June, 15 2023, 12:08pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Valentina Stackl, Oil Change International, valentina@priceofoil.org
500+ International Groups: Biden Must Stop Fossil Fuel Expansion Ahead of September Climate Summit
Letter demands world’s top polluter take urgent action to phase out fossil fuel production, slow global climate catastrophe.
More than 500 groups from six continents and 63 countries sent a letter to President Biden today demanding he stop fossil fuel expansion ahead of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’s Climate Ambition Summit this September.
The letter comes as climate and environmental justice movements announce a global End Fossil Fuels wave of action, culminating in the March to End Fossil Fuels on Sept. 17 and the UN Secretary General’s Summit in New York City on Sept. 20. The global actions are in solidarity with a recent national week of action held by climate advocates and frontline leaders across the United States.
Guterres has said the ticket to entry for the United States and other wealthy oil producing nations is ending fossil fuel expansion and beginning a phase out of existing fossil fuel production. The actions and march demand that Biden and other top polluters meet this threshold by immediately stopping new fossil fuel project approvals and leading a fast, just, fair, and equitable fossil fuel phaseout. Tonight, actor and activist Jane Fonda will join community leaders at a virtual kickoff to announce the mobilization.
The Biden Administration has approved major fossil fuel projects and ensured the U.S. remains the world’s top oil and gas producer and a top exporter. In 2023 alone, the administration greenlit the Alaska Willow Project; approved multiple Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export facilities in Alaska and along the Gulf Coast; held a massive oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico; and fast-tracked the Mountain Valley Pipeline. More U.S. onshore and offshore oil and gas lease sales are planned this year.
Groups across Asia, Africa, Oceania, South America, North America, and Europe are demanding the Biden Administration take immediate and bold action, including:
- Declare a climate emergency and reinstate the crude oil export ban, accelerate the shift off fossil fuels, boost just and resilient renewables, and advance justice;
- Reject federal permits for new fossil fuel projects and revoke illegally granted permits;
- Phase out fossil fuel production on federal public lands and waters;
- Limit gas and fossil fuel exports to the full extent allowed by law.
As the world’s biggest historic polluter, the United States under Biden’s leadership has an outsized responsibility to lead a global and just transition away from fossil fuels and avert further climate disaster. This includes providing the necessary resources for the countries most harmed and least responsible for the climate crisis, especially those in the Global South.
Statements:
“President Biden’s approach to the climate crisis is nothing short of hypocritical. While the president’s rhetoric aligns with global climate promises, the United States is the world’s top oil and gas producer and exporter, and is planning the largest expansion in oil and gas production over the next decade. Every new fossil fuel project is incompatible with a livable future.” said Allie Rosenbluth, U.S. Program Co-Manager at Oil Change International. “As the world’s biggest historic polluter, the U.S. has a responsibility to lead a global and just transition away from fossil fuels. Voters are not going to ignore Biden’s disastrous climate record unless he starts keeping his climate promises and paves the way for a sustainable future to avert further climate disaster.”
“We were all shocked to see what the extensive activation of oil and gas reserves can lead to, namely to the Russian war against Ukraine: destruction and terror, no morning without bloody attacks, killing innocent people,”said Svitlana Romanko, Executive Director of Razom We Stand. “It doesn’t matter whose gas it is, Russian or American, as long as it enables the fueling of autocratic political regimes and delaying the moment of solving the all-encompassing climate crisis, it’s a weapon of mass destruction and a source of geopolitical and energy insecurity. This is not leadership that the U.S, the democratic powerhouse of the world, wants to show amidst the climate crisis and crisis of peace. It’s a high time to choose between democracy and petrostate ambitions.”
“President Biden must stop green-lighting fossil fuel projects for his imagined political gain. His hypocrisy is insulting to our communities and embarrassing on the global stage,” said Russell Chisholm, managing director for the Protect Our Water Heritage Rights Coalition. “Despite his climate promises, he has deemed Appalachia a sacrifice zone yet again by backing the Mountain Valley Pipeline – an unwanted, unnecessary, and unfinished fracked gas pipeline. Biden must use his executive power to back us as we ensure the just and livable future we deserve.”
“Reasons millions of Indigenous, BIPOC, and frontline communities casted their votes for Biden in 2020 was because of his campaign promises to address climate and environmental injustices,” said Tom BK Goldtooth, Executive Director of The Indigenous Environmental Network. “Three years in, we see he has broken those promises. The ugly reality is that Biden and his administration shamelessly promote climate false solutions that not only increase extraction, exploitation, pollution, and commodification of our lands, waters, and air– but his lack of real action and failure to reduce emissions at source is accelerating the climate crisis. We all have a collective responsibility to ensure a sustainable planet and climate for our future generations, and politicians like Biden need to do their part.”
“Mr. President, the people along the Gulf Coast are dying,” said Roishetta Ozane, Director of The Vessel Project of Louisiana and Gulf Fossil Finance Coordinator for Texas Campaign for the Environment. “It’s time to declare a climate emergency and stop any new fossil fuel project approvals. The impact of climate change is not a distant future, it’s happening now. We cannot afford to wait any longer. With the help of big banks and the rubber stamping of industry under your administration, our children won’t be able to raise their children in the place that we all love. Use your executive power to propel us towards a more renewable future.”
“From approving Willow to auctioning off our public land and water to oil and gas, President Biden is on a dangerous backslide from the climate ambitions he outlined as a candidate and early in his presidency,” said Anusha Narayanan, Global Project Lead at Greenpeace USA. “The gas industry – producers and operators – have used the crisis in Ukraine to spin U.S. and European priorities away from climate goals under the guise of energy security. A recent analysis of the boom in U.S. LNG exports to the EU in 2022 found that the gas industry’s propaganda has resulted in a long-term build-out of new infrastructure and the lock-in of decades-long gas contracts. If built, the approved projects alone could more than double U.S. export capacity to 15,500 bcf – with annual lifecycle emissions equivalent to 393 million cars. Many of us voted for President Biden because he promised transformative climate action. He has yet to come anywhere near meeting these promises. It’s time for him to lead in the climate fight, not be puppeteered by gas operators who sacrifice the health and safety of communities to boost their profits.”
“Regardless of how the White House spins President Biden’s actions, he cannot be a climate leader while continuing to expand fossil fuels,” said Nicole Ghio, Senior Fossil Fuels Program Manager at Friends of the Earth. “The world desperately needs Biden to start living up to his rhetoric and address the root cause of the climate crisis. There should be no place for him at the Climate Ambition Summit until he does.”
“The US has a historic responsibility to halt expansion of coal, oil and gas that undermine global efforts to meet the 1.5C climate target,” said Alex Rafalowicz, Executive-Director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative. “President Biden has a moral obligation to stop fueling the crisis they helped create, and to provide financial support so that fossil fuel dependent nations can make the energy transition they want and deserve. Pacific nations and other countries in the Global South are taking the lead, calling on all governments to develop a new global mechanism to manage an equitable phase out of fossil fuels. It’s time for the US to match the size of its rhetoric of ‘climate leadership’ with actions the size of the problem. The world’s test is simple: no new fossil fuel projects anywhere under President Biden’s watch.”
“It’s past time for President Biden to put the brakes on the reckless oil and gas expansion that threatens all of us,” said Jean Su, Energy Justice program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Instead of condemning people and wildlife to worse suffering, Biden can lead the world’s biggest oil and gas producer in ending the fossil fuel era. Nobody has more power, or greater responsibility, than this president to stop fueling climate destruction. This is the moment for Biden to break the cycle of harm and heartbreak, stop approving disastrous projects like Willow and the Mountain Valley Pipeline, and lead us into a safe and healthy future.”
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) 518-9029LATEST NEWS
Gavin Newsom Wants a 'Big Tent Party,' But Opposes Wealth Tax Supported by Large Majority of Americans
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," said one progressive organizer.
Dec 05, 2025
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, considered by some to be the frontrunner to be the next Democratic presidential nominee, said during a panel on Wednesday that he wants his party to be a “big tent” that welcomes large numbers of people into the fold. But he’s “adamantly against” one of the most popular proposals Democrats have to offer: a wealth tax.
In October, progressive economists Emmanuel Saez and Robert Reich joined forces with one of California's most powerful unions, the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, to propose that California put the nation’s first-ever wealth tax on the ballot in November 2026.
They described the measure as an "emergency billionaires tax" aimed at recouping the tens of billions of dollars that will be stripped from California's 15 million Medicaid recipients over the next five years, after Republicans enacted historic cuts to the program in July with President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which dramatically reduced taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Among those beneficiaries were the approximately 200 billionaires living in California, whose average annual income, Saez pointed out, has risen by 7.5% per year, compared with 1.5% for median-income residents.
Under the proposal, they would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total net worth, which is estimated to raise $100 billion. The vast majority of the funds, about 90%, would be used to restore Medicaid funding, while the rest would go towards funding K-12 education, which the GOP has also slashed.
The proposal in California has strong support from unions and healthcare groups. But Newsom has called it “bad policy” and “another attempt to grab money for special purposes.”
Meanwhile, several of his longtime consultants, including Dan Newman and Brian Brokaw, have launched a campaign alongside “business and tech leaders” to kill the measure, which they’ve dubbed “Stop the Squeeze." They've issued familiar warnings that pinching the wealthy too hard will drive them from the state, along with the critical tax base they provide.
At Wednesday's New York Times DealBook Summit, Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Newsom about his opposition to the wealth tax idea, comparing it to a proposal by recent New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, who pledged to increase the income taxes of New Yorkers who earn more than $1 million per year by 2% in order to fund his city-wide free buses, universal childcare, and city-owned grocery store programs.
Mamdani's proposal was met with a litany of similar warnings from Big Apple bigwigs who threatened to flee the city and others around the country who said they'd never move in.
But as Robin Kaiser-Schatzlein explained in October for the American Prospect: "The evidence for this is thin: mostly memes shared by tech and finance people... Research shows that the truth of the matter is closer to the opposite. Wealthy individuals and their income move at lower rates than other income brackets, even in response to an increase of personal income tax." Many of those who sulked about Mamdani's victory have notably begun making amends with the incoming mayor.
Moreover, the comparison between Mamdani's plan and the one proposed in California is faulty to begin with. As Harold Meyerson explained, also for the Prospect: "It is a one-time-only tax, to be levied exclusively on billionaires’ current (i.e., 2025) net worth. Even if they move to Tasmania, they will still be liable for 5% of this year’s net worth."
"Crucially, the tax won’t crimp the fortunes of any billionaire who moves into the state next year or any later year, as it only applies to the billionaires living in the state this year," he added. "Therefore... the horrific specter of billionaire flight can’t be levied against the California proposal."
Nevertheless, Sorkin framed Newsom as being in an existential battle of ideas with Mamdani, asking how the two could both represent the Democratic Party when they are so "diametrically opposed."
"Well, I want to be a big-tent party," Newsom replied. "It's about addition, not subtraction."
Pushed on the question of whether there should be a "unifying theory of the case," Newsom responded that “we all want to be protected, we all want to be respected, we all want to be connected to something bigger than ourselves. We have fundamental values that I think define our party, about social justice, economic justice.”
"We have pre-distribution Democrats, and we have re-distribution Democrats," he continued. "Therein lies the dialectic and therein lies the debate."
Polling is scarce so far on the likelihood of such a measure passing in California. But nationally, polls suggest that the vast majority of Democrats fall on the "re-distribution" side of Newsom's "dialectic." In fact, the majority of all Americans do, regardless of party affiliation.
Last year, Inequality.org examined 55 national and state polls about a number of different taxation policies and found:
A billionaire income tax garnered the most support across party identification. On average, two out of three (67%) of Americans supported the tax including 84% of Democrats, 64% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
In national polls, a wealth tax had similarly high levels of support. More than three out of five Americans supported the tax including 78% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and 51% of Republicans.
That sentiment only seems to have grown since the return of President Donald Trump. An Economist/YouGov poll released in early November found that 72% of Americans said that taxes on billionaires should be raised—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 48% of Republicans. Across the board, just 15% said they should not be raised.
Support remains high when the proposal is more specific as well. On the eve of Mamdani's election, despitre months of fearmongering, 64% of New Yorkers said they backed his proposal, including a slight plurality of self-identified conservatives, according to a Siena College poll.
Many observers were perplexed by how Newsom proposes to maintain a “big tent” while opposing policies supported by most of the people inside it.
"A wealth tax is a big tent policy unless the only people you care about are billionaires," wrote Jonathan Cohn, the political director for Progressive Mass, a grassroots organization in Massachusetts, on social media.
"Gavin Newsom—estimated net worth between $20 and $30 million—says he's opposed to a billionaire wealth tax. Color me shocked," wrote the Columbia University lecturer Anthony Zenkus. "Democrats holding him up as a potential savior for 2028 is a clear example of not reading the room."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case That Could Bless Trump's Bid to End Birthright Citizenship
"That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," said one critic.
Dec 05, 2025
The United States Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether US President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment for more than 150 years—is constitutional.
Next spring, the justices will hear oral arguments in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down parts of an executive order—titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship—signed on the first day of the president's second term. Under the directive, which has not taken effect due to legal challenges, people born in the United States would not be automatically entitled to US citizenship if their parents are in the country temporarily or without legal authorization.
Enacted in 1868, the 14th Amendment affirms that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
While the Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment was adopted to grant US citizenship to freed slaves, not travelers or undocumented immigrants, two key Supreme Court cases have affirmed birthright citizenship under the Constitution—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967).
Here is the question presented. It's a relatively clean vehicle for the Supreme Court to finally decide whether it is lawful for the president to deny birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
[image or embed]
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Several district court judges have issued universal preliminary injunctions to block Trump's order. However, the Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority found in June that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
In July, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that executive order is an unconstitutional violation of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. In total, four federal courts and two appellate courts have blocked Trump's order.
“No president can change the 14th Amendment’s fundamental promise of citizenship,” Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the ACLU—which is leading the nationwide class action challenge to Trump's order—said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to putting this issue to rest once and for all in the Supreme Court this term.”
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the advocacy group Stand Up America, was among those who suggested that the high court justices should have refused to hear the case given the long-settled precedent regarding the 14th Amendment.
“This case is a right-wing fantasy, full stop. That the Supreme Court is actually entertaining Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship is the clearest example yet that the Roberts Court is broken beyond repair," Edkins continued, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.
"Even if the court ultimately rules against Trump, in a laughable display of its supposed independence, the fact that fringe attacks on our most basic rights as citizens are being seriously considered is outrageous and alarming," he added.
Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus, said that “it’s deeply troubling that we must waste precious judicial resources relitigating what has been settled constitutional law for over a century," adding that "every federal judge who has considered this executive order has found it unconstitutional."
Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund, asserted, “The attack on the fundamental right of birthright citizenship is an attack on the 14th Amendment and our Constitution."
"We are confident the court will affirm this basic right, which has stood for over a century," Mays added. "Millions of families across the country deserve and require that clarity and stability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
62,000 African Penguins Starving to Death Highlights Humanity-Driven Extinction Crisis
"If a species as iconic as the African penguin is struggling to survive," said one researcher, "it raises the question of how many other species are disappearing without us even noticing."
Dec 05, 2025
A study published this week about tens of thousands of starving African penguins is highlighting what scientists warn is the planet's sixth mass extinction event, driven by human activity, and efforts to save as many species as possible.
Researchers from the South African Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE), the United Kingdom's University of Exeter, and other institutions examined a pair of breeding colonies north of Cape Town, South Africa, and published their findings Thursday in Ostrich: Journal of African Ornithology.
"These two sites are two of the most important breeding colonies historically—holding around 25,000 (Dassen) and around 9,000 (Robben) breeding pairs in the early 2000s. As such, they are also the locations of long-term monitoring programs," said study co-author Azwianewi Makhado from the DFFE in a statement.
As the study explains: "African Penguins moult annually, coming ashore and fasting for 21 days, when they shed and replace all their feathers. Failure to fatten sufficiently to moult, or to regain condition afterwards, results in death."
The team found that "between 2004 and 2011, the sardine stock off west South Africa was consistently below 25% of its peak abundance, and this appears to have caused severe food shortage for African penguins, leading to an estimated loss of about 62,000 breeding individuals," said co-author and Exeter associate professor Richard Sherley.
The paper notes that "although some adults moulted at a colony to the southeast, where food may have been more plentiful, much of the mortality likely resulted from failure of birds to fatten sufficiently to moult. The fishery exploitation rate of sardines west of Cape Agulhas was consistently above 20% between 2005 and 2010."
Sherley said that "high sardine exploitation rates—that briefly reached 80% in 2006—in a period when sardine was declining because of environmental changes likely worsened penguin mortality."
Humanity's reliance on fossil fuels is warming ocean water and impacting how salty it is. For the penguins' prey, said Sherley, "changes in the temperature and salinity of the spawning areas off the west and south coasts of South Africa made spawning in the historically important west coast spawning areas less successful, and spawning off the south coast more successful."
The researcher also stressed that "these declines are mirrored elsewhere," pointing out that the species' global population has dropped nearly 80% in the last three decades. With fewer than 10,000 breeding pairs left, the African penguin was uplisted to "critically endangered" on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species last year.
Sherley told Mongabay at the time that the IUCN update "highlights a much bigger problem with the health of our environment."
"Despite being well-known and studied, these penguins are still facing extinction, showing just how severe the damage to our ecosystems has become," he said. "If a species as iconic as the African penguin is struggling to survive, it raises the question of how many other species are disappearing without us even noticing. We need to act now—not just for penguins, but to protect the broader biodiversity that is crucial for the planet's future."
Looks like the combined effects of climate change and over fishing are key factors in decimating the populations of these penguins.www.washingtonpost.com/climate-envi...
[image or embed]
— Margot Hodson (@margothodson.bsky.social) December 5, 2025 at 4:46 AM
Fearful that the iconic penguin species could be extinct within a decade, the conservation organizations BirdLife South Africa and the Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds (SANCCOB) last year pursued a first-of-its-kind legal battle in the country, resulting in a settlement with the commercial fishing sector and DFFE.
The settlement, reached just days before a planned court hearing this past March, led to no-go zones for the commercial anchovy and sardine fishing vessels around six penguin breeding colonies: Stony Point, as well as Bird, Dassen, Dyer, Robben, and St. Croix islands.
"The threats facing the African penguin are complex and ongoing—and the order itself requires monitoring, enforcement, and continued cooperation from industry and the government processes which monitor and allocate sardine and anchovy populations for commercial purposes," Nicky Stander, head of conservation at SANCCOB, said in March.
The study also acknowledges hopes that "the revised closures—which will operate year-round until at least 2033—will decrease mortality of African penguins and improve their breeding success at the six colonies around which they have been implemented."
"However," it adds, "in the face of the ongoing impact of climate change on the abundance and distribution of their key prey, other interventions are likely to be needed."
Lorien Pichegru, a marine biology professor at South Africa's Nelson Mandela University who was not involved in the study, called the findings "extremely concerning" and warned the Guardian that the low fish numbers require urgent action "not only for African penguins but also for other endemic species depending on these stocks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


