

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
As the country grapples with climate change, the policy choices made about natural gas and fracking in the near future are enormously consequential. A major new report compiles, tracks, and analyzes key trends about drilling, fracking, and its infrastructure, and demonstrates that there are pervasive, grave misunderstandings about the effects of natural gas and fracking. It finds that drilling, fracking, and reliance on natural gas can lead to serious harm to public health and the environment, and are incompatible with climate solutions.
Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York released the Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking, sixth edition, written by scientists, doctors, and experts who have extensive experience with the issue. The Compendium draws on nearly 1,500 studies (355 of which were published in 2018) and important government reports and investigative reports by journalists. Several experts are available, upon request, for interviews about the new report and the issue more broadly.
Ten years ago, there were a handful of peer-reviewed, scientific studies of drilling and fracking. Today there is a substantial body of evidence, making the Compendium's scope and analysis of trends crucial. The analysis finds that the vast majority of evidence points to serious risks and harms from drilling, fracking, and related infrastructure like pipelines and compressor stations. The implications for public health are increasingly serious, given that today at least six percent of the U.S. population--17.6 million Americans--live within a mile of an active oil or gas well, making them particularly vulnerable to fracking-related health impacts.
Sandra Steingraber, PhD, co-founder of Concerned Health Professionals of New York, said, "With each edition of the Compendium, the case against fracking becomes more damning. As the science continues to come in, early inklings of harm have converged into a wide river of corroborating evidence. All together, the data show that fracking impairs the health of people who live nearby, especially pregnant women, and swings a wrecking ball at the climate. We urgently call on political leaders to act on the knowledge we've compiled."
"Despite efforts by the gas industry to suppress all health data on fracking, the Compendium documents the serious harm fracking holds for pregnant women, children and those with respiratory disease," said Walter Tsou, MD, MPH, interim executive director of Philadelphia Physicians for Social Responsibility and a former Philadelphia Health Commissioner. He added, "We need to ban fracking."
The Compendium compiles and presents the evidence behind environment and health-related trends, detailing more than a dozen trends from the emerging science, including:
These trends underscore how continued support for fracking and natural gas--and its ancillary infrastructure--rests on outdated assumptions and dangerous misconceptions about their impacts. The notion that natural gas can serve as an intermediate "bridge fuel" between coal and renewable energy is fallacious and now disproven by new scientific evidence showing that methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than formerly appreciated and escapes in larger amounts from all parts of the extraction and distribution process than previously presumed, including from inactive, long-abandoned wells. Grossly underestimating methane emissions threatens to undermine the efficacy of efforts to combat climate change.
"The Compendium gives a sobering overview of the toxic harm that fracking is inflicting on our water, our air and our people," observed Larry Moore, MD, an emergency room doctor in Colorado Springs and a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado Working Group. "It's a real problem here in Colorado, where I practice, and it's getting worse and worse across the country."
The evidence to date from scientific, medical, and journalistic investigations combine to demonstrate that fracking poses significant threats to air, water, human health, public safety, community cohesion, long-term economic vitality, biodiversity, seismic stability, and climate stability.
The Compendium finds that, "Across a wide range of parameters, from air and water pollution to radioactivity to social disruption to greenhouse gas emissions, the data continue to reveal a plethora of recurring problems and harms that cannot be sufficiently averted through regulatory frameworks. There is no evidence that fracking can operate without threatening public health directly and without imperiling climate stability upon which public health depends."
Physicians for Social Responsibility mobilizes physicians and health professionals to advocate for climate solutions and a nuclear weapons-free world. PSR's health advocates contribute a health voice to energy, environmental health and nuclear weapons policy at the local, federal and international level.
Delaware is home to more corporations than people. Human people, that is, as under longstanding state law and the US Supreme Court's infamous 2010 ruling, corporations are people, too.
A judge in Delaware—a state with more registered business entities than people—ruled Monday in favor of a small town that allows corporations to vote in local elections.
Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig Karsnitz ruled that the town of Fenwick Island, population 400, did not violate the state Constitution by permitting business entities—which make up 12% of the town's "population"—to vote in municipal elections, as case plaintiff the ACLU of Delaware had claimed.
"What is a 'person?' When one cuts to the heart of this case, that is the question," Karsnitz wrote to open his 20-page ruling.
‼️‼️Delaware Superior Court upholds a municipal ordinance allowing individuals to cast votes on behalf of LLCs, trusts, and corporations in local elections against a challenge that the ordinance constitutes unlawful vote dilution for real persons under the state constitution. aboutblaw.com/blQg
[image or embed]
— Anthony Michael Kreis (@anthonymkreis.bsky.social) May 27, 2026 at 1:46 PM
"According to the law, a person is anyone or anything that can initiate and be subject to legal proceedings. By this conception, any adult, corporation, or institution is a person, but a minor is not a person, a fetus is not a person, and a humanoid robot... is not a person," the ruling continues. "This highlights that legal personhood is dependent solely on legal recognition."
The judge noted that in 2008, the Delaware General Assembly amended Fenwick Island's charter "to expand its voter registration rolls to allow individuals to cast votes on behalf of trusts, limited liability companies, partnerships, and corporations that own property in Fenwick."
"Today, the overwhelming majority of legal entity property owners in Fenwick registered to vote, and on whose behalf votes are cast, are trusts," Karsnitz added.
"I appreciate that Plaintiff may disagree with Delaware’s policy of authorizing certain municipalities to allow voting on behalf of entity property owners," the judge wrote.
"Visions of faceless large corporations, or even HAL, controlling a small town are frightening and the stuff of science fiction," he continued," referring to the malevolent artificial intelligence-powered computer in Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film version of Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey. "However, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that this policy violates the principle of one person/entity/one vote."
"Plaintiff points to no other persuasive independent authority than the Elections Clause of the Delaware Constitution itself," Karsnitz concluded. "And matters of policy are appropriately left to legislative bodies, not the courts."
Fenwick Island Mayor Natalie Magdeburger told Reuters earlier this year that "a property owner who pays taxes and is subject to our ordinances should have a say in who represents them on our Town Council."
Meanwhile, the ACLU of Delaware contends that "with over 2 million business entities incorporated in Delaware–roughly double the amount of actual people living in the state–the people of Delaware risk having their voices drowned out when towns like Fenwick Island allow corporate voting."
Karsnitz's ruling does not mention Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 US Supreme Court decision affirming that political spending by corporations, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and other groups is a form of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment that government cannot restrict. The decision ushered in the era of super PACs—which can raise unlimited amounts of money to spend on campaigns—and secret spending on elections with so-called “dark money.”
While Delaware's corporate personhood laws long predate Citizens United, numerous critics of Monday's ruling referred to the case, including the progressive legal advocacy group Demand Justice.
"Corporations aren't people," the group asserted on X. "They don't have kids in local schools, they don't drink the water, they can’t be jailed for crimes, and they shouldn't get a vote."
Some compared Hawaii, where Democratic Gov. Josh Green recently signed legislation clarifying that corporations are not people, with Delaware.
"Hawaii made a move to rein in Citizens United," writer Van Dennis posted on X, "and Delaware responded, "The fuck you are."
"The 'no more foreign wars' president just threatened to attack yet another country," said one critic.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened to "blow up" Oman if the US ally works with Iran to reopen and jointly manage the Strait of Hormuz.
Responding to reporting by Iranian state media that Iran and Oman were negotiating an agreement to jointly manage the Strait of Hormuz—through which around 20% of the world's oil was shipped before the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran—Trump said that "nobody's gonna control" the vital waterway.
"We're gonna watch over it, but nobody's gonna control it," the president continued. "That's part of the negotiation that we have."
Donald Trump: "Oman will behave just like everybody else, or we'll have to blow them up."The "no more foreign wars" president just threatened to attack yet another country.
[image or embed]
— Home of the Brave (@ofthebraveusa.bsky.social) May 27, 2026 at 10:15 AM
"It's international waters, and Oman will behave just like everybody else, or we'll have to blow them up," Trump added. "They understand that; they'll be fine."
The US State Department posted a captioned video of Trump's remarks, removing all doubt about whether he indeed threatened an ally with which the United States has had a strategically important partnership for generations.
A defense cooperation agreement signed in 1980 allows US forces to use Omani military bases, including facilities used for logistics, surveillance, and regional operations. The two countries periodically hold joint military exercises and cooperate on counterterrorism and maritime security—especially regarding threats to Gulf shipping lanes.
The countries have also had a free trade agreement in effect since 2009, and the president's business organization is currently building Trump International Oman, a controversial $500 million luxury hotel, golf course, villa, and resort development near the capital, Muscat.
In which Biff forgets about the Trump golf course and hotel grift he is running in Oman
[image or embed]
— Tom Hearden (@followtheh.bsky.social) May 27, 2026 at 10:20 AM
Oman has also been a trusted mediator between the US and countries including Iran. Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi publicly said that a deal to avert the Iran War was "within our reach" as Trump ordered bombing to commence.
Trump's remarks suggested that US and Iranian negotiators are not as close to a deal to end the 88-day war—in which US and Israeli forces have killed thousands of Iranians and global energy prices have soared—as the president has claimed.
"We should be the party that says 'Donald Trump, end this war, we're going to support the negotiation'—and then we're not going to get into these wars in the future."
Congressman Ro Khanna on Tuesday suggested Democratic voters who believe the party lacks "principles," as a number of respondents said in a new poll, have understandable questions about what Democrats stands for, as he denounced recent comments from several lawmakers who have attacked President Donald Trump for not being hawkish enough when it comes to the war he started in Iran.
"People want a Democratic Party that's going to stand for things, that stands as the party that's anti-war," Khanna told Chris Hayes on MS NOW.
“And we should be the party that says, ‘Donald Trump, end this war, we’re going to support the negotiation’—and then we’re going to not get into these wars in the future,” he added.
Khanna accused his colleagues of sending the message: “Donald Trump, go blow up more things! Why aren’t you destroying more of Iran?”
“I’m not one of those Democrats,” said the congressman, who introduced a war powers resolution with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to stop Trump from launching unauthorized strikes against Iran. “I’m one of the people saying, ‘Yes, let’s get a negotiated settlement. Let’s work toward ending this war.’”
“The Democrats should be for ending this war and be against more of these foreign interventions,” said Khanna. “The last thing we want is to goad Donald Trump into getting us into more conflict there.”
"We should be the party that says 'Donald Trump, end this war, we're going to support the negotiation' — and then we're not going to get into these wars in the future"
@RoKhanna to @ChrisLHayes on some Dems attacking Trump from the right over Iran dealpic.twitter.com/Rxbd7e1iJ6
— Just Foreign Policy (@justfp) May 27, 2026
As examples of what Khanna is talking about, influential Democrats including Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) have spent the last several days provoking the president over Iran, and by complaining that the deal to end the war isn't tough enough on the country, which the US and Israel began preemptively attacking in February in violation of international law.
More than 3,400 people have been killed in Iran since the war started, while Israel has expanded hostilities to Lebanon, killing more than 3,000 people. The casualties in Iran have included about 150 people, mostly children, who were killed in an attack on a girls' school when the war started; Amnesty International has called for the US to be held to account for the bombing. A number of other schools have also been attacked, as well as medical facilities.
Despite the carnage—as well as the economic impact of war, which Iran swiftly responded to by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil shipping route, and sending oil prices skyrocketing—Booker on Sunday debuted what Just Foreign Policy executive director Erik Sperling called "Democrat neocon talking points" regarding reports of an impending peace deal.
The senator said reports of the deal—including the reopening of the strait, a lift of US sanctions allowing Iran to sell oil freely, and an apparent agreement to hold formal talks on Iran's nuclear program later—had him "outraged."
"The president said he went into this to deal with the nuclear program. This does not deal with that," said Booker, adding that the easing of sanctions of Iran would allow them to get "billions more" dollars.
"Giving Iran more money, as he has said, will allow them to do things like fuel their terrorist proxies," the senator added.
His comments were followed by Wasserman Schultz's interview on the same network Tuesday, when she said she was "concerned and frustrated over, again, another potential deal, a negotiation for a negotiation, where we're going to unfreeze Iranian assets" and allowing Iran to "rebuild their ballistic missile program."
Another Democrat comes out to the right of Trump, criticizing US-Iran negotiated deal to end the war:
"We're going to unfreeze Iranian assets and give them billions of dollars to be able to control proxies again?"
Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, former DNC chair https://t.co/D7plRDK0Nk pic.twitter.com/gq50DoaDqp
— Erik Sperling (@ErikSperling) May 26, 2026
Booker has taken more than $800,000 from pro-Israel groups including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, while Wasserman Schultz has taken more than $1.4 million.
Murphy also condemned the reported deal on social media Sunday, saying that Trump "hasn’t accomplished ANY of his constantly shifting goals."
"Iran still has its ballistic missile and drone program," he said. "They still have a navy that can close the strait. A hardline regime is still in charge."
Jeet Heer of The Nation said that because the war on Iran "is immensely unpopular... prominent Democrats want to outflank Trump by being more hawkish."
Historian and analyst Stephen Wertheim credited Khanna with articulating "what the vast majority of Democrats believe, but too few of their leaders say and mean."
A March poll by Pew Research Center found that nearly 90% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said the Trump administration had made the wrong decision going to war against Iran.
Khanna also spoke to Fox News over the weekend, saying he would support all efforts by Trump to negotiate a peace deal with Iran and expressing approval of the president's apparent rejection of the "Lindsay Graham wing of the party," referring to the South Carolina Republican, an outspoken advocate for military intervention in Iran and elsewhere.
Khanna's comments, said Sperling, represented "what decent, pro-diplomacy messaging looks like."