G2. Local Greens

Remindeer:

I’ll be reading from my book Antonio “Ike” DeVargas—Norteño Warrior: The Politics of Land, Power, and Justice in Northern New Mexico on Wednesday, May 20, 6 pm, at Collected Works Bookstore in Santa Fe. Ty Bannerman will also be reading from his book Nuclear Family: a memoir of the atomic west.

A blurb from Lucy Lippard, author of  Undermining: A Wild Ride Through Land Use, Politics, and Art in the Changing West.

Unlike journalists from elsewhere “covering” the chaotic politics of northern New Mexico, the writer Kay Matthews has lived it. This book on her friend and fellow warrior, the grassroots leader Ike DeVargas, is a lively and detailed account of decades of struggle. The varied participants include several tiny rural communities, the US Forest Service, the Spotted Owl, State and County local officials, La Raza, environmentalists, and local Chicano land grant activists. The subtitle says it all: “The Politics of Land, Power, and Justice in Northern New Mexico.”

New Mexico has a notoriously complex history, often playing out invisibly in its many poor rural communities still dealing with the traumas of colonialism, land grants, and corrupt officials. Those of us from away, no matter how long we have lived here, cannot fully understand the issues in Rio Arriba County, the devotion to homeplace, longtime dominance of Emilio Naranjo, and the economic importance of grazing, firewood, and logging permits to the surrounding communities. The battles that began in the 1960s are ongoing. Though DeVargas and his cohort often lost, they are famously resilient and their occasional hard-won victories have changed the political landusescape. Matthews and her family have long been active and trusted allies in these struggles, and her paper, La Jicarita, is a vital information source for those still fighting the good fights and for those of us who are supportive but not in the thick of it.

Few of these stories are known to a broader audience and hopefully Matthews’s book will not only keep the memory of Ike DeVargas alive but inspire other contributions from the inside of those adobe houses with no running water, no electricity, like the one Ike lived in. So if you’re a lefty and ready to participate, but not quite sure what that means in northern New Mexico, read about the Ike DeVargas model… and step up.
—

 

Portland is in the middle of what may be one of the most consequential budget processes we’ve seen in recent years — both for protecting our innovative Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) and for guiding how power is exercised in our still-forming city government. We can make a difference for climate justice together when we all speak up in powerful moments like these! Learn more and sign up to testify, or send a written comment.

350PDX staff have been hard at work the last few weeks to inform City Council members about the benefits of PCEF, the importance of Urban Forestry and tree permitting jobs that are carrying out the Equitable Tree Canopy Program, and the need to protect Portland and our rivers from the dangers posed by the Critical Energy Infrastructure (CEI) Hub.

Now it’s time for the community to rise up! Support key budget amendments that help uphold a safe and healthy climate and an economy that benefits us all. While the budget amendment process is still evolving, see below for some of the amendments we will be supporting, and find more information in our talking points document.

4 Ways to Participate

Budget amendments were posted last night, and the opportunity for public comment is on Monday (5/18), which doesn’t give the community very long to weigh in! Use the following tools to learn more about what is being proposed and to make your voice heard. The 350PDX talking points can guide your public testimony.

1. Sign up for verbal testimony, which will be on Monday, May 18, starting at 9:30am. You can testify in person or virtually. Each testifier can speak for 90 seconds. (Use 350PDX talking points.)

2. Written testimony will be received through Wednesday, May 20. (Use 350PDX talking points.)

   • You can submit both written and verbal comments.

3. Send this pre-written email, or modify it with your own words.

4. Forward this message to friends and ask them to take action!

Councilors plan to vote on the budget on Wednesday, so earlier comments are more effective.

Budget Amendments We’re Here For

We appreciate the work and creativity City Councilors have been putting in to try to balance this budget, even though we’re facing a shortfall (partially due to changes to taxes at the federal level). The following budget amendments help prioritize community health and safety, recognizing that this includes climate justice. More information can be found in our talking points or on the Portland website (Attachment H).

• Avalos 1: Return PCEF money to PCEF, which the proposed budget diverts to projects unrelated to climate and clean energy.

• Koyama Lane 2 and Novick 3: Restore funding for PCEF Tree Canopy through planting, care, permitting, and technical support.

• Morillo-Green-Novick 1: Pause Core Services Realignment. Reducing redundancies across departments is a good idea, but needs to be done carefully.

• Green 1: Fund St. John’s Fire Station & Engine 22, the only fire station serving the CEI Hub and Linnton Neighborhood.

• Pirtle-Guiney 5: Save Superfund Surcharge funds for Portland Harbor Superfund Cleanup.

Thank you for leveling up your civic engagement! Please reach out if you have any questions.

The 350PDX Team

The post Call to Action: Protect PCEF & Trees in the Budget appeared first on 350PDX: Climate Justice.

By KAY MATTHEWS

Jay Coghlan of Nuclear Watch New Mexico, the second speaker at the public hearing on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Plutonium Pit Production, pretty much summed up the opposition to the Draft in his three minutes: “Pit production is not necessary and downright wrong.”

• The proposed pits are for the production of new weapons that could lead to testing, which violates the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
• It’s been proved that existing pits have a ± 100-year life span.
• The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has failed for years to formulate a clean-up plan for all of LANL’s contaminated waste. Pit production will continue to block and exacerbate clean-up.
• The New Mexico Environment Department is forcing the Department of Energy to prioritize the shipment of legacy waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
• The missing alternative in this EIS is legacy waste clean-up instead of pit production.

The preferred alternative in this EIS is the Multi-Site Alternative, referring to both LANL and the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. The proposal is for LANL to produce 10/30/80 pits per year and SRS to produce 50/80/125 pits per year. The promulgation of the EIS is a result of the lawsuit that Nuclear Watch New Mexico and other watch dog groups filed against the NNSA that temporarily halted plutonium pit production at Savannah River, leaving LANL as NNSA’s sole pit-production site. The settlement required the development of a new programmatic environmental impact statement involving public hearings around the country by July 2027.

However, as Dylan Spaulding, scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, pointed out in his comments, the Trump administration has issued a new directive to accelerate nuclear weapons production at LANL. On February 11, 2026 Dave Beck, Deputy National Nuclear Security Administration Administrator for Defense Programs, issued a “framework” memorandum mandating NNSA to urgently accelerate the modernization of the nuclear weapons stockpile and the revitalization of its associated facilities and infrastructure to enable production of 100 plutonium pits and achieve a production rate of at least 60 pits per year.

As I listened to the dozens (over 100) who spoke against this draft proposal, I couldn’t help but compare their diversity with the NNSA and LANL administrators, all white men with crew cuts, sitting in the front row.

Skit outside the hearing yelling “fire on the mountain!”

John Wilkes of the Plutonium Trail Caravan, which follows the transportation and disposition of waste from LANL, castigated LANL for failure to clear up Area C or the buried containers in Area G.

Sean Arent, a member of the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, reminded everyone of the first nuclear arms race at the decommissioned and radioactive Hanford Plant where workers struggle to clean-up the toxic mess. “Proposing new nuclear sites like this to future generations is a curse.”

A member of the Party for Socialist Liberation told the group “This is a farce. If they [the nuclear industry] were actually listening to us they wouldn’t be making bombs.” Madison Figueroa spoke for the UNM Students for Nuclear Disarmament.

Several speakers decried the amount of water LANL will acquire to meet its objectives while the rest of the state is experiencing desertification. Others raised the seismic issue of the Rio Grande Rift that runs right through the Parajito plateau.

Joni Arends of CCNS that works with Pueblo people to stop the migration of the hexavalent chromium plume contaminating groundwater and wells.

One of the biggest reactions from the crowd came when Pat Leahan, of the Las Vegas Peace and Justice Center, speaking remotely, pointed out the sentence on NNSA’s presentation screen that stated: “Peace through atomic strength.” She suggested a more accurate catch phrase would be “stress through nuclear development” as we descend into violence to deter violence.

Public comments are due by July 16 of 2026. All the comments made at the public hearings will be added to the official site along with those submitted by email and snail mail. The email address is PITPEIS@NNSA.GOV. Opposition to this EIS and all previous EISs, from 1999 to 2026, has been overwhelming, but the pits keep marching on. However, there’s hope. By the time the SRS facilities are anywhere near ready for production, and when LANL proves incapable of producing more than a few pits, there will be a new congressional mandate that halts the billions—trillions—of dollars that no longer exist in a failed economy.

May 15, 2026 – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SUWA Statement on Proposed Changes to the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area – 5.15.26  Amendments to Plan reduce conservation in favor of extractive development and off-road vehicle dominance 

Contacts:
Grant Stevens, Communications Director, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA); (319) 427-0260; grant@suwa.org

Salt Lake City, UT – Yesterday, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released the final environmental assessment and proposed resource management plan (RMP) amendment for the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area and surrounding region. As a result of the 2019 Dingell Act, which included new land management designations and established the Recreation Area, the BLM was required to update its management plan for each of the affected areas. Below is a statement from SUWA Wildlands Director Neal Clark and additional information.  

“We’re disappointed that BLM, at the behest of the Trump administration, squandered this opportunity to set out a proactive, comprehensive vision for resource protection and recreation management in the incredible San Rafael Swell and instead focused its energy and limited resources on rolling back existing protections to allow for more development and off-road vehicle abuse,” said Neal Clark, Wildlands Director at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA). “What’s more, instead of meaningfully engaging the public throughout the process, the BLM instead held a general scoping period more than 4 years ago and then jumped to a final decision that cuts out any opportunity for the public to weigh in on the specifics of its plan. The Trump administration practice of intentionally avoiding meaningful input and scrutiny is undemocratic and a disservice to public land users and this world-class landscape” 

Additional information: 

The John D. Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, which was signed into law on March 12, 2019, designated 663,000 acres of BLM-managed wilderness within 17 new wilderness areas. In addition, the legislation established the 117,000-acre San Rafael Swell Recreation Area, added 63 miles of the Green River to the National Wild and Scenic River System, and designated the John Wesley Powell National Conservation Area and the Jurassic National Monument. Additional information can found here. SUWA members and supporters submitted comments to the BLM in late 2021 and early 2022 regarding the proposed RMP amendments. 

In part, BLM’s RMP amendments: 

• Remove over 12,000 acres of natural areas —wilderness quality lands managed to protect their wilderness values—located outside of designated wilderness to allow increased development and off-road vehicle use. 

• Eliminate the San Rafael Swell Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) and instead designate four new Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs), a less meaningful designation where recreation is not the primary management focus but instead is integrated into other land uses such as grazing and mineral development. 

• Eliminate commonsense recreation management and resource protection requirements to pack out human waste, use fire pans, and not collect firewood at dispersed campsites  

• Reduce or eliminate Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) outside of designated wilderness that will allow for increased development and associated impacts in those areas, even after noting in their scoping document that they would “prioritize the protection and designation of ACECs” 

• Reduce protections for visual resources in some areas to allow development that conflicts with maintaining scenic viewsheds. 

### 
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) is a nonprofit organization with members and supporters from around the country dedicated to protecting America’s redrock wilderness. From offices in Moab, Salt Lake City, and Washington, DC, our team of professionals defends the redrock, organizes support for America’s Red Rock Wilderness Act, and stewards a world-renowned landscape. Learn more at www.suwa.org. 

The post SUWA Statement on Proposed Changes to the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area – 5.15.26  appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

The formal refusal of planning permission for drilling and lower-volume fracking at Burniston in North Yorkshire was confirmed this afternoon.

Banner at decision meeting on Burniston plans, 24 April 2026. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The county council’s strategic planning committee voted almost unanimously in April against the proposal by Europa Oil & Gas.

But members were limited at the meeting to a “minded to” refuse decision. This followed a request to the local government minister to review the detailed environmental information that accompanied the application.

Less than a week later, the minister said there would be no need to review the information, clearing the way for publication of the formal decision notice.

260515_NY20250030ENV_Decision NoticeDownload

The notice, dated today, lists five reasons why the application had been refused:

• Harm to the heritage coast and landscape
• Proximity of the site to homes and amenities
• Harm to the setting of the North York Moors National Park
• Impact on tourism and lack of economic gain
• Conflict with the council’s climate commitments

Officials had advised councillors not to include in the reasons a risk of induced seismicity and damage to local cliffs.

Europa Oil & Gas has already said it will appeal against the refusal. The decision notice starts the clock on when that appeal must be lodged.

The company has six months, by Friday 13 November 2026, in which to submit its challenge to the Planning Inspectorate. News of an appeal is, however, expected sooner.

The committee’s refusal over-ruled the recommendation of council officers to approve the application. It came after five hours of discussions and presentations.

North Yorkshire Council had set today as the deadline for issuing the decision notice.

Like The Price Of Gas? Trump Did That!

Creating the Grid of the Future: Transmission planning in Oregon and our Region Joshua Basofin Thu, 05/14/2026 - 1:55 pm

For Immediate Release:

May 14, 2026

Contact:
Ashley Castaneda, ashley@restorethedelta.org

SACRAMENTO, CA — In a major blow to an already declining Delta along with California Tribes, Delta farmers, and the environmental justice communities across the Bay-Delta region, Governor Newsom’s May Revise budget proposal allocates $25 million to the misleadingly named “Healthy Rivers and Landscapes” program, which would send even more water to corporate agribusiness interests, while dedicating zero funding to critical Delta levee protections. 

Investments in Delta levees are essential to protecting the region’s four million residents from worsening flood risks driven by climate change and safeguarding the Delta’s $7 billion annual economy.

Restore the Delta has consistently advocated for Proposition 4 funding designated for levee improvement in the Sacramento San-Joaquin Delta. Yet instead of prioritizing these urgent infrastructure upgrades, the Governor’s proposed budget directs $125 million in Proposition 4 funds to the Bay Area for the development of a park.

A budget is a moral document, and Governor Newsom’s approach to water resources management fails the tests of morality, fairness, affordability, and protection for everyday Californians. Under this administration, the Delta has not only been neglected, it has been placed at even greater risk by policies that continue to endanger the region, its communities, and its future.

###

Utah’s San Rafael Swell and San Rafael Desert are known for their sinuous slot canyons, soaring redrock cliffs, and prominent buttes. These quintessential redrock landscapes are home to irreplaceable cultural and historic resources, important wildlife habitat, and unmatched recreation opportunities, including destinations such as Mexican Mountain, Buckhorn Draw, Tomsich Butte, Sweetwater Reef, designated wilderness areas, and the San Rafael Swell Recreation Area. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering substantially expanding damaging off-road vehicle use across these landscapes.

Please speak up today for the San Rafael Swell and the San Rafael Desert.

As a refresher, the BLM previously completed travel management plans for the San Rafael Swell and San Rafael Desert in 2024 and 2022, respectively. Frankly, neither plan was particularly good because each prioritized off-road vehicle use at the expense of natural and cultural resources as well as non-motorized recreationists. Together, those plans designated hundreds of miles of new motorized vehicle routes. Now the Trump BLM is planning to go even further and is proposing to open hundreds of miles of additional off-road vehicle routes in its latest quest to transform quiet, wild places into motorized playgrounds.

The San Rafael Swell and Desert are too special to meet that fate.

The BLM is accepting comments through Monday, June 8. While the comment deadline is the same for each plan, they are being analyzed separately. Follow the links below to comment on each plan.

Click here to submit comments on the
San Rafael Swell
  Click here to submit comments on the
San Rafael Desert
 

These beloved landscapes offer endless opportunities for hiking, camping, and spending time with family and friends. They should be known for stunning vistas, abundant cultural sites, and opportunities for solitude, not off-road vehicle damage.

Do you know the San Rafael Swell or Desert especially well? Comments that draw from first-hand knowledge and experiences in these areas are the most effective. Have questions? Reach out to our Utah Organizer, Mimi Ortega, and she’ll be happy to help guide you through the process.

Thank you!

The post Take Action: Speak Up for the San Rafael Swell and Desert! appeared first on Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.

Every time a lease sale looms over the Arctic, we hear a version of the same hopeful, persistent question: Why can’t Alaska Wilderness League—or everyday people—simply show up, bid on the land, and choose not to drill?  

The answer reveals a system that is far less democratic than it should be—and far more focused on corporate profit than the public good.

Lease Sales Are Built for Extraction

Oil and gas lease sales on public lands are not open marketplaces. Lease sales are carefully constructed processes, governed by agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and built from the ground up to serve the singular purpose of facilitating extraction.  

Caribou near Trans Alaska Pipeline. Photo by Lisa Shon Jodwalis, BLM

To be a qualified bidder, an entity must register with the federal government, demonstrate financial capacity, and have the expertise and intent to actually follow through on oil and gas development. This includes bonding requirements, compliance obligations, and operational expectations layered on top, particularly if seismic exploration or development programs are pursued. 

All of it reinforces the same baseline assumption that oil under federal public lands exist for extraction. There is unfortunately no pathway in this system for someone whose goal is protection when conservation is not considered an eligible use.  

Previous Attempts to Bid 

In 2008, student and climate activist Tim DeChristopher entered a Utah BLM auction and successfully bid on 14 parcels of land, covering 22,500 acres, with the explicit intention of keeping them out of the hands of oil and gas companies. He had no intention of developing the leases and, critically, no ability to pay the $1.8 million he committed to.

DeChristopher was charged, convicted, and ultimately sentenced to federal prison.  Even efforts that attempt to operate within the system’s gray areas reveal its limits.

When the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) stepped in to bid on Arctic Refuge leases, it raised a new set of questions that cut to the heart of who this process is meant to serve.  

Photo sourced from Northern Alaska Environmental Center

AIDEA is a state-backed financing entity, not an oil company, and its participation blurred the lines between public interest and industrial development. If an entity that doesn’t drill can acquire leases, who is it ultimately acting for? And if the rules can stretch to accommodate certain actors, why do they remain so rigidly closed to others—particularly those seeking to protect rather than exploit?

Whose interests in the Arctic Refuge are recognized as legitimate? 

The Refuge Is Not a “Product” 

The Arctic Refuge is a living, interconnected ecosystem. It supports the Porcupine caribou herd, sustains migratory birds across continents, and holds profound cultural and spiritual significance for the Gwich’in people, who have depended on and protected this land for generations.

Elder Kenneth Frank warming up before the 2014 Gwich’in Gathering that was held in Old Crow, Yukon. Photo sourced from Alaska Magazine / Peter Mather.

Time and again, attempts to industrialize it have faltered. Lease sales have struggled to attract interest. Major oil companies have stayed away. The economic promises used to justify development have not materialized.

Meanwhile, the broader context in which these lease sales are proposed tells its own story.

As global tensions rise, including ongoing conflicts with Iran, oil prices fluctuate and often climb, placing strain on families across the country. But the notion that drilling in the Arctic Refuge would provide relief is misleading and ignores the basic timeline of Arctic development. 

Even under the most aggressive scenarios, oil extracted from this region would not reach the market for decades. It would do nothing to lower prices today, tomorrow, or in the near future. What it would do is lock in long-term industrialization of one of the last intact ecosystems in the United States, all while oil and gas companies continue to post enormous profits driven in part by the very instability used to justify their expansion. 

How You Can Take a Stand

We believe that if people were given the opportunity to bid on the Arctic for the purpose of protecting it, they would. And while the current system doesn’t allow for that kind of participation, we’re creating a way to make that collective will visible.

By contributing “$25 per acre” to Alaska Wilderness League, you can show how much land you would choose to protect if the rules were different. This is a symbolic action, not a literal bid. But it sends a powerful message: the Arctic’s value is not measured in barrels of oil. It’s measured in caribou migrations, intact ecosystems, and the right of future generations to inherit a thriving, wild landscape.

Take a Stand

We know that the reason you can’t simply “bid to protect” the Arctic Refuge is not a lack of care, creativity, or commitment on the part of the public. The system was just never built to accommodate those things in the first place. Changing that reality will take persistence, pressure, and a reimagining of what we believe public lands should be.

Until then, we will keep fighting—for the Arctic, and for the principle that some places are too important to be reduced to a line item in a lease sale.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum appeared in front of the House Natural Resources Committee yesterday to defend President Donald Trump’s 2027 Interior department budget request. Today’s hearing follows Burgum’s appearances in front of a House Appropriations subcommittee, a Senate appropriations subcommittee, and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month.

At the hearing:

• Burgum refused to acknowledge that the American people are facing high energy prices due to Trump’s actions in the Middle East and his vendetta against renewable energy, falling back on his tired talking point that “the sun doesn’t shine” at night.

• Burgum struggled to defend Interior department spending on Trump’s vanity projects in Washington, D.C., like painting the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool blue and constructing a White House ballroom.

• Burgum pleaded ignorance when asked about the creation of Trump’s Freedom 250 group and corruption at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He also struggled to answer questions from Representatives Melanie Stansbury and Adelita Grijalva about massive proposed cuts to Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs.

“By refusing to take responsibility for his part in rising energy prices, Burgum is forsaking the American people in favor of fossil fuel executives,” Center for Western Priorities Executive Director Aaron Weiss said in a statement. “And in defending Trump’s vanity projects, Burgum is selling out national parks across the country to stroke President Trump’s ego.”

Quick hits Trump officials, billionaires, and the quiet reshaping of America’s public lands

Floodlight

Burgum grilled over Trump vanity projects, proposed budget cuts, how batteries work

The New Republic | SFGATE | The Hill | Heatmap | Mother Jones | E&E News

Drones enter Montana corner-crossing debate

Montana Free Press

BLM cancels bison grazing leases for American Prairie

Daily Montanan

Forest Service is not reorganizing, it is ‘dismantling,’ says union

FEDweek

Climate change starts a new clock on Colorado’s river runoff, study says

Colorado Sun

Opinion: Grand Staircase-Escalante faces a new kind of threat in Congress

Salt Lake Tribune

Editorial: Tax on foreigners shortchanges parks

Jackson Hole News & Guide

Quote of the day

We know public pressure works; it is up to us to apply it. This may be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the anti-parks and anti-public lands caucus. The same can be said for those of us who want nothing more than to protect them.”

—Ryan Gellert, Patagonia, Salt Lake Tribune

Picture This @vallescaldera

How many of our followers have caught this view of Valles Caldera from Pajarito Mountain?

Pajarito Mountain, Cerro Grande, Rabbit Mountain, and other nearby peaks form the caldera rim, offering outstanding views into and across this 14-mile-wide, circular depression in the Earth.

 

Featured image: Doug Burgum at the House Natural Resources Committee on May 13, 2026

The post Burgum struggles to defend Trump’s vanity projects, energy agenda appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

The California Senate Rules Committee voted unanimously to advance Dorene D’Adamo’s reappointment to the State Water Resources Control Board despite vocal opposition from Tribal, environmental, and fishing groups.

Critics accused D’Adamo of favoring powerful agricultural and water interests, arguing during the hearing that those groups have had outsized influence over the Bay-Delta Plan process, while Tribal and environmental voices have been sidelined and ignored.

The reappointment hearing comes ahead of an expected September vote on the updated Bay-Delta Plan, which relies on negotiated “voluntary agreements,” also known as the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program, that would allow major water users to avoid enforceable regulatory standards intended to restore river flows and protect the Delta ecosystem.

“The State Water Board has consistently tipped the scales on behalf of agriculture and urban water interests, and as a result, we have multiple species headed towards extinction,” Max Gomberg, Senior Policy Advisor to the California Water Impact Network told the committee members. “This committee should not condone the ongoing environmental catastrophe in our Delta via regulatory capture of this board.”

Gary Bobker, Program Director for Friends of the River, stated, “I do want board members who are outraged about this crisis in the Bay Delta and the way it affects many communities, and who push timely and effective action to address the root causes.”

Read more from the Sacramento Bee here. 

###

Flying forwards while looking back Teresa Myers Wed, 05/13/2026 - 2:23 pm

DENVER—Interior Secretary Doug Burgum appeared in front of the House Natural Resources Committee today to defend President Donald Trump’s 2027 Interior department budget request. Today’s hearing follows Burgum’s appearances in front of a House Appropriations subcommittee, a Senate appropriations subcommittee, and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month.

At today’s hearing:

• Burgum refused to acknowledge that the American people are facing high energy prices due to Trump’s actions in the Middle East and his vendetta against renewable energy. When asked by Representatives Dave Min and Seth Magaziner why the Interior department is slow-walking and cancelling renewable energy projects on public lands and waters while the country is facing an alleged “energy emergency,” Burgum fell back on his tired talking point that “the sun doesn’t shine” at night.

• Burgum struggled to defend Interior department spending on Trump’s vanity projects in Washington, D.C., like painting the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool blue and constructing a White House ballroom, in response to questioning from Representatives Joe Neguse, Maxine Dexter, and Ranking Member Jared Huffman.

• When asked about no-bid contracts issued by the National Park Service for Trump’s vanity projects, Burgum pleaded ignorance, saying he wasn’t even familiar with the contractor hired to paint the reflecting pool blue. Burgum also pleaded ignorance when asked about the creation of Trump’s Freedom 250 group and corruption at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

• Burgum also struggled to answer questions from Representatives Melanie Stansbury and Adelita Grijalva about massive proposed cuts to Bureau of Indian Affairs education programs.

The Center for Western Priorities released the following statement from Executive Director Aaron Weiss: 

“You know something has gone off the rails when members of Congress have to hold up a battery to explain energy technology to the Interior secretary who also heads up the National Energy Dominance Council. In today’s hearing, Doug Burgum doubled down on his defense of President Trump’s failing energy policies and his ongoing spending spree on vanity projects in D.C. By refusing to take responsibility for his part in rising energy prices, Burgum is forsaking the American people in favor of fossil fuel executives. And in defending Trump’s vanity projects, Burgum is selling out national parks across the country to stroke President Trump’s ego.

“Doug Burgum also claimed ignorance when asked about corruption allegations at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service. If Burgum doesn’t know what’s going on under his own nose, he’s not doing his job. But we already knew that. He seems to spend more time on Fox News than he does in the office.”

Here is a full transcript of the hearing, as well as a folder with screenshots from the online hearing for media use.

Learn More:

• Trump’s bagman: Doug Burgum is helping Trump gut national parks while giving D.C. a taxpayer-funded makeover – Westwise

• Highlight reel: The five most bewildering moments from Doug Burgum’s congressional hearings – Westwise

• Burgum blunders through budget hearings, taking heat for NPS cuts and Trump ‘slush fund’ – Westwise

The post Burgum struggles to defend Trump’s DC vanity projects and ‘Energy Dominance’ agenda in House hearing  appeared first on Center for Western Priorities.

Editor’s Note: Covering the on-going arguments regarding the reuse of oil and gas wastewater hasn’t been in La Jicarita’s purview, but the latest decision by the Water Quality Control Commission is so egregious that I’m posting the New Energy Economy’s press release. The WQCC, lobbied heavily by the Water Access, Treatment and Reuse Alliance — or WATR Alliance — a trade group with members from the oil and gas industry, voted for the second time to advance a petition to expand and regulate the reuse of oil and gas wastewater. The Lujan Grisham administration also lobbied WQCC to overturn a year-old decision prohibiting the reuse of the wastewater, making sure that her appointed WQCC commissioners were making the right decision. WQCC will hold a public hearing to advance the rule making, a hearing that will be protested by the many environmental and public advocacy groups that oppose this decision.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Mariel Nanasi, Executive Director, New Energy Economy
(505) 469-4060 | mnanasi@newenergyeconomy.org

May 12, 2026

Despite The Fact that Science is Missing to Prove Oil and Gas Industry Waste Water Is Safe for Reuse or Discharge WQCC Votes to Move Oil & Gas Industry Petition Forward

Santa Fe, NM — Environmental and public interest organizations lost today; oil and gas industry’s latest attempt to weaken New Mexico’s produced water protections was greenlighted today despite the fact that the science remains fundamentally incomplete, uncertain, and incapable of demonstrating safety for human health or the environment.

While the Petition cites scientific studies, the studies themselves do not establish the central claim the industry needs to prove: that produced water can actually be treated and reused safely in the real world. Critically, the industry repeatedly claims that produced water can be treated and reused “to a non-toxic level in a real-world setting,” yet that statement does not appear in the cited studies or in the scientific literature itself.

The scientific record instead demonstrates the opposite: the science surrounding produced water reuse remains in an early and highly uncertain stage. Major unresolved problems remain, including incomplete characterization of contaminants, the presence of unknown and unmeasured compounds, lack of comprehensive toxicological datasets, and the complete absence of established regulatory frameworks capable of ensuring safe discharge or reuse.

The Water Quality Control Commission’s Vice Chair said “the Petition is not ready for us to hear it.” The Chair of the Commission said the Petition has “serious legal flaws” and has pages, 20 page or more of blank empty spaces” and stated that he could “not support it in its current form.” He specifically pointed out that produced water contains complex mixtures that the industry has not “fessed up” to. Produced water is full of known and unknown contaminants, that treatment technologies remain experimental, and that the state lacks sufficient standards and data to regulate reuse safely.

“The oil and gas industry is asking regulators to leap far ahead of the science,” said Mariel Nanasi, Executive Director, New Energy Economy. “While there is new science – that science does not state what it must: that produced water can be treated and discharged and is safe. New Mexicans should not become guinea pigs for an experiment involving toxic radioactive wastewater that has not been proven safe.”

Under New Mexico law, the Commission’s role is to prevent and abate water pollution — not to create new industrial water supplies for oil and gas operators or speculative development projects. Many Commissioners raised questions about bias, concerned with who is paying for the NM Produced Water Consortium and the studies that result therefrom; they were also concerned with the accuracy of statements in the Petition.

At its core, the situation is simple: the science is not settled. It is evolving, incomplete, and deeply uncertain. That is exactly why the Commission previously prohibited discharge and reuse of produced water outside tightly controlled pilot projects in 2025. Until comprehensive science, toxicology, and enforceable regulatory safeguards exist, allowing widespread reuse or discharge would place New Mexico’s groundwater, rivers, communities, and future generations at unacceptable risk.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 13, 2026

Bold Statement Re: Summit Carbon Solutions’ Alternate Plan to Route Risky CO2 Pipeline Through Nebraska

Landowners with the Nebraska Easement Action Team will oppose Summit’s efforts to acquire land; any attempts to use eminent domain will face court challenges

Hastings, NE – Bold issued the following statement after Summit Carbon Solutions issued an announcement that it now intends to attempt to seek a route through the state of Nebraska for its proposed risky carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline:  

“Transporting a dangerous waste product across the entire state of Nebraska so that a private company can capture billions of dollars of our tax dollars is not a public use, and surely is not in the public interest of Nebraskans. Bold and the Nebraska Easement Action Team will oppose Summit’s latest scheme to appease its investors,” said Shelli Meyer, Director of Bold’s Nebraska Easement Action Team (NEAT) landowners’ legal co-op. “Nebraskans are not willing to expose our families and farms to the risks of a CO2 pipeline rupture, like what happened in Satartia, Mississippi in 2020, where vehicles attempting to flee stalled and dozens were hospitalized due to lack of oxygen, with some experiencing negative health impacts to this day.”

After the citizens of South Dakota voted overwhelmingly to ban the use of eminent domain to seize landowners’ private property for CO2 pipelines, Summit was confronted with a “pipeline to nowhere,” as the company initially intended to pipe the CO2 through South Dakota into North Dakota, where it would be injected into underground sequestration well waste dumps.

Now, Summit says its new plan is to instead attempt to obtain a pipeline route directly across the entire state of Nebraska, to an alternate underground CO2 waste dump site in Wyoming. The company will also switch focus from offering ethanol plants a way to improve their “carbon scores,” to “enhanced oil recovery” as a potential use for the captured CO2 – erasing whatever climate benefits the company and its ethanol plant partners are claiming from the project, if the CO2 will instead be utilized to extract and burn more oil. 

Just like an alliance of landowners stood together to defeat the proposed Keystone XL pipeline through Nebraska, landowners with the Nebraska Easement Action Team landowners’ legal co-op are organizing landowner and community opposition within impacted counties threatened by Summit’s potentially deadly carbon pipeline. NEAT landowners and their attorneys stand ready to file litigation should Summit attempt to seize Nebraskans’ farmland via eminent domain. 

Bold’s Easement Teams in Iowa, South Dakota and North Dakota have also been organizing landowner opposition to the Summit CO2 pipeline for years. Bold’s Easement Teams are helping fund attorneys who have represented landowners at agency hearings that resulted in pipeline permit rejections in North Dakota and South Dakota, and the most-contested project in the history at the Iowa Utilities Commission, where landowners with the Iowa Easement Team also continue to challenge Summit’s pipeline route approval in the courts.  

About Bold’s Easement Action Teams: 

The Easement Action Teams are a project of the Bold Education Fund. The EATs work with local communities to provide immediate legal representation to landowners facing pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure. Our first priority is to protect landowners’ property rights and water. We believe landowners should have the ultimate right of what does and does not happen on their land. We stand against the use of eminent domain for private gain. (https://easementteams.org) The first landowners legal co-op formed was the Nebraska Easement Action Team, which successfully organized landowners to fight the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, and currently works with landowners fighting carbon pipelines in the state. (https://neeasement.org) 

About Bold Pipeline Fighters Hub: 

The Bold Pipeline Fighters Hub, a project of the Bold Education Fund, provides technical, legal, story telling and organizing assistance to any community fighting pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure, with the goal of protecting the land and water. (https://pipelinefighters.org)

About Bold:

The Bold Alliance and Bold Education Fund are coordinating state-based groups with our Pipeline Fighters Hub and landowner legal groups called the Easement Action Teams to stop pipelines from using eminent domain for private gain. (https://boldalliance.org)

# # #

By Denise Robbins, CCAN Communications Team

In London, nations at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) advanced a proposal for a net-zero framework on maritime shipping, functionally creating the world’s first-ever price on carbon. 

In Santa Marta, Colombia, more than 50 countries gathered for the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, a historic attempt to move the world from vague climate promises toward concrete plans to phase out oil, gas and coal.

And in the rest of the world, many countries are moving away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible due to the Middle Eastern conflict causing oil prices to skyrocket. 

The movement to make polluters pay for a just transition is growing to the point of inevitability, no matter what President Donald Trump does to try and stop it. But what exactly is happening, and what does it mean for the United States? 

Jack Hall/PA Media Assignments

A Groundbreaking Carbon Price on Maritime Shipping

International shipping has long been treated as one of the hardest sectors to regulate. The sector produces roughly 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and because ships operate across borders, national climate rules alone cannot easily cover it. So the IMO is one of the few venues capable of setting global standards for shipping emissions.

The IMO’s framework that advanced through last week’s talks would create a global fuel standard for ships and an economic mechanism for emissions, with funds intended to support cleaner fuels and help developing countries navigate the transition. 

This happened despite Trump’s best efforts. For the past year, United States representatives have been bullying and pressuring other countries to pull away from the net-zero framework. As a result, Greece pushed back, even as the European Union continued to have a public unified statement of support. Liberia and Panama led a counter-proposal that would have removed carbon pricing from the framework. The United States continued its aggressive approach during the talks this spring, pulling out all the stops to derail the framework. They lobbied delegates, backed delay tactics and aligned with Saudi Arabia and other opponents of the emissions fee. Yet the nations were not dismayed. The draft text, which would combine a global fuel standard with a pricing mechanism charging ships for emissions above set limits and channeling revenue into cleaner fuels and support for developing countries, moved forward, and it will be officially voted on in December. 

If passed, a global framework that prices pollution would mark a major shift from voluntary climate promises toward enforceable rules — and toward making polluters contribute to the cost of the transition.

Marco Perdomo / Oxfam Colombia y Trineo Comunicaciones

Meanwhile, in Colombia….

More than 50 countries met for the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, a historic attempt to move the world from vague climate promises toward concrete plans to phase out oil, gas and coal.

The conference focused heavily on financing. For many countries, especially in the Global South, the barrier to getting off fossil fuels is not a lack of will or clean energy potential. It is debt, high borrowing costs, limited fiscal space and a global financial system that still makes it easier to fund fossil fuel projects than renewable energy.

That is why “make polluters pay” is becoming central to the next phase of climate politics. The transition away from fossil fuels will take money and this money shouldn’t come from the communities already paying for debilitating climate disasters. Instead, the companies that made billions from extracting and selling fossil fuels must be required to contribute to the cost of moving beyond them.

Outside the formal negotiation halls, civil society in Santa Marta demanded a fair transition. The People’s Summit for a Fossil-Free Future brought together frontline communities, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant leaders, trade unions, youth, farmers, fisherfolk, feminists and social movements.

Nearly 1,000 organizations united behind a declaration calling for a fossil fuel phaseout that is fast, fair, fully funded and grounded in justice. Their demands included no new fossil fuel expansion, time-bound national phaseout plans, grant-based public finance, debt cancellation, an end to fossil fuel subsidies and binding safeguards against fossil fuel lobbying.

And U.S. States Are Taking Action

Make Polluter Pay Campaign in D.C.

Even as the federal government retreats, state campaigns are advancing their own versions of “make polluters pay.”

Vermont and New York have already passed climate superfund laws that seek to recover climate-related costs from major fossil fuel companies. These laws build on the same principle as traditional Superfund-style accountability: companies that created the harm should help pay to clean it up and protect communities.

Maryland has taken a first step as well. In 2025, lawmakers passed a climate superfund cost assessment bill requiring the state to study the financial impact of climate change and explore how fossil fuel companies could be made to pay for the damage they helped cause.

Virginia advocates have also pushed legislation to make the biggest polluters contribute to disaster relief and resilient clean energy infrastructure. The proposed Extreme Weather Taxpayer Relief Act would establish a cost recovery program aimed at ensuring fossil fuel companies help fund responses to the extreme weather made worse by climate change.

Fossil Fuels Profiting from War

The timing matters. As governments met in Colombia to discuss how to pay for a just transition, fossil fuel majors were preparing to announce another round of huge profits driven by instability and energy price spikes.

Oil majors banked more than $30 million every hour in unearned profit in the first month of the conflict and could make around $234 billion in excess profits by the end of 2026 if oil prices remain high. 

Those profits strengthen the case made in London, Santa Marta, and across the U.S. If shipping companies can be asked to pay for their emissions, oil and gas companies can be asked to pay for the climate damage and economic instability their products create. If countries struggling with debt are being told to finance their own transition, then fossil fuel companies posting crisis-driven windfalls should be first in line to contribute.

Marco Perdomo / Oxfam Colombia y Trineo Comunicaciones

The Movement Is Bigger Than Trump

Trump’s strategy is not stopping the broader movement. Trump may be trying to protect fossil fuel executives, weaken climate rules and isolate the United States from global climate progress. But the make polluters pay movement is still growing — internationally, nationally and locally.

London showed that governments are still pursuing global rules to price pollution, even in hard-to-regulate sectors like shipping. Santa Marta showed that countries are beginning to plan the end of the fossil fuel era and name the financing challenge directly. U.S. states are showing that climate accountability legislation can move forward even when the federal government refuses to act.

New polling commissioned by Oxfam in seven countries found that approximately two thirds of people supported increasing taxes on the profits of large oil and gas corporations to help fund the transition to renewables. This movement is growing in popularity and political momentum. 

So when you’re fighting for “make polluters pay” legislation in Richmond, you’re not alone. When you’re helping figure out next steps for the “make polluters pay” movement in Maryland, you’re not alone. When you’re writing to your D.C. Councilmembers, you’re not alone. You’re part of an era-defining shift that will keep growing and becoming more powerful. 

The movement to make polluters pay is moving unstoppably forward. The world has stopped waiting for Trump. 

Want to help make polluters pay? Join CCAN’s efforts in Maryland, D.C., Virginia, and beyond.

Become an Action Team Member Today!

The post Who’s Waiting for Trump? The World is Taking Steps to Make Polluters Pay  appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Publication of plans to restart oil production at Horse Hill – suspended after a landmark Supreme Court ruling – is unlikely for several weeks.

Horse Hill site, near Reigate, Surrey. Google Earth image uploaded 13/05/2026

UK Oil & Gas plc, majority owner of the Horse Hill operator, announced early this month that it had submitted a new planning application.

But so far, the proposal has not been published.

The application seeks to replace planning permission, quashed in June 2024 by the Supreme Court.

The court’s judgement, now known as the Finch Ruling, decided the permission for long-term oil production and new wells was unlawful.

The ruling said the decisionmaker, Surrey County Council, failed to take into account the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the use of Horse Hill oil.

The county council told DrillOrDrop today publication of the new application and a public consultation were expected late this month (May 2026) or early next month (June 2026).

A Surrey County Council spokesperson said:

“Further environmental and planning information was submitted by the applicant on 30 April 2026 in support of planning application ref: Ref: RE18/02667/CON which remains with the County Planning Authority (CPA) for determination. This follows the quashing of the original decision by the Supreme Court in June 2024. The submission was in response to a request from the CPA for the provision of additional information.

“Once the submission has been reviewed to ensure all the information requested has been provided by the applicant, there is a process to go through and arrangements that need to be put in place before publicity and consultation can begin. This process is more complicated for applications such as this which are accompanied by an Environmental Statement and the process needs to be undertaken alongside other work priorities.

“We estimate that online publication and public consultation are likely to take place towards the end of this month or in the early part of June.”