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.
Bill Snape, (202) 536-9351
As the worst environmental disaster in
U.S. history devastates the Gulf of Mexico, clarifying the urgent need
for bold,
effective climate legislation, a new Center for Biological Diversity
analysis of
the American Power Act demonstrates the bill's gross inadequacies.
The Center's analysis shows that the
domestic
greenhouse gas emissions allowed under the bill could lead to global
greenhouse
gas concentrations of 650 parts per million (ppm). At these
concentrations,
global mean temperatures would almost certainly rise 2degC (3.6degF) over
preindustrial levels. There is also an 80-percent chance that the
increase
would exceed 3degC (5.4degF), and a 40-percent chance that the
increase would
exceed 4degC (7.2degF), according to leading scientists. Even a 2degC
increase
could cause the displacement of millions due to sea-level rise,
irreversible
loss of entire ecosystems, and the triggering of multiple climactic
"tipping
points" that would result in additional, accelerated warming.
"The decisions we make today will
determine the
health and livability of the planet for generations to come," said Bill
Snape,
senior counsel at the Center. "Policymakers need to acknowledge the
great danger
from proposals like the American Power Act, which simply do not provide
the
pollution reductions that scientists warn are needed to tackle this
crisis. The
hard truth is that the bill would leave our children and grandchildren
to deal
with what can only be called climate catastrophe."
To limit future warming to 2degC, developed
countries
like the United States must make firm commitments to reduce their
emissions by
25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels within the next decade. Even assuming
successful implementation of the bill's programs -- an unlikely scenario
given
its many loopholes -- the Act would likely reduce emissions by less than 1
percent below 1990 levels by 2020.
The Act would also offer a smorgasbord of
subsidies,
regulatory streamlining provisions, and other incentives for expanded
offshore
oil exploration, nuclear power, and continued reliance on coal-fired
electricity
generation.
Making matters worse, the climate bill
also
devastates proven, effective programs under the federal Clean Air Act
that could
be used to achieve the immediate and long-lasting emissions reductions
that are
needed. It removes EPA's ability to set a national pollutant cap for
greenhouse
gases, permanently removes the agency's ability to set greenhouse
standards for
major polluters like oil refineries and cement plants, and prohibits the
regulation of important greenhouse gases like methane from sources such
as coal
mines until at least 2020.
"Passing a climate bill with inadequate
greenhouse
gas reduction goals is bad enough, but adding subsidies for offshore oil
drilling and other fossil fuels to the mix while gutting successful
existing
laws that can get the job done is downright crazy," said Snape.
The Center's longer analysis of the
American Power
Act is available here.
The Center's short summary of key
provisions of the
bill is available here.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252"Our schools are starved for resources with a $32.7 billion surplus, yet Gov. Abbott has no problem spending $1,841 per person for a political stunt," said one Texan.
Since April 2022, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has spent over $221 million in taxpayer money transporting nearly 120,000 migrants to six Democrat-led cities outside of the state, the Washington Examinerrevealed Thursday.
"That's roughly $1,841 per person," noted Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council who has previously criticized Abbott's "dehumanizing" bus scheme and other elements of the governor's Operation Lone Star.
"By comparison, a bus ticket to New York costs about $215, while a flight costs about $350," he highlighted. "It would have WAY cheaper to just give migrants money for tickets. Abbott's effort not only made it a political stunt, it lined a contractor's pocket."
As the conservative Examiner reported:
A public information request filed to the Texas Division of Emergency Management showed that the state made more than 750 payments totaling $221,705,637 to transportation companies since the start of operations in April 2022 and August 2024.
Nearly all of the costs were picked up by the state's 30 million residents, with a small portion, $460,196, donated from outside parties. Less than 1% of the $221 million was picked up by nontaxpayers.
The Examiner noted that the almost 120,000 migrants bused north are a "small number" of the more than 5.3 million people who crossed the southern border illegally but have been allowed to remain in the United States since January 2021, according to a U.S. House Judiciary Committee draft report the outlet exclusively obtained earlier this year.
While the busing reportedly stopped earlier this summer due to lack of demand, Abbott's office said last month that since 2022, his taxpayer-funded scheme had transported over 45,900 migrants to New York City, 36,900 to Chicago, 19,200 to Denver, 12,500 to Washington, D.C., 3,400 to Philadelphia, and 1,500 to Los Angeles.
"The overwhelming majority of migrants didn't want to stay in Texas. They wanted to go elsewhere. So if the question was the most efficient way to help them leave the state, the answer would be just buy them tickets and not pay millions to bus them to NYC," Reichlin-Melnick said Thursday. "They are able to live wherever they want while they go through the court process. It's just that many people used up every last cent to get here, so a free bus from Abbott was a very enticing option."
"I've been on record saying that most migrants were extremely happy with the free buses. Despite a lot of lies out there about migrants being bought tickets, the reality is that nearly all migrants have to purchase transportation away from the border, making free buses a godsend," he added. "The problem with the buses has always been that they weaponized migrants by going to only a small handful of politically charged locations (regardless of where migrants wanted to go), and that they were a big waste of money given the cheaper option of donating bus/plane tickets."
In addition to the busing stunt, Abbott has come under fire in recent years for installing razor wire and buoys—which critics called "death traps"—in the Rio Grande as well as signing a pair of anti-migrant bills that Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, described as "deeply harmful and unconstitutional."
According to a New York Times investigation published in July, over half of the migrants bused out Texas were initially from Venezuela—a South American nation enduring not only ongoing political turmoil but also U.S. economic sanctions that, as hundreds of legal experts and groups wrote last month, "extensively harm civilian populations" and "often drive mass migration."
"Opponents of democracy are terrified that they will lose again at the ballot box in November and are rushing to right-wing judges to hamstring democratic governance," said one observer.
A Republican-appointed U.S. federal judge in Georgia raised eyebrows and objections Thursday after taking what observers called the "unprecedented" step of blocking a rule that hasn't even been finalized in order to stop the Biden administration from implementing a plan to deliver promised debt relief to millions of student borrowers.
U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia James Randal Hall issued an order blocking the Biden administration's proposed federal student debt relief rule. Hall—an appointee of former President George W. Bush—granted a motion by a coalition of right-wing state attorneys general to preempt the rule's eventual implementation.
"The court is substituting its judgment for those elected to serve the public," American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in response to the ruling. "It subverts the democratic process and denies relief to student loan borrowers, many of whom rely on debt relief programs already advanced by the Biden-Harris administration."
"This court's unprecedented decision to block a rule that does not yet exist is not only bad for the 30 million borrowers who were relying on the administration to deliver much-needed relief," she continued. "It's a harbinger of the chaos and corruption right-wing judges seek to force on the American people."
Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center—which called the ruling "dangerous and unprecedented"—denounced Hall for preventing the Biden administration from delivering student debt relief "even though no plan has been finalized."
"This is an extraordinary break with precedent and a brazen move by the conservative movement to shift even more power to unelected, unaccountable red-state judges," he said. "Opponents of democracy are terrified that they will lose again at the ballot box in November and are rushing to right-wing judges to hamstring democratic governance."
"This is the clearest sign yet that Project 2025 is already terrorizing student loan borrowers through a slow-moving judicial coup," Pierce added, referring to a conservative coalition's agenda for a far-right takeover of the federal government—which critics warn would worsen the U.S. student debt crisis.
Biden's proposal would forgive some or all student debt for around 30 million borrowers who have been repaying undergraduate loans for at least 20 years, or graduate loans for 25 years.
Hall's order is based on what he said was the plaintiffs' "substantial likelihood of success on the merits given the rule's lack of statutory authority" and U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona's "attempt to implement a rule contrary to normal procedures."
"This is especially true in light of the recent rulings across the country striking down similar federal student loan forgiveness plans," he added.
The U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority last year struck down Biden's initial plan to relieve up to $20,000 in federal scholastic debt for around 40 million borrowers, and last month the justices kept in place a sweeping suspension of the administration's Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, which aims to lower monthly repayments and hasten loan forgiveness.
"We're here for you and your children," one campaigner told a police officer who was arresting her. "We're here for our world."
Closing out a "historic" summer of civil disobedience—but with no plans to back off their demands that Wall Street divest from planet-heating fossil fuels—the "Summer of Heat" campaign blockaded the entrance of Citibank's headquarters in New York for an hour on Thursday.
At the 32nd protest held by Stop the Money Pipeline, New York Communities for Change, and other groups since June 10, organizers said 50 people were arrested, including climate scientists and an advocate dressed as an orca—a reference to numerous cases of whales ramming and sinking luxury yachts in recent years.
"The water is too damn hot!" said the costumed protester. "Stop funding fossil fuels."
Summer of Heat has targeted Citibank due to its status as Wall Street's largest funder of methane gas extraction since 2016 and the second-worst funder of oil, coal, and gas projects in recent years, spending $396.3 billion from 2016-23.
For an hour, roughly 1,000 Citibank employees were barred from entering the building as protesters blocked the doors.
"I've been studying climate change since 1982 and no one is listening to the data," said biologist and anti-fracking advocate Sandra Steingraber—who has joined multiple Summer of Heat actions—as she was arrested. "So today they're going to have to listen to my body blocking the doors of the world's largest funder of new fossil fuel projects."
More than 5,000 people have joined Summer of Heat protests since June, and there have been more than 600 arrests. Citibank's response to the demonstrators has escalated to violence at times, with a security guard punching one protester in the building's lobby last month.
One woman told police arresting her on Thursday that her grandson suffers from asthma resulting from wildfire smoke, which climate scientists have linked to fossil fuel extraction and planetary heating.
"We're here for you and your children," she told an officer. "We're here for our world."
As the campaigners blocked the Citibank entrance, cellist John Mark Rozendaal and Stop the Money Pipeline director Alec Connon were preparing to attend a court hearing on Friday regarding assault and criminal contempt charges. Connon has said he was "falsely accused of assault by Citibank security so they could get a restraining order" keeping him from returning to protests at the headquarters.
Mary Lawlor, United Nations special rapporteur on human rights defenders, expressed "strong concern at the charges" and said she would be "closely following" the trial.