Environment

During President Joe Biden's four years in the White House, the United States, according to Politico, has produced record amounts of oil and natural gas. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, in March 2024, reported that the U.S., under Biden, was producing "more crude oil than any nation at any time."

But President-elect Donald Trump is promising an even greater emphasis on fossil fuels after he returns to the White House.

Biden, as president, has favored a combination of green energy and fossil fuels. Biden acknowledges climate change as a dangerous and perilous reality and has supported ramping up green energy use without abandoning fossil fuels.

READ MORE:Putin praises 'real man' Donald Trump but warns 'even now he’s not safe': reports

Trump, in contrast, doesn't consider climate change a problem and wants to make fossil fuels an even higher priority for the U.S. The president-elect has vowed to "drill, drill, drill," and he has proposed North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum — Trump's nominee for secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior — to head a new National Energy Council.

Trump has promised to establish American "energy dominance." But according to Associated Press (AP) reporter Matthew Daly, his energy goals "are likely to run into real-world limits."

"Trump's bid to boost oil supplies — and lower U.S. prices — is complicated by his threat this week to impose 25 percent import tariffs on Canada and Mexico, two of the largest sources of U.S. oil imports," Daly explains in an article published on November 29. "The U.S. oil industry warned the tariffs could raise prices and even harm national security."

Scott Lauermann of the American Petroleum Institute is among the fossil fuels promoters who are speaking out.

READ MORE: How Don Jr. is making sure Trump picks 'absolute warriors for the movement' to his Cabinet

Lauermann told AP, "Canada and Mexico are our top energy trading partners, and maintaining the free flow of energy products across our borders is critical for North American energy security and U.S. consumers."

Meanwhile, Jonathan Elkind — senior research scholar at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy in New York City and a former assistant energy secretary under President Barack Obama — is highly critical of Trump's emphasis on fossil fuels and his refusal to acknowledge climate change as an "existential" danger.

Elkind told AP, "Failure to focus on climate change as an existential threat to our planet is a huge concern and translates to a very significant loss of American property and American lives."

READ MORE: 'Up to us to stop him': Petition to block Trump Cabinet picks gets 44K signatures in 5 days

Read the Associated Press' full article at this link.

Climate change activists and scientists were horrified when Florida and other southeastern states — not long after being ravaged by Hurricane Helene — suffered an even more destructive threat when Hurricane Milton arrived in October.

The fact that they were horrified doesn't mean they were surprised. Suffering Helene and Milton back to back, they warned, underscores the enormous threat that climate change poses. Climate change, scientists warn, will mean destructive weather events occurring not only more frequently, but with greater intensity.

But Veterans on Patrol (VOP), a far-right militia group, isn't blaming climate change for the damage Helene inflict.

READ MORE:MAGA superintendent’s mandatory Trump prayer video is against the law: report

Rather, VOP, according to The Guardian's Jason Wilson, is pushing a conspiracy theory that Helene was "deliberately caused" by U.S. government officials using a "government energy weapon."

VOP, Wilson reports, has been making this claim in "private and public Telegram chats."

"Veterans on Patrol's (VOP's) conversations reveal that members believe the outlandish conspiracy theory that the U.S. government caused the hurricane with weather manipulation technology, that the U.S. military is spraying the American people with poisons, and that members should be willing to destroy government facilities in order to stop these activities," Wilson explains in an article published on November 19. "The chats, provided to the Guardian by the Global Project on Hate and Extremism (GPAHE), raise the prospect of the conspiracy-fueled militia group engaging in renewed violence under the incoming Trump Administration."

According to Wilson, VOP's founder, Michael "Lewis Arthur" Meyer, has described Helene as an "act of war perpetuated by the United States military."

READ MORE: House Ethics chair dismisses Johnson’s request to keep Gaetz report under wrap

Heidi Beirich, co-founder of GPAHE, warns that VOP are quite capable of violence.

Beirich told The Guardian, "VOP is one of the most dangerous militia groups out there now.…With their recent targeting of military efforts to help with hurricane relief efforts in North Carolina, and their insane conspiracy theories, this is a recipe for disaster."

READ MORE: 'Full-circle moment': 'Constitutional clash' in Congress mirrors 'epic rivalry' between 2 Republicans

Read The Guardian's full report at this link.

Editor's Note: This headline has been updated.

President-elect Donald Trump has nominated Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND) as secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior, CNN reports.

Trump made the announcement at the America First Policy Institute gala held Thursday at Mar-A-Lago, after previously “indicat[ing]” he’d make the appointment Friday, New York Post reports.

"We have a big announcement, and I won’t tell you, it’s — I won’t tell you the name of his, the exact name," Trump said Thursday, according to NBC News. "I think he’s an incredible person, got an unbelievably wonderful wife named Kathryn. So, I won’t tell you — his name might be something like 'Bur-gum.' Burgum.”

"He’s from North Dakota,” Trump added. “He’s going to be announced tomorrow for a very big position.”

As The Hill notes, “The department has control over energy development both on public lands and offshore."

Just over a month away from the next United Nations climate summit, a study out Wednesday warns that heating the planet beyond a key temperature threshold of the Paris agreement—even temporarily—could cause "irreversible impacts."

The 2015 agreement aims to limit global temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC, relative to preindustrial levels.

"For years, scientists and world leaders have pinned their hopes for the future on a hazy promise—that, even if temperatures soar far above global targets, the planet can eventually be cooled back down," The Washington Postdetailed Wednesday. "This phenomenon, known as a temperature 'overshoot,' has been baked into most climate models and plans for the future."

"The earlier we can get to net-zero, the lower peak warming will be, and the smaller the risks of irreversible impacts."

As lead author Carl-Friedrich Schleussner said in a statement, "This paper does away with any notion that overshoot would deliver a similar climate outcome to a future in which we had done more, earlier, to ensure to limit peak warming to 1.5°C."

"Only by doing much more in this critical decade to bring emissions down and peak temperatures as low as possible, can we effectively limit damages," stressed Schleussner, an expert from Climate Analytics and the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis who partnered with 29 other scientists for the study.

The paper, published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, states that "for a range of climate impacts, there is no expectation of immediate reversibility after an overshoot. This includes changes in the deep ocean, marine biogeochemistry and species abundance, land-based biomes, carbon stocks, and crop yields, but also biodiversity on land. An overshoot will also increase the probability of triggering potential Earth system tipping elements."

"Sea levels will continue to rise for centuries to millennia even if long-term temperatures decline," the study adds, projecting that every 100 years of overshoot could lead seas to rise nearly 16 inches by 2300, on top of more than 31 inches without overshoot.

The scientists found that "a similar pattern emerges" for the thawing of permafrost—ground that is frozen for two or more years—and northern peatland warming, which would lead to the release of planet-heating carbon dioxide and methane. They wrote that "the effect of permafrost and peatland emissions on 2300 temperatures increases by 0.02ºC per 100 years of overshoot."

"To hedge and protect against high-risk outcomes, we identify the geophysical need for a preventive carbon dioxide removal capacity of several hundred gigatonnes," the authors noted. "Yet, technical, economic, and sustainability considerations may limit the realization of carbon dioxide removal deployment at such scales. Therefore, we cannot be confident that temperature decline after overshoot is achievable within the timescales expected today. Only rapid near-term emission reductions are effective in reducing climate risks."

In other words, as co-author and Climate Analytics research analyst Gaurav Ganti, put it, "there's no way to rule out the need for large amounts of net negative emissions capabilities, so we really need to minimize our residual emissions."

"We cannot squander carbon dioxide removal on offsetting emissions we have the ability to avoid," Ganti added. "Our work reinforces the urgency of governments acting to reduce our emissions now, and not later down the line. The race to net-zero needs to be seen for what it is—a sprint."

While the paper comes ahead of COP29, the U.N. conference in Azerbaijan next month, co-author Joeri Rogelj looked toward COP30, for which governments that have signed the Paris agreement will present their updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to meet the climate deal's goals.

"Until we get to net-zero, warming will continue. The earlier we can get to net-zero, the lower peak warming will be, and the smaller the risks of irreversible impacts," said Rogelj, a professor and director of research for the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London. "This underscores the importance of countries submitting ambitious new reduction pledges, or so-called 'NDCs,' well ahead of next year's climate summit in Brazil."

The U.N. said last November that countries' current emissions plans would put the world on track for 2.9°C of warming by 2100, nearly double the Paris target. Since then, scientists have confirmed that 2023 was the hottest year in human history and warned that 2024 is expected to set a new record.

The study in Nature was published as Hurricane Milton—fueled by hot waters in the Gulf of Mexico—barreled toward Florida and just a day after another group of scientists wrote in BioScience that "we are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled."

“Friends can I ask a small favor?” North Carolina Republican state Senator Kevin Corbin’s Facebook post began Thursday afternoon. “Will you all help STOP this conspiracy theory junk that is floating all over Facebook and the internet about the floods in WNC,” he wrote, referring to Hurricane Helene-hit western North Carolina.

Senator Corbin listed some examples of the conspiracy theories he and his fellow lawmakers are battling as they try to bring help to the people they represent: “FEMA is stealing money from donations, body bags ordered but government has denied, bodies not being buried, government is controlling the weather from Antarctica, government is trying to get lithium from WNC, stacks of bodies left at hospitals, and on and on and on.”

“PLEASE help stop this junk. It is just a distraction to people trying to do their job.”

In the middle of Corbin’s post, one conspiracy theory stood out: “government is controlling the weather.”

READ MORE: ‘Wowza’: Economists Thrilled With ‘Huge’ Jobs Report and Wages Outpacing Prices

That echoes a claim U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) made just hours later, Thursday night on social media:

“Yes they can control the weather. It’s ridiculous for anyone to lie and say it can’t be done.”

Exactly 12 hours after she posted that falsehood, it’s been been viewed 4.6 million times—not including all the screenshots that are flying around social media.

Congresswoman Greene is being widely derided and mocked.

National security expert, NSA contractor, and former Republican U.S. Rep. Denver Riggleman of Virginia blasted Greene.

“This person is in Congress,” he wrote on social media. “This ignorance, this lunacy, is why we have a government teetering and lurching. Her stupidity is a disease. She’s not alone either. Who do we blame? Well, folks.. we blame disinfo ecosystems— like here on X and we blame… voters. Mass idiocy. Stupid votes count.”

He added: “It’s dangerous how dumb she is.”

Some suggested Greene was merely referring to cloud seeding, attempts to increase rainfall, which date back to the 1940’s.

Riggleman disputed those suggestions: “She’s not thinking of cloud seeding— she is a QAnon adherent who also believes in direct prophecy and 9/11 conspiracies.”

Indeed, in 2021, just weeks after she was sworn in, Media Matters reported on Greene’s conspiracy theory-fueled history: “Marjorie Taylor Greene penned conspiracy theory that a laser beam from space started deadly 2018 California wildfire.”

“In November 2018, California was hit with the worst wildfire in the state’s history. At the time, future Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) wrote a bizarre Facebook post that echoed QAnon conspiracy theorists and falsely claimed that the real and hidden culprit behind the disaster was a laser from space triggered by some nefarious group of people,” the report reads.

READ MORE: JD Vance Says ‘Yes’ Trump Won in 2020 Then Walks Away When Asked ‘Will You Concede?’

“Greene’s post, which hasn’t previously been reported, is just the latest example to be unearthed of her embracing conspiracy theories about tragedies during her time as a right-wing commentator. In addition to being a QAnon supporter, Greene has pushed conspiracy theories about 9/11, the Parkland and Sandy Hook school shootings, the Las Vegas shooting, and the murder of Democratic staffer Seth Rich, among others.”

“Greene also has a history of pushing anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic remarks,” Media Matters wrote before noting, “CNN’s Em Steck and Andrew Kaczynski recently reported that on her Facebook page, ‘Greene repeatedly indicated support for executing prominent Democratic politicians in 2018 and 2019 before being elected to Congress.'”

Some, including Newsweek on Friday, suggested Greene was referring to Democrats when she ambiguously wrote, “they can control the weather,” but others insisted she was referring to Jews.

U.S. Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) served up this response:

Gun violence prevention activist Shannon Watts added, “Reminder: This is a conspiracy theory based in anti-Semitism alleging that Jewish people have the technology to manipulate the weather and cause freak storms that wreak havoc on the world.”

Regardless of who Congresswoman Greene was referring to, her promotion of yet another dangerous conspiracy theory at a time when people in the area of the country she claims to be fighting for are calling for level heads stands out.

U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), appearing to respond to Greene’s tweet (which he had just retweeted) wrote: “Spreading lies during natural disasters is a special kind of evil. Don’t do it, don’t indulge it, don’t excuse it.”

Overnight, NBC News reported: “At least 215 people are known to have died as a result of the destruction wrought by Hurricane Helene since it made landfall in Florida a week ago.”

“More than half of the deaths were in North Carolina, where several feet of fast-moving water destroyed entire communities,” the report adds. “Hundreds are still missing, and officials have reported difficulties in identifying some of the dead.”

Senator Corbin, in his Facebook post, also stressed the need for an end to what he described as “intentional distractions.”

“Folks, this is a catastrophic event of which this country has never known. It is the largest crisis event in the history of N.C. The state is working non-stop,” he wrote. “DOT has deployed workers from all over the state. Duke power has 10,000 workers on this. FEMA is here. The National Guard is here in large numbers.”

“Government will play a role in this cleanup,” he promised. “We are going to make sure the state chips in some massive money. But Government is not the total solution. YES, there are a lot of neighbors helping neighbors and that’s good and the way it should be. Please don’t let these crazy stories consume you or have you continually contact your elected officials to see if they are true. I just talked to one Senator that has had 15 calls TODAY about why we don’t stop …….. ‘fill in the blank.’ 98% chance it’s not true and if it is a problem, somebody is aware and on it and not waiting for a post to go thru 10,000 people to be addressed. Thanks for listening but I’ve been working on this 12 hours a day since it started and I’m growing a bit weary of intentional distractions from the main job …. which is to help our citizens in need.”

See the tweet above or at this link.

On the campaign trail, 2024 GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has aggressively voiced his support of fossil fuels — often repeating the Republican "drill, baby, drill" slogan of the 2010s.

Trump's Democratic rival, Kamala Harris, in contrast, has recently voiced her support of fracking but favors a combination of green energy and fossil fuels.

Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), have been especially vocal in their support of fossil fuels while campaigning in Pennsylvania — which Trump and Harris both view as a must-win state. But Matt Kurzejewski, chief executive of the Pennsylvania-based natural gas company Costy's Energy Services, is warning that fracking is not a panacea.

READ MORE: Trump's hate is no joke

The New York Times' Rebecca F. Elliott reports, "Mr. Kurzejewski, 33, plans to vote for Mr. Trump, as he did in 2016 and 2020, figuring that the former president would do less to hamstring the industry. Still, Mr. Kurzejewski added that 'drill, baby, drill,' the slogan embraced by Mr. Trump, 'is not the answer.'"

Unlike Harris and President Joe Biden, Trump and Vance have downplayed the threat of climate change. And Trump has promoted, without evidence, a conspiracy theory that windmills cause cancer.

But according to Elliott, "residents and elected leaders" in Pennsylvania and other northeastern states are "wary of becoming locked into using fossil fuels that are contributing to climate change."

Elliott explains, "There is no easy fix for Pennsylvania's gas glut. Pipelines often cross state lines, requiring support not just from federal regulators, but also, from local communities and officials in other states. Oil and gas infrastructure has become particularly hotly contested as many people worry about the environmental and health impacts of pipelines and related equipment."

READ MORE: 'Smallest man who ever lived': Trump slammed over 'dangerous' Taylor Swift post

Read the New York Times' full report at this link (subscription required).

Center for Economic and Policy Research senior adviser Justin Talbot Zorn has advice for Vice President Kamala Harris and Democrats on how to win over voters who planned to back Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the presidential election now that the Independent candidate has dropped his bid.

Harris is exceeding President Joe Biden's lead over Donald Trump, according to The Hill, but experts like Zorn warn that 2024 Democratic nominee can't take her foot of the gas just yet.

In an op-ed published by MSNBC Thursday, Zorn writes:

While Kennedy’s support fell to roughly 5% in three-way matchups nationally after Vice President Kamala Harris entered the race, there was widespread evidence that the third-party candidate was pulling more from Harris than from Trump. Although it’s hard to forecast whether Kennedy will be able to persuade his supporters to vote for the Republican, even a single percentage point could be decisive in an election as close as this one. Look at Florida in 2000. Or any of the 'blue wall' states in 2016.

READ MORE: Experts say 'barely relevant' RFK Jr. endorsement of Trump makes GOP ticket 'even weirder'

The economic expert points to Kennedy's vow "to provoke a 'realignment' of environmental politics," and public criticism of "Democrats for 'divisive' climate policies," for which the ex-candidate "has made the case for environmental policies that could, he believes, 'unite the nation.'"

Zorn emphasizes, "It’s easy enough for Democrats to laugh off Kennedy’s comments. Instead, they should make a serious play for his voters."

Zorn notes:

But there’s one problem with Kennedy’s vision for an environmental realignment: It rests on the electoral vehicle of Trump, who as president appointed profiteers from the plastics industry and Big Agriculture to key roles responsible for food and water safety, gave lobbyists from chemical companies a wish list of concessions, appointed Supreme Court justices who gutted government authority to regulate toxic substances, and now promises to cut government watchdogs and remove 'forever chemicals' like PFAS from hazardous substance lists. And that’s to say nothing of his legacy on climate.

Democrats should, "Tell the truth," he suggests, and, "Drive home the message that Trump is the candidate of toxic chemicals."

Zorn adds that while "Trump has tried to distance himself from the Project 2025 blueprint, the key environment plans in the document were written by Trump appointees and match with his own promises to gut the 'administrative state.'"

To successfully win over Kennedy supporters, "Democrats should also propose a proactive agenda on these issues," and furthermore, Zorn submits that "Harris should unveil a more comprehensive plan to counter PFAS and forever chemicals in the food system and supply chains."

READ MORE: 'Real potential blunder': How RFK Jr’s campaign is 'now evidently hurting Trump'

Zorn's full op-ed is available here.

Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's 900-page blueprint for a second Trump Administration, has drawn scathing criticism from Democrats for its wide range of far-right proposals on everything from abortion rights to the environment to public education. In response to all that bad publicity, 2024 GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025 — although many Democrats have responded that the proposals came from Trump's allies.

Chris LaCivita, a senior adviser for Trump's campaign, obviously views Project 2025 as a liability for the former President. At the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, LaCivita told The Hill, "These people do not speak for him. They do not speak for the campaign. We're the ones putting out policy. In a perfect world, from their perspective, they would love to drive the issue set. They don't get to do that."

One part of Project 2025 that hasn't been receiving as much scrutiny is how Project 2025 could affect public lands and national monuments if Trump wins in November.

READ MORE:'Made violence his brand': Fascism scholar says threat of 2nd Trump term 'uniquely dangerous'

In a July 15 post for BackCountyHunter.org, contributor Kaden McArthur warns that "many hunters and anglers may not realize" the "vast implications" that Project 2025 "would have for the conservation of our nation's public lands and waters."

McArthur explains, "Authored by William Perry Pendley, the former Acting Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), a host of these recommendations for the Department of the Interior would be detrimental to the future of these cherished public resources, and those who rely on them for the pursuit of their outdoor traditions."

According to Outside's Wes Siler, Project 2025 has major implications for "public lands management" and would "gut" the Antiquities Act of 1906 — which was signed into law by President Teddy Roosevelt 118 years ago.

In a recent article, Siler warned that Project 2025, by undermining the Antiquities Act, would "allow the government to turn some of our most scenic and important public lands over to energy extraction interests."

READ MORE: Beware: Trump is Project 2025 — and he cannot escape it

"The plan involves a two-pronged judicial and executive attack," Siler explained. "The first will involve bringing a case in front of the Supreme Court designed to weaken the use of the Antiquities Act to preserve large swaths of land. The second would involve placing high ranking appointees in the Department of Interior, like Ryan Zinke and William Perry Pendley under the first Trump presidency, who would be amenable to leasing or selling large portions of public lands to energy companies."

Siler added, "You may be wondering, what is the Antiquities Act? The Act was signed on June 8, 1906, granting presidents the power to protect cultural or natural resources of special historic or scientific interest by declaring them national monuments. The federal government manages 640 million acres of public land on your behalf, and for over a century, presidents have added significant levels of protection to some of the most important parts of that land using the Antiquities Act."

READ MORE: 'Let's be realists': Conservative lays out game plan for surviving 'nightmare scenario' if Trump wins

When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its controversial ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on June 28, it overturned a decision that had been the law of the land for 40 years: Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

That landmark 1984 decision established what was known as "Chevron deference," which said that judges and courts should defer to the expertise of officials at federal regulatory agencies. Critics of the June 28 ruling argue that it seriously undermines the ability of government agencies to regulate everything from clean water and air quality to health care.

According to Business Insider, one agency that Justice Clarence Thomas is hoping to see abolished is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

READ MORE: SCOTUS limits government agencies in bombshell decision with sweeping implications

Business Insider's Grace Eliza Goodwin reports, "The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, (July 2), announced which cases it would consider next and which it wouldn't. Among those the Court rejected was a case that challenged the authority of OSHA, which sets and enforces standards for health and safety in the workplace. And Thomas, widely considered to be the most conservative justice on the already-mostly conservative Court, wasn't happy."

Goodwin adds, "In a dissent, he explained why he believed the High Court should've taken the case: OSHA's power, he argues, is unconstitutional."

Thomas wrote, "Congress purported to empower an administrative agency to impose whatever workplace-safety standards it deems 'appropriate.' That power extends to virtually every business in the United States."

Goodwin notes that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals "upheld OSHA's constitutionality" in 2023.

READ MORE: Conservative warns Dems to get it together and confront Trump's 'true menace'

Business Insider's full report is available at this link.

The Supreme Court has made its second ruling this week that limits government agencies’ ability to act on Friday.

Friday morning, the Court released its ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Prior to the ruling, fisheries were required to allow federal officials on board their ships to make sure that overfishing doesn’t occur; the base of the suit is that the fisheries objected to having to pay the salaries for these officials.

The legal precedent at the center of the case is what’s known as the Chevron doctrine, based on the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. Inc v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. That ruling held that government agencies have the ability to interpret statutes in their sphere of influence where ambiguity exists, even if judges may disagree about an interpretation.

READ MORE: Supreme Court Throws Out Perdue Bankruptcy Plan That Protects Sackler Family

In this case, the National Marine Fisheries Service has interpreted the law to mean that fisheries have to pay officials’ salaries, while the fisheries argued that this overstepped the agency’s bounds.

Critics of this ruling, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, have argued that Chevron gives agencies too much power.

“[Gorsuch] argues that it is fundamentally the province of courts to say what the law is, and that Chevron makes it too easy for courts to simply find ambiguity in text and then defer to government agencies. He and others argue that it systematically tilts the power in a case in favor of the government and allows judges to abdicate their responsibility to engage in vigorous statutory review,” Sanne Knudsen, professor of environmental law at the University of Washington School of Law, said in a 2023 interview.

In Friday’s 6-3 ruling, made along ideological lines, the Court agreed with Gorsuch’s take. The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, explicitly overrules Chevron.

“[C]ourts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous,” Roberts wrote.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas added that Chevron violates the separation of powers, as it “compels judges to abdicate their Article III ‘judicial Power,'” and “permits the Executive Branch to exercise powers not given to it.”

The mention of separation of powers is interesting, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the other ruling that limited an agency’s powers this week accuses the Court of threatening the concept of separation of powers.

“The majority today upends longstanding precedent and the established practice of its coequal partners in our tripartite system of Government. Because the Court fails to act as a neutral umpire when it rewrites established rules in the manner it does today, I respectfully dissent,” Sotomayor wrote.

In that case, SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court ruled that the Securities Exchange Commission was unable to issue civil penalties without a trial. The SEC was initially given this power as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The Court struck this element of Dodd-Frank down in a 6-3 ruling, again along ideological lines. The court ruled, in another decision written by Roberts, that it violated the Seventh Amendment, the right to a jury trial.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pennsylvania) have a history of clashing on environmental policies and electric vehicles, and the two of them butted heads once again during a congressional hearing on Thursday morning, June 6.

When Perry grilled Buttigieg, he responded to the far-right MAGA congressman's claims about the Biden Administration's "dictatorial" policies on electric vehicles — and gave him a thorough fact-check.

The Democratic transportation secretary told Perry, "Given time is limited, I will confine myself to addressing the factually incorrect portions of what you have said — beginning with the assertion that EV sales are going down. They are, in fact, going up."

READ MORE: 'Help him unravel': George Conway wants Biden to hammer 'narcissistic sociopath' Trump during debate

When Perry claimed that those EV sales are "government sales," Buttigieg responded that he was referring to "private sales too."

"More private citizens buy EVs than government purchases," Buttigieg told Perry.

The Biden transportation secretary went on to tell Perry, "Let me address the second factual mistake in these remarks, which is that EV costs are getting higher. They are, in fact, getting lower, and according to J.D. Power, have now reached parity or are slightly lower than gas-powered cars."

Buttigieg also address EV sales for 2024's first quarter, adding, "The third incorrect assertion you made is that sales dropped in Q1; they did not drop in Q1 compared to the previous year."

READ MORE:Conservative explains how Biden 'outmaneuvered' Trump on debates

Watch the full video below or at this link.

The "most-deprived" areas across the planet are in facing a land crisis, BBC reports, according to the World Food Programme.

Due to droughts and flooding, the organization's global office director Martin Frick told BBC, that because "the land can no longer sustain crops" in some places, there are "zero" harvests left as a result.

Furthermore, Frick warns that "that without efforts to reverse land degradation globally, richer countries would also begin to suffer crop failures" as well.

READ MORE: Don't say 'climate': Ron DeSantis signs bill removing references from state law

Frick noted that "as a father of three, he was 'not a fan of doomsday scenarios', but admitted that 'what we are seeing is most worrying,'" BBC reports.

The World Food Program director, however, offered a glimpse of hope by arguing that it's still possible for countries to move "toward localised farming that seeks to reinvigorate the land."

Still, BBC reports, "Meanwhile, flash floods in Afghanistan earlier this year are estimated to have destroyed 24,000 hectares of land already considered highly degraded. Environmentalists expect that as soil degrades, failing crops will strain global food supplies and increase migration from affected areas."

READ MORE: Is wastewater an answer for adapting to climate change?

Frick emphasized, "There's too much carbon in the air and too little carbon in the soils. With every inch of soil that you're growing, you're removing enormous amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere. So healthy soils – carbon-rich soils – are a prerequisite to fixing climate change."

Save Soil chief science officer Praveen Sridhar told the news outlet, "It's going to be disaster for human beings. It’s going to be like Mad Max."

Shrihar added, "There will be no humanity. There will be no charity. There will be no fairness... The only thing that lets you be will be survival."

BBC's full report is available at this link.

While "trillions" of cicadas can be found in several southern and midwestern states across the country this year, according to USA Today, scientific experts say the state of Illinois is expected to see an "historic 2024 cicada emergence."

While the insects will be "emerging all over the state," as Illinois Natural History Survey's Catherine Dana told NBC Chicago last month, one particular region is seeing a different kind of occurrence.

WGNTV Chicago reports that male cicadas across the state's southern areas have been impacted by a sexually transmitted disease (STD) — a white fungus called Massospora cicadina — that turns the insects into "zombies" and causes their reproductive parts "to fall off."

READ MORE: 5 surprising things that could prevent your backyard from serving as a wildlife sanctuary

Per the report, the STD "is expected to reach the Chicago area within weeks."

WGN notes "the fungus is also the type that has hallucinatory effects on birds that would eat infected cicadas."

University of Connecticut entomologist John Cooley told the Independent, "At least 10% of cicadas in the Midwest were infected with the fungus."

He emphasized that "the issue is "even stranger than science fiction. This is a sexually transmitted zombie disease."

According to USA Today, "Two separate periodical cicada 'broods' will emerge simultaneously in 17 states this year," which "hasn't occurred in 221 years and won't happen again until 2245."

READ MORE: Stopping the 'insect apocalypse' in the garden of capitalism

Although the insects continue to swarm Illinois, and approximately ten other states, USA Today also notes "their lifespan is four to six weeks, and they will start to die off in late June."

WGNTV's full report is available at this link. USA Today's report is here.NBC Chicago's report is here. The Independent's report is here.

A top U.S. House Democrat announced Tuesday that he is demanding answers from fossil fuel executives after Washington Post reporting revealed last week that former Republican President Donald Trump recently told industry leaders he would gut climate regulations if they raised $1 billion for his 2024 presidential campaign.

Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, on Monday wrote to the heads of the American Petroleum Institute (API) and eight companies: Cheniere Energy, Chesapeake Energy, Chevron, Continental Resources, EQT Corporation, ExxonMobil, Occidental Petroleum, and Venture Global LNG.

Raskin's letters note that the executives "appear to have attended" Trump's fundraising dinner at Mar-a-Lago in Florida last month and "media reports raise significant potential ethical, campaign finance, and legal issues that would flow from the effective sale of American energy and regulatory policy to commercial interests in return for large campaign contributions."

"Mr. Trump's unvarnished quid pro quo offer is especially troubling evidence in light of recent accounts that the 'U.S. oil industry is drawing up ready-to-sign executive orders for Donald Trump aimed at pushing natural gas exports, cutting drilling costs, and increasing offshore oil leases in case he wins a second term,'" he wrote, citing Politico. "These preparatory actions suggest that certain oil and gas companies, which have a track record of using deceitful tactics to undermine effective climate policy, may have already accepted or facilitated Mr. Trump's explicit corrupt bargain."

Raskin also highlighted findings from a January Oversight Committee Democrats staff report, which shows that "when Mr. Trump was in office, he accepted at least $7.8 million from kings, princes, and foreign states, including the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, in blatant violation of the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause, and rendered a sequence of foreign policy favors to his patrons."

The congressman—and constitutional scholar—asked the executives to respond to questions and document requests by May 27. He is seeking the names of employees who attended the April 11 fundraiser, copies of materials distributed during the event, descriptions of all policy proposals and related campaign contributions discussed, and draft executive orders or policy paperwork prepared by members of the companies.

"The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate 'any matter' at 'any time,'" Raskin explained. "The requested information is needed to investigate and legislate on matters related to presidential and presidential-candidate ethics and to continue to address the major ethics crisis created by Donald Trump's efforts to profit off the presidency."

As Raskin released the letters on Tuesday, Media Matters for America's Allison Fisher pointed out that "unfortunately, over a four-day period, TV news broadcast and cable networks—with the exception of MSNBC—did not cover Trump's proposition to oil executives."

— (@)

However, Trump has made his policy plans clear. Even before the fundraiser, he publicly pledged to "drill, baby, drill" if he beats Democratic President Joe Biden in November. One March analysis found that a second Trump term would lead to the release of 4 billion more tons of planet-heating carbon dioxide—the combined annual emissions of the European Union and Japan—by 2030 than if Biden were reelected.

The letters aren't the first time Raskin has taken aim at the fossil fuel industry this month. At the beginning of May, he testified before the U.S. Senate Budget Committee about a nearly three-year investigation into "Big Oil's campaign of deception and distraction," which he said "undermines the efforts we need to mobilize our people and government to save our climate, our habitat, and our species."

"Unless the deception ends, and until the industry is held accountable," the congressman warned, "we are unlikely ever to be able to muster the national political will to effectively tackle climate change."

As world governments gathered in Uzbekistan Monday for the United Nations conference on migratory species, they centered the theme "Nature Knows No Borders"—an idea that a new landmark report said must take hold across the globe to push policymakers in all countries and regions to protect the billions of animals that travel each year to reproduce and find food.

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) marked the opening of the 14th Conference of the Parties (CMS COP14) to the United Nations biodiversity treaty by releasing the first-ever State of the World's Migratory Species report, showing that nearly half of migrating species are declining in population.

The crisis is especially dire for more than 1 in 5 species that are threatened with extinction, and 70 species listed under the CMS which have become more endangered, including the steppe eagle, the Egyptian vulture, and the wild camel.

The populations of nearly all species of fish listed in the U.N. treaty, including sharks and rays, have declined by 90% since the 1970s.

The two biggest drivers of endangerment and threatened extinction are overexploitation—including incidental and intentional capture—and habitat loss, and both are directly caused by human activity.

Seven in 10 CMS-listed species are threatened by overexploitation, while 3 in 4 of the species are at greater risk of dying out due to habitat loss, as humans expand energy, transportation, and agricultural infrastructure across the globe.

The climate crisis and planetary heating, pollution, and the spread of invasive species—thousands of which are introduced by humans—are also major threats to migratory species, the report says.

"Unsustainable human activities are jeopardizing the future of migratory species—creatures who not only act as indicators of environmental change but play an integral role in maintaining the function and resilience of our planet's complex ecosystems," said Inger Andersen, undersecretary-general of the U.N. and executive director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP). "The global community has an opportunity to translate this latest science of the pressures facing migratory species into concrete conservation action. Given the precarious situation of many of these animals, we cannot afford to delay."

Migratory species "reinforce" the fact that nature does not observe borders put in place by humans, Andersen added in a video posted on social media, and humans must work across borders to ensure these species are protected.

According to the report, nearly 10,000 of the world's key biodiversity areas are crucial for the survival of migratory species, but more than half are not designated as areas that must be conserved—and 58% are under threat due to human activities.

Mapping and taking adequate steps to protect "the vital locations that serve as breeding, feeding, and stopover sites for migratory species" is a key priority, said the CMS in a statement.

"Migratory species rely on a variety of specific habitats at different times in their lifecycles," said Amy Fraenkel, CMS executive secretary. "When species cross national borders, their survival depends on the efforts of all countries in which they are found. This landmark report will help underpin much-needed policy actions to ensure that migratory species continue to thrive around the world.”

In addition to increasing understanding of migration paths and minimizing human infrastructure in the pathways, the report recommended that policymakers "strengthen and expand efforts to tackle illegal and unsustainable taking of migratory species"; scale up efforts to tackle climate change and light, noise, chemical, and plastic pollution; and consider expanding CMS listings to include more at-risk migratory species in need of international attention.

"There are many things that are needed to be done on addressing the drivers of environmental change, such as agriculture for habitat destruction, the sprawl of cities, we have to look at rail, road, and fences," said Fraenkel. "One of the most important things for migratory species is something we call ecosystem integrity: they need particular sites to breed, feed, and travel. If those sites cannot be accessed or don’t exist any more, then it's obviously going to be detrimental."

The report focused on 1,189 migratory species identified by the U.N. as needing protection, but found that another 399 migratory species are either threatened or near threatened with extinction.

"People might not realize that whales, lions, gorillas, giraffes, and many birds are migratory species," Fraenkel said.

At the opening ceremony of CMS COP14, Andersen called on policymakers to live up to the conference's theme "by ensuring free passage of migratory species and by ensuring that, through multilateralism, we reach a hand across every border to ensure long-term sustainability, for people and for planet."

Reversing population decline is possible, the report emphasized, pointing to coordinated local action in Cyprus that reduced illegal bird netting by 91% and "hugely successful" conservation and restoration work in Kazakhstan, "which has brought the saiga antelope back from the brink of extinction."

On Wednesday, January 17, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two companion cases dealing with the "Chevron deference" standard: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce. 

The "Chevron deference" standard was established 40 years ago with the High Court's ruling in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which essentially said that government agencies are allowed to regulate businesses and rely on expertise in doing so. The "deference" part refers to "deferring" to experts hired by a regulatory department such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In an article published by The Bulwark on January 18, law professor and former federal prosecution Kimberly Wehle argues that if the Roberts Court rolls back "Chevron deference," it could seriously undermine the regulation of businesses.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Wehle notes that Loper Bright "asks the Court to overrule" Chevron.

"In that 1984 case," Wehle explains, "the Supreme Court considered whether the Environmental Protection Agency — which was then headed by Justice Neil Gorsuch's mother, Anne Gorsuch, under President Ronald Reagan — was functioning within its statutory authority in enacting a rule under the Clean Air Act that essentially benefited polluters. Normally, courts decide questions of law, and the challengers to the EPA's regulation in that case urged that the Supreme Court determine what the Clean Air Act means. The Supreme Court disagreed, nodding instead to the discretion of the EPA."

Wehle adds, "The Court held that if Congress makes clear in a statute what a particular term means — in Chevron, the term under contention was 'stationary source' — that's the end of the case; the EPA and the courts must just follow Congress' direction."

The legal expert notes that billionaire Charles Koch and his network are "reportedly behind the Loper Bright lawsuit."

READ MORE: SCOTUS keeping 'insurrectionist' Trump on ballot is a 'suicide pact' for democracy: column

"If the conservative majority overrules Chevron — which Justices Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, at a minimum, seem poised to do after oral argument — the new decision-makers won't be agency personnel who have deep expertise in things like drug labeling, environmental protections, financial markets, the shipping and trucking industries, etc. But while conservatives hope that Congress will step up and fulfill its constitutional role, taking over that responsibility, that hardly seems likely — remember that Congress, in 2023, managed to pass only 27 bills into law. Instead, the responsibility will fall upon the people in black robes with no expertise whatsoever."

Wehle describesLoper Bright as the latest example of the "judicial power grab that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been playing for years."

"Refashioning the regulatory state is another big item on the conservative wish list," the law professor observes. "But it will likely prove to be not a nod to congressional power, but a checkmate on Congress, who created the statute that gave the agency its power in the first place. The end result? Deregulation that could not happen through Congress or the presidency, but will happen instead through the courts — in ways that could prove profoundly destabilizing for industries and citizens alike."

READ MORE: How Gorsuch's 'own brand of defiance' was shaped by his mother’s failed gig as EPA head

Kimberly Wehle's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.