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
john barrasso
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Oil Doesn't Just Want to Get Rich Wrecking the Climate—They Want Lower Taxes Too
"If this polluter handout is snuck into the GOP tax bill, then cuts to Medicaid and food stamps could well pay for another giveaway to Big Oil," said the co-author of a new report. "That's obscene."
Mar 24, 2025
Having helped install the most fossil fuel-friendly administration of the climate awareness era, Big Oil and their Republican boosters in Congress are now setting their sights on undermining a tax enacted by during the tenure of former President Joe Biden as part of the landmark Inflation Reduction Act.
Alan Zibel, research director at the consumer advocacy watchdog Public Citizen, and Lukas Shankar-Ross, deputy director of Friends of the Earth's Climate and Energy Justice Program, noted in a report published Monday that Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who chairs the Senate Ethics Committee, earlier this year introduced industry-backed legislation, the Promoting Domestic Energy Production Act, for possible inclusion in Republicans' proposed $4.5 trillion tax giveaway to corporations and the ultrawealthy.
As Common Dreams reported in January, the fossil fuel industry spent an estimated $445 million during the 2024 election cycle to elect President Donald Trump and other GOP candidates who serve their climate-wrecking interests, and it expects much in return.
"Domestic oil and gas companies, including from Lankford's home state of Oklahoma, have warned their investors about the corporate alternative minimum tax," Zibel and Shankar-Ross wrote. "The industry could soon be rewarded with specially tailored tax relief courtesy of their Republican political allies."
As the report explains:
Here's how the tax scheme works: In August 2022, President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which made historic climate investments. To help pay for new spending, the bill included a set of corporate tax increases, the largest of which was the $222 billion corporate alternative minimum tax. This tax is meant to prevent corporations that deliver massive profits to investors from paying nothing or nearly nothing in taxes because of corporate-friendly tax loopholes. Under the corporate minimum tax, if a company reports an average of at least $1 billion in annual income over three years, then it must pay 15% of that reported income in taxes, minus certain deductions.
The report highlights Republican efforts to eliminate the minimum tax, including via legislation introduced by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and endorsed by the American Petroleum Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Mining Association, Western Energy Alliance, and industry lobbyists.
The bill introduced by Lankford would enable fossil fuel companies to skirt the minimum tax by allowing them to deduct "intangible" drilling costs, a tactic used as an effective subsidy for more than 120 years. Zibel and Shankar-Ross described the tax dodge as "the oldest and the largest fossil fuel subsidy on the books," and one which "allows all of the costs for drilling an oil or gas well to be deducted immediately in the year they are incurred."
"If individual taxpayers understood the magnitude of the extreme subsidies for Big Oil, they would be shocked."
"It is simply outrageous that the GOP is using its trifecta to create yet another fossil fuel subsidy," Shankar-Ross said in a statement, referring to Republicans' control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. "If this polluter handout is snuck into the GOP tax bill, then cuts to Medicaid and food stamps could well pay for another giveaway to Big Oil. That's obscene."
Zibel asserted that "oil and gas companies are using the political influence they purchased to dodge paying even a minimal part of their fair share."
"If individual taxpayers understood the magnitude of the extreme subsidies for Big Oil, they would be shocked," he added. "The newest effort to bypass even the most modest of tax bills by the industry is shocking, but sadly not surprising."
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Need A Real Path To Clean Energy, Not Dirty Fossil Fuel Deja Vu
Though the EPRA alleges to improve energy projects’ approval processes, it does so through fossil fuel racism, with giveaways to big oil and gas while hurting vulnerable communities and the environment.
Dec 06, 2024
To achieve a “clean energy revolution,” we cannot replicate the injustices of our current and past energy systems. As the next administration promises massive increases for fossil fuel projects and near total removals of environmental protections and agency functions, we must hold the line and set a standard for the future we need and deserve.
The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 (EPRA) (S. 4753) introduced by Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), is being sold as a “necessary” and bipartisan path. But why does it feel so dirty, and so familiar?
Fossil Fuel Racism
We’ve seen this before. There have been multiple attempts to advance legislation that weakens environmental protections and sacrifices vulnerable communities to fast-track energy projects driven by fossil fuel interests. As foreshadowed during previous attempts in 2022, “The industry will keep trying these secretive, last minute efforts to push forward dirty deals.”
Unjust energy policies being marketed as for the “common good” is an age-old practice—as old as redlining, the industrial revolution, and earlier. Our energy systems have long been controlled by extractive, industry-driven forces, resulting in what is known as “fossil fuel racism.” Fossil fuel racism creates disproportionate impacts on people of color from the fossil fuel cycle and requires:
- Sacrifice zones, where the hazards of energy production and consumption are centered in disadvantaged communities;
- Disproportionate racialized impacts from climate change driven by fossil fuels; and
- Outsized industry influence in politics undercutting democratic spaces.
So what’s different about EPRA? Nothing. Not only does it contain goals straight out of Project 2025, the American Petroleum Institute and “two dozen energy companies and trade groups’” lobbying reports mention EPRA by name. Though the bill alleges to improve energy projects’ approval processes, it does so through fossil fuel racism, with giveaways to big oil and gas while hurting vulnerable communities and the environment. Here’s how:
1) Sacrifice Zones and Fossil Fuel Expansion
The Energy Permitting Reform Act continues to exploit environmental justice communities by reinforcing sacrifice zones, which include predominantly people of color and low income, by greenlighting fossil fuel projects. EPRA would undo the Biden administration’s pause on approving Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export projects, overwhelmingly situated in these communities. EPRA would also dramatically shorten time for the Department of Energy (DOE) to perform environmental reviews and mandates automatic project approvals after 90 days, regardless of potential negative impacts. Additionally, modeled emissions reductions used to justify support for EPRA rely on continued use of environmental justice communities as sacrifice zones.
2) Climate Crisis and Public Health
People of color and low income disproportionately experience the worst climate crisis impacts. The modeling that claims the transmission pieces of EPRA would reduce greenhouse gas emissions are cherry-picked scenarios and assumptions, according to and underscored by over 100 scientists. Modeling also ignores localized pollution contributing to increasing health crises. The models’ reliance on greenhouse gas calculations overlooks realities for communities on the ground.
3) Industry Control and Democracy Broken
The bill undermines the ability of communities burdened by pollution to have a say regarding projects that threaten their health and environments. EPRA would reduce the time communities and Tribes have to challenge projects in court from six years to 150 days. It goes further to weaken the National Environmental Policy Act by voiding essential environmental impact assessments for fossil fuel projects.
Environmental Injustice and Community Impact
EPRA sets a dangerous precedent and has serious implications for frontline communities. Zulene Mayfield, of Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living (CRCQL) in Chester, Pennsylvania, is fighting a proposed LNG facility in her backyard. Chester—a majority working class, Black neighborhood—is already dealing with a health crisis from trash incinerators and sewage treatment facilities. Community members received no public notice about the project and were locked out of public hearings. With EPRA’s extreme project approval timeline coupled with an intentional lack of transparency, safeguards from hazardous projects are gone.
Hilton Kelley of Community In-Power and Development Association Incorporated (CIDA Inc.) in Port Arthur, Texas has also been fighting to free his community from fossil fuel racism. As a resident of the “cancer belt,” he is now dealing with two new LNG facilities in his neighborhood.
Voices against EPRA are rising with over 680 organizations opposing the bill. Environmental Justice leaders have spoken out including Richard Moore of Los Jardines Institute: “It [EPRA] is a stark reminder of the priorities of those who continue to put corporate profits above the health and well-being of our communities.”
Finding a Path to True Equitable Energy Reform
EPRA is built on a false policy dichotomy. We don't have to sacrifice environmental protections and communities to fast-track clean energy projects. There are other legislative proposals that are designed to protect communities with significant support, such as the A. Donald McEachin Environmental Justice for All Act, which was written in partnership with environmental justice communities. This bill would cement key protections including cumulative impacts analysis; first, early, and ongoing engagement models; and civil rights and NEPA requirements. The Clean Electricity and Transmission Acceleration Act (CETA) similarly strengthens engagement through environmental justice liaisons facilitating relationships between project sponsors and communities.
Our communities are opportunity centers full of vision, solutions, and wisdom—not sacrifice zones. Our communities are worth investing in to achieve a just, sustainable energy future and address the climate crisis now, if decision-makers would only open their eyes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Manchin’s Last Hurrah Is a Bad Deal for the Planet
The fossil fuel lobby has now supersized their hostage demands with the single-minded goal of guarding against an incoming Harris administration by mandating a steady stream of fossil fuel leases and permits.
Aug 12, 2024
The hardest lesson I have learned over my career working on climate policy is to never underestimate the power and craftiness of the fossil fuel lobby. The evidence of their success: global fossil fuel consumption and emissions were higher in 2023 than at any time in history. That, in a nutshell, is how we are losing the fight against climate change.
This is why I grew alarmed when U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.), the fossil fuel industry’s strongest champion in Congress, rushed a new energy deal through his committee late last month before it could be properly scrutinized. Manchin will give up his energy gavel when he retires this year. This is his last hurrah, and it’s a doozy.
The Energy Permitting Reform Act combines significant reforms in electricity transmission—potentially unlocking big gains in renewable energy—with coal, oil, and gas boons that would be big wins for the fossil fuel lobby.
The permitting laws surrounding oil, gas, and coal leases and permits may be an arcane abstraction to most analysts, but they are the keys to the energy kingdom to fossil fuel industries intent on expanding production for decades to come.
Now energy analysts are in the hot seat as they are asked to validate whether this energy bargain is a good deal for the planet.
Déjà Vu
The lessons from a similar energy deal in 2015 should give anyone pause before joining the Manchin parade. The 2015 budget deal paired renewable energy tax credits with a provision to lift the decades-old ban on exporting U.S. crude oil. Energy analysts rushed to validate the bargain. Those clean energy provisions would “dwarf the impact on carbon emissions of allowing oil exports,” wrote Michael Levi in an analysis widely quoted at the time.
To quell fears about the oil provisions, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sent a letter, writing: “While lifting the oil export ban remains atrocious policy, the wind and solar tax credits in the omnibus will eliminate around 10 times more carbon pollution than the exports of oil will add.”
Her appeal worked. The bill passed. Contrary to the assurances of energy experts, the oil export floodgates opened. Crude exports surged from zero to 4 million barrels a day today. This growth in exports was 20 times higher than the worst-case scenario forecasted in 2015 by Levi, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others.
As I said at the start, the oil lobby is smart. They knew that fracking technology was going to transform oil and gas production, but they needed new markets.
The Foxes Are Snickering at the Hen House Door
The 2015 experience should caution everyone to step back and look more closely at what the fossil fuel lobby helped Manchin write behind closed doors. The permitting laws surrounding oil, gas, and coal leases and permits may be an arcane abstraction to most analysts, but they are the keys to the energy kingdom to fossil fuel industries intent on expanding production for decades to come.
There is ample cause for concern. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Manchin’s co-author, gloats that the bill “guarantee[s] future access to oil and natural gas resources on federal lands and waters” in ways that not even former U.S. President Donald Trump could do under current law. Further, he says that “it will permanently end President Joe Biden’s reckless ban on new liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.”
The Wall Street Journal editorial board agrees, urging Trump to “steal a march on Kamala Harris by endorsing” Manchin’s energy bill.
The Danger of Locking in Fossil Fuel Infrastructure
Changing the law in order to expedite new fossil fuel infrastructure can directly threaten global climate goals. The IPCC, the world’s leading authority on climate science, warned in their 2022 report that “cancellation of plans for new fossil fuel infrastructures” is needed to avoid “significant carbon lock-ins, stranded assets, and other additional costs” and potentially putting the Paris climate goals “out of reach” (p. 267).
Similarly, the International Energy Agency, the world’s leading tracker of global energy trends, concluded in their 2023 World Energy Outlook that “investment in oil and gas today is almost double the level required in the [net zero emissions scenario] in 2030, signaling a clear risk of protracted fossil fuel use that would put the 1.5°C goal out of reach” (p. 19).
Supersized Demands from Fossil Fuel Allies
Every energy bill ever passed by Congress has some degree of “hold your nose” compromise. Even the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, the most important piece of climate legislation ever enacted, gave some ground, tying oil and gas leases together with offshore wind leases in a Beltway version of a shotgun wedding.
But the fossil fuel lobby has now supersized their hostage demands with the single-minded goal of guarding against an incoming Harris administration by mandating a steady stream of fossil fuel leases and permits.
In a separate analysis (update available here), I calculated the energy and greenhouse gas impacts of the LNG portion of the Manchin bill. The five LNG liquefaction plants expedited by the bill are designed to produce up to 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2050 (10.6 Bcf/day).
This long-lived fossil fuel infrastructure is far more likely to dampen investment in renewable energy, electrification, and energy conservation than displace other fossil fuels.
Liquefying gas, which must be cooled to 260°F below zero, requires significant energy. According to EIA, 14% of the gas used to produce LNG is consumed during liquefaction. That means that up to 13 trillion additional cubic feet of natural gas through 2050 (1.7 Bcf/day) will be consumed to produce the LNG from these five projects.
The total volume of natural gas consumed and processed by these LNG projects (94 trillion cubic feet through 2050) is enough to meet almost all of the gas needs for homes across America (99 trillion cubic feet) over the same timeframe. It is also equivalent to 62% of the total amount of gas (152 trillion cubic feet) EIA forecasts will be used by the electric power sector from 2030-2050.
The lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of all LNG produced by these five plants would be 616 million metric tons annually (13 gigatons through 2050), equivalent to 165 coal-fired power plants.
Using government estimates of the economic damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions, we can put a dollar estimate to these emissions: $1.7 trillion (cumulatively through 2050).
Keep in mind this only accounts for the LNG section of the Manchin bill and does not include the impacts of the bill’s oil, coal, and gas leasing mandates.
A Misused Measuring Stick
Assumptions used in greenhouse gas analysis can have profound effects on policymaking. It’s impossible to achieve numerical science targets without good measurements.
One set of assumptions in particular can make or break assessments of fossil fuel infrastructure. Energy substitution analysis looks at what happens to energy markets when new energy sources are added or removed, which in turn shapes how greenhouse gas emissions are calculated.
This is where some energy analyses get sloppy, relying on outdated, simplified assumptions to minimize the climate impact of fossil fuel infrastructure. The federal government is particularly bad at this. It can be awkward to approve projects after finding they superchage global warming. My analysis of seven major environmental impact statements across five federal agencies found that the agencies erased 98% of the greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas projects, on average, obscuring $1 trillion in climate damages.
The pertinent question when assessing the substitution effects of energy infrastructure is whether the energy helps or hurts in achieving deep decarbonization pathways. This question is kept firmly in sight when analysts assess clean energy supply policies but can fade into the background when people argue that fossil fuel supplies don’t matter because the emissions aren’t any worse than current pollution sources.
Someone can claim a punch to your right arm won’t hurt more than a punch to your left arm, but the reality is that the punch still hurts. You can claim that LNG doesn’t increase emissions because it’s substituting for other fossil fuels, but the reality is that the planet is still getting cooked.
The theoretical argument that U.S. LNG coming online in five years will replace coal in China is especially unrealistic in light of global and regional trends toward renewable electricity. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA): “Evidence from China, the world’s largest coal consumer, shows that LNG is unlikely to materially displace coal-fired power generation.”
Keep in mind that these LNG plants won’t come online until about 2030, and the billions of dollars invested are dependent on decades of LNG production thereafter. This long-lived fossil fuel infrastructure is far more likely to dampen investment in renewable energy, electrification, and energy conservation than displace other fossil fuels.
The oil and gas industry has a particularly long and successful history of creating and defending markets to absorb supply. Consider, for example, the oil lobby’s successful efforts to keep fuel economy standards, and how they have pushed fossil fuel-based plastics across the world. Now that America is shifting off gas, they have turned their sights to shifting those emissions overseas.
Common Ground
There are many factors that go into assessing the impacts of Manchin’s energy bill, with valid grounds for different approaches and results. I suggest the following principles as potential common ground and a worthwhile test for any analysis:
- Be transparent — Include the full (i.e., gross) lifecycle emissions from all fossil fuels that are brought to market by the bill as a reference point so users can understand the impact of substitution assumptions.
- Be consistent — Assumptions used to assess the emissions profile of policies that bring fossil fuels to markets should be analogous with the assumptions used to assess the benefits of clean energy policies. If permitting policy to expedite clean energy infrastructure can lead to big emission reductions, then it also stands to reason that permitting policy to expedite fossil fuel infrastructure can also lead to big emission increases.
- Use the precautionary principle — Assume that fossil fuel lobbyists knew what they were doing when they wrote the detailed fossil fuel provisions of the bill. Talk to the lawyers who take these companies to court and understand the stakes when language mandates the use of particular studies and processes. At a minimum, provide a worst-case scenario that truly reflects the breadth of what the authors say their bill will do.
- Get methane right — Too many emissions models rely on methane data that is known to be wrong. Numerous studies (for example, here, here and here), based on more than 1 million measurements, show real-world methane emission leaks from U.S. natural gas production are 3-4 times higher than the industry-reported data used by the government and modelers. Peer-reviewed studies show that, with proper methane accounting, natural gas has a climate impact as bad as coal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Outrage as Senate Panel Advances Manchin-Barrasso Permitting Bill
One campaigner called the Energy Permitting Reform Act "a shameless attempt by Sen. Joe Manchin to line the pockets of his fossil fuel donors, sacrifice communities, and endanger our climate."
Jul 31, 2024
A bipartisan energy permitting reform bill introduced last week in the U.S. Senate—and described by one campaigner as "the biggest giveaway in decades to the fossil fuel industry"—advanced Wednesday in a key vote that came over the objections of hundreds of green groups.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 in a 15-4 vote. Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) voted against advancing the bill.
The bill's co-sponsors, Sens. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), claim the proposal will "strengthen American energy security by accelerating the permitting process for critical energy and mineral projects of all types in the United States."
Critical lawmakers and climate campaigners warn that "this proposal includes a litany of fossil fuel giveaways, undermining potential climate benefits that might be attained by bringing renewable energy sources to the grid more quickly," as Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, said in a statement Wednesday.
Echoing warnings from last week, Slocum stressed that the bill "is nothing short of the first steps to implement the radical corporate giveaway agenda espoused in 'Project 2025,'" a sweeping far-right initiative led by the Heritage Foundation.
"That agenda essentially calls for automatic approvals of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports regardless of the impact on climate change, frontline communities suffering with environmental and health problems, and on prices for American families," he said. "The bill would also make it harder to build renewable energy on public lands, while making it easier to drill for oil and gas and to dump mining waste."
"Some Democrats who voted for the bill claim 'this is the best deal we can get,'" Slocum noted. "That is false. This legislation will only get worse if it advances to the floor and then heads to the GOP House. We call on Senate leadership to stop this misguided legislation."
Public Citizen was among the over 360 groups that sent a letter to senators on Tuesday urging them "to reject this proposal and instead, put forward real solutions to build a clean energy economy, and not pair those reforms with giveaways to the fossil fuel industry."
The letter has sections on LNG exports, the fossil fuel industry, federal mining law, and judicial review, emphasizing that the bill "guts bedrock environmental protections, endangers public health, opens up tens of millions of acres of public lands and hundreds of millions of acres of offshore waters to further oil and gas leasing, gives public lands to mining companies, and would defacto rubberstamp gas export projects that harm frontline communities and perpetuate the climate crisis."
Wyden was similarly critical in his comments to the committee on Wednesday. He acknowledged that the bill contains "useful provisions," specifically endorsing the transmission language, the encouragement of geothermal energy development, and the creation of the hardrock mining cleanup fund.
"If the bill contained these provisions alone, I'd give my support and recommend a parade down Main Street," Wyden said. "The big problem is the improvements in law I've just described are held hostage in this legislation to the outdated fossil fuel status quo that existed before our reforms of 2022 were enacted."
Two years ago, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act—a watered-down but still historic climate package that only got through Congress because Manchin, then a Democrat, had a backroom deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to vote for it in exchange for passing permitting reforms.
Since then, climate-conscious campaigners and lawmakers have repeatedly blocked related proposals from Manchin, a longtime fossil fuel industry ally who leads the panel that voted Wednesday and is set to retire when this congressional session ends.
"The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee should be ashamed that it voted to advance the Energy Permitting Reform Act, a blatant, dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels at any cost," declared Allie Rosenbluth, United States program manager at Oil Change International. "This outrageous bill would unleash more oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waters and recklessly rush the review of proposed LNG export projects equivalent to the greenhouse gas pollution of 165 new coal plants."
Rosenbluth highlighted that "the International Energy Agency and scientists worldwide have made it clear: No new fossil fuel project is compatible with a livable future. The United States, already the world leader in oil and gas production and expansion, is failing miserably to meet its climate commitments."
"We thank Sens. Ron Wyden, Bernie Sanders, and Mazie Hirono for voting 'no' and voicing their strong opposition to the fossil fuel giveaways in this bill," she added. "This bill is a shameless attempt by Sen. Joe Manchin to line the pockets of his fossil fuel donors, sacrifice communities, and endanger our climate. We demand the Senate reject this disastrous proposal and commit to real action to protect frontline communities from the devastating impacts of fossil fuel development and the ongoing climate crisis."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Manchin-Barrasso Permitting Bill 'Is Taken Straight From Project 2025'
"You thought Project 2025 was just a threat after the election? It's actually happening *right now,*" said one climate campaigner.
Jul 26, 2024
Climate and environmental defenders on this week implored U.S. senators to block a permitting reform bill introduced this week by Sens. Joe Manchin and John Barrasso that campaigners linked to Project 2025, a conservative coalition's agenda for a far-right overhaul of the federal government.
Common Dreams reported Monday that Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Barrasso (R-Wyo.)—respectively the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee—introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted that although the proposal "includes several positive reforms for the accelerated development of transmission projects," it also advocates "limiting opportunities for communities to challenge projects, loosening oversight for drilling and mining projects, extending drilling permits and fast-tracking [liquified natural gas] permits, and several other provisions friendly to fossil fuel giants."
"This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
These are nearly identical policies to what's proposed in Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership. The plan, which was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, calls for "unleashing all of America's energy resources," including by ending federal restrictions on fossil fuel drilling on public lands; limiting investments in renewable energy; and rolling back environmental permitting restrictions for new oil, gas, and coal projects, including power plants.
While Manchin has been trying—and failing—to pass fossil fuel-friendly permitting reform legislation for years, Brett Hartl, director of public affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that his "Frankenstein legislation is taken straight from Project 2025, and it's the biggest giveaway in decades to the fossil fuel industry."
Hartl said the bill "deprives communities of the power to defend themselves and gives that power to Big Oil by making it harder for communities to challenge polluting projects in court," and "prioritizes the profits of coal barons over public health."
"And it mandates oil and gas extraction in our oceans," he continued. "The insignificant crumbs thrown at renewable energy do nothing to address the climate emergency."
"Monday was the hottest day in recorded history," Hartl noted. "It's shocking that as the climate emergency continues to break records around us, the Senate continues to fast-track the fossil fuel expansion that is killing us. This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
Hartl added that "to preserve a livable planet," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) "must squash this legislation now."
Manchin—who has said this will be his last term in office—has been a steadfast supporter of the fossil fuel industry, partly because his family owns a coal company. The senator says his permitting reform bill "will advance American energy once again to bring down prices, create domestic jobs, and allow us to continue in our role as a global energy leader."
However, Allie Rosenbluth, Oil Change International's U.S. manager, warned Thursday that "this bill is yet another dangerous attempt by Sen. Manchin to line the pockets of his fossil fuel donors, sacrificing communities and our climate along the way."
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else," she continued. "It would unleash more drilling on federal lands and waters, unnecessarily rush the review of proposed oil and gas export projects, and lift the Biden administration's pause on new LNG exports."
"We urge Congress to reject this proposal and commit to action that protects frontline communities from the impacts of fossil fuel development and the climate crisis," Rosenbluth added.
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else."
NRDC managing director of government affairs Alexandra Adams said Wednesday that "this bill is a giveaway for the oil and gas industry that will ramp up drilling and environmental destruction at a time when we need to be putting a hard stop to fossil fuels."
"We cannot afford to roll back so many of our bedrock environmental and community legal protections and offer a blank check to the oil and gas industry," she stressed. "We need new solutions for permitting if we are going to meet our clean energy potential and address the climate challenge. But this is not it."
"This bill would altogether be a leap backward on climate, health, and justice if passed into law," Adams added. "The Senate should reject it and look toward alternative solutions already being considered."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Permitting Reform Bill Slammed as 'Biggest Giveaway' to Fossil Fuel Industry
"We urge Congress to put forward real solutions to build a clean energy economy, and not pair those reforms with more attempts to pad the pockets of fossil fuel executives," said one campaigner.
Jul 22, 2024
Green groups on Monday blasted the introduction of an energy permitting reform bill in the U.S. Senate, warning the proposal is a massive gift to the fossil fuel industry that will reduce public input on critical decisions and exacerbate the climate emergency.
U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)—respectively the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee—released the
Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024, which the panel said "will strengthen American energy security by accelerating the permitting process for critical energy and mineral projects of all types in the United States."
Among other reforms, the bill "accelerates leasing and permitting decisions for all types of energy projects on federal lands" and requires the interior secretary to "hold at least one offshore wind lease sale and one offshore oil and gas lease sale per year" from 2025-29.
Manchin, a former right-wing Democrat with deep family ties to the coal industry, has been trying—and failing—to pass fossil fuel-friendly permitting reform legislation for years.
"This Frankenstein legislation is nothing less than the biggest giveaway in decades to the fossil fuel industry," said Brett Hartl, the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The insignificant crumbs thrown at renewable energy do nothing to address the climate crisis, but instead would make it game over for a livable planet."
Sierra Club Beyond Fossil Fuels policy director Mahyar Sorour said in a statement that "those who promote this kind of so-called 'permitting reform' claim that it's necessary to accelerate the deployment of clean energy, but in truth this is nothing more than yet another attempt by fossil fuel industry boosters to give handouts for polluters at the expense of our communities and the climate."
"We urge Congress to put forward real solutions to build a clean energy economy, and not pair those reforms with more attempts to pad the pockets of fossil fuel executives under the guise of reducing emissions," Sorour added.
There is widespread agreement that energy permitting reform is sorely needed. However, climate campaigners argue that reform efforts must not perpetuate or expand the use of planet-heating fossil fuels. Some advocates say the answer lies in legislation like the A. Donald McEachin Environmental Justice for All Act.
The bill—which is named after the late Democratic Virginia congressman—was introduced last year by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) in the Senate and Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Barbara Lee (Calif.) in the House. The legislation aims to ensure timely and meaningful public notification for all new energy projects and adequate community review. It would require federal agencies to weigh the environmental justice impacts of proposed projects during the permitting process.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Good Riddance': McConnell to Step Down as Senate GOP Leader
"One of the worst people to ever serve in office. He will be remembered for all the wrong things."
Feb 28, 2024
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
Having secured a right-wing takeover of the U.S. federal court system in recent years, giving conservatives the power to shape the law on climate action, reproductive justice, and other key issues impacting millions of people across the country, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Wednesday he will step down from his leadership role in November.
The Kentucky Republican, who has held office since 1985 despite consistently receiving low approval ratings from voters in his state, said he plans to finish his current term, which ends in January 2027, "albeit from a different seat in the chamber."
An aide for McConnell told the Associated Press that his decision at age 82 is unrelated to his health, which has been a subject of concern in recent months following a fall last year and two incidents when the senator's face appeared to freeze while he was taking questions from reporters.
McConnell's career has been marked by frequent obstruction, with the senator nicknaming himself the "Grim Reaper" as he blocked votes on election security legislation, opposed campaign finance reform bills, blocked bipartisan background check proposals after numerous mass shootings, and delayed confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court justice pick—allowing Republicans to install their own right-wing nominee after Obama left office.
In a 2019 column at Common Dreams, former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich noted that in addition to his record of obstruction, McConnell also frequently bent the rules to get his way:
This is the man who got rid of the age-old Senate rule requiring 60 Senators to agree on a Supreme Court nomination so he could ram through not one but two Supreme Court justices, including one with a likely history of sexual assault.
This is the man who rushed through the Senate, without a single hearing, a $2 trillion tax cut for big corporations and wealthy Americans—a tax cut that raised the government debt by almost the same amount, generated no new investment, failed to raise wages, but gave the stock market a temporary sugar high because most corporations used the tax savings to buy back their own shares of stock.
While former Republican President Donald Trump "defaced and defiled the presidency," said Reich on Wednesday, "no person has done more in living memory to undermine the functioning of the U.S. government" than McConnell.
Despite his disagreements with Trump and his opposition to the former president's attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, McConnell voted to acquit the former president on the charge of inciting an insurrection on January 6, 2021. The Republican leader had admitted that Trump "provoked" the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali pronounced McConnell "one of the worst people to ever serve in office."
Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) have all been named as lawmakers who are likely to vie for the party leadership role. All three senators have announced their endorsements of Trump in the 2024 election in recent weeks.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sen. Joni Ernst Admits GOP Using Impeachment Trial to Damage Biden in 2020
"Trump is trying to use the trial to do what Ukraine wouldn't—destroy his political rivals."
Jan 27, 2020
After President Donald Trump's legal team on Monday completed the second day of their impeachment defense--which largely consisted of attacks on former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter--Republican Sen. Joni Ernst told reporters that she is "really interested to see" how team Trump's performance at the Senate trial "informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters, those Democratic caucus-goers."
Ernst's remarks, which came just a week before the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses, were widely viewed as an open admission that Trump's attorneys and the Republican Party are using the Senate impeachment trial as an opportunity to damage Biden at the polls.
"This is saying the quiet part out loud," tweeted MSNBC correspondent Garrett Haake, a sentiment that was echoed by others.
"Here is Joni Ernst screaming the quiet part into a bullhorn," said Kaili Joy Gray, executive editor of The American Independent, in response to the Iowa Republican's comments.
Ernst's comments run counter to the longstanding White House and Republican narrative that Trump's effort to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations--for which he was impeached by the House of Representatives last month--was a genuine attempt to root out corruption, not a politically motivated ploy to harm Biden in the 2020 presidential election.
Like Ernst, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) also invoked the presidential election following hours of arguments by Trump's defense team, which includes Pam Bondi, Eric Herschmann, Alan Dershowitz, and Ken Starr.
"I was watching Elizabeth [Warren] and Bernie [Sanders] and Michael [Bennet] and Amy [Klobuchar] and they were really eyes wide open during that part of it," Barrasso told reporters, referring to Trump attorney Pam Bondi's presentation, which heavily focused on Biden an his son.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said as he watched "Bondi and the other Trump lawyers spend most of the day savaging the Bidens (as expected)... it become crystal clear to me: Trump is trying to use the trial to do what Ukraine wouldn't--destroy his political rivals."
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