SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 22 2014, 04:00pm EDT
Contact:
Judy Berk: jberk@nrcm.org, Natural Resources Council of Maine, 207-462-2192
Maine Conservation Groups Gather with South Portland Residents to Celebrate and React to Tar Sands Vote
In an historic vote, the South Portland City Council last night voted 6-1 to pass the Clear Skies Ordinance to protect the city from a tar sands crude oil terminal. The city developed the ordinance after Protect South Portland's neighbor-to-neighbor campaign educated and mobilized the community against tar sands over the last year and a half. Conservation groups and South Portland residents gathered to reflect, stating that the victory shows that citizens can overcome out-of-state oil interests.
PORTLAND, ME
In an historic vote, the South Portland City Council last night voted 6-1 to pass the Clear Skies Ordinance to protect the city from a tar sands crude oil terminal. The city developed the ordinance after Protect South Portland's neighbor-to-neighbor campaign educated and mobilized the community against tar sands over the last year and a half. Conservation groups and South Portland residents gathered to reflect, stating that the victory shows that citizens can overcome out-of-state oil interests. It provides a telling example of how local communities threatened with local impacts of tar sands are saying "No."
"We may be a small city, but, boy, we've done a big thing tonight! The Clear Skies Ordinance protects our air, our coast, and our community," said Mary-Jane Ferrier, spokesperson for Protect South Portland. "We are absolutely thrilled, relieved, and exhausted. Of course, we know it may not be over yet, and we're committed to defend this victory from oil industry attacks."
The Clear Skies Ordinance prohibits the bulk loading of tar sands onto tankers on the waterfront and forbids the construction of infrastructure for that purpose. Bulk loading of tar sands would increase air pollution, including volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants, on the waterfront and surrounding the tanks next to schools and throughout the community. Two 70-foot tall combustion smokestacks on the pier next to Bug Light, such as those previously permitted by the city and state for bulk loading of tar sands, would harm scenic views and property values.
"Last night's victory shows that no one is above the democratic process, and when out-of-state oil interests try to throw their weight around to pollute a Maine town, we know how to say 'no.'" said Dylan Voorhees, Clean Energy Director of the Natural Resources Council of Maine. "More broadly, communities everywhere are waking up to the fact that tar sands are a dirty, toxic energy source."
"Last night citizens working to protect their community prevailed over Big Oil. It is a true David versus Goliath victory," said Environment Maine's Taryn Hallweaver. "The oil industry is not invincible, and the exploitation of tar sands is not inevitable. From Nebraska to Maine, citizens are standing up, and powerfully so, to protect their communities--and we are winning. We're hopeful that South Portland's action will empower other communities threatened by new tar sands infrastructure to protect themselves."
South Portland has been at the center of a battle over tar sands for more than a year, in reaction to the possibility of tar sands coming to the port city from Canada, as has been discussed by the oil industry. South Portland is the only U.S. city on the east coast with a deep-water port and that is connected to a crude oil pipeline. The American Petroleum Institute and its allies spent $750,000 last fall (https://environmentmainecenter.org/sites/environment/files/reports/EnvME_big_oil_scrn.pdf) to narrowly defeat a citizen's initiative the block the tar sands terminal by attacking it as overly broad.
"To be clear, Toxics Action Center would be fighting this dangerous proposal in any town, but I am from South Portland, so this victory has a special meaning for me," said Andy Jones, a South Portland resident and organizer for the Toxics Action Center. "It means that my friends, neighbors and family members will be protected from toxic air pollution."
All communities, wherever they are, have a right to protect their citizens and their way of life," said Sarah Lachance with 350 Maine. "Having just returned from Fort McMurray, Alberta and witnessed first-hand the level of destruction caused by tar sands extraction, it is painfully clear how tar sands already is impacting communities. But sustained efforts, like the one here in South Portland, serves as a strong reminder that communities can come together to protect themselves."
"What's really amazing about this whole process is how much it has brought the community together," said Crystal Goodrich, a volunteer with Protect South Portland. "So many people have come together to fight for the future of our city. Hundreds of people have volunteered countless hours, talking to neighbors, collecting petitions, making phone calls, and attending meeting after meeting. We also had the assistance of Maine environmental groups, and their expertise was invaluable. We couldn't have done this without them."
The South Portland Planning Board found in a 6-1 vote last week that the Clear Skies Ordinance is consistent with South Portland's comprehensive plan, which is rooted in a decades-long planning process.
"Yesterday South Portland's City Council exercised the right that communities across Maine have to protect the health and quality of life for its citizens," said Ivy Fignoca, a staff attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation. "The Clear Skies Ordinance is narrowly tailored to address the bulk loading of crude oil only and is consistent with South Portland's comprehensive plan and state and federal law. We would hope that the American Petroleum Institute and its members would respect that but should they decide to bring lawsuits against the Clear Skies Ordinance and force the City to incur the associated costs in time and money, the Conservation Law Foundation will join the City in defending the ordinance."
The ordinance was developed by a Draft Ordinance Committee, comprised of three volunteer experts on land use, law, science, and environmental management, as well as a moderator, who met 20 times over several months in a highly transparent process to gather information, hear from the public and stakeholders, and develop a policy that addressed concerns about tar sands without adversely affecting South Portland's existing refined oil operations.
The Natural Resources Council of Maine is the leading nonprofit membership organization working statewide for clean air and water; healthy people, wildlife and forests; and clean energy solutions. NRCM harnesses the power of science, the law, and the voices of more than 12,000 supporters to protect the nature of Maine. Visit NRCM online at www.nrcm.org.
LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court Allows Trump to Impose Anti-Trans Passport Policy
“This decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents,” said a lawyer for the ACLU.
Nov 06, 2025
The US Supreme Court issued an emergency order Thursday upholding President Donald Trump's discriminatory policy barring transgender and nonbinary Americans from changing the gender listed on their passports from the gender assigned to them at birth.
Reversing a lower court decision blocking the policy in June, the six conservative justices assessed in an unsigned majority opinion that by requiring passports to reflect a person's sex at birth, the State Department "is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, which was joined by the two other liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor. Lamenting the Trump administration's "routine" reliance on the court to issue emergency rulings, Brown wrote that she would have denied the request, because “the documented real-world harms to these plaintiffs obviously outweigh the government’s unexplained (and inexplicable) interest in immediate implementation of the passport policy.”
Last month, a group of transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, requested that the court reject the Trump administration's petition for a stay on the lower court's ruling blocking the policy. That ruling had come after transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs testified that they were afraid to submit passport applications to the government as a result of the policy.
"Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance," said Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.
The attorneys argued last month before the Supreme Court that the policy "irrationally undermines the very purpose of passports—identifying a US citizen when they travel” and also is “motivated by anti-transgender animus.”
That animus has been on display since Trump's first day in office this term, when he signed an executive order declaring that his administration would only recognize “two sexes, male and female," based on one's “biological classification” at birth.
The passport policy has already led to confusion, which the actress Hunter Schafer—a transgender woman—put on display in February, when she was issued a passport that identified her as male in conflict with both her appearance and other legal documents like her driver's license.
“This decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, following the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday. “The Trump administration's policy is an unlawful attempt to dehumanize, humiliate, and endanger transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans, and we will continue to seek its ultimate reversal in the courts.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Survey Shows Large Majority of Grassroots Democrats Back Primary Challenges for Schumer and Jeffries
"The grassroots are demanding change," said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution.
Nov 06, 2025
Democrats' sweeping victories in elections across the country this week may not be buying goodwill for party leadership among grassroots Democratic activists.
Progressive organizing group Our Revolution on Thursday released a survey over more than 3,500 voters showing there is overwhelming support for running primary challenges against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who for months have come under fire for failing to more aggressively combat President Donald Trump's administration.
Overall, the survey found 90% of respondents want Schumer to step aside as leader, while 92% would back a primary challenge against him when he's next up for reelection in 2028.
The survey showed less support for dumping Jeffries, although 70% said he should step aside, with 77% backing a primary challenger.
Additionally, two-thirds of respondents said that "current Democratic leaders do not understand the struggles of the working class, with confidence in party leadership remaining in the single digits."
Our Revolution also hailed New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's insurgent campaign as a successful model for Democrats across the country, as the organization said a message of "lowering the cost of living and holding corporations accountable" strongly resonated with progressive voters.
Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, warned that establishment Democrats could pay the price if they try to brush off democratic socialist Mamdani's victory as a fluke.
"Mamdani’s victory was not an outlier. It was a rallying cry,” he said. “The grassroots are demanding change. They want a Democratic Party that fights for working families, taxes the rich, and takes on Trump and the oligarchs driving this affordability crisis. The old guard must step aside or risk losing the movement that delivered these wins."
Mamdani wasn't the only candidate to successfully run on lowering the cost of living, as Democrats on Tuesday also scored upset victories by flipping two seats on the Georgia’s Public Service Commission, which is responsible for regulating utility prices in the state. In those elections, the Democrats hammered GOP incumbents for signing off on six rate increases for the state’s largest electricity provider over the past two years.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite Costs Soaring Under His Watch, Trump Tries to Jack Mamdani's 'Affordability' Message
Voters aren't buying it. The president's approval rating on prices and inflation, which was at +5 points in January, has fallen to a stunning -33, according to the latest data from The Economist.
Nov 06, 2025
In the wake of a top-to-bottom shellacking of Republicans across the country in Tuesday's elections, President Donald Trump is making a concerted effort to co-opt the "affordability"-focused messaging that catapulted the once-obscure democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to become New York City's next mayor.
MSNBC columnist Steve Benen notes that before Election Day, Trump had never once uttered the word "affordability" in his more than a decade using Twitter/X. But since Tuesday, it's been all he can talk about.
After Democrats romped in virtually every important race from Virginia to California to New Jersey, the president explained that it was because "they have this new word called affordability" and Republicans "don't talk about it enough."
He followed it by claiming that “2025 Thanksgiving dinner under Trump is 25% lower than 2024 Thanksgiving dinner under [former President Joe] Biden, according to Walmart. My cost are lower than the Democrats on everything, especially oil and gas! So the Democrats ‘affordability’ issue is DEAD! STOP LYING!!!”
He later claimed, completely falsely, that America was nearing "almost $2 for gasoline," and that Republicans "are the ones who've done a great job on affordability... they said we lost an election on affordability. It’s a con job."
Focusing aggressively on the cost of living and blaming his opponents for it being out of control has worked for Trump in the past. Polls from his 2024 reelection showed that inflation and the cost of living were the leading issues under Biden that drove voters away from Democrats and into Trump's camp.
But Mamdani will enter office with the status of an outsider and a slew of untested policy proposals meant to concretely address New York's untenable cost of living, like a freeze on rent hikes, free public transit, and the opening of public grocery stores.
Trump, on the other hand, is nearly a year into his second presidential term, during which he has often downplayed voters' concerns about rising costs, even telling them they'd need to endure "some pain" in order to reap the benefits of his agenda.
Under his watch, and often directly due to his own policy decisions, the crisis of affordability that drove him to the White House has only accelerated, with 2.9% yearly inflation in August, the last month for which there is data due to the government shutdown.
His claims about both grocery and energy prices are both untrue. Energy prices have actually increased by 10% since Trump took office, and the average regular gas price was not nearing $2 per gallon, as Trump claimed, but more than $3 as of Monday.
While high energy costs can be attributed to external factors like increased power demand from artificial intelligence data centers and energy bottlenecks resulting from the war in Ukraine, the New York Times editorial board noted last month that "Trump energy policies are not helping—and will soon make matters worse."
The foremost culprit is his slashing of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax credits and investments into renewable energy sources like wind and solar, as well as electric vehicles. As the board explained:
Energy prices are likely to rise the most in states that have not prioritized clean energy, including Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma, experts say. The repeal of the tax credits alone may push electricity prices almost 10% higher than they would be otherwise by 2029, according to National Economic Research Associates, a consulting firm. Gas prices will also increase over the next decade, according to Rhodium Group, a think tank, as consumers who would otherwise have driven electric cars continue using vehicles that burn fossil fuels.
Grocery prices have also spiked by 2.7% since last year, increasing each month except one since he took office. Some of the products that have seen the most dramatic increases are those impacted by Trump's aggressive tariff regime, both because they are frequently imported like coffee or bananas, or commonly exported like beef, and subject to the retaliatory tariffs of countries against which Trump has waged his trade war.
His "mass deportation" agenda, meanwhile, has gutted the nation's agricultural labor force, which is 80% foreign-born, causing supply shortages and, as a result, higher prices for domestic goods.
On the other major plank of Mamdani's affordability agenda, the uncontrolled cost of housing has also been supercharged by Trump's policies. His tariffs have caused the cost of building materials to spike, slowing the rate of housing construction.
And as a record high 22 million renters are considered cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their income on housing, Trump's 2026 fiscal year budget proposed to slash rental assistance by nearly 43%. In September, ProPublica also obtained two plans from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) expected to place burdensome new work requirements and time limits on those living in public housing, which could jeopardize assistance for 4 million people.
While Trump has made a sharp pivot toward "affordability" rhetoric, his actions amid the ongoing government shutdown, which has become the longest in US history, have belied that commitment.
Though Trump acknowledged that Tuesday's Election Night drubbing suggested Republicans were "losing" the shutdown, Republicans have insisted they won't come to the table to negotiate to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits that caused the impasse in the first place.
As a result, Americans are already beginning to see their health insurance premiums skyrocket as the enrollment period for next year begins. And if the GOP refuses to extend the credits, over 22 million Americans are expected to see their premiums more than double on average in 2026, according to KFF.
And contrary to fighting the rising prices of food, the Trump administration has used the shutdown to choke off food assistance to 42 million Americans eligible for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) in defiance of orders from two federal judges.
Under a proposed plan to only partially fund the program, the average SNAP recipient would have their benefits cut by 61%, while millions will lose their benefits for November entirely, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
According to The Economist, Trump's approval rating has tanked to just 39%, while disapproval is at 58%. It's an all-time low over both his terms as president. By far the sharpest decrease in his approval rating has come on prices and inflation. Where he enjoyed a net +5 rating on the issue at the start of his term, it had utterly collapsed to -33 as of November 2.
"Trump could theoretically fix his political problems if he readjusts his policy framework and focuses on affordability, corporate power, and working with Democrats instead of the establishment GOP," said economic journalist Matt Stoller in a post on social media. "But there's zero chance he does that. He can't. He's George W. Trump."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular