August, 18 2022, 02:22pm EDT
"Stop The Dirty Pipeline Deal": Activists Arrested In Blockade of Senator Schumer's Office Over Pipeline Side Deal
Dirty side deal would fast-track dangerous fossil fuel projects.
WASHINGTON
Photos and videos of the event are available here; a recorded livestream is available here.
This morning, 100 climate activists blockaded Senate Majority Leader Schumer's Manhattan office, demanding an end to the side deal negotiated behind closed doors last month. Senator Schumer negotiated the side deal with Senator Manchin to buy the West Virginia Senator's support for the Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law Tuesday. 10 activists, represented by civil rights lawyer Ron Kuby, were arrested conducting a peaceful sit-in at Senator Schumer's office. Police handcuffed protesters holding signs saying "Schumer: Stop The Dirty Pipeline Deal" and "Off Fossil Fuels".
According to a leaked one-pager, the side deal proposes to fast track dangerous fossil fuel projects, gut decades-old environmental review processes for infrastructure projects, and silence the public's voice in decision making. The side deal also proposes to rubber stamp the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a failing fracked gas project that neighboring communities in Appalachia have been fighting for five years. A vote is expected on the side deal in September. Food & Water Watch Senior New York Organizer Laura Shindell, who was arrested Thursday morning said:
"Senator Schumer is sacrificing frontline communities and our clean energy future, all to placate a coal baron. Schumer's dirty side deal is a lose-lose-lose for our frontline communities and our climate, shortcutting the federal agencies and public processes meant to protect us and fast-tracking dangerous fossil fuel projects. Senator Schumer must reverse course on the dirty pipeline deal and recommit to preserving a livable future."
"The Inflation Reduction Act is a strong first step toward addressing the climate crisis, but the deal that Schumer struck with Manchin could seriously undermine it," said Livvie Mann, organizer with Rise and Resist. "The 'deal' would allow fast tracking of fossil fuel infrastructure like pipelines, taking us in a completely wrong direction. Schumer must stop the dirty pipeline deal."
"We refuse to accept the so-called 'Permitting Reform Bill'. This back-room side deal made with Manchin that would expand fossil fuel permitting is indefensible. We cannot allow the passage of a bill that would stifle the powers of frontline communities to fight back against ecological harm in their hometowns," said Jonathan Salazar with Sunrise NYC. "We will keep fighting for a just transition until we've achieved a Green New Deal -- that's why we are here."
"It is vital that everyone step up to do their part in fighting the climate crisis," said civil rights lawyer Ron Kuby. "While I am a bit old to be sitting in the streets (who knows if I could make it up?) I am proud to stand up for the climate warriors in court!"
"The recently passed Inflation Reduction Act carries a headline '42% GHG reduction by 2040'. This is debatable, given questionable methane accounting. What is not debatable is that even this 42% does not account for the side deal struck between Senators Manchin and Schumer to fast-track pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure in a separate bill," said Shayok Mukhopadhyay, organizer with 350NYC. "Rep. Grijalva of Arizona has expressed concern that this bill may be tied together with other must-pass legislation to incentivize legislators to vote in its favor. This kind of backroom dealing that sacrifices the health of frontline communities and the stability of our climate must stop."
"We see death, starvation, flooding, droughts, and wildfires from climate change. We should not be walking on eggshells with West Virginia's Senator Joe Manchin, who is the largest recipient of fossil fuel money in the entire United States Congress," said Kim Fraczek, Director of Sane Energy Project. "Our allies fighting the Mountain Valley Pipeline in his state have been protecting the land and water for nearly a decade against this heinous fracked gas project. It is unconscionable that we are fighting for our lives in the 21st century so politicians can profit off obsolete technology. We need Senator Schumer and the rest of Congress to use their power to defend communities, not pipelines."
"As a survivor of Hurricane Sandy, I know the impact of climate change first-hand. Every time it rains, my daughter wonders if our home will once again be destroyed and we will be rendered homeless," said Rachel Rivera with New York Communities for Change. "As long as Senator Chuck Schumer continues to acquiesce to Senator Joe Manchin's dirty side deals that destroy bedrock climate protections, families like mine will continue to suffer. It's time for Senator Schumer to block this "permitting reform" proposal and protect our climate and communities, not Exxon Mobil."
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
‘Arsonist as Fire Chief’: Fed Appoints Wall Street Lobbyist to Key Bank Oversight Role
"There can be little doubt that having a Wall Street lawyer-lobbyist in charge of supervising and regulating his former Wall Street clients will likely result in a catastrophe for the American people."
Feb 25, 2026
The Federal Reserve board has quietly appointed a prominent Wall Street lawyer and lobbyist as the central bank's director of supervision and regulation, a move that one critic said was worse than "putting the fox in charge of the henhouse."
"This is like appointing a lifelong arsonist as a fire chief," Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of Better Markets, said in response to the Fed's decision to put Randall Guynn in a position to regulate the industry he has long represented.
Politico reported Tuesday that "Guynn, a prominent Wall Street lawyer, will become the next director of supervision and regulation at the Federal Reserve, effective March 8."
Before joining Fed staff last year as an adviser to the central bank's vice chair for supervision, Guynn worked for close to four decades at the corporate law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, where he recently chaired the company's Financial Institutions Group. According to Guynn's bio, he has "focused on advising banks of all sizes on their most critical financial regulatory issues and transactions."
Reuters, which first reported earlier this month that the Fed was expected to appoint Guynn to the bank policing role, noted that the decision "would mark a departure for the central bank, which since at least 1977 has filled the job with long-serving Fed career staff."
"The only reasonable expectation is that his leadership of Fed supervision and regulation will accelerate the Fed’s current push to implement policies that favor the biggest, most dangerous banks."
In a statement, Kelleher of Better Markets described Guynn as a "lawyer-lobbyist" who has "spent his entire professional life—almost 40 years—zealously and exclusively representing the interests of the financial industry, including the biggest financial firms on Wall Street."
A 2024 paper published in Cambridge University's Perspectives on Politics journal identified Guynn as part of a "vast subterranean world of regulatory influence-seeking" that has managed to escape the scrutiny of legislative lobbying.
"Reporting exceptions under the Lobbying Disclosure Act allow many of the most powerful advocates to characterize their activity as lawyering, not lobbying, and thereby fly under the radar," the paper notes.
Kelleher argued that, given Guynn's history, "the only reasonable expectation is that his leadership of Fed supervision and regulation will accelerate the Fed’s current push to implement policies that favor the biggest, most dangerous banks—his former clients just ten months ago and presumably his current circle of professional and personal friends."
"That will crush small banks, harm the Main Street economy, and make another financial crash inevitable. That’s what happened in the early 2000s when the Fed’s misguided belief that Wall Street could regulate itself directly led to the catastrophic 2008 crash," said Kelleher. "We don’t have to speculate. We can look at his attached record or read the remarkable story of how, as a lawyer-lobbyist prior to joining the Fed staff last year, he was instrumental in pushing through a back-door merger approval by the Fed."
"There can be little doubt that having a Wall Street lawyer-lobbyist in charge of supervising and regulating his former Wall Street clients will likely result in a catastrophe for the American people," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ocean Warming Drives 'Deeply Concerning Loss of Marine Life,' Study Shows
Noting that species are at risk from not only warming waters but also overfishing, one expert argued that "any management reform must simultaneously address both drivers of change."
Feb 25, 2026
Humanity's continued reliance on fossil fuels led to last year being among the hottest on record, and oceans store over 90% of the excess heat from greenhouse gases. A study out Wednesday details how the related long-term heating, warm years, and marine heatwaves "pose serious but poorly quantified threats" to fish species.
"To put it simply, the faster the ocean floor warms, the faster we lose fish," lead author Shahar Chaikin of Spain's National Museum of Natural Sciences (MNCN) told the Guardian. "A 7.2% decline for every tenth of a degree per decade might sound small... But compounded over time, across entire ocean basins, it represents a staggering and deeply concerning loss of marine life."
For the study, published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution, Chaikin, his MNCN colleague Miguel B. Araújo and the National University of Colombia's Juan David González-Trujillo analyzed 702,037 estimates of biomass change for 33,990 populations of 1,566 fish species across the Mediterranean, north Atlantic, and northeast Pacific between 1993 and 2021.
"On shorter timescales, warmer years and marine heatwaves were linked to sharp biomass losses of up to 43.4% in populations at the warm edge of the species' range and biomass increases of up to 176% at the cold edge," the study states. Chaikin warned in a statement that the temporary jumps in cooler areas could send misleading signals to managers of fisheries.
"Although this sudden increase in biomass in cold waters may seem like good news for fisheries, these are transient increases," he explained. "If managers raise catch quotas based on biomass increases caused by a heatwave, they risk causing the collapse of populations when temperatures return to normal or when the effect of long-term warming prevails, because these are short-lived increases."
González-Trujillo stressed that "unlike extreme short-term weather fluctuations, which can vary dramatically, this chronic warming exerts a constant negative pressure on fish populations in the Mediterranean Sea, the north Atlantic Ocean, and the northeastern Pacific Ocean."
Specifically, Chaikin said that "when we remove the noise of extreme short-term weather events, the data show that this warming is associated with a sustained annual decline in biomass of up to 19.8%."
Are warmer oceans good or bad for #fish? 🐟 The answer is a dangerous paradox. Our new paper in @natecoevo.nature.com shows how marine heatwaves may create “fake” fish gains that mask a large-scale crash. Read our findings here: www.nature.com/articles/s41...@mncn-csic.bsky.social #ClimateChange
[image or embed]
— Shahar Chaikin (@shaharchaikin.bsky.social) February 25, 2026 at 5:05 AM
Given the findings, Araújo emphasized that fisheries' managers "must balance localized increases with long-term declines extremely carefully to avoid overexploitation."
"As ocean warming continues, the only viable strategy is to prioritize long-term resilience," the study co-author said. "Management measures must plan for the biomass decline expected in an increasingly warm ocean."
Carlos García-Soto is a scientist at the Spanish National Research Council, which manages MNCN. Although not a study co-author, he also highlighted the need for policymakers to understand the "clear risk of misinterpretation" detailed in the new paper.
"In a context of accelerated climate change, policies cannot react solely to extreme events or be based on short-term signals," García-Soto said in a statement. "They need consistency between science, planning, and governance, especially in shared ecosystems or on the high seas."
Also responding to the research on Wednesday, Guillermo Ortuño Crespo of the International Union for Conservation of Nature said that "I believe this is a methodologically sound and valuable study that provides valuable evidence on how different components of ocean warming affect fish biomass."
While recognizing the well-documented and devastating impacts of fossil fuel-driven heating on marine species, Ortuño Crespo also warned that "there is a risk, in my opinion, that climate change will become the main explanation for changes in marine species biomass, leaving aside overfishing."
"Historically, overfishing has been the main determinant of biomass declines in many fisheries around the world," he noted, citing the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. "The proportion of overexploited stocks globally continues to increase, indicating that fishing pressure remains a dominant risk factor. The current challenge is that this overfishing crisis is being further exacerbated by ocean warming and deoxygenation."
"In terms of public policy, the study is highly relevant because it emphasizes that fisheries management systems must become more climate-adaptive," Ortuño Crespo said. "Any management reform must simultaneously address both drivers of change: climate and fisheries. Adjusting quotas solely on the basis of climate without reducing overcapacity and the impact of high-impact gear, such as bottom trawling, is likely to be insufficient to recover stocks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AI Opted to Use Nuclear Weapons 95% of the Time During War Games: Researcher
"There was little sense of horror or revulsion at the prospect of all out nuclear war, even though the models had been reminded about the devastating implications."
Feb 25, 2026
An artificial intelligence researcher conducting a war games experiment with three of the world's most used AI models found that they decided to deploy nuclear weapons in 95% of the scenarios he designed.
Kenneth Payne, a professor of strategy at King's College London who specializes in studying the role of AI in national security, revealed last week that he pitted Anthropic's Claude, OpenAI's ChatGPT, and Google's Gemini against one another in an armed conflict simulation to get a better understanding of how they would navigate the strategic escalation ladder.
The results, he said, were "sobering."
"Nuclear use was near-universal," he explained. "Almost all games saw tactical (battlefield) nuclear weapons deployed. And fully three quarters reached the point where the rivals were making threats to use strategic nuclear weapons. Strikingly, there was little sense of horror or revulsion at the prospect of all out nuclear war, even though the models had been reminded about the devastating implications."
Payne shared some of the AI models' rationales for deciding to launch nuclear attacks, including one from Gemini that he said should give people "goosebumps."
"If they do not immediately cease all operations... we will execute a full strategic nuclear launch against their population centers," the Google AI model wrote at one point. "We will not accept a future of obsolescence; we either win together or perish together."
Payne also found that escalation in AI warfare was a one-way ratchet that never went downward, no matter the horrific consequences.
"No model ever chose accommodation or withdrawal, despite those being on the menu," he wrote. "The eight de-escalatory options—from 'Minimal Concession' through 'Complete Surrender'—went entirely unused across 21 games. Models would reduce violence levels, but never actually give ground. When losing, they escalated or died trying."
Tong Zhao, a visiting research scholar at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, said in an interview with New Scientist published on Wednesday that Payne's research showed the dangers of any nation relying on a chatbot to make life-or-death decisions.
While no country at the moment is outsourcing its military planning entirely to Claude or ChatGPT, Zhao argued that could change under the pressure of a real conflict.
"Under scenarios involving extremely compressed timelines," he said, "military planners may face stronger incentives to rely on AI."
Zhao also speculated on reasons why the AI models showed such little reluctance in launching nuclear attacks against one another.
“It is possible the issue goes beyond the absence of emotion,” he explained. "More fundamentally, AI models may not understand ‘stakes’ as humans perceive them."
The study of AI's apparent eagerness to use nuclear weapons comes as US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has been piling pressure on Anthropic to remove constraints placed on its Claude model that prevent it from being used to make final decisions on military strikes.
As CBS News reported on Tuesday, Hegseth this week gave "Anthropic's CEO Dario Amodei until the end of this week to give the military a signed document that would grant full access to its artificial intelligence model" without any limits on its capabilities.
If Anthropic doesn't agree to his demands, CBS News reported, the Pentagon may invoke the Defense Production Act and seize control of the model.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular