SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ferc
Critics Warn Trump Plan for 'Zombie' Coal Plants Will Make Energy Dirtier and Costlier
"The Trump administration is once again putting its thumb on the scale to help old, dirty power sources at the expense of air quality, public health, and higher energy bills," said one opponent.
Jul 08, 2025
Green groups warned Tuesday that the Trump administration's plan to invoke a bogus "energy emergency" in order to keep old, polluting coal-fired plants running will make electricity generation dirtier and more expensive while failing to produce enough power to keep up with surging demand.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Energy published a resource adequacy analysis that includes plans for boosting fossil-fueled electricity generation, including at coal-fired plants. The report cites President Donald Trump's executive orders declaring a national energy emergency and strengthening the reliability and security of the nation's electric grid, and highlights the DOE's plan to classify aging fossil fuel plants as critical to system reliability. The administration is also likely to continue invoking Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act and the Defense Production Act in order to extend the lifespans of older fossil fuel plants.
Although the analysis acknowledges that "old tools won't solve new problems," its methodology supports keeping expensive and polluting coal plants in operation. Dirty coal plants that continue to operate despite economic inefficiencies are sometimes called "zombie" plants.
"More clean energy will make the U.S. grid stronger, more reliable, and more resilient."
Not only does the report fail to state that the burning of fossil fuels is the leading driver of the climate emergency, it does not even mention the word "climate" once in its 73 pages. This tracks with the Trump administration's long-standing proscription of the term "climate change."
"The methodology released today is another attempt to push the false narrative that our country's energy future depends upon decades-old coal and gas plants, rather than clean renewables," said Sierra Club senior attorney Greg Wannier. "The only energy crisis faced by the American public is the catastrophic increase in costs that the Trump administration is forcing on the country's ratepayers."
Wannier noted that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and states "are already well equipped to meet any projected resource needs through the existing regulatory process, which ensures that electricity demand is reliably met at the least public cost."
"Any effort by DOE to override this process to forcibly keep coal plants online past their planned retirements would be an extraordinary and unlawful overreach of its regulatory authority," Wannier added. "It would be particularly harmful and costly to the communities living near these power plants who face the possibility of continued exposure to toxic levels of air and water pollution."
Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel for U.S. clean energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said Tuesday:
The Trump administration is once again putting its thumb on the scale to help old, dirty power sources at the expense of air quality, public health, and higher energy bills for American families and businesses. This time it has issued a methodology that uses dodgy accounting to ignore all the clean energy we have at our disposal—including solar, wind, and battery technologies that are helping meet our nation's energy needs and support the reliability of our electric grid—in order to make a bogus case that these old, dirty power plants are needed. The administration's deeply flawed approach can't hide the fact that clean energy resources are helping keep lights on and lower electricity bills across the country, while keeping old, dirty power plants on life support will mean higher power bills for families and more toxic, cancer-causing pollution in the air we breathe.
The Trump administration has already used the nonexistent energy emergency in a push to fast-track fossil fuel permitting, keep fossil-fueled plants operating, and to wage lawfare against Democrat-controlled states trying to hold Big Oil financially accountable for its role in causing the climate emergency. In 2017, the first Trump administration also moved to bail out financially floundering coal and nuclear plants.
"No matter how they try to gussy it up, bailing out coal or other fossil fuels when low-cost solar and wind power is growing so quickly makes even less sense today than it did in 2017 when the previous Trump administration tried it before," Kit Kennedy, managing director for power at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said in response to the DOE plan.
"It's ironic that the Energy Department is warning about reliability just days after Republicans in Congress repealed the clean energy tax credits," Kennedy added, referring to a provision in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by Trump on Friday.
NRDC cites analysts' predictions that the legislation will reduce additions of the electricity needed to meet rapidly growing demand and raise wholesale electricity prices as much as 25% by 2030 and up to 74% by 2035.
"More clean energy will make the U.S. grid stronger, more reliable, and more resilient—all while saving consumers money on their electricity bills," Kennedy said. "Bailing out old, dirty coal, gas, and oil plants would mean higher costs and a less reliable grid."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Is the Mountain Valley Pipeline Safe? We Who Live in Its Blast Zone Need Answers
If the allegations contained in a lawsuit are true, it demonstrates a willful endangerment of citizens and a gross violation of federal laws and policies.
Jun 18, 2025
In late 2014 people across West Virginia and southwest Virginia were informed that a collaboration of energy companies had created a limited liability company called Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC. The company was created to develop the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a 303-mile methane-gas pipeline traveling through West Virginia and Virginia mountains, farms, streams, and communities. It is most commonly called the “MVP.” It crossed my organic farm and many places where I travel, work, and play.
From the beginning there were questions about the necessity and the viability of this project. What transpired is a years-long battle to stop the pipeline. By 2022 it was apparent that the MVP was a doomed project, having gone from a price tag of $3.5 billion to over $8 billion and not being able to legally obtain critical permits. It is now projected to eventually cost nearly $10 billion.
The pipeline was rescued in 2023 by then-West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin when he held the debt ceiling legislation hostage until he got his “Dirty Deal,” inserted into the final Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. This then created a situation where degraded and corroded pipe, which had sat in the sun for years beyond the manufacturer’s recommendations, was going to be buried by MVP developers. Despite warnings from citizens, environmental, and safety experts, MVP was allowed to use much of this expired pipe.
Congress, PHMSA, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) each must conduct investigations to determine if public safety has been compromised and if officials with MVP broke federal law.
In October of 2023 citizens did get the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to issue additional safety procedures for any of the pipe remaining to be installed across West Virginia and Virginia. Meanwhile MVP was barreling full steam ahead, installing the pipe in some of the most difficult and environmentally sensitive areas of the route. They worked around the clock in sometimes brutal conditions from early June 2023 through June of 2024, despite the fact that Sen. Manchin and others said it could be completed in as little as four months. More lies and deception from those advocating for the pipeline.
Throughout this time, citizens monitoring the construction would hear rumors of shortcuts and pipeline failures like the one that happened in Bent Mountain, Virginia in May of 2024 just days before the pipeline was given the green light to enter service.
In my community of West Virginia, I heard rumors of pipeline being buried that was not properly approved by inspectors, but I heard nothing more about this after January of 2024 when MVP left my farm. That was until June 4 when I read a story by Mike Tony of the Charleston-Gazette-Mail. The story revealed that a wrongful termination lawsuit had been filed in Monroe County, where I live, in April of 2025. It was recently moved to the federal Court in nearby Bluefield, West Virginia. Subsequent stories by Laurence Hammack of The Roanoke Times and by Carlos Anchondo of E&E News have raised dire concerns among those of us who live in the blast zone of the MVP pipeline in West Virginia and Virginia.
The lawsuit alleged that a pipeline inspector was fired by MVP after refusing to sign off on pipe and/or welds he felt were unsafe. In fact, according to the filing in the Monroe County Court, he was told that if he wanted to keep his job, he was to bury the pipe. He refused, and, according to the complaint, he was transferred and later fired. In my eyes, this man is a public hero. He did his job and was fired for it. I wonder how prevalent this kind of excessive pressure is on those doing this job across the pipeline industry.
If the allegations contained in the lawsuit are true, it demonstrates a willful endangerment of citizens and a gross violation of federal laws and policies. It is imperative that this does not get swept under the rug by Mountain Valley Pipeline with some sort of out of court settlement and a nondisclosure agreement. Congress, PHMSA, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) each must conduct investigations to determine if public safety has been compromised and if officials with MVP broke federal law.
This is particularly troubling for me as I suspect that some of the pipe and welds in question are near my home or in other places where I frequent often. I also suspect this is not a situation that is isolated to just Monroe County, West Virginia. This week I will be in Washington D.C. seeking answers from FERC, PHMSA, and our elected officials.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Right Thing to Do': FERC Delays Controversial LNG Export Terminal
"We are happy about the delay, but these projects don't ever need to be approved and neither does any other LNG facility," one frontline advocate said.
Dec 04, 2024
Frontline communities along the Gulf Coast were granted a "temporary reprieve" last week when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission moved to pause its approval of the controversial Calcasieu Pass 2 liquefied natural gas export terminal while it conducts an assessment of its impact on air quality.
FERC approved Venture Global's CP2 in late June despite opposition from local residents who say the company's nearly identical Calcasieu Pass terminal has already wracked up a history of air quality violations and disturbed ecosystems and fishing grounds in Louisiana's Cameron Parish, harming health and livelihoods.
"This order reveals that FERC recognizes that CP2 LNG's environmental impacts are too great to pass through any real scrutiny" Megan Gibson, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), said in a statement on Monday.
"FERC's pause on construction may give us some temporary reprieve, but this project never should have been authorized in the first place."
FERC's decision follows a request for a rehearing of its June decision filed by frontline residents and community groups including For a Better Bayou and Fishermen Involved in Sustaining Our Heritage (FISH) as well as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council. In their request, the groups and individuals pointed to errors the commission had made in its approval decision.
"With this order, it seems FERC is finally willing to acknowledge that it has not done enough to properly consider the cumulative harm on communities caused by building so many of these LNG export terminals so close together," Nathan Matthews, a Sierra Club senior attorney, said in a statement. "Prohibiting construction of CP2 LNG while FERC takes another look at the environmental impact of this massive, polluting facility is the right thing to do."
"Still," Matthews continued, "FERC must take concrete steps to properly evaluate the true scope of the dangers posed to communities from gas infrastructure moving forward and avoid making unwarranted approvals in the future."
FERC's decision comes over four months after the D.C. Circuit Court remanded the commission's approval of Commonwealth LNG, also in Louisiana, over concerns that it had not fully assessed the impacts of that project's air pollution emissions. Now, frontline advocates are urging FERC to do its due diligence as it weighs the environmental impacts of CP2.
"Through the lenses of optical gas imaging, we've seen massive plumes of toxic emissions, undeniable proof that these projects poison the air we breathe," James Hiatt, director of For a Better Bayou, said of LNG export facilities. "Modeling must use the latest data from the most local sources to fully capture the harm these facilities inflict on Cameron Parish. Anything less is a betrayal of our community. FERC must choose justice over profit and stop sacrificing people for polluters."
Gibson of SELC said that FERC had already repeated some of the errors in its CP2 approval in its new order.
"This continued failure to fulfill its regulatory duty is not just an oversight—it is a failure to protect vulnerable communities and our economy from the real potential harms of this massive export project," Gibson said.
FERC's decision comes as the fate of the LNG buildout itself hangs in the balance. The Biden administration's Department of Energy is currently rushing to complete its renewed assessment of whether or not LNG exports serve the public interest. Environmental and frontline groups have argued that they do not because of local pollution, the fact that they would raise domestic energy bills, and their contribution to the climate emergency. CP2 alone would spew 8,510,099 metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent per year, which is about the same as adding 1,850,000 new gas cars to the road.
While President-elect Donald Trump has promised to "drill, baby, drill" and is likely to disregard any Biden administration conclusions, a strong outgoing statement against LNG exports would help bolster legal challenges to Trump energy policy.
At the same time, Bill McKibben pointed out in a column on Tuesday that the administration's pause on LNG export approvals while it updates its public interest criteria has acted to slow the industry's expansion, and that FERC's reconsideration of CP2 could add to this delay.
"The vote for the new review is 4-0, and bipartisan," McKibben wrote. "It could slow down approvals for the project till, perhaps, the third quarter of next year. And that's good news, because the rationale for new LNG exports shrinks with each passing month, as the gap between the price of clean solar, wind, and battery power, and the price of fossil fuel, continues to grow."
Ultimately, frontline Gulf Coast advocates want to see the LNG buildout halted entirely.
"I, along with the fishermen in Cameron, Louisiana, know firsthand how harmful LNG exports are, and see the total disregard they have for human life as they poison our families and seafood," said FISH founder Travis Dardar, an Indigenous fisherman in Cameron, Louisiana. "FERC's pause on construction may give us some temporary reprieve, but this project never should have been authorized in the first place. As far as anyone who believes in the fairytale of LNG being cleaner, we have paid with our communities and livelihoods. It's time to break these chains and turn away from this false solution."
Roisheta Ozaine, a prominent anti-LNG activist and founder of the Vessel Project of Louisiana, said that she, as a mother in an environmental justice community, saw "firsthand how LNG facilities prioritize profit over the well-being of our families. Commonwealth and CP2 are no different."
"We are happy about the delay, but these projects don't ever need to be approved and neither does any other LNG facility," Ozane continued. "My children are suffering from health conditions that threaten their daily lives, all while regulatory agencies and elected officials turn a blind eye. It's time for our leaders to put people before profit and prioritize the health of our communities over the pollution that harms us. We deserve a future where our children's health is safeguarded, not sacrificed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
What the Biden Admin Can Still Do to Defuse the LNG Bomb Before Trump Grabs the Trigger
At the very least what the administration can and must do is tell the truth: More LNG exports are not in the public interest.
Dec 04, 2024
When the environmental history of the Biden administration is written, the Inflation Reduction Act will have pride of place—for all its compromises and flaws, it finally set serious federal money flowing toward the task of an energy transition, and defending it from Trumpian attack will be job one for green lobbyists for the next for years. (And not an impossible job in every case—the new factories built with IRA money have turned a lot of legislators, including in red states, into reluctant supporters).
But the second most useful thing the Biden administration did came less than a year ago—its January decision to pause new permits for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals. This doesn’t sound to the untrained ear like such a big deal, but as readers of this newsletter know, it was: Had the industry continued to build at the pace it wanted, the climate damage from American LNG exports would soon have topped every single thing that happens in Europe. This is the biggest greenhouse gas bomb on planet Earth.
You could tell what a big deal it was by the way it angered Big Oil (and big banking and big shipping)—every story about the industry’s unprecedented support for Donald Trump’s election made it clear that this was the number one casus belli. That’s because—as American demand for natural gas begins to sag in the face of the renewables buildout—their main hope was to emulate the cigarette industry and seek new markets in Asia. But a combination of on-the-ground groups in the Gulf of Mexico and climate activists across the country stuck a potato in the tailpipe. The Biden administration promised a full report before the year was out about whether or not the exports were still in the public interest.
The rationale for new LNG exports shrinks with each passing month, as the gap between the price of clean solar, wind, and battery power, and the price of fossil fuel, continues to grow.
And yesterday, somewhat surprisingly, even before that report was released, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, slowed down the process some more. They issued a finding that the next terminal up for consideration, a mammoth facility called CP 2 destined for the Louisiana coast, needed to go through a new round of environmental review because of its potential effect on local air quality. As the experts at the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) explained:
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an order setting aside its approval for Venture Global’s massive CP2 export facility in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The order modifies and, in part, sets aside the commission’s previous authorization order to conduct a supplemental environmental impact analysis on the project’s cumulative air quality and emissions impacts. The order states that FERC will not authorize construction until the commission completes this process.
The vote for the new review is 4-0, and bipartisan. It could slow down approvals for the project till, perhaps, the third quarter of next year. And that’s good news, because the rationale for new LNG exports shrinks with each passing month, as the gap between the price of clean solar, wind, and battery power, and the price of fossil fuel, continues to grow.
The Biden administration should and could deny the permits outright, and here’s a petition urging them to do just that, and plans from Climate Defiance for demonstrations at the DOE next week. Most observers seem to think the denial is unlikely, especially after the FERC ruling gave them a plausible out on the most controversial of the projects. (And if they do deny them, the Trump administration might well be able to un-deny them, though at some point this all enters a valley of legal complication too thick for me to hack my way through.) Still—finish what you started. A year of investigation should have made clear that more LNG exports are not in the public interest, which means saying no.
At the very least what the Biden administration can and must do is tell the truth.
The detailed report on the economics and science of LNG exports is apparently all written and just waiting for the DOE to release, but in some ways almost as important as the report itself will be the cover letter that comes with it. The report will be dense; the language that introduces it should be clear. Though it won’t necessarily stop the new guys from doing what they want, it’s time for President Joe Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to declare forthrightly that
- There are too many of these projects in too small a space along the Gulf, and it is intolerable for the people who live there. As James Hiatt, director of For a Better Bayou, said this morning: “Through the lenses of optical gas imaging, we’ve seen massive plumes of toxic emissions, undeniable proof that these projects poison the air we breathe. Modeling must use the latest data from the most local sources to fully capture the harm these facilities inflict on Cameron Parish. Anything less is a betrayal of our community. FERC must choose justice over profit and stop sacrificing people for polluters.” People like Hiatt—and especially the indefatigable Roishetta Ozane—have fought as if their lives were on the line, because they are. What heroes!
- The U.S.—the leading LNG exporter in the world—is producing far more gas already than the world needs. The industry’s rhetorical defense has focused on the need to bolster European supplies after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine—but Europe is now awash in gas, and has used the war to dramatically convert to renewable energy. Every long-term indication is that the continent needs more, not less. Which is why new contracts for LNG exports are designed for Asia—where they will undercut a similar conversion to sun and wind.
- In climate terms, exporting natural gas is at least as bad as exporting coal. Robert Howarth’s ground-breaking paper laying out the numerical proof was one of the keys in the battle to get the Biden pause; it’s since been published in a peer-reviewed journal. It documents the amount of heat-trapping methane that pours into the air at every point in this process. There is no possible way to square the expansion of LNG with reducing climate pollution. That won’t matter to Trump, of course, since he doesn’t believe in climate change, but it is a robust truth that needs to be stated clearly and publicly.
- In economic terms, this harms the American consumers who haven’t yet managed to install a heat pump and who are still dependent on natural gas. If shipload after shipload is sent overseas, every analysis has found, the price will go up for those Americans.
It took me far too long to figure out the danger these exports posed. I started writing about it for The New Yorker and on this newsletter in late summer of 2023, and once I understood the situation I stopped writing and started organizing, helping people like Jamie Henn and Jeremy Symons and Maura Cowley build an ad hoc climate wing of the coalition that won the pause. I’m very proud of the role Third Act played in mobilizing public opinion and I’m very proud of the role this small newsletter played too. The New York Times didn’t write a single story until the day before Biden’s decision when it was already a fait accompli; it took independent journalism and independent activism to make it happen.
One reason Vice President Kamala Harris’ defeat broke my heart is because I think she would have quashed this expansion for good. But I’m hopeful that we delayed them long enough (especially given this new FERC ruling) to seriously screw up the prospects for endless expansion. Every month counts (and every month adds to financing costs); the great movement that arose to defeat these projects has taken more than a dozen months out of the calendar for their promoters, and that may well spell the difference for many projects.
The always-rational gas industry has treated its opponents with the usual respect—as one official of the Canadian producers explained recently, we are all part of a “cult-like” movement seeking “a kind of promised land where everything will operate in perfect balance.” Actually, we’re just a bunch of folks hoping for a planet that doesn’t burn right up—but to Big Oil that must look like pretty much the same thing. At any rate, if it’s a cult led by folks like Roishetta Ozane and James Hiatt, then this Methodist is happy to play his part.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Environmental Justice Nightmare': FERC Approves Major LNG Export Terminal Despite Biden Pause
"Even with FERC's reckless decision to approve CP2, the project cannot move forward without all federal permits, including those currently paused by the Department of Energy," one climate advocate said.
Jun 27, 2024
In what the Sunrise Movementcalled a "disastrous decision," the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission voted 2-1 on Thursday to approve a certification for Venture Global's controversial Calcasieu Pass 2 liquefied natural gas terminal. The approval comes despite the fact that the company's first Calcasieu Pass terminal violated its air pollution permits more than 2,000 times during its first year in operation.
While expected, FERC's decision was widely condemned by climate justice advocates and frontline community groups. At the same time, CP2's opponents emphasized that the plant is unlikely to be built while the Department of Energy has paused the approval of LNG exports while it considers their impacts on the climate, consumers, and local communities.
"A rubber stamp from FERC is business-as-usual for fossil fuel projects," Lukas Ross, climate and energy justice deputy director at Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. "Thankfully CP2 has a long way to go and we intend to fight it every step of the way. No amount of lobbying will make this project anything other than a climate and environmental justice nightmare."
"We refuse to sink. We are going to fight them here. We are going to fight them at home. This is far from over."
Environmental groups say that CP2 is a "carbon bomb" that would emit 20 times more climate pollution over its lifetime than the Willow oil drilling project in Alaska.
"CP2 is a climate catastrophe," the Sunrise Movement wrote on social media. "It would produce more emissions than 46 coal-fired power plants and spew air pollution into marginalized communities."
It is also a key test case for a massive LNG buildout that threatens to raise domestic energy prices and shatter national climate goals.
As 350.org and Third Act co-founder Bill McKibbenpointed out in a Thursday column following the approval:
There's a huge pool of frackable gas sitting in the Permian Basin of Texas. The only way to monetize most of it is to ship it to Asia, persuading the fast-growing economies there to use it instead of wind and sun to make electricity. This scramble has been underway for about eight years, and LNG exports are already a giant industry; if Big Gas gets its way, within a few years American LNG exports from the Gulf of Mexico will be doing more climate damage than everything that happens in Europe.
Indeed, while the Virginia-based Venture Global has advertised its project as a boost to European energy security, around 65% of CP2's long-term Supply and Purchase Agreements are with Asia-Pacific oil companies, commodity speculators, or users.
The company also has a history of running roughshod over domestic environmental regulations and dismissing the needs and concerns of impacted communities. Its Calcasieu Pass plant, which is "technologically identical" in design to the proposed CP2, began operating in January 2022. Since then, residents of Cameron Parish, Louisiana, have reported frequent flaring, noise pollution, an uptick in cancer and other ailments, and fishing grounds polluted with dredging material.
"Make no mistake: CP2 is a carbon bomb threatening frontline communities with increased pollution and exacerbating the climate crisis," Allie Rosenbluth, United States program manager at Oil Change International, said in a statement. "Expanding LNG infrastructure jeopardizes the health and safety of nearby communities, undermines efforts to reduce fossil fuel dependency, and drives the climate crisis, economic instability, and conflict."
The one dissenting vote on FERC, outgoing Democratic Commissioner Allison Clements, justified her decision in part due to the project's potential to harm its neighbors.
"The commission has not adequately addressed the project's environmental and socioeconomic impacts, including adverse impacts on environmental justice communities," Clements said.
Following the vote, frontline leaders vowed to keep fighting the plant's construction.
"We refuse to sink. We are going to fight them here. We are going to fight them at home. This is far from over," said Travis Dardar, an Indigenous Cameron Parish fisherman who founded Fishermen Involved in Sustaining our Heritage (F.I.S.H.) to protest the LNG boom's impact on Gulf fishing.
However, activists also expressed an understanding that FERC was not the most favorable terrain in the fight.
Speaking outside FERC headquarters, Vessel Project of Louisiana founder Roishetta Ozane said it was time to "write off" the agency, according to E&E News.
"We're going to say that FERC is a rogue agency that does not care about communities," she said. "But who can do something while we are here is this administration. We need to continue to put pressure on the Department of Energy."
The DOE announced a pause on LNG export approvals in January while it revises the agency's criteria for what constitutes an export decision in the public interest. Since then, environmental advocates have called for the pause to be made permanent.
FERC's CP2 approval, they say, has clarified the stakes.
"Even with FERC's reckless decision to approve CP2, the project cannot move forward without all federal permits, including those currently paused by the Department of Energy," Rosenbluth said. "This illustrates just how critical the Department of Energy's pause and process to redefine 'public interest' are. President [Joe] Biden and the Department of Energy must listen to frontline communities and do all they can to permanently stop CP2 and all new LNG export terminals."
"If Trump and the GOP triumph, get ready for government of Big Oil by Big Oil for Big Oil until the Earth shall perish, which shouldn't take long."
Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media agreed.
"FERC has always been a rubber stamp for new gas export facilities—that's why we zeroed in on getting the Department of Energy to pause new export licenses and do a proper assessment," Henn wrote on social media. "With today's shameful decision, pressure is on POTUS and DOE to do the right thing."
Kelsey Crane, senior policy advocate at Earthworks, said: "FERC has once again threatened the Biden administration's own climate and environmental justice policies by advancing what could be the third largest fracked gas export project in Southwest Louisiana. If CP2 is constructed, Louisianans will be forced to breathe dirtier air, pay higher energy bills, and lose important livelihoods in the fishing industry. The United States will emit more greenhouse gas pollution and continue delaying the impending, just transition to clean energy."
"President Biden cannot allow this decision to stand and has to stop letting his agencies approve new fossil fuel projects in the Gulf South," Crane concluded.
McKibben wrote, "The only thing standing between CP2 and construction (and the only thing that can prevent the construction of a dozen more of these death stars in the nest few years) is the Department of Energy, aka the president of the United States."
While McKibben said that Venture Global could build CP2 without the export approval, he argued it was unlikely to do so until either the Biden DOE lifts the pause or former U.S. President Donald Trump, who has promised to do so, is elected president.
Because of Trump's pro-fossil fuel stance, McKibben argued that FERC's CP2 decision also underscores the stakes of the 2024 election.
"If Trump and the GOP triumph, get ready for government of Big Oil by Big Oil for Big Oil until the Earth shall perish, which shouldn't take long," he wrote.
While Biden is not guaranteed to extend the LNG export pause if reelected, "at least there will be a fight, and it will be one of the climactic battles of the fossil fuel era," McKibben said.
Speaking outside the FERC hearing, Ozane said the numbers on the climate justice side were growing.
"It was just two to three of us… and now it's hundreds," she told the crowd. "We are building power. We are building people power. We make the difference."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why US Federal Regulators Must Embrace a Fossil Fuel-Free Future
FERC has played a significant role in worsening the climate crisis, perpetuating environmental injustice, and expanding the fossil fuel buildout by approving countless LNG projects, but there is still hope.
Mar 20, 2024
It is high time for a change at FERC, not just with the appointments of new commissioners but also with the integration of new policy that puts the health and safety of our communities over the unlimited profits of the fossil fuel industry.
It has been nearly one year since I and other community members from the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast were invited to join the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in discussing how they could better incorporate environmental justice into their decision-making. As someone who lives in Sulfur, Louisiana—a community overburdened by petrochemical and oil and gas pollution—I have seen firsthand the devastating effects of everything from liquefied natural gas (LNG) to plastics facilities. That’s why I looked forward to working with FERC on improving their processes to better suit the needs of the local communities, not just the oil and gas industry.
However, a year later, FERC has still failed to take meaningful action on this front and listen to our voices. Instead of heeding our calls and taking our input, FERC has continued with a status quo that threatens our health and safety. Their rubber stamp on more and more LNG projects in our communities has not stopped for a moment in spite of their stated commitments. As a result, our communities face a more dire future than ever.
FERC still has a chance to improve its ways by expanding cleaner energy sources for a sustainable future instead of dangerous fossil fuels.
FERC has played a significant role in worsening the climate crisis, perpetuating environmental injustice, and expanding the fossil fuel buildout by approving countless LNG projects. The facts are clear and devastating. The process of extracting and transporting LNG releases harmful emissions, with some scientists suggesting that these facilities could be even worse for the climate than coal. The air pollutants released from these terminals have been linked to various health issues in the communities surrounding them, including respiratory problems, cancer, and increased rates of asthma. Not only this, but the expansion of LNG also drives up energy costs and threatens the ecosystems that support our local fishing and tourism economies. And because the LNG industry disproportionately targets low-income communities and communities of color for their facilities, FERC’s unrelenting love for LNG perpetuates the environmental injustices the agency claims to prioritize.
It appears that every other government agency that has any authority in approving, overseeing, or regulating oil and gas projects is putting forth an effort to take a deeper look at what these projects are doing to communities and the climate. This has not been the case for FERC. But, there is still hope. FERC still has a chance to improve its ways by expanding cleaner energy sources for a sustainable future instead of dangerous fossil fuels.
Here’s how. To improve the health and safety of those living in frontline communities, particularly Black and Brown communities overburdened by pollution, FERC must foster a strong relationship with the communities it serves. This must include regular meetings with community members and on-site visits to witness firsthand the impacts of these projects. FERC must also consider the current pollution from existing facilities, cumulative impacts, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental justice concerns when reviewing natural gas projects. FERC should also evaluate and incorporate guidance from other authoritative sources in identifying environmental justice communities affected by proposed projects.
Furthermore, FERC should require developers to consult and collaborate with the impacted communities and FERC itself. This collaboration is crucial in tailoring mitigation options that address the specific needs of environmental justice communities. FERC should involve frontline community members in the permitting process to ensure our voices are heard and considered. Lastly, FERC needs to ask critical questions about the necessity of new projects. This includes assessing the cumulative impacts on the environment and health. By thoroughly evaluating these factors, FERC can make more informed decisions that prioritize the well-being of communities.
As we transition to a future without fossil fuels, it’s clear that major change is needed at FERC. While the new commissioners at FERC go through the confirmation process, they must show they are dedicated to more than just the basic criteria of the job. We hope to see the commissioners eager to pave a new path forward by prioritizing justice: environmental justice and climate justice.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Alarming': FERC Ignores Climate Impacts and Rubber-Stamps Texas Pipeline
"The world does not need more LNG, and FERC is out of step with the reality of the climate crisis and communities impacted by these projects," one advocate said.
Feb 15, 2024
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved a controversial pipeline on Thursday despite opposition from local and Indigenous communities and without considering its climate impacts.
The commission limited its review of the Saguaro Connector Pipeline to a 1,000-foot stretch of the project on the Texas and Mexican border. If built, the pipeline could transport as many as 2.8 billion cubic feet of fracked gas per day to an export facility in Mexico, where it would be shipped to Asia and Latin America. The decision comes weeks after the Biden administration paused Department of Energy (DOE) approvals of new liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports while it updates its assessment criteria.
"It's alarming that FERC would approve the Saguaro Connector Pipeline based on a narrow environmental assessment that ignores the vast majority of the project and its impacts," Doug Hayes, senior attorney for Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program, said in a statement. "Rubber-stamping this project means vulnerable communities along the route will be at risk so oil and gas companies can pad their pockets by sending U.S. gas to Asia via Mexico."
"The world does not need more LNG, and FERC is out of step with the reality of the climate crisis and communities impacted by these projects," Hayes continued.
"FERC is responsible for sending gas out of the country and that is exactly what this pipeline is doing. Why do they not have purview over the whole pipeline?"
Friends of the Earth Action argued that the approval was inconsistent with the administration's LNG approval pause.
"The decision to approve the Saguaro connector represents a colossal failure to consider the public interest," the group posted on social media. "If LNG approvals are on pause, FERC shouldn't be rubber-stamping this pipeline!"
The pipeline will be 155 miles long and four feet in diameter and is intended to carry gas from the Permian Basin in Texas to the border. Once there, another pipeline still in the works will carry the gas 500 more miles to a proposed LNG export facility on Mexico's Pacific coast. The amount of gas that would pass through the Texas portion of the pipeline every day is twice the amount used by the state of Vermont in a 24-hour period, according to Inside Climate News.
West Texas communities along the pipeline's route are worried about what could happen if the pipeline were to explode, since many have limited medical facilities. For example, the pipeline passes within one mile of Van Horn, a low-income, majority Hispanic community.
"Having a pipeline so close to town, carrying extremely flammable gas at high pressure, places an unnecessary risk on a good portion of Van Horn's citizens," resident Tomas Mansfield said in a statement. "While our emergency services work very hard at keeping us safe, a major disaster would overwhelm what services we do have, and additional help is at least 80 miles away. Trauma centers are over 100 miles away—our hospital is only a Level IV trauma center, and major traumas are usually flown to El Paso."
Typically, FERC will sign off on an entire pipeline route if it crosses state lines. Because this pipeline only passes through the state of Texas, the commission says it is only responsible for the portion of the pipeline near the border. However, the Texas Railroad Commission, which approves pipelines in the state, does not have any authority over a pipeline's route. It also signed off on the pipeline before the residents of Van Horn were even aware of it, according to Inside Climate News.
Frontline communities and environmental groups argue that FERC should consider the entire pipeline route because it will carry gas destined for overseas export.
"The people of West Texas are looking to FERC since the Texas Railroad Commission has disclaimed any responsibility for the siting and routing of this pipeline," Deborah Pendleton, who owns land near the pipeline's route, said in a statement. "FERC is responsible for sending gas out of the country and that is exactly what this pipeline is doing. Why do they not have purview over the whole pipeline?"
"It's common knowledge FERC works for big oil and gas, not the people. This was a predetermined decision."
Indigenous communities, meanwhile, are worried that the pipeline will damage local ecosystems and sacred spaces, such as geothermal hot springs located close to the border.
"Our concern is that the pipeline is going to go through the hot springs," Christa Mancias-Zapata, the executive director of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, told DeSmog. "Anywhere you go in that area is a sacred site to our people."
The fight against the pipeline connects to the broader Gulf Coast struggle against oil and gas infrastructure that has sacrificed the health of communities and ecosystems in the region.
"In South Texas, we're fighting to save the last pristine part of the Gulf Coast from extractive industry," Mancias-Zapata said at an anti-LNG protest in New Orleans. "We're trying to stop it from taking our sacred lands, our sacred sites, and destroying the natural infrastructure that Mother Earth created for us."
There is also a growing movement to stop the LNG buildout for the sake of the global climate. The Biden administration's approach to the pipeline illustrates contradictions within its climate policy, as it at once approves controversial developments like the Willow oil drilling project in Alaska and pauses LNG export approvals to further consider their emissions, among other factors.
In early November 2023, the State Department asked FERC to perform an analysis of the project's entire lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, rather than just those of the border stretch, in line with administration policy. Around a week later, FERC refused, as did Oneok, the company behind the pipeline. Despite these refusals, the State Department then issued a "favorable recommendation" for the pipeline's approval.
Advocacy group Public Citizen, which is a legal intervenor in the pipeline's FERC hearing, requested that the department account for its recommendation, and has now promised to ask for a rehearing of FERC's decision.
"The commission's decision ignores the harm record methane gas exports have on raising Americans' energy bills and exacerbating climate change, all to prioritize feeding more gas to China," Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, said in a statement. "The Saguaro export pipeline's only purpose is to bypass the log-jammed Panama Canal to send U.S. produced gas to planned LNG export terminals on Mexico's Pacific Coast."
Residents also say they will continue to battle the pipeline.
"This approval was expected by all of us watching," frontine rancher Bill Addington who works with the West Texas Legal Defense Fund said in a statement. "It's common knowledge FERC works for big oil and gas, not the people. This was a predetermined decision. We will defeat the Saguaro LNG export project."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Big Environmental Justice Win' as Florida LNG Export Terminal Canceled
One campaigner from Public Citizen—which sued to block Nopetro's project—called it "a real testament to the incredible organizing by the people of Port St. Joe."
Jul 20, 2023
Climate and environment defenders this week welcomed the cancellation of a controversial facility in the Florida Panhandle that would have exported up to nearly 4 billion cubic feet of planet-heating liquefied natural gas per year.
Miami-based Nopetro announced Monday that the company would scrap plans to build a 60-acre liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal on the grounds of a shuttered paper mill in a historically Black neighborhood of Port St. Joe in Gulf County.
While Nopetro said the decision was made last year "purely due to market conditions," the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen noted the role that years of community activism and the group's own lawsuit may have played in the project's cancellation.
"I think it's a real testament to the incredible organizing by the people of Port St. Joe," Public Citizen Energy Program director Tyson Slocum told WMBB. "Once they started to learn about what had been negotiated behind closed doors, they rose up in very clear opposition to building an LNG export terminal."
"Nopetro wanted to cut corners, and rush the project past the community with little to no notice," Slocum said in a separate statement. "Public Citizen has been privileged to work with so many dozens of incredible Port St. Joe residents who courageously took a stand for their community."
While proponents argue that LNG is among the safest fossil fuels to produce and transport, critics note the numerous explosions and fires at gas facilities in recent years, as well as the worsening planetary climate emergency caused and exacerbated by fossil fuel extraction and use.
Public Citizen's lawsuit—which the group is continuing—seeks to determine whether Nopetro's proposed project fell under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act. If the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. says it does, then Nopetro would not be able to build the facility until FERC completes an environmental impact review.
Critics claim Nopetro intentionally designed the project to dodge FERC oversight.
Slocum explained why Public Citizen will continue its litigation even though the project was canceled.
"The lawsuit is bigger than just Port St. Joe," he told The Star. "It's about closing this loophole so that other communities aren't exposed to the ability of an LNG export terminal to build the facility without FERC oversight."
Dannie Bolden, one of the community leaders opposed to the terminal, said that while he "was relieved to hear Nopetro decided not to pursue the construction," opponents "must remain steadfast to ensure there [are] no LNG facility constructed along Florida's Panhandle."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Groups Outline How to Boost Electricity Transmission Without Gutting Environmental Laws
"As we envision a clean energy future, we must actively ensure that the build-out sacrifices none and serves all," said one advocate.
Jun 23, 2023
As the United States ramps up clean energy production, the growing recognition that the nation's electricity grid currently lacks the capacity required to fully integrate renewables has prompted calls from across the political spectrum for so-called "permitting reforms" that proponents say are necessary to expedite the construction of transmission lines and related infrastructure.
On Thursday, a coalition of environmental justice groups staunchly opposed to those calls—on the grounds that the reforms proposed so far amount to discarding hard-won regulations—published a white paper outlining how to "address the transmission bottleneck and rapidly scale up infrastructure that advances an equitable clean energy future... while preventing harm to impacted communities and without eroding bedrock environmental protections."
The new blueprint for a just acceleration of transmission capacity was developed by WE ACT for Environmental Justice, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense Fund, Center for American Progress, League of Conservation Voters, National Hispanic Medical Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
Building on principles the nine groups released in December, the white paper provides "clear, actionable steps for policymakers," including some "that can be implemented under existing legal authorities and others that require legislative action."
Before recommending solutions, the coalition spells out the problem:
To accelerate the essential transition from fossil fuel-fired power plants to renewable energy, we need to build more transmission to move clean energy across the country in addition to scaling up local, distributed clean energy resources. Transmission is also critical to ensuring grid reliability and resilience, particularly as we face extreme weather events caused by climate change.
However, we are not building transmission at the pace and scale needed today: The current annual growth rate of transmission infrastructure is just 1%. The result is a backlog of roughly 8,000 generators waiting to connect to the grid and significant uncertainty for clean energy developers about whether and when their projects will be able to provide power to homes and businesses. The transmission bottleneck leaves huge climate benefits on the table, including those made possible through the Inflation Reduction Act. To fully realize the IRA's emissions reductions benefits and transition to a clean grid, we need to at least double current transmission capacity by the end of this pivotal decade.
The problem has also been detailed by The Washington Post in December and by the National Bureau of Economic Research in a working paper published this month. Even though rapidly "electrifying everything" and cleaning up electricity by replacing coal, oil, and gas with wind, solar, and other carbon-free energy sources is key to averting the worst consequences of the climate crisis, insufficient transmission capacity is leading to "interconnection queues," increasing the "curtailment"—or temporary dropping from the grid—of power supplied by renewables, and otherwise hindering lifesaving decarbonization efforts.
A wide range of political actors have endorsed the need for so-called "permitting reform." Not all of them are champions of green energy generation. For instance, congressional Republicans and right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) have pushed to weaken rules around building infrastructure of all kinds because the fossil fuel industry they are beholden to stands to benefit from deregulation.
"Urgency cannot become a pretext for gutting the requirements of environmental review and public engagement as we embark on what could be the greatest U.S. infrastructure build-out in nearly a century."
But even some clean energy advocates have argued that "environmental laws are used to kill climate-friendly development," as University of California Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf put it earlier this year in Mother Jones. Meanwhile, Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom—currently embroiled in a fight with progressive activists who warn that his proposal to expedite the construction of green infrastructure ignores the need for democratic deliberation and transparency—recently told The New York Times' Ezra Klein that "we need to build. You can't be serious about climate and the environment without reforming permitting and procurement in this state."
The coalition agrees that "we urgently need policy reform," stating in its white paper: "We need to modify and improve the rules of the road for planning, paying for, and siting transmission. And we need to create a federal pathway for siting transmission lines that are essential to bringing new renewable generators online."
However, "we must also reject the false choice between quickly ramping up transmission and protecting communities from harmful permitting decisions," the paper continues. "Urgency cannot become a pretext for gutting the requirements of environmental review and public engagement as we embark on what could be the greatest U.S. infrastructure build-out in nearly a century. To build transmission faster and more fairly, we need smart reforms that target the drivers of the transmission bottleneck while preserving critical environmental, health, and community protections and enhancing community engagement."
The "smart reforms" identified in the coalition's roadmap include:
- The Federal Energy Regulation Commission (FERC) must finalize strong transmission planning and interconnection rules to address transmission needs, maximize consumer benefits, and ensure meaningful opportunities for community engagement;
- FERC must establish environmental justice liaisons to support consultation and planning in environmental justice communities and tribal nations;
- FERC must require interregional transmission planning;
- The U.S. Department of Energy and FERC should leverage the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor designation process and backstop siting provisions recently strengthened by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in order to site certain high-priority transmission lines;
- Congress should amend the Federal Power Act (FPA) to give FERC the authority to site large-scale interstate transmission projects that meet certain requirements; and
- Congress should amend the FPA to allow FERC to better assess the multiple benefits associated with a transmission project.
"To cut emissions and save lives, we need to shift swiftly and equitably to a 100% clean electricity grid," Jill Tauber, vice president of litigation for climate and energy at Earthjustice, said in a statement. "Transmission plays a key role in this essential transition, but we face serious barriers to building clean energy infrastructure at the speed and scale needed."
"The key reforms outlined in this paper—many of which the federal government can implement today—will help build the backbone of a zero-emissions economy, while preserving and strengthening community and environmental protections," said Tauber. "We must do both to build a clean energy future that leaves no one behind."
Tauber's sentiment was echoed by Jasmine Jennings, an attorney at WE ACT for Environmental Justice.
"We must build infrastructure necessary to transmit clean, renewable energy and transition beyond dirty, polluting fossil fuel infrastructure," said Jennings. "It is equally important that the build-out is just, equitable, and sustainable and that communities are not harmed in the process."
"Early and ongoing engagement with impacted communities, increased grid reliability and resilience, sustainable pathways for interregional transmission projects, and cost allocation are key to this transition," Jennings added. "As we envision a clean energy future, we must actively ensure that the build-out sacrifices none and serves all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite Environmental Justice Pledge, Biden Disrespects People Like Me in Path of Fracked Gas Pipeline
Secretary Granholm's letter cheerleading the Mountain Valley Pipeline came the day after she promised to meet with me, a landowner impacted by Senator Manchin's pet fossil fuel project.
Apr 26, 2023
I am saddened by the depths that proponents of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) will go to advance a false narrative and spread inaccuracies. This time it is Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm who on Friday, April 21, 2023 wrote a cheerleader's letter rooting for the MVP, Joe Manchin's pet project. It is very ironic and even a bit disturbing that she wrote this letter one day after she appeared before the Senate Energy Committee and the very next day after she told me personally that she (or her staff) would meet with me in the next week or two.
I am currently in Washington, D.C. where I attended the Senate Energy Committee meeting on Thursday, April 20. I spoke to the secretary at the conclusion of the hearing and asked her to meet with me. She indicated that a meeting could be arranged this week or next. But in what appears to be a hastily prepared letter—even possibly dictated by the fossil fuel lobby—she expressed her desire to exert political pressure on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other federal agencies. She apparently decided that she did not need to talk to those most affected by the project or even entertain an opposing viewpoint. Like many agencies, she did not talk with or listen to any affected landowner and totally continued to perpetrate the social, racial, and environmental injustice concerns that President Joe Biden had just a few hours before expressed that his administration would take seriously.
You can't have it both ways: You either listen to impacted communities or you don't. This letter appears to be written to appease Senator Manchin and others in the MVP camp. It is also strange that this letter was filed just before Equitrans Midstream Corporation—the company behind the pipeline—had its shareholder meeting on Monday morning, April 24.
You can't have it both ways: You either listen to impacted communities or you don't.
The MVP project is not necessary to support the nation's energy security and energy supply. Just because they say it is so, doesn't make it true. It actually would do just the opposite. It would lock us into decades of methane and carbon pollution that the nation or the planet can ill afford. As the lead federal agency for the project under the FAST-41 framework, I feel that the FERC has failed in its regulatory duty to be an independent agency by submitting to inappropriate industry-generated political pressure similar to that which is reflected in Secretary Granholm's letter. It appears to me to be an attempt to intimidate the commission.
In a letter I just completed and sent to the FERC, I requested that they do their job and follow their charter as an independent agency: to evaluate all projects on their merits and with regard to their impact on climate change and to resist the political pressure placed on them by politicians like Senator Manchin, who would build more pipelines, mine more coal, drill for more oil and gas, despite the fact that it would put us on a fast track to total environment destruction.
I do not believe that the MVP project would help ensure the "reliable delivery of energy that heats homes and businesses, and powers electric generators that support the reliability of the electric system," despite what Secretary Granholm may state in her letter. This is a 42-inch diameter interstate transmission line which is most likely slated to transmit gas for export. Infrastructure such as MVP destroys communities, pollutes water, harms our environment, and has no role to play in the clean energy transition. Unproven technologies such as "carbon capture" facilitated by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act are not something you should rely on to fix our climate emergency. With the severe problems we are facing, these proposals are too little, too late.
No new pipeline infrastructure is needed. The rapid growth of hydrogen as an emissions-free fuel is also a misnomer, especially if the hydrogen is produced as a byproduct of more drilling. The transport of carbon dioxide through a pipeline might be the most dangerous thing we could ever do. I believe Secretary Granholm herself knows better than what she stated in her April 21 letter.
As extreme weather events continue to put strain on the U.S. energy system, we must quickly transition to green energy and continuing to build pipelines cannot be part of that transition. The MVP project would, if completed, lock us into decades of climate-busting greenhouse gas emissions as it destroys communities and property across its entire route.
The MVP project would, if completed, lock us into decades of climate-busting greenhouse gas emissions as it destroys communities and property across its entire route.
Now here is the hardly disguised, hard-hitting core message embedded in a (not so funny part of) Granholm's letter: "While the Department takes no position regarding the outstanding agency actions required under federal or state law related to the construction of the MVP project, nor on any pending litigation, we submit the view that the MVP project will enhance the Nation's critical infrastructure for energy and national security. We appreciate the Commission's prompt actions to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities regarding natural gas infrastructure under the Natural Gas Act, and the interagency coordination it provides as the lead federal agency for the project under FAST-41. We look forward to continuing to work with FERC to ensure consumers have access to reliable, cost-effective, and clean energy."
That was a very strong armed tactic, if I ever saw one. I believe it is totally inappropriate to write such a letter, especially when just one day before she said she would meet with me and the president issued the Executive Order Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All on the morning before she wrote her letter to the FERC. The president said all executive branch agencies have a duty to pursue environmental justice. Apparently Secretary Granholm did not get the message.
Meanwhile, I am still in Washington D.C. waiting to hear from Secretary Granholm. Personally, I don't understand her rush to write her letter cheering for the MVP. It is also typical of how most government leaders have treated landowners and other citizens in the path of the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy