April, 13 2021, 12:00am EDT
WASHINGTON
Today, Greenpeace USA, the Movement for Black Lives, and the Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy are releasing Fossil Fuel Racism: How Phasing Out Oil, Gas, and Coal Can Protect Communities. Citing examples from Louisiana's "Cancer Alley" to California's Kern County and beyond, the report examines how every phase of fossil fuel production--extraction, transport, refining, and production--disproportionately pollutes Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor communities.
Original analysis from Greenpeace included in the report reveals that oil, gas, and petrochemical refining are among the most disproportionately polluting sectors of the economy, even when compared to other heavily polluting industries.
Additional key evidence includes:
- Overall, air pollution in the United States has declined over the last several decades. But communities of color -- especially Black and Latinx communities -- remain the most exposed to toxic air.
- On average, Black communities are 54 percent more exposed to particulate matter pollution than the national population. Latinx communities are 20 percent more exposed.
- Racially discriminatory policies of the past like redlining definitively contribute to greater exposure to extreme heat, higher rates of asthma, and proximity to oil drilling today.
- Pollution from natural gas infrastructure -- including pipelines, drilling sites, and processing plants -- has increased the risk of cancer for 1 million Black Americans. It's also contributed to 138,000 asthma attacks and 101,000 lost school days for Black children.
- Nationally, 17.6 million people live within one mile of an active oil or gas well and more than 6.1 million people live within three miles of an oil and gas refinery.
"Fossil fuel pollution is a public health crisis for Black people and fossil fuel emissions are a death sentence for the planet," said Colette Pichon Battle, Founder and Executive Director of the Gulf Coast Center for Law & Policy and Leadership Team Member with the Movement for Black Lives. "Black and poor communities endure a disproportionate burden of toxic pollution while a handful of fossil fuel companies are raking in millions of dollars in profits. We deserve a world beyond fossil fuels. It's time for a national divestment in all that harms Black lives and investment in a just, equitable, renewable energy future for our communities."
Despite the overwhelming evidence of fossil fuels' contributions to the climate crisis and racial injustice, the Biden administration has not signaled any intention to wind down existing fossil fuel production. Evidence from 'natural experiments' where refineries and fossil-fueled power plants have been retired suggests that phasing out fossil fuels on a national scale would have significant public health benefits, particularly for historically targeted communities.
"Climate destruction is only possible because our government tolerates racism," said Tim Donaghy, PhD, Senior Research Specialist at Greenpeace USA. "The reality is that fossil fuel corporations would quickly cease to exist if they were held legally and financially accountable for the racist impacts of their pollution. President Biden himself has outlined four priorities for his administration: health, economic recovery, racial justice, and the climate crisis. By phasing out fossil fuel production, he can advance all four at once. When we pursue solutions that protect those on the frontlines, we give everyone the chance to thrive."
President Biden has a major chance to address fossil fuel racism in the United States' updated commitment to the Paris climate agreement, which he's expected to announce at the April 22 Earth Day Global Climate Summit. The science is clear: we cannot tackle the climate crisis--or systemic racism--and continue to burn fossil fuels.
The findings of the Fossil Fuel Racism report and policy solutions therein have been endorsed by 26 leading public health, climate, economic, and racial justice organizations: 350.org, Action Center on Race and the Economy, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Anti Police-Terror Project, Center for Biological Diversity, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Communities for a Better Environment, Earthworks, Friends of the Earth US, Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, GreenFaith, Idle No More SF Bay, Indivisible, Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, Movement Generation Justice & Ecology Project, Mothers Out Front, National Hispanic Medical Association, Oil Change International, Our Climate, People's Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Rainforest Action Network, RISE St. James, STAND-L.A., Sunrise Movement, and Working Families Party.
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000LATEST NEWS
Senate GOP and Fetterman Block Effort to Stop Trump's War on Iran
"The current cease-fire is fragile—and the only path to lasting peace is diplomacy, not another cycle of American military escalation," one campaigner stressed after lawmakers refused to advance the resolution.
Jun 27, 2025
Nearly all U.S. Senate Republicans and Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania on Friday evening blocked a resolution that reiterated Congress' authority to declare war and would have ordered President Donald Trump to stop taking military action against Iran without congressional approval.
Every other member of the Democratic Caucus and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) supported holding a final vote on the resolution—which Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, announced last week, before Trump's weekend bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities.
"We commend Sen. Kaine for his steadfast leadership in bringing this resolution, and the U.S. senators who stood on the right side of history today in safeguarding against yet another senseless war."
Citing the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, Kaine's measure states that "the question of whether United States forces should be engaged in hostilities against Iran should be answered following a full briefing to Congress and the American public of the issues at stake, a public debate in Congress, and a congressional vote."
Pointing to various other federal laws, Kaine's resolution "directs the president to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran."
In a statement after Friday's 47-53 vote, Kaine said that "the Framers of our Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war because they believed that the decision to send our nation's men and women in uniform into harm's way was too big for any one person. The Trump administration's chaotic strategy on Iran confused the American people and created significant risks for service members and their families."
"I am disappointed that many of my colleagues are not willing to stand up and say Congress needs to be part of a decision as important as whether or not the U.S. should send our nation's sons and daughters to fight against Iran," Kaine added. "I will continue to do all I can to keep presidents of any party from starting wars without robust public debate by Congress."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, was among the lawmakers who spoke in support of Kaine's resolution ahead of the vote. "We do not need another unnecessary and costly war. We have had enough of them," he said on the Senate floor, pointing out that the Vietnam War and the U.S. invasion of Iraq were "based on a series of lies."
"We should not go to war against Iran," Sanders declared. He condemned Trump's recent attack on the Middle Eastern country as "unconstitutional," and argued that "diplomacy is a better path," as demonstrated by the nuclear deal in 2015—which Trump ultimately ditched during his first term.
Sanders also made the case that the U.S. should not be allied with "war criminal" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who started the bombing of Iran and is wanted by the International Criminal Court for his mass slaughter of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
"Enough is enough," the senator said, noting that the U.S. gives Netanyahu's government billions of dollars in annual military aid. "It is beyond absurd that we continue to finance Israel's wars while neglecting the needs of our own people."
Meanwhile, in response to a question from a BBC reporter on Friday, Trump said that he would "without question, absolutely" consider bombing Iran again if intelligence suggested the country could enrich uranium to a level that concerned him.
After the Senate vote, National Iranian American Council president Jamal Abdi said that the outcome "says more about the makeup of the Senate than it does the merits of the resolution. Regardless, we saw a near majority do the right thing and stand up against war and for democracy, despite a cavalcade of misinformation from war hawks. We will continue to press the case that war with Iran is against U.S. interests and U.S. security, and redouble our work to prevent the conflict from reigniting."
"We commend Sen. Kaine for his steadfast leadership in bringing this resolution, and the U.S. senators who stood on the right side of history today in safeguarding against yet another senseless war," he continued, noting the cease-fire between Israel and Iran that Trump announced earlier this week.
"Though a cease-fire is holding for now, the most certain way to guarantee peace is through an abandonment of war and a bold pursuit of sincere negotiations," Abdi added. "We urge our Members of Congress to change course, and urgently support a return to U.S.—Iran talks and a diplomatic pathway forward for both countries."
We took an oath to defend the Constitution - just like every Senator. Today, Republicans broke that oath. We WILL hold them accountable. (2/2)
— VoteVets (@votevets.org) June 27, 2025 at 7:09 PM
Also responding to the Friday development in a statement, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian asserted that "today's vote sends a powerful message: There is a bipartisan movement to reject more war in the Middle East and prevent us from being unilaterally dragged into war before Congress and the American people can have their say."
"We thank Sen. Kaine for his leadership and Sen. Paul for his principled vote to stand up for the Constitution," Kharrazian said, urging the House of Representatives to pass a similar resolution led by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Ahead of the Senate's vote, more than 41,000 people nationwide had signed a petition from the progressive group MoveOn Civic Action that calls on Congress to vote for the resolutions in both chambers.
"The current cease-fire is fragile—and the only path to lasting peace is diplomacy, not another cycle of American military escalation," Kharrazian emphasized. "The U.S. must lead with restraint, not repeat the mistakes of endless war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Muslim Lawmakers Decry 'Vile' Bipartisan Islamophobic Attacks on Zohran Mamdani
The lawmakers asserted that "smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle" cannot be allowed to continue.
Jun 27, 2025
All four Muslim members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday condemned their colleagues' Islamophobic attacks on Democratic New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, which have come not only from Republicans but also from at least two congressional Democrats representing the candidate's home state.
"The vile, anti-Muslim, and racist smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle attacking Zohran Mamdani cannot be met with silence," Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), André Carson (D-Ind.), and Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement.
"At a time of increased violence against elected officials, we cannot allow the attacks on Zohran Mamdani to continue."
Mamdani—a democratic socialist who would be the first Muslim mayor of the nation's largest city if he wins November's general election—has come under fire by Republicans including Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, who on Thursday formally appealed to U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi to initiate proceedings to denaturalize and deport "little Muhammad."
Earlier this week, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) posted a photo of Mamdani wearing a traditional tunic with the caption, "After 9/11 we said, 'Never Forget.' I think sadly we have forgotten."
As of Friday afternoon, no Democratic member of Congress from New York had explicitly condemned their GOP colleagues' Islamophobic remarks. To the contrary, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) falsely claimed Thursday that Mamdani had made references to "global jihad" and spuriously asserted that "globalize the intifada"—a call for Palestinian liberation and battling injustice—is a call to "kill all the Jews."
Freshman Rep. Lauren Gillen (D-N.Y.) also falsely accused Mamdani of "a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable antisemitic comments."
The four Muslim lawmakers said in their statement that "these hateful, Islamophobic, and racist tropes have become so entrenched and normalized in our politics."
"We know these attacks all too well," they added.
Omar and Tlaib have been on the receiving end of Islamophobic attacks by House colleagues and outside death threats for years, stemming in part from Omar's status as refugee and Tlaib's as the only Palestinian American in Congress.
Like Mamdani, both lawmakers have also been targeted from both sides of the aisle for their support for Palestinian liberation, as well as their opposition to Israel's invasion, occupation, colonization and apartheid in Palestine, and the assault and siege of Gaza that are the subject of an ongoing International Court of Justice genocide case.
Advocacy groups have reported a sharp increase in anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian hate incidents since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led assault on Israel, a climate reminiscent of the pervasive Islamophobia following the September 11, 2001 attacks. There has also been a surge in antisemitism as Israeli forces obliterate Gaza, although critics have decried the widespread conflation of opposition to Zionism with hatred of Jewish people by groups including the Anti-Defamation League.
"At a time of increased violence against elected officials, we cannot allow the attacks on Zohran Mamdani to continue," the four lawmakers stressed. "They directly contribute to the ongoing dehumanization and violence against Muslim Americans. We unequivocally reject the normalization of anti-Muslim hate and fearmongering and call on elected leaders across our country to speak out."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also issued a statement Friday condemning the "outpouring of disgraceful, dangerous, racist ideology from sitting members of Congress and [Trump] administration officials following Zohran Mamdani's win in the New York mayoral primary."
Jayapal continued:
The constant displays of Islamophobia are an affront to the millions of Muslim Americans and Muslims around the world. One of the most jarring called for the denaturalization and deportation of Mr. Mamdani, an American citizen who just won a massive Democratic primary with more votes than that member, Mr. Ogles, could ever hope to win. This is an insult to voters in New York City who take democracy seriously.
Denaturalization of U.S. citizens is part of the Trump playbook to attack all legal immigration. It is completely outrageous and flies in the face of the laws of this country.
"The hateful language directed at Mr. Mamdani will get someone killed, and we all should be outraged," Jayapal added. "It must end. Every person who cares about democracy, freedom of religion, and the right for all Americans to be treated equally should speak out immediately against these insane and dangerous attacks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Religious Opt-Out Ruling 'Could Wreak Havoc on Public Schools'
The ruling, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reflects the right-wing majority's "failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."
Jun 27, 2025
A day after many LGBTQ+ Americans celebrated the 10th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established marriage equality in the United States, right-wing Justice Samuel Alito suggested in a new decision that public schools should not promote "acceptance of same-sex marriage."
Alito's opinion was handed down in a 6-3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the high court's right-wing majority held that parents should be permitted to opt their children out of certain lessons in public schools on religious grounds.
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by parents of several religious backgrounds in Montgomery County, Maryland, who sued the county's school system for not giving parents advance notice and an opportunity to opt out of a curriculum that included storybooks dealing with LGBTQ+ themes.
The books included Pride Puppy, about a dog that gets lost at an LGBTQ+ pride parade; Love, Violet, about a girl who has a same-sex crush; Born Ready, about a transgender boy; and Uncle Bobby's Wedding, about a gay couple getting married.
Alito pointed to the latter book in particular in his opinion.
"It is significant that this book does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice," wrote the judge. "Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated."
Elly Brinkley, staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free speech group PEN America, noted the timing of Alito's comments about marriage equality.
"Just after the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges and as we celebrate Pride Month, the Supreme Court has delivered a devastating blow to the dignity of LGBTQ+ people and families," said Brinkley. "This ruling means that parents can opt their children out of any classroom activity that acknowledges same-sex marriages, the right to which this very court held was guaranteed by the Constitution."
The right-wing majority ruled that Montgomery County Public Schools must allow families to opt out of any lessons that parents believe will interfere with their children's religious education, including stories or discussions with LGBTQ+ themes.
"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights."
Legal scholars said that in addition to stigmatizing the families of an estimated 5 million children in the U.S. who have one or more LGBTQ+ parents, the ruling could pave the way for parents to argue that their children shouldn't be exposed at school to materials involving any number of topics, including evolution, yoga, and mothers who work outside the home—all issues that have been the subject of earlier, unsuccessful lawsuits against schools.
"The decision could have far-reaching consequences for public schools' ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities, as well schools' ability to implement any secular lesson plan that may trigger religious objections," said the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the school district's "policy prohibiting opt-outs from the English Language Arts curriculum is religiously neutral and applicable across the board."
Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said that religious freedom is "fundamentally important" under U.S. law.
But freedom of religion, Mach said, "shouldn't force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don't align with their families' religious views. This decision could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society."
Cecilia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, added that parents with religious objections will now be "empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption—ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences."
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the case, with Sotomayor making the unusual move of announcing her dissent from the bench.
Citizens fully experiencing the United States' multicultural society, said Sotomayor, "is critical to our nation's civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs."
She also accused the majority of making a "myopic attempt to resolve a major constitutional question through close textual analysis of Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which revealed, she said, "its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."
The ruling is the latest victory for right-wing advocates of what they view as religious freedom at the high court; other recent rulings have allowed a web designer to refuse to make a website for same-sex couples and a high school football coach to pray with his team at school games.
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, called Friday's ruling a "deeply troubling outcome for public education, equality, and the constitutional principle of the separation between state and church."
"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights," said Gaylor. "Public schools must be grounded in facts and reality and not subject to religious censors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular