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.
Tina Posterli, Riverkeeper, 914-478-4501 x 239, tposterli@riverkeeper.org
Bridget Lee, Earthjustice, 212-791-1881 x 8232, blee@earthjustice.org
Kate Slusark, NRDC, 212-727-4592, kslusark@nrdc.org
WASHINGTON - Catskill Mountainkeeper, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Riverkeeper, Inc. announced today that, after extensive evaluation and technical expert review, they have concluded that the state must go back and revisit significant aspects of its revised draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (RDSGEIS) before fracking can move forward.
Tomorrow, the groups are submitting over 500 pages of joint comments on the RDSGEIS and draft high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) regulations.
The comments will include review from the groups' technical expert consultants - Louis Berger Group, Inc., Dr. Tom Myers (hydrology), Dr. Glenn Miller (toxicology), Dr. Susan Christopherson (economics), Meliora Environmental Design (water quality), Harvey Consulting (petroleum engineering, air quality), Dr. Ralph Seiler (toxicology), Kevin Heatley (terrestrial and restoration ecology), Dr. Kimberly Knowlton (climate), and Dr. Gina Solomon (health). These experts have identified numerous areas where the proposal is deficient. Some of the most significant deficiencies include:
Kate Hudson, Riverkeeper Watershed Program Director, stated, "Governor Cuomo has promised that he will not allow fracking to move forward until he has the facts and the science that shows that it will be safe and a net benefit to New Yorkers. The revised 2011 SGEIS fails to give him the information he needs to keep that promise. The science that would assure us that the drinking water supply for millions of New Yorkers is not at risk is not there. Neither are the facts that would tell us whether fracking will be an economic boon or a fiscal disaster for the state. The governor cannot keep his promise unless he directs DEC to fill the gaps and correct the significant deficiencies in this critical document. He owes New York taxpayers and communities no less."
"This is outrageous that the governor has rushed this process forward," said Wes Gillingham, Catskill Mountainkeeper Program Director. "He pushed it out this summer before DEC could finish it. Now the document appears like a deliberate attempt to rationalize going forward despite the science, dismissing the potential for groundwater contamination on faulty science and unsupported assumptions. Every step in the process for permitting fracking in New York State has been deeply flawed. And every step of the way, there are more and more unanswered questions, not the least of which are: What will the health impacts be? What will be done with the toxic waste? And how do we protect New York from the impoverishment associated with the rapid industrialization of rural communities?"
"DEC fails to accurately or comprehensively assess the impacts of gas development so they have reached unfounded conclusions about its safety, its costs and benefits, and the expectation of successfully avoiding irreparable harm to New York communities and resources. The only option at this point is for DEC not to proceed with gas drilling and go back and finish their essential homework," said Tracy Carluccio, Deputy Director, Delaware Riverkeeper Network.
"After a thorough review of the state plan by a panel of experts, we have concluded the plan must be redone. If fracking is allowed to proceed as planned, the health of New Yorkers could be in serious jeopardy," said Bridget Lee, an attorney with Earthjustice, a non-profit, environmental law firm. "The gas has been in the ground for millions of years. It can stay there a little longer until the state figures out how, and if, fracking can be done safely in New York."
"When you rush--you make mistakes, and that's what's happened here," said Kate Sinding, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "After careful review from a host of internal and external experts, it's clear that there are significant areas where the state's latest review falls short, and the governor is still not in a position to make any final decisions on fracking. The governor and his team need to go back, look at the problem areas again, and get it right next time. And they should take all the time they need; the risks - from poisoned water supplies to earthquakes - are too great for anything less."
"The people have spoken and they refuse to be complicit," said one campaigner. "Across continents, ordinary citizens demand an end to the fuel that powers settler colonialism, apartheid, and genocide."
Large percentages of people in five nations want arms, fuel, and machinery embargoes on Israel in response to its obliteration and starvation of Gaza, a poll published Thursday revealed.
The survey—which was conducted last month by Pollfish for the Global Energy Embargo for Palestine and endorsed by Progressive International—queried people in Brazil, Colombia, Greece, South Africa, and Spain about whether their governments, fuel companies, weapons makers, and heavy machinery manufacturers should stop, reduce, continue, or increase business with Israel.
Nearly two-thirds of Spanish respondents said they strongly support or support their government taking action "to reduce trade in weapons, fuel, and other relevant goods to pressure Israel to end its military actions in Gaza." In Greece, 63% back an embargo, while 35% oppose it. Sixty percent of Colombians, 58% of South Africans, and 48% of Brazilians strongly or somewhat support punitive sanctions on Israel.
Conversely, 27% of Brazilians said they do not support or strongly oppose an embargo on Israel, while 20% of South Africans, 14% of Colombians and Greeks, and 12% of Spaniards feel the same.
Support for ending or reducing weapons transfers was strong in all five nations, with 76% of Colombian respondents, 75% of Spaniards and Greeks, 66% of South Africans, and 59% of Brazilians favoring such action.
A majority of respondents in all five countries also said that companies providing arms, fuel, or heavy machinery to Israel "should be held responsible for how those products are used in Gaza."
📊 New poll: People across the world say companies selling weapons, fuel, or heavy machinery to Israel should be held accountable for how those products are used in Gaza.🇪🇸 76%🇬🇷 71%🇨🇴 70%🇧🇷 62%🇿🇦 60%#EnergyEmbargoNow #NoFuelForGenocide@progintl.bsky.social
[image or embed]
— Global Energy Embargo For Palestine (@palenergyembargo.bsky.social) August 7, 2025 at 2:33 AM
"The people have spoken and they refuse to be complicit," Global Energy Embargo for Palestine campaigner Ana Sánchez said in a statement.
"Across continents, ordinary citizens demand an end to the fuel that powers settler colonialism, apartheid, and genocide," Sánchez added. "No state that claims to uphold democracy can justify maintaining energy, military, or economic ties with Israel while it commits a genocide in Palestine. This is not just about trade; it's about people's power to cut the supply lines of oppression."
The poll was published 670 days into Israel's U.S.-backed assault and siege on Gaza, which has left at least 226,600 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and hundreds of thousands more starving amid increasingly deadly famine as Israel blocks aid from entering the embattled enclave.
The far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a fugitive from the International Criminal Court wanted for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—is moving ahead with plans for the "full conquest," reoccupation, and ethnic cleansing of the strip, which U.S. President Donald Trump wants to transform into "the Riviera of the Middle East."
Israel's conduct in the war is the subject of an International Court of Justice genocide case brought by South Africa and supported by around two dozen nations. Among the countries in the survey, Colombia—which severed diplomatic ties with Israel in May 2024—Spain, and Brazil have formally joined or signaled their intent to join South Africa's case.
The ICJ also found last year that Israel's occupation of Palestine is an illegal form of apartheid.
"What the Israeli government is doing to the Palestinian people is not war, it is genocide," Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said in February 2024 shortly after recalling his ambassador to Tel Aviv. "If this isn't genocide, I don't know what is."
On Thursday, European Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera—who is Spanish—told Politico, "If it is not genocide, it looks very much like the definition used to express its meaning."
"What we are seeing is a concrete population being targeted, killed, and condemned to starve to death," Ribera said. "A concrete population is confined, with no homes—being destroyed—no food, water, or medicines—being forbidden to access—and subject to bombing and shooting even when they are trying to get humanitarian aid. Any humanity is absent, and no witness[es] are allowed."
Of the surveyed nations, all but Greece support an arms embargo on Israel. The other four countries took part in last month's Hague Group emergency ministerial conference in Colombia, which was organized by Progressive International and ended with the publication of a joint action plan for "coordinated diplomatic, legal, and economic measures to restrain Israel's assault on the occupied Palestinian territories and defend international law at large."
"The message from the peoples of the world is loud and clear: They want action to end the assault on Gaza—not just words," Progressive International co-general coordinator David Adler said in a statement accompanying the new survey's publication.
"Across continents, majorities are calling for their governments to halt arms sales and restrain Israel's occupation," Adler added. "That's why states are coming together through the Hague Group to take concrete measures toward accountability. It's time for others to follow their lead."
Meanwhile, a survey published Tuesday by the Israel Democracy Institute revealed that 8 in 10 Israeli Jews "are not so troubled or not at all troubled personally" by "the reports of famine and suffering among the Palestinian population in Gaza."
Eight people, including a child, starved to death in Gaza that day, on which local officials said that more than 80 Palestinians were killed by Israel's bombs, bullets, and blockade.
"Project Blue represents a lot of things to a lot of people," said one member of the Tucson City Council. "It's a distrust in government. It's a distrust in corporations. It's a very large distrust in tech companies."
A Wednesday evening city council meeting in Tucson, Arizona ended with boisterous cheers from attendees after lawmakers voted unanimously to kill a massive Amazon-linked data center project amid concerns over its impact on the city's water supply.
As reported by The Tucson Sentinel, the Project Blue data centers being spearheaded by development firm Beale Infrastructure went down in defeat during a lengthy meeting in which representatives from the company tried to assuage locals' concerns about the project's impact on their community and environment.
Although the company behind the proposed data centers had initially been a mystery, the Sentinel reported that documents mistakenly released by Pima County revealed that Amazon Web Services was the project's "final customer."
Opposition to the project grew over the summer after city officials released estimates showing the two planned data centers under Project Blue would use 2,000 acre-feet of water per year, which would be more than the annual use of four golf courses. Even though city officials emphasized that the project would be "net water positive" because its developers would invest in projects that would "offset their consumptive use, gallon-for-gallon," this wasn't enough to satisfy many Tucson residents.
During the Wednesday meeting, Councilmember Nikki Lee said she decided to oppose the construction of the data centers after listening to the constituents in her ward who were vehemently opposed.
"Project Blue represents a lot of things to a lot of people right now, more than just the data center and the project itself," she explained, according to The Tuscon Sentinel. "It's a distrust in government. It's a distrust in corporations. It's a very large distrust in tech companies, a distrust in technology and privacy in general, and a fear of artificial intelligence and how fast things are moving and how little control we have."
Councilmember Lane Santa Cruz also expressed a general distrust with corporate America in justifying her opposition to the project.
"What I've learned is simple, giant corporations prefer to operate in the shadows," explained Santa Cruz. "Cities across the country are being sold the same story, promises of jobs, innovation, and progress, but what's not being talked about is who really benefits and what it will cost us."
Local resident Vivek Bharathan, who campaigned against the initiative, told Arizona Luminaria that he was grateful that pressure from community organizations such as No Desert Data Center had pushed the council to scrap the project.
"I had hope but zero expectations," he told the publication. "This is a huge win."
Local resident Maria Renée, who had helped with No Desert Data Center's campaign, told Arizona Luminaria that she felt as though "a weight has totally lifted" after the project's demise, although she vowed to continue her advocacy for "policy that puts guard rails on large water users" in the community.
Video taken of the event by KVOA journalist Eric Fink showed that people attending the Wednesday city council meeting erupted in cheers after the council voted to scrap the project.
BREAKING: Tucson City Council votes 7-0, unanimously to kill Project Blue in the City of Tucson. Listen to the crowd. pic.twitter.com/OqnrMVacCM
— Eric Fink (@EricFinkTV) August 6, 2025
Arizona Luminaria also reported that Project Blue isn't entirely dead despite the council's vote, as Beale Infrastructure could still build out data centers in locations that are close to Tucson.
"Beale and Pima County entered into a purchase and sale agreement for 290 acres of unincorporated land in June," the publication explained. "The project developer was interested in having that land annexed into Tucson to access city water supplies, but could consider other locations to build outside Tucson city limits."
"This administration wants to break the spirit of working people in this country, but we will not be broken," said National Nurses United.
Days after the Trump administration said in federal court that it would not move ahead with its plan to end collective bargaining agreements for more than 400,000 government employees until litigation on the issue concluded, the largest federal employees union on Wednesday pledged to fight back against the secretary of veterans affairs' decision to move forward with slashing labor protections.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins notified the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and several other unions that he was implementing an executive order signed by President Donald Trump, which required the termination of collective bargaining agreements for agencies whose missions are related to national security.
Labor protections, including those that ensure work disputes can be resolved by a neutral party and that union leaders can take part in contract negotiations, would be eliminated for more than 400,000 employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under the executive order.
Collins said in a letter to AFGE leaders that police officers, firefighters, and security guards would be exempt from the order ending collective bargaining rights, but that the VA "no longer recognizes AFGE as the exclusive representative of any other VA bargaining unit employee," including doctors, nurses, benefits specialists, lawyers, dentists, mental health specialists, and other employees.
A panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last Friday ruled that the administration could move forward with the executive order directing federal agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions including the AFGE, but the three judges on the panel said they came to that conclusion in part because the White House had said it wouldn't end the labor agreements until the court case was resolved.
Trump has claimed the order is essential to protect national security, suggesting union protections have gotten in the way of maintaining "a responsive and accountable civil service."
"Protecting America's national security is a core constitutional duty, and President Trump refuses to let union obstruction interfere with his efforts to protect Americans and our national interests," reads the executive order signed in March, which quickly became the subject of a lawsuit filed by unions including the AFGE, National Nurses United (NNU), and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).
The plaintiffs have argued that the order will impact agencies whose missions are not directly related to national security, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The AFGE also noted Wednesday that Collins' move is inconsistent with guidance from the Office of Personnel Management, which instructs agencies "not to terminate any [collective bargaining agreements] until the conclusion of litigation."
Everett Kelley, national president of the AFGE, said the "decision to rip up the negotiated union contract for majority of [the VA's] workforce is another clear example of retaliation against AFGE members for speaking out against the illegal, anti-worker, and anti-veteran policies of this administration."
VA employees, said Kelley, spoke out against Trump's plan to cut 83,000 jobs at the agency "and consistently educated the American people about how private, for-profit veteran healthcare is more expensive and results in worse outcomes for veterans."
Congressional Republicans have pushed for the privatization of veterans' healthcare, advocating for the Veterans' ACCESS Act, which has been framed as a bill that would "reduce wait times and empower veterans through online self-scheduling," as Rolling Stone reported recently, but would push veterans toward seeking care in the private sector. Collins has also pledged to bring more "choice" to veterans seeking healthcare.
"We don't apologize for protecting veteran healthcare and will continue to fight for our members and the veterans they care for," said Kelley.
National Nurses United (NNU), which represents about 16,000 nurses who work at 23 facilities operated by the VA and whose contracts were also terminated by Collins, said the effort "to erase our collective bargaining agreements is a blatant attempt to bust our unions and to silence the nurses and workers who are standing on the frontlines to protect our country's fundamental institutions."
"We know this administration is hellbent on silencing nurses and other VA workers to steamroll the destruction of the VA. This administration is marching toward the privatization of veteran care so they can move billions of taxpayer money out of the VA system, which is proven to provide excellent veteran-centric care, and into the coffers of private health care corporations run by billionaires," said NNU in a statement.
The union said it would continue to challenge Trump's executive order in court, calling it an "unconstitutional retaliation against the unions for engaging in activity protected by the First Amendment."
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said that "every American who cares about the fundamental freedoms of working people should be outraged by this attack on workers' ability to speak out and stand up at the VA."
"It's clear this is explicit retaliation against VA workers whose unions are standing up to the administration's illegal actions in court and in the streets," said Shuler. "The Trump administration may think they can rip up our contracts and silence anyone who pushes back against their unlawful and anti-worker actions, but we aren't going anywhere. The labor movement will continue to fight this all-out assault on workers with everything we have—and we're calling on Americans across this country to join us."