

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.
Caroline Cannon, Native
Village of Point Hope, (907) 952-8456 or (907) 830- 2727
Faith Gemmill, REDOIL, (907) 750-0188
Emilie Surrusco, Alaska Wilderness League, (202) 544-5205
Eric F. Myers, Audubon Alaska, (907) 276-7034
Rebecca Noblin, Center for Biological Diversity, (907) 274-1110
Jared Saylor, Earthjustice, (202) 667-4500 x 213
Pam Miller, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, (907) 452-5021 x 24
Carole Holley, Pacific Environment, (907) 306-1180
Dan Ritzman, The Sierra Club, (206) 499-5764
Michael LeVine, Oceana, (907) 723-0136
Alaska Natives and Alaska conservation groups yesterday appealed the
Environmental Protection Agency's decision to issue Clean Air Act
permits to Shell Oil for the company's plans to drill exploration wells
in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, off the north coast of Alaska,
beginning in July. The permits allow Shell's drill ship and support
vessels to emit tons of air pollutants into the Arctic environment,
potentially harming the Inupiat people and wildlife of the Arctic and
contributing to climate change, which is rapidly melting the region.
Alaska Natives and Alaska conservation groups yesterday appealed the
Environmental Protection Agency's decision to issue Clean Air Act
permits to Shell Oil for the company's plans to drill exploration wells
in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, off the north coast of Alaska,
beginning in July. The permits allow Shell's drill ship and support
vessels to emit tons of air pollutants into the Arctic environment,
potentially harming the Inupiat people and wildlife of the Arctic and
contributing to climate change, which is rapidly melting the region.
Particularly in light of the tragic events unfolding in
the Gulf of Mexico, the groups are calling on EPA to ensure that Shell
takes every available precaution.
Shell's permits are multiyear Prevention of Significant
Deterioration permits and are the first EPA has issued for this type of
operation in the Arctic. In addition to its drillship, Shell's
operations will require an associated fleet of support vessels
including two icebreakers, an oil spill response fleet, and a supply
ship.
More than 90 percent of the air pollution from Shell's
drilling operations would come from Shell's icebreakers and other
associated vessels. However, the permits challenged yesterday would
only apply control technology limits to Shell's drillship, a relatively
minor source of pollution from Shell's operations, and not to these
associated vessels and icebreakers.
The groups seek, through the Environmental Appeals
Board, to have the EPA comply with the Clean Air Act and protect the
health of the people and ecosystems of the Arctic by requiring Shell to
use the best available control technology on all ships.
EPA's permit allows Shell to spew thousands of tons of
pollutants into relatively pristine Arctic air. Among other things, the
permits allow Shell to discharge large particulate matter in
quantities that may be dangerous to human health. Shell's activities
also will blast out potentially large quantities of black carbon, a
powerful driver of climate change and sea-ice melt. The emission of
black carbon into the environment would help speed climate change, warm
the Arctic, and threaten Alaska Native cultures and subsistence
activities.
The Arctic is under great stress from climate change.
The Arctic ecosystem depends on sea ice to thrive. As climate change
affects the region - the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of
the world - this sea ice melts at a rapid pace. Scientists now predict
that summer sea ice could be gone within a few decades, threatening
the very existence of species such as polar bears, seals, and walrus,
that make the ice their home. Unchecked emissions of greenhouse gases,
including black carbon, in the Arctic will only compound the problems.
The following statement was issued today by Caroline
Cannon, president of the Native Village of Point Hope: "Shell's
drilling threatens to pollute the air we breathe, and EPA needs to
regulate the emissions more strongly. The drilling also risks
destroying our garden, the Arctic Ocean, which we rely upon for our way
of life. Our hearts go out to the residents of the Gulf of Mexico - the
spill there threatens to devastate their lives. A spill here, where it
could be even harder to clean up, would devastate not only our lives
but our culture. It's just too risky to let Shell drill."
Faith Gemmill, executive director of REDOIL, said:
"REDOIL, Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands,
supports the Inupiat in their ability to continue to live a subsistence
way of life which is reliant on a healthy ecosystem. The burning of
fossil fuels is the major human cause of emissions that are resulting
in climate change. The current impacts of climate change on Alaska's
indigenous peoples are perpetuated by the incessant demand for energy
to feed the high consumption appetite of America. Current energy policy
disproportionately targets indigenous homelands and marine ecosystems
and continually puts our subsistence way of life at risk. The Inupiat
culture is imperiled by offshore development. This threat is compounded
by climate change and vice versa. Any permit to streamline development
in this fragile Arctic region should not go unchallenged, due to
serious unacceptable risks associated with such projects."
"The EPA must tell Shell to go back to the drawing board
and come up with a way to use the best available technology to ensure
that the health of the people of the Arctic slope and the wildlife they
depend on is not further damaged by dangerous pollutants," said David
Dickson, Western Arctic and Oceans program director for Alaska
Wilderness League. "What's more, the Gulf spill has shown us that oil
drilling is a dirty and dangerous business. Before any drilling plans
can go forward, we must be sure that sufficient safeguards are in place
to protect this pristine marine environment not only from pollution
but also potential disaster."
According to Eric F. Myers, policy director of Audubon
Alaska: "The ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico shows the need for
strict regulation of the oil and gas industry. Whether it involves air
emissions from drilling-related vessels or the ability to prevent and
respond to oil spills, strong and effective regulation is needed to
prevent the pollution of America's Arctic. The Gulf blowout clearly
demonstrates the need for a 'time-out' before Shell's exploratory
drilling is allowed to proceed in the Arctic Ocean."
Rebecca Noblin, Center for Biological Diversity Alaska
program director, said: "This appeal asks the EPA to use its
authorities to do what Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has so far
refused to do - say no to Shell's unwise and unlawful drilling plan."
"This petition asks EPA not to give a pass to the
majority of the air pollution from Shell's drilling -- pollution that
will accelerate climate change in the region, potentially endanger
human health, and dirty the clean air of the Chukchi and Beaufort
seas," said Earthjustice attorney David Hobstetter. "Further, oil
drilling in the Arctic Ocean comes with too many inherent dangers. An
oil spill from exploratory drilling would have catastrophic impacts on
wildlife and the communities that rely on them."
"Shell's drilling brings with it the risk of large oil
spills. Chronic spills are a fact of life from oil and gas operations
on Alaska's North Slope, where over 6,000 spills have occurred since
1996, and more than 400 of these took place at offshore oil fields. In
the icy conditions of the Arctic Ocean, there is no way to effectively
clean up spilled oil," said Pamela A. Miller, Alaska program
director for Northern Alaska Environmental Center.
Pacific Environment's Alaska Program Co-Director Carole
Holley supported Caroline Cannon's plea: "The Arctic is rich in marine
mammals, fish, and birds, which have sustained Alaska Native cultures
that have inhabited the area for thousands of years. Allowing Shell's
drill rig and accompanying support vessels to belch air pollutants into
the relatively pristine Arctic air, threatens the health of the
ecological and cultural heritage of the Arctic."
"Rather than drilling in the Arctic Ocean and
surrounding coasts to solve America's energy problems, we must embrace
responsible measures and real 21st-century sustainable energy solutions
that make cars go farther, promote conservation, invest in clean,
renewable energy, and protect our natural heritage, said Dan Ritzman,
Alaska Program director for the Sierra Club. "Clearly they are having
trouble containing and cleaning the oil in the 'tropical' Gulf of Mexico
- imagine if you throw in blizzards and floating ice chunks. I've
observed oil industry spill response drills in the Arctic Ocean and
there are many times during the year when the conditions prohibit any
outside human activity. This remote region is the least understood area
of the world, and a disastrous oil spill could leave oil in the waters
off Alaska for decades, killing whales, seals, fish, and birds, and
destroying feeding grounds. "
"We all want clean air and clean water," said Michael
LeVine, Pacific senior counsel for Oceana. "Shell plans a major
industrial undertaking in one of the world's most important places, and
we must take a step back to find to find out how to do it right."
Today's appeal was filed in Environmental Appeals Board
by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Native Village of Point Hope,
Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands (REDOIL),
Alaska Wilderness League, Audubon Alaska, Center for Biological
Diversity, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Oceana, Ocean
Conservancy, Pacific Environment, and the Sierra Club. The
organizations are being represented by Earthjustice, a nonprofit
environmental law firm.
Even Trump's mail-in ballot was not enough to keep Democrat Emily Gregory from winning the seat over Republican Jon Maples in a district swing of more than 13 points.
A Democrat in Florida running to win a state house seat in the Palm Beach district that includes US President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate was declared the winner in a special election on Tuesday night, defeating the Trump-endorsed Republican in yet another powerful rebuke to the running of the country by the president and his party.
Emily Gregory flipped Florida's House District 87, defeating Republican Jon Maples, who Trump loudly endorsed and cast his vote for personally via mail-in ballot—something he wants to bar other voters nationwide from being able to do. Trump said on Monday that Maples, a financial planner who previously held office at the municipal level, was the choice of "so many of my Palm Beach County friends.”
But with almost all votes counted late Tuesday night, the Associated Press reported Gregory led by 2.4 percentage points, or 797 votes. In 2024, the district went to Republicans by 11 points.
"Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”
Political strategist Sawyer Hackett named the obvious implication by saying, at least through November of 2026, "Trump will be represented by a Democrat in the Florida legislature."
“I think it demonstrates where the Florida voter is,” Gregory, who runs a fitness center for postpartum mothers, told Politico in an interview following her victory. “They want someone who is focused on solutions and the issues and not focused on the noise.”
“If Mar-a-Lago is vulnerable, imagine what’s possible this November,” said Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, in response to the victory. Williams noted that Gregory's win was the 29th seat that Democrats have flipped from GOP control since Trump returned to office last year.
“Gas prices are spiking, grocery costs are up, and families can’t get by," she said. "It’s clear voters at the polls are fed up with Republicans. A Trump +11 district in his own backyard shouldn’t be in play for Democrats, but tonight proves Republicans are vulnerable everywhere.”
"These massive facilities are sucking up precious water resources, paving over farmland, driving climate change, and disrupting the fabric of communities," said one supporter of the new legislation.
Two of the leading progressives in the US Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, announced legislation on Wednesday that would impose a nationwide moratorium on the construction of new artificial intelligence data centers amid mounting concerns over their insatiable consumption of power and water resources, impacts on the climate, and other harms.
Sanders' (I-Vt.) office said in a press release announcing the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act that the construction pause would remain in effect "until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment."
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are set to formally introduce their legislation at a press conference on Wednesday at 4 pm ET.
Food & Water Watch (FWW), which last year became the first national organization in the US to call for a total moratorium on the approval of new AI data centers, celebrated the first-of-its-kind bill and called on other members of Congress to "move quickly to sponsor, champion, and pass" it. FWW's groundbreaking call for a national AI data center moratorium was later echoed by hundreds of advocacy organizations at the state and national levels.
“We need a halt to the explosive growth of new AI data center construction now, because political and community leaders across the country have been caught completely off guard by this aggressive, profit-hungry industry," Mitch Jones, FWW's managing director of policy and litigation, said in a statement Wednesday. "It has yet to be determined if—not how—the industry can ever operate in a manner that sufficiently protects people and society from the profusion of inherent hazards and harms that data centers bring wherever they appear."
“Long before the recent spike in global oil prices, Americans throughout the country were dealing with skyrocketing electricity rates due to the egregious consumption and jolting grid impacts levied by Big Tech’s AI data centers," Jones added. "Meanwhile, these massive facilities are sucking up precious water resources, paving over farmland, driving climate change, and disrupting the fabric of communities. We mustn’t allow another unchecked Silicon Valley scheme to profit off our backs while sticking us with the bill."
In a detailed report released last week, titled The Urgent Case Against Data Centers, FWW pointed to some of the "documented harms caused by AI and data centers," including:
Those harms have fueled massive grassroots opposition to AI data centers, with communities organizing to prevent construction in their backyards. One report estimates that between May 2024 and March 2025, local opposition helped tank or delay $64 billion worth of data center projects across the US.
That opposition has pushed local lawmakers to act. According to a tracker maintained by Good Jobs First, "at least 63 local data-center moratorium actions have been introduced, considered, or adopted across dozens of towns and counties," and "some 54 have already passed."
At the state level, Good Jobs First counted "at least 12 in-session states with filed data center moratorium bills this cycle," and noted that some governors have taken or floated executive action to slow or pause AI data center build-outs.
But the Trump administration is trying to move in the opposite direction.
In a national policy framework document unveiled last week, the White House urged Congress to "streamline federal permitting for AI infrastructure construction and operation" and called for a prohibition on state regulation of AI.
Jim Walsh, FWW's policy director, slammed the White House framework as "more of the same nonsense we’ve been hearing for months" and warned that "more data centers mean more climate-killing fracked gas power plants poisoning our air and water, and more stress placed on local communities’ precious water resources."
"The only prudent course of action when it comes to AI," said Walsh, "is to halt the explosive growth of new data center construction now, so that states and communities have the time needed to properly consider their own futures."
"How much death and destruction is enough before they’ll do the right thing and act to end this war?”
The Republican-controlled US Senate voted late Tuesday to block a resolution aimed at ending President Donald Trump's disastrous, illegal, and deeply unpopular war on Iran as the Pentagon approved a deployment of Army paratroopers to the Middle East, the latest escalation in a conflict the White House claims has already been won.
The latest war powers resolution, led by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), failed to advance by a vote of 47-53, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) joining every Republican except Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) in opposing the measure. If enacted, the bill would have forced the withdrawal of US forces from hostilities against Iran.
Murphy said in a statement following the vote that the consequences of the US-Israeli war on Iran, now in its fourth week, "are stunning in their scope: higher prices for American businesses and American families, a potential global recession, the wasting of billions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and new conflicts in the region that didn't exist before the war began."
"If our Republican colleagues will not do their duty, if they are going to engage in an effort to hide the consequences of the war, if they are going to refuse to ask questions of our incompetent national security leaders at the White House, who have waged this war without planning for the foreseeable consequences, then we will force a debate and a vote on this floor," said Murphy. "This war is not going to make more sense the longer it goes.”
The vote came hours after Trump, speaking from the Oval Office, declared that "this war has been won" even as his administration ordered around 2,000 soldiers from the US Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to begin deploying to the Middle East, heightening concerns that the president intends to launch a ground invasion of Iran.
“We’re keeping our hand on that throttle as long and as hard as is necessary to ensure the interests of the United States of America are achieved on that battlefield," Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth said Tuesday, amid reports that the administration is considering plans to "occupy or blockade" Iran's Kharg Island—which processes the vast majority of Iran's oil exports.
The New York Times reported that the new troop contingent "includes Maj. Gen. Brandon R. Tegtmeier, the division commander, and dozens of his staff members, as well as two battalions, each with about 800 soldiers."
"More of the brigade’s soldiers could be sent in the coming days," the Times noted, citing unnamed officials. "Taken together with some 4,500 Marines already en route to the region, the deployment of the elite Army forces brings the total number of additional ground troops dispatched to the war zone since the conflict started to nearly 7,000."
Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council, said late Tuesday that "with a possible ground invasion of Iran being planned that would trigger mass casualties and deepen a global economic and strategic crisis, only 47 senators upheld their duty to the Constitution and the American people who overwhelmingly oppose this war."
"The blowback of this war is only beginning and will continue to mount—for US interests, the global economy, and the people of Iran," Costello warned. "Those 53 senators who voted to allow the war to continue should make clear: Do they support this war escalating? Do they want Donald Trump to commit troops to a war that they don’t even have the courage to authorize? And how much death and destruction is enough before they’ll do the right thing and act to end this war?"