December, 07 2015, 02:30pm EDT
Obama Administration Delays DC Fossil Fuel Auction Under Pressure from Climate Activists
Global Fight to “Keep Fossil Fuels in the Ground” Heats Up
WASHINGTON
Under pressure from climate campaigners, the Obama Administration announced a last minute delay for a fossil fuel auction scheduled for this Thursday in Washington, D.C.
A number of climate organizations had planned a demonstration outside the DC auction site to pressure the Obama administration to keep fossil fuels in the ground at home while negotiating for climate action in Paris. Coverage of the planned protest included articles in TIME, the International Business Times, and Mashable.
Hundreds of organizations have asked President Obama to end these fossil fuel auctions -- a policy supported by seven senators including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Around half the fossil fuels under US soil are on public lands managed by the Obama Administration. A report from Ecoshift Consulting showed that ending the policy of selling oil gas and coal to the fossil fuel industry would keep 90% of these fossil fuels in the ground, forever -- keeping 450 billion tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
Details about the action planned for Thursday can be found on facebook here.
The Obama Administration's announcement can be found here.
Groups organizing the DC action issued the following statements:
"Keeping fossil fuels in the ground has quickly become the new standard for climate leadership. The Obama administration clearly recognized that it couldn't present itself as a climate leader in Paris if it was peddling fossil fuels at home. The win against the Keystone XL pipeline has energized a 'keep it in the ground' movement across the United States and around the world. You'll see many more protests like this over the year ahead--especially that we now have such clear evidence that they work." - Jason Kowalski, Policy Director, 350.org
"The Obama Administration continues to lease public lands for catastrophic fossil fuel extraction, but the growing movement to keep fossil fuels in the ground has them reconsidering. Department of the Interior has become a captured agency, doing the bidding of massive corporations while ignoring public outcry and climate consequences, so it's past time for there to be some accountability. If Department of the Interior won't make the right decision on its own, President Obama needs to step in and direct Secretary Sally Jewell to stop these leases now." - Kelly Mitchell, Greenpeace USA Climate Campaign Director
"If the administration can't handle the optics of auctioning fossil fuels while negotiating a climate deal in Paris, it shouldn't be auctioning off fossil fuels at all. It's time to end the federal fossil fuel leasing program to align public lands management with our climate goals and keep up to 450 billion tons of carbon pollution in the ground." - Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity
"People powered opposition is working throughout the US, in Paris and around the world. Canceling the lease sale is great indicator of Obama's commitment to tacking the climate change crisis, but there are still additional fossil fuel leases scheduled for 2016--including the Gulf of Mexico. Commitments made in Paris will be put to the test here in the US and in the most affected communities. Obama's climate legacy will be determined in this next year. It's time that the Obama Administration stop giving away public lands to Big Oil and Big Coal for pennies on the dollar." - Ruth Breech, Senior Campaigner, Rainforest Action Network
"Activists across the country have shown again and again that they are willing to do what it takes to make sure President Obama starts living up to his climate commitments, and he seems to be listening. But simply delaying these auctions is not enough. It is long past time President Obama puts a stop to the fossil fuel giveaway on public lands once and for all." - Elijah Zarlin, Climate Campaigns Director, CREDO
"Selling off public lands to the oil and gas industry amidst the Paris climate talks would have been the height of hypocrisy. We're delighted to see this lease sale delayed but will be even more so once this fossil fuel leasing program is ended for good. Those of us working hard in Paris for a successful climate agreement need all the support we can get, and this victory for the keep it in the ground movement should put a little more wind in our sails." - David Turnbull, Campaigns Director, Oil Change International
"In 2015, the Obama Administration held more than 20 onshore oil and gas auctions and sold the rights to drill and frack on more than one-half million acres of our nation's precious public lands. To make matters worse, the climate impacts of this leasing program have never been studied in an environmental impact statement. If the President is truly serious about climate change, 2016 has to be different." - Tim Ream, Climate and Energy Campaign Director, WildEarth Guardians
"Today's decision marks a victory for the growing movement to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and hold President Obama to his promise to leave a safe climate future for present and future generations. After bold statements for urgent climate action in Alaska and Paris, President Obama cannot claim climate leadership as long as his administration continues to offer our public lands and waters for fossil fuel exploitation. The Obama administration should take note: we will be back in March and at every other lease sale until he recognizes that his climate legacy depends on keeping fossil fuels in the ground." - Marissa Knodel, Climate Campaigner, Friends of the Earth
"The movement to ban fracking and keep fossil fuels in the ground continues to grow. Climate leaders don't frack, and if President Obama wants to consider himself a leader in Paris, he needs to ban new fossil fuel leases on our public lands." - Thomas Meyer, Food & Water Watch
"The punting of this auction away from the spotlight of the Paris climate negotiations is an acknowledgment by the Obama administration that their rhetoric on the urgency of tackling climate change is not aligned with their actions back home. We must continue to call out this hypocrisy until this and future administrations policies align with the scientific necessity to keep the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground." - Evan Weber, Executive Director, U.S. Climate Plan
LATEST NEWS
New State Laws Aim to Protect Environment, Consumers as Trump Wages All-Out War on Climate
"The gridlock and partisanship we see in Washington, DC can be dispiriting. But history shows that states can build momentum that eventually leads to change at the federal level."
Dec 29, 2025
Even as President Donald Trump and his administration have been ripping up environmental and consumer protection regulations, a number of state laws are set to take effect next year that could at least mitigate some of the damage.
A Monday statement from Environment America and the Public Interest Network highlighted a number of new laws aimed at curbing corporate polluters and enhancing consumer welfare.
First, the groups highlighted "Right to Repair" laws set to take effect in Washington, Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado, which give people the right to repair their own appliances and electronics without burdensome costs or barriers.
The groups lavished particular praise on Colorado's "Right to Repair" laws that they said provide "the broadest repair protections in the country," with new regulations that will give businesses in the state "access to what they and independent repair providers need to fix their electronics themselves."
Illinois, meanwhile, will fully phase out the sale of fluorescent lightbulbs, which will be replaced by energy-efficient LED bulbs. The groups estimate that eliminating the fluorescent bulbs will collectively save Illinois households more than $1.5 billion on their utility bills by 2050, while also reducing energy waste and mercury pollution.
Illinois also drew praise for enacting a ban on polystyrene foam foodware that will take effect on January 1.
The groups also highlighted the work being done in Oregon to protect consumers with legislation mandating price transparency to eliminate surprise junk fees on purchases; prohibiting ambulance companies from socking out-of-network patients with massive fees for rides to nearby hospitals; and placing new restrictions on the ability of medical debt to negatively impact a person's credit score.
California also got a mention in the groups' release for closing a loophole that allowed supermarkets to continue using plastic bags and for creating a new privacy tool for consumers allowing them to request that online data brokers delete all of the personal information they have gathered on them over the years.
Emily Rusch, vice president and senior director of state offices for the Public Interest Network, contrasted the action being taken in the states to protect consumers and the environment with a lack of action being done at the federal level.
"The gridlock and partisanship we see in Washington, DC can be dispiriting," said Rusch. "But history shows that states can build momentum that eventually leads to change at the federal level. As we build on this progress in 2026, we look forward to working with anyone—Republican, Democrat, or independent—with whom we can find common ground."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Warns Trump and Burgum's Halting of Offshore Wind Projects Is Illegal
“Burgum’s actions on offshore wind appear to be motivated by the personal financial interests of those in the administration, not our collective national interests."
Dec 29, 2025
A week after the US Department of the Interior said it was immediately halting five offshore wind projects in the interest of "national security," a watchdog group told congressional committees Monday that the move is "not legally defensible" and raises "significant" questions about conflicts of interest concerning a top DOI official's investments in fossil gas.
Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), wrote to the top members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources regarding the pause on projects off the coasts of Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts—projects that account for billions of dollars in investment, employ thousands of people, and generate sustainable energy for roughly 2.5 million homes and businesses.
The announcement made by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last week pertained to "five vague, perfunctory, cookie-cutter orders" halting the projects, wrote Whitehouse, but PEER is concerned that the orders were issued to evade the Congressional Review Act (CRA), under which the action to halt the projects likely constitutes a "major rule."
Whitehouse explained:
Under the CRA, a rule that meets any one of three criteria (an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or in pertinent part significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation) is a major rule. Interior’s pause likely meets all three.
As a major rule under the CRA, the pause cannot take effect until at least 60 days after BOEM provides Congress the requisite notification and report under the CRA, which, according to GAO’s database, has not yet occurred. Congress must use its oversight authority to unveil the truth and, as appropriate, and to enforce the rule of law.
He said in a statement that “Burgum’s move is designed to bypass all congressional and public input."
The CRA states that a rule is "the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.”
Press statements by the DOI and by Burgum last week were "statements of general applicability and imminent future effect, designed to implement policy," wrote Whitehouse, who also said the interior secretary embarked on "a coordinated rollout with Fox News entities."
On December 22, Fox anchor Maria Bartiromo asked Burgum at 8:00 am Eastern, “What next action did you want to tell us about this morning?” Five minutes later, FoxNews.com published its first story on Burgum's orders, citing a press release that had not yet been made public and including a quote from the secretary about the "emerging national security risk" posed by the offshore wind projects.
"If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
Burgum's announcement to Fox came at least one to two hours before Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) acting Director Matthew Giacona provided the orders to the lessees running the five wind projects.
Further, wrote Whitehouse, "Burgum’s voluminous public comments in the hours and days since the pause further show the true purpose of Interior’s singular action."
"The national security pretext quickly gives way to broad and spurious talking points about the 'Green New Scam,' how 'wind doesn’t blow 24-7' (evincing Burgum’s seeming unfamiliarity with energy storage technologies), and unyielding promotion of liquified natural gas projects," wrote Whitehouse.
Aside from the alleged illegality of Burgum's order, PEER pointed to Giacona's potential conflicts of interest with BOEM operations and specifically with halting wind projects. Giacona is a "diligent filer" of financial disclosure forms required by the Ethics in Government Act, noted Whitehouse—but those forms point to potential benefits he may reap from shutting down offshore wind infrastructure.
Giacona reported his purchase of interests in the United States Natural Gas Fund (UNG) on September 16. The fund tracks daily price movements of "natural" gas delivered at the Henry Hub in Louisiana and is subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
"Accordingly, a government employee who has an interest in UNG also has a potential conflict of interest with the underlying holdings of UNG (currently primarily natural gas futures contracts at the Henry Hub)," wrote Whitehouse.
PEER does not know whether Giacona continues to hold a financial interest in UNG or whether the offshore wind pause will have a "direct and predictable effect on a financial interest in UNG," but Whitehouse noted that Burgum and DIO have entwined the pause with the promotion of liquefied natural gas.
"It is disconcerting that Mr. Giacona temporarily had even a de minimis financial interest in natural gas futures while also leading the agency that manages the development of natural gas resources on the outer continental shelf," wrote Whitehouse, adding that Giacona also sold interests in the United States Oil Fund on September 3, while overseeing BOEM.
Based on Giacona's investments, said Whitehouse, “Burgum’s actions on offshore wind appear to be motivated by the personal financial interests of those in the administration, not our collective national interests. This is another misguided step in transforming the federal government into a franchise of the fossil fuel industry.”
“On public lands across the United States, the Department of the Interior has tens of thousands of additional active leases related to oil, gas, wind, solar, and geothermal production and mining for energy-related minerals," he added. "If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Suggests US Bombed 'Big Facility' in Venezuela. No One Seems to Know What He's Talking About
Administration officials have yet to provide any details about the supposed strike, which would mark a massive escalation in the president's lawless military campaign.
Dec 29, 2025
President Donald Trump claimed during a recent discussion about his high-seas boat bombing blitz that US forces took out "a big facility" as part of the Venezuela-centered campaign—but no one seems to know what he's talking about.
Trump said Friday during an apparently impromptu phone call to billionaire supporter John Catsimatidis—who owns and hosts programming on WABC radio in New York—that South American narcotraffickers "have a big plant or a big facility where the ships come from," and that “two nights ago, we knocked that out.”
"We hit them very hard," the president added.
On Monday, Trump was asked during a meeting with fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to clarify Friday's claim.
"There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs," the president said, "so we hit all the boats and now we hit the area. It's the implementation area. That's where they implement, and that is no longer around."
Neither Trump nor anyone in his administration offered any evidence to support the claim. There have also been no public statements from any Venezuelan government official regarding any US attack.
Q: Can you say any more about the explosion in Venezuela that you mentioned in a radio interview. Did the military do that?
TRUMP: Well, it doesn't matter. But there was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs. We hit the area. pic.twitter.com/hvZa7fKxbq
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 29, 2025
Trump did say during a Christmas Eve call to troops taking part in escalating hostilities against Venezuela—whose socialist leader, President Nicolás Maduro, has long been in Trump's regime-change crosshairs—that, after more than two dozen boat strikes, "now we're going after the land."
Threats by Trump to bomb targets inside Venezuela—or even invade the oil-rich South American nation in order to oust Maduro—are nothing new. The president has deployed an armada of warships and thousands of US troops to the region and has also authorized covert Central Intelligence Agency action against Maduro. Earlier this month, Trump vowed that the US would attack Venezuela "on land," and "very soon, too."
However, Trump's remarks on Friday left observers scratching their heads and scouring news reports in a fruitless effort to make sense of the president's claim.
One US official interviewed by the Intercept on condition of anonymity said the US targeted a “facility"—but declined to disclose its location, or whether it was attacked by US forces.
“That announcement was misleading,” the official said of Trump's claim last week.
There is some speculation that a Christmas Eve explosion and fire at a warehouse on the grounds of a Primazol chemical plant in Zulia state may have been caused by a US strike. However, the site—which reportedly makes products including chicken feed—is not located directly on any coast, and Primazol issued a statement "categorically" rejecting claims that the facility was bombed.
If Trump did order any bombing of targets in Venezuela, it would be a major escalation and clear act of war by a man who, while billing himself as "the most anti-war president in history," has now, with last week's attack on Nigeria, bombed more countries than any president in history.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular