

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, (435) 259-1063, john@livingrivers.org
Maia Raposo, Waterkeeper Alliance, (212) 747-0622 x116, mraposo@waterkeeper.org
Dr. Brian Moench, Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, (801) 243-9089, physicians@uphe.org
Michael Toll, Grand Canyon Trust, (303) 309-2165, mtoll@grandcanyontrust.org
Landon Newell, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, (801) 428-3991, landon@suwa.org
Alex Hardee, Earthjustice, (303) 996-9612, ahardee@earthjustice.org
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (801) 300-2414, tmckinnon@biologicaldiversity.org
Gabby Brown, Sierra Club, 202-495-3051, gabby.brown@sierraclub.org
Margie Kelly, Natural Resources Defense Council, (312) 651-7935, mkelly@nrdc.org
Conservation groups today formally opposed the Trump administration's plan to facilitate the first commercial oil shale development in the United States, a massive Utah project that would generate enormous greenhouse gas and deadly ozone pollution in regions already exceeding federal air-pollution standards.
Conservation groups today formally opposed the Trump administration's plan to facilitate the first commercial oil shale development in the United States, a massive Utah project that would generate enormous greenhouse gas and deadly ozone pollution in regions already exceeding federal air-pollution standards.
The Bureau of Land Management plans to grant the Estonia-owned Enefit American Oil rights of way to build water, gas, electric and oil-product lines to its 13,000-acre strip-mining "South Project" on private land. In total Enefit has 30,000 acres of private, state and public-land leases in the Uintah Basin. The land contains an estimated 2.6 billion barrels of kerogen oil, and its extraction would require pumping billions of gallons from the Colorado River Basin.
"This plan would turn plateaus into strip mines, pull precious water from our rivers, and cause dangerous climate and ozone pollution. It's everything the Colorado River Basin doesn't need," said John Weisheit, a river guide and the conservation director of Living Rivers. "The BLM should dump this plan and stop wasting time and money by propping up Enefit's wild speculation."
"The Colorado River Basin is in crisis thanks to water shortages caused by overallocation, mismanagement, and devastating climate change," said Daniel E. Estrin, advocacy director at Waterkeeper Alliance. "Enabling development of one of the most carbon and water-intensive dirty fuel projects in the nation in the Upper Colorado River Basin will only exacerbate the decline of our waterways and our climate."
The South Project would produce 547 million barrels of oil over three decades, spewing more than 200 million tons of greenhouse gas -- as much as 50 coal-fired power plants in a year. The amount of energy it takes to mine and process oil shale make it one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels on Earth.
"This project would be a climate and health disaster," said Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity. "The last thing the Colorado River Basin needs is a new fossil fuel industry warming the climate, sucking rivers dry and choking communities with more deadly ozone pollution."
The BLM refused to look at the air, climate and other potential damage from the development, claiming that Enefit would build the project even without the rights of way. But in fact Enefit would be financially and technically unable to build the project otherwise. Ignoring the development's potential environmental damage violates the National Environmental Policy Act.
"Oil shale is a dirty fuel that does not deserve a foothold on our public lands," said Alex Hardee, associate attorney at Earthjustice. "BLM's action will facilitate depletion of the Upper Colorado River watershed, increased smog pollution in the Uinta Basin, the destruction of wildlife habitat, and substantial greenhouse gas emissions."
"Without BLM's approval of rights-of-way across public lands, Enefit would need to truck water, natural gas, and processed oil--more than one truck every 80 seconds for 30 years," said Grand Canyon Trust staff attorney Michael Toll. "Without this federal subsidy, it's unlikely Enefit could afford to move forward. Why should Americans subsidize an otherwise unfeasible oil shale project, especially when BLM has yet to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act's mandate to fully analyze and inform the public of the impacts of Enefit's proposed project?"
The project would double oil production in the Uintah Basin and refine that oil near Salt Lake City, worsening ozone pollution in both areas. In May the Environmental Protection Agency determined that air pollution in the Uintah Basin and Salt Lake City exceeds federal health standards.
"The Uinta Basin suffers from some of the worst air quality in the nation," said Landon Newell, a staff attorney with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. "BLM's kowtowing to the fossil fuel industry is largely to blame for the current crisis and its approval of this energy intensive, environmentally destructive, boondoggle of a project will only worsen the problem."
"A pollution crisis will inevitably lead to a public health crisis, and there is preliminary evidence that one may already be occurring with high rates of perinatal deaths in the Uinta Basin," said Dr. Brian Moench, board president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment. "The health risks go well beyond ozone and particulate pollution. Although VOCs are not addressed by EPA national standards, they likely represent the greatest toxicity to the population, especially for infants and pregnant mothers."
"The last thing we need is an Estonian oil company using Americans' public land to prop up destructive oil shale mining. Yet the Trump Administration's BLM failed to give this dirty energy subsidy the hard look it demands," said Jacob Eisenberg of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Enefit is a company with an extraordinarily dubious environmental track record; NRDC opposes its proposal for the harm it could do to our natural heritage, climate, and public health."
Enefit's oil-shale operation would draw more than 100 billion gallons of water from the Colorado River Basin over the next three decades, threatening endangered fish recovery and exacerbating flow declines in the Green and Colorado rivers downstream. The project would also generate more than 450 million cubic feet of waste rock every year, much of it toxic.
"Now is the time to accelerate the transition to clean energy, not to sacrifice our water, air quality, and climate for an investment in one of the dirtiest fossil fuels on the planet," said Sierra Club beyond dirty fuels associate director Cathy Collentine. "The Sierra Club and our allies will continue to fight to ensure that this dirty mining project never goes forward."
The BLM is moving forward with this development even as the Colorado River Basin suffers climate-driven river flow declines, record droughts and wildfires.
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) 623-5252"Candidate for Senate Dan Osborn is already doing more for the people affected by the Tyson closure than the current Nebraska senators," said a worker rights advocate.
Instead of "another investigation" into possible wrongdoing by meatpacking giant Tyson, independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn is demanding that elected officials in Nebraska simply "pick up the damn phone" and demand action from the Trump administration following the company's closure of one of the nation's largest meat processing plants in what one antitrust expert said was a clear-cut case of market manipulation.
Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), whom Osborn is challenging in the 2026 election, said Thursday that his team is "taking a look at any allegation of wrongdoing" by Tyson, weeks after the company announced its massive plant in Lexington, Nebraska is set to close in January—putting more than 3,000 people in a town of 11,000 out of work.
The closure comes months after Tyson boosted its stock buybacks and following an announcement that its adjusted operating income had increased by 26% compared to 2024. Tyson controls about 80% of the US beef market along with three other companies, and the Department of Justice is investigating whether the four corporations are colluding to keep beef prices high.
Despite near-record high prices in the industry, Tyson said last week it was closing the Lexington plant and scaling back operations at its facility in Amarillo, Texas to "right-size its beef business and position it for long-term success."
Basel Musharbash, an antitrust lawyer at Antimonopoly Counsel in Paris, Texas, attended a press conference with Osborn across the street from the Lexington plant this week and said that the "legal analysis here is pretty straightforward" regarding whether Tyson has engaged in market manipulation.
“The Lexington plant accounts for around 5% of the nation’s cattle," said Musharbash. "By shutting down a plant that slaughters such a large portion of the cattle in this region and the country, Tyson will single-handedly reshape the nation’s cattle markets from boom to bust.”
Ranchers will be forced "to accept lower prices, and Tyson will be able to make higher profits," he said.
Osborn and Musharbash say Tyson has broken the 2021 Packers and Stockyards Act, which prohibits meatpackers from engaging "in any course of business or [doing] any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices."
Addressing Ricketts on social media, Osborn said Tyson workers "don’t need another useless congressional report that leads to nothing. We need ACTION!"
"Tyson workers and Nebraska ranchers need you to demand that [US Agriculture] Secretary Brooke Rollins immediately initiate an action to hold Tyson accountable for any market manipulation," he said.
The USDA told the Nebraska Examiner this week that it is monitoring "the closure of the plant to ensure compliance with the Packers and Stockyards Act," but Musharbash said Rollins can and should "compel Tyson to either keep the plant open or sell the plant to an upstart rival who will introduce honest competition into this cartelized industry."
"There is nothing left for Ricketts to 'look into,' and Nebraskans certainly don’t need some intern on Ricketts’ staff to write a research paper about this issue for the next six months while Tyson hollows out the Lexington community for its selfish gain," added Musharbash. "Nebraska—and this whole country—deserves better leaders than this."
Osborn pointed out Thursday that Ricketts has taken more than $70,000 in campaign donations from Tyson.
“The people of Lexington need their elected officials to fight now more than ever,” Osborn said at the press conference this week. “The law that’s been on the books for over 100 years should be enforced... So pick up the damn phone, call Brooke Rollins, and get the USDA to enforce the law.”
By visiting Lexington and speaking out against Tyson's gutting of thousands of jobs, former Federal Trade Commission member Alvaro Bedoya said that "candidate for Senate Dan Osborn is already doing more for the people affected by the Tyson closure than the current Nebraska senators."
"I’m fairly gravely concerned that he’s sleepwalking us into a war with Venezuela," said one US senator.
The Trump White House indicated Thursday that the administration is planning to seize more Venezuelan oil vessels after the president of the South American nation, Nicolás Maduro, denounced the US takeover of a tanker earlier this week as "an act of international piracy."
Reuters reported Thursday that the Trump administration, which has claimed without evidence to be targeting drug traffickers, "is preparing to intercept more ships transporting Venezuelan oil" as it ramps up its lawless military campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—and threatens a direct military assault on Venezuela.
In response to the Reuters story, which cited six unnamed sources, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declared that "we're not going to stand by and watch sanctioned vessels sail the seas with black market oil, the proceeds of which will fuel narcoterrorism of rogue and illegitimate regimes around the world."
The US seizure of the Venezuelan tanker and its oil earlier this week marked the Trump administration's latest escalation in what experts and critics fear is a march to an unlawful, all-out war with the South American country.
"I have no idea why the president is seizing an oil tanker," US Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said Thursday. "I’m fairly gravely concerned that he’s sleepwalking us into a war with Venezuela."
Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Al Jazeera that the oil vessel seizure "is certainly an escalation designed to put additional pressure on the Maduro regime, causing it to fracture internally or convincing Maduro to leave."
“The purpose also depends on whether the US seizes additional tankers,” he added. “In that case, this looks like a blockade of Venezuela. Because Venezuela depends so heavily on oil revenue, it could not withstand such a blockade for long.”
US lawmakers in both the House and Senate are pursuing war powers resolutions aimed at preventing the Trump administration from engaging in military conflict with Venezuela without congressional approval.
“Whatever this is about, it has nothing to do with stopping drugs," said US Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "To me, this appears to be all about creating a pretext for regime change. And I believe Congress has a duty to step in and assert our constitutional authority. No more illegal boat strikes, and no unauthorized war in Venezuela."
Some Indiana Republicans vocally objected to the president's pressure campaign, with one saying Hoosiers "don’t like to be bullied in any fashion."
Republican Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith posted and subsequently deleted a claim that President Donald Trump had threatened to cut off funding to his state unless its legislators approved a mid-decade gerrymander that would have changed the composition of its congressional map to further favor the GOP.
Just over four hours after the Republican-led Indiana state Senate on Thursday voted down the Trump-backed gerrymander—which would have changed the projected balance of Indiana’s current congressional makeup from seven Republicans and two Democrats to a 9-0 map in favor of the GOP—Beckwith took to X to warn that the Hoosier State would soon be feeling the president's wrath.
"The Trump admin was VERY clear about this," he wrote, referring to threats to take away federal funding for Indiana. "They told many lawmakers, cabinet members, and the [governor] and I that this would happen. The Indiana Senate made it clear to the Trump admin today that they do not want to be partners with the [White House]. The WH made it clear to them that they'd oblige."

Although Beckwith deleted his post, he also confirmed to Politico reporter Adam Wren that the White House said that Indiana could lose out on funding for projects if the state did not approve the map, although Beckwith insisted that this was not a "threat" but merely "an honest conversation about who the White House does want to partner with."
Earlier on Thursday, the X account for right-wing advocacy group Heritage Action, a sister organization of the Heritage Foundation think tank, claimed that Trump had threatened to decimate Indiana's state finances unless the state Senate approved his proposed gerrymander.
"President Trump has made it clear to Indiana leaders: if the Indiana Senate fails to pass the map, all federal funding will be stripped from the state," Heritage Action wrote. "Roads will not be paved. Guard bases will close. Major projects will stop. These are the stakes and every NO vote will be to blame."
Trump has not yet publicly threatened to cut off Indiana's federal funds, and it's not clear that the administration actually plans to punish the state for defying the president.
According to a Thursday report from CNN, the Trump White House pressure campaign against Republican Indiana state senators backfired because many legislators resented being subjected to angry threats from Trump supporters, including some incidents in which lawmakers were swatted at their homes.
Republican Indiana state Sen. Jean Leising told CNN that the all-out pressure campaign waged by the president ended up pushing more people into opposing his agenda.
"You wouldn’t change minds by being mean," Leising said. "And the efforts were mean-spirited from the get-go. If you were wanting to change votes, you would probably try to explain why we should be doing this, in a positive way. That never happened, so, you know, I think they get what they get."
Fellow Republican Indiana state Sen. Sue Glick echoed Leinsing's assessment, and said that blunt-force threats against legislators were doomed to failure.
"Hoosiers are a hardy lot, and they don’t like to be threatened," Glick said. "They don’t like to be intimidated. They don’t like to be bullied in any fashion. And I think a lot of them responded with, ‘That isn’t going to work.' And it didn’t."
Indiana’s rejection of the proposed gerrymander this week was a major blow to Trump’s unprecedented mid-decade redistricting crusade, which began in Texas and subsequently spread to Missouri and North Carolina.