July, 01 2022, 05:49pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kelsey Lamp, Protect our Oceans Campaigns Director, klamp@environmentamerica.org
Mark Morgenstein, Media Relations Director, markm@publicinterestnetwork.
Biden Administration's Drilling Proposal Would Put U.S. Over a Barrel
No need to continue offshore oil, gas leasing as renewable energy replaces fossil fuels.
WASHINGTON
The Biden administration released its latest draft of the National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program on Friday. This proposal for future drilling off U.S. coastlines updates the 2017-2022 policy issued by the Obama administration and calls for up to 10 new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and potentially one in Alaska's Cook Inlet. In recent history, areas near both sites have been ravaged by oil spills, including the infamous 1989 Exxon Valdez incident in Alaska's Prince William Sound and the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf.
Continuing lease sales for offshore drilling will extend the risk to Gulf ecosystems and communities from oil spills for decades. The Deepwater Horizon spill devastated marine life, ultimately pouring 4 million barrels - or 168 million gallons - of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, killing sea turtles, seabirds and fish, and harming dolphins. Just last year, the oil spill off Huntington Beach, Calif., highlighted that drilling operations can damage beaches and coastal communities decades after a lease is sold.
Offshore drilling's impacts are not only felt during major, catastrophic oil spills. As Environment America Research & Policy Center found in our 2019 report Offshore Drilling, Onshore Damage, the day-to-day operations required to bring oil to shore also pose risks to coastal ecosystems and communities, from pipelines degrading coastal estuaries to the toxic waste that must be shipped to shore from offshore rigs.
This plan will be published in the Federal Register later this month, kicking off a 90-day public comment period that will allow members of the public to weigh in on the proposed sales. BOEM will also host four virtual meetings to obtain public input during the comment period.
In response, Environment America's Oceans Campaigns Director Kelsey Lamp issued the following statement:
"America's history has taught us on far too many occasions that when you drill, you spill. New offshore drilling ultimately signs us up for decades of more risk from oil spills, pollution from refineries and toxic waste brought to shore. Our ocean wildlife and our coastal communities deserve better.
"By proposing as many as 11 new offshore drilling lease sales, President Biden is taking us down the same old path toward more spills and a warmer climate. This plan would lock in long-term risks that, with renewable energy on the rise, we increasingly don't need. As the country reels from rising gas prices, it's time to offer solutions that won't keep us stuck over a barrel. Instead, we ask the Biden administration to change course and make it easier for us to have a cleaner, greener future powered by renewable sources."
With Environment America, you protect the places that all of us love and promote core environmental values, such as clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and clean energy to power our lives. We're a national network of 29 state environmental groups with members and supporters in every state. Together, we focus on timely, targeted action that wins tangible improvements in the quality of our environment and our lives.
(303) 801-0581LATEST NEWS
‘Who Will Be in Charge?’ Sanders Warns of AI Future Dominated by Handful of Billionaires
"Are we comfortable with seeing these enormously wealthy and powerful men shape the future of humanity without any democratic input or oversight?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Dec 09, 2025
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Monday that policymakers in the United States and around the world are at a critical juncture where they must decide whether artificial intelligence will be controlled and exploited by the ultra-wealthy—or utilized for the benefit of all humanity.
In a speech on the floor of the US Senate, Sanders (I-Vt.) said the key question is, "Who will be in charge of the transformation into an AI world?"
"Currently, a handful of the wealthiest people on Earth—people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, and others—and others are investing many, many hundreds of billions of dollars in developing and implementing AI and robotics," the senator said. "Are we comfortable with seeing these enormously wealthy and powerful men shape the future of humanity without any democratic input or oversight?"
Watch the full speech:
Sanders noted that US President Donald Trump "is strongly supporting" billionaire dominance of burgeoning AI technology, including with his plan to sign an executive order aimed at blocking state-level regulations of the artificial intelligence industry.
"Does this elite group of some of the most powerful people on Earth believe that they have the divine right to rule?" the senator asked.
Sanders also emphasized the potentially catastrophic impact of AI technology on workers, as Amazon and other corporate giants seek to replace as many jobs as possible with robots. In October, Sanders released a report estimating that advances in AI technology could supplant nearly 100 million US jobs over the next decade, including 89% of fast food workers and 40% of registered nurses.
"If AI and robotics eliminate millions of jobs and create massive unemployment, how will people survive if they have no income? How do they feed their families, pay for housing, pay for healthcare?" Sanders asked. "That might be an issue that we should be talking about, like, yesterday."
In recent weeks, Sanders has made burgeoning AI technology and its concentration in the hands of a few powerful individuals and corporations a major focus, holding an event with computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton—who is known as the "godfather of AI"—and warning about the promise and peril of artificial intelligence in the pages of major newspapers.
"AI and robotics are revolutionary technologies that will bring about an unprecedented transformation of society," Sanders wrote in a Guardian column last week. "Will these changes be positive and improve life for ordinary Americans? Or will they be disastrous? Congress must act now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Report Estimates Bold Climate Action Would Deliver $100 Trillion in Benefits by 2100
"If we choose to stay on the current path—powering our economies with fossil fuels, extracting virgin resources, destroying nature, polluting the environment—the damages would stack up."
Dec 09, 2025
A new report from the United Nations Environment Program has found that addressing the global climate emergency would deliver major economic benefits, in addition to creating a cleaner and more habitable planet.
The seventh edition of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO), released on Tuesday, estimates that making up-front investments in climate action now would begin to yield global macroeconomic benefits starting in 2050, potentially growing to $20 trillion per year by 2070 and $100 trillion by 2100.
The report, which was the product of nearly 300 multi-disciplinary scientists across more than 80 countries, argues that a total of $8 trillion in annual investment from this year until 2050 would be needed to achieve its climate goals. But, the report stresses, the cost of inaction would be far greater.
"If we choose to stay on the current path—powering our economies with fossil fuels, extracting virgin resources, destroying nature, polluting the environment—the damages would stack up," the report warns. "Climate change would cut 4% off annual global GDP by 2050, claim many lives, and increase forced migration."
Other likely consequences of inaction, warns the report, include "Amazon forest dieback and ice-sheet collapse," along with the loss of "hundreds of millions more hectares of natural lands." The report also projects that global food availability will fall if the climate crisis is not addressed, and that increased air pollution will cause an additional 4 million premature deaths per year.
The report recommends a rapid move away from fossil fuels, as well as a drastic rethinking of agricultural subsidies so that they no longer "directly favor activities that have significant harmful effects on the environment, including on biodiversity."
Robert Watson, a co-chair of the GEO assessment, said in an interview with the Guardian that the climate crisis cannot simply be seen as an environmental issue given that it is now "undermining our economy, food security, water security, human health," and also creating national security problems by increasing "conflict in many parts of the world."
In an interview with BBC, Watson also accused US President Donald Trump's administration of sabotaging the report by refusing to even accept its conclusions about the damage being done by human-induced climate change.
"The US decided not to attend the meeting at all," he explained. "At the very end they joined by teleconference and basically made a statement that they could not agree with most of the report, which means they didn't agree with anything we said on climate change, biodiversity, fossil fuels, plastics, and subsidies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Exposes Instacart's Hidden AI Price Experiments That Could Cost Families $1,200 Per Year
"At a time when everyday Americans are struggling with high prices, it is particularly egregious to see corporations secretly conducting individual experiments to see how much a person is willing to pay," said one advocate.
Dec 09, 2025
Consumer advocates on Tuesday called on the Federal Trade Commission and state officials to investigate artificial intelligence-enabled pricing experiments used by Instacart, the grocery shopping app millions of Americans rely on, that charge up to 23% more for some shoppers than others when they buy the same item at the same store.
Consumer Reports joined the advocacy group Groundwork Collaborative and the labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union to uncover Instacart's pricing experiments enabled by Eversight, an AI pricing software that Instacart acquired in 2022. The company's CEO said last year that the experiments have helped the company “to really figure out which categories of products our customers [are] more price sensitive on"—in other words, to tailor prices based on a customer's shopping habits, whether they're near a competing store, and other factors.
The groups' study, Same Cart, Different Price, describes how researchers ran five tests with 437 participants, studying the prices of a basket of items bought at two Target stores and three Safeway stores using Instacart.
In one test at a Safeway in Washington, DC, shoppers logged on to the app to buy a carton of eggs from the same brand at the same time and found that the price they were given varied widely. Some shoppers were charged just $3.99 for the eggs, while others saw a price as high as $4.79—20% higher.
Shoppers at a Safeway in Seattle saw a 23% difference in prices for Skippy peanut butter, Oscar Mayer turkey, and Wheat Thins crackers. At two different Safeways in Washington, DC, Instacart quoted shoppers at one store a price that was 23% higher than at another for Signature Select Corn Flakes.
"It’s time for Instacart to close the lab. Americans shopping for groceries aren’t guinea pigs and shouldn't have to pay an Instacart tax.”
For the same basket of groceries, shoppers at the Seattle store were asked to pay as much as $123.93, while others were charged just $114.34.
"The average price variations observed in the study could cost a household of four about $1,200 per year," said Groundwork.
Justin Brookman, director of tech policy at Consumer Reports, said Instacart's tactics "hurt families who are simply trying to purchase essential groceries."
"At a time when everyday Americans are struggling with high prices, it is particularly egregious to see corporations secretly conducting individual experiments to see how much a person is willing to pay," said Brookman. "Companies must be transparent and upfront with people about pricing, so that they can make informed choices and keep more of their hard-earned money. We encourage the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to investigate Instacart’s pricing tactics."
Groundwork noted that Instcart's website acknowledges that it runs price tests, but states that "shoppers are not aware that they’re in an experiment" and are having their grocery prices selected for them via algorithm.
While Instacart has claimed its price experiments are "negligible," the groups emphasized that they're being used "against the backdrop of the fastest increase in food prices since the late 1970s."
After previous reporting on companies' use of "shrinkflation," "dynamic pricing," and other practices that keep prices high even as pandemic-era labor and supply chain issues have subsided, "today’s report shows Instacart’s experiments are yet another way corporate pricing tactics are squeezing American families," said Groundwork.
The study did not find evidence that Instacart is giving shoppers different prices based on their ZIP code or income, as companies like Amazon, Delta Air Lines, and Home Deport have been accused of doing.
But the groups said Eversight gives the company the capability to use that data to make pricing decisions tailored to particular shoppers.
“Instacart is quietly running pricing experiments on millions of shoppers during the worst grocery affordability crisis in a generation, and it’s costing households as much as $1,200 a year,” said Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens. “They have turned the simple act of buying groceries into a high-tech game of pricing roulette. When the same box of Wheat Thins can jump 23% in price because of an algorithm, that’s not innovation or convenience, it’s unfair. It’s time for Instacart to close the lab. Americans shopping for groceries aren’t guinea pigs and shouldn't have to pay an Instacart tax.”
The groups credited some state and federal lawmakers who have begun to take notice of pricing practices like Instacart's; US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) introduced the Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act in July with the aim of prohibiting the use of automated systems to set prices. New York has enacted the first-of-its-kind Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act, which requires companies to prominently disclose to customers, "This price was set by an algorithm using your personal data" when they use methods like Instacart's. Other state legislation has been introduced in Colorado, California, and Pennsylvania to ban the use of surveillance to set prices.
The groups called on the FTC to take action under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which bans "unfair methods of competition." Those could include “'price discrimination not justified by differences in cost or distribution,' which appears to match Instacart’s pricing experiments and fluctuations," the report reads.
The FTC could also bring enforcement cases or initiate rulemaking to officially label AI-enabled pricing strategies as an "unfair or deceptive practice," affirming that companies who use them are breaking a consumer protection standard.
"Fair and honest markets are the bedrock of a healthy economy," reads Tuesday's report. "Companies like Instacart offer great convenience, but they are increasingly pursuing corporate pricing practices that unfairly decouple the price of a product from its true cost. As more consumers learn about, and decry, these practices, perhaps companies will change course. But if they do not, policymakers should intervene and require them to change their practices."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular