March, 16 2021, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kristen Monsell, Center for Biological Diversity, (914) 806-3467, kmonsell@biologicaldiversity.org
Bob Shavelson, Cook Inletkeeper, (907) 299-3277, bob@inletkeeper.org
Cynthia Sarthou, Healthy Gulf, (504) 723-3547, cyn@healthygulf.org
Legal Petition Asks Biden Administration to Extend Offshore Oil Leasing Halt
Interior Secretary can issue five-year plan with no new leases.
WASHINGTON
Conservation and Native American groups petitioned the Department of the Interior today to put a five-year block on the leasing of all federal waters for offshore oil and gas development. The petition cites climate change impacts, loss of biodiversity, and threats to coastal communities as urgent reasons for action.
The request follows President Biden's Jan. 27 executive order suspending fossil fuel leasing on all federal lands and oceans, pending a review that includes a March 25 online forum. Today's petition offers a legal tool to extend that moratorium by suspending offshore lease sales for at least five years without any actions by Congress.
The petition says newly confirmed Interior Secretary Deb Haaland can issue a new five-year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program that includes no new leases in any offshore planning region. That would contrast sharply with the Trump administration's attempt to approve a five-year program that would have expanded offshore leasing into almost all U.S. oceans, which was abandoned in the face of widespread opposition and legal setbacks.
"The Biden administration is rightly concerned about offshore drilling's threats, and a five-year halt would be a strong next step," said Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center. "The time has come to boldly address the climate crisis and protect coastal communities and wildlife. We simply can't keep issuing long-term leases to plunder our oceans. Dirty and dangerous offshore drilling needs to be phased out, starting now."
The petition notes that Congress never intended for federal offshore leasing to continue forever. It cites the legislative history of the offshore leasing program, calling offshore drilling a temporary fix until new sources of energy are available, and a federal appellate court ruling allowing leasing delays because the "true costs of tapping OCS energy resources are better understood as more becomes known about the damaging effects of fossil fuel pollutants."
"The disconnect between science and policy in Alaska is glaring," said Bob Shavelson, advocacy director with Cook Inletkeeper. "On one hand we closed our Pacific cod fishery due to climate change, and on the other hand, we're pushing for more offshore oil and gas leasing in the very same area. We need to bring science back into the discussion."
The damaging effects of fossil fuel pollutants have become clear from record-breaking global temperatures, extreme weather events becoming more frequent and severe, rising seas and coastal flooding, ocean warming and acidification, and degraded habitat, including the loss of Arctic sea ice relied on by polar bears and other endangered species.
"It's time to begin our transition to renewable energy in a thoughtful and just way," said Cynthia Sarthou, executive director of Healthy Gulf. "Existing leases will support oil and gas production in the Gulf for decades to come. We need to start the transition somewhere, and we think this is an important step."
Peer-reviewed science estimates that a nationwide federal fossil fuel leasing ban would reduce carbon emissions by 280 million tons per year, ranking it among the most ambitious federal climate-policy proposals in recent years.
"We need to see the end of fossil fuel extraction and development in the outer continental shelf," said Mati Waiya, executive director of Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation. "These practices have and continue to irreparably damage marine ecosystems and cultural fisheries. Indigenous communities are hit the hardest by the devastating consequences of climate change. Not only are our villages and cultural sites threatened by increasingly frequent environmental disasters, extreme weather events, and sea-level rise, but our lifeways, cultural keystone species and medicines are threatened with extinction by anthropogenic caused climate change. Too long have the Indigenous peoples of California had their culture and lifeways threatened by the aggressively colonialist fossil fuels industry."
The petition was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Cook Inletkeeper, Healthy Gulf and Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation.
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) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Trump Tariffs Have Cost Average US Family Nearly $1,200 So Far
"The president’s tax on American families is simply making things more expensive.”
Dec 11, 2025
As President Donald Trump persistently claims the economy is working for Americans, Democrats in the US House and Senate on Thursday released an analysis that puts a number to the recent polling that's found many Americans feel squeezed by higher prices: $1,200.
That's how much the average household in the US has paid in tariff costs over the past 10 months, according to the Joint Economic Committee—and costs are expected to continue climbing.
The Democrats, including Ranking Member Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), and Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.), analyzed official US Treasury Department data on the amount of tariff revenue collected since the beginning of Trump's second term as he's imposed tariffs across the European Union and on dozens of other countries—some as high as 50%.
The White House has insisted the tariffs on imports will "pry open foreign markets" and force exporters overseas to pay more, resulting in lower prices for US consumers.
But the JEC combined the Treasury data with independent estimates of the percent of each tariff dollar that is paid by consumers, as companies pass along their higher import prices to them.
At first, US families were paying an average of less than $60 in tariff costs when Trump began the trade war in February and March.
But that amount shot up to more than $80 per family in April when he expanded the tariffs, and monthly costs have steadily increased since then.
In November, a total of $24.04 billion was paid by consumers in tariff costs—or $181.29 per family.
“While President Trump promised that he would lower costs, this report shows that his tariffs have done nothing but drive prices even higher for families."
From February-November, families have paid an average of $1,197.50 each, according to the JEC analysis.
“While President Trump promised that he would lower costs, this report shows that his tariffs have done nothing but drive prices even higher for families,” said Hassan.
If costs remain as high as they were over the next 12 months, families are projected to pay $2,100 per year as a result of Trump's tariffs.
The analysis comes a week after Republicans on a House Ways and Means subcommittee attempted to avoid the topic of tariffs—which have a 61% disapproval rating among the public, according to Pew Research—at a hearing on global competitiveness for workers and businesses.
"Rep. Jimmy Gomez [D-Calif.] read several quotes from [former Rep. Kevin] Brady [R-Texas] during his time in Congress stating that tariffs are taxes that impede economic growth. Brady, who chaired the Ways and Means Committee and drafted Trump’s first tax law in 2017 (and now works as a lobbyist), had no desire to discuss those quotes or the topic of tariffs," wrote Steve Warmhoff, federal policy director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. "Nor did Republicans address the point made by the Democrats’ witness, Kimberly Clausing, when she explained that Trump’s tariffs are the biggest tax increase on Americans (measured as a share of the economy) since 1982."
Clausing estimated that the tariffs will amount "to an annual tax increase of about $1,700 for an average household" if they stay at current levels, while Trump's decision to lower tariffs on goods such as meat, vegetables, fruits, and coffee last month amounted to just $35 in annual savings per household.
The JEC has also recently released analyses of annual household electricity costs under Trump, which were projected to go up by $100 for the average family despite the president's campaign pledge that "your energy bill within 12 months will be cut in half."
Last month the panel found that the average household is spending approximately $700 more per month on essentials like food, shelter, and energy since Trump took office.
“At a time when both parties should be working together to lower costs," said Hassan on Thursday, "the president’s tax on American families is simply making things more expensive.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tlaib Rips Lawmakers Who 'Drool at the Opportunity to Fund War' While Opposing Healthcare for All
"They’re gutting healthcare and food assistance to pay for bombs and weapons. It’s a sick vicious cycle," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
Dec 11, 2025
"Imagine if our government funded our communities like they fund war."
That was Rep. Rashida Tlaib's (D-Mich.) response to the House's bipartisan passage Wednesday of legislation that authorizes nearly $901 billion in military spending for the coming fiscal year, as tens of millions of Americans face soaring health insurance premiums and struggle to afford basic necessities amid the nation's worsening cost-of-living crisis.
Tlaib, who voted against the military policy bill, had harsh words for her colleagues who "drool at the opportunity to fund war and genocide, but when it comes to universal healthcare, affordable housing, and food assistance, they suddenly argue that we simply can’t afford it."
"Congress just authorized nearly a trillion dollars for death and destruction but cut a trillion dollars from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act," said Tlaib, referring to the budget reconciliation package that Republicans and President Donald Trump enacted over the summer.
"They’re gutting healthcare and food assistance to pay for bombs and weapons. It’s a sick vicious cycle," Tlaib continued. "Another record-breaking military budget is impossible to justify when Americans are sleeping on the streets, unable to afford groceries to feed their children, and racking up massive amounts of medical debt just for getting sick."
House passage of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) came as Republicans in both chambers of Congress pushed healthcare proposals that would not extend enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year, resulting in massive premium hikes for millions.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that a Senate Democratic plan to extend the ACA subsidies for three years would cost around $85 billion—a fraction of the military spending that House lawmakers just authorized.
The NDAA, which is expected to clear the Senate next week, approves $8 billion more in military spending than the Trump White House asked for in its annual budget request.
According to the National Priorities Project, that $8 billion "would be more than enough" to restore federal nutrition assistance to the millions expected to lose it due to expanded work requirements included in the Trump-GOP budget law.
"Our priorities are disgustingly misplaced," Tlaib said Wednesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Don't Give the Pentagon $1 Trillion,’ Critics Say as House Passes Record US Military Spending Bill
"From ending the nursing shortage to insuring uninsured children, preventing evictions, and replacing lead pipes, every dollar the Pentagon wastes is a dollar that isn't helping Americans get by," said one group.
Dec 10, 2025
US House lawmakers on Wednesday approved a $900.6 billion military spending bill, prompting critics to highlight ways in which taxpayer funds could be better spent on programs of social uplift instead of perpetual wars.
The lower chamber voted 312-112 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2026, which will fund what President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans call a "peace through strength" national security policy. The proposal now heads for a vote in the Senate, where it is also expected to pass.
Combined with $156 billion in supplemental funding included in the One Big Beautiful Bill signed in July by Trump, the NDAA would push military spending this fiscal year to over $1 trillion—a new record in absolute terms and a relative level unseen since World War II.
The House is about to vote on authorizing $901 billion in military spending, on top of the $156 billion included in the Big Beautiful Bill.70% of global military spending already comes from the US and its major allies.www.stephensemler.com/p/congress-s...
[image or embed]
— Stephen Semler (@stephensemler.bsky.social) December 10, 2025 at 1:16 PM
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) led opposition to the bill on Capitol Hill, focusing on what lawmakers called misplaced national priorities, as well as Trump's abuse of emergency powers to deploy National Guard troops in Democratic-controlled cities under pretext of fighting crime and unauthorized immigration.
Others sounded the alarm over the Trump administration's apparent march toward a war on Venezuela—which has never attacked the US or any other country in its nearly 200-year history but is rich in oil and is ruled by socialists offering an alternative to American-style capitalism.
"I will always support giving service members what they need to stay safe but that does not mean rubber-stamping bloated budgets or enabling unchecked executive war powers," CPC Deputy Chair Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said on social media, explaining her vote against legislation that "pours billions into weapons systems the Pentagon itself has said it does not need."
"It increases funding for defense contractors who profit from global instability and it advances a vision of national security rooted in militarization instead of diplomacy, human rights, or community well-being," Omar continued.
"At a time when families in Minnesota’s 5th District are struggling with rising costs, when our schools and social services remain underfunded, and when the Pentagon continues to evade a clean audit year after year, Congress should be investing in people," she added.
The Congressional Equality Caucus decried the NDAA's inclusion of a provision banning transgender women from full participation in sports programs at US military academies:
The NDAA should invest in our military, not target minority communities for exclusion.While we're grateful that most anti-LGBTQI+ provisions were removed, the GOP kept one anti-trans provision in the final bill—and that's one too many.We're committed to repealing it.
[image or embed]
— Congressional Equality Caucus (@equality.house.gov) December 10, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Advocacy groups also denounced the legislation, with the Institute for Policy Studies' National Priorities Project (NPP) noting that "from ending the nursing shortage to insuring uninsured children, preventing evictions, and replacing lead pipes, every dollar the Pentagon wastes is a dollar that isn't helping Americans get by."
"The last thing Congress should do is deliver $1 trillion into the hands of [Defense] Secretary Pete Hegseth," NPP program director Lindsay Koshgarian said in a statement Wednesday. "Under Secretary Hegseth's leadership, the Pentagon has killed unidentified boaters in the Caribbean, sent the National Guard to occupy peaceful US cities, and driven a destructive and divisive anti-diversity agenda in the military."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular