

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.

Expert contacts:
Dr. Alexander Gershenson, EcoShift, (831) 824-4326, agershenson@ecoshift.com
Dr. Dustin Mulvaney, EcoShift, (831) 247-3896, dmulvaney@ecoshift.com
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (801) 300-2414, tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.org
Marissa Knodel, Friends of the Earth, (202) 222-0279, mknodel@foe.org
Communications contact: Kate Colwell, (202) 222-0744, kcolwell@foe.org
Ending new fossil fuel leasing on lands and offshore areas controlled by the U.S. government would keep up to 450 billion tons of greenhouse gases from polluting the atmosphere, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis by EcoShift on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Earth released today.
The analysis, The Potential Greenhouse Gas Emissions of U.S. Federal Fossil Fuels, models the life-cycle greenhouse gas pollution that would result from developing federally-controlled coal, oil shale, natural gas, crude oil and tar sands on public lands and offshore ocean areas under government control.
Allowing these publicly owned fossil fuels to be developed would cripple the U.S.' ability to meet its obligations to avert the worst effects of the global climate crisis, the report finds.
"The facts have been increasingly clear for a long time, and we believe that this analysis finally puts the issue of continued development of federal fossil reserves to rest. We cannot afford to continue ignoring reality," said EcoShift Principal Dr. Alexander Gershenson.
Among the key findings:
"Our climate can't afford the pollution from more federal fossil fuel leasing," said Taylor McKinnon with the Center for Biological Diversity. "The natural place for President Obama to start leading the global fight to keep fossil fuels in the ground is on our public lands and oceans."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that maintaining a good chance of avoiding 2degC warming by century's end requires limiting global emissions to about 1390 Gt CO2e (or 1000 Gt CO2). Emissions from unleased federal fossil fuels exceed U.S. emissions quotas for maintaining only a 50 percent chance of avoiding 2degC of warming. The potential emissions of unleased federal fossil fuels are entirely precluded after factoring in the emissions of developing non-federal and already leased federal fossil fuels.
"Our government has already leased more public fossil fuels than can safely be burned," said Marissa Knodel, climate campaigner at Friends of the Earth. "Each new lease puts us farther down the path toward climate catastrophe, and is a direct contradiction to the president's pledge to attack the climate crisis head-on."
Federal agencies do not track or report the nationwide cumulative greenhouse gas emissions that result from federal leasing of fossil fuel reserves. Likewise, they do not assess the potential emissions of remaining fossil fuel resources and reserves.
"This analysis shows that the U.S.' remaining federal fossil fuels contain vast potential for greenhouse gas pollution," said EcoShift Principal Dr. Dustin Mulvaney. "To our knowledge, this is the first-ever attempt to understand the pollution potential of the publicly-owned fossil fuels that the federal government controls."
Download a copy of the report here.
Download a fact sheet here.
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) 783-7400The new data comes as Tesla is removing human safety monitors from its driverless taxi fleet.
Proponents of driverless cars often tout them as a safer alternative to cars with human drivers—but such claims don't appear to be holding up so far in the case of Tesla's Robotaxis.
A Monday report from Elektrek found that Tesla Robotaxis are crashing much more frequently than cars driven by humans, as the company has now reported eight crashes of its driverless taxi fleet in Austin, Texas to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration since July.
Elektrek also crunched some numbers based on data released by Tesla last month and estimated that the Tesla Robotaxis are involved in a crash for every 40,000 miles they drive. For comparison, the publication reported, cars driven by humans crash about once every 500,000 miles, meaning the Robotaxis so far have crashed 12.5 times more frequently than human-driven cars.
All of the Robotaxi crashes so far have occurred with human safety monitors—who have been trained to take control of the car in the event of a software error—present in the vehicles.
This is significant because, as TechCrunch reported on Monday, Tesla is starting to send out its Robotaxi fleet without safety monitors.
TechCrunch noted that "the removal of the human safety monitors brings the company a critical step closer to its goal of launching a real commercial Robotaxi service," but also said it "will most likely ramp up the scrutiny on Tesla’s ongoing testing in Austin, doubly so when the company starts offering rides in the empty cars."
Tesla's bet on Robotaxis has grown more important given that its vehicle sales in the US and around the world have been dropping significantly so far this year, in part due to a boycott campaign inspired by outrage over CEO Elon Musk's support for far-right political parties.
According to a report from Reuters, the most recent data from car software company Cox Automotive shows that US Tesla sales dropped to a four-year low last month. The news agency also pointed out that Tesla now "is offering financing deals as low as 0% on the Standard Model Y," which is "a sign of weak demand."
"AI toys are not safe for kids," said a spokesperson for the children's advocacy group Fairplay. "They disrupt children's relationships, invade family privacy, displace key learning activities, and more."
As scrutiny of the dangers of artificial intelligence technology increases, Mattel is delaying the release of a toy collaboration it had planned with OpenAI for the holiday season, and children’s advocates hope the company will scrap the project for good.
The $6 billion company behind Barbie and Hot Wheels announced a partnership with OpenAI in June, promising, with little detail, to collaborate on "AI-powered products and experiences" to hit US shelves later in the year, an announcement that was met with fear about potential dangers to developing minds.
At the time, Robert Weissman, the president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, warned: “Endowing toys with human-seeming voices that are able to engage in human-like conversations risks inflicting real damage on children. It may undermine social development, interfere with children’s ability to form peer relationships, pull children away from playtime with peers, and possibly inflict long-term harm."
In November, dozens of child development experts and organizations signed an advisory from the group Fairplay warning parents not to buy the plushies, dolls, action figures, and robots that were coming embedded with "the very same AI systems that have produced unsafe, confusing, or harmful experiences for older kids and teens, including urging them to self harm or take their own lives."
In addition to fears about stunted emotional development, they said the toys also posed security risks: "Using audio, video, and even facial or gesture recognition, AI toys record and analyze sensitive family information even when they appear to be off... Companies can then use or sell this data to make the toys more addictive, push paid upgrades, or fuel targeted advertising directed at children."
The warnings have proved prescient in the months after Mattel's partnership was announced. As Victor Tangermann wrote for Futurism:
Toy makers have unleashed a flood of AI toys that have already been caught telling tykes how to find knives, light fires with matches, and giving crash courses in sexual fetishes.
Most recently, tests found that an AI toy from China is regaling children with Chinese Communist Party talking points, telling them that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of China” and defending the honor of the country’s president Xi Jinping.
As these horror stories rolled in, Mattel went silent for months on the future of its collaboration with Sam Altman's AI juggernaut. That is, until Monday, when it told Axios that the still-ill-defined product's rollout had been delayed.
A spokesperson for OpenAI confirmed, "We don't have anything planned for the holiday season," and added that when a product finally comes out, it will be aimed at older teenagers rather than young children.
Rachel Franz, director of Fairplay’s Young Children Thrive Offline program, praised Mattel's decision to delay the release: "Given the threat that AI poses to children’s development, not to mention their safety and privacy, such caution is more than warranted," she said.
But she added that merely putting the rollout of AI toys on pause was not enough.
"We urge Mattel to make this delay permanent. AI toys are not safe for kids. They disrupt children's relationships, invade family privacy, displace key learning activities, and more," Franz said. "Mattel has an opportunity to be a real leader here—not in the race to the bottom to hook kids on AI—but in putting children’s needs first and scrapping its plans for AI toys altogether.”
"With the average home sales price having already risen by 31%—or over $120,000—since 2020, this tariff-induced change could put homeownership further out of reach for millions of Americans," warns a new report.
After campaigning last year on reducing the cost of living and as he attempts to claim progressive Democrats' push for affordability as his own, President Donald Trump's policies have been directly linked to making life more expensive for people across the US—and along with electricity, healthcare, and groceries, housing costs are set to rise, according to a new analysis out Tuesday, which examines the impact of Trump's tariffs.
The Center for American Progress (CAP) found that the impact on home construction materials by Trump's tariffs could force builders to scale back significantly over the next five years, reducing new home construction by 450,000 homes through 2030.
According to the analysis, the average cost of building a home in the coming years will increase by $17,500 if current home building rates continue.
"With the average home sales price having already risen by 31%—or over $120,000—since 2020, this tariff-induced change could put homeownership further out of reach for millions of Americans," said CAP.
Trump's tariffs are as high as 50% for some countries, and some of the highest levies have been imposed on key building materials, including lumber, copper, aluminum, and steel products. Imports of upholstered products and kitchen cabinets are set to face tariffs that could increase by up to 50%.
The tariffs were unveiled amid a growing housing affordability crisis, with the number of available homes falling short by 2 million units or more, according to some estimates.
Following the Great Recession, home construction has not returned to pre-2008 levels and the country requires "sustained, above-average construction rates to correct" the persistent underbuilding, according to CAP.
"Yet the Trump administration’s tariff policies are pushing home building in the opposite direction by raising construction costs, which will slow new construction activity, raise costs, and worsen housing affordability," reads the report by Cory Husak, Natalie Baker, and Mimla Wardak.
The analysis found that while Trump has insisted that the tariffs will target the countries that import goods to the US, but as with groceries—which have gone up in price by up to 40% at some stores—the levies on home building materials are projected to ultimately impact American families who are already struggling to afford healthcare and other essentials.
The tariffs are expected to add $27 billion to the annual cost of constructing new homes by 2027, effectively raising the cost of building a new home by about 3.3%.
🚨Hot off the presses 🚨 New tariffs are going to kill 450,000 homes over the next 5 yearsTariffs on lumber, steel, cabinets, vanities, copper add an average $17,500 to the cost of building a new home. Yearly home losses will soon total 100k per year-www.americanprogress.org/article/trum...
[image or embed]
— Corey Husak (@chusak.bsky.social) December 16, 2025 at 1:08 PM
From 2030 onward, the number of new homes being built is expected to be down by 100,000 yearly.
"This would be equivalent to eliminating 6 percent of the homes constructed in the five years from 2020 to 2024," said CAP.
If home building falls as CAP projects, the cost of construction will rise to $18,500 per home in 2028, CAP projected.
“Families are already struggling to afford a place to live, and the administration is adding fuel to the housing costs fire,” said Husak, director of tax policy at CAP. “These tariffs are a tax on builders and aspiring homeowners, raising construction costs, slowing the pace of new building, and pushing homeownership even further out of reach for millions of Americans.”
The group urged the federal government to act to stop the tariffs from continuously "driving up construction costs, slowing homebuilding, and worsening the nation’s already severe housing shortage."
"Building new housing supply is crucial to solving the housing shortage," said CAP, "and canceling tariffs on homebuilding materials is a necessary step to bring more housing online and improve housing affordability."