I supported it because I felt very comfortable that... additional guardrails were safeguarding Americans’ privacy in a sufficiently significant way as to justify the importance of getting this information on an urgent basis," he told The Hill. "And as a former prosecutor, I know how difficult it can be to get a search warrant, and especially in these cases where there often isn’t even probable cause, but my vote was taken on the expectation that the law would be implemented as written."
“And we now have an administration that has routinely, repeatedly, regularly—and seemingly and intentionally—violated numerous laws, undermined the Constitution, attacked our democracy, and simply cannot be trusted with the privacy information that is included in the materials gathered and potentially searched," Goldman continued.
"So unless I receive a lot more information about every single search for a US person that has been done by this administration since they came into office, I don’t see how I can possibly support the reauthorization," he added.
"Right now the US and Israel are realizing 'Greater Israel' by attacking-invading Lebanon and Iran," said one professor. "Hegseth is saying it's Greenland, Cuba, Canada, and Mexico next."
Alarm mounted Monday over the Trump administration's "Greater North America" plan, a geopolitical blueprint for US imperial hegemony from Greenland to Guyana that's drawing comparisons with a messianic project being pushed by President Donald Trump's far-right allies and war partners in Israel.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth first unveiled the plan earlier this month, telling reporters: "Trump has drawn a new strategic map, from Greenland to the Gulf of America to the Panama Canal and its surrounding countries. At the Department of War we call this strategic map the Greater North America."
"Why? Because every sovereign nation and territory north of the Equator, from Greenland to Ecuador and from Alaska to Guyana, is not part of the 'Global South,'" Hegseth added. "It is our immediate security perimeter in this great neighborhood that we all live in."
Graeme Garrard, a Canadian professor at Cardiff University in Wales, said Monday on social media in response to Hegseth's comments: "By 'Greater North America' he means 'Greater United States. The US is now and has long been a menace and threat to the sovereignty and independence of its hemispheric neighbors."
Numerous observers have compared Trump's "Greater America" with the "Greater Israel" movement, whose most zealous proponents want to conquer everything between the Nile and Euphrates rivers—that is, all of Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan; most of Syria and Kuwait; large parts of Egypt and Iraq; and some of Turkey—for Israel.
"Hesgeth's 'Greater North America' should be taken VERY seriously as a real threat," University of Lausanne professor Julia Steinberger, who is Swiss-American, said on social media. "Right now the US and Israel are realizing 'Greater Israel' by attacking-invading Lebanon and Iran. Hegseth is saying it's Greenland, Cuba, Canada, and Mexico next."
Based on the biblical boundaries of ancient Jewish kingdoms, Greater Israel is rooted in the supremacist supposition that the Abrahamic deity figure God promised the Jews all of the lands between the Nile and Euphrates.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—and other prominent right-wing Israelis support the Greater Israel vision and are working to make it a reality by accelerating the illegal settler colonization and ethnic cleansing of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, preparing to annex the dwindling Palestinian territories, and planning to occupy—perhaps permanently—parts of Syria and Lebanon.
For nearly two centuries, claims of divine favor have also underpinned US expansionism, most famously expressed in Manifest Destiny and mid-19th century plans to annex lands "from the Arctic to the Tropic." This notion drove the US conquest of half of Mexico, as well as later takeovers of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. The US also took control over the Panama Canal, which it built at the cost of thousands of laborers' lives, most of them from Barbados and other West Indies isles.
"It is part of the great law of progress that the weak should give way to the strong, and that the superior should displace the inferior races," one New Orleans newspaper opined in 1848.
Nearly 178 years later, Hegseth echoed this supremacist ideology, telling Latin American leaders that the region must remain "Christian nations under God" and stand united in the face of "radical narco-communism."
Like the 19th century US imperialists, Trump has also repeatedly expressed his goal of "taking Cuba"—an objective that goes back over 200 years, when Thomas Jefferson, then a former president, called the island “the most interesting addition which could ever be made to our system of states."