SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Oil Change International credits a growing people's climate movement for slowing tar sands growth. (Photo: Chris Yakimov/flickr/cc)
In Face of Rising Climate Movement, Tar Sands on Life Support: Report
Evidence of struggling tar sands sector suggests opportunity to slow the rate of growth 'significantly'
May 29, 2015
With dozens of carbon-intensive tar sands projects delayed or on hold, a new report released Friday confidently declares: "The case for the tar sands is crumbling."
A new analysis by Oil Change International identifies 39 projects--representing more than 1.61 million barrels per day (bpd) of potential tar sands oil production capacity--that companies are currently unable or unwilling to invest in.
That's good news for the climate and the environment, as well as for frontline communities that bear the brunt of the toxic tar sands production.
And it's bad news for the tar sands sector, which now finds itself "struggling to justify many new projects," says Hannah McKinnon, senior campaigner on private finance at Oil Change International.
According to the report, On the Edge: 1.6 Million Barrels per Day of Proposed Tar Sands Oil on Life Support(pdf), the delayed and on-hold projects include three open pit mine projects with a combined capacity of over 450,000 bpd, and over 30 drilling projects with nearly 1.2 million bpd capacity. The total extractable tar sands oil in these projects is almost 13 billion barrels. If all of that resource was extracted and burned, around 7.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide would be emitted--equivalent to 40 years of emissions from 51 average U.S. coal-fired power plants.
Furthermore, the Oil Change analysis found that an additional 550,000 bpd of production capacity is owned by companies that have filed for bankruptcy--"another clear indicator of weakness in the sector," the authors write.
A number of factors have led to this decline, the report says, pointing to plummeting oil prices; shifting politics in the 'tar sands capital' of Alberta, Canada; and the rise of both alternative energy technologies and the grassroots climate movement.
"The combination of citizen action to block pipelines and development and the rising tide of climate policies and alternative technologies, which are together leading to lower oil demand growth and lower oil prices, signal very strong headwinds for an oil source that is both high cost and high carbon," the report reads. Should such conditions persist, it goes on, "the rate of growth may slow significantly in the coming years--potentially avoiding lock-in of a significant amount of [greenhouse gas] emissions."
Still, the authors warn against growing complacent in the face of an industry that will fight tooth and nail to maintain its dominance.
"This report is some good news for the climate, but the battle is far from over. Every day of delay for tar sands projects is a good day for our future, but this is an industry determined to dig it up," said Lorne Stockman, Research Director at Oil Change International. "But while the industry puts its head down and tries to charge ahead, people around the continent are rising up to defend our communities and climate, and their efforts are clearly paying dividends."
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
With dozens of carbon-intensive tar sands projects delayed or on hold, a new report released Friday confidently declares: "The case for the tar sands is crumbling."
A new analysis by Oil Change International identifies 39 projects--representing more than 1.61 million barrels per day (bpd) of potential tar sands oil production capacity--that companies are currently unable or unwilling to invest in.
That's good news for the climate and the environment, as well as for frontline communities that bear the brunt of the toxic tar sands production.
And it's bad news for the tar sands sector, which now finds itself "struggling to justify many new projects," says Hannah McKinnon, senior campaigner on private finance at Oil Change International.
According to the report, On the Edge: 1.6 Million Barrels per Day of Proposed Tar Sands Oil on Life Support(pdf), the delayed and on-hold projects include three open pit mine projects with a combined capacity of over 450,000 bpd, and over 30 drilling projects with nearly 1.2 million bpd capacity. The total extractable tar sands oil in these projects is almost 13 billion barrels. If all of that resource was extracted and burned, around 7.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide would be emitted--equivalent to 40 years of emissions from 51 average U.S. coal-fired power plants.
Furthermore, the Oil Change analysis found that an additional 550,000 bpd of production capacity is owned by companies that have filed for bankruptcy--"another clear indicator of weakness in the sector," the authors write.
A number of factors have led to this decline, the report says, pointing to plummeting oil prices; shifting politics in the 'tar sands capital' of Alberta, Canada; and the rise of both alternative energy technologies and the grassroots climate movement.
"The combination of citizen action to block pipelines and development and the rising tide of climate policies and alternative technologies, which are together leading to lower oil demand growth and lower oil prices, signal very strong headwinds for an oil source that is both high cost and high carbon," the report reads. Should such conditions persist, it goes on, "the rate of growth may slow significantly in the coming years--potentially avoiding lock-in of a significant amount of [greenhouse gas] emissions."
Still, the authors warn against growing complacent in the face of an industry that will fight tooth and nail to maintain its dominance.
"This report is some good news for the climate, but the battle is far from over. Every day of delay for tar sands projects is a good day for our future, but this is an industry determined to dig it up," said Lorne Stockman, Research Director at Oil Change International. "But while the industry puts its head down and tries to charge ahead, people around the continent are rising up to defend our communities and climate, and their efforts are clearly paying dividends."
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
With dozens of carbon-intensive tar sands projects delayed or on hold, a new report released Friday confidently declares: "The case for the tar sands is crumbling."
A new analysis by Oil Change International identifies 39 projects--representing more than 1.61 million barrels per day (bpd) of potential tar sands oil production capacity--that companies are currently unable or unwilling to invest in.
That's good news for the climate and the environment, as well as for frontline communities that bear the brunt of the toxic tar sands production.
And it's bad news for the tar sands sector, which now finds itself "struggling to justify many new projects," says Hannah McKinnon, senior campaigner on private finance at Oil Change International.
According to the report, On the Edge: 1.6 Million Barrels per Day of Proposed Tar Sands Oil on Life Support(pdf), the delayed and on-hold projects include three open pit mine projects with a combined capacity of over 450,000 bpd, and over 30 drilling projects with nearly 1.2 million bpd capacity. The total extractable tar sands oil in these projects is almost 13 billion barrels. If all of that resource was extracted and burned, around 7.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide would be emitted--equivalent to 40 years of emissions from 51 average U.S. coal-fired power plants.
Furthermore, the Oil Change analysis found that an additional 550,000 bpd of production capacity is owned by companies that have filed for bankruptcy--"another clear indicator of weakness in the sector," the authors write.
A number of factors have led to this decline, the report says, pointing to plummeting oil prices; shifting politics in the 'tar sands capital' of Alberta, Canada; and the rise of both alternative energy technologies and the grassroots climate movement.
"The combination of citizen action to block pipelines and development and the rising tide of climate policies and alternative technologies, which are together leading to lower oil demand growth and lower oil prices, signal very strong headwinds for an oil source that is both high cost and high carbon," the report reads. Should such conditions persist, it goes on, "the rate of growth may slow significantly in the coming years--potentially avoiding lock-in of a significant amount of [greenhouse gas] emissions."
Still, the authors warn against growing complacent in the face of an industry that will fight tooth and nail to maintain its dominance.
"This report is some good news for the climate, but the battle is far from over. Every day of delay for tar sands projects is a good day for our future, but this is an industry determined to dig it up," said Lorne Stockman, Research Director at Oil Change International. "But while the industry puts its head down and tries to charge ahead, people around the continent are rising up to defend our communities and climate, and their efforts are clearly paying dividends."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
Free Press Defenders Rip Marjorie Taylor Greene's 'Bullsh*t' Attack on Public Broadcasters
"Elon Musk and Marjorie Taylor Greene are trying to defund Sesame Street and dismantle PBS and NPR," said one Democratic congressman. "Not on our watch. Fire Elon Musk, and save Elmo."
Mar 26, 2025
Progressives roundly ridiculed U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene on Wednesday after the serial conspiracy theorist made baseless claims that National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service are "radical left-wing echo chambers" with a "communist agenda" and called for their defunding.
"Is Elmo now, or has he ever been, a member of the Communist Party?"
Greene (R-Ga.)—who chairs the House Oversight Committee's Subcommittee on Delivering Government Efficiency (DOGE, but not part of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency)—convened the hearing, titled "Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the Heads of NPR and PBS Accountable," to examine alleged "biased news" and whether American taxpayers "will continue funding these leftist media outlets."
"After listening to what we've heard today, we will be calling for the complete and total defund and dismantling of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting," the congresswoman told
NPR CEO Katherine Maher and the PBS CEO Paula Kerger during her closing remarks, referring to the nonprofit that helps fund PBS and NPR.
"Here's how it works: In America, every single day—every single day—private businesses operate on their own, without government funding," she added. "We believe you all can hate us on your own dime."
PBS gets about 16% of its funding from federal sources. For NPR, the figure is around just 1%.
Greene—who has amplified conspiracy theories including QAnon, Pizzagate, the 9/11 "hoax," government involvement in mass shootings, "Jewish space lasers" causing wildfires, the U.S. government controlling the weather, and the "stolen" 2020 presidential election—made more blatantly false claims during Wednesday's hearing, including that PBS used "taxpayer funds to push some of the most radical left positions like featuring a drag queen" on one of its children's programs. This never happened.
Nevertheless, Greene used props including a blown-up photo of drag queen Lil' Miss Hot Mess, a children's book author and Drag Queen Story Hour board member, whom the congresswoman called a "monster," while baselessly accusing Maher and Kerger of "grooming and sexualizing" children.
Another Republican member of the panel, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer of Kentucky, appeared to not understand the difference between an editorial—an opinion article—and the the work and standards of media editors:
oh my god -- Comer thinks "editorial standards" literally refers to standards for editorials and is corrected by the NPR head
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar ( @atrupar.com) March 26, 2025 at 8:12 AM
Democrats on the DOGE subcommittee pushed back against the attacks by Greene and other Republicans on the panel. Mocking Greene's assertion that PBS and NPR have a "communist agenda" and referring to one of the most beloved characters on the long-running children's show Sesame Street, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) asked Kerger a McCarthyesque question: "Is Elmo now, or has he ever been, a member of the Communist Party? A yes or no."
Kerger answered "no," prompting Garcia to retort: "Now, are you sure, Ms. Kerger? Because he's obviously red... He also has a very dangerous message about sharing. And helping each other; he's indoctrinating our kids that sharing is caring. Now maybe he's part of a major socialist plot and maybe that's why the chairwoman is having this hearing today."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) responded to a false assertion by hearing guest Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation—the main force behind Project 2025, the plan for a far-right overhaul of the federal government that includes defunding public broadcasters—as well Musk's glaring conflicts of interest by referring to a popular porcine protagonist of Muppets fame.
"To your knowledge, has Miss Piggy ever been caught trying to funnel billions of dollars in government contracts to herself and to her companies?" Casar said.
At the end of his remarks, the progressive lawmaker implored Greene to "leave Elmo alone" and instead bring in Musk, the de facto head of the other DOGE, for questioning. Musk, the world's richest person, and President Donald Trump support defunding public broadcasters.
In typically fiery fashion, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) told Greene and Republicans that "free speech is not about what y'all want somebody to say, and the idea that you want to shut down everybody that is not Fox News is bullshit!"
Tim Karr, the senior director of strategy and communications at the media reform group Free Press, told Common Dreams after the hearing that Greene's "bogus attack against public media is a blatant attempt to further weaken the sort of journalism that questions the corruption and cruelty of the Trump administration."
"This is not about saving taxpayer dollars or based on any genuine concern about whether there's too much bias on public media. It's a blatant attempt to undermine independent, rigorous reporting on the Trump administration," Karr argued.
"Greene may not like public media—and that's no surprise given that she's no fan of journalism that holds public officials and billionaires accountable," he continued. "But she and her Republican colleagues are far out of step with the American people and their needs. Communities all across the country rely on their local public radio and TV stations to provide trustworthy news reporting and a diversity of opinions."
"In every survey, the American public indicates it wants more support for public and community media, not less," Karr added. "Unfortunately, President Trump and his cronies in Congress have instead tried to zero out funding for public media. They have repeatedly failed because millions of viewers and listeners oppose them and instead believe that support for public media is taxpayer money well spent."
On Tuesday, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Freedom of the Press Foundation, and Reporters Without Borders sent a joint letter urging Greene's committee "to approach its examination of public broadcasting with the understanding that press freedom is not a partisan issue, rather a vital part of American democracy."
The attack on @pbs.org and @npr.org is an attack on journalism. The administration is just going after them first because public funding makes them the low-hanging fruit. We're proud to partner on this letter with CPJ and @rsf.org. cpj.org/2025/03/cpj-...
[image or embed]
— Freedom of the Press Foundation ( @freedom.press) March 25, 2025 at 9:07 AM
"The tone and conduct of the proceedings matter," the groups' letter asserts. "The American public deserves access to quality, independent journalism, regardless of geography, income, creed, or political views. Public broadcasting delivers on this vital need by providing high-quality, fact-based reporting to the American public, including underserved communities across the nation."
"Congressional scrutiny of public broadcasting must not undermine the ability of journalists to report the news safely and without fear of reprisal," the groups stressed. "Otherwise, a dangerous precedent will be set that could further erode trust in the media and undermine press freedom more broadly."
The Communications Workers of America (CWA) union is sharing a petition telling Congress to protect public broadcasting.
"Republican leaders in Congress and the Trump administration are following the Project 2025 playbook and trying to shut down funding for independent public television and radio stations," the petition states. "Many CWA members work at these locally owned stations and play a crucial role in keeping our communities informed. Without public television and radio stations, we will lose access to critical local news and programming."
As Anger Over Wealth Inequality Deepens, Wall Street Bonuses Are 4 Times A US Worker's Pay
"Something is very broken and this is why people are so disenchanted," one commenter said.
Mar 26, 2025
Amid growing discontent over surging economic inequality in the U.S.—and the Trump administration's elevation of unelected billionaire Elon Musk to the upper reaches of the federal government—the New York state comptroller's report on rising Wall Street bonuses was met with condemnation on Wednesday.
"Something is very broken and this is why people are so disenchanted," wrote one commenter on an article about the report at The Washington Post. "There is no American dream. Just fat cats getting fatter."
Another added that "the inequity of taxation on wealth in this country is shameful."
New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli lauded Wall Street's "very strong performance" in 2024 as he announced the average bonus paid to employees in the securities industry reached $244,700 last year—up 31.5% from 2023—as Wall Street's profits skyrocketed by 90%. The bonus pool reached a record $47.5 billion.
But as researcher Rob Galbraith pointed out on social media, the record-breaking take-home pay of Wall Street executives was 3.5 times the median household income for a family in Erie County, New York—leaving doubt that many workers in the state will immediately join in celebrating what DiNapoli said was "good news for New York's economy and our fiscal position" due to the bonuses' impacts on tax revenue.
"Tens of thousands of NYC families are about to lose their childcare unless we come up with another $1 billion in the state budget," said state Rep. Zohran Mamdani (D-36), who is running to be mayor of New York City, in response to the announcement.
The average bonus for Wall Street employees was about four times the salary of the median full-time U.S. worker's earnings for 2024, which came to about $62,000 or $1,200 per week.
DiNapoli's estimate was released a week after voters at a town hall in a Republican district in Nebraska shouted, "Tax the rich!" at Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) when he expressed support for Musk's slashing of public spending and claimed such cuts are necessary to balance the budget.
In recent weeks, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have drawn crowds of tens of thousands of people to hear them speak on their Fighting Oligarchy tour—leading the congresswoman to proclaim, "What is happening right now is different."
"We need to be taxing the rich on the floor of the Congress," said Ocasio-Cortez in Arizona last week, drawing loud applause. "We need to be establishing guaranteed healthcare on the floor of the Congress. We need to be passing a living wage on the floor of the Congress."
However, Congress is currently controlled by Republicans working to cut federal programs that serve working people to pay for tax cuts benefiting rich individuals and corporations.
'Abhorrent. Evil. Indefensible.' Trump Cutting Vaccine Alliance Funds Could Kill 1.2 Million Children Worldwide
"This isn't fiscal responsibility. It's a political decision to let preventable diseases spread—to ignore science, lend legitimacy to anti-vaccine extremism, and dismantle the infrastructure that protects us all."
Mar 26, 2025
Public health experts and other critics on Wednesday condemned the Trump administration's decision to cut off funding to the global vaccine alliance Gavi, which the organization estimates could result in the deaths of over 1 million children.
"Abhorrent. Evil. Indefensible," Atlantic staff writer Clint Smith said on social media in response to exclusive reporting from The New York Times, which obtained documents including a 281-page spreadsheet that "the skeletal remains" of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) sent to Congress on Monday.
The leaked materials detail 898 awards that the Trump administration plans to continue and 5,341 it intends to end. A spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, which runs the gutted USAID, confirmed the list is accurate and said that "each award terminated was reviewed individually for alignment with agency and administration priorities."
The United States contributes 13% of Gavi's budget and the terminated grant was worth $2.6 billion through 2030, according to the Times. Citing the alliance, the newspaper noted that cutting off U.S. funds "may mean 75 million children do not receive routine vaccinations in the next five years, with more than 1.2 million children dying as a result."
"The administration's attempt to unilaterally walk away from its Gavi commitment raises serious legal questions and should be challenged."
Responding to the Trump administration's move in a social media thread on Wednesday, Gavi said that U.S. support for the alliance "is vital" and with it, "we can save over 8 million lives over the next five years and give millions of children a better chance at a healthy, prosperous future."
"But investing in Gavi brings other benefits for our world and the American people. Here's why: By maintaining global stockpiles of vaccines against deadly diseases like Ebola, mpox, and yellow fever, we help keep America safe. These diseases do not respect borders, they can cross continents in hours and cost billions of dollars," Gavi continued.
The alliance explained that "aside from national security, investing in Gavi means smart economics too. Every dollar we invest in lower income countries generates a return of $54. This helps countries develop and communities thrive, taking away pressure to migrate in search of a better life elsewhere."
"The countries Gavi supports, too, see the benefit in our model: Every year they pay more towards the cost of their own immunisation program, bringing forward the day when they transition from our support completely," the group noted. "Our goal is to ultimately put ourselves out of business."
"For 25 years, the USA and Gavi have had the strongest of partnerships," the alliance concluded. "Without its help, we could not have halved child mortality, saved 18 million lives or helped 19 countries transition from our support (some becoming donors themselves). We hope this partnership can continue."
Many other opponents of the decision also weighed in on social media. Eric Reinhart, a political anthropologist, social psychiatrist, and psychoanalytic clinician in the United States, said, "A sick country insists on a sick world."
Dr. Heather Berlin, an American neuroscientist and clinical psychologist, sarcastically said: "Oh yes, this will surely end well. Good thing the U.S. has an invisible shield around it to protect us from 'foreign' diseases."
Some Times readers also praised the reporting. Dr. Jonathan Marro—a pediatric oncologist, bioethicist, health services researcher, and educator in Massachusetts—called the article "excellent but appalling," while Patrick Gaspard, a distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and its action fund, said that it was "crushing to read this important story."
The newspaper noted that "the memo to Congress presents the plan for foreign assistance as a unilateral decision. However because spending on individual health programs such as HIV or vaccination is congressionally allocated, it is not clear that the administration has legal power to end those programs. This issue is currently being litigated in multiple court challenges."
Liza Barrie, Public Citizen's campaign director for global vaccines access, also highlighted that point in a Wednesday statement. She said that "the Trump administration's decision to end U.S. funding for Gavi will cost more than a million children's lives, make America less secure. It abandons 25 years of bipartisan commitment to global immunization and undermines the very systems that help prevent deadly outbreaks from reaching our own doorsteps."
"Vaccines are the most cost-effective public health tool ever developed," Barrie continued. "This isn't fiscal responsibility. It's a political decision to let preventable diseases spread—to ignore science, lend legitimacy to anti-vaccine extremism, and dismantle the infrastructure that protects us all. In their shocking incompetence, the Trump administration will do it all without saving more than a rounding error in the budget, if that."
"Congress has authority over foreign assistance funding," she stressed. "The administration's attempt to unilaterally walk away from its Gavi commitment raises serious legal questions and should be challenged. Lawmakers must stand up for the rule of law, and for the belief that the value of a child’s life is not determined by geography."
Most Popular