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
April, 11 2018, 01:00pm EDT
Contact:
Dani Heffernan, dani@350.org, +1 (305) 992-1544
Nearly 800 Groups Give Governor Brown a Last Chance to Stand Against Fossil Fuels
Oakland, CA
Today, a coalition of nearly 800 organizations, including 350.org, released a letter to California Governor Jerry Brown, urging him to take immediate action against fossil fuel extraction in the state before his term ends. In addition to delivering the letter to Brown's office in Sacramento, the 'Brown's Last Chance' coalition sponsored billboards in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, placed a full-page ad in The Sacramento Bee, and launched a thermal airship over the Bay Area with a message challenging Brown to "Say No to Fossil Fuels." Author and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben published an op-ed in The Los Angeles Times noting, "With his time in elective office winding down, Brown has the rare chance to set an example that truly will never be forgotten: He has it in his power to begin the strategic phase-out of the oil and gas industry." Press conferences are being held in San Francisco and Los Angeles this morning.
"For too long, Governor Brown has let the fossil fuel industry off the hook with his climate policies," 350.org Executive Director May Boeve said. "But with a massive problem like climate change, the science is clear -- we have to move rapidly to stop new fossil fuel development and transition our energy economy to 100% renewable sources. This means standing up to Big Oil, something Brown has the unique opportunity to do on a global stage at California's climate summit this September. With the Trump administration clearing the way for more drilling and pipelines, it's a time like no other for state and local elected officials to help us build a just and equitable fossil-free world."
The Brown's Last Chance coalition includes a broad range of organizations and groups, from the local to international, many of which represent communities living on the frontlines of fossil fuel extraction. The coalition is deeply concerned about the fossil fuel industry's danger to the climate and disproportionate impact on low-income communities of color. As Governor Brown prepares to bring together public officials from across the world for the Global Climate Action Summit in September, the coalition is imploring him to set the bar high for climate leadership by taking a stand against all new fossil fuel projects and urging his international colleagues to do the same. To learn more visit brownslastchance.com.
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
'Groundbreaking': Michigan Sues Big Oil 'Cartel' for Conspiracy to Block Renewable Energy
The case accuses "four of the largest energy companies in the world" of conspiring "to forestall meaningful competition from renewable energy and maintain their dominance in the energy market."
Jan 23, 2026
While several US states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel companies by citing consumer protection and public nuisance laws, Michigan on Friday launched an antitrust lawsuit against four industry giants and their trade association, accusing them of operating as a "cartel" to impede a transition to clean power and transportation.
Twenty months after state Attorney General Dana Nessel announced that she was seeking proposals from lawyers and firms "to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry," the Democrat sued BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute (API) in the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
"Michigan is facing an energy affordability crisis as our home energy costs skyrocket, and consumers are left without affordable options for transportation. Whether you own a home, a small business, or run a large corporation, rising energy and transportation costs harm everyone," Nessel said in a statement.
"These out-of-control costs are not the result of natural economic inflation, but due to the greed of these corporations who prioritized their own profit and marketplace dominance over competition and consumer savings," she continued.
As the complaint says: "Defendants are four of the largest energy companies in the world and their industry's largest trade association. The fossil fuel defendants produce fossil fuels and have at times invested in clean energy products and related technologies, such as solar power and batteries, that could provide energy to power buildings, infrastructure, and cars as an alternative to fossil fuels."
"But for decades, defendants have conspired with each other to forestall meaningful competition from renewable energy and maintain their dominance in the energy market," the filing continues. "They have done so as a cartel, agreeing to reduce the production and distribution of electricity from renewable sources and to restrain the emergence of electric vehicles (EV) and renewable primary energy technologies in the United States."
"To achieve this end," the document details, "they have abandoned renewable energy projects, used patent litigation to hinder rivals, suppressed information concerning the hidden costs of fossil fuels and viability of alternatives, infiltrated and knowingly misdirected information-producing institutions, surveilled and intimidated watchdogs and public officials, and used trade associations to coordinate market-wide efforts to divert capital expenditures away from renewable energy—all to further one of the most successful antitrust conspiracies in United States history."
Lumping in this case with others previously filed against fossil fuel companies and API, Ryan Meyers, senior vice president and general counsel for the trade group, said in a statement to the Detroit News that "these baseless lawsuits are a coordinated campaign against an industry that powers everyday life, drives America's economy, and is actively reducing emissions."
While Shell declined to comment to Reuters, and BP and Exxon did not respond, a lawyer for Chevron, Theodore Boutrous Jr., similarly called the suit "baseless as demonstrated by multiple related court dismissals," and told the news agency that it "ignores the fact that Michigan is highly dependent on oil and gas to support the state's automakers and workers."
According to Nessel's complaint: "In the world that would have existed but for defendants' conspiracy, EVs would not be a fringe technology or a luxury alternative. They would be a common sight in every neighborhood—rolling off assembly lines in Flint, parked in driveways in Dearborn, charging outside grocery stores in Grand Rapids, and running quietly down Woodward Avenue."
"Reliable and fast chargers would be integrated into new development and ubiquitous at highway rest stops and converted gas stations," it states. "A family needing a car would have dozens of affordable electric options, and the renewable energy needed to power EVs efficiently would be supplied at scale—integrated into the grid or delivered through a dedicated 100% renewable network—spurred by public and private investment responding to competitive market signals."
"Michiganders would also have additional, renewable energy options for providing primary energy to their homes and businesses, such as solar, wind, hydropower, and geothermal; these options would improve reliability, reduce costs to Michiganders, and reduce reliance on natural gas, fuel oil, and propane," the document adds.
Tim Minotas, legislative and political director for Sierra Club Michigan, welcomed the filing. He said in a statement that "at a time when the federal government is rolling back critical environmental protections and families are facing an energy affordability crisis, we commend Attorney General Nessel for standing up for Michiganders and holding major fossil fuel companies accountable."
"In Michigan, these companies have used their outsized political influence to preserve the status quo and pave the way for a wave of energy-intensive data center projects across the state, even as renewable energy remains the cheapest source of new power and what Michiganders deserve," he noted. "For far too long, fossil fuel and utility companies have polluted Michigan's air, water, and land while driving up energy costs for families. This action sends a clear message: Michigan families and communities must come before corporate profits."
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, also celebrated the development: "Michigan's groundbreaking case reveals how the Big Oil cartel conspired to deny Americans cleaner and cheaper energy choices and make life less affordable by keeping consumers hooked on their dirty fossil fuel products. Eleven states and dozens of municipalities are now fighting to put Big Oil companies on trial for their climate lies and make them pay for the harm they've caused."
"Big Oil is desperate to keep the evidence of their climate lies from juries in cases like Michigan's, and that's why the fossil fuel industry is now lobbying Congress for a get-out-of-jail-free card," Wiles added, pointing to a push for a so-called liability shield. "Congress must protect the right of the people of Michigan and every state to hold Big Oil accountable for the harm their climate lies have caused."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senator Says His Visit to Texas Laid Bare the 'Dystopian World' Trump and ICE Have Created
"What I saw in Texas was utter lawlessness," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
Jan 23, 2026
Sen. Chris Murphy recently took a trip to inspect federal immigration detention facilities in San Antonio, Texas, and also took a detour to a local courtroom where he saw up close how federal agents are working to detain families who have been obeying the law while trying to apply for asylum.
Writing on Substack on Friday, Murphy (D-Conn.) detailed being in court with an immigrant family during a scheduled asylum hearing as US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents waited outside to apprehend them.
At the end of the hearing, Murphy decided to walk with the family outside the courtroom and past the agents, betting that they would not want to risk a confrontation with a US senator.
"Our hunch was right," Murphy wrote. "The ICE officers made a half step toward us but then froze, and the family safely left the building."
The senator then said that this story was symbolic of the lawlessness of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during President Donald Trump's second term, which he described as a "dystopian world."
Among other things, Murphy found that ICE had taken over the San Antonio courthouse's room designated for pro bono attorneys and was using it for interrogations; an immigration judge had been fired "because she insisted on implementing the law and not ruling against every single" application; and ICE officers who openly admitted their goal wasn't to target criminals who happen to be undocumented, but anyone who isn't a US citizen, including immigrants legally in the country.
Most ominously, said Murphy, most immigrants detained by ICE officers at the courthouse are sent to Pearsall Detention Center, which he noted has only four rooms for legal consultations despite being built to house 1,800 detainees.
Murphy said this essentially guarantees that "most migrants never see a lawyer before the expedited fake legal process inside the jail results in their deportation," with the result being "effectively a campaign of disappearances."
"What I saw in Texas was utter lawlessness: an agency out of control, making up its own law—with no respect for the actual law or the Constitution," he explained. "DHS is terrorizing children and families because it can. They act like they are unaccountable."
Murphy emphasized that it was time for Senate Democrats to draw a line in the sand when it comes to funding ICE—writing a day after seven party members in the House of Representatives voted with the GOP to give the agency billions more dollars.
"Democrats have no obligation to vote for a budget that funds a runaway, immoral agency just because Republicans are so beholden to Trump, they refuse to agree to any reforms," he said. "We shouldn’t pretend we are powerless; we aren’t."
Murphy encouraged Democrats to demand that federal immigration officers obtain judicial warrants before carrying out arrests, mandating consequences for officer misconduct, and suspending funds to DHS until it granted members of Congress the access to immigration facilities.
"These reforms aren’t cure-alls," he acknowledged, "but they would save lives."
Keep ReadingShow Less
JD Vance Caught in Several 'Pernicious' Lies in Defense of ICE
Vance claimed he never said agents had "absolute immunity," that the government was investigating the shooting of Renee Good, and that ICE agents weren't entering homes without judges' warrants. None of it was true.
Jan 23, 2026
Vice President JD Vance is being called out by legal experts and other critics who say he lied voluminously on Thursday in response to questions about his past claims that immigration agents enjoyed “absolute immunity,” about whether they are now illegally entering residences without warrants, and about the shooting of Renee Good.
Vance was peppered with questions during a press conference after meeting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minneapolis, where their conduct has been met with growing backlash in recent weeks, following the shooting of Good on January 7 by agent Jonathan Ross and other violent and unconstitutional actions that have been documented since.
Shortly after the shooting, in a rush to clear Ross of any wrongdoing, Vance made the highly dubious claim that because Ross was "a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action,” he is therefore "protected by absolute immunity."
Legal scholars immediately called out the concept of "absolute immunity" as a fiction that does not refer to any recognized statute.
But despite those remarks having been widely publicized just weeks ago, when asked about them again on Thursday, Vance pretended he never made such a claim.
"No, I didn't say—and I don't think any other official within the Trump administration said that officers who engaged in wrongdoing would enjoy immunity. That's absurd," he said. "What I did say is that when federal law enforcement officers violate the law, that is typically something that federal officials would look into."
"But of course we're going to investigate these things," Vance continued. "We're investigating the Renee Good shooting. But we're investigating them in a way that respects people's rights and ensures that if somebody did something wrong, yes, they're going to face disciplinary action. But we're not going to judge them in the court of public opinion."
In reality, the administration repeatedly said it is not pursuing a criminal investigation into Ross. According to a report from the Washington Post earlier this week, the FBI opened an initial probe into the shooting, and an agent in Minnesota found that "sufficient grounds" existed to open a civil rights probe into Ross, but DOJ officials chose not to pursue it.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed last week that the DOJ was not investigating the case. “We don’t just go out and investigate every time an officer is forced to defend himself against somebody putting his life in danger. We never do,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration's officials have repeatedly "judged" the case in the court of public opinion by routinely making statements justifying the shooting, with Vance himself praising Ross for "doing his job" and others in the administration referring to Good as a "domestic terrorist."
While it is not investigating Ross for shooting Good, the DOJ is reportedly investigating Good's widow, Becca Good, over the couple's involvement in monitoring and protesting ICE's actions in Minneapolis, which prompted six federal prosecutors with the DOJ to resign in outrage last week.
Xochitl Hinojosa, a former head of public affairs at the DOJ, found Vance's claim that the shooting was being investigated to be in total contradiction to everything else the administration has said about the case.
"Todd Blanche says no criminal civil rights investigation into the shooting of Renee Good. Vance says today they are investigating the incident," she said. "So who exactly is investigating the incident? Because this would normally be the DOJ or the FBI."
While those claims were self-evidently false, legal scholars noted a more "pernicious" lie by Vance in response to a question about a report earlier this week that ICE had issued a memo allowing agents to forcibly enter homes without a judge's warrant, which has been described as a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution.
Asked if the memo, which was first reported on by the Associated Press, violated the Constitution, Vance responded that the story was "missing a whole lot of context" and that what ICE and other agencies proposed was that "we can get administrative warrants to enforce administrative immigration law."
"Nobody is talking about doing immigration enforcement without a warrant. We're talking about different types of warrants that exist in our system," Vance went on. "Typically, in the immigration system, those are handled by administrative law judges. So we're talking about getting warrants from those administrative law judges... That's very consistent with the practice of American law."
Rob Doar, a Minnesota-based criminal defense and civil rights attorney, said that Vance had gotten "just about everything wrong" in his explanation.
"Immigration judges are not [administrative law judges]. They don’t issue warrants," Doar said. "ICE 'administrative warrants' are signed by ICE officers, not judges. They do not authorize home entry. Only a judicial warrant does."
Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University and the co-editor-in-chief of Just Security said it was a case of "pernicious wordplay by Vance."
The Department of Homeland Security "is doing immigration enforcement in people's homes without a judicial warrant," he said. "Our system—the Fourth Amendment—requires a judicial warrant."
Joe Mastrosimone, a law professor at Washburn University in Kansas, was amazed that a lawyer of Vance's pedigree could be so inaccurate.
"Good Lord," he wrote on social media. "Did JD Vance actually attend and graduate from Yale Law School? He seems to be a really bad lawyer... This is really basic stuff."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular