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
For Immediate Release
August, 13 2015, 11:00am EDT
Contact:
Hannah McKinnon, hannah [at] priceofoil [dot] org
David Turnbull, david [at] priceofoil [dot] org
Travis Nichols, tnichols [at] greenpeace [dot] org
New Report Details the Climate Case Against Drilling in the Arctic
Arctic oil a risky bet climate change will remain unaddressed
WASHINGTON
A new report released today by Oil Change International and Greenpeace USA details a clear case against drilling for oil in the Arctic ocean based on climate science imperatives. The report, entitled "Untouchable: The Climate Case Against Arctic Drilling," shows U.S. Arctic offshore oil should be deemed an "untouchable" fossil fuel reserve by any reasonable measure.
"There is no reasonable scenario in which Arctic oil drilling and a safe climate future co-exist. Drilling in the Arctic is a climate disaster, plain and simple," said report author Hannah McKinnon, Senior Campaigner with Oil Change International.
While industry and government actors have claimed that Arctic oil is necessary to meet future oil demand, the analysis shows that such claims are based on oil supply and demand scenarios that will lead to at least 5 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100. Such warming would catastrophically exceed the 2?C warming limit agreed to by most countries, including the United States, and would lead to human and ecological disasters.
"What happens in the Arctic matters to all of us. America is living with the floods, storms and heatwaves caused by global warming, and this report makes absolutely clear that Arctic drilling will only make it worse," said Tim Donaghy, Senior Research Specialist at Greenpeace. "The President can't continue to leave the the fate of the Arctic-and his climate legacy-up to a disastrous corporation like Shell. It's not too late to rescind the lease and make the Arctic permanently off-limits to catastrophic oil drilling."
Arctic drilling, the report shows, would unlock new and unburnable carbon that does not fit in a climate-safe scenario. The report also shows the inherent flaws in widely used energy scenarios, such as the EIA's Reference Case scenario, that assume a world where oil demand grows, climate action fails, and the unprecedented growth of cleaner energy alternatives collapses - assumptions that contradict global trends.
Further, the report finds that Arctic oil drilling requires high oil -- and gasoline -- prices in order for it to be profitable. Prices in a climate safe scenario could be 35 to 50% lower than in a business as usual scenario.
"Shell's gamble in the Arctic is a bad bet. And it is a bet that has struck a chord with millions of concerned citizens across the U.S. and around the world who are committed to standing up to fossil fuel giants who are sacrificing our climate for their profit," said McKinnon. "President Obama should put an end to Shell's reckless Arctic pursuits and take us one step closer to a safe, just, and clean energy future."
The report can be found here: https://priceofoil.org/2015/08/13/untouchable-the-climate-case-against-arctic-drilling
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029LATEST NEWS
'Doing Intuit's Bidding,' Republicans Move to Officially Kill IRS Direct File
"Clearly corporate cronyism is more important to Republicans than lowering costs for ordinary Americans and increasing the efficiency of government services."
May 15, 2025
In addition to showering rich Americans and large corporations with more tax breaks, legislation that Republicans advanced out of committee on Wednesday would officially eliminate the Internal Revenue Service's popular and free Direct File program, which allowed eligible taxpayers to sidestep private prep companies that have lobbied relentlessly against government-offered alternatives for decades.
The tax legislation that the GOP-controlled House Ways and Means Committee approved in a party-line vote contains an underlooked provision that requires the U.S. Treasury Department to "ensure that the Internal Revenue Service Direct File program has been terminated."
The bill also opens the door to a "partnership between the IRS and private-sector tax preparation services to provide for free tax filing" to replace Direct File, which has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration and the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency.
Watchdogs said the measure's language reeks of corporate influence.
"Corporate monopolist Intuit spent millions lobbying Republicans to insulate TurboTax from competition," said Hannah Garden Monheit, a senior fellow at the American Economic Liberties Project. "Now, House Republicans are doing Intuit's bidding by killing the Direct File program, which provided free, simplified public tax filing software beloved by its users."
"Direct File saves the average American $160 in filing fees and hours of time each year, and continuing it would save $11 billion annually," she added. "Expanding and improving Direct File should've been an easy win for DOGE, but clearly corporate cronyism is more important to Republicans than lowering costs for ordinary Americans and increasing the efficiency of government services."
"Trump will force you to fork out hundreds of dollars each year to TurboTax so he can give tax breaks to billionaires."
Direct File, which began as a pilot program during the 2024 tax filing season, threatened the dominance of Intuit and H&R Block, corporate giants that control the private tax preparation space and have been accused of engaging in deceptive marketing practices—particularly in their promotion of "free" services.
A report published earlier this year by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen noted that both companies have donated heavily to Republican lawmakers, including members of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Late last year, dozens of House Republicans signed a letter urging the then-incoming Trump administration to eliminate the Direct File program. Letter signatories had received $1.8 million in campaign contributions from corporate interests opposing Direct File, including lobbyists for the private tax prep industry, according to Public Citizen.
"During the 2024 cycle, 19 of the Republican signers received a PAC contribution from either H&R Block or Intuit," Public Citizen found. "One of the letter's drafters, Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), received a PAC contribution from both companies."
The tax prep industry has also recently ramped up its lobbying efforts. NOTUSreported last month that "Intuit spent $3.7 million on federal lobbying in 2024, more money than it has ever spent on federal lobbying in a single year."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, called Republicans' push to terminate Direct File "an under-the-radar" part of their tax plan.
"Trump will force you to fork out hundreds of dollars each year to TurboTax so he can give tax breaks to billionaires," Wyden wrote Wednesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Outrage as House Republicans Advance 'Cruel and Reckless' Medicaid Cuts
"President Trump repeatedly promised Republicans were not going to cut Medicaid, but that was a lie since Republicans just voted for the largest Medicaid cut in history," noted one Democratic lawmaker.
May 14, 2025
A committee in the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives voted Wednesday to advance a bill containing deep cuts to Medicaid and other vital social services while rejecting every single Democratic amendment that would have protected access to healthcare for millions of the most vulnerable Americans.
After a marathon 26-hour session, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 30-24 along party lines for legislation that's part of the GOP budget reconciliation package, or U.S. President Donald Trump's desire for one "big, beautiful bill." The proposal—which is aimed at slashing $880 billion in federal spending—would give massive tax breaks to the wealthiest U.S. households and corporations while eviscerating social programs and cost an estimated $3.8 trillion through 2034.
"House Speaker Mike Johnson said his party wouldn't cut Medicaid. And then they did."
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, as many as 13.7 million Americans would lose healthcare coverage by 2034 if the bill is passed as written. The proposal will now head to the House Budget Committee, which is set to convene Friday. Meanwhile, the House Agriculture Committee continued debating part of the reconciliation package that includes a $290 billion cut in funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
"It's outrageous Republicans forced this debate to occur late into the night when most of the country was asleep and couldn't see what they were up to," Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) said Wednesday. "After 26 hours, Republicans failed to justify their draconian Medicaid cuts."
"The truth is Republicans want to rush this legislation through because they know the American people will be outraged by what's in the bill," Pallone added. "President Trump repeatedly promised Republicans were not going to cut Medicaid, but that was a lie since Republicans just voted for the largest Medicaid cut in history."
Ranking Member Pallone on the 26+ hour fight through the night to protect Americans against Republicans’ draconian health care cuts:
[image or embed]
— Energy and Commerce Democrats ( @energycommerce.bsky.social) May 14, 2025 at 1:49 PM
Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) noted that during the 26-hour session, House Republicans "rejected every single Democratic amendment... that would have protected Americans' healthcare, lowered out-of-pocket costs for working families, kept pollution out of our children's schools, and so much more."
"Instead, every Republican member of this committee voted to preserve a cruel and reckless bill that will rip health coverage away from millions of Americans," she added.
Activists and advocacy groups also decried Wednesday's vote, which came a day after more than two dozen demonstrators were arrested at the U.S. Capitol while protesting the bill.
"This partisan bill is nothing more than an attack on the healthcare system on which we all rely, to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations," Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said in a statement.
"Many Republicans on that committee said they wouldn't touch Medicaid and that the word Medicaid was not even in the bill," Wright added. "We can see that these were just empty promises, but we hope that other Republicans in the House and Senate come to their senses soon. The bill just doesn't cut Medicaid, it guts Medicaid."
This is who Trump and Republicans are targeting with their proposed Medicaid cuts.
[image or embed]
— CAP Action (@americanprogressaction.org) May 14, 2025 at 2:40 PM
People's Action Institute executive director Sulma Arias also issued a statement that began: "Promises made; promises broken. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said his party wouldn't cut Medicaid. And then they did."
"For months, Trump and House Republicans tried to hide the fact that they planned to cut Medicaid," Arias continued. "We warned the public that they were lying, and after this week's votes in committee, there can be no doubt."
"Medicaid is a lifeline for millions; when politicians take it away, they kill people," Arias added. "Through this budget, the billionaires and the bullies plan to do exactly that so they can steal these funds for themselves."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gabbard Fires Intel Officials After Memo Counters Trump Lies About Migrants Sent to El Salvador Prison
Critics called the ousters "ominous" and warned that "an intelligence service will not protect you from real-life threats if its members get fired for not lying."
May 14, 2025
Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial director of national intelligence, is generating alarm this week for firing two top officials after a memo contradicting the administration's claims about deported migrants was made public.
As Fox News first reported Tuesday, Gabbard fired Mike Collins, acting chair of the National Intelligence Council, and his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof, and moved the NIC from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
As The Hilldetailed:
Collins has spent nearly three decades in the intelligence community and has served as chief of staff for the CIA's deputy director. He started his career as an analyst focused on East Asia.
Langan-Riekhof also has more than 30 years of experience in the intelligence community, including as an expert on the Middle East. The ODNI previously listed her as an exceptional analyst. She also previously served as director of the Strategic Futures Group at the National Intelligence Council.
While an ODNI spokesperson told The Hill that "the director is working alongside President Trump to end the weaponization and politicization of the intelligence community," critics framed the firings as "the DEFINITION of politicizing intelligence."
"I am concerned about the apparent removal of senior leadership at the National Intelligence Council without any explanation except vague accusations made in the media," Congressman Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, toldThe Washington Post. "Absent evidence to justify the firings, the workforce can only conclude that their jobs are contingent on producing analysis that is aligned with the president's agenda, rather than truthful and apolitical."
The NIC leaders were fired after last week's release of an NIC memo confirming that U.S. intelligence agencies never agreed with Trump's claim that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro controls the criminal gang Tren de Aragua. The April 7 document states that "while Venezuela's permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States."
Although, as the Post noted, "it was unclear what, if any, direct role Collins or Langan-Riekhof had in drafting the assessment," its release provoked pushback from Gabbard, who said last week that it was "outrageous that as President Trump and his administration work hard every day to make America safe by deporting these violent criminals, some in the media remain intent on twisting and manipulating intelligence assessments to undermine the president's agenda to keep the American people safe."
Trump has used dubious claims about Maduro controlling the gang to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act to send hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center as part of his mass deportation agenda.
Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) said on social media Wednesday: "Gabbard is purging intelligence officials over a report that the Trump administration finds politically inconvenient. Whatever the administration is trying to protect... it's not our national security."
Other critics called Gabbard's moves "ominous" and warned that "an intelligence service will not protect you from real-life threats if its members get fired for not lying."
The U.S. intelligence community (IC) "provides analysis independent of policy preferences," said James Madison University professor and former CIA analyst Stephen Marrin. "When those in power do not want to hear inconvenient facts and unwanted interpretation and punish messengers that provide it, that undermines the reason the IC was created in the first place."
Jonathan Panikoff, a former career U.S. intelligence officer who is now a director in the Atlantic Council's Middle East Program, said that "having spent five years working at the NIC, I can personally attest the [organization] is the heartbeat of apolitical U.S. all-source analysis, traditionally drawing the best of the IC's analysts together to tackle and produce assessments on the hardest issues. Anything that reduces its independence because policymakers don't like the independent conclusions it reaches, is the definition of politicization they are decrying. Mike and Maria are unbelievable leaders and IC professionals, not political actors."
Eric Brewer, who also worked for NIC, expressed full agreement with Panikoff's "excellent comments" and issued his own warning.
"This is a big deal. The result will be an IC less willing to tell the president and other leaders what they need to know rather than what they want to hear. America will be less secure because of it," Brewer said. "The professionals in the IC can withstand a lot, and will no doubt do their utmost to continue to provide objective assessments. But this act is blatant politicization and will have a chilling effect."
The memo that seemingly led to the NIC firings was revealed as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Freedom of the Press Foundation. Lauren Harper, the group's Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy, shared the Post's reporting about the ousters on social media Wednesday along with an observation.
"The director of national intelligence's FOIA website (which has reappeared after the entire site was briefly down) no longer has a reading room of released documents or links to its FOIA regulations which, were we to be picky, violates the EFOIA amendments of 1996," Harper highlighted. "Amazing timing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular