News Feeds

A booklet published by the UK’s opposition Conservative party includes a “cost of net-zero” that appears to have been doubled by a spreadsheet error.

The “common sense” policy document argues that “what people ultimately want is a government competent enough to solve the problems for which it takes responsibility”.

In a section that says “sophisticat[ed]…modelling” should not be a substitute for “political judgement”, the “Right Way” document disparages various estimates of the cost of net-zero.

The Conservative document then claims – incorrectly – that the government’s official adviser, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), had put the cost of net-zero at close to £1tn. It says:

“In 2020, the CCC estimated that its route to net-zero would cost £957bn.”

In fact, the CCC’s 2020 estimate was exactly half this amount – £478bn – and last year it published a revised figure of £108bn, largely as a result of the falling cost of electric vehicles (EVs).

Spreadsheet error

The Conservative party’s erroneous claim appears to stem from another report that had accidentally added up numbers twice, using a spreadsheet published by the CCC in 2020.

The 2020 spreadsheet contains a table listing the additional investments that would be needed to build a net-zero economy, from low-carbon electricity generation through to heat pumps and EVs.

These extra capital expenditures, listed as “CAPEX”, add up to a total of £1.38tn over the 30 years of 2020-50. They are set against operational savings, listed as “OPEX”, of £0.90tn.

Added up over 2020-50, the combined CAPEX and OPEX figures come to a total of £478bn.

In addition to the annual sectoral CAPEX and OPEX figures, the CCC’s 2020 spreadsheet also has a line giving combined totals for each year. It appears that someone has added all of these numbers together, resulting in the savings and costs being counted twice.

This double-counted total for the cost of net-zero amounts to £957bn – as shown in the image below – and it appears to be the source of the claim in the Conservative booklet.

At the time of publication in 2020, the CCC said that the £478bn net cost of net-zero amounted to less than 1% of GDP over 30 years – and that the large investment needed would not only result in savings due to lower fossil-fuel imports, but that it would boost GDP overall, by around 2%.

In 2025, the CCC revised its estimates for investment costs and operating savings to £670bn and £562bn respectively, giving a net total of £108bn over 2025-50, or less than 0.2% of GDP.

Earlier this year, the committee said that cutting emissions to net-zero would cost less than a single fossil-fuel price shock and that doing so would have benefits worth £110bn per year.

Paper trail

The erroneous claim in the Conservative document is referenced to the CCC’s 2020 advice on the UK’s sixth “carbon budget”, which, as explained, does not contain the £957bn figure.

The earliest online use of the £957bn figure found by Carbon Brief is a 12 January 2026 article in the Spectator, by retired engineer and self-described “accidental energy analyst” David Turver.

A day later, Turver repeated the mistaken number in a report for the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs. His report cites figure 5.3 of the CCC’s 2020 advice.

However, as set out above, the CCC spreadsheet containing the data for figure 5.3 only adds up to £478bn, half the figure claimed by Turver.

It appears that Turver accidentally added up all of the numbers in the CCC spreadsheet, without noting that it already included a line for the annual total. This results in double-counting the cost.

(Turver’s report also triggered a slew of inaccurate headlines stating that net-zero would cost £7.6tn – or even £9tn. These figures, which came from Turver’s report, were based, among other things, on the implicit assumption that fossil fuels and the cars, boilers and power plants that use them are all free.)

After Turver’s report and article in January 2026, the erroneous £957bn figure was repeated in March by the Great British Think Tank. The organisation has the tagline “data, not vibes” and says of its work: “Every figure [is] sourced from official public bodies.”

The £957bn figure then appeared in the Conservative “Right Way” document in October 2026.

related Analysis: EVs are now nine times cheaper than petrol or diesel to drive in the UK  24.09.2026 Oil and gas CCC: Heathrow expansion could push flights to ‘80% of UK emissions by 2050’ 16.09.2026 Emissions Revealed: England’s June 2026 heatwave sparked record demand for ambulances 14.09.2026 Health and society Factcheck: Reform UK’s 45 false or misleading claims about climate and energy 11.09.2026 UK policy

The post Factcheck: UK Conservatives double the ‘cost of net-zero’ after spreadsheet blunder appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The launch of the Africa Energy Bank (AEB) has been put back yet again, raising doubts about the institution’s future ability to finance fossil fuel projects – its main objective – as global lenders retreat from such investments over climate concerns, experts told Climate Home News.

The bank, which had been billed to launch in September after a series of delays, is now scheduled to begin operations in November, according to the head of the African Energy Chamber, an advocacy body for the continent’s oil and gas sector.

Even as the world aims to transition away from fossil fuels, many African leaders have made clear they want to continue exploring and extracting the continent’s large oil and gas deposits – estimated at around 125 billion barrels of crude and over 600 trillion cubic feet of gas – to boost economic development.

As a group, Africa sided with a number of powerful oil-and-gas producing nations in blocking progress on negotiations to craft a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels at last year’s UN COP30 climate talks, although some countries did individually support the proposal.

• Jul 15, 2026 News Campaigners oppose Dangote’s planned Kenya refinery over climate and ecological risks Plans to build Africa’s second largest oil refinery in ecologically sensitive region criticised as “environmental recklessness” Read more
• Dec 2, 2025 News Tanzania pushed African nations to oppose fossil fuel transition at COP30 While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels Read more

Meanwhile, major projects under development across the continent – including the 1,443-km East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and Dangote’s 700,000-barrel-per-day Kenyan refinery – show that African governments see oil and gas as playing a significant role in meeting their energy and economic needs for many years to come.

In 2022, at a gathering of the African Petroleum Producers’ Organization (APPO) in oil-rich Angola, ministers from its member states adopted a resolution to create the Africa Energy Bank to finance projects for the production, use and trade of oil, gas and broader energy sources.

African control over energy resources

An article on the APPO website explains that the bank was conceived as a way to overcome “disenchantment” with fossil fuels among “the international community” which it said had crystallised around the “energy transition” concept.

“If Western countries, after having long taken advantage of the energy sources they now revile to develop, can afford the luxury of abandoning them, this is not the case in Africa,” it adds, noting that many of the continent’s economies are still largely dependent on oil and gas revenues.

A separate web page about the bank, also hosted on APPO’s website, says its objectives include financing the exploration, production and refining of oil and gas, as well as supporting member states in transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources “while ensuring energy security”.

What’s on the climate calendar for October 2026?

Said Addi, a former executive with Shell and energy commodities trading house Gunvor, said the new bank was judged necessary because financing for hydrocarbons from many traditional international lenders has become constrained.

In trying to fill this financing gap, Africa is not simply setting up another fund to support oil and gas, he added. “It is also an attempt to give African countries greater control over how their energy resources and infrastructure are financed,” he explained.

Nigeria to host the AEB

The energy bank – a joint initiative of APPO and the African Export–Import Bank (Afreximbank) – has so far suffered several delays and is almost two years behind schedule. The initial plan was to start operations in January 2025, with Nigeria as the host country, but the bank’s opening was delayed to June of that year to allow Nigeria time to finalise the construction of the bank’s headquarters in Abuja. 

After the government announced the completion of the offices in late November 2025, a new launch date was set for January 2026, which was moved back to April, June and then September. Now it has shifted again to November, raising concerns that the institution may be losing momentum. 

Former Shell executive Addi said that if the capital is eventually paid in, the bank becomes operational and its first projects are commercially credible, then the delays will be regarded as normal teething troubles in setting up a multilateral institution. But, he added, scepticism will be justified if it continues to stall. 

Uganda may see lower oil revenues than expected as costs rise and demand falls

Baron Lamarré, an oil and gas expert and former Petronas oil trader, said that missing “three deadlines in a row is not normal”, and warned that if the timeline slips again, “the story flips from ‘ambitious institution finding its footing’ to ‘good idea that lost momentum before it found any’.”

The Nigerian government, APPO and Afreximbank did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.

The funding challenge

The Africa Energy Bank is targeting base capital of $5 billion, with plans to scale up to $120 billion within five years by mobilising private-sector funds. However, it is expected to start operations with initial seed capital of $500 million. 

The funding plan is to have the 18 member countries of the APPO contribute $83 million each to the bank as equity for a combined $1.5 billion. Afreximbank, other non-APPO African countries and investors  outside the continent are expected to provide the remaining $3.5 billion. 

But even the initial $500 million has not been easy to mobilise. In May, APPO Secretary-General Farid Ghezali called on members to deliver on their pledges towards the startup goal before the end of June. But the delays suggest this may not have been met, with experts saying Africa may be finding it difficult to self-fund its oil and gas projects in the absence of international capital.

Lamarré said every extension of the deadline points to the fact that “raising fossil fuel capital in Africa without the majors and their financing networks is brutally hard”.

Why the global electrification agenda misses the point on Africa’s energy crisis 

Since 2020, Western lenders, export credit agencies and insurers have been in steady retreat from African hydrocarbons, he said, while oil majors are divesting their African assets, handing over fields to smaller local operators whose credit ratings are not high enough to borrow cheaply.

Even capital from China and the Gulf, which has partially filled the gap, cannot match the volume, tenor or pricing that Western investors once offered, Lamarré argued. 

“If mobilising the first $500 million of seed capital [for the AEB] has taken this long, that’s the clearest signal yet of how steep the climb to $120 billion looks,” he said, noting that the continent’s energy financing gap is as large as $30 billion-$45 billion per year.

Africa’s investment landscape, meanwhile, has been shifting. While foreign direct investment dropped from a 2024 peak, inflows remained roughly one-third above the continent’s long-term average in 2025, according to the 2026 World Investment Report from UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). They are concentrated in a few sectors including critical minerals needed for renewable energy technologies, battery manufacturing and advanced industrial production.

At the same time, data on global energy investment from the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that fossil fuel investment in Africa has declined over the last decade.

“Trojan horse” for fossil fuels

While the Africa Energy Bank struggles to get off the ground, climate campaigners have criticised its primary aim of financing oil and gas on the continent at a time when the world is starting to move away from high-carbon fuels to cleaner alternatives. 

Bhekumuzi Dean Bhebhe, founder of Africa Change Lab, described the bank as a “Trojan horse”, arguing that its focus on fossil fuel financing runs counter to the global energy transition and the African Union’s Agenda 2063 goals of sustainable development and inclusive growth.

The energy bank, he warned, “risks locking Africa into a new cycle of debt, dependency and fossil fuel entrenchment”, adding that its financing blueprint does not pave the way for a climate-resilient future. “In truth, it is to deepen the same extractive, carbon-heavy pathways that the continent should be moving away from,” he added.

Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop East Africa oil pipeline

Kenya-based climate and energy expert Joab Okanda said the AEB’s plan to finance oil and gas is “a misplaced priority” and it should instead back clean energy in line with the policies of some of Africa’s major export markets like Europe.

In addition, the new bank could struggle to mobilise enough resources to advance large-scale oil and gas projects, he added, noting that its proposed $5-billion initial capital is equivalent to the cost of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline alone.

The AEB’s aim of backing more fossil fuels should be flipped “to support countries that are oil-dependent to start working on their transition plans”, Okanda said.

The post Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes appeared first on Climate Home News.

It’s time to give you an update on what’s going on at your favorite website.

On Jan. 1, I’ll step down as editor in chief of Streetsblog and hand the reins (and reign) to David Meyer, whose talent and experience make him perfectly suited for this moment. David will be just the fourth editor in chief in our 20 years (following me, Ben Fried and founding editor Aaron “Honku” Naparstek).

I’m not doing the full George Washington — I’m not departing to my vine and fig tree. In fact, I’ll remain on hand as senior editor for as long as people think I can help make this city a better place, one street at a time. I know, some of you feel I’ve never helped do that, but we’ll have to agree to disagree.

But one thing we can all agree on is David Meyer, who was a reporter for Streetsblog under Fried and in my early days, and returned in 2023 as managing editor. In between, David worked as a reporter at the New York Post, which is certainly not our favorite paper ideologically, but we have long respected how Post reporters turn in clean, tight copy with a strong point of view.

And that’s Streetsblog’s MO: aggressive, in-the-moment, challenging, bold, and, most important, narrow and visionary at the same time. I’ve played a role in that, but thanks to his two tenures, David has been a major reason why we have become such a crucial part of the media landscape. We’ve also won many awards and broken many important stories, attesting to the importance of the work that reporters Dave Colon, Kevin Duggan, Sophia Lebowitz, Sammy Sussman and Henry Beebe-Center, and editors J.K. Trotter, Emily Lipstein and Kea Wilson have done and are doing.

We won a freakin’ Polk Award, for Pete’s sake!

That was fun, but Streetsblog needs to keep that momentum going, and David Meyer is the ideal person for the task. He needs no introduction to the scope of the road violence problem in our supposedly great city, where road fatalities remain a nearly daily occurrence; injuries from crashes are in the tens of thousands per year; and there are roughly 220 reported crashes every day. The numbers are simultaneously mind-boggling and also barely a blip on the frenzied radar screen of New York life.

The livable streets movement is, again, at a crossroads: despite New York City’s reputation as a progressive Mecca, our civic life is dominated by revanchists who fight all improvements, whether it is a simple bike lane to keep kids safe, a bus lane to speed the commutes of thousands of working people, a new residential development to house our neighbors, or even a train line to bring hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers closer to jobs that they can access without the debt cancer of car ownership.

The movement for safe streets is winning — there are open streets, there are school streets, there are investments in our buses and subways, there are more and more bike lanes — but two steps of progress are often accompanied by one step backwards.

With David in charge, Streetsblog will re-energize the movement against that sclerotic status quo. He will bring fresh strategies and energy to a movement whose arc of history definitely does not always bend towards bike lanes. Unlike my aging brain, David’s is nimble, savvy and strategic — far better able to respond to the challenges of today and tomorrow (looking at you, robo-cars).

So please welcome him to his new position by extending all courtesies — and emails and late-night texts — to him. With your help, dear readers, he’s going to do great.

One more note. Streetsblog provides its reporting free-of-charge, and we rely on your support to make it happen. If you’d like to make a contribution, perhaps in my honor, use widget below. Any amount goes a long way.

Streetsblog!

We’re all ready for the holiday weekend, so let’s take a quick jaunt up to Minneapolis, which has arguably the best cycling network in America — and some lessons to teach other communities about how to create connections for people on two wheels.

And that’s coming from a channel called “Chicagoans Who Bike.” If these ultra-wide, curb-level, full-size-snow-plow-ready paths can overcome the Bears/Vikings rivalry, you know they’ve got to be good.

Or, if you need a longer getaway, head on over to the international terminal to tag along on Shifter’s trip to Shanghai, where the prolific YouTuber unpacks China’s surprising history with the bicycle.

A few decades ago, some of the country’s megacities logged cycling mode share as high as sixty-four percent, absolutely crushing the numbers from far more talked-about bike paradises like Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Today, though, cities like Beijing may still have some of the best bike “hardware” (read: infrastructure) around, but they don’t always have great “software” (read: culture) — though he argues that could change. Watch below to find out why.

• Parking mandates raise rents by 17 percent nationally, or about $204 a month, according to a UCLA study. Even worse, 71 percent of carless households are paying for a parking space they don’t use. Minimum parking requirements drive up rents not only by bundling the cost of parking, but by reducing the number of units built. (California YIMBY)
• Early suburbs were walkable and build around railways and streetcar lines, and they can still provide inspiration today. (Planetizen)
• In addition to improving fuel efficiency, California’s new tire standards will save drivers $1 billion a year in fuel or electricity costs. (Grist)
• New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Agency is adding fare gates to more subway stations after finding that they reduce fare evasion by 72 percent. (NY Times)
• High-speed rail connecting Portland, Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia is making progress. (The Columbian; paywall)
• Plans to convert Louisville’s 9th Street from a highway to a boulevard with a bike path and linear park are almost complete. (WDRB)
• San Antonio transit agency VIA approved a $1.1 billion, five-year spending plan that will fund a second bus rapid transit line and a new transit center. (KSAT)
• Minnesota updated its statewide bicycle master plan. (BikeMN)
• Miami-Dade raised transit fares by 50 cents, the first hike in 13 years. (Florida Politics)
• Knoxville built a raised crosswalk at the site where a hit-and-run driver killed an elderly woman last year. (10 News)
• Denver scooter- and bikeshare operator Veo is paying users to stop illegally riding on the sidewalk. (Westword)

The "35 by 35" electrification goal has an Australian origin that the government seems to be coy about.

The post Kudos where it’s due: Australia’s quiet role electrifying the rallying cry for the COP we never got to host appeared first on Renew Economy.

It’s almost time for Spring’s fourth annual conference, “Red October: A conference of socialist ideas in action.” Taking from place Friday, October 30 to Sunday,...

The post RESOURCES: Help us build Red October! first appeared on Spring.

If we fail to ensure data centres pay for new renewables and storage to cover their demand, power prices will increase for all of us – and by $20 billion a pop to fund new coal.

The post The Queensland LNP plan for coal-powered data centres could cost taxpayers $20 billion a pop appeared first on Renew Economy.

Home batteries look like resetting the behaviour of households when it comes to responding to time-of-use tariffs, research by the VEPC shows.

The post Home batteries and time-of-use tariffs may be best combination to steer households away from evening peaks appeared first on Renew Economy.

South Australia energy minister hints that the 100 pct net renewables target may not be reached by 2027 as planned. At least households are getting on with the transition.

The post South Australia won’t reach its 100 pct net renewables target on schedule, but it won’t be the fault of households appeared first on Renew Economy.

Australia's first major transmission loop is now operating, and will be at full capacity by the end of next year, bringing a major change in the way the grid operates.

The post Australia’s first transmission loop between three states set to “fundamentally change” flow of electricity appeared first on Renew Economy.

Former EDO boss and now Greens MLC Sue Higginson on the huge implications of the High Court ruling on coal and climate impacts. Plus: A big week for wind and roads, and other news.

The post Energy Insiders podcast: The High Court ruling on climate damage appeared first on Renew Economy.

State subsidy scheme extends to one of the most efficient home energy bill slashers, offering discounts of between $1,500 and $2,100 on the cost of installing ceiling insulation.

The post State extends subsidy to ceiling insulation to help more households slash their energy bills appeared first on Renew Economy.

While renewables opponents weaponise fears about who will clean up abandoned wind or solar farms, two ageing fossil fuel projects have become taxpayer problems in just the last three months.

The post Governments foot the bill for oil and coal cleanups, so should they do the same for renewables? appeared first on Renew Economy.

Just six months after Paradise, California was laid waste by the most deadly and destructive wildfire in the state’s history — November 2018’s Camp Fire — the town’s mayor received a generous-sounding offer from a Washington, D.C.-based lobbying firm.

“Our hearts were with you as we watched the fire unfold,” wrote Kristi Moore, managing partner of strategic development at The Ferguson Group, in a letter dated May 19, 2019. “We would like to offer our services to the Town of Paradise on a pro bono basis and become an official partner as you further develop and implement your recovery plans.”

Paradise soon took The Ferguson Group (TFG) up on its offer, according to a lobbying disclosure filed with Congress dated July 15, 2019, to provide “strategic advice” and assistance with obtaining federal funds to recover from the unprecedented disaster. During the same period, TFG was also working with the National Stripper Well Association, a fossil fuel industry trade group, according to research by two climate campaign groups.

The Ferguson Group is one of nearly 230 fossil fuel lobbyists identified in a recent report by the groups, F Minus and Make Polluters Pay, that also work for clients that support climate action or — like the local government of Paradise — are seeking federal aid to cope with climate-related impacts or disasters. They have dubbed such lobbyists “climate double agents” for representing fossil fuel interests while “simultaneously lobbying on almost every aspect of the climate crisis, from climate mitigation to disaster relief to wildlife conservation.”

Subscribe to Desmog

Get the weekly intelligence you need to hold polluters accountable

Email Address Sign Up Send me intelligence from: All US/Global team UK/Europe team Sign Up --> (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

The research, released in August, is also included in online database maintained by F Minus that also contains information on 1,500 state-level fossil fuel lobbyists representing more than 14,000 non-industry clients that publicly advocated action on climate change, including non-profit groups, schools, municipal governments, and hospitals.

“I think it would blow the majority of the public’s mind if they knew this was happening,” said Cassidy DiPaola, the communications director of Make Polluters Pay.

California is no stranger to wildfires, but the Camp Fire’s unprecedented scope of devastation — 85 dead, 50,000 displaced, and nearly 19,000 structures destroyed across 153,336 acres of land in 16 days — was in large part due 2018’s extremely hot and dry weather conditions in Northern California, which were intensified by climate change.

The National Stripper Well Association (NSWA) is a trade group representing over 1,000 producers, owners, and operators of crude oil and natural gas wells. Lobbying disclosure forms that TFG filed with Congress in July 2026 indicate that its work for the NSWA includes monitoring “congressional activities on methane related issues.”

The Trump administration is in the process of rolling back Biden-era mandates for oil and gas companies to cut their emissions of methane, a powerful heat-trapping gas, as Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin confirmed to a convention of oil and gas producers in Santa Fe on October 7. 

The Ferguson Group is the “most conflicted firm on wildfire and natural disaster relief issues,” said James Browning, founder and executive director of F Minus, and one of the report’s authors, told DeSmog. “They have an appalling map of activity funding the opposition on climate.”

However, “climate-ravaged cities and countries are locked into relationships” with such lobbying firms, he said, because “they certainly don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them.”

The Ferguson Group did not respond to DeSmog’s request for comment.

Of the 228 lobbyists named in the recent report, 47 were simultaneously working with fossil fuel interests and local governments seeking climate change-related relief.

In the first quarter of 2026, TFG was engaged with 50 local governments on climate-related work, according to the report — more than any other firm mentioned — while also working with five fossil fuel-related clients: the NSWA, the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, Texas Alliance for Energy Producers, Cat Creek Energy, and Southern California Public Power Authority.

The Ferguson Group focuses on lobbying Congress and the federal government, according to its website, with client services that include developing legislative and regulatory strategies, advocacy coordination, and pursuing grants on issues related to water, infrastructure, energy, natural resources, and the environment.

Throughout 2022 and 2023, according to disclosure forms filed with Congress, TFG lobbied for Paradise to receive federal support through the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act, which approved $2 trillion in economic recovery aid during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as FEMA hazard mitigation grants under 2023’s Hazard Eligibility and Local Projects Act. 

In February 2023, TFG also helped Paradise municipal officials draft the town’s updated “Federal Platform and Priorities,” which “documented recovery successes, immediate needs, as well as long term needs and policy considerations,” according to a Paradise Council Agenda Summary.

As recently as this summer, TFG represented Paradise’s “interests in Washington, DC [sic] with a specific focus on disaster recovery and response related to wildfires,” as well as “natural resources, clean air and water, and agriculture.”

Despite beginning its work with Paradise on a pro bono basis, Paradise has paid The Ferguson Group over $300,000 as of July 2026, according to the company’s disclosure firms filed with Congress. Paradise’s Office of Recovery and Economic Development did not respond to DeSmog’s questions on the extent of TFG’s work with the community, or the town’s awareness of its work with the fossil fuel industry.

The Ferguson Group’s relationship with the National Stripper Well Association goes back to 2017, according to disclosure forms filed with Congress. The NSWA describes itself as representing the interests of the nation’s “smallest and most economically-vulnerable oil and natural gas wells.”

TFG has lobbied on the group’s behalf for industry-favorable positions on “percentage depletion” and “pass-through deduction”— two separate tax provisions that allow eligible oil and gas operators to reduce taxable income and federal income tax burdens. The NSWA has framed these tax provisions as a way to help these smaller operators stay afloat. However, an Environmental Defense Fund analysis has shown that even though the industry likes to maintain that marginal wells are run by small businesses, nearly half of all marginal wells are owned by just 93 corporations, each of which controls more than 1,000 wells.

Shortly after The Ferguson Group began lobbying for Paradise, the firm also started working for the Permian Basin Petroleum Association (PBPA), the oldest and most active trade association representing oil and gas operators, midstream providers, and service companies across the largest oil-producing region in the United States.

Christopher Kearney, a principal and oil and gas lobbyist at TFG, was the author of strikingly parallel language used by two small oil and gas producers in their 2024 congressional testimonies against the Waste Emissions Charge, a Biden-era methane fee charged to polluters, as reported by E&E News. Kearney was the signatory on the company’s lobbying disclosure forms regarding for its work for the NSWA from 2021 to 2026, and for the PBPA from 2020 to 2024.

Although these forms do not list greenhouse gas regulatory-related activities as part of The Ferguson Group’s work with the PBPA, E&E News reported in January 2024 that Michael Oestman, an oil and gas operator and “longtime” member of the PBPA, originally got connected to Kearney “through the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, which reached out to see if [Oestman] would be willing to testify before Congress on the methane fee.”

RELATED: How the Oil Industry Is Pushing EPA to ‘Effectively Gut’ Methane Rules During Affordability and Climate Crises

Additionally, the Ferguson group’s 2024 disclosure of its work for PBPA, the most recent year available, included “monitor[ing] Congressional and Federal agency activities related to addressing COVID on the general economy and the oil and gas industry” as well as “activities regarding Endangered Species Act reform.”

The Permian Basin is home to three of the country’s most endangered species, according to the Center for Biological Diversity: the lesser prairie chicken, freshwater mussel, and dunes sagebrush lizard. The Trump administration delisted the lizard from the Endangered Species Act in June, settling a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton contending that the rule could “undermine energy production” and threaten “private landowners’ ability to conduct business.”

In 2024, Texas produced about 28 percent of the nation’s total natural gas, and more than two fifths of the nation’s total crude oil production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

In addition to Paradise, Ferguson has also lobbied for Asheville, North Carolina after it was devastated by Hurricane Helene in 2024. The details of TFG’s work for Asheville included in its lobbying disclosure forms are limited, but each filing includes “work with the city in response to Hurricane Helene.” Asheville’s communications specialist declined to respond to DeSmog’s questions about the extent of TFG’s work with the community, the amount the city has paid to TFG, or its awareness of the firm’s work with fossil fuel clients.

“It almost becomes natural disaster tourism, right?” said Browning of F Minus. “They see a natural disaster and they swoop in. And now they’re making money by lobbying off it.”

A separate report from Brown University’s Climate Development Lab (CDL), published in tandem with the F Minus and Make Polluters Pay analysis, documented systemic and coordinated opposition to state-level climate superfund bills by fossil fuel and energy-intensive industries. This type of legislation, which is growing in popularity around the country, would require large fossil fuel producers and refiners to pay for state-level climate damages as well as adapting infrastruture to the new climate normal  

“To me, it’s an issue of kindergarten ethics,” said Timmons Roberts, a professor of environmental studies at Brown who a co-authored the report. “If you know you made a mess, you clean it up.”

The Brown researchers found that while support for climate superfund bills has “dominated” pubic hearings, groups lobbying in opposition to them have made more submissions during public comment periods, sometimes swaying state leaders against the legislation. The Ferguson Group was not named in the report.

The post Consulting Firm Lobbied for Town Hit by Climate Disaster and Fossil Fuel Group at the Same Time appeared first on DeSmog.

The connection with the ocean is central to the worldview for Indigenous Peoples around the world. For many Indigenous Peoples of the Pacific this profound connection is reflected in creation stories. In those stories, deities, islands, and humans emerged from the depths of the sea. It is the home of ancestors. 

The territory of voyaging Peoples of the Pacific stretches across the whole of the ocean. The territories in the sea are part of a global web of life. And that is being threatened in a race to plunder the ocean floor.

When companies mine on land, most governments require them to study the impact of their mine. It is well-accepted that companies must study and address impacts on human rights, including Indigenous Peoples’ rights, and the environment. The ocean, however, doesn’t have the same safeguards — yet. 

The rules for deep sea mining are still being written

Right now, the International Seabed Authority is writing the rules that most of the globe will follow if it mines the deep ocean. The ISA was formed by a 1994 agreement that put into effect part of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It governs more than half of the world’s oceans, and 172 countries are members. 

(Side note: The United States is not a member, and the Trump administration has said it will permit companies to mine the deep sea without regard for international law. You can read more on the threat of unilateral mining here.)

Indigenous Peoples’ rights aren’t being respected

There’s a big problem with what’s happening at the ISA now, however: Indigenous Peoples have no formal seat at the table. Their collective rights are not being taken seriously. 

Mining companies want us to think of the ocean as a vast, isolated blank space just because no one lives on the deep ocean floor. But what non-Indigenous people describe as empty, Pacific Peoples revere as the genesis of existence and source of sustenance and livelihoods. The ocean connects and represents the shared heritage and ancestry of all Pacific Peoples.

Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge tells us that a healthy ocean is sacred, integral to all life on the planet, significant, and worth defending. For many Indigenous Peoples, it also represents a key part of how they live and sustain themselves. It is how their ancestors navigated across islands and land masses. It holds sacred and ceremonial sites. And yet, despite this, their voices and rights are being sidelined. 

The ecological data gathered and knowledge systems built over millenia of lived experience of Indigenous Peoples must inform every part of the work of the ISA. This should include any regulations for mining the deep sea, from planning and study to monitoring and economics.

International law and treaties require better

The countries who are members of the ISA must listen to Indigenous Peoples when they write new rules — not just because it’s the right thing to do, and not just because it gives our planet a better chance for a livable future. The requirement is written into treaties and into international law.

Other international bodies already have processes in place to formally recognize and consult with Indigenous Peoples. The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change both have formal ways for Indigenous Peoples to participate in decision-making. The ISA, if guided by Indigenous Peoples, can use these models to develop its own such structures.

Indigenous Peoples’ cultural heritage is at risk

Over the past few years, the ISA has been addressing the issue of “underwater cultural heritage”. This is an issue that shows how Indigenous Peoples’ rights can deepen conversations that might otherwise be sidelined.

Underwater cultural heritage sites are required to be protected. But right now, the policy defines those sites as only encompassing human-made objects — shipwrecks, for example.

Indigenous Peoples recognize sites in the ocean as especially culturally and spiritually important. These spaces aren’t human-made, but they hold stories, traditions, and significance that cannot be replaced. Advocates from Pacific Indigenous Peoples say these sites deserve protection.

The current definition of “underwater cultural heritage” gives more protection to a 100-year-old shipwreck than it gives to a sacred site that took millions of years to form and has been a place used and respected by people for thousands of years. 

“Stonehenge, Pyramids, and the Great Wall, without their stories, are simply a collection of stones. Their meaning comes from the traditions, histories, beliefs, and relationships that have been carried from one generation to the next. The same is true beneath the ocean. Culture is not found in the artifact — it is found in the story the artifact carries.”
Statement by the Maui Nui Makai Network (Hawaiʻi)

But framing these sacred spaces through a narrow lens of “underwater cultural heritage” sets the bar far too low. Instead of debating ambiguous terms, the ISA could use the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a baseline. It’s a framework that would shift the discussions. Instead of limited opportunities for participation, Indigenous Peoples would have their collective rights recognized by the ISA. Those rights strengthen their ability to continue to protect cultural and spiritual relationships with the ocean, for the benefit of all.

Setting the course for our future

The ISA may be writing policies that most people on the planet will never read, but those policies cut right to some of the biggest questions that will determine our future: Whose stories matter? Whose knowledge is respected? Whose history is valued? Whose rights are defended? And how will those answers shape the Earth that future generations inherit?

The post Indigenous Peoples’ Knowledge Is Left Behind in the Rush to Mine the Seafloor appeared first on Earthworks.

In order to solve climate change, you have to do two things — stop burning fossil fuels, and build clean energy to replace them. The last few decades in the United States have witnessed a long back-and-forth over which of the two goals is more important, and over how to achieve either of them. Is it more important to pass a carbon tax, or subsidize electric vehicles? To block a new oil pipeline, or build a lot of solar and wind? 

On this question, the coalition known as the climate movement has fractured into two broad groups. On one side, there are activists, lawyers, and environmentalists, who tend to focus on blocking and reducing fossil fuel use. On the other, there are renewable energy companies and policy wonks, who tend to focus on building more clean energy.

These factions have clashed in the past, but over the past week a kind of civil war has erupted between the different elements of the climate movement. The inciting incident was the release of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, or BAAJA, a long-awaited Senate bill that is designed to enable the construction of more power plants, transmission lines, and gas pipelines. The bill does this by weakening some of the nation’s bedrock environmental laws, speeding up the timeline for government agencies to issue permits, and making it harder to cancel projects that have already gotten federal approval. 

For climate-conscious supporters of the bill, it’s better for the planet to build a lot of clean energy even if it means some fossil fuels get built as well, and even if they cause some damage to the environment on the way. Supporters of the effort argue that if the U.S. builds out new clean capacity, it will be easier to wean off fossil fuels, which are the primary cause of global warming and all its myriad consequences. Opponents say that’s a Faustian bargain, one that will jeopardize tribal nations, other marginalized communities, and endangered species.

“It is definitely exposing a potential fault line between the environmental community and clean energy interests,” said Representative Jared Huffman, a Democrat who represents Northern California, in an interview with Grist. 

Representative Jared Huffman, a Democrat from California, is skeptical of the Senate permitting reform bill. Andrew Harnik / Getty Images

BAAJA is the product of months of bipartisan negotiation between four members of the Senate committees focused on energy and the environment. The two Democrats in the talks were Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, who are both climate hawks and clean energy advocates. The Republicans were Mike Lee of Utah and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, who are advocates of fossil fuels and critics of environmental regulation. Despite their ideological differences, the four senators managed to reach a compromise on a sprawling 400-page bill with hundreds of individual provisions. 

The so-called “four corners” reached a deal just before Congress left for its fall recess, and the Senate will not return to take up the bill until after the midterm elections. The bill has not even made it through committee yet, and it also faces an uncertain fate in the House of Representatives. The next few weeks will see a scramble of lobbying as supporters and opponents of the bill try to sway senators and representatives for or away from the bill.

So far, at least, the builders seem to have more influence than the blockers, at least within the climate movement. President Donald Trump has spent the last two years repealing most federal climate policy and blocking the development of new clean energy, and many climate advocates seem willing to accept an imperfect deal rather than hold out hope of fixing Trump’s damage after he leaves office.

“It’s a lot easier to prevent things from being built than to build things, and that applies both to fossil fuels and to renewables,” said Zeke Hausfather, a climate expert at the science nonprofit Berkeley Earth, who also directs climate research for the tech company Stripe. “I don’t want us to run roughshod over any community, but we also can’t give everyone a veto for an issue as important as climate change. So ultimately, we need to strike a balance there.”

The case in favor: Build more

A big challenge with building clean energy is that it takes up a lot of space. Solar farms and wind farms can cover thousands of acres of land, and the transmission lines that carry their power to cities can extend for hundreds of miles, covering far more territory than coal and natural gas plants do. This large footprint makes these projects more likely to touch federal lands or waters, which triggers a series of obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act, the foundational environmental protection law also known as NEPA, and other laws that protect endangered species and historical artifacts. Under NEPA, federal agencies must carry out an extensive analysis of a project’s environmental impacts before issuing or denying a permit for it.

That review process often inspires time-consuming litigation. Opponents can bring lawsuits against an agency even years after a review is complete, arguing the review wasn’t comprehensive enough, and they can ask courts to halt the project until the agency redoes the analysis. A 2025 study found that 64 percent of solar projects, 38 percent of wind projects, and 31 percent of transmission line projects face NEPA lawsuits.  

This litigation can come from almost anyone, and can cover almost any conceivable impact from a project. On one end of the spectrum, a coalition of tribes and environmental groups sued the developer of the SunZia transmission line. The line carries much-needed wind power to Arizona and California, but the plaintiffs wanted the developer to reroute the wires away from a holy cultural site, an effort that was ultimately unsuccessful. On the other hand, opponents of a wind project in California delayed development for years by suing on the grounds that a federal agency had failed to consider pseudoscientific theories about wind turbines creating dangerous electromagnetic fields. Both projects were ultimately completed, but years behind schedule.

A group of wind turbines generate electricity at the Block Island Wind Farm off the coast of Rhode Island. The clean energy industry has pushed for provisions that would prevent President Donald Trump from canceling future offshore wind permits.
John Moore / Getty Images

The bill would make it much harder to file this kind of lawsuit. Litigation would need to be brought within 150 days of the end of the NEPA review process, rather than six years, and the plaintiff must have already described the issue of their suit during a public comment period. Even then, a court could only order the agency to redo its analysis while a project moves forward, rather than pausing a project altogether. The agency could then only revoke the permit under limited circumstances, including a violation of law or the risk of immediate or substantial harm to “life, property, national security, or defense.”  

“This is a great bill, and it’s a huge step in the right direction,” said Ray Long, the president of ACORE, a trade group representing the solar and wind industry. “We need to really put this in reality. We need to build a ton of stuff over the next four years, or else we’re gonna have higher [electricity] prices.”

A related set of provisions makes it harder for the government itself to block projects, providing developers with “permitting certainty.” Here, both the Republicans and Democrats believe they have won — Republicans resent President Joe Biden’s decisions to block the Keystone XL oil pipeline and to pause the construction of new liquefied-natural gas terminals on the Gulf Coast, while Democrats have watched the second Trump administration use dubious executive authorities to halt the construction of solar and wind farms on federal lands and waters. One provision in the bill would help developers seek compensation if they can establish that the government has discriminated against a specific project type, like offshore wind, through delayed and canceled permits.

“This president has found ways to skirt the edges of every law that we have, and his attacks will continue,” said Kris Ohleth, executive director of Special Initiative on Offshore Wind, a pro-offshore wind nonprofit research group. “But at least if developers know they can recoup some of their development costs, as this bill might allow, it’s more appealing for them to return to the market.”

What’s arguably the most important thing in the bill doesn’t have to do with permitting per se. It’s about the massive transmission lines that carry electricity from region to region. The United States has built very few of these interstate lines in recent years. This dearth of new wires has made it infeasible for developers to build more solar and wind. 

“Historically, it didn’t matter too much where power plants were located, so we built them close to where the power was needed,” said Chirag Lala, vice president of research and chief economist at the Center for Public Enterprise, a think tank. “But we don’t have that same luxury with clean energy, which can be very location-specific. If you’re going to rely on those resources, you have to ship the power over long distances.”

High-voltage transmission lines run through the Central Valley of California. The bipartisan permitting bill would overhaul federal rules for transmission, requiring utilities to plan for more lines that move clean energy around the country. Jay L. Clendenin / Getty Images

BAAJA would force utilities and regional grid operators to plan for interregional transmission lines, and would let private developers (like the one behind SunZia) come in and build lines themselves if utilities don’t build enough. The bill would also clear away a number of procedural roadblocks that have allowed utilities to block interregional transmission. 

The Democrats who negotiated the bill and the climate experts who support it see these provisions as a sea change for clean energy. If the bill passes, it could unleash solar in Nevada and wind in the Dakotas, and then bring that power to places like Appalachia that have little solar or wind potential of their own.

The case against: Stop the damage

But while the clean energy industry has celebrated the bill’s effort to speed up permitting for new power plants, many environmental groups have condemned it. These groups argue that the changes would allow for a surge of new development near disadvantaged communities, and will leave residents with no legal recourse to stop that development. 

These groups argue, in essence, that the bill sacrifices many communities in places like the Gulf South in order to achieve an overall nationwide increase in the supply of clean energy. 

“That battle between fossil fuels and renewables is not going to necessarily go well for the people of our region, especially if you take those regular protections that we’ve relied on for years away,” said Liz Zepeda, the director of federal policy at the Southern Environmental Law Center, an environmental law group that represents six states in the Southeast. 

The permitting changes have also drawn intense criticism from Indigenous groups, who say that the narrowing of historic preservation law would deprive tribal nations of a voice in development decisions. By the time that tribes learned about a company’s plans for a new transmission line or solar farm, it could be too late for them to protect culturally important sites.

“These changes will reduce opportunities for Tribal Nations to learn that an infrastructure project is occurring or to participate before decisions are made, all but guaranteeing that construction or other activities affecting sacred places can proceed without meaningful Tribal involvement,” said Valerie Grussing, the executive director of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, a group representing tribal officials who advise federal agencies on protecting Indigenous historic sites during project development.

The bill would constrain litigation on behalf of endangered species and would also weaken states’ power to stop development under the Clean Water Act. This latter state power has been used in the past to take down old hydropower dams, like the ones on the Klamath River, and that would now be harder.

BAAJA would also allow mines on public lands to unload excavated rock and waste materials on adjacent land. Mining is essential for clean energy development — solar panels, wind turbines, and EV batteries all need metals and minerals — but some environmental groups worry about the impact on local ecosystems.

Indigenous youth and climate activists hold a protest against pipeline projects in Washington, D.C., in 2021. A new bipartisan permitting reform bill in the Senate would make it easier to build many pipelines.
Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

In addition to raising concerns about environmental and social impacts, opponents argue that the bill would lock in future development of fossil fuels, which could negate the climate benefit of building clean energy. Among the biggest concessions to Republicans is a broad environmental exemption for natural gas pipelines, which, along with the Clean Water Act changes, would make it much harder for states on the East Coast to block new pipelines. Hausfather, who is supportive of the bill, allows that more gas reaching the Northeast would likely cause emissions to go up, though he believes that increased clean energy development elsewhere would more than offset those increases.

The bills’ opponents are also extremely skeptical of the “permitting certainty” provisions that the offshore wind industry welcomed. The bill would prohibit the president and federal agencies from discriminating against any specific energy source, but that prohibition would apply to fossil fuels as well as renewables. It would in theory make it almost impossible for a future president to undertake an LNG pause like the one Biden pursued, or to block offshore oil development. 

“If you have a dominant industry right now, which is the fossil fuel industry, you are creating a structure that makes it possible for them to lock in their dominance forever,” said Brett Hartl, the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, the environmental protection nonprofit that has led the opposition to the bill.

Opponents argue that by trading away their ability to stop new oil and gas production, the bill would hamstring the climate fight, no matter how much solar and wind gets built.

“Do we just ignore the political and economic power of the fossil fuel industry, and just hope and pray we can deploy renewable energy fast enough to reduce emissions?” asked Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, a nonprofit environmental group. “That’s what this bill does.” 

Builders vs. blockers

BAAJA’s fate is far from guaranteed. In addition to the opposition from influential groups like the Center for Biological Diversity, there are a number of House members who have expressed uncertainty about the bill. At least one senior Republican, Brett Guthrie, has said he opposes the effort to force new transmission lines, and major utilities will likely oppose that provision as well. On the Democratic side, Huffman, the representative from California, told Grist that he thinks Democrats can likely get a better deal after the midterms.

“The idea that this is this once-in-a-lifetime great opportunity that will never come again and has to be accepted without any scrutiny or questions is pretty silly,” he told Grist. Huffman said he believes the bill is a “Trojan horse” with “giveaways” for the fossil fuel industry, and said he believes he could negotiate a bill without significant environmental rollbacks should the Democrats take control of the House. 

But even if Democrats retake the House and the Senate, they will need some Republican votes to pass a major transmission reform, so some kind of compromise is inevitable. Many supporters say they doubt that Republicans would negotiate a bill when in the minority, or that Trump would sign a Democrat-led bill.

For now, the bill seems to have split the climate movement down the middle. While hundreds of small environmental groups signed a letter urging Democratic senators not to pass the bill, most major green groups did not sign. The list of absences includes the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Nature Conservancy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, arguably the nation’s most influential climate nonprofit, whose leader said in a public statement the bill raises “hard questions” but could be “good for clean energy — really good. ” Others, like Citizen’s Climate Lobby, have offered their unequivocal support. Even the environmental opponents seem somewhat fractured — when a group of opposing nonprofits held a Zoom call to coordinate their strategy, someone leaked the transcript to Punchbowl News.

The fact that the bill has a chance of passing with some support from green groups and climate hawks like Whitehouse reflects a shift in the American climate movement. The movement took off during the fracking boom with protests against pipeline projects like Keystone XL, but efforts to phase out fossil fuels have been stymied by court decisions and administration changes. During that time, solar and wind have both experienced dramatic growth as they’ve gotten cheaper to build, but they are now hitting bottlenecks thanks to transmission constraints and environmental review. 

The fact that Whitehouse and Heinrich came to the table with Republicans, and that so many green groups aren’t fighting their compromise, may be a sign about how climate advocates have come to see fossil fuels: If you can’t beat ’em, build something that can replace ’em.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The bipartisan energy bill tearing the climate movement apart on Oct 8, 2026.

As part of the Trump administration’s ongoing push to illegally expand oil and gas drilling into long-protected Arctic public lands in Alaska, the Department of the Interior today announced a categorical exclusion that aims to exempt oil and gas exploration projects from individual review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Under the categorical exclusion, Interior is relying on old environmental studies from different projects in ecologically distinct areas to claim that new proposed activities would have “no significant impact on the environment.”

Categorical exclusions are typically used by federal agencies only for small projects like routine road or trail maintenance, restoration work, or minor facility upgrades – when no harm is expected to the environment. An exemption for large-scale industrial activities like exploratory drilling and seismic testing across a landscape as vast, varied, and changing as the Western Arctic is a radical departure for how categorical exclusions are typically used.

The 23-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in the Western Arctic is the largest tract of public land in the U.S. Its diverse habitats range from tundra and wetlands to mountain foothills, grassy uplands, riparian areas, and river deltas. Using older studies that analyzed impacts of oil exploration in a specific area of the Western Arctic to forecast impacts for future projects in ecologically different locations is extremely problematic and unsupported. It would also completely cut out the public from future permitting decisions.

“In issuing this categorical exclusion, this administration is seeking to fast track large scale oil drilling and seismic exploration without any further environmental analysis or public input,” said Earthjustice Attorney Janet Bering. “It is cutting the public out of this decision and future decisions. The administration finalized this new approach with zero public input. Combined with a similar proposal that rubber stamps new oil production, this is a one-two punch. It’s bad policy, and it is unlawful.”

Exploration projects, which include seismic surveys, exploratory drilling, and related infrastructure, are known to harm wildlife, including caribou and polar bears. Seismic surveys are conducted with thumper trucks weighing tens of thousands of pounds that repeatedly strike the ground with a large plate to send seismic waves into the earth to detect oil deposits. Transporting industrial equipment and camps for seismic workers across sensitive landscapes also comes with significant risk to the environment.

Last winter, a massive drilling rig nicknamed “the beast” toppled over, caught fire and spilled diesel while it was being transported on an ice road to a new exploration site.

Today’s action follows a similar proposed rule announced by the Trump administration last month to rubber stamp new drilling production projects in the Western Arctic. The public may comment on that proposed rule, but if itis finalized, the public would be cut out of the process. The production rule aims to require Interior to approve new projects as massive as Willow within a 60-day limit of the oil company submitting its application, without any additional environmental study or public process.

Background

The 23-million-acre Reserve in the Western Arctic is one of the most biologically, ecologically, and culturally significant tracts of public land in the United States. The region is home to iconic and imperiled wildlife species like polar bears and seals that depend on sea ice. It provides globally significant habitat for millions of migratory birds and for Alaska’s unique caribou herds.

The Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 recognized the importance of the Western Arctic for wildlife and migratory birds including animals protected under the Endangered Species Act, and for the cultural practices and food security of Indigenous communities. The act requires the BLM to assure adequate mitigation of harm from oil and gas activities, and “maximum protection” of the fragile tundra, birds, wildlife and other unique resources within the Reserve when it allows exploration or drilling in special areas. When Congress authorized leasing and oil extraction in 1980, it again directed the federal government to assure the protection of the Western Arctic’s ecological and cultural resources.

Today, the Trump administration invited fresh controversy when it announced it will abandon environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to allow oil and gas companies to run roughshod over pristine Arctic ecosystems to search for expensive, far flung oil.

The Bureau of Land Management granted the polluters a new categorical exclusion that will allow activities including seismic surveys, construction of ice roads and airstrips, and exploratory drilling to move forward without the environmental analysis typically required under NEPA. The decision comes as the Trump administration continues its push to expand oil and gas development across Alaska's public lands, threatening sensitive Arctic wildlife and the communities that depend on them.

In response, Mike Scott, National Oil and Gas Campaign Manager, released the following statement:

“The Trump administration is handing Big Oil another free pass to exploit America's public lands, this time by gutting environmental oversight in one of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet. Oil companies have already shown the risks they pose to the Western Arctic, and now this administration wants to make it even easier for them to drill without scrutiny.”

“This isn't about lowering energy costs or helping Alaskans. It's about doing the fossil fuel industry's bidding at the expense of wildlife, Alaska Native communities, and our public lands. The Trump administration is putting corporate profits ahead of people and the planet, and the Western Arctic will pay the price."

In response to allegations that U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle abused her diplomatic position to advance private gas interests in the Balkans, Oil Change International’s Allie Rosenbluth said:

“Trump’s push to lock Europe into decades of U.S. gas dependence puts fossil fuel profits ahead of people’s energy bills, health, and safety [1]. Any use of diplomatic power to threaten elected governments or secure private gas deals would be an outrageous abuse of public office and must be investigated.”

Note to the editor:
[1] To read more about Europe’s increasing dependence on U.S. LNG imports: Pay, Baby, Pay: Trump’s AI and energy dominance agenda means costlier LNG for Europe.