

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.

John Weisheit, Living Rivers and Colorado Riverkeeper, john@livingrivers.org
Lauren Wood, Green Riverkeeper, (801) 647-1540 lwood1988@gmail.com
Dr. Brian Moench, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, (801) 243-9089
Anne Mariah Tapp, Grand Canyon Trust (928) 774-7488, atapp@grandcanyontrust.org
Rob Dubuc, Staff Attorney Western Resource Advocates (801) 487-9911, rob.dubuc@westernresources.org
Steve Bloch, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, (801) 428-3981, steve@suwa.org
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (801) 300-2414, tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.org
Jake Thompson, Natural Resources Defense Council, (202) 289-2387, jthompson@nrdc.org
Ted Zukoski, EarthJustice, (303) 996-9622, tzukoski@earthjustice.org
The Bureau of Land Management announced this week that it is moving toward allowing dirty oil shale development that could be a double whammy for the environment, unleashing nearly a half a billion tons of greenhouse gases and consuming vast amounts Colorado River basin water. It would be the first commercial oil shale production facility in the United States.
|
The Bureau said that on April 8 it will release a draft environmental impact statement for the "Enefit American Oil Utility Corridor Project." It would allow Enefit, an Estonian company, to build water, oil, gas and electric transmission across federal public land in Utah to enable oil shale mining on state on private land. Enefit hopes to process up to 1.2 billion barrels of kerogen oil -- one of world's most carbon-polluting fuels -- with estimated lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of up to 450 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, about the same as 100 coal-fired power plants emit in a year.
"President Obama was right when he said in his State of the Union that 'we've got to accelerate the transition away from old, dirtier energy sources'," said Ted Zukoski, an attorney at Earthjustice. "It's time BLM got the memo and stopped wasting taxpayer money subsidizing companies that would foul our atmosphere and endanger our planet, and our future."
"The Interior Department is working against President Obama's climate goals here," said Taylor McKinnon with the Center for Biological Diversity. "Enabling the development of one of the world's dirtiest fossil fuels is the opposite of climate leadership. The administration should abandon this project now."
"We don't need to take on this environmental disaster that comes with developing the dirtiest fuel on the planet -- oil shale," said Rob Dubuc, senior staff attorney at Western Resource Advocates. "Renewable energy innovations and improvements in energy efficiency make this fuel unnecessary to develop. BLM should not advance this project."
The draft environmental impact study comes only months after the United States and countries around the world committed, at the Paris climate negotiations, to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Reaching that goal will require dramatic reductions in carbon pollution -- the key driver of climate change -- and leaving the vast majority of fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Enefit's mining facility would expand development and use of one of the world's highest carbon fuels.
"There is more energy in a similarly sized baked potato than in a chunk of oil shale," said Steve Bloch, legal director for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. "We know that burning oil shale in a giant oven can produce shale oil; the question that needs to be asked is whether proceeding with this type of project makes any sense in a carbon constrained 21st century. The unequivocal answer is no. The time has come to turn our backs on the carnival barker's promise that oil shale will be answer to our nation's energy needs."
"It is true that Enefit has made the mining and production of oil shale work for the energy needs of Estonia. However, Estonia also produces more greenhouse gas emissions per capita than other European countries, including Russia," said John Weisheit with Living Rivers and Colorado Riverkeeper. "What Estonia has, that Utah does not, is ample water supplies to process that oil shale. Ironically, the similarity between the governments of Utah and Estonia is their subsidy of dirty energy projects with public money."
The proposed facility will be located in the Uinta Basin, approximately 12 miles southeast of Bonanza in Uintah County, Utah, near the Green and White Rivers. The project is designed to develop oil shale mining and a shale oil production complex, at full build-out producing about 28 million tons of raw oil shale ore rock per day and 50,000 barrels per day of refinery-ready shale oil from the Green River Formation.
"Oil shale is a thirsty industry," said Anne Mariah Tapp with the Grand Canyon Trust. "The Colorado River Basin is already looking at up to a 27 percent decrease in April to July flows due to climate impacts. At a rate of up to four barrels of water per barrel of oil, Enefit's project poses an unacceptable threat to limited Colorado River Basin water supplies. Both in terms of carbon footprint and water demands, the West's water future would be drastically compromised by this oil shale program."
"The legacy of the Green River will live or die on the decisions we as a country make here and now," said Lauren Wood with Green Riverkeeper. "The Green River watershed cannot survive as a vibrant source of life in a desert if the BLM continues to view the landscape it runs through as a source of death and climate devastation. It's time to close this chapter of our shared history where we strayed into such extreme and dangerous forms of energy; that isn't our legacy, it's our nightmare."
"This oil shale project would be another significant source of pollution in an area that just can't take any more," said Dr. Brian Moench with Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. "During the drilling boom of 2013 the air pollution in the Uinta Basin was literally off the charts, as much as would be expected from 100 million cars, eight times more cars than in all of Los Angeles. It would be unconscionable to allow anything that would make that even worse."
"A century's worth of failed efforts has demonstrated that trying to turn rocks into oil is a fool's errand, but somehow Enefit expects a different result this time," said Bobby McEnaney, a senior analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The last thing this administration should be considering is a proposal that amount to fossil fuel alchemy, particularly when cleaner energy sources are readily available."
The Bureau of Land Management's webpage for the project is here.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."