January, 19 2015, 11:30am EDT

Doubts Over Fracking Jobs Claims as New Report Says 24,000 Jobs in Clean Energy for North West
A new report from Friends of the Earth, supported by PCS Union and North West trades councils, shows that industry claims about job creation from fracking are overstated, and that any jobs boom would be short-lived. The report also shows that investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy would create more jobs than more investment in fossil fuels.
The report, titled 'Making a Better Job of It' finds:
LONDON
A new report from Friends of the Earth, supported by PCS Union and North West trades councils, shows that industry claims about job creation from fracking are overstated, and that any jobs boom would be short-lived. The report also shows that investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy would create more jobs than more investment in fossil fuels.
The report, titled 'Making a Better Job of It' finds:
- Overstated jobs claims: the report most often quoted by the industry and its supporters claims that job creation will be over twice as high as that seen in the US, according to peer-reviewed evidence assessing how many jobs are created for a given amount of gas produced1.
- Short-term jobs, long-term risks: jobs figures quoted are peak numbers which tail off rapidly. Cuadrilla claims shale gas production would create 1,700 jobs in Lancashire but this figure is for one year only, and falls to under 200 only three years afterwards2. But local communities would face risks to the local environment and their health for many years. And despite the several years of disruption from Cuadrilla's proposed exploration at Roseacre and Preston New Road, the sites would create only 11 net jobs each.
- Renewable energy and energy efficiency are a better jobs bet: they create over six times as many jobs as gas per unit of power generated or saved, and around three times as many jobs for the same amount invested3.
- Huge potential in the North West: exploiting the region's huge renewable energy potential and saving energy in the region's homes could support another 24,000 jobs4.
Friends of the Earth's North West Campaigner Helen Rimmer said:
"The North West has world-class renewable resources and investment should focus on clean energy technologies such as tidal, solar and offshore wind, and energy efficiency - which tackle climate change and create more jobs than over-hyped fracking.
"Lancashire County Council should reject Cuadrilla's fracking plans and support energy solutions which will create more jobs without risking the county's environment, local economy and communities."
Chris Baugh, Assistant General Secretary of Public and Commercial Services Union said:
"PCS welcome this important report from Friends of the Earth. We were told fracking would be a game changer driving down our energy bills, claims not even Lord Browne, Chair of Cuadrilla believes. Now we're told the dash for gas is about energy security and jobs.
"As this report shows, the arguments do not stack up in the face of the evidence and PCS is clear that investment in climate jobs - helping to reduce carbon emissions - is vital if we are to seriously address interrelated economic, energy and environmental concerns.
"Development of the region's abundant renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programmes will create better and greater employment opportunities than this literal race to the bottom for shale. Trade unions need to play a central role if we are to make a just transition to clean energy sources that protect both the jobs and livelihood of working people and the planet we inhabit."
Dave Savage, Organiser from Preston and South Ribble Trades Union Council, said:
"Fracking is yet another example of environmentally-destructive profiteering by private sector energy companies looking for short-term profits. In contrast, by building in our own country world-leading industries in renewable energy and energy efficiency, we can both make our contribution to preserving the environment for future generations, at the same time as developing sustainable jobs now and for the future."
Ian Gallagher, Secretary of Blackburn and District Trades Union Council, said:
"Blackburn and District Trades Union Council welcomes this timely report. We believe that investment in the areas identified by the Million Climate Jobs Campaign - in renewable energy sources and in insulating and retrofitting existing homes and buildings - is a far more certain way of addressing both climate change and economic growth than drilling for shale gas."
Peter Thorne, Secretary of North East Lancashire Trades Union Council, said:
"North East Lancs TUC notes that 2014 was the warmest year ever and Arctic ice melt is greater every year - the evidence of climate change is irrefutable. We must leave fossil fuels in the ground and develop renewables which can also provide far more jobs. For this reason we are totally opposed to fracking anywhere.
"Barrow in Furness has shown the way for the North West, being a world leading centre for offshore wind turbines. There is no reason why Lancashire can't also become a leading centre for wind, wave and solar technology and create far more and better jobs than fracking ever would."
Clara Paillard Green Representative on Merseyside Trade Union Council said:
"We urgently need to move away from a fossil fuel economy and Merseyside and the North West region has huge potential for clean energy. Fracking is not a risk worth taking for our climate, communities or workers' health."
Stephen Hall President of Association of Greater Manchester Trade Union Councils said:
"The fracking industry has overstated how many jobs it will create, and the North West will get short-term jobs and long-term impacts. Instead of a fracking dead-end we need investment in the clean energy of the future, which could create many thousands of new jobs for workers across Greater Manchester and tackle climate change at the same time."
NOTES
1. The report 'Getting shale gas working' produced by the Institute of Directors, and funded by Cuadrilla, claims that each well pad would create 1,104 jobs at peak, based on peak production of approximately 21 billion cubic feet of gas per year. But a peer-reviewed analysis of job creation from shale gas production in the USA found that 18.5 jobs were created per billion cubic feet of gas production. Based on this, each well pad would create around 400 jobs at peak. Such overstatement reflects the US experience where actual job creation from the Marcellus Shale, one of the largest US shale fields, has been less than one-seventh of that claimed in one industry-funded study.
2. Taken from 'Economic Impact of Shale Gas Exploration and Production in Lancashire and the UK' produced by Regeneris Consulting for Cuadrilla Resources.
3. UKERC finds that:
* renewable energy and energy efficiency create 6.7 times as many jobs as gas power generation per unit of electricity generated or saved
* energy efficiency creates 2.8 times as many jobs as gas power generation for the same investment, and renewable energy creates 3.2 times as many jobs
4. A radical programme of domestic energy efficiency in the North West, focusing initially on low income homes, could lead to an additional 9800 jobs by 2020 and 6700 by 2030 (when the number of homes to be treated is lower than the peak in the early 2020s). Development of just a percentage of the region's solar, onshore wind and offshore wind capacity could support over 14,000 additional jobs, many of them in the North West.
5. Summary report and full report.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
ICE Goons Pepper Spray Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva During Tucson Raid
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said.
Dec 05, 2025
In what Arizona's attorney general slammed as an "unacceptable and outrageous" act of "unchecked aggression," a federal immigration officer fired pepper spray toward recently sworn-in Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva during a Friday raid on a Tucson restaurant.
Grijalva (D-Ariz.) wrote on social media that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers "just conducted a raid by Taco Giro in Tucson—a small mom-and-pop restaurant that has served our community for years."
"When I presented myself as a member of Congress asking for more information, I was pushed aside and pepper sprayed," she added.
Grijalva said in a video uploaded to the post that she was "sprayed in the face by a very aggressive agent, pushed around by others, when I literally was not being aggressive, I was asking for clarification, which is my right as a member of Congress."
The video shows Grijalva among a group of protesters who verbally confronted federal agents over the raid. Following an order to "clear," an agent is seen firing what appears to be a pepper ball at the ground very near the congresswoman's feet. Video footage also shows agents deploying gas against the crowd.
"They're targeting small mom-and-pop businesses that don't have the financial resources to fight back," Grijalva told reporters after the incident. "They're targeting small businesses and people that are helping in our communities in order to try to fill the quota that [President Donald] Trump has given them."
Mocking the incident on social media, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contended that Grijalva "wasn’t pepper sprayed."
"She was in the vicinity of someone who *was* pepper sprayed as they were obstructing and assaulting law enforcement," she added. "In fact, two law enforcement officers were seriously injured by this mob that [Grijalva] joined."
McLaughlin provided no further details regarding the nature of those injuries.
Democrats in Arizona and beyond condemned Friday's incident, with US Sen. Ruben Gallego writing on social media that Grijalva "was doing her job, standing up for her community."
"Pepper spraying a sitting member of Congress is disgraceful, unacceptable, and absolutely not what we voted for," he added. "Period."
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said on social media: "This is unacceptable and outrageous. Enforcing the rule of law does not mean pepper spraying a member of Congress for simply asking questions. Effective law enforcement requires restraint and accountability, not unchecked aggression."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also weighed in on social media, calling the incident "outrageous."
"Rep. Grijalva was completely within her rights to stand up for her constituents," she added. "ICE is completely lawless."
Friday's incident follows federal agents' violent removal of Sen. Alexa Padilla (D-Calif.) from a June press conference held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Congresswoman LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was federally indicted in June for allegedly “forcibly impeding and interfering with federal officers" during an oversight visit at a privately operated migrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey and subsequent confrontation with ICE agents outside of the lockup in which US Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez, both New Jersey Democrats, were also involved.
Violent assaults by federal agents on suspected undocumented immigrants—including US citizens—protesters, journalists, and others are a regular occurrence amid the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.
"If federal agents are brazen enough to fire pellets directly at a member of Congress, imagine how they behave when encountering defenseless members of our community," Grijalva said late Friday on social media. "It’s time for Congress to rein in this rogue agency NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


