June, 18 2026, 09:55am EDT
Response to the closing of the Bonn climate talks
“Countries can either double down on fossil fuels and get caught up in the next fossil fuel crisis, or they can choose economic and energy sovereignty by planning for a just transition. The right choice is obvious.”
BONN, Germany
Romain Ioualalen, Global Policy lead at Oil Change International, said:
“At the Bonn climate talks close, countries cannot ignore the devastating consequences of continued fossil fuel reliance. Across the world, fossil-fueled wars drive destruction and human suffering, while volatile oil and gas prices push up energy and food costs, making life unaffordable for millions.
“That is why countries need energy transition roadmaps. If designed well, these plans can protect economies from fossil-fueled volatility, ensure energy access for all, reduce energy bills, and build jobs, peace, and green industrialization. Countries can either double down on fossil fuels and get caught up in the next fossil fuel crisis, or they can choose economic and energy sovereignty by planning for a just transition. The right choice is obvious.
“The next stop is COP31, where countries must bring their concrete plans to the table. Building a safe, renewable future requires planned, government-led transitions backed by regulations, public funding, and international cooperation. Rich countries must phase out fossil fuels first and fastest, equip the new just transition mechanism with funding, capacity, and rights-based principles, and support reforming outdated global debt, tax, and trade rules to make the energy transition possible and fair for the most climate-vulnerable countries.”
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
Surging in Michigan Senate Primary, El-Sayed Best Positioned to Beat Republican: Polls
"He’s the strongest and safest candidate to not only hold the seat but use it to pass transformative legislation to get money out of politics, put money in pockets, and pass Medicare for All," said Abdul El-Sayed's campaign.
Jun 18, 2026
Opponents of progressive former Detroit public health official Abdul El-Sayed have insisted he would be a risky candidate to face Republican contender Mike Rogers, with state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who is running against El-Sayed in the Democratic primary, suggesting his support for Medicare for All is too radical, and a centrist think tank attacking him for campaigning with an outspoken critic of Israel.
But polls released Wednesday revealed that not only is El-Sayed continuing to surge ahead of McMorrow and US Rep. Haley Stevens, but he also appears to have a better chance of beating Rogers in a statewide race.
A new poll taken by Mitchell Research and Communications between June 11-13 found El-Sayed received the support of 42% of respondents, nine points ahead of Stevens. McMorrow, who has positioned herself as a "moderate" middle ground between her two opponents, had 6% support.
The survey found that El-Sayed continued to build his support among voters under the age of 45, with the candidate 83 points ahead of his opponents in the race that has been called a "millennial showdown" by local media. All three candidates are between the ages of 39 and 42.
Last month, another survey by Mitchell Research and Communications found El-Sayed with the support of 80% of voters ages 18-44.
A separate poll released by Zenith Research on behalf of Common Defense—a grassroots organization of military veterans and their families—found El-Sayed three points ahead of Rogers, a former congressman.
Forty-five percent of respondents backed El-Sayed in a hypothetical matchup with the Republican, who had polled at 42%.
In a hypothetical McMorrow-Rogers matchup, the Democrat had 44% support compared the Republican's 42%, while Stevens was just one point ahead of Rogers.
"The difference between El-Sayed and Stevens’ vote shares—45% and 43%, respectively—appears to be due to Stevens’ relative unpopularity among voters who self-identify as 'very progressive or liberal,'" said Adam Carlson, founding partner of Zenith Polls. "Thirty-one percent of progressive/liberal voters hold a 'strongly unfavorable' view of Stevens."
Several respondents, said Carlson, cited Stevens' ties to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee "as the driving cause, which coincides with AIPAC taking a more active role in the campaign in recent weeks."
Polls have shown that since Israel began its US-backed assault on Gaza in October 2023, public support for Israel and AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby group, has plummeted, particularly among Democratic voters.
The pollster found that 51% of respondents would support a candidate who backs Medicare for All—a top focus of El-Sayed's policy platform—while 33% said they would prefer a candidate who supports maintaining the for-profit healthcare system as it is. Stevens and McMorrow have said they support a "public option" to compete with for-profit insurers. McMorrow falsely claimed in a recent interview that Medicare for All does not have significant public support.
"Abdul is the ONLY one who can turn out a broad coalition to beat Rogers in November," said El-Sayed's campaign in response to the poll. "He’s the strongest and safest candidate to not only hold the seat but use it to pass transformative legislation to get money out of politics, put money in pockets, and pass Medicare for All."
At MeidasTouch on Wednesday, correspondent Scott MacFarlane asked El-Sayed why his critics continue to claim he would not be electable in the general election.
“I think my party doesn’t really know what electability is any more," said El-Sayed. "They think electability is about being the most middle-of-the-road Democrat."
Question from @MacFarlaneNews: “You hear these concerns in your party that you’re the least electable in a general election. Why do people say that?”
Dr. @AbdulElSayed (D-MI): “I think my party doesn’t really know what electability is any more.” @MeidasTouch https://t.co/EqsPlLuyuD pic.twitter.com/3dRxenuDYv
— Luke Radel (@lukeradel) June 17, 2026
"What they don't realize," said El-Sayed, "is that the Democratic Party's brand has been destroyed by Democrats who take money from corporations to water down a message, and then wonder why our base doesn't show up for us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Trillion-Dollar Scam': Lawmakers Demand Halt to Trump's Golden Dome Boondoggle
"Trump’s dangerous... boondoggle will not protect Americans. It’s just a giveaway to defense contractor buddies like Elon Musk," said US Sen. Ed Markey.
Jun 18, 2026
Democratic lawmakers are taking aim at President Donald Trump's proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system, which the Congressional Budget Office projected last month would cost $1.2 trillion to create, deploy, and operate over the first 20 years of its existence.
Ten members of Congress, led by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Reps. John Garamendi (D-Calif.) and Don Beyer (D-Va.), sent a letter to US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday demanding information on the proposed project's cost to taxpayers and its projected effectiveness.
The letter begins by noting that officials working on the Golden Dome still have not shared key details about the project with the CBO, which the independent agency said has made it "impossible to estimate the long-term cost" of the system.
"It is one thing to withhold design details or performance specifications of certain systems," the letter says, "but it is quite another to withhold the entire system architecture that you expect Congress to approve and fund. Congress and the American public have a right to know what they are paying for."
The letter says that transparency about the system's architecture is particularly important given the questions that have been raised about how successful it would be at halting missile attacks. This is especially true, the letter emphasized, given the administration's insistence that the true cost of the system will be less than one-fifth of the CBO's projections.
"Simply put, there is no way that a Golden Dome system that costs $185 billion could possibly live up to the promise of 'forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,'" the letter states. "According to CBO’s calculations, even a system that would cost $3 trillion would not meet that ambitious goal, which would need to be able to engage hundreds of missiles. If the administration has not scaled back its goals for the system, the current official price tag is woefully unrealistic."
The letter concludes by asking several questions about the project, including the administration's estimated 20-year cost, the type of system architecture being planned, and the anticipated responses to the missile shield from rival nations including China and Russia.
"We urge you to halt this dangerous plan," the letter says, "and return to the more limited missile defense policies that have earned bipartisan support in the past."
In a separate social media post, Markey pointed out that the project is being used to funnel money to administration allies such as SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who last week became the world's first trillionaire and is promoting racist far-right political parties throughout the world.
"Trump’s dangerous $1.2 trillion 'Golden Dome' boondoggle will not protect Americans," Markey wrote. "It’s just a giveaway to defense contractor buddies like Elon Musk. We’re demanding answers from Hegseth on Trump’s trillion-dollar scam."
Keep ReadingShow Less
110 Days of Trump's Iran War Cost US Consumers $53 Billion Extra in Raised Gas Prices
"Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens tomorrow, we should expect prices to remain above pre-crisis levels," said an expert at 350.org.
Jun 18, 2026
President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that if his war in Iran continued much longer, the US could have faced "economic catastrophe" with gas prices expected to soar as emergency oil reserves were exhausted.
But new reports suggest that although the war appears to be coming to an end and the Strait of Hormuz is reopening, extraordinary irreversible damage has been done, and the economic consequences will be felt well into the future.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) estimates that as a result of the war, Americans have paid nearly $54 billion extra for gas and fuel, amounting to more than $400 per household, than if the war had never started.
Trump on the Iran War MOU: "I didn't want to see economic catastrophe. If you kept this going, that could have happened."
It's honestly a surreal minute to watch:pic.twitter.com/K7ZRPYklV5
— Rory Johnston (@Rory_Johnston) June 17, 2026
In the wake of the memorandum of understanding signed between the US and Iran, Trump has tried to claim credit as average gas prices have fallen below $4 for the first time since the early days of the war in March. However, gas still costs 25% more than it did last year.
This state of affairs can be expected to continue into the future. As The Associated Press reported Thursday morning:
Even as gas prices start to decline, it is anticipated to take weeks or months for oil to start flowing through the Strait of Hormuz again...
And Gulf oil producers that throttled back production will need time to get the oil moving again. Analysts also say ship captains may take their time to decide if passage is safe and that the threat of attack from Iran has truly receded.
In addition, refineries typically pay for crude oil a month or more in advance, so even after oil prices drop, they won’t immediately be processing cheaper products.
Fighting over the Strait of Hormuz disrupted not only supplies of crude and refined fuel but also the supply chains for fertilizer, food, and even footwear. Businesses expect higher costs to linger, which means their customers might need to prepare for that too.
Patrick De Haan, a petroleum analyst at GasBuddy, told CBS News it will be “a very long, multi-month to multi-year process for things to fully normalize,” and that it could take “until potentially mid-to-late 2027” for gas prices to return to pre-war levels.
Even as Americans, and indeed consumers around the world, continue to see their pocketbooks drained in the coming months, there is one big winner here: the fossil fuel industry.
An analysis released on Thursday by the environmental group 350.org shows that over the course of the war, households and businesses have paid the oil and gas industry an additional $374 billion in profits due to higher prices driven by the war.
Based on pricing scenarios from the International Monetary Fund, the group projected that even with the Strait of Hormuz open, the amount siphoned off could balloon to over $700 billion by the end of the year.
"Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens tomorrow, we should expect prices to remain above pre-crisis levels," said Andreas Sieber, 350.org's head of political strategy. "We witness not only a massive fossil fuel crisis but a vast upward transfer of wealth built on instability of fossil fuel markets and pain."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular