

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Every month that Donald Trump has been in power, we've seen a raft of anti-climate measures come out which are music to the fossil fuel industry's ears," said one investigator.
Oil, gas, and coal companies and individuals linked to the climate-wrecking fossil fuel industry contributed more than $19 million to U.S. President Donald Trump's second inaugural fund, an analysis by a leading international environmental and human rights group revealed Wednesday.
Scouring itemized U.S Federal Election Commission data, Global Witness identified 47 individual donations to the Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee between November 2024 and January 2025 totaling $19,151,933. Using an artificial intelligence tool developed by Global Witness to identify corporate lobbyists, the group's researchers were able to automatically determine each donor's ties to the fossil fuel industry.
Global Witness said the $19.15 million figure "is likely an underestimate, as we did not count donations from diversified investors and businesses who couldn't be said to primarily represent the fossil fuel industry," and individuals with common names that couldn't be identified were not included in the final report.
According to the analysis:
The list of donors includes individuals who were given ambassadorships or key positions in the Trump Cabinet.
For example, billionaire Warren Stephens donated $4 million on December 2, 2024, the same day Trump nominated him to be U.S. ambassador to the U.K. Stephens has extensive links to the oil and gas industry but also invests in other sectors and wasn't included in our calculations of fossil fuel industry donors.
Trump also nominated Melinda Hildebrand—who donated $500,000 to the president's inaugural fund—to be U.S. ambassador to Costa Rica.
Hildebrand is the vice president of Hilcorp Ventures, which claims to be of the largest privately owned oil and gas producers in the U.S. Her husband, founder and chairman of Hilcorp, donated another $500,000.
Among fossil fuel corporations, Chevron was by far the largest contributor to Trump's inauguration fund, giving $2 million. Other companies including ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and Occidental Petroleum each donated $1 million.
Overall, Big Oil gave $445 million to Trump and other Republican candidates during the 2024 election cycle.
Trump, who ran on a "drill, baby, drill" energy policy, has signed a series of executive orders aimed at boosting fossil fuel production, including by declaring a fake "energy emergency" in a push to fast-track permit approvals. He also tapped former fossil fuel executives to head the Department of Energy and Interior Department, which have pursued a policy of opening up more public lands and waters for fossil fuel development.
At the same time, the Trump administration dropped out of the Paris climate agreement for the second time and moved to roll back the modest climate progress achieved under former President Joe Biden.
"It's no surprise the oil and gas industry handed millions to Donald Trump for his inauguration, and they seem to have reaped a huge return on their investment," Global Witness senior data investigator Nicu Calcea said in a statement Wednesday.
"Every month that Donald Trump has been in power, we've seen a raft of anti-climate measures come out which are music to the fossil fuel industry's ears," Calcea continued. "From plans to steamroll through dirty new coal plants, to the attempted quashing of 'polluter pays' laws that would hold oil giants accountable, it's clear where his political priorities lie."
"While Trump sides with his friends in oil and gas, we must keep up the fight for a fair, green future—that means pushing for wind and solar where we live, backing polluters pay bills, and resisting the development of oil, gas and coal projects across the country," he added.
"They want to take climate out of the policy process entirely."
A key oil and gas industry group has devised a plan to dismantle Biden-era climate regulations, including on methane emissions, according to an investigation published Friday in The Washington Post.
The American Exploration and Production Council, a trade group of 30 oil and gas producers, aims to reverse a series of regulations the Biden administration has made, including the institution of a methane fee, the Post reported, based on AXPC documents that were leaked to Fieldnotes, a climate research group.
AXPC represents Big Oil companies including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, whose executives Republican nominee Donald Trump has aggressively sought out for contributions in his bid to return to the White House, even making a quid pro quo offer—deregulation in return for $1 billion in campaign cash—during a gathering at Mar-a-Lago in April.
David Doniger, senior adviser to the NRDC Action Fund, which is affiliated with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Post that Trump had "promised to grant their wishes" and the leaked documents, which Doniger reviewed at the paper's request, revealed their "wish list."
Paasha Mahdavi, director of the Energy Governance and Political Economy Lab at University of California at Santa Barbara, noted the comprehensiveness of AXPC's plans, which he also reviewed.
"They want to take climate out of the policy process entirely," Mahdavi told the Post. "They want government to stop regulating climate issues and stop thinking about climate risks."
Mahdavi said the AXPC documents showed that member companies were acting out of step with their own public climate pledges.
"They talk a lot about climate ambitions while doing something different inside their companies," he said. "If you are aligned with the Paris agreement, you cannot be part of a trade association trying to roll back these emissions regulations. Those two things are inconsistent."
Elizabeth Kolbert, an environmental writer at The New Yorker, said the plans were not surprising but were "still terrifying."
The oil and gas industry's plan for a Trump presidency involves pouring more methane into the atmosphere. Unsurprisingly, but still terrifying. https://t.co/RsVjiMefZH
— Elizabeth Kolbert (@ElizKolbert) October 18, 2024
Aspects of the AXPC plans had already been released publicly, including its goals to increase the production and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The leaked documents included a confidential survey of member companies showing that nine out of the 19 companies that responded had increased methane flaring between 2021 and 2023. Natural gas flaring is a longstanding but highly polluting industry disposal method. The survey also showed that the total amount of flaring across the companies increased by 20% from 2022 to 2023.
Methane is a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide, though not as long lasting in its effects. Methane emissions are responsible for about 20-30% of climate warming since the 1700s, scientists estimate—second only to carbon dioxide. Fossil fuels are a major source of those methane emissions, along with modern agricultural practices and other causes.
In March, the Environmental Protection Agency finalized its methane rule, which is projected to reduce emissions of the gas by up to 80% over 14 years. A group of Republican-led states and fossil fuel interests have challenged the rule in federal court. The case that's ongoing, though the plaintiffs' bid for an emergency injunction on the rule from the U.S. Supreme Court failed, so the regulation remains in effect.
The documents also show a number of other orders and regulations in the industry's crosshairs. One is a sweeping executive order issued in the first week of the Biden administration to establish a "whole-of-government" approach to tackling the climate crisis; it includes goals to limit drilling on federal land and decarbonize the grid. AXPC also seeks to undo an executive order that requires companies to disclose climate-related financial risks.
Other items in the AXPC roadmap include lifting the Biden administration's pause on LNG exports and undoing a rule requiring the climate to be taken into account in major infrastructure projects. The group also wants to see an executive order that promotes fossil fuel production.
AXPC spokesperson Mark Bednar, who previously worked for then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, told the Post that "our board documents make clear that our priorities are the same regardless of who is in the White House."
Yet the plan, which runs in contradiction to Democratic Party aims, will only be actionable if Trump returns to power.
Trump has phoned oil and gas executives regularly in recent months "to hear their wishes and raise campaign cash," the Post reported. As a group, AXPC hasn't contributed to the Trump campaign, but leaders of its member companies are Trump donors and fundraisers.
The International Energy Agency (IEA), which released a major report this week showing that the world's nations were not on track to achieve crucial climate goals, has documented the dangerous rise in global methane emissions—making the agency a target of the fossil fuel industry.
At a fundraiser this summer, fossil fuel executives told Trump he should push for Fatih Birol, the IEA's executive director, to be replaced, according to the Post, citing an anonymous attendee.
ExxonMobil distanced itself from the leaked documents, telling the Post that it doesn't agree with all AXPC positions and that it has sharply reduced its methane emissions and supports the methane fee.
ConocoPhillips didn't reply to a request for comment by the Post but has said in filings that it supports the AXPC's position on methane.
The city alleges the industry "funded, conceived, planned, and carried out a sustained and widespread campaign of denial and disinformation about the existence of climate change and their products' contribution to it."
Chicago on Tuesday joined the growing list of U.S. cities and states suing Big Oil for lying to the public about how burning fossil fuels causes and exacerbates the climate emergency.
The administration of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a progressive Democrat, filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court against ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and the industry lobby American Petroleum Institute, which "funded, conceived, planned, and carried out a sustained and widespread campaign of denial and disinformation about the existence of climate change and their products' contribution to it."
"The climate change impacts that Chicago has faced and will continue to face—including more frequent and intense storms, flooding, droughts, extreme heat events, and shoreline erosion—are felt throughout every part of the city and disproportionately in low-income communities," the suit contends.
In a statement, Johnson said that "there is no justice without accountability."
"From the unprecedented poor air quality that we experienced last summer to the basement floodings that our residents on the West Side experienced, the consequences of this crisis are severe, as are the costs of surviving them," he added. "That is why we are seeking to hold these defendants accountable."
Climate campaigners welcomed the lawsuit.
"Big Oil has lied to the American people for decades about the catastrophic climate risks of their products, and now Chicago and communities across the country are rightfully insisting they pay for the damage they've caused," Center for Climate Integrity president Richard Wiles said in a statement.
"With Chicago, the nation's third largest city, joining the fray, there is no doubt that we are witnessing a historic wave of lawsuits that could finally hold Big Oil accountable for the climate crisis they knowingly caused," he added.
Chicago joins eight U.S. states plus the District of Columbia and numerous municipalities across the country that have sued to hold Big Oil accountable for deceiving the public about its role in the climate emergency.
"To date, eight federal appeals courts and dozens of federal district courts have unanimously ruled against the fossil fuel industry's arguments to prevent these lawsuits from moving forward in state courts," noted the Center for Climate Integrity. "In 2023, the U.S. Justice Department added its support for the communities. The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Big Oil petitions to consider the industry's appeals of those lower court rulings three separate times, most recently in January."
Angela Tovar, Chicago's chief sustainability officer, told the Chicago Sun-Times that "the fossil fuel industry should be able to pay for the damage they've caused."
"We have to see accountability for the climate crisis," she added.
"California's move is an unmistakable sign that the wave of climate lawsuits against Big Oil will keep growing and that these polluters' days of escaping accountability for their lies are numbered."
The state of California on Friday filed suit against ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron, accusing the five oil and gas giants of a decadeslong campaign to mislead the public about the threat fossil fuels pose to the climate.
The lawsuit makes California the largest economy on the planet to take legal action against fossil fuel companies over their efforts to deceive the world about their destructive—and immensely profitable—business model. California is also a major producer of oil and gas.
"This has been a multi-decade, ongoing campaign to seek endless profits at the expense of our planet, our people, and the greedy corporations and individuals need to be held accountable," California Attorney General Rob Bonta told The New York Times in an interview on Friday. "That's where we come in."
With its new civil lawsuit, filed in a San Francisco court, California joins Rhode Island, Minnesota, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and other states that have sued the fossil fuel industry over its role in massive climate damages. Dozens of municipalities, including several in California, have also filed lawsuits against oil giants.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. has experienced a record-breaking 23 billion-dollar extreme weather disasters this year, from deadly flooding in California to the catastrophic wildfire that killed nearly 100 people in Maui, Hawaii—which is also suing Big Oil.
Cities and states representing 25% of the U.S. population are currently taking part in some kind of climate-related legal action against the fossil fuel industry, according to Fossil Free Media, and the Biden Justice Department is facing growing pressure to join the fight.
In an effort to improve their chances of winning the mounting legal battles, fossil fuel giants have tried to move climate liability lawsuits from state to federal court—but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their appeals earlier this year.
"Just like tobacco and opioid companies, the oil and gas industry will have to face the evidence of its deception in court."
Richard Wiles, the president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement Saturday that "California's decision to take Big Oil companies to court is a watershed moment in the rapidly expanding legal fight to hold major polluters accountable for decades of climate lies."
"Whether it's fires, droughts, extreme heat, or sea-level rise, Californians have been living in a climate emergency caused by the fossil fuel industry, and now the state is taking decisive action to make those polluters pay," said Wiles. "As similar cases proceed toward trial, California's move is an unmistakable sign that the wave of climate lawsuits against Big Oil will keep growing and that these polluters' days of escaping accountability for their lies are numbered. Just like tobacco and opioid companies, the oil and gas industry will have to face the evidence of its deception in court."
California's lawsuit, which also names the American Petroleum Institute as a defendant, comes days after The Wall Street Journal published a front-page story based on previously unreported documents that detail Exxon's behind-closed-doors effort to cast doubt on climate science after 2006, when the company publicly acknowledged the link between fossil fuels and climate change for the first time.
Exxon and other oil companies have been aware of the connection since the 1970s.
"For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us—covering up the fact that they've long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet," California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. "It has been decades of damage and deception."
" Wildfires wiping out entire communities, toxic smoke clogging our air, deadly heatwaves, record-breaking droughts parching our wells," Newsom continued. "California taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill. California is taking action to hold big polluters accountable."
The Times noted Friday that California's lawsuit aims to establish "a fund that would be used to pay for recovery from extreme weather events and mitigation and adaptation efforts across the state."
"The lawsuit claims that California has already spent tens of billions of dollars paying for climate disasters, and expects costs to rise significantly in the years ahead," the Times added.
Jamie Henn, the director of Fossil Free Media, said Saturday that with its lawsuit, "California just kicked open the door for every city and state in America to sue the fossil fuel industry for climate damages."
"After this summer of brutal heat waves and climate disasters, I think the public is hungry for a way to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the damage they've done," said Henn. "Big Oil knew, they lied, and now it's time to make them pay."
"The Supreme Court's decision brings the people of Delaware and Hoboken one step closer to putting these polluters on trial and making them pay for their climate deception."
On the heels of similar decisions last month, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered "another win for climate accountability," rejecting fossil fuel corporations' attempt to quash lawsuits filed by the city of Hoboken, New Jersey, and the state of Delaware.
Both filed in September 2020, the suits from Hoboken and Delaware—like those filed by dozens of other municipalities and states—take aim at companies including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell for fueling the climate emergency. The fossil fuel industry has repeatedly tried to evade accountability by shifting such cases from state to federal court.
"We appreciate and agree with the court's order denying the fossil fuel companies' petition, which aligns with dozens of decisions in federal courts here in Delaware and across the country," said Democratic Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings in response to Monday's decision.
The Supreme Court's decision means that both of these cases will now move forward in state court.
Jennings on Monday cited an opinion piece she wrote for Delaware Online with Shawn Garvin, secretary of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, back when they launched the legal effort in 2020:
As we stated at the time of filing this case almost three years ago: "It didn't have to be this way. The fossil fuel industry knew for decades that their products would lead to climate change with potentially 'severe' and even 'catastrophic' consequences—their words, not ours. But they didn't clean up their practices or warn anyone to minimize the peril they were creating. Instead, they spent decades deliberately and systematically deceiving the nation about what they knew would happen if they carried on with business as usual."
Building on revelations from the past decade that have bolstered climate liability lawsuits, peer-reviewed research published in January shows that ExxonMobil accurately predicted global heating decades ago, while documents released in early April make clear that Shell knew about the impact of fossil fuels even earlier than previously thought.
"Imagine how far along we might be in the transition to a low-carbon economy today if not for their deception," Jennings said. "That's why we filed our lawsuit, and today's order moves Delawareans one step closer to the justice and economic relief that we deserve."
For Hoboken and Delaware, the high court denied fossil fuel companies' challenge to decision last year from a panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which wrote in part that "our federal system trusts state courts to hear most cases—even big, important ones that raise federal defenses. Plaintiffs choose which claims to file, in which court, and under which law. Defendants may prefer federal court, but they may not remove their cases to federal court unless federal laws let them. Here, they do not."
Center for Climate Integrity president Richard Wiles noted Monday that "Big Oil companies keep fighting to avoid trials in state courts, where they will be forced to defend their record of climate lies and destruction in front of juries, but federal courts at every level keep rejecting their efforts."
"The Supreme Court's decision brings the people of Delaware and Hoboken one step closer to putting these polluters on trial and making them pay for their climate deception," Wiles added. "Fossil fuel companies must be held accountable for the damages they knowingly caused."
After the high court's April decisions—which involved cases brought by the state of Rhode Island as well as municipalities across California, Colorado, Hawaii, and Maryland—Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media said, "This should open the floodgates for more lawsuits that could make polluters pay!"
There were no noted dissensions on Monday. However, like last month, Justice Samuel Alito, who owns stock in some fossil fuel companies, did not participate in the decision about these two cases—but Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose father spent nearly three decades as an attorney for Shell, did.
"We will do everything within our power to protect the climate, wildlife, and people from this dangerous carbon bomb," said one opponent.
Climate campaigners on Tuesday remained resolute in their fight against ConocoPhillips' Willow oil project in Alaska—even after a federal judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction sought by environmental and Indigenous groups behind a pair of legal challenges.
"It's heartbreaking that ConocoPhillips has been allowed to break ground on Willow before the court has fully assessed whether the project is lawful," said Kristen Monsell, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement.
"But this case isn't over, and we'll keep fighting to protect struggling Arctic wildlife and our climate from this disastrous project," Monsell vowed. "We're hopeful we'll get the Willow project's approval thrown out once again."
After the Biden administration last month controversially approved the 30-year Big Oil project, two coalitions of advocacy organizations swiftly filed separate lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska.
One case is led by the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, and Natural Resources Defense Council; the other was filed by Trustees for Alaska on behalf of Alaska Wilderness League, Environment America, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Sierra Club, Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic, and the Wilderness Society.
"Allowing ConocoPhillips to bulldoze forward with construction of the largest oil and gas project on public lands before the lawsuits are settled is needlessly destructive."
In a 44-page order on Monday, U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason—an appointee of former President Barack Obama—denied both coalitions' requests that the court halt construction.
"The court has weighed the environmental harm posed by the proposed winter 2023 construction activities against the economic damages, benefits to most subsistence users, and the state and federal legislative pronouncements of the public interest that would be impacted by a preliminary injunction prohibiting these construction activities at this time, and concludes that the balance of the equities and the public interest tip sharply against preliminary injunctive relief," she wrote. "The court has further determined that plaintiffs have not established that irreparable injury to their members is likely if winter 2023 construction activities proceed."
A spokesperson for ConocoPhillips said in a statement to CNN that "with this decision from the federal district court, we are able to immediately begin construction activities."
Trustees for Alaska lead staff attorney Bridget Psarianos noted that "the district court found in our prior 2020 lawsuit that winter road construction and gravel mining would do immediate and permanent harm to land and the community of Nuiqsut. It's no different this time."
"This is heartbreaking for all who want to protect local communities and prevent more devastating climate impacts in the Arctic and around the world," the lawyer added. "We will do everything we can to protect the region while the merits of our case get heard."
Those behind the other case were similarly disappointed but determined. Greenpeace USA climate campaign director Natalie Mebane declared that "allowing ConocoPhillips to bulldoze forward with construction of the largest oil and gas project on public lands before the lawsuits are settled is needlessly destructive."
Still, "we remain undeterred," said Defenders of Wildlife Alaska Program director Nicole Whittington-Evans. "We remain committed to protecting the western Arctic and look forward to the court's full consideration of the Willow project, including its impacts to polar bears threatened with extinction and massive carbon emissions that will worsen the climate crisis for decades to come."
President Joe Biden has faced intense criticism over his administration greenlighting Willow despite the climate campaign promises that helped him win in 2020. Green groups called the approval a "betrayal" and some Democrats on Capitol Hill warned that it "destroys our climate goals and undermines international climate ambition," leaving an "oil stain" on Biden's legacy.
"Although the White House and Department of Interior were not persuaded to stop Willow despite the advocacy of more than 5 million individuals, we are now using the power of the law to restore some balance," said Erik Grafe, deputy managing attorney in Earthjustice's Alaska regional office. "While this particular round of the legal challenge did not produce the outcome we had hoped for, our court battle continues."
"We will do everything within our power to protect the climate, wildlife, and people from this dangerous carbon bomb," Grafe pledged. "Climate scientists have warned that we have less than seven years to get it right on climate change, and we cannot afford to lock in three decades of oil drilling that will only serve to open the door to more fossil fuel extraction."
"Biden will keep being haunted until he changes course," said one climate campaigner.
Further emboldened by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fresh call for rapid emission cuts, campaigners are planning to rally outside the U.S. Interior Department on Tuesday morning to protest the Biden administration's approval of a massive oil drilling project that—if completed—would spew millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year.
In a press release announcing the demonstration, which is set to begin at 9:00 am ET, Fossil Free Media said those voicing outrage over the administration's decision to greenlight the project will include climate activists, social media influencers, students, and others.
The protest will coincide with President Joe Biden's planned remarks at the White House Conservation in Action Summit at the Interior Department, which signed off on a version of ConocoPhillips' Willow Project last week despite widespread opposition and warnings that it would undermine the global climate fight.
The Interior Department has estimated that the Alaska drilling project—the largest of its kind on U.S. public land—could produce nearly 580 million barrels of oil over three decades and unleash more than 270 million metric tons of planet-warming CO2. Green groups are suing the administration in an effort to stop the project, which is not expected to begin producing oil for another six years.
Jamie Henn, the director of Fossil Free Media, wrote Monday that the IPCC's report "makes it all the more clear that Biden's approval of the Willow Project was an act of climate denial and destruction."
The report, the product of years of work by hundreds of leading scientists from around the world, says greenhouse gas emissions must be cut by 60% over roughly the next decade to keep the Paris climate accord's critical warming target alive.
The Biden administration's approval of the Willow Project and other drilling—during his first two years in office, Biden outpaced former President Donald Trump in permit approvals—called into further doubt the White House's commitment to treating the climate crisis as an "existential threat."
"Reading the U.N.'s latest dire climate warnings just days after Biden approved massive new Arctic oil drilling is utterly infuriating," Shaye Wolf, climate science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said Monday. "The fossil-fueled path to more climate disasters, mass displacements, and wildlife extinctions is bleak, but it's not inevitable."
"Chief among world leaders, Biden has the tools to not only ratchet up renewables but move us decisively off fossil fuels," Wolf added. "Scientists have mapped the way to a livable planet, but we need the political will to get us there."
On Monday, shortly following the release of the IPCC report, climate activists disrupted a Washington, D.C. event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where White House climate adviser Ali Zaidi appeared to deliver an address on the "future of U.S. climate and energy leadership."
Reuters reported that "a dozen protesters holding a sign saying 'End Fossil Fuels' chanted 'Keep your promise, no new drilling' for several minutes, preventing Zaidi from starting his remarks." Zaidi responded by pointing to the climate investments approved under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).
"At the end of the day, nobody in a position of power seems to be accepting the reality and the urgency of this moment," Reilly Haught, a 23-year-old protestor from West Virginia, told Reuters. "And that's what we wanted to share with him. We just can't go on with business as usual with only the people in suits having these important conversations."
Collin Rees of Oil Change International tweeted Monday that "'climate leaders' don't approve huge fossil fuel projects like the Willow Project, which would negate most emissions reductions from the IRA even under rosy estimates."
"The IPCC is clear—no new oil + gas," Rees added. "Biden will keep being haunted until he changes course."
"There is simply no justification for President Biden's decision to approve a massive new oil drilling scheme that will lead to decades of air and climate pollution," said one critic.
U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday greenlighted a massive oil drilling project on federal land in Alaska, eliciting outrage from climate advocates who say the administration's accompanying restrictions on oil and gas leasing in the region cannot make up for the destruction set to be unleashed by the approved Willow project.
Progressives sought for months to dissuade Biden from approving ConocoPhillips' $8 billion Willow project, noting that it could enable the production of more than 600 million barrels of crude over 30 years. If all of that oil is burned, roughly 280 million metric tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions will be spewed into the atmosphere at a time when United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warns that the planet is reaching a "point of no return."
"There is simply no justification for President Biden's decision to approve a massive new oil drilling scheme that will lead to decades of air and climate pollution," Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said in a statement.
"This decision is part of a disturbing and disappointing trend with this White House," Hauter continued. "President Biden refuses to take the necessary actions to rein in climate catastrophe while issuing rhetoric that professes concern for the existential threat that we all face. He cannot have it both ways. Promoting clean energy development is meaningless if we continue to allow corporations to plunder and pollute as they wish."
"President Biden refuses to take the necessary actions to rein in climate catastrophe while issuing rhetoric that professes concern for the existential threat that we all face."
In what The New York Times described as a bid "to temper criticism over the Willow decision and, as one administration official put it, to form a 'firewall' to limit future" fossil fuel development in the region, Biden announced restrictions on offshore oil lease sales in the Arctic Ocean and across Alaska's North Slope, while the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) "said it would issue new rules to block oil and gas leasing in more than 13 million of the 23 million acres that form the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska," where the Willow project is located.
But given the overwhelming scientific evidence—and warnings from even the relatively conservative International Energy Agency—that new fossil fuel projects are incompatible with averting the worst consequences of the planetary emergency, climate justice campaigners rejected the president's attempt to soften the blow of his Willow approval by announcing new protections for areas surrounding the extraction site.
"It's insulting that Biden thinks this will change our minds about the Willow project," Kristen Monsell, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. "Protecting one area of the Arctic so you can destroy another doesn't make sense, and it won't help the people and wildlife who will be upended by the Willow project. We need to protect the entire Arctic and stop building massive oil and gas developments that will contribute to greenhouse gas emissions for years to come."
"Biden approved Willow knowing full well that it'll cause massive and irreversible destruction, which is appalling," said Monsell. "People and wildlife will suffer, and extracting and burning more fossil fuel will warm the climate even faster. Biden has no excuse for letting this project go forward in any form. New Arctic drilling makes no sense, and we'll fight hard to keep ConocoPhillips from breaking ground."
As the Times reported, the Biden administration "said it would approve permits for three drilling sites and deny two others, including one that would have been closest to a coastal wetland known as Teshekpuk Lake. The administration also said it would deny permission to build a road that would have led to the fourth drilling site."
"In addition to rejecting two of the proposed drilling sites, the administration also announced that ConocoPhillips would return about 68,000 acres of existing leases to the government," the Times reported. "Officials said they believe that would prevent the company from trying to expand oil drilling in the region beyond the Willow project."
Although the DOI's "environmental analysis raised 'substantial concerns' about emissions, danger to freshwater sources, and threats to migratory birds, caribou, whales, and other animals that inhabit the region... the administration concluded that it doesn't have the legal authority to deny permits to ConocoPhillips, which has long held leases on the land in the petroleum reserve," the newspaper reported, citing two unnamed sources.
The Revolving Door Project's climate research director, Dorothy Slater, condemned the White House for "prematurely ma[king] the decision they thought courts might insist on," calling it a "weak-hearted capitulation to corporate interests" and a "historic abnegation of responsibility."
"The Interior Department does in fact have the legal authority to deny permits for a project that they have substantial concerns about," said Slater. "If the case did go to court, the administration could leverage the significant resources of the Justice Department to defend their decision stridently, using every tool in their arsenal to protect the Arctic wilderness and give us a fighting chance to avoid the worst of climate change."
"Simply what is executive power for, if not protecting the future of this planet?" she asked.
Monsell stressed that "even one new oil well in the Arctic is one well too many."
"If Biden wants to protect the Arctic, he needs to protect all of it," she added. "The president has left us in the cold and missed a major opportunity to live up to his climate commitments. This project is on weak legal ground, and we're gearing up for action."
Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen echoed that sentiment, telling the Times that the Biden administration's "tinkering at the margins... won't remedy legal failures to address this project's outside harms and we expect to see them in court."
"Anyone who says there has been a final decision is wrong," said White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, refuting media reports that the $8 billion "ticking carbon bomb" in Alaska would be imminently approved.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Friday denied reports that U.S. President Joe Biden would imminently approve the Willow Project, saying "no final decisions" have been made on the highly controversial $8 billion ConocoPhillips oil drilling endeavor in northern Alaska slammed by critics as a "climate catastrophe."
"Anyone who says there has been a final decision is wrong," Jean-Pierre told reporters Friday evening after outlets including Bloomberg, CNN, and The New York Times reported that the Biden administration would green-light what would be the single-largest oil operation in the United States.
"President Biden is delivering on the most aggressive climate agenda of any U.S. president in history and spurring an unprecedented expansion of clean energy," the White House spokesperson added.
Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska—who supports the project—told the Times that she had not received notification of its approval.
"We are not celebrating yet, not with this White House," she said.
Climate campaigners, Indigenous groups, environmentalists, dozens of Democratic U.S. lawmakers, and others are vehemently opposed to what many have called a "ticking carbon bomb" and a "climate catastrophe."
The Biden administration's own assessment of the project acknowledges that it "would likely incur spills," and the Interior Department has expressed "substantial concerns" about the proposal.
According to the Sierra Club:
Willow is sited in a vast Arctic landscape that provides critical habitat for birds from all over the world as well as animals like the caribou that subsistence hunters rely on to feed their families and communities. Native communities, like Nuiquset, are already dealing with the consequences of oil development in the region, including deteriorating air quality and a spike in respiratory disorders. Last year, a well in Conoco's Alpine Field blew out, spewing methane into the air and endangering residents of Nuiquset. These risks are already here, and Willow only makes them worse.
On Friday, former U.S. Vice President Al Gore called the proposed project "recklessly irresponsible," adding that "we must end the expansion of oil, gas, and coal and embrace the abundant climate solutions at our fingertips."
Len Montgomery, public lands campaign director at Environment America, told Common Dreams via email that "we need our leaders to think long-term. Clean energy, not oil, is our future."
"Allowing a brand new Arctic oil project to break ground in one of our most sensitive ecosystems would be short-sighted," Montgomery argued. "This project will exacerbate climate change and will directly harm caribou and polar bears. We are inspired by the outpouring of opposition against this project from across the country and we will continue our efforts to prevent the chillers, the ice roads, and the well pads from ever encroaching on this pristine area."
Quannah Chasinghorse—a Han Gwich'In and Sicangu/Oglala Lakota land protector, climate justice activist, and fashion model from Eagle Village, Alaska and the tribes of South Dakota—wrote in a CNN opinion article Friday that "ConocoPhillips has claimed that the Willow Project could create thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of permanent ones, along with needed oil, but at what cost?"
"We must change the narrative that the land serves us and only exists so that we can extract resources from it."
"Make no mistake, it will not only be local communities, or even Alaskans, who will feel the negative climate impacts of this project," she continued. "According to an analysis from the Center for American Progress, developing and burning oil from the Willow Project would produce up to 287 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over the next 30 years. That's equal to the annual emissions of 76 coal power plants—a third of all coal plants in the United States."
"We must change the narrative that the land serves us and only exists so that we can extract resources from it," Chasinghorse asserted. "My elders tell me that if we take care of the land, the land will take care of us. We cannot live without healthy land. Not just us Gwich'in. All of us, everywhere"
"President Biden, stop the Willow Project," she added. "Stop climate chaos, before it's too late"
"As I watch millions of people join the #StopWillow movement, these staggering numbers send a clear message that today's youth expect President Biden and Secretary Haaland to step up," said one activist.
From climate campaigners on TikTok to former Vice President Al Gore, people who care about the planet across the United States are pressuring the Biden administration to block ConocoPhillips' multibillion-dollar Willow oil project in Alaska.
The U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published a notice of availability regarding its final supplemental environmental impact statement for the proposed Willow Master Development Plan in the Federal Register on February 6. It said that a final decision for the project would come no earlier than 30 days from then.
Leading up to the BLM's decision—which ConocoPhillips chairman and CEO Ryan Lance expects this week—opponents have stressed scientists' warnings about the need to keep fossil fuels in the ground if humanity has any chance of preventing catastrophic global heating and meeting the Paris climate agreement's 1.5°C target for this century.
Announced by the Houston-based company in 2017, the 30-year development in the National Petroleum Reserve would produce up to 180,0000 barrels of oil a day at its peak and release over 9.2 metric tons of planet-heating carbon dioxide annually.
"We don't need to prop up the fossil fuel industry with new, multiyear projects that are a recipe for climate chaos."
"Some Native Alaskan Iñupiaq have also raised serious concerns about the project's local environmental impacts, including disturbance to local wildlife, disruption to traditional hunting practices, and a decline in air quality," BBC News noted Friday.
Gore, a longtime environmentalist, acknowledged both local and global concerns on Friday in comments to The Guardian.
"The proposed expansion of oil and gas drilling in Alaska is recklessly irresponsible," he said. "The pollution it would generate will not only put Alaska Native and other local communities at risk, it is incompatible with the ambition we need to achieve a net-zero future."
"We don't need to prop up the fossil fuel industry with new, multiyear projects that are a recipe for climate chaos," Gore continued. "Instead, we must end the expansion of oil, gas, and coal and embrace the abundant climate solutions at our fingertips."
Climate advocacy groups have been sending President Joe Biden and U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland that same message.
After the White House released its budget blueprint on Thursday, Varshini Prakash, executive director of the youth-led Sunrise Movement, said that the "proposed budget—especially its investments in clean energy, jobs, and an end to oil and gas subsidies—is the kind of thing young people in this country want to see ahead of 2024."
"But President Biden has the power to act on climate and issues important to our generation without having to go through a Republican House," Prakash added. "He can reject the Willow Project, which goes against his own agenda to stop the climate crisis, and can do everything in his executive authority, like declaring a climate emergency and invoking the Defense Production Act, to jump-start our transition to clean energy."
Though Willow is backed by Alaska's three-member congressional delegation, Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy, and the state Legislature, opponents of the project have taken social media by storm with the hashtag #StopWillow.
"I have never seen so many videos, so many comments, mentions about a climate topic on social media," 26-year-old Alaina Wood, a scientist and climate activist with more than 353,500 followers on the video platform TikTok, told The Washington Post Tuesday.
Elise Joshi, a 20-year-old University of California, Berkeley student and acting executive director of the nonprofit Gen-Z for Change, posted one of the earliest TikTok videos about the project, which now has over 300,000 views. She emphasized that "this is not environmentalist groups."
"This is young people as a whole, as a voter base, taking action," Joshi explained to the Post. "With Willow, this is one of the biggest actions we've ever seen on TikTok go forward. It has shown that we are willing to fight."
A Change.org petition urging Biden to stop Willow—now signed by more than 3 million people and promoted by groups including the Indigenous-led NDN Collective—declares that "there must come a point where human health, food security, environmental justice, and a functioning ecosystem come before corporate profit."
Pointing to the growing support for the petition, Alex Haraus, a 25-year-old TikTok creator whose Willow videos have millions of views, told CNN, "If that doesn't emphasize the fact that it's everyday Americans pushing back, I don't know what does."
"This is not an environmental movement, it's much larger than that," Haraus added. "It's the American public that can vote."
Hazel Thayer, another climate activist who has posted TikTok videos with #StopWillow, told The Associated Press Wednesday that the proposed Big Oil project is "just so blatantly bad for the planet."
"With all of the progress that the U.S. government has made on climate change, it now feels like they're turning their backs by allowing Willow to go through," Thayer said. "I think a lot of young people are feeling a little bit betrayed by that."
Quannah Chasinghorse—a Han Gwich'in and Sicangu/Oglala Lakota land protector, climate justice activist, and fashion model from Eagle Village, Alaska and the tribes of South Dakota—wrote Friday in a CNN opinion piece opposing the project that "I've been inspired by the chorus of voices who have joined me."
"To date, #StopWillow (and related) videos from a diverse array of young creators have around 300 million direct views on TikTok alone," Chasinghorse noted. "In a matter of just a few days, #StopWillow catapulted to the top of social media conversations."
"As I watch millions of people join the #StopWillow movement, these staggering numbers send a clear message that today's youth expect President Biden and Secretary Haaland to step up," she added. "It reflects a game-changing trend that astute leaders should not ignore: They must deliver the climate leadership they promised by taking bold action to stop the Willow climate disaster before it's too late."
Even if the Biden administration gives Willow the green light, that approval is expected to be met with legal challenges.
"I think that litigation is very likely," Earthjustice senior attorney Jeremy Lieb told The Guardian. “We and our clients don't see any acceptable version of this project."