

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


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"How about we start by suspending the biggest gas tax of them all, Trump’s illegal war in Iran," said US Senate candidate Graham Platner.
As President Donald Trump's ongoing war of choice on Iran sends US pump prices skyrocketing by 50%, the president and congressional Republicans are moving this week to suspend the federal gasoline tax—a proposal that critics note would reduce funding for the nation's deteriorating highway infrastructure.
Trump said Monday that he would push to suspend the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal tax on gasoline and 24.4-cent diesel tax "until it's appropriate," as the average price for a gallon of regular gas has soared from just under $3 before the war to over $4.50 today.
Such a move would require congressional authorization. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Monday introduced the Gas Tax Suspension Act, citing "record profits" reaped by "some of the biggest corporations in the world"—but not the root cause of the price spike, the illegal war itself.
Meanwhile in the House, Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) on Monday introduced similar legislation, while calling on state lawmakers and Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill to also suspend New Jersey's roughly $0.49-per-gallon gas tax. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) also said Monday that she "will be introducing a bill in the House to suspend the federal gas tax in light of Trump’s recent remarks."
This, after Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH) in March introduced the Gas Prices Relief Act, which would suspend the 18.4-cent tax through October 1. Kelly's office noted the pain of "skyrocketing gas prices due to war in Iran" as the reason for the legislation. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) in April also proposed a similar bill.
"Never before in American history have we seen a 50% increase in the price of gas in such a short time," Boyle said during a Monday interview on MS NOW, adding that the Trump administration's "actions have caused this mess."
Republican support for a gas tax holiday marks a reversal from just four years ago, when they opposed then-President Joe Biden's call to suspend the tax after Russia launched its ongoing full-scale invasion of Ukraine. GOP lawmakers argued at the time that such a suspension would cause the delay or cancellation of critical infrastructure projects, as federal gas taxes provide the vast bulk of Highway Trust Fund money. Such arguments were nowhere to be seen from Republicans after Trump's Monday comments.
Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner of Maine is pushing a multipronged approach to the issue. First, he is backing a permanent end to federal gas and diesel taxes, whose revenue would be replaced by increased taxation of billionaires.
"Relying on fossil fuels to fund basic infrastructure does not make sense if we want to reduce fossil fuels used in transportation," the climate-conscious candidate explained last week.
Platner's plan also calls for 50% per-barrel windfall tax on Big Oil profits, as well as a national freeze on electric rate increases.
Finally, Platner advocates addressing the number one current cause of high gas prices.
"How about we start by suspending the biggest gas tax of them all: Trump’s illegal war in Iran," he said Monday on X.
Most congressional Republicans and a few Democrats have refused to pass war powers resolutions intended to end Trump's assault—which the administration claims has been "terminated," despite continuing its naval blockade and conducting some alleged "self-defense" strikes during the current ceasefire.
"The economic case for fossil fuels has not just weakened, it has collapsed," said the head of 350.org, the group behind the publication.
Oil price spikes caused by the US and Israel's war in Iran are straining the pocketbooks of ordinary citizens the world over. But a new study shows that even in normal times, dependence on fossil fuels poses a tremendous financial cost while a small group of companies reaps the rewards.
The report published by the environmental group 350.org on Tuesday found that people around the world are subsidizing the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $12 trillion per year, a cost of about $1,400 for every person on Earth.
The number goes beyond direct government subsidies, with the report explaining that "ordinary people are paying for fossil fuels three times over."
The fossil fuel industry costs every person on Earth $1,400 a year — and pays almost nothing back.350.org's new #OutOfPocket report breaks it down. Santa Marta is the first conference ever called to end fossil fuels, and this report is the receipt.Read the full report: 350.org/out-of-pocke...
[image or embed]
— 350.org (@350.org) April 21, 2026 at 9:26 AM
In addition to the $636 billion in government handouts the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found were paid to fossil fuel companies in 2024, the public also has to bear the burden when conflict or other emergencies cause prices to spike.
The report estimates that during the first 50 days of the Iran war, consumers and businesses have paid an additional $158.6–$166.9 billion due to higher fuel costs. This comes not only at the gas pump, but through heightened costs for food, transport fees, and other basic necessities.
"This crisis is a stark reminder of just how risky it is to rely on fossil fuels, with around 80% of global energy still coming from them and driving the instability we see today," said Jan Rosenow, professor of energy and climate policy at Oxford University. "Price volatility is not a flaw in the fossil fuel system; it is a built-in feature."
An investigation published earlier this month by The Guardian found that while consumers are getting hit, the war has been a bonanza for Big Oil. The top 100 companies have raked in an extra $30 million per hour since it began and made $23 billion in windfall profits during the war's first month.
But the true mammoth cost to consumers comes from mitigating the climate damage caused by unrestrained fossil fuel use, from droughts to floods to heatwaves that have grown increasingly frequent and severe as global temperatures have climbed.
Using peer-reviewed data relied on by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 350.org estimated that the global population is footing the bill for about $9.3 trillion in climate-related damages and air-pollution-related deaths each year, social costs that the industry causes but pays almost nothing to solve.
The effects hit the poor hardest: Low-income households spend almost twice as large a share of their budgets on energy as higher-income households.
Meanwhile, renewable energy infrastructure, which has high upfront costs but pays for itself over time, is less abundant in developing parts of the world, and countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and South Sudan have had to ration power during energy crises.
The poorer Global South is also on the frontlines of some of the worst and most immediate effects of the climate crisis.
In addition to one of the deadliest ongoing conflicts in the world, South Sudan has suffered both severe floods and droughts that have ravaged crop outputs, raising the risk of famine, and schools have had to close for weeks as extreme heat caused children to faint from heat stroke.
Eastern Africa has dealt with the displacement of more than 20 million people from record-breaking floods and droughts.
In Sri Lanka, chronic flooding and pest outbreaks exacerbated by rising temperatures are expected to cost the country 3.5% of its gross domestic product by 2050.
Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org, said that in the coming years, climate upheaval can only be expected to get worse.
"A building El Niño means 2026 and 2027 will set new global temperature records, and that will offer yet more chaos, and yet more reminders that it is the poorest people on Earth who must bear most of the cost of this ongoing tragedy," he said.
The research conducted by 350.org was built on a model used by the IMF, which found that fossil fuels were costing taxpayers about $7.4 trillion. However, that research rested on a carbon price of $85 per tonne of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.
350.org found that this figure, which "represents the cheapest possible price to keep warming below 2°C," vastly understates the damage caused by warming, which peer-reviewed research suggests is between $185-233 per tonne.
While proponents of continued fossil fuel use often oppose green energy expansion on the grounds of cost, the report notes that just that $4.1 trillion undercount would be enough to finance more than 5,900 gigawatts of new solar capacity—enough to power every home in Africa, South Asia, and Latin America combined.
"The economic case for fossil fuels has not just weakened, it has collapsed," said Anne Jellema, 350.org's chief executive.
In addition to calling for an immediate end to both the war in Iran and Israel's war against Lebanon, 350.org called on governments around the world to tax the industry's wartime windfall profits and put the money toward lowering the energy bills of ordinary families.
The group also called to replace fossil fuel subsidies with household support and subsidies for cheaper renewables, which it says will be resistant to the shocks that oil and gas regularly face.
"Renewables are not controlled by a few fossil fuel-exporting countries," said Hala Kilani, the head of energy diplomacy for the international climate policy network REN21. "It is abundant, distributed, and affordable. It can stabilize costs and be deployed locally, empowering communities rather than concentrating power. It is a peace, development, and justice solution. It’s high time we transition to reliable, affordable renewable energy.”
“Moments of global crisis continue to translate into bumper profits for oil majors while ordinary people pay the price."
US President Donald Trump's unprovoked war of choice in Iran has been a goldmine for the fossil fuels industry, which is earning massive windfall profits thanks to the rise in the price of petroleum.
An analysis published by The Guardian on Wednesday estimated that the 100 biggest oil and gas companies have collectively raked in an extra $30 million per hour since Trump launched his war with Iran without any congressional authorization in late February.
In just the first month of the conflict, The Guardian reported, Big Oil made $23 billion in windfall profits, and the industry is projected to haul in an additional $234 billion in windfall profits by the end of the year if the price of oil stays in the $100 range.
The top beneficiaries of the Iran conflict are Saudi Aramco, which is projected to earn $25.5 billion in windfall profits by the end of the year; Kuwait Petroleum Corp., which is projected to earn $12.1 billion; and ExxonMobil, which is projected to earn $11 billion.
"The excess profits come from the pockets of ordinary people as they pay high prices to fill up their vehicles and power their homes, as well as from businesses incurring higher energy bills," The Guardian noted. "Dozens of countries have cut fuel taxes to help struggling consumers, meaning those nations, including Australia, South Africa, Italy, Brazil and Zambia, are raising less money for public services."
The Guardian's analysis was conducted by climate watchdog Global Witness, using data from intelligence provider Rystad Energy.
Patrick Galey, head of news investigations at Global Witness, told The Guardian that Big Oil's windfall profits should be a wakeup call to the world about the dangers of relying on fossil fuels.
"Moments of global crisis continue to translate into bumper profits for oil majors while ordinary people pay the price," Galey said. "Until governments kick their fossil fuel addiction, all of our spending power will be held hostage to the whims of strongmen."
Climate advocates have for months been calling for a windfall profits tax on Big Oil during the Iran War as a way to retrieve some of the money consumers have lost during the conflict.
Earlier this month, the climate advocacy organization 350.org renewed its previous call to slap fossil fuel companies with a windfall profits tax, and then invest the revenue into renewable energy sources to provide real long-term relief to global consumers.
Beth Walker, an energy policy expert at climate change think tank E3G, also recommended a windfall profits tax with the aim of ending reliance on dirty energy sources.
"Governments should use taxes on windfall profits to accelerate the transition to green energy," said Walker, "rather than deepen dependence on fossil fuels.”