November, 20 2023, 08:02am EDT
Fossil Fuel Production Rises Under the Inflation Reduction Act, Exacerbating Environmental Injustice
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) fails to reduce fossil fuel production or alleviate impact on environmental justice communities, according to a new briefing by Oil Change International titled “Biden’s Fossil Fuel Fail: How U.S. Oil and Gas Supply Rises under the Inflation Reduction Act, Exacerbating Environmental Injustice.”
The report documents an analysis of post-Inflation Reduction Act energy modeling that projects U.S. oil and gas production rising while exports soar.
This not only makes a mockery of the IRA’s “climate bill” label and President Joe Biden’s claims of “climate leadership,” but signals that without additional action to constrain oil and gas production, the suffering of oil and gas frontline communities will only grow. Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor communities, especially in Appalachia, the Gulf Coast, and the Permian Basin, are disproportionately impacted by fossil fuel pollution, climate disasters, and health impacts.
Report Link: https://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-fail
Key Findings
- The report presents previously unpublished data from the Rhodium Group’s Climate Deck model, which projects U.S. oil and gas production will continue to grow despite the IRA’s support for clean energy. While the model projects a modest decline in domestic demand for oil and gas, oil production rises 13% while gas production rises 7%.
- The gap between production and demand is filled by surging exports. Gas exports are projected to double by 2035, while oil and petroleum product exports rise 23%. As wind and solar replace gas in the power sector, the decline in domestic gas demand is tempered by an increase in gas consumption within the oil and gas industry itself. Gas consumption by energy-hungry LNG export plants grows by 140%.
- Rhodium’s model shows the Inflation Reduction Act may fall significantly short of achieving the United States’ stated Paris Agreement goal of reducing emissions by 50-52% below 2005 levels by 2030. The central scenario projects a 16-18 percentage point gap in meeting this target, emphasizing the need for additional policies to ensure faster emissions decline this decade and beyond.
- Science shows that the only way to maintain the 1.5ºC climate goal is to phase out fossil fuels. Continued growth in U.S. oil and gas production and exports will not only threaten this goal, but will also exacerbate the ongoing suffering of communities living on the frontlines of oil and gas production, processing, and exports.
- These impacts are disproportionately borne by Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor communities — specifically in Appalachia, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico.
Ahead of COP28, these findings spotlight the urgent need for the Biden administration to go beyond the IRA and take bold measures to align with international climate objectives and address environmental injustice issues head-on. It is imperative for the United States to stop fossil fuel exports, end leasing on federal lands, halt approval of new fossil fuel infrastructure projects, and phase out fossil fuels.
The United States is the world’s largest producer, expander, of oil and gas and the largest exporter of fossil gas. Since taking office, President Biden has approved at least a dozen fossil fuel projects at home and abroad. This year alone, Biden has approved the Willow oil project in Alaska and multiple LNG export facilities, greenlit almost $2 billion in public finance for fossil fuel infrastructure abroad, and thrown its support behind the Mountain Valley fracked gas pipeline. While the IRA was touted as the “largest investment in climate and energy in American history,” it could turn out to be a failure if Biden doesn’t also take bold action on fossil fuels. As the world gathers for COP28, Biden still has a chance to be the climate leader he claims he is by making a commitment to phasing out fossil fuels.
Collin Rees, United States Campaign Manager at Oil Change International, said:
“The Biden administration touts the Inflation Reduction Act as a centerpiece of its achievements on climate. In reality, the bill leaves a massive escape hatch for the fossil fuel industry to continue business as usual. To align with global climate goals, President Biden and his administration must phase out the export of oil and gas, end fossil fuel leasing on federal lands, and stop all approvals for new fossil fuel infrastructure projects.
“At COP28 the spotlight will be on our collective effort to end the fossil fuel era. Will the United States deliver, or will Biden’s climate legacy be one of disastrous oil and gas expansion and failure to adequately tackle the climate crisis?”
Roishetta Sibley Ozane, Founder of The Vessel Project of Louisiana, said:
“It’s clear that President Biden’s promises made to frontline communities are nothing but a smokescreen. The Inflation Reduction Act leaves a massive escape hatch for the fossil fuel industry to continue its destructive practices, and my family battles the real consequences from fossil fuel production every day.
“We supported Biden for change, not to deal with deadly decisions made without us at the table. The fight against climate disaster is collective, and the United States cannot preach about caring for communities while exporting pollution globally. President Biden, our fight is your fight.”
Read the Full Report: https://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-fail
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
Poland to Weaken Global Treaty by Making Landmines for Eastern Border and Possibly Ukraine
Condemning the plans, Humanity & Inclusion said antipersonnel mines "render land unusable for agriculture, block access to essential services, and cause casualties decades after conflicts end."
Dec 18, 2025
Just a couple of weeks after the annual Landmine Monitor highlighted rising global casualties from explosive remnants of war, Reuters reported Wednesday that Poland plans to start producing antipersonnel landmines, deploy them along its eastern border, and possibly export them to Ukraine, which is fighting a Russian invasion.
As both the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) monitor and Reuters noted, Poland is among multiple state parties in the process of ditching the Mine Ban Treaty. Citing the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the news agency reported that "antipersonnel mine production could begin once the treaty's six‑month withdrawal period is completed on February 20, 2026."
Asked about the prospect of Poland producing the mines as soon as it leaves the convention—also called the Ottawa Treaty—Polish Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski told Reuters: "I would very much like that... We have such needs."
"We are interested in large quantities as soon as possible," Zalewski said. He added that "our starting point is our own needs. But for us, Ukraine is absolutely a priority because the European and Polish security line is on the Russia-Ukraine front."
Notes from Poland pointed out on social media Thursday that the mine plans come amid other developments in Poland's East Shield operation. As the Kraków-based outlet detailed Sunday, "Germany will send soldiers to Poland next year to support its neighbor's efforts to strengthen its borders with Russia and Belarus, which are also NATO and the European Union's eastern flank."
Humanity & Inclusion (HI), a group launched in 1982 by a pair of doctors helping Cambodian refugees affected by landmines, said in a statement to Common Dreams that it "strongly condemns Poland's decision to resume production of antipersonnel mines as soon as its withdrawal from the Ottawa Treaty becomes official in February."
HI stressed that "antipersonnel mines disproportionately harm civilians. They render land unusable for agriculture, block access to essential services, and cause casualties decades after conflicts end. Their use is devastating for civilian populations. Producing landmines is cheap, but removing them would be even more expensive and complicated."
"Plus, new production of landmines would make this weapon more available and easier to purchase," the group warned. "Such a decision normalizes a weapon that has been prohibited since 1999, when the Ottawa Treaty entered into force, and fragilizes the treaty."
"The Ottawa Treaty has been incredibly effective in protecting civilians and drying up the landmine market, a weapon that was no longer produced in Europe, and only assembled by a limited number of countries, including Russia, Iran, and North Korea, among others," HI added, citing the drop in landmine casualties since the convention entered into force.
In 1999, casualties were around 25,000 annually, according to ICBL. By 2023, they had dropped to 5,757 injured or killed. However, as the campaign revealed in its latest report at the beginning of December, there were at least 6,279 casualties in 2024—the highest yearly figure since 2020 and a 9% increase from the previous year.
In the report, ICBL outlined recent alleged mine use by not only Russia and Ukraine but also Cambodia, Iran, Myanmar, and North Korea. The group also flagged that, along with Poland, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania are in the process of legally withdrawing from the Ottawa Treaty, while Ukraine is trying to unlawfully "suspend the operation" of the convention during its war with Russia.
ICBL director Tamar Gabelnick said at the time that "governments must speak out to uphold the treaty, prevent further departures, reinforce its provisions globally, and ensure no more countries use, produce, or acquire antipersonnel mines."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Gross': Critics Recoil After Trump-Appointed Board Adds His Name to Kennedy Center
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," said journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late President John F. Kennedy.
Dec 18, 2025
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday drew an outraged reaction after she announced that members of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts board, who were appointed by President Donald Trump, had voted to add his name to the building.
In a post on X, Leavitt announced that the building would henceforth be known as the "Trump-Kennedy Center," despite the fact that the building was originally named by the US Congress in the wake of President John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963.
"I have just been informed that the highly respected Board of the Kennedy Center... have just voted unanimously to rename the Kennedy Center to the Trump-Kennedy Center," Leavitt wrote on X, "because of the unbelievable work President Trump has done over the last year in saving the building. Not only from the standpoint of its reconstruction, but also financially, and its reputation."
Despite Leavitt's claim, it does not appear that the vote in favor of renaming the building was unanimous. Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), an ex-officio Kennedy Center board member, said after the vote that she had been muted during a call where other board members had voted to add Trump's name to the building, and was thus "not allowed to speak or voice my opposition to this move."
Journalist Terry Moran noted that the Kennedy Center board does not have the power to rename the building without prior approval of US Congress.
"Congress establishes these institutions through law, and only a new law can rename them," Moran wrote, and then commented, "also—gross."
Members of the Kennedy family also expressed anger at the move to rename the center.
Former US Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Mass.) wrote on Bluesky that "the Kennedy Center is a living memorial to a fallen president and named for President Kennedy by federal law," and "can no sooner be renamed than can someone rename the Lincoln Memorial, no matter what anyone says."
Journalist Maria Shriver, a niece of the late president, could barely express her anger at the decision.
"Some things leave you speechless, and enraged, and in a state of disbelief," she wrote. "At times such as that, it’s better to be quiet. For how long, I can’t say."
Shortly afterward, Shriver wrote another post in which she attacked Trump for being "downright weird" with his obsession with having things named after himself.
"It is beyond comprehension that this sitting president has sought to rename this great memorial dedicated to President Kennedy," she said. "It is beyond wild that he would think adding his name in front of President Kennedy’s name is acceptable. It is not. Next thing perhaps he will want to rename JFK Airport, rename the Lincoln Memorial, the Trump Lincoln Memorial. The Trump Jefferson Memorial. The Trump Smithsonian. The list goes on."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Throwback to McCarthyism': Trump DOJ Moves to Treat Leftist Dissent as Criminal
A former official from Trump’s first term said the FBI will be able to throw the full might of the surveillance state at “Americans whose primary ‘offense’ may be ideological dissent.”
Dec 18, 2025
The Trump administration is about to embark on a massive crackdown on what it describes as a scourge of rampant left-wing “terrorism.”
But the US Department of Justice (DOJ) memo ordering the crackdown has critics fearing it will go far beyond punishing those who plan criminal acts and will instead be used to criminalize anyone who expresses opposition to President Donald Trump and his agenda.
Earlier this month, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi had sent out a memo ordering the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.”
As part of this effort, Bondi set Thursday as a deadline for all law enforcement agencies to "coordinate delivery" of intelligence files related to “antifa” or “antifa-related activities” to the FBI.
The memo identifies those who express “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” as well as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity," as potential targets for investigation.
This language references National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, or NSPM-7, a memo issued by Trump in September, which identified this slate of left-wing beliefs as potential "indicators" of terrorism following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in September.
In comments made before the alleged shooter's identity was revealed, Trump attributed the murder to "those on the radical left [who] have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis," adding that "this kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country and must stop right now."
Weeks after Kirk's shooting, Trump designated "antifa" as a "domestic terrorism organization," a move that alarmed critics because "antifa," short for "anti-fascist," is a loosely defined ideology rather than an organized political group.
Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller, meanwhile, promised that the Trump administration would use law enforcement to "dismantle" left-wing groups he said were "fomenting violence." He suggested that merely using heated rhetoric—including calling Trump and his supporters "fascist" or "authoritarian"—"incites violence and terrorism."
Klippenstein said that “where NSPM-7 was a declaration of war on just about anyone who isn’t MAGA,” the memo that went into effect Thursday “is the war plan for how the government will wage it on a tactical level.”
In comments to the Washington Post, former FBI agent Michael Feinberg, who is now a senior editor at Lawfare, said it was "a pretty damn dangerous document," in part because "it is directed at a specific ideology, namely the left, without offering much evidence as to why that is necessary."
Studies have repeatedly shown that while all political factions contain violent actors, those who commit acts of political violence are vastly more likely to identify with right-wing causes.
Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security under the first Trump administration, pointed out in a blog post the extraordinary surveillance capability that the FBI will have at its disposal to use against those it targets.
He said it "includes the FBI’s ability to marshal facial recognition, phone-tracking databases, license-plate readers, financial records review, undercover operations, and intelligence-sharing tools against Americans whose primary 'offense' may be ideological dissent."
"Unfortunately, once you are fed into that system, there is no real 'due process' until charges are brought," Taylor said. "It’s not like you get a text-message notification when the FBI begins investigating you for terrorism offenses, and there’s certainly no 'opt-out' feature. For this to happen, you don’t need to commit violence. You don’t even need to plan it. Under the administration’s new guidelines, you merely need to be flagged for association with the anti-fascist movement to become a potential target."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Wash.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the Post, "It is a throwback to McCarthyism and the worst abuses of [Former FBI Director J. Edgar] Hoover’s FBI to use federal law enforcement against Americans purely because of their political beliefs or because they disagree with the current president’s politics."
Taylor argued: "He’s right, but it’s actually more dangerous than that. Joseph McCarthy had subpoenas and hearings and created his blacklists of 'communist' Americans from Capitol Hill. And while controversial FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover may have had old-school wiretaps and informants, Donald Trump’s team has algorithmic surveillance, bulk data collection, and a post-9/11 security state designed for permanent emergency. It’s like comparing a snowflake with a refrigerator."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular