November, 08 2022, 02:22pm EDT
After Midterms, Biden's Climate Agenda Must Focus on Executive Actions
Environmental justice promises and pledges around fossil fuels remain unmet; executive actions necessary to meet Biden's own climate targets.
WASHINGTON
No matter the outcome of the midterm elections on Tuesday night, President Biden will need to follow through on a bold course of executive actions in order to meet his own climate commitments and fulfill unmet promises on environmental justice and limiting fossil fuel development.
"During his first two years in office, President Biden failed to use his full executive powers to address the climate crisis and protect our communities from the ravages of fossil fuels," said People Vs. Fossil Fuels, a coalition of over 1,200 grassroots, frontline and national organizations in a statement released ahead of Tuesday's election. "It's past time for President Biden to declare a climate emergency and block the federal approval of all new fossil fuel projects that are threatening our climate and communities."
Since before President Biden took office, People vs. Fossil Fuels has been pushing him to use his extensive executive powers to address the climate crisis and fossil fuel pollution that is poisoning people across the country, especially working families and Black, Brown, Indigenous, people of the global majority.
While the Biden Administration has taken actions to boost the growth of clean energy, they have done little to directly address the production, export, and burning of fossil fuels, the most significant source of greenhouse gas emissions and a significant source of local pollution. If anything, the administration has gone backwards: failing to fulfill a promise to ban fossil fuel development on public lands, failing to stop controversial projects like the Line 3 pipeline, encouraging the growth of fossil fuel exports, and allowing for massive industry handouts in the Inflation Reduction Act that passed through Congress.
"Environmental Justice communities have experienced a long history of health disparities for generations stemming from the disproportionate burden of fossil fuel pollution and polluting infrastructure. Not only do fossil fuels cause land, water, and air damage but they also create a health and safety hazard in Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities where they are overwhelmingly sited and the workers who maintain them. Enough is enough. Our elected officials have failed us time after time by continually saying yes to industry. It's time we take our power back. It's time we get folks in office who care about people," said Roishetta Ozane, Organizing Director, Healthy Gulf.
These failures on fossil fuels aren't just a policy concern: they're costing lives. Last year, a study from Harvard University and others concluded that 1 in 5 deaths worldwide are caused by fossil fuel air pollution. This includes nearly 350,000 Americans every year, with the impacts concentrated in low-income and Black, Brown, Indigenous, people of the global majority communities.
Many environmental justice, frontline, and Indigenous organizations have been frustrated not only by the administration's lack of action, but their willingness to even meet with the communities most impacted by climate change, fossil fuels, and their own policy decisions.
In October 2021, People vs. Fossil Fuels mobilized over a thousand people from frontline communities across the United States to come to Washington, D.C. and engage in civil disobedience to pressure President Biden to act. In September 2022, the coalition mobilized again to successfully stop Senator Manchin's dirty deal which would have fast tracked dangerous fossil fuel projects, including the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
Below are additional quotes from leading climate and environmental justice organizations within People vs. Fossil Fuels:
"As I fight alongside frontline organizers across the country to stop all new fossil fuel projects and ensure a livable future, it's clear to me how strong we are when we are united. President Biden should take note of this and join us. He can start by declaring a climate emergency," Russell Chisholm, Mountain Valley Watch Coordinator.
"For 500 years, Indigenous people of the Americas have been ignored about the ongoing genocide and ecocide we have allowed to be committed by our world leaders. Biden and his administration has been anything but 'bold' in our climate crisis -- meanwhile, sacrifice zones of millions of Americans have been the ones to pay for his cowardice. Stick to your promises President Biden, or a new age of Indigenous leadership will remind you yet again who's land you are on." Tasina Sapa Win, Cheyenne River Grassroots Collective
"The Arctic is warming at an estimated 4 to 5 times faster than the rest of the world, which is exponentially faster than previously predicted, making it ground zero for climate change. Alaska Natives experience the impacts of catastrophic climate change first hand, along with many other Black and Indigenous people worldwide. President Biden and world leaders have a responsibility to keep our people safe and ensure a healthy world for future generations. The time is now to declare a climate emergency, stop all fossil fuel extraction, and allow for a just transition into renewable energy. Stop the Willow Project and all fossil fuel projects." Sonia Ahkivgak, Social Outreach Coordinator, Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic
"Indigenous communities turned out to vote for Biden because we needed immediate climate action and he has failed to offer any meaningful leadership. Instead he has allowed big oil to continue to make windfall profits and make Indigenous communities sacrifice zones and ignored our sovereignty to give oil and gas access to destroy the water, land and air quality in our communities. We have passed the point of keeping warming to 1.5C and we will see much heartache and devastation from climate chaos in the years ahead. No matter how the elections turnout, he has the executive power to take immediate action and we will keep pushing him to put politics aside and do what's right for all of humanity." Ikiya Collective
"Communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis and environmental racism turned out in droves to elect Biden on the promise that he'd deliver swift climate action. But two years into his presidency, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and other fossil fuel companies posted windfall profits, while communities across the country and Global South endured record heat waves, devastating floods, and other climate change fueled disasters. Regardless of the midterm results, we need Biden to exercise executive power and end the era of fossil fuel greed!" Erika Thi Patterson, Campaign Director, Action Center on Race and the Economy
Fossil Free Media is a nonprofit media lab that supports the movement to end fossil fuels and address the climate emergency.
LATEST NEWS
New State Laws Aim to Protect Environment, Consumers as Trump Wages All-Out War on Climate
"The gridlock and partisanship we see in Washington, DC can be dispiriting. But history shows that states can build momentum that eventually leads to change at the federal level."
Dec 29, 2025
Even as President Donald Trump and his administration have been ripping up environmental and consumer protection regulations, a number of state laws are set to take effect next year that could at least mitigate some of the damage.
A Monday statement from Environment America and the Public Interest Network highlighted a number of new laws aimed at curbing corporate polluters and enhancing consumer welfare.
First, the groups highlighted "Right to Repair" laws set to take effect in Washington, Nevada, Oregon, and Colorado, which give people the right to repair their own appliances and electronics without burdensome costs or barriers.
The groups lavished particular praise on Colorado's "Right to Repair" laws that they said provide "the broadest repair protections in the country," with new regulations that will give businesses in the state "access to what they and independent repair providers need to fix their electronics themselves."
Illinois, meanwhile, will fully phase out the sale of fluorescent lightbulbs, which will be replaced by energy-efficient LED bulbs. The groups estimate that eliminating the fluorescent bulbs will collectively save Illinois households more than $1.5 billion on their utility bills by 2050, while also reducing energy waste and mercury pollution.
Illinois also drew praise for enacting a ban on polystyrene foam foodware that will take effect on January 1.
The groups also highlighted the work being done in Oregon to protect consumers with legislation mandating price transparency to eliminate surprise junk fees on purchases; prohibiting ambulance companies from socking out-of-network patients with massive fees for rides to nearby hospitals; and placing new restrictions on the ability of medical debt to negatively impact a person's credit score.
California also got a mention in the groups' release for closing a loophole that allowed supermarkets to continue using plastic bags and for creating a new privacy tool for consumers allowing them to request that online data brokers delete all of the personal information they have gathered on them over the years.
Emily Rusch, vice president and senior director of state offices for the Public Interest Network, contrasted the action being taken in the states to protect consumers and the environment with a lack of action being done at the federal level.
"The gridlock and partisanship we see in Washington, DC can be dispiriting," said Rusch. "But history shows that states can build momentum that eventually leads to change at the federal level. As we build on this progress in 2026, we look forward to working with anyone—Republican, Democrat, or independent—with whom we can find common ground."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Warns Trump and Burgum's Halting of Offshore Wind Projects Is Illegal
“Burgum’s actions on offshore wind appear to be motivated by the personal financial interests of those in the administration, not our collective national interests."
Dec 29, 2025
A week after the US Department of the Interior said it was immediately halting five offshore wind projects in the interest of "national security," a watchdog group told congressional committees Monday that the move is "not legally defensible" and raises "significant" questions about conflicts of interest concerning a top DOI official's investments in fossil gas.
Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), wrote to the top members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources regarding the pause on projects off the coasts of Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts—projects that account for billions of dollars in investment, employ thousands of people, and generate sustainable energy for roughly 2.5 million homes and businesses.
The announcement made by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last week pertained to "five vague, perfunctory, cookie-cutter orders" halting the projects, wrote Whitehouse, but PEER is concerned that the orders were issued to evade the Congressional Review Act (CRA), under which the action to halt the projects likely constitutes a "major rule."
Whitehouse explained:
Under the CRA, a rule that meets any one of three criteria (an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or in pertinent part significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation) is a major rule. Interior’s pause likely meets all three.
As a major rule under the CRA, the pause cannot take effect until at least 60 days after BOEM provides Congress the requisite notification and report under the CRA, which, according to GAO’s database, has not yet occurred. Congress must use its oversight authority to unveil the truth and, as appropriate, and to enforce the rule of law.
He said in a statement that “Burgum’s move is designed to bypass all congressional and public input."
The CRA states that a rule is "the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.”
Press statements by the DOI and by Burgum last week were "statements of general applicability and imminent future effect, designed to implement policy," wrote Whitehouse, who also said the interior secretary embarked on "a coordinated rollout with Fox News entities."
On December 22, Fox anchor Maria Bartiromo asked Burgum at 8:00 am Eastern, “What next action did you want to tell us about this morning?” Five minutes later, FoxNews.com published its first story on Burgum's orders, citing a press release that had not yet been made public and including a quote from the secretary about the "emerging national security risk" posed by the offshore wind projects.
"If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
Burgum's announcement to Fox came at least one to two hours before Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) acting Director Matthew Giacona provided the orders to the lessees running the five wind projects.
Further, wrote Whitehouse, "Burgum’s voluminous public comments in the hours and days since the pause further show the true purpose of Interior’s singular action."
"The national security pretext quickly gives way to broad and spurious talking points about the 'Green New Scam,' how 'wind doesn’t blow 24-7' (evincing Burgum’s seeming unfamiliarity with energy storage technologies), and unyielding promotion of liquified natural gas projects," wrote Whitehouse.
Aside from the alleged illegality of Burgum's order, PEER pointed to Giacona's potential conflicts of interest with BOEM operations and specifically with halting wind projects. Giacona is a "diligent filer" of financial disclosure forms required by the Ethics in Government Act, noted Whitehouse—but those forms point to potential benefits he may reap from shutting down offshore wind infrastructure.
Giacona reported his purchase of interests in the United States Natural Gas Fund (UNG) on September 16. The fund tracks daily price movements of "natural" gas delivered at the Henry Hub in Louisiana and is subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
"Accordingly, a government employee who has an interest in UNG also has a potential conflict of interest with the underlying holdings of UNG (currently primarily natural gas futures contracts at the Henry Hub)," wrote Whitehouse.
PEER does not know whether Giacona continues to hold a financial interest in UNG or whether the offshore wind pause will have a "direct and predictable effect on a financial interest in UNG," but Whitehouse noted that Burgum and DIO have entwined the pause with the promotion of liquefied natural gas.
"It is disconcerting that Mr. Giacona temporarily had even a de minimis financial interest in natural gas futures while also leading the agency that manages the development of natural gas resources on the outer continental shelf," wrote Whitehouse, adding that Giacona also sold interests in the United States Oil Fund on September 3, while overseeing BOEM.
Based on Giacona's investments, said Whitehouse, “Burgum’s actions on offshore wind appear to be motivated by the personal financial interests of those in the administration, not our collective national interests. This is another misguided step in transforming the federal government into a franchise of the fossil fuel industry.”
“On public lands across the United States, the Department of the Interior has tens of thousands of additional active leases related to oil, gas, wind, solar, and geothermal production and mining for energy-related minerals," he added. "If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Suggests US Bombed 'Big Facility' in Venezuela. No One Seems to Know What He's Talking About
Administration officials have yet to provide any details about the supposed strike, which would mark a massive escalation in the president's lawless military campaign.
Dec 29, 2025
President Donald Trump claimed during a recent discussion about his high-seas boat bombing blitz that US forces took out "a big facility" as part of the Venezuela-centered campaign—but no one seems to know what he's talking about.
Trump said Friday during an apparently impromptu phone call to billionaire supporter John Catsimatidis—who owns and hosts programming on WABC radio in New York—that South American narcotraffickers "have a big plant or a big facility where the ships come from," and that “two nights ago, we knocked that out.”
"We hit them very hard," the president added.
On Monday, Trump was asked during a meeting with fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to clarify Friday's claim.
"There was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs," the president said, "so we hit all the boats and now we hit the area. It's the implementation area. That's where they implement, and that is no longer around."
Neither Trump nor anyone in his administration offered any evidence to support the claim. There have also been no public statements from any Venezuelan government official regarding any US attack.
Q: Can you say any more about the explosion in Venezuela that you mentioned in a radio interview. Did the military do that?
TRUMP: Well, it doesn't matter. But there was a major explosion in the dock area where they load the boats up with drugs. We hit the area. pic.twitter.com/hvZa7fKxbq
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 29, 2025
Trump did say during a Christmas Eve call to troops taking part in escalating hostilities against Venezuela—whose socialist leader, President Nicolás Maduro, has long been in Trump's regime-change crosshairs—that, after more than two dozen boat strikes, "now we're going after the land."
Threats by Trump to bomb targets inside Venezuela—or even invade the oil-rich South American nation in order to oust Maduro—are nothing new. The president has deployed an armada of warships and thousands of US troops to the region and has also authorized covert Central Intelligence Agency action against Maduro. Earlier this month, Trump vowed that the US would attack Venezuela "on land," and "very soon, too."
However, Trump's remarks on Friday left observers scratching their heads and scouring news reports in a fruitless effort to make sense of the president's claim.
One US official interviewed by the Intercept on condition of anonymity said the US targeted a “facility"—but declined to disclose its location, or whether it was attacked by US forces.
“That announcement was misleading,” the official said of Trump's claim last week.
There is some speculation that a Christmas Eve explosion and fire at a warehouse on the grounds of a Primazol chemical plant in Zulia state may have been caused by a US strike. However, the site—which reportedly makes products including chicken feed—is not located directly on any coast, and Primazol issued a statement "categorically" rejecting claims that the facility was bombed.
If Trump did order any bombing of targets in Venezuela, it would be a major escalation and clear act of war by a man who, while billing himself as "the most anti-war president in history," has now, with last week's attack on Nigeria, bombed more countries than any president in history.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular