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
natural gas
Report Shows How Trump's Fossil Fuel Agenda Is 'Making Everyone's Lives More Expensive'
Between 2026-40, the average wholesale price of liquefied natural gas could be 80% higher than during the past decade, thanks to Trump's acceleration of exports and the construction of AI data centers.
Jul 28, 2026
As President Donald Trump's push for artificial intelligence data centers sends demand for natural gas soaring, a report released Tuesday projects that wholesale prices will likely double by the late 2030s if his energy and AI policies continue, driving up household energy bills.
The report from the climate activist group Oil Change International, which argues for an end to reliance on fossil fuels, found that recent surges in wholesale natural gas prices are being driven by Trump's so-called "energy dominance" agenda, which has cranked up natural gas exports.
In his second term, Trump has resumed and accelerated approvals for new natural gas export terminals following a pause on permits under the Biden administration.
Nearly 90 million metric tons of new annual liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity reached a final investment decision as of June, on top of 60 million that had already been under construction, the report found. Combined, the researchers predicted that these projects could double US LNG exports by the early 2030s.
While pursuing energy dominance, Trump is also pursuing "AI dominance," which has included the breakneck development of data centers specifically built to run on fossil fuels, including natural gas.
His administration has fast-tracked federal permits for data center developers, loosened environmental review processes, and directed his agencies to provide incentives to finance the data center boom.
Gas is expected to power much of the near-term energy use from these data centers. The facilities, which operate 24/7, are being constructed faster than transmission lines can keep up, meaning that new gas plants are being proposed as an alternative.
The report finds that the demands of the AI data center boom could increase gas consumption by 17% by the early 2030s. With the cheapest gas being rapidly depleted, more demand will require producers to expand drilling in parts of the country where it's significantly more expensive to operate, like the Haynesville shale region of Louisiana and East Texas.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have gutted federal support for wind power construction and other renewable energy sources, which will further increase dependency on gas.
In addition to pumping more planet-heating greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the report finds that this increased demand will likely cause prices to soar for consumers.
Citing fluctuations in the Henry Hub gas price benchmark, the report projected that between 2026-40, the average wholesale price of gas could be 80% higher than during the past decade of US LNG exports, which it notes was "a decade when energy price volatility was already causing hardship in the US and LNG-importing countries."
"Trump's policies are making everyone's lives more expensive while Big Tech and the fossil fuel industry cash in. Our research shows that the cost-of-living crisis will only escalate in the coming years if Congress and government agencies don’t intervene," said Lorne Stockman, research director at Oil Change International.
"Our leaders must stand up to Trump, phase out LNG exports, stop the reckless data center build-out, and transition the US economy off of fossil fuels to make energy affordable again," he added.
Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org, argued in an op-ed for Common Dreams on Tuesday that Oil Change's report, as well as another recent report demonstrating how the fossil fuel industry had hidden the climate damage caused by natural gas from the public for more than half a century, showed that it's long past time to "make gas a dirty word" in a similar fashion to oil.
"Politicians locking us into natural gas are guaranteeing that our kids will spend much of their lives paying far more for energy than they should—and far more than people in the rest of the world will be spending," he wrote.
McKibben noted recent reporting in The New York Times detailing how, in the wake of Trump's war in Iran, which has caused LNG prices to soar across Europe and Asia, nations are beginning to "unshackle" themselves from it as an alternative fuel source. Not so in the US.
"The natural gas industry," he wrote, "is destroying the climate, and destroying people’s lungs, and it’s trying to lock us into this expensive practice for decades to come."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Exposes Decades of Climate Polluters Pushing the 'Fraud of Clean Natural Gas'
"Big Oil and the gas industry knew decades ago that methane was a harmful climate pollutant, but they manufactured the myth of ‘clean’ natural gas in order to protect and expand their business."
Jul 21, 2026
Gas companies knew about the climate harms of natural gas much earlier than previously thought and downplayed them to the public, according to a new trove of documents unearthed by an environmental activist group on Monday.
A report released Monday by the Center for Climate Integrity (CCI) found that—much like Big Oil had deceived the public about the planet-heating impact of oil—gas companies that pushed their product as a "clean" alternative had downplayed natural gas' production of methane, a greenhouse gas that is about 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over the first 20 years.
The report, which was created through an examination of newly discovered documents and confidential reports, as well as expert interviews, determines that the industry was aware of these harms as far back as 1968, when a report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute found that methane in the atmosphere was connected to “oil fields” and “[gas] distribution system leakage."
"Big Oil and the gas industry knew decades ago that methane was a harmful climate pollutant, but they manufactured the myth of ‘clean’ natural gas in order to protect and expand their business, with no regard for public health or the climate impacts that they knew would result,” said Richard Wiles, president of CCI.
The report examines how the American Gas Association (AGA), an industry group representing many industry giants, hired top public relations firms to change the nation's perceptions of gas as a dangerous pollutant.
Despite acknowledging behind the scenes that they lacked “clear, simple, substantiating facts" to vouch for its safety, industry ad campaigns sought to associate gas with nature, simplicity, and cleanliness. One campaign emphasized that it was "cleaner than coal" and created "virtually no emissions."
The industry also created its own research institute to peddle studies to the public that disrupted a growing consensus around the dangers of methane by emphasizing the uncertainty of the findings and casting doubt on their connection to natural gas.
All the while, internal industry research was finding that methane was not only a major driver of the greenhouse effect, but was being released in far greater quantities than previously known, to the point where it was just as dirty, if not dirtier than coal.
Despite this, the industry helped to keep the "myth" of clean natural gas alive for decades. In the 1990s, the industry funded and provided much of the underlying data for an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study concluding that the amount of methane produced by natural gas was low enough that it could be considered a "bridge fuel" to reduce emissions.
Though later research would demonstrate that the study had vastly underestimated the amount of methane being emitted by gas producers, the damage had been done, and the number was cited by the industry for decades to promote its product as a green alternative.
According to a poll conducted by CCI with Data for Progress, 50% of likely voters still believe that natural gas is a form of "clean energy."
“The fraud of clean natural gas has been essential to the industry’s success in the marketplace, and the idea that gas is climate-friendly has been at the heart of the rapid expansion of gas infrastructure over the last two decades,” the report says.
The Center for Climate Integrity has argued that fossil fuel companies should be required to compensate the public for decades of deception that has contributed to the climate crisis.
"Officials who continue to justify expanding natural gas reliance by still claiming it’s clean or safe for the climate are using the same script and manipulated science that gas executives and their PR teams concocted decades ago," Wiles said. "It’s time that these profoundly dangerous lies are finally put to rest. By exposing the gas industry’s deception, we can get one step closer to accountability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Massive Buildout of Data Centers Powered by Gas Is the Opposite of Affordability
When our utility companies fail to build enough low-cost clean electricity and instead increase their reliance on expensive fossil fuel power plants—as many are doing in response to data center demand—electricity prices rise.
Feb 11, 2026
This past year, our communities were hit with skyrocketing power bills as electricity prices increased at double the rate of inflation. A new Sierra Club tool shows that, to make matters worse, utility companies in the US are planning a massive gas buildout, and it’s going to cost everyday American families even more.
The Sierra Club’s new gas plant tracker shows that utilities are planning to build 271 gigawatts of new gas power plant capacity at over 480 more expensive, polluting gas plants. This is over 40% more than all the coal capacity that is still online. This level of buildout would increase currently online gas power plant capacity by nearly 50% nationwide.
These companies have drastically increased their plans for new gas in the last few years, more than doubling planned gas power plants since the start of 2020.
This is a massive proposed buildout of new fossil fuel infrastructure that stretches across the country; new gas power plants are currently planned in 42 states. Texas has the most planned gas power plant capacity of any state followed by Georgia, Indiana, Virginia, Missouri, and Arizona.
Data center developers and utilities can stop this onslaught of plans for new gas power plants and rely on affordable, available clean energy options instead.
What do these states, spanning across the country, have in common? Data centers. All of these states face major data center proposals.
Gas power plants already provide more electricity for data center use than any other fuel, and that portion is predicted to grow without more renewable buildout. In 2024 in the US, new data center demand rivaled the amount of clean energy brought online. Data center demand is set to far exceed clean energy additions in 2025 through 2028.
Data center demand projections are still highly uncertain, meaning this level of demand may not materialize. Instead of carefully assessing this uncertainty, utilities have been too quick to propose ever more gas power plants, leaving customers on the hook to foot the bill.
Southern Company, which operates electric utilities primarily in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, has the most planned gas power plant capacity of any parent company—over 20 gigawatts. This planned gas buildout is directly tied to data center proposals; for example, in Georgia, Southern subsidiary Georgia Power is planning a historic buildout of new resources specifically to serve growing demand, which is driven by data centers. What does Georgia Power want to make up the majority of that buildout? New gas power plants.
If you’ve recently looked at your utility bill and wondered why your energy costs have skyrocketed, you’re not alone. In 2025, households on average paid nearly 10% more on their utility bills than in 2024, outpacing wage growth and overall inflation. These plans to add even more gas power plants will continue to drive up our bills.
When a utility company decides to build a new gas power plant, the money it takes to build and maintain it does not come from the utility’s CEO or the Big Tech companies who want more electricity; we pay for the gas power plant in our utility bills every month. The cost of building and maintaining gas power plants has significantly and persistently increased in the US, contributing to increased prices for customers across the country. In contrast, the cost of renewables continues to fall.
When our utility companies fail to build enough low-cost clean electricity and instead increase their reliance on expensive fossil fuel power plants—as many are doing in response to data center demand—electricity prices rise.
In Virginia, for example, Dominion Energy is planning to build a massive new gas power plant that will cost Virginians at least $8 billion by the utility’s own estimates over the lifetime of the plant; the gas power plant is part of a buildout that Dominion says is necessary due to data center growth. Dominion projects that residential electric bills will more than double over the next 15 years, primarily due to data centers’ growing energy needs.
In Missouri, Ameren wants to build multiple new gas power plants to serve data centers. A single one of those gas power plants is expected to cost $900 million up front, before taking into account the volatile cost of fuel and maintenance needed throughout the plant’s lifetime. The same story is playing out across the country.
We deserve better. Data center developers and utilities can stop this onslaught of plans for new gas power plants and rely on affordable, available clean energy options instead. With proper planning, both data center developers and utilities can be part of the solution. In the meantime, we’ll continue to track utilities’ plans for new gas power plants, and you can join us to push utilities and data center developers to make better, cheaper, healthier decisions.Keep ReadingShow Less
Green Energy Is Still a Better Bet Than AI
The buildout of lots and lots of power-gobbling data centers is not as inevitable as it appears.
Oct 15, 2025
Caveat—this post was written entirely with my own intelligence, so who knows. Maybe it’s wrong.
But the despairing question I get asked most often is: “What’s the use? However much clean energy we produce, AI data centers will simply soak it all up.” It’s too early in the course of this technology to know anything for sure, but there are a few important answers to that.
The first comes from Amory Lovins, the long-time energy guru who wrote a paper some months ago pointing out that energy demand from AI was highly speculative, an idea he based on… history:
In 1999, the US coal industry claimed that information technology would need half the nation’s electricity by 2020, so a strong economy required far more coal-fired power stations. Such claims were spectacularly wrong but widely believed, even by top officials. Hundreds of unneeded power plants were built, hurting investors. Despite that costly lesson, similar dynamics are now unfolding again.
As Debra Kahn pointed out in Politico a few weeks ago:
So far, data centers have only increased total US power demand by a tiny amount (they make up roughly 4.4 percent of electricity use, which rose 2 percent overall last year).
And it’s possible that even if AI expands as its proponents expect, it will grow steadily more efficient, meaning it would need much less energy than predicted. Lovins again:
For example, NVIDIA’s head of data center product marketing said in September 2024 that in the past decade, “we’ve seen the efficiency of doing inferences in certain language models has increased effectively by 100,000 times. Do we expect that to continue? I think so: There’s lots of room for optimization.” Another NVIDIA comment reckons to have made AI inference (across more models) 45,000× more efficient since 2016, and expects orders-of magnitude further gains. Indeed, in 2020, NVIDIA’s Ampere chips needed 150 joules of energy per inference; in 2022, their Hopper successors needed just 15; and in 2024, their Blackwell successors needed 24 but also quintupled performance, thus using 31× less energy than Ampere per unit of performance. (Such comparisons depend on complex and wideranging assumptions, creating big discrepancies, so another expert interprets the data as up to 25× less energy and 30× better performance, multiplying to 750×.)
But that doesn’t mean that the AI industry, and its utility and government partners, won’t try to build ever more generating capacity to supply whatever power needs they project may be coming. In some places they already are: Internet Alley in Virginia has more than 150 large centers, using a quarter of its power. This is becoming an intense political issue in the Old Dominion State. As Dave Weigel reported yesterday, the issue has begun to roil Virginia politics—the GOP candidate for governor sticks with her predecessor, Glenn Youngkin, in somehow blaming solar energy for rising electricity prices (“the sun goes down”), while the Democratic nominee, Abigail Spanberger, is trying to figure out a response:
Neither nominee has gone as far in curbing growth as many suburban DC legislators and activists want. They see some of the world’s wealthiest companies getting plugged into the grid without locals reaping the benefits. Some Virginia elections have turned into battles over which candidate will be toughest on data centers; others elections have already been lost over them.
“My advice to Abigail has been: Look at where the citizens of Virginia are on the data centers,” said state Sen. Danica Roem, a Democrat who represents part of Prince William County in DC’s growing suburbs. “There are a lot of people willing to be single-issue, split-ticket voters based on this.”
Indeed, it’s shaping up to be the mother of all political issues as the midterms loom—pretty much everyone pays electric rates, and under President Donald Trump they’re starting to skyrocket. The reason isn’t hard to figure out: He’s simultaneously accelerating demand with his support for data center buildout, and constricting supply by shutting down cheap solar and wind. In fact, one way of looking at AI is that it’s main use is as a vehicle to give the fossil fuel industry one last reason to expand.
If this sounds conspiratorial, consider this story from yesterday: John McCarrick, newly hired by industry colossus OpenAI to find energy sources for ChatGPT is:
an official from the first Trump administration who is a dedicated champion of natural gas.
John McCarrick, the company’s new head of Global Energy Policy, was a senior energy policy advisor in the first Trump administration’s Bureau of Energy Resources in the Department of State while under former Secretaries of State Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo.
As deputy assistant secretary for Energy Transformation and the special envoy for International Energy Affairs, McCarrick promoted exports of American liquefied natural gas to Europe in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and advocated for Asian countries to invest in natural gas.
The choice to hire McCarrick matches the intentions of OpenAI’s Trump-dominating CEO Sam Altman, who said in a U.S. Senate hearing in May that “in the short term, I think [the future of powering AI] probably looks like more natural gas.”
Sam Altman himself is an acolyte of Peter Thiel, famous climate denier who recently suggested Greta Thunberg might be the anti-Christ. But it’s all of them. In the rush to keep their valuations high, the big AI players are increasingly relying not just on fracked gas but on the very worst version of it. As Bloomberg reported early in the summer:
The trend has sparked an unlikely comeback for a type of gas turbine that long ago fell out of favor for being inefficient and polluting… a technology that’s largely been relegated to the sidelines of power production: small, single cycle natural gas turbines.
In fact, big suppliers are now companies like Caterpillar, not known for cutting edge turbine technology; these are small and comparatively dirty units.
(The ultimate example of this is Elon Musk’s Colossus supercomputer in Memphis, a superpolluter, which I wrote about for the New Yorker.) Oh, and it’s not just air pollution. A new threat emerged in the last few weeks, according to Tom Perkins in the Guardian:
Advocates are particularly concerned over the facilities’ use of Pfas gas, or f-gas, which can be potent greenhouse gases, and may mean datacenters’ climate impact is worse than previously thought. Other f-gases turn into a type of dangerous compound that is rapidly accumulating across the globe.
No testing for Pfas air or water pollution has yet been done, and companies are not required to report the volume of chemicals they use or discharge. But some environmental groups are starting to push for state legislation that would require more reporting.
Look, here’s one bottom line: If we actually had to build enormous networks of AI data centers, the obvious, cheap, and clean way to do it would be with lots of solar energy. It goes up fast. As an industry study found as long ago as December of 2024 (an eon in AI time):
Off-grid solar microgrids offer a fast path to power AI datacenters at enormous scale. The tech is mature, the suitable parcels of land in the US Southwest are known, and this solution is likely faster than most, if not all, alternatives.
As one of the country’s leading energy executives said in April:
“Renewables and battery storage are the lowest-cost form of power generation and capacity,” according to Next Era chief executive John Ketchum l. “We can build these projects and get new electrons on the grid in 12 to 18 months.”
But we can’t do that because the Trump administration has a corrupt ideological bias against clean energy, the latest example of which came last week when a giant Nevada solar project was cancelled. As Jael Holzman was the first to report:
Esmeralda 7 was supposed to produce a gargantuan 6.2 gigawatts of power–equal to nearly all the power supplied to southern Nevada by the state’s primary public utility. It would do so with a sprawling web of solar panels and batteries across the western Nevada desert. Backed by NextEra Energy, Invenergy, ConnectGen, and other renewables developers, the project was moving forward at a relatively smooth pace under the Biden administration.
But now it’s dead. One result will be higher prices for consumers. Despite everything the administration does, renewables are so cheap and easy that markets just keep choosing them. To beat that means policy as perverse as what we’re seeing—jury-rigging tired gas turbines and refitting ancient coal plants. All to power a technology that… seems increasingly like a bubble?
Here we need to get away from energy implications a bit, and just think about the underlying case for AI, and specifically the large language models that are the thing we’re spending so much money and power on. The AI industry is, increasingly, the American economy—it accounts for almost half of US economic growth this year, and an incredible 80% of the expansion of the stock market. As Ruchir Shirma wrote in the FT last week, the US economy is “one big bet” on AI:
The main reason AI is regarded as a magic fix for so many different threats is that it is expected to deliver a significant boost to productivity growth, especially in the US. Higher output per worker would lower the burden of debt by boosting GDP. It would reduce demand for labour, immigrant or domestic. And it would ease inflation risks, including the threat from tariffs, by enabling companies to raise wages without raising prices.
But for this happy picture to come to pass, AI has to actually work, which is to say do more than help kids cheat on their homework. And there’s been a growing sense in recent months that all is not right on that front. I’ve been following two AI skeptics for a year or so, both on Substack (where increasingly, in-depth and non-orthodox reporting goes to thrive).
The first is Gary Marcus, an AI researcher who has concluded that the large language models like Chat GPT are going down a blind alley. If you like to watch video, here is an encapsulation of his main points, published over the weekend. If you prefer that old-fashioned technology of reading (call me a Luddite, but it seems faster and more efficient, and much easier to excerpt), here’s his recent account from the Times explaining why businesses are having trouble finding reasons to pay money for this technology:
Large language models have had their uses, especially for coding, writing, and brainstorming, in which humans are still directly involved. But no matter how large we have made them, they have never been worthy of our trust.
Indeed, an MIT study this year found that 95% of businesses reported no measurable increase in productivity from using AI; the Harvard Business Review, a couple of weeks ago, said AI "'workslop' was cratering productivity.”
And what that means, in turn, is that there’s no real way to imagine recovering the hundreds of billions and trillions that are currently being invested in the technology. The keeper of the spreadsheets is the other Substacker, Ed Zitron, who writes extremely long and increasingly exasperated essays looking at the financial lunacy of these “investments” which, remember, underpin the stock market at the moment. Here’s last week’s:
In fact, let me put it a little simpler: All of those data center deals you’ve seen announced are basically bullshit. Even if they get the permits and the money, there are massive physical challenges that cannot be resolved by simply throwing money at them.
Today I’m going to tell you a story of chaos, hubris and fantastical thinking. I want you to come away from this with a full picture of how ridiculous the promises are, and that’s before you get to the cold hard reality that AI fucking sucks.
I’m not pretending this is the final word on this subject. No one knows how it’s all going to work out, but my guess is: badly. Already it’s sending electricity prices soaring and increasing fossil fuel emissions.
But maybe it’s also running other kinds of walls that will eventually reduce demand. Maybe human beings will decide to be… human. The new Sora “service” launched by OpenAI that allows your AI to generate fake videos, for instance, threatens to undermine the entire business of looking at videos because… what’s the point? If you can’t tell if the guy eating a ridiculously hot chili pepper is real or not, why would you watch? In a broader sense, as John Burns-Murdoch wrote in the FT (and again how lucky Europe is to have a reputable business newspaper), we may be reaching “peak social media":
It has gone largely unnoticed that time spent on social media peaked in 2022 and has since gone into steady decline, according to an analysis of the online habits of 250,000 adults in more than 50 countries carried out for the FT by the digital audience insights company GWI.
And this is not just the unwinding of a bump in screen time during pandemic lockdowns—usage has traced a smooth curve up and down over the past decade-plus. Across the developed world, adults aged 16 and older spent an average of two hours and 20 minutes per day on social platforms at the end of 2024, down by almost 10 per cent since 2022. Notably, the decline is most pronounced among the erstwhile heaviest users—teens and 20-somethings.
Which is to say: Perhaps at some point we’ll begin to come to our senses and start using our brains and bodies for the things they were built for: contact with each other, and with the world around us. That’s a lot to ask, but the world can turn in good directions as well as bad. As a final word, there’s this last week from Pope Leo, speaking to a bunch of news executives around the world, and imploring them to cool it with the junk they’re putting out:
Communication must be freed from the misguided thinking that corrupts it, from unfair competition, and the degrading practice of so-called clickbait.
Stay tuned. This story will have a lot to do with how the world turns out.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Is Big Tech Using the Energy of the Past to Power the Future?
As these companies invest billions in technology for AI, they must re-up investments in renewables to power our future and protect our communities.
Sep 06, 2025
AI is everywhere. But its powerful computing comes with a big cost to our planet, our neighborhoods, and our wallets.
AI servers are so power hungry that utilities are keeping coal-fired power plants that were slated for closure running to meet the needs of massive servers. And in the South alone, there are plans for 20 gigawatts of new natural-gas power plants over the next 15 years—enough to power millions of homes—just to feed AI’s energy needs.
Multibillion dollar companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta that previously committed to 100% renewable energy are going back to the Jurassic Age, using fossil fuels like coal and natural gas to meet their insatiable energy needs. Even nuclear power plants are being reactivated to meet the needs of power-hungry servers.
At a time when we need all corporations to reduce their climate footprint, carbon emissions from major tech companies in 2023 have skyrocketed to 150% of average 2020 values.
AI data centers also produce massive noise pollution and use huge amounts of water. Residents near data centers report that the sound keeps them awake at night and their taps are running dry.
Many of us live in communities that either have or will have a data center, and we’re already feeling the effects. Many of these plants further burden communities already struggling with a lack of economic investment, access to basic resources, and exposure to high levels of pollution.
To add insult to injury, amid stagnant wages and increasing costs for food, housing, utilities, and consumer goods, AI’s demand for power is also raising electric rates for customers nationwide. To meet the soaring demand for energy that AI data servers demand, utilities need to build new infrastructure, the cost of which is being passed onto all customers.
These companies have the know-how and the wealth to power AI with wind, solar, and batteries—which makes it all the more puzzling that they’re relying on fossil fuels to power the future.
A recent Carnegie Mellon study found that AI data centers could increase electric rates by 25% in Northern Virginia by 2030. And NPR recently reported that AI data centers were a key driver in electric rates increasing twice as fast as the cost of living nationwide—at a time when 1 in 6 households are struggling to pay their energy bills.
All of these impacts are only projected to grow. AI already consumes enough electricity to power 7 million American homes. By 2028, that could jump to the amount of power needed for 22% of all US households.
But it doesn’t have to be this way.
AI could be powered by renewable energy that is nonpolluting and works to reduce energy costs for us all. The leading AI companies, who have made significant climate pledges, must lead the way.
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta have all made promises to the communities they serve to tackle climate and pollution. They all have climate pledges. And they have made significant investments in renewable energy in the past.
Those investments make sense, since renewables are the most affordable form of electricity. These companies have the know-how and the wealth to power AI with wind, solar, and batteries—which makes it all the more puzzling that they’re relying on fossil fuels to power the future.
If these corporate giants are to be good neighbors, they first need to be open and honest about the scope and scale of the problem and the solutions needed.
As these companies invest billions in technology for AI, they must re-up investments in renewables to power our future and protect our communities. They must ensure that communities have a real voice in how and where AI data centers are built—and that our communities aren’t sacrificed in the name of profits.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Just 'Stop Drilling,' Critics Say After Biden Admin Finalizes Methane Limits
The new Biden administration rule will limit methane emissions, but critics say it's time to stop drilling for fossil fuels.
Mar 28, 2024
The Biden administration on Tuesday finalized rules that will force oil and gas companies to reduce their methane emissions, but critics say the administration needs to do more to curb a key driver of the planet-warming pollution: fossil fuel drilling.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and the Bureau of Land Management's new rules will require that fossil fuel companies contain methane leaks at oil and natural gas wells that are on federal land, and they will also have to limit how much methane they burn off.
Critics say the only solution that will truly address the climate crisis is to stop drilling entirely. Recently released Interior Department data shows that the Biden administration has approved close to 50% more oil and gas drilling permits on public lands than the Trump administration did during its first three years.
"The best way to eliminate methane pollution from public lands is to stop fossil fuel drilling, period. In the midst of a climate emergency, we need to take the actions necessary to stop pollution once and for all," Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh said in a statement. "We look forward to working with climate champions in Congress like Rep. Jan Schakowsky to pass the Future Generations Protection Act to ban fracking on public lands and everywhere else."
Some praised the new rules as needed progress, including Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
America’s public lands should be sources of inspiration and joy, not pollution and waste. I applaud @Interior for working to stop releases of methane, a major climate pollutant, on our public lands—something I've been demanding for years with my FLARE Act. https://t.co/D1o26GEc55
— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) March 27, 2024
Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement Tuesday that “this final rule, which updates 40-year-old regulations, furthers the Biden-Harris administration’s goals to prevent [methane] waste, protect our environment and ensure a fair return to American taxpayers.”
Methane can trap far more heat than CO2, so limiting emissions is a critical part of addressing the climate crisis. Despite pledging to cut methane emissions, oil and gas companies have not significantly reduced emissions in recent years. The U.S. is currently the largest emitter of methane from oil and gas in the world.
The International Energy Agency says major reductions in methane emissions need to be made if the world is going to avert catastrophic global warming.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senators Urge FTC Crackdown on Gas Industry 'Greenwashing Scheme'
"It's important our lawmakers are advocating for the government to step in, stop this scam, and regulate gas companies to clean up their mess," said one campaigner.
Feb 12, 2024
Seven U.S. senators on Monday demanded a federal regulatory crackdown on what they described as a "dangerous greenwashing scheme" in the fossil fuel industry: producers hiring so-called gas certification companies to measure operations' methane pollution so they can claim their gas is "preferable from a climate perspective."
"Gas producers sometimes publicly describe their product as 'certified,' 'responsible,' or 'differentiated' and market it as a climate-friendly fossil fuel. But too often these green claims are false or misleading due to opaque methodology, unreliable technology, and unacknowledged downstream climate effects of gas combustion," the senators explained. "Still, many utilities are using so-called 'certified' gas to falsely burnish their climate bona fides, and some charge premiums for gas bearing these often meaningless designations."
"We therefore urge the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate and crack down on unfair and deceptive environmental claims made by fossil fuel producers and gas certification programs, including by updating FTC Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, informally known as the 'Green Guides,' to expressly provide guidance on the claims those programs can legitimately make," the lawmakers, led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), wrote to the agency's chair, Lina Khan.
"Our lawmakers are wise to call for a stop to this scam, and get ahead of what's likely to be a mad scramble to greenwash gas."
Markey, a well-established climate champion, was joined by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). As they noted, "natural" gas is mostly made of methane, which has over 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide during its first two decades in the atmosphere and has caused about 30% of the rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.
"The reality is that gas certification schemes allow the oil and gas industry to justify the continued expansion of methane gas use and undermine efforts towards a just transition to renewables," the senators said. They argued that "there is no incentive to ensure the accuracy of emissions measurements" because the gas producers and certifiers rely on each other for profit.
"Moreover, certified gas schemes directly harm consumers, who end up paying a higher price for gas that might not be as clean as its producers claim," they added, pointing to estimates that "prices for certified gas could be set at 5% higher than market price."
The senators stressed that the "current Green Guides—last updated in 2012—do not specifically address claims about certified gas. In fact, they don't include any guidance for oil and gas marketing whatsoever, in contrast to explicit guidance on misleading claims from gas suppliers and utilities in other countries, such as the United Kingdom."
In addition to pushing for updates to the guidelines and a probe of the industry, the senators asked the FTC leader to respond to a series of related questions by the end of March.
The letter references various research, including an April report from Earthworks and Oil Change International (OCI), which welcomed the senators' attention to the issue amid a worsening climate emergency as a result of fossil fuels.
"We investigated one of the primary companies gas producers pay to 'certify' their fossil fuel as 'clean' or 'responsible'—and found nothing to support their claims," said OCI research director Lorne Stockman. "We put independent pollution monitors at sites the company claimed to track and found over 20 pollution events. The company's monitors missed all of them."
"Private gas 'certification' is flawed because companies have every incentive to claim they're clean, and no repercussions when they instead pollute, poison our air, harm our health, and cause the climate crisis," Stockman added. "It's important our lawmakers are advocating for the government to step in, stop this scam, and regulate gas companies to clean up their mess."
OCI U.S. program manager Allie Rosenbluth highlighted that the letter comes on the heels of the Biden administration's January decision to halt approvals for all liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports to non-Fair Trade Agreement countries.
"In response, companies may try to make the desperate case that gas is in the public interest by 'certifying' their gas as 'cleaner,' 'responsibly sourced,' 'climate safe,' or other false advertising," she warned. "Our lawmakers are wise to call for a stop to this scam, and get ahead of what's likely to be a mad scramble to greenwash gas. Only phasing out fossil fuels will solve the climate crisis and protect the health and safety of our communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict and the Pipelines That Run Through It
Given the country’s extensive energy resources, especially its oil and natural gas, U.S. officials have seen Azerbaijan as the key to creating a U.S.-led Caucasus
Dec 14, 2023
Officials in Washington are doubling down on their efforts to create a new energy corridor that runs through the Caucasus, a major transit route for trade and energy that connects Europe and Asia.
Focusing on Armenia and Azerbaijan, two countries at odds over land and history, officials in Washington hope to link the two countries with energy pipelines, despite Azerbaijan’s recent incursion into Nagorno-Karabakh, which resulted in more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians fleeing the territory in September.
“A transit corridor built with the involvement and consent of Armenia can be a tremendous boon to states across the region and to global markets,” State Department official James O’Brien told Congress in November.
U.S. Objectives
For decades, U.S. officials have pursued geopolitical objectives in the Caucasus. Viewing the region as a strategically important area that connects Europe and Asia, they have sought to integrate the region with Europe while pulling it away from Iran and Russia, both of which maintain close ties to the region.
“The Caucasus is tremendously important as a crossroads between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East,” Senator James Risch (R-ID) said in a statement last year. “Trade agreements, energy deals, infrastructure, and investment all have the potential to better integrate the region within the transatlantic community.”
At the heart of U.S. planning is Azerbaijan. Given the country’s extensive energy resources, especially its oil and natural gas, U.S. officials have seen Azerbaijan as the key to creating a U.S.-led Caucasus that will help Europe transition away from its dependence on Russian energy.
“We have been hard at work, along with our European colleagues, over the course of the last decade, trying to help Europe slowly wean itself off of dependence on Russian gas and oil,” Senator Christopher Murphy (D-CT) explained at a hearing in September. “Part of that strategy has been to deliver more Azerbaijani gas and oil to Europe.”
Another reason for the U.S. focus on Azerbaijan is its location. With Russia to the north, the Caspian Sea to the east, and Iran to the south, U.S. officials have seen the country as “the epicenter of Eurasia energy policy,” as U.S. diplomats once described it. The United States has worked to position Azerbaijan as the starting point for an east-west energy corridor that benefits the West and deters a north-south corridor that would work to the advantage of Iran and Russia.
For the United States and its European allies, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline demonstrates the possibilities. Since 2006, the BTC pipeline has carried oil from Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean Sea, where it has been shipped to global energy markets. The pipeline is controlled by a consortium of energy companies headed by BP, the British oil giant.
“We need that to keep functioning,” State Department official Yuri Kim told Congress in September.
From the U.S. perspective, another major geopolitical achievement has been the Southern Gas Corridor. The corridor, which combines three separate pipelines, runs from Azerbaijan all the way to Europe. Since its initial deliveries of natural gas to Europe in 2020, the corridor has been critically important to keeping Europe supplied with energy during the war in Ukraine.
“That Southern Gas Corridor is extremely important for ensuring that there is energy diversity for Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, potentially Albania, and definitely Italy, and possibly into the Western Balkans,” Kim said. “We cannot underestimate how important that is.”
A New Route?
As pipelines carry oil and natural gas from Azerbaijan to the West, U.S. officials have sought to reinforce the east-west corridor by creating additional pipelines that run through Armenia. Not only would a pipeline through Armenia add another route to the corridor, but it would pull Armenia away from Russia, which maintains a military presence in the country and provides Armenia with most of its energy.
For decades, one of the major challenges to U.S. plans has been the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. As long as Armenia and Azerbaijan have remained at odds over the region, U.S. officials have seen few options for integrating Armenia into a broader east-west energy corridor.
“If not for the frozen Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,” U.S. diplomats reported in 2009, “the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline could have been routed through Armenia, reducing the distance and construction cost, and providing Armenia both an alternative source of gas as well as much-needed transit fees.”
In recent years, regional dynamics have rapidly shifted, however. As Azerbaijan grew flush with cash from its operations as an energy hub for the West, it began spending more money on weapons. With Israel and Turkey selling Azerbaijan increasingly sophisticated weapons, Azerbaijan built a large arsenal and acquired the upper hand over Armenia.
“Where other Western nations are reluctant to sell ground combat systems to the Azerbaijanis for fear of encouraging Azerbaijan to resort to war to regain [Nagorno-Karabakh] and the occupied territories, Israel is free to make substantial arms sales and benefits greatly from deals with its well-heeled client,” U.S. diplomats reported in 2009.
Emboldened by its growing power and influence, Azerbaijan made its move. As fighting broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan in late September 2020, Azerbaijan’s military forces took advantage of their advanced weaponry from Israel and Turkey to capture the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh.
Before Azerbaijan’s military forces could seize control of Nagorno-Karabakh, however, Russia intervened, brokering a ceasefire and deploying about 2,000 peacekeepers to the region. Although various observers portrayed the outcome as a victory for Russia, the deal did not last long.
This past September, Azerbaijan moved to take the rest of Nagorno-Karabakh, armed by additional supplies of Israeli weapons. Following Azerbaijan’s incursion, more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians fled the territory for Armenia, where they remain today.
Now that Azerbaijan has taken control of Nagorno-Karabakh, U.S. officials are renewing their efforts to persuade Armenia and Azerbaijan to forge a peace deal that could be the basis for a new energy corridor.
“There is business to be done in this region,” State Department official James O’Brien told Congress in November.
At the Start Department, officials have been reviewing U.S.-funded plans for building the new energy corridor. As O’Brien noted, “the feasibility studies on this transit corridor [have] actually been done, funded by [the Agency for International Development (AID)], so we’re in the middle of seeing what kind of economic future there may be.”
Obstacles
Several obstacles stand in the way of U.S. plans. One possibility is that an increasingly emboldened Azerbaijan will invade Armenia and take the territory it wants for new pipelines. If Azerbaijan continues to acquire weapons from Turkey and Israel, it could take Armenian land by force, something that U.S. officials believe could happen.
“I think, from what I hear, the Armenians are concerned and feel threatened by that corridor and what it might imply for another grabbing of land by Azerbaijan,” Representative James Costa (D-CA) said at the hearing in November.
A related possibility is that Azerbaijan could work more closely with Russia. As Russia maintains military forces in Azerbaijan, it could facilitate a move by Azerbaijan to take Armenian land for a north-south energy corridor that benefits Russia.
Although Russia maintains a security pact with Armenia, relations have soured over Azerbaijan’s seizure of Nagorno-Karabakh, making it possible that Russia will side with Azerbaijan.
Another challenge is the Azerbaijani government. For years, critics have charged Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev with leading a corrupt and repressive regime that has hoarded the country’s wealth while leaving the population to suffer.
In internal reports, U.S. diplomats have been highly critical of Aliyev. Not only have they compared him to mobsters, but they have suggested that the country “is run in a manner similar to the feudalism found in Europe during the Middle Ages.”
As critics have called on Washington to reconsider the U.S. relationship with Azerbaijan, some members of Congress have begun questioning U.S. strategy, particularly as it concerns the U.S. partnership with Aliyev.
The United States may have made “the wrong bet by moving more Azerbaijani resources into Europe,” Senator Murphy said in September. “This strategy of being dependent on a system and series of dictatorships… may not necessarily bear the strategic game that we think it does.”
Other members of Congress have questioned the State Department’s claims that a new energy corridor can bring peace to the region.
“I don’t see the peace process as going nearly as well as some of the description I’ve just heard,” Representative Costa said at the hearing in November. “It was ethnic cleansing that happened with the removal of these Armenians from their historic homeland in Nagorno-Karabakh.”
Regardless, officials at the State Department remain confident in their plans. Pushing forward with efforts to forge a deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan, they remain hopeful that they can create a new energy corridor that runs through Armenia, even if means that the ethnic Armenians who fled Nagorno-Karabakh will never be able to return to their homes.
“As we go from the medium to the longer term, there’s going to have to be some effort made to help integrate these folks into Armenian life,” AID official Alexander Sokolowski told Congress in November. “Many of them dream of going back to Nagorno-Karabakh, but for right now, they’re oriented towards making a life in Armenia.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Groups 'Extremely Disappointed' by Ruling But Vow to Keep Fighting Mountain Valley Pipeline
"It is clear to us that the top levers of power in this country do not serve the good of the people of Appalachia, who they have continued to sacrifice for the whims of a corrupt, reckless fossil fuel corporation," said one activist.
Aug 11, 2023
Local and national climate campaigns on Friday expressed disappointment over an appellate court's dismissal of challenges to a partially built fracked gas pipeline in West Virginia and Virginia but pledged to continue their efforts to kill the project.
Citing a section of the debt ceiling law that President Joe Biden negotiated with congressional Republicans this spring, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit dismissed cases in which green groups challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Endangered Species Act approvals for the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) as well as the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management's authorizations for the Jefferson National Forest.
"It is clear to us that the top levers of power in this country do not serve the good of the people of Appalachia, who they have continued to sacrifice for the whims of a corrupt, reckless fossil fuel corporation," said Russell Chisholm, managing director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition. "As wildfires and heatwaves terrorize our global kin, as President Biden spreads misinformation about his climate commitments, we resolve to protect our communities because we can't count on so-called 'leaders' to do so."
Jason Crazy Bear Keck, co-founder of 7 Directions of Service, was similarly undeterred, saying that "we are extremely disappointed but never surprised by the system created for profit. Such tools of oppression operate exactly as they were intended to. This terrible news does not hinder or harm our conviction, rather it proves the necessity to keep on resisting."
"The temper tantrums from corporate agents and bought-off political implants only remind the people of how terribly off-track governance has become as it relates to the protection of society and its natural environment," the campaigner added. "We continue to condemn irresponsibility, condemn systematic oppression, and condemn an all-out federal attack on our futures. We stand on what's right, what's just, and what's sustainable for our generations not yet arrived."
"We will not stop exposing the dangers and damages from this project and insisting that it be canceled."
The pipeline developer and Biden administration sought to have the cases dismissed after passing the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA). Section 324 of the June law fast-tracks MVP and states that only the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District has jurisdiction over "any claim alleging the invalidity of this section or that an action is beyond the scope of authority conferred by this section."
In an opinion authored by Judge James Andrew Wynn and joined by the other two panel members, the 4th Circuit—which previously paused MVP construction only to have the U.S. Supreme Court reverse those decisions—ruled Friday that green groups' "sole contention in response to the motions to dismiss was that Section 324 was unconstitutional, a claim that can only be heard by the D.C. Circuit. Therefore, the motions to dismiss must be granted for lack of jurisdiction."
Judge Stephanie D. Thacker wrote in a concurring opinion that "while I join the conclusion that Congress has acted within its legislative authority in enacting" the part of Section 324 that gives the D.C. Circuit jurisdiction, "I write separately because Congress' use of its authority in this manner threatens to disturb the balance of power between co-equal branches of government."
Judge Roger L. Gregory also raised separation of power concerns in a concurring opinion, writing that "Section 324 is a blueprint for the construction of a natural gas pipeline by legislative fiat. If that provision is likewise constitutionally sanctioned, then Congress will have found the way to adjudicate by legislating for particular cases and for particular litigants, no different than the governmental excesses our Framers sought to avoid."
"For that reason, I fear Congress has employed this court's constitutionally directed deference to legislative prerogatives to undermine the Constitution and, in the process, it has made the court an accessory to its deeds," he added. "If that is so, I wonder if Section 324 is a harbinger of erosion not just to the environment, but to our republic. That, only our Supreme Court can decide."
Maury Johnson—West Virginia co-chair of the POWHR Coalition, a Preserve Monroe board member, and a landowner affected by MVP—said Friday that "I share Judge Gregory's real concern for our environment and our democracy."
Other campaigners explicitly condemned Congress for giving the pipeline developer "a free pass to edge out vulnerable species and steamroll communities in its path," in the words of Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous.
Preserve Giles County coordinator Donna Pitt declared that "the ill-advised enactment of Section 324 of the Fiscal Responsibility Act lays bare the danger we are in if we continue to allow ourselves to be governed by the self-serving needs of fossil fuel corporations."
"The builders and political backers of the MVP could not get this destructive project across the finish line by following the rules that are supposed to apply to all projects," said Wild Virginia conservation director David Sligh. "The reason is simple. The pipeline cannot be built across these valuable and sensitive landscapes in a way that upholds our historic laws, including the Endangered Species Act."
"The Fish and Wildlife Service failed in its duties three times, so Congress and the president have attempted to give the MVP a get-out-of-jail-free card on its responsibility to protect our rare and precious species," Sligh added. "We will not stop exposing the dangers and damages from this project and insisting that it be canceled."
Earlier Friday, a pair of activists locked themselves to construction equipment at an MVP worksite on Poor Mountain in Roanoke County, Virginia—an action that was denounced by the pipeline developer and drew police to the scene.
According to Appalachians Against Pipelines, one supporter of the action said: "Any reputable scientist could tell you that this pipeline is inconsistent with a future where humans continue to live. It's that simple. The MVP is a doomsday device. It is only being built so the rich can get richer. Our 'leaders' have clearly taken a side, so it's up to us to stop this thing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
44 Lawmakers 'Sound the Alarm' on Threat of LNG Expansion
The senators and representatives signed a letter calling on the Biden administration's Council on Environmental Quality to give "greater scrutiny" to the LNG supply chain from wellhead to shipping overseas.
May 08, 2023
More than 40 U.S. lawmakers signed a letter Monday to "sound the alarm" on the recent expansion of liquefied natural gas infrastructure and capacity and call on the Biden administration to give "greater scrutiny" to the LNG supply chain from wellhead to shipping overseas.
The legislators letter to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Brenda Mallory comes amidst an uptick in LNG exports from the U.S. to Europe in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Climate campaigners have warned that fossil fuel companies have used the war and subsequent energy crisis as an excuse to lock in more LNG infrastructure that could push the 1.5°C temperature goal out of reach and hasten more extreme climate impacts.
"Our ability to combat the worst impacts of the climate crisis depends, to a significant degree, on whether the United States approves proposed LNG pipeline and export terminal projects on top of the already-substantial LNG infrastructure," the lawmakers wrote in the letter.
"Even without including upstream leaks, the continued buildout of LNG infrastructure is at odds with the Paris climate goals and U.S. climate commitments."
The CEQ is currently finalizing its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Guidance on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Climate Change, which would advise federal agencies on how to assess proposed infrastructure projects' contribution to the climate crisis, The Washington Post explained. The administration of former President Donald Trump issued a rollback in 2020 mandating that federal agencies considering projects under NEPA should not take their "indirect" climate impacts into account.
While the Biden administration has already reversed this rule, it is now working on more detailed instructions. The lawmakers want to make sure these updated instructions consider LNG's true impact both on the climate and on frontline communities.
"Existing LNG infrastructure already has a disproportionate impact on Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor communities; this will only be exacerbated with the addition of the proposed projects. That's why it is important that frontline communities are meaningfully and proactively engaged throughout environmental reviews for LNG infrastructure," the letter writers continued.
The effort was spearheaded by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) along with U.S. Reps. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), and Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.). The lawmakers were joined by 40 of their colleagues from both houses, all Democrats except for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Merkley tweeted Monday that he was joining with Huffman, Grijalva, and Barragán "to sound the alarm on the great threat that continued expansion of liquefied fossil gas (LNG) infrastructure poses to our climate and future."
One major concern raised by the lawmakers is methane. Federal agencies are still approving projects based on a Trump administration public-interest determination that compares LNG to coal-fired electricity without considering methane leaks from LNG infrastructure, the lawmakers noted. However, since methane traps around 80 times more heat than carbon dioxide during its first 20 years in the atmosphere, these leaks could make LNG even more damaging for the climate than coal.
"Even without including upstream leaks, the continued buildout of LNG infrastructure is at odds with the Paris climate goals and U.S. climate commitments," the lawmakers wrote.
A recent Greenpeace investigation found that LNG projects approved in the U.S. could emit more than the 2030 carbon budget allocated by the International Energy Agency to the entire LNG trade if policymakers are to limit warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
"An expansion of U.S. liquified natural gas infrastructure threatens more damage to our climate and communities," Rep. Barragán tweeted.
The lawmakers called on CEQ to develop a review process just for LNG, with participation from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Department of State, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and others. This process should consider cradle-to-grave LNG impacts on both the climate and frontline communities.
In addition, they argued CEQ should make sure that agencies actually consider lifecycle emissions from LNG and set fair prices if it and the State Department decide to increase exports for emergency scenarios like the war in Ukraine.
"We urge that the price of natural gas sold to our allies is sufficient to cover production and delivery costs, but no higher, so as to remove any potential for war-time profiteering and to remove the incentives to continue exports after the short-term foreign policy needs have expired," the lawmakers wrote.
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