

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.

Ellen Sciales, press@sunrisemovement.org
Today, Sunrise Movement, Greenpeace USA, Oil Change U.S., Indivisible, Evergreen Action, the Sierra Club and other partners launched a joint Gas is Not Clean campaign aimed at strengthening the Clean Energy Standard (CES) -- also known as the Clean Energy Payment Program (CEPP) -- by ensuring that gas is prohibited. The No Gas campaign will build pressure on politicians to commit to prioritizing truly clean, renewable energy and definitively excluding gas by making clear that gas is not clean, and that every stage of its production -- extraction, processing, transport, and combustion -- generates toxic air and water pollution.
These groups are demanding members of Congress make it clear they will fight to keep gas out of a CEPP. The microsite will track which members are supporting this priority and will serve as a resource for House and Senate Leadership to see the broad support among their caucus for. The groups behind this campaign will be engaging members of Congress through digital amplification, Hill blasts, and local organizing efforts.
This campaign comes ahead of the House Energy & Commerce Committee's anticipated September 13 mark-up, in which the House will advance language for a new clean energy standard to constrain emissions.
"With climate disasters coming at us from every direction, the stakes of the reconciliation bill could not be higher. This is our moment to turbocharge the transition to a green, just economy, and the Clean Energy Standard can play a key role - but it needs to be as ambitious as possible on renewables, and it needs to exclude gas. This is not complicated, and we can't allow the gas industry to confuse the issue. No fossil fuels, period." -- Representative Jamaal Bowman, NY-16
"We're making our politicians pick a side -- are you with us or fossil fuel executives? The science is clear: there is nothing clean about gas. It's a potent fossil fuel that pollutes the air we breathe, the water we drink, and is the reason Hurricane Ida intensified to the point of fatality and utter destruction. A CES that includes investments towards gas does not meet the scale of the climate crisis, and is a slap in the face to communities across the country who are facing climate disasters. We deserve a liveable future free of toxic pollution and catastrophic climate disasters. We will continue to pressure members of Congress until they exclude gas from the CES." -- Lauren Maunus, Advocacy Director, Sunrise Movement
"The evidence is clear: Gas is a deadly fossil fuel that's a disaster for the climate and communities. Any clean energy standard or payment program that allows gas would fly directly in the face of President Biden's commitment to decarbonization. Clean energy means no gas and no other fossil fuels, period." -- Collin Rees, Campaign Manager, Oil Change U.S.
"Natural gas is a dirty fossil fuel. Just like oil, it pollutes the air and water wherever it is extracted, produced, and burned. The fossil fuel driven climate crisis is already bringing record heat waves, massive storms, and crippling droughts that are killing people and destroying communities across the country. Natural gas is nothing more than corporate PR and marketing teams trying to rebrand fossil fuels -- if oil is Coke, natural gas is New Coke. We can't afford a Clean Energy Payment Program that pays the fossil fuel industry to continue to destroy our planet and our communities." -- Ashley Thomson, Climate Campaigner, Greenpeace USA
"At a time when we have unprecedented wildfires, hurricanes, and devastating extreme weather events caused by the climate crisis it is well past time to listen to the science -- gas is not clean. Indivisible demands a Clean Electricity Payment Program explicitly excludes gas. Anything less than that sanctions the pollution of our air, water, and communities." -- Ann Clancy, Senior Climate Policy Manager, Indivisible
"A Clean Electricity Payment Program has the potential to displace polluting fossil fuels, secure pollution reductions in overburdened communities, and achieve a 100% carbon pollution-free electricity grid by 2035. Yet we can only achieve these goals if a CEPP does not incentivize or credit gas power generation, which would eliminate any possibility of reaching our GHG reduction commitments and avoiding the worst effects of climate change. In addition to emissions at power plants, when methane leaks are accounted for across the gas production, transmission, and distribution systems, the total GHG impact of gas power is nearly doubled, and the toxic waste left behind from the fracking process continues to harm communities across the country. Continuing to rely on gas will only further the environmental injustices faced by communities of Black, Indigenous, and other people of color who already disproportionately bear the effects of pollution and climate change." -- Kass Rohrbach, Acting Director - Ready for 100, Sierra Club
"Trying to stop the climate crisis with gas is like trying to put out a fire with gas. It will only make the problem worse." -- Jamie DeMarco, Federal & Maryland Policy Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network
"We must ban all fossil fuels and GHG pollution immediately to mitigate the unfolding planetary disaster which Congress shamefully has failed to address." -- Todd Fernandez, Executive Director, Climate Crisis Policy
The full list of groups joining the Gas is Not Clean campaign for today's launch include:
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Climate Crisis Policy
Elders Climate Action
Evergreen Action
Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility
Greenpeace USA
Indivisible
Interfaith Power & Light
NDN Collective
Oil Change U.S.
People's Action
Sierra Club
Sunrise Movement
Sunrise Movement is a movement to stop climate change and create millions of good jobs in the process.
"Why is Trump attacking Ecuador?" asked one leftist news outlet. "Same reason he’s in Iran + Venezuela: oil 'secured' by force, sold as fighting a 'dictatorship' and/or 'drugs.'"
Just over two months after US forces bombed and invaded Venezuela and abducted its alleged drug-trafficking president, the Pentagon on Tuesday announced the launch of a joint campaign with Ecuador to combat "narco-terrorists" in the South American nation.
US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) announced the operation, which, with the deployment of ground troops, opens a new front in the Trump administration's Operation Southern Spear targeting alleged drug traffickers. The campaign had previously consisted of dozens of airstrikes against boats that the US military claimed were transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. More than 150 people have been killed in such bombings.
Right-wing Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa—a close ally of US President Donald Trump whose family shipping business is allegedly linked to cocaine trafficking—hailed the joint operation as "a new phase against narco-terrorism."
However, many Ecuadorian leftists denounced the operation.
"How can our armed forces allow so much?" asked former President Rafael Correa, who expelled the US military from Ecuador and famously said that he would let the US renew a lease on a controversial air base in Manta only if "they let us put a base in Miami."
Last year, Ecuadorian voters rejected a proposal by Noboa to reopen US military bases in the country that were shuttered by Correa's refusal to renew their leases.
Former National Assembly president and Imbabura Province Gov. Gabriela Rivadeneira noted in a television interview that Ecuador has "the only constitution in the world that prohibits foreign military presence" within its borders.
“As the US militarization advances, organized crime and drug trafficking advance further; this country was safer without foreign bases," she contended.
The announcement of the joint campaign also prompted criticism around the world.
"As Trump deploys US troops in Ecuador, there's a real danger that he'll authorize them to summarily shoot rather than capture drug suspects as legally required," former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth said on social media. "In short, to commit more criminal murders."
US climate campaigner Elise Joshi said on X that "Ecuador's corrupt billionaire president Noboa just gave Trump permission to carry out a military operation in the country as he guts public services, Indigenous rights, and free speech."
"Noboa sold out Ecuador to Trump's war against the [Latin American] people," Joshi added. "Shameful."
My sense is that some in the administration have been itching to put US military boots on the ground somewhere for an operation against “narco-terrorists” and then publicly brag about it and Ecuador was more amenable than say Mexico.
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 3, 2026 at 7:11 PM
Others questioned the US explanation for the intervention.
"Why is Trump attacking Ecuador?" the leftist magazine In These Times wrote on its X page. "Same reason he’s in Iran + Venezuela: oil 'secured' by force, sold as fighting a 'dictatorship' and/or 'drugs.' Ecuador’s Indigenous organizers forced a pullback in drilling in 2019. Now they face the US military."
Once one of Latin America's most peaceful countries, Ecuador in recent years has become what many observers call a "cocaine superhighway" via which the majority of drugs produced in neighboring Colombia and Peru are shipped to the United States and other international markets. The booming drug trade has sparked a fierce turf war between traffickers that has plunged areas of Ecuador, especially in the coastal province of Guayas, into violence and terror.
The Trump and Noboa administrations have forged closer ties since the US leader's return to office last year, much to the chagrin of many Ecuadorian leftists—who point to the long history of US military invasions and other interventions throughout Latin America, including a CIA-backed coup in Ecuador in 1963.
The Ecuador operation comes amid the US-Israeli war on Iran, which has killed more than 1,000 people, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society. Iran is the 10th country bombed on orders from US President Donald Trump, the self-proclaimed "president of peace," who has also attacked Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
"Oil and gas companies may achieve huge windfall profits in a year that previously looked far less lucrative for them, and billions of people could see their energy bills soar," warned one campaigner.
From declaring an energy emergency and ditching global climate initiatives to abducting the Venezuelan leader to seize control of the country's nationalized oil industry, President Donald Trump has taken various actions to serve his fossil fuel donors since returning to power last year. Now, his and Israel's war on Iran could soon lead to US liquefied natural gas giants pocketing tens of billions in windfall profits.
"The Persian Gulf has some of the world's largest oil and gas producers," Oil Change International research co-director Lorne Stockman explained in a Tuesday blog post, "and a large proportion of that production, around 20% of global petroleum, must pass through a relatively narrow corridor controlled by Iran to reach global markets: the Strait of Hormuz," between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.
Stockman—whose advocacy group works to expose the costs of fossil fuels and facilitate a just transition to clean energy—noted that "crude oil, refined petroleum products, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) traverse the strait in vast quantities every day. But not since Saturday. With missiles, fighter jets, and drones circling, shipping has ground to a halt, and Iran reportedly threatened to close the strait by force on Monday."
As the conflict in the Persian Gulf continues, fossil fuel companies are preparing for record-breaking profits while billions of people face soaring energy bills and "energy poverty."We’re tired of a world where our energy system fuels war and destroys our climate. oilchange.org/blogs/trumps...
[image or embed]
— 350.org (@350.org) March 4, 2026 at 4:43 AM
Based on ship-tracking data from MarineTraffic, Reuters estimated Wednesday that "at least 200 ships, including oil and liquefied natural gas tankers as well as cargo ships, remained at anchor in open waters off the coast of major Gulf producers including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar," and "hundreds of other vessels remained outside Hormuz unable to reach ports."
Stockman warned that "depending on how long the violence and its atrocious human toll continues—Trump said it may take weeks until his undefined objectives are achieved—this will have huge implications for energy markets. Oil and gas companies may achieve huge windfall profits in a year that previously looked far less lucrative for them, and billions of people could see their energy bills soar."
Since Trump and Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu launched "Operation Epic Fury" on Saturday, over 1,000 people had been killed as of Wednesday, according to the Iranian government, and oil prices have surged—highlighting how, as Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen put it earlier this week, "as long as our world runs on oil and gas, our peace, security and our pockets will always be at the mercy of geopolitics."
Qatar exports about 20% of the global LNG supply, second only to the United States. All of that LNG goes through the Strait of Hormuz. An Iranian drone attack on Monday targeted Qatari LNG facilities, leading state-owned QatarEnergy to declare force majeure on exports. Two unnamed sources told Reuters that QE "will fully shut down gas liquefaction on Wednesday," and "it may take at least a month to return to normal production volumes."
The Qatari shutdown is expected to boost the US LNG industry, which exported about 108 million metric tons last year. Already, shares of the two largest LNG producers in the United States, Cheniere and Venture Global, have surged.
"We've got an acute contraction of global LNG supply," Alex Munton, an expert on natural gas markets at consulting firm Rapidan Energy, told CNBC. "The world is now down 20% from where it was, and that leaves the world short."
As CNBC reported Tuesday:
US producers can't ramp LNG production beyond current levels, Munton said. "They're basically running at capacity," he said.
But since their customer contracts don't have fixed destinations, they can reroute LNG to meet demand, he said. The flexible capacity at US LNG producers like Venture and Cheniere plays a crucial role in moments of crisis, the analyst said. It's a unique feature of the US LNG industry, he added.
"The volumes are able to reroute to where the demand is greatest," Munton said. "We saw this in 2022 after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Suddenly, Europe was left short, and it was able to call on US LNG and utilize the inherent flexibility of US LNG.
US LNG cannot replace lost supply from Qatar, but buyers who really need the gas and are willing to pay a high enough price will get it, Munton said.
Seb Kennedy, the energy journalist and market analyst behind the newsletter Energy Flux, estimated Wednesday that "American LNG exports could generate up to $4 billion in windfall profits if the force majeure remains in effect for one month. This figure could rise as high as $20 billion per month if the market is deprived of Qatari supply until the summer."
"Over the first four months, US LNG profits could reach more than $33 billion above the pre-Iran average. Over eight months, that figure rises to $108 billion," he continued. "And if, in an extreme scenario, Qatari LNG is shut-in for a full year, the excess profits raining down on US LNG exports could stack up to almost $170 billion—a figure that would represent one of the most concentrated commodity windfalls of the post-2000 era."
"To put that in context, the 12-month Ukraine war windfall accruing to US LNG exporters, from August 2021 through August 2022, is estimated at $84 billion," Kennedy noted. "Iran could, in certain circumstances, eclipse that total in just over six months."
My latest for Energy Flux:💥 War profits, quantified 💥As Middle East regional war upends global gas markets, US LNG exporters stand to pocket a multi-billion-dollar windfallCheck it out 👉 www.energyflux.news/war-profits...
[image or embed]
— Seb Kennedy (@sebkennedy.bsky.social) March 4, 2026 at 11:58 AM
As the US Senate prepared for a vote on a war powers resolution that is not expected to pass but would swiftly halt Trump's assault on Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday that the war could last at least eight weeks. He also announced that an American submarine fired a torpedo that sank an Iranian naval ship off the coast of Sri Lanka.
On Tuesday, Trump had responded to Iran's attempt to shut down the Strait of Hormuz with a post on his Truth Social platform: "Effective IMMEDIATELY, I have ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide, at a very reasonable price, political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of ALL Maritime Trade, especially Energy, traveling through the Gulf. This will be available to all Shipping Lines. If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible. No matter what, the United States will ensure the FREE FLOW of ENERGY to the WORLD. The United States’ ECONOMIC and MILITARY MIGHT is the GREATEST ON EARTH—More actions to come."
However, as the New York Times highlighted Wednesday, "shipping company officials and analysts are skeptical" of Trump's promised fixes, and "some industry executives also worried how quickly these could get up and running."
For example, Helima Croft, the global head of commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, wrote to clients on Tuesday that "we think the insurance proposal is likely in a concepts-of-a-plan stage," and she questioned whether there are enough US naval assets in the region to actually provide escorts.
Democratic operative Chuck Rocha described Talarico as "a special candidate" who "ran the right kind of race at the right time."
James Talarico's victory in the Democratic US Senate primary in Texas on Tuesday shows why it would be a mistake to think Latino voters who jumped ship to support President Donald Trump in 2024 are a lost cause, according to Democratic strategist Chuck Rocha.
Rocha, who worked on Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2020 presidential campaign and who is a senior adviser for Talarico's campaign, told the Wall Street Journal that the Democratic Senate hopeful won over Latino support in Texas by focusing on a populist economic message first and foremost, such as when he accused US billionaires of "stealing from the American people, stealing the wealth that we created."
"Latinos are an aspirational people, and they want to aspire," said Rocha. "And they are also religious people, and they're... for economic populism."
The Journal noted that Talarico easily bested his rival for the nomination, US Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), by roughly 27 percentage points in Texas counties whose populations are 60% or more Latino, including counties in the southern part of the state that were longtime Democratic strongholds that swung to Trump in 2024.
The lesson of the election for Democrats, Rocha told the Journal, is "don’t write off Latinos that voted for Donald Trump."
In a video posted on social media Wednesday, Rocha elaborated on how Talarico and his campaign secured the nomination, calling the Texas Democrat "a special candidate" who "ran the right kind of race at the right time."
The facts about how @TeamTalaricoHQ won last night pic.twitter.com/1IUd9VpPUh
— Chuck Rocha (@ChuckRocha) March 4, 2026
Beyond that, Rocha said, Talarico and his staff were simply relentless campaigners willing to seek votes wherever they could find them.
"He won because he showed up in communities," Rocha said. "He ran advertising in those communities. He had an amazing field team of 28,000 volunteers, over 600 community events in just eight weeks. They sent over 4 million peer-to-peer texts."
Rocha said that it was too soon to say whether Talarico's message meant that Latino voters were returning to Democrats more broadly, but added, "They will move back for James Talarico if you show up and give them a hopeful message."
Rocha's enthusiasm for Talarico was echoed by Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
"James Talarico is the future of the Democratic Party," Casar declared in a social media post. "He unites working people of all kinds to take on the billionaires who are making life unaffordable. He’s going to show Texas Republicans how powerful working people are when we stand together. On to victory in November."
Mark McKinnon, a one-time Texas political operative who has worked for both Republicans and Democrats, said in an interview with Politico that Talarico's victory would be an unwelcome development for the Texas GOP, which will have to work harder to defeat him than other prospective Democratic nominees.
"A perfect storm is lining up for Texas Democrats," McKinnon said. "They have a nominee who can appeal to moderates and soft Republicans. Talarico could be Moses who leads the Lone Star Democrats out of the desert they’ve been in for 35 years."