

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.

The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) yesterday released its "Annual Energy Outlook 2010," which provides an
overview of the nation's current energy use and projects future energy
trends. Experts at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) took a close
look at the EIA's take on renewable energy and fuel economy.
According to Steve Clemmer, research director for the Climate and
Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "A key
takeaway in the 'Energy Outlook' is that the renewable energy industry
is expanding steadily in all parts of the country. But these modest
gains are a tiny fraction of U.S. renewable energy and job creation
potential. On the eve of the release of the Kerry-Lieberman climate
bill, it's key to note that--if done right--comprehensive federal
legislation that puts a price on pollution, spurs renewable energy
development, and drives a cleaner transportation system could unleash
that potential.."
On the fuel-economy front, Clemmer's colleague in UCS's Clean
Vehicle Program, senior federal policy analyst Brendan Bell said,
"Fuel-economy standards are like an insurance policy against high gas
prices for consumers. The new automobile standards show that we can
save consumers billions of dollars at the pump--now we need to do the
same for big rig trucks."
Energy and transportation experts at the Union of Concerned
Scientists have reviewed the report and discuss some of the highlights
below.
ELECTRICITY SECTOR HIGHLIGHTS
Renewable energy growth eclipses bills in Congress: The EIA projects
that the percentage of U.S. electricity produced by non-hydro renewable
energy sources will increase from 4 percent in 2009 to 12.3 percent in
2030, compared to last's year projection of 11 percent in 2030. This
projected growth in renewable energy is due primarily to state
renewable electricity standards and federal tax credits included in
last year's stimulus bill that are set to expire as early as next year
for some renewable energy technologies. UCS estimates
that this "business as usual" renewable development will eclipse the
amount of clean energy developed in renewable electricity standards
currently proposed in Congress. Any serious national effort to increase
renewable energy capacity and create jobs means targets must be
strengthened considerably.
All parts of the nation will see renewable energy growth: The
"Energy Outlook" projects that renewable energy technologies (excluding
hydropower) will represent 41 percent of the new electric capacity
built between 2008 and 2035. EIA projects that new renewable energy
facilities will provide three times the capacity created by new coal
plants and nearly 11 times the capacity developed with new nuclear
plants. EIA projects that renewable energy will increase in all regions
of the country, including the Southeast. That region's renewable energy
capacity is expected to increase from 4,500 megawatts (MW) in 2009 to
17,300 MW by 2030. This growth is impressive compared with today's
levels, but it still falls well short of the region's true homegrown,
clean energy potential.
Recent studies show economic benefits from increasing renewable
electricity: A number of recent studies--including those by the
Department of Energy--show that a strong national renewable electricity
standard is feasible and affordable. A 2009 UCS analysis
found that the nation could meet a 25 percent by 2025 renewable
electricity standard, generate 300,000 new jobs, and save consumers
$64.3 billion on their electric and natural gas bills.
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR HIGHLIGHTS
Fuel-economy standards protect consumers from increasing fuel
prices: The "EIA Outlook" anticipates a 35-percent increase in gasoline
prices over the next decade, from $2.49 in 2010 to $3.34 in 2020 (in
2008 dollars). Using the EIA's fuel price projections, UCS estimates
drivers will save $46 billion in 2020--even after factoring in the cost
of vehicle technology improvements.
No fuel economy standards for big rigs means truckers will pay at
the pump: New federal fuel-economy standards do not apply to big rigs
and other heavy trucks, so the increases in fuel costs for these
vehicles will not be offset. A UCS analysis found that the average
medium- and heavy-duty truck could become at least 60 percent more fuel
efficient by 2030 by instituting a range of efficiency improvements,
including low-rolling resistance tires, advanced engines, and more
aerodynamic tractor and trailer designs. Using the EIA's fuel price
data, that level of fuel efficiency would save truckers $34 billion in
2030.
Clean biofuels will struggle to meet mandates: The "Energy Outlook"
starkly illustrates the failure of the cellulosic biofuels industry to
date. This year, the EIA projects cellulosic ethanol volumes will be 97
percent lower than the 100 million gallon mandate in the Renewable
Fuels Standard (RFS). Long-term commercialization of cellulosic
biofuels lags behind RFS targets by a decade.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
"The explosion of LNG exports in recent years has already generated massive profits for the fossil fuel industry, while consumers and local communities pay the price," said one climate campaigner.
As government leaders from around the world met in Brazil to discuss solutions to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, the GOP-controlled US House of Representatives on Thursday advanced a bill that would lift restrictions on liquefied natural gas.
Eleven Democrats joined all Republicans present in voting for GOP Texas Congressman August Pfluger's Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act, which would also grant the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission sole authority over applications for import and export facilities. It's now up to the Senate whether the bill will reach President Donald Trump.
As E&E News reported: "Pfluger and Republican leadership previously championed the bill in response to President Joe Biden's LNG pause, in which the Department of Energy paused new terminal approvals to evaluate whether they were in the public interest. It passed the House last year, but never received Senate consideration."
While Pfluger, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), and Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), the upper chamber sponsor, celebrated Thursday's vote, climate campaigners blasted the bill—just one part of a sweeping GOP effort to boost the planet-heating fossil fuel industry during Trump's second term.
"The explosion of LNG exports in recent years has already generated massive profits for the fossil fuel industry, while consumers and local communities pay the price," Sierra Club director of beyond fossil fuels policy Mahyar Sorour said in a statement after the vote. "The last thing we need is even less oversight over these costly, polluting export projects."
"House Republicans should be focused on making investments in a clean economy and reducing energy costs for our families, not further padding the pockets of Big Oil and Gas executives," Sorour added. "The Senate should reject this dirty bill."
Energy prices are going up everywhere and Republicans just made it worse ⬇️
[image or embed]
— Energy and Commerce Democrats (@energycommerce.bsky.social) November 20, 2025 at 6:03 PM
Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, highlighted that "President Trump explicitly promised during the campaign that he would lower Americans' utility bills by half within 12 months. Not only has Trump obviously failed on that promise, but this legislation would exacerbate the energy affordability crisis."
Slocum pointed to his group's estimates that "natural gas prices for American households have increased by $10.3 billion from January through August 2025 compared to the same time period a year earlier—a 20% increase."
"Eight LNG export terminals now consume more natural gas than all American households combined," he continued. "The US Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration's November 2025 Short Term Energy Outlook concludes that Americans face sharply higher natural gas prices 'primarily due to increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.'"
"This radical and reckless deregulatory proposal eliminates the requirement that gas exports comply with the public interest, allowing fossil fuel companies to enjoy unregulated exports at the expense of affordable energy here at home," Slocum stressed. "The move by Congress to allow bypassing these safeguards could have catastrophic impacts on the consumers in the US, sending energy prices soaring, while allowing climate change to get far worse."
"Despite Trump promising he would cut Americans' energy bills, Congress is set to put consumers at risk of paying more, raising major questions about Trump's close allegiance with dirty energy executives who want to ship more fuel overseas," he added. "Creating more capacity to export US fossil fuels abroad will only accelerate the climate crisis and hurt US consumers."
Americans are already being crushed by the skyrocketing cost of living, and now the House GOP is passing legislation that will drive up monthly power bills even further by sending UNLIMITED amounts of our natural gas abroad.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Frank Pallone (@pallone.house.gov) November 20, 2025 at 4:26 PM
The vote happened on the same day that Doug Burgum, the billionaire fossil fuel industry ally whom Trump appointed to lead the US Department of the Interior, ordered the termination of the Biden administration's 2024-29 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program and the development of a "new, more expansive" plan "as soon as possible."
Responding to the order in a statement, Sierra Club executive director Loren Blackford said that "Donald Trump and Doug Burgum are once again trying to sell out our coastal communities and our public waters in favor of corporate polluters' bottom line."
Prices for staples like turkey, cranberry sauce, and mac and cheese have gone through the roof as Trump's tariffs contribute to a spike in grocery prices.
As President Donald Trump attempts to claim the mantle of “affordability" and boasts that grocery prices are “way down,” a new report tracking the price of several Thanksgiving staples showed they have increased by 10% over the last year, more than three times the rate of inflation.
On social media, the president recently trumpeted that “2025 Thanksgiving dinner under Trump is 25% lower than 2024 Thanksgiving dinner under [President Joe] Biden, according to Walmart.” Claiming that grocery prices are down this year, he added: “AFFORDABILITY is a Republican Stronghold. Hopefully, Republicans will use this irrefutable fact!”
Trump was technically correct that Walmart had reduced the cost of its Thanksgiving dinner by about 25%. What he neglected to mention, however, was that it had also considerably reduced the meal's size, down from 29 individual items to 22.
The most recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) data published in September by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, meanwhile, shows that at-home grocery prices have actually risen by 2.7%. That, not the spin coming from the White House, is what voters appear to be absorbing as Thanksgiving approaches.
In a poll conducted last week by Data for Progress, 53% said they felt it would be harder to afford a typical Thanksgiving meal than last year, while just 13% said it would be easier. Meanwhile, over a third said they were compensating for rising costs by buying fewer items.
That survey was done in collaboration with the Groundwork Collaborative, the Century Foundation, and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which published a report on Friday showing the skyrocketing cost of several holiday staples over the past year, in large part due to Trump’s aggressive tariff regime.

While the cost of a 15-lb. frozen turkey has remained roughly steady, the report notes that this is a bit of a mirage.
"Typically, retailers use frozen turkeys as a loss leader, discounting them to get customers in the door to purchase the rest of their Thanksgiving meal, so it’s no surprise that frozen turkey prices are steady," it explains. “However, wholesale prices for frozen turkeys have soared 75% over the past year, according to research from Purdue University, and fresh turkey prices are up 36% and likely to continue rising.”
The report attributes these sharp increases to a perfect storm of Trump policies. Tariffs have driven up the cost of feed and avian flu," which has worsened as a result of mass firings at the US Department of Agriculture, "has further thinned an already shrinking flock, now at its lowest level in four decades, squeezing American farmers and consumers alike."
Those who prefer pork or beef to turkey will not be so lucky: The price of an 8-lb. smoked bone-in spiral ham has jumped from $7.69 last year up to $11.48, a nearly 50% increase, while beef roasts are up 20%.
But many agree that the sides are what truly make a Thanksgiving meal great, and that’s where Americans’ pocketbooks will take the most significant hits.
The cost of sweet onions, an essential ingredient in stuffing, has spiked by 56% since last year. Ocean Spray jellied cranberry sauce and Seneca Foods' creamed corn have each jumped by over 20%. And elbow macaroni from De Cecco and the Sargento cheese to put on top have each increased by double digits.
Pie fillings like pecans, apples, and the refrigerated crusts they're served in have also all lept several times the rate of inflation. And even storing leftovers will be more costly, with heavy-duty aluminum foil from Reynolds up 40%.
The report chalks this up to Trump's 50% tariffs on imported steel, which affect around 4 in 5 canned goods. Canned fruits and vegetables have increased by 5% over the past year, faster than the overall rate of inflation. These price hikes, meanwhile, have given companies cover to raise the prices of goods made with domestic steel, too.
Making Thanksgiving dinner with fresh fruit and vegetables may skirt some of the hikes, but tariffs on fertilizer and herbicides have also driven prices up by about 2.5%.
Tariffs on aluminum, meanwhile, have caused Reynolds' CEO to increase the prices not just of foil, but also of other products to help absorb the cost.
The report by Groundwork, the Century Foundation, and AFT is not the only one to examine the cost of Thanksgiving foods, which are often used as a shorthand for the state of inflation.
While estimates vary based on methodology—for instance, the American Farm Bureau notes that the loss leader pricing of turkey is enough to reduce the price of a Thanksgiving meal on the whole from last year—reports across the board have found that the prices for most Thanksgiving staples are rising in tandem with food prices more broadly.
“This Thanksgiving, the main course is inflation as Trump’s policies force families to carve up their shrinking budgets," said Lindsay Owens, Groundwork's executive director.
Rising food prices are just the tip of the iceberg for a mounting affordability crisis: Data shows similar hikes to housing and energy costs. Meanwhile, the cost of health insurance premiums is expected to more than double next year for over 20 million Americans and increase across the board after Republicans voted not to renew a tax credit for the Affordable Care Act.
“This administration’s policies made the cost of living higher than the year before,” said AFT president Randi Weingarten. “We must do everything we can to make it easier, not harder, for working Americans to afford groceries, housing, and healthcare.”
"We condemn in the strongest terms the military escalation against Venezuela," said progressive leaders from countries including the United Kingdom, Spain, and Greece.
With thousands of US troops patrolling the Caribbean, at least eight warships deployed in the region, and the BBC reporting that it tracked four US military planes that flew near Venezuela Thursday night, lawmakers and other leaders from across Europe on Friday issued a unified demand for the Trump administration to deescalate the tensions it has ratcheted up in recent weeks.
The administration's "show of force has already proved lethal," said the leaders, with more than 80 people—including fishermen and an out-of-work bus driver—having been killed in the US military's strikes on more than 20 boats, which the administration has insisted were trafficking drugs to the US. The White House has publicized no evidence of the claims.
President Donald Trump has not taken further military action against Venezuela since he was presented with "options" for potential strikes last week by officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, nor has he followed through with threats he's made against Mexico and Colombia.
But the European leaders—including British Members of Parliament Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn, former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, and Spanish Member of European Parliament Irene Montero Gil—noted that Trump "severed diplomatic channels with Caracas and approved covert [Central Intelligence Agency] operations in Venezuela" as the military buildup continues in the region.
The Trump administration has insisted it is engaged in a legal "armed conflict" with drug cartels in Venezuela, which it has accused of trafficking fentanyl to the US—though experts say drug boats originating in Venezuela are "are mainly moving cocaine from South America to Europe," and analysis by both the United Nations and US intelligence agencies have shown the South American country plays virtually no role in the production or transit of fentanyl.
The US Congress has not authorized any military action against drug cartels or Venezuela's government, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have attempted to pass war powers resolutions blocking the US from striking more boats or targets on land in Venezuela, only to have the resolutions voted down.
In his second term, Trump has sought to tie Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to drug cartels—despite a declassified US intelligence memo showing officials rejected the claim—and designated Cartel de los Soles a foreign terrorist organization last week, giving the White House what Hegseth called "new options" to go after the group.
But the escalation that Trump claims is the latest battle in the "War on Drugs" comes two years after he explicitly announced his desire to take control of Venezuela's oil, and following years of condemnation of Maduro's socialist government from Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The European leaders said the administration's narrative about the threat Venezuela poses to the US and the escalation is simply the "latest attempt to threaten and undermine the sovereignty of Latin America and the Caribbean nations."
"Declassified documents have confirmed the CIA’s hand in overthrowing democratically elected governments in Latin America, such as Salvador Allende’s Chile in 1973, João Goulart’s Brazil in 1964, and Jacobo Árbenz’s Guatemala in 1954. The human cost of these regime change operations was catastrophic, and their political legacy endures," reads the letter, which was organized by Progressive International.
A military intervention by the US in Venezuela "would mark the first interstate war by the United States in South America," the leaders said, yet "the pretext for intervention is as tired as it is familiar."
"Under the banner of combating the 'narco-terrorists,' Trump celebrates lethal strikes against peaceful fishermen arbitrarily labeled as carrying drugs," the leaders said.
As in the past, they added, moving the War on Drugs to Venezuela would deliver "not security but a torrent of bloodshed, dispossession, and destabilization."
"Therefore, we condemn in the strongest terms the military escalation against Venezuela," they said. "Our demand is clear and our resolve is firm: No war on Venezuela."
As Peoples Dispatch reported Thursday, many European leaders have "subordinated" themselves to Trump and have avoided speaking out against the US escalation with Venezuela, but left-wing political parties have led the way in denouncing the US deployment of soldiers and warships to the region.
The Workers' Party of Belgium said recently that the world is "witnessing an unprecedented military escalation in 20 years, a multifaceted aggression that threatens not only Venezuela, but any project of sovereignty and social justice in Latin America."