

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.

Collin Rees, collin@priceofoil.org, +1 308 293 3159 (WhatsApp / Signal) / +44 7456 153481 (call / text)
As the COP26 United Nations climate negotiations wind to a close at the end of their second week, negotiations have centered on the balance between mitigation and adaptation, differentiated responsibilities, Article Six, and the potential inclusion of language on a coal phase-out and a call to end fossil fuel subsidies.
Oil Change International experts had the following responses:
Elizabeth Bast, Executive Director:
"Compared to just a few years ago, the progress and momentum made in the last two weeks towards phasing out fossil fuels is striking. The joint commitment by nearly 40 countries and institutions to end public finance for oil, gas, and coal projects overseas now puts pressure on all countries to end funding for all fossil fuels. The Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, launched by 12 countries and regions, is the first diplomatic initiative acknowledging the need for governments to manage the phase-out of fossil fuel production as a key tool to address the climate crisis.
"It is notable that most progress during COP26 occurred outside the negotiating rooms. As fires rage and floods worsen globally, climate change is harming billions of people and disproportionately impacting communities in the Global South, Black and Indigenous Peoples, and People of Color. As the negotiations continue to fail to deliver just outcomes for people most affected by climate change, we must increase the pressure on governments, institutions, and decisionmakers. Governments in the Global North must act first and fastest to address climate injustice, put an end to fossil fuel production, and support a just transition to clean energy."
Laurie van der Burg, Global Public Finance Campaign Co-Manager:
"Thanks to years of tireless and coordinated campaigning, nearly 40 countries and institutions have finally committed to end deadly subsidies for fossil fuel projects overseas. This is a crucial win of the movement, and the inclusion of countries like the United States, Canada, and Germany--some of the largest historical financiers of fossil fuel projects--is a testament to the efforts of countless advocates. A large number of low-income countries also joined, including Sri Lanka, Mali, and Ethiopia, showing many Global South nations do not think fossil fuels provide a valid development pathway and want clean energy investment instead."
"With strong implementation, this initiative could shift at least USD 24.1 billion per year in direct public finance out of fossil fuels and into clean energy--which will shift even larger flows of private finance. This is a massive and real impact. Signatories must work to implement this commitment effectively and recruit additional countries, including Japan, Korea, and China, which together account for 46% of public finance for fossil fuels. The commitment must mean no new financing for fossil fuel infrastructure, and that money must be fully shifted to climate action and loss and damage finance. Signatories must also ingrain their commitment to end international public finance for oil, gas, and coal by the end of 2022 in other policy processes at multilateral fora such as at the OECD, the G7, and the G20."
Romain Ioualalen, Global Policy Campaign Manager:
"The launch of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) at COP26 was a major development. For the first time at a UN climate conference, ministers from 12 countries and regions took to the stage to say: There is no future for oil and gas in a world that meets the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
"By setting up this initiative, BOGA members are asking a very simple question to their peers: Where is your plan to phase out the fossil fuels driving the climate crisis? This is a question that the Scottish and British governments will have to answer urgently, as despite their daily claims of climate leadership, they have failed to join this coalition and still plan to approve new oil and gas projects like the Cambo oil field.
"BOGA members' commitment to end licensing rounds is an urgent first step, but implementing the IEA's call to stop all new oil and gas development--including in licensed areas--must also be part of all countries' climate plans. We will work with our allies around the world to make sure this initiative becomes a rallying cry for movements fighting fossil fuel expansion everywhere."
Collin Rees, United States Program Manager:
"COP26 is winding to a bitter end as rich countries dig in against urgently needed finance to address losses and damages by communities suffering from climate impacts. Glasgow was a chance to make real progress on Loss and Damage, but once again developing countries will return home with little to show but empty promises from massive historical emitters like the United States who are driving the climate crisis through oil and gas expansion.
"For the first time, the climate talks featured a public fight over language on phasing out fossil fuels and ending fossil fuel subsidies. This is a key turning point, and we won't go back. Equitably phasing out oil, gas, and coal must be an animating factor in every climate discussion moving forward, and our movements in the streets will make sure that happens."
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029"The GOP doesn't care about your skyrocketing costs for gas, groceries, and everything else. They only care about appeasing Trump," said the House minority whip.
After four US Senate Republicans on Tuesday helped Democrats advance a war powers resolution intended to halt President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran, GOP leadership in the House of Representatives canceled a similar vote on Wednesday, and again on Thursday.
Progressive and Democratic Party leaders in the House were quick to call out Republican leadership, including Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), who Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said "has cemented his legacy as the speaker who handed the most corrupt president ever complete control over the House."
"Republicans can run from Trump's disastrous war, but they can't hide. Thousands are dead, and gas and grocery prices are up, and progressives will not stop demanding votes... until the war is actually ended," Casar pledged, as Americans prepared to spend an estimated extra $3.5 billion on gasoline over the holiday weekend.
CPC Chair Emerita Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) similarly said on social media: "Republicans just called off the vote on a war powers resolution because they were afraid it would pass and Trump's war of choice in Iran would be ended. This is absolutely ridiculous, and a failure of leadership from the Republican Party."
House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) also accused Republicans of refusing to hold a vote "because they knew it would pass," adding: "The GOP doesn't care about your skyrocketing costs for gas, groceries, and everything else. They only care about appeasing Trump."
Absences were the apparent issue for the House GOP on Thursday. Eight Republicans were not there for votes, according to C-SPAN Capitol Hill producer Craig Caplan, and retiring Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who joined with nearly all Republicans to block a resolution last week, had made clear that he intended to support the measure this week.
Cheered on by colleagues, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) took to the House floor to demand answers about the schedule: "Are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that is costing tens of billions of dollars? Gas prices are through the roof. People can't afford their groceries. Is that why you're pulling it? You guys don't have the guts or the balls to vote on this."
Republican Congressmen Tom Barrett (Mich.), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), and Thomas Massie (Ky.) had broken ranks and joined Democrats for last week's vote. While Massie was absent on Thursday after a stinging primary loss earlier this week, "some Republicans believed Fitzpatrick and Barrett would vote for the resolution again Thursday before they pulled it," Politico reported.
Fitzpatrick confirmed that, telling Punchbowl News' Briana Reilly: "They're claiming they have two more days to bring it. I was prepared to vote for it."
After the cancellation, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said that "as tonight shows, the deck is stacked against pro-peace Americans: Even when a majority of Americans oppose a war, and a majority of Congress opposes a war, congressional leaders find ways to cancel a vote so that the war can continue!"
"This cowardice makes a mockery of the democratic process—but it will not silence Americans who are in the right that oppose this catastrophic, illegal war," NIAC added. "We will keep up the momentum until we bring this disastrous and backfiring war to a close."
Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, suggested Thursday that "the best thing" for Trump and the GOP would be to lose a war powers vote, because then the president "would have cover to make a deal with Iran and let gas prices come down."
The cancellation of the war powers vote was part of what Politico's Meredith Lee Hill called "a BIG mess" in the chamber "as lawmakers want to leave for Memorial Day recess," given that "reconciliation 2.0 is already iced," and a "GOP-led bill to create a women's museum is set to fail amid a GOP revolt." That vote was held, and failed as expected.
"EPA owes it to Americans to put people’s health first—not give hidebound corporations more time to keep using outdated chemicals," said one critic.
In a reversal of his past position and what critics are calling yet another betrayal of his "Make America Healthy Again" campaign pledge, US President Donald Trump announced Thursday that his administration is loosening limits on so-called "super pollutant" hydrofluorocarbons used in air conditioners and refrigerators at the expense of the environment and climate.
Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin spun the move as a measure that will "save American families and businesses more than $2.4 billion" by revising "costly overreaching restrictions" imposed during the Biden administration "limiting the type of refrigerants American businesses and families can use."
"Today, the Trump EPA is fulfilling President Trump’s promise to lower costs and is fixing every problem we can under the authority Congress gave us," Zeldin said. "Our actions allow businesses to choose the refrigeration systems that work best for them, saving them billions of dollars. This will be felt directly by American families in lower grocery prices.”
Grocery prices have continued to rise during Trump’s second term, driven by the administration's erratic trade wars and actual war on Iran. Critics of Thursday's move argue that it will do little to reduce consumer costs, while increasing pollution and health risks for American families.
“It’s nice that they are paying attention to affordability, but if they want to make a difference, it’s tariffs and the Iran War," Ryan Young, a senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, told NOTUS, estimating that the move would save consumers about $2 per year.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are called “super pollutants” because they trap far more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, even though they are emitted in much smaller quantities. They were originally introduced to replace ozone-depleting chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that ravaged the ozone layer.
However, scientists soon realized that HFCs are extremely powerful greenhouse gases in their own right. As air conditioning use and demand grows worldwide, so has HFC use.
As the EPA's own website acknowledges on its "Operation: Disrupt HFCs" webpage:
HFCs are potent greenhouse gases... with high global warming potential. HFCs are commonly utilized as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, foam blowing agents, solvents, and fire retardants across residential, commercial, and industrial applications. The major source of HFC emissions is their use as refrigerants—for example, in air conditioning systems in both vehicles and buildings. Emissions occur during manufacturing, as well as through leaks, servicing, and disposal of equipment containing HFCs.
Former EPA Assistant Administrator Joseph Goffman said in a statement Thursday that "families are already stretched thin by high grocery bills and everyday expenses, and weakening safeguards on these super-polluting refrigerant chemicals isn’t going to change that."
"Even manufacturers are saying this delay likely won’t lower prices for consumers because supplies of these chemicals are already being phased down in favor of cleaner, innovative replacements," he added.
Stephen Yurek, president and CEO of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI)—an industry lobby—warned that the "reckless" new policy could actually cause refrigerant prices to increase.
“This rule works against basic supply and demand,” Yurek said. “By extending the compliance deadline, the EPA is maintaining and even increasing demand in the market for existing refrigerants while supply continues to fall under the AIM Act."
The American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020, bipartisan legislation signed by Trump during his first term, directed the EPA to "phase down the production and consumption of listed HFCs in the United States by 85% by 2036" and "facilitate the transition to next-generation technologies that do not rely on HFCs."
As of this year, more than 170 countries—including the United States—plus the European Union have ratified the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the main global agreement to phase down HFCs.
Yurek explained that "instead of falling, refrigerant prices are likely to rise, resulting in higher service costs, and higher costs for consumers."
Addressing the EPA's reversal on HFCs, Goffman said, "All this action does is slow the shift to cleaner technologies while risking continued releases of climate super pollutants and leaving families to face the much greater costs and health threats of dangerous climate change."
"EPA owes it to Americans to put people’s health first—not give hidebound corporations more time to keep using outdated chemicals," he added. "Americans deserve affordable groceries that don’t come at the expense of the strong safeguards they count on to keep our families safer, not sicker.”
The EPA move comes amid mounting calls by over 160 civil rights, environmental, faith, health, and labor groups to fire Zeldin over his agency's deregulation spree.
"Folks very close to the White House... were sitting on properties that were causing them losses every year," said a journalist tracking the purchases. "The decision was made to buy them at taxpayer expense."
In what More Perfect Union described as a "new level of corruption" for the Trump administration, an investigation by the progressive news outlet revealed how members of the president's inner circle are cashing in on the Department of Homeland Security's purchase of warehouses for immigrant detention.
It was reported earlier this year that under then-Secretary Kristi Noem, who has since been fired, DHS was planning to spend nearly $40 billion to buy up dozens of warehouses around the US to convert them into makeshift detention camps that could each hold anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 people arrested as part of President Donald Trump's mass deportation effort.
But when Mae Ryan, a reporter at More Perfect Union, looked into the contracts, she said she "noticed something weird."
"Many of these warehouses had been sitting on the market for years," she explained in a video posted Wednesday. "Now DHS was buying them at a massive markup."
She pointed to one warehouse in Socorro, Texas, recently valued at $11 million, which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) purchased from the company El Paso Logistics II LLC for $123 million—more than a 1,000% profit.
According to Michael Wriston, an ex-military analyst and investigative journalist who tracked the enormous markups for several of these warehouse purchases for his website Project Salt Box back in March, "across more than a dozen warehouse acquisitions, ICE paid prices that exceeded both prior property valuations and recent market comparables at nearly every site."
For one warehouse in Surprise, Arizona, previously valued at just under $12 million, ICE paid over $70 million. For another in Social Circle, Georgia, valued at about $30 million, the agency paid nearly $130 million.

Many of the warehouses that raked in obscene taxpayer-funded purchases by DHS were owned by financial institutions with deep connections to the Trump administration, Ryan explained.
One warehouse in Roxbury, New Jersey, valued at about $54.6 million in 2025, inexplicably sold to ICE for over $129 million, more than double. Its majority owner was the investment bank Goldman Sachs, where many Trump appointees during his first term—including former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Trump financial adviser Gary Cohn—were formerly employed.
ICE paid double for another warehouse in Tremont, Pennsylvania, buying it for nearly $120 million despite a valuation of about $60 million. It was owned by the private capital firm Blue Owl, where at least 33 members of Trump's administration have investments in its funds, including the president himself, who has about $5 million invested in the firm.
Another in Salt Lake City, valued at just $97 million, was purchased by ICE for $145 million, and the agency now plans to convert it into a 10,000-bed facility. It was owned by Deutsche Bank, which has loaned Trump about $2.5 billion over the past two decades.
Wriston told More Perfect Union that the financial payout to Trump allies was top of mind for DHS as it drew up the controversial warehouse plan.
"ICE doesn't necessarily want to be using warehouses," he said. "The plan came from folks very close to the White House who were sitting on properties that were causing them losses every year. And the decision was made to buy them at taxpayer expense."
It's part of a larger pattern of ICE contracts being distributed to companies that have given major financial support to Trump.
According to an investigation in March by OpenSecrets, the GEO Group and CoreCivic, two private prison companies that have collectively received more than $2.8 billion in ICE contracts, each donated $500,000 to Trump's inaugural committee. The GEO Group's employee-funded political action committee contributed $1 million to the pro-Trump super PAC Make America Great Again, Inc. during his reelection campaign in 2024.
The vast majority of those who have been detained during Trump's second term have had no criminal records, despite claims by the administration that they are targeting "the worst of the worst" criminals for deportation.
Those who have been held in ICE detention centers—often without any due process or access to a lawyer—have consistently reported being held in horrendous conditions, denied access to basic food, sanitation, and medical care, and subject to torture and sexual assault by guards.
DHS has reportedly spent only about $1 billion of the more than $38 billion allotted for immigration detention warehouses so far. According to The New York Times, the administration is hoping to build a mass detention system that could stuff these warehouses with over 100,000 detainees at a time across more than 20 facilities.
According to Wriston's running tracker of ICE warehouse sales, at least 13 purchases have been canceled, in many cases due to public backlash. Still, the administration has already purchased enough warehouse space to hold more than 41,500 people at once.
"What we're seeing happen now—I never in a million years envisioned seeing this happen on US soil," Wriston said. "Never. Never once."