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
Opinion
Chris Smalls Is Coming Home; Will This Shake the US Labor Movement Into Action on Gaza?
Despite Smalls' high-profile success at Amazon, the majority of American unions ignored his beating by the IDF.
Jul 31, 2025
Early Thursday morning, the Freedom Flotilla Coalition announced that Amazon Labor Union founder Chris Smalls had been released from Israeli prison.
According to the group, Smalls is currently on his way to the Allenby Bridge border crossing between the West Bank and Jordan. From Jordan, he is expected to fly to JFK.
Labor Party USA, an organization founded by Smalls, confirmed on Instagram that they were planning a welcoming party for him at KFK Airport on Friday morning.
Smalls' detention and arrest caused international outrage.
With Smalls returning to the United States, it will be interesting to see whether he speaks publicly about his beating at the hands of the IDF, which will draw more attention to the plight of Palestinians within the labor movement.
On Saturday, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) boarded the Handala, a ship associated with the Freedom Flotilla Coalition, that was attempting to reach Gaza with supplies for starving Palestinians. The IDF detained 21 activists, who had their hands held up, in graphic images that the Freedom Flotilla Coalition captured.
On Monday, details emerged that not only was Smalls detained, but he was physically beaten by the IDF. He was the only Black member of the Freedom Flotilla on the Handala.
"The Freedom Flotilla Coalition confirms that upon arrival in Israeli custody, U.S. human rights defender, Christian Smalls, was physically assaulted by seven uniformed individuals," wrote the Freedom Flotilla Coalition on Instagram. "They choked him and kicked him in the legs, leaving visible signs of violence on his neck and back."
Still, despite Smalls having been profiled by every major media outlet in the U.S. when he successfully led the union drive at Amazon, not a single major media outlet has covered his violent detention by the IDF five days ago.
Even worse, the majority of American unions ignored his beating by the IDF.
Teamsters President Sean O'Brien, whose union the Amazon Labor Union is affiliated with, has yet to denounce his detention. Instead, O'Brien, who famously spoke in praise of Trump at the Republican National Convention last summer, took to social media Tuesday to promote an interview with Tucker Carlson.
Association of Flight Attendants president Sara Nelson did denounce the IDF's beating of Smalls.
"If this is how the IDF treats American citizens traveling with media attention, it brings even more credibility to the reports of their abuses of Palestinian civilians," Nelson wrote on Bluesky late Wednesday. "I stand in solidarity w/ my brother Chris, the civilians in Gaza and all working towards peace and dignity for all. End this horror."
While most American unions stayed silent, the 750,000 member Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), the largest union in Canada, did denounce the IDF's treatment of Smalls.
"CUPE stands in solidarity with U.S. labour leader Chris Smalls and all the activists unlawfully detained by Israel while on board the Freedom Flotilla Handala, delivering aid to Gaza," CUPE wrote on Bluesky late Wednesday. "We condemn this brutality and call for their immediate release."
With Smalls returning to the United States, it will be interesting to see whether he speaks publicly about his beating at the hands of the IDF, which will draw more attention to the plight of Palestinians within the labor movement.
The Amazon Labor Union called on the rest of the labor movement to mobilize to denounce the detention of Amazon Labor Union founder Chris Smalls.
"We honor the call from Palestinian labor unions to disrupt the arms trade and support global workers' actions such as strikes, direct protests, and other efforts," the Amazon Labor Union said in a statement.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Is So Much of Corporate Media Caving to Trump?
A new ranking of the 35 largest media conglomerates finds a systemic failure to protect democracy against authoritarianism.
Jul 31, 2025
The rules of authoritarianism are pretty simple: Do as the leader says... or else.
This lopsided power equation runs counter to the checks and balances that are baked into the DNA of any healthy democracy. The early framers of American democracy understood this, which is why they codified the basic rights to free expression and an independent press as checks against power.
Free Press this week released the inaugural Media Capitulation Index to examine how this information ecosystem is fairing nearly 250 years later. This sweeping investigation analyzes and rates the independence of America’s 35 largest media companies, including the many conglomerates that have recently caved to pressure from an authoritarian and corrupt Trump administration.
I led the investigation, produced the performance-based ratings of these companies, and authored the report, A More Perfect Media: Saving America’s Fourth Estate from Billionaires, Broligarchy, and Trump, which accompanies the index.
We need to examine the systemic failures that have led us to this point and understand how such accumulation of power and wealth makes it next to impossible for these media giants to fulfill the social compact embodied in the notion of the Fourth Estate.
The findings are sobering. After digging into the many failures of America’s hyper-commercialized media system, we present a series of recommendations to help dig the United States out of the authoritarian quicksand into which we're sinking, and build toward a more independent, democratic, diverse, and free press.
This work is crucial at a time when some of the most dominant news media companies empires including Disney (which owns ABC), Paramount (CBS) and Warner Bros. Discovery (CNN) are capitulating and compromising in the face of this administration’s political extortion and thuggery. In addition, The New York Times is becoming increasingly “vulnerable” to pressure from the White House. In many ways it's a vulnerability of its own making. As we report, the newspaper's “ill-advised attempt at both-sides objectivity [has the Times] routinely normalizing the most extreme elements of Trumpism.”
The index also investigates the questionable and often lucrative government entanglements of billionaire media owners like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Elon Musk.
In evaluating the 35 companies, Free Press found that media owners capitulated to the current White House in four principal ways:
- Through payments to U.S. President Donald Trump in the form of legal settlements, production contracts, campaign contributions, and other donations;
- By rolling back prior commitments to diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in hiring and community outreach;
- Through editorial manipulation and censorship: pressuring their newsrooms to soften criticism of the administration, firing staff, and even pulling content that might anger the president; and
- By attempting to curry favor with the president during inaugural ceremonies, private dinners at Mar-a-Lago, and meetings in the White House.
Fulfilling the Social Compact
This small cartel of billionaire- and equity-fund-controlled conglomerates determines much of what Americans read, see, and hear. Their coverage and amplification too often sets the agenda around nation-defining political issues. Through a history of mergers and acquisitions, these companies have consolidated their control over public discourse.
Our founders sought to protect the U.S. press from government meddling so that reporters and publishers could act as reliable checks against tyranny and other political corruption. But it’s up to the media to exercise these freedoms. Many modern-day media owners, instead, have put their pursuit of power and profits over First Amendment principles.
I can’t imagine that the drafters of the Constitution foresaw a time when so much control over information would fall into the hands of so few. We need to examine the systemic failures that have led us to this point and understand how such accumulation of power and wealth makes it next to impossible for these media giants to fulfill the social compact embodied in the notion of the Fourth Estate.
I spoke with former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan, who later wrote the Free Press project was a “thorough new examination of how well—or poorly—the American press is doing that core mission. And why it’s mostly failing.”
Each conglomerate in the Media Capitulation Index is ranked on a scale from “independent” to “propaganda.” The report analyzes the root causes driving commercial media’s inability to defend democracy at a time of spreading domestic and international authoritarianism.
Who Owns the Media Owners?
As I was writing, researching, and creating these materials, many people asked me: “Who owns the media?” The Media Capitulation Index helps answer that question, but it also raises an even more essential (and disturbing) one: “Who owns the media owners?”
The report that accompanies the index reveals the systemic problems behind the media’s failure to meet this moment. But it concludes on a more hopeful note, outlining steps people can take to make “a more perfect media” for everyone. These include fully funding public media and independent, local-accountability journalism; restoring and strengthening media-ownership limits; and emboldening the Federal Communication Commission’s and Federal Trade Commission’s role in stopping media mergers that harm the public interest.
We will continue to update the index, capturing both instances of media capitulation and examples where media stand up to this extortionate regime. It’s hoped that this structural critique of our current media system will help instill in more media outlets the courage needed to challenge a bullying and power-hungry president.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Big New Law Is a Disaster for the Big Blue Sea
A policy expert explains why the budget reconciliation bill will harm the ocean and attempts to protect and understand it.
Jul 31, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump is not a fan of sharks or the ocean. From gutting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to seeking the expansion of offshore oil drilling and deep-sea mining while attacking wind energy, his view of our public seas is that they'll make a good gas station and garbage dump. And, this view is reflected in his major legacy bill recently passed into law by the MAGA majority in Congress.
But there's been little discussion about how this bill will impact our public seas. So, we (Vicki Nichols Goldman and myself) spoke with George Leonard, former chief scientist with the Ocean Conservancy and an ocean policy consultant about what's going on:
George Leonard (GL): I am a marine scientist by training. I got a master's in marine science and then a PhD in ecology and evolutionary biology and have for 25 years worked on the interface between science and policy. I think many of the moves made by the Trump administration are counter to good public policy and put the ocean at great risk.
David Helvarg (DH): George, during the first Trump administration, his focus seemed to be on opening it up for offshore drilling.
GL: Yeah, I think that's right. Now, on the one hand, it (the Trump administration's new ocean policy) feels disjointed, unorganized, and without a broader strategy. And yet if you then actually try to focus in on what's happening, it seems to be quite deliberate. The attacks on science and knowledge seem to be comprehensive and unrelenting. And that's really troubling, right? It's troubling for a whole generation of upcoming scientists, undergraduates, graduate students, you know, postdocs, people who are just getting started and having the legs cut out from underneath them. And then you combine that with a real disdain for anything related to renewable energy. Obviously, the ocean has a huge role to play in renewable energy.
Vicki Nichols Goldstein (VNG): I'm looking at the bill, and it's astounding that he is proposing a $2.2 billion reduction in NOAA's overall funding.
GL: By one account that I've seen there's 18 different line items, program areas that NOAA focuses on, and 11 of the 18 aren't just cut, they're terminated, like 100% reduction. The remaining (programs) experience a cut of between 20-60%. I mean, there's a lot of narrative around efficiency and (cutting) fraud and waste. But I have yet to see anything that supports these levels of cuts, certainly not in the NOAA space.
DH: And now they're doing major changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which has gotten America close to sustainable commercial fishing in federal waters. Fishermen can't be happy with that. Also, abolishing the Coastal Zone Management Act? That's every coastal state working in coordination with the feds to do good planning. What are some of the other really egregious things you saw coming out of this quote "Big Beautiful Bill"?
GL: I kept calling it the reconciliation bill because I refuse to call it the "big beautiful bill." Some I've heard call it the "big ugly bill." But look, the first thing that I think is really troubling is (getting rid of) the Ocean Observatories Initiative, right? That's a bunch of basic research and scientists working on a whole range of ocean-related science. Climate obviously is a big part of that, but also understanding the role of habitats and the importance of biodiversity and fisheries. That's entirely slated to be cut. I don't know how you pursue any kind of science-based work if you're going to reduce that to zero.
DH: That includes 10 laboratories working on climate and weather.
GL: That's right: 10 individual facilities that are to be closed. But the other big science-related piece for NOAA that many folks probably don't know they have is a big ocean observing system where there are literally high-tech buoys and devices deployed both in coastal waters and in offshore waters. They take the temperature, the pulse if you will, of the ocean and by my latest look, this is also slated for termination.
DH: And one of those ocean observing impacts is that it warns people when there are harmful algal blooms, when red tides are coming into Florida for example, when the beaches are going to be shut down. That warning system is gone. The public's being told, "Go swim at your own risk."
VNG: Or eat shellfish without knowing…
GL: Yes, harmful algal blooms can make water unfit to swim in. But they also have big impacts on the shellfish that we eat. And I know shellfish poisoning is nothing to laugh at. It can be extremely dangerous.
DH: I once interviewed a fisheries enforcement agent who demonstrated the effects of paralytic shellfish poisoning. He grabbed his throat and swelled up his tongue in his mouth and started gagging and flopping around on his desk very realistically. That guy's probably been laid off under this plan.
GL: Probably. You know there are other specific aspects of NOAA that are likewise being hobbled here. One is their ocean acidification program. You know burning fossil fuels is doing two things to the ocean. It's making the ocean hotter, and it's making the ocean more acidic. About 90% of the heat generated by climate change from burning fossil fuels ends up in the ocean and along with warming, it's also making the ocean more acidic. And that's simply because CO2 dissolves in water, and NOAA has spearheaded that work and done a lot of work with coastal shellfish farmers and others to address this issue, and that work (with the aquaculture industry) is being cut as well.
VNG: You think about acidification, what's so important is that you need those calcium carbonate ions, and with acidification, they're being reduced. And so, when you think about oysters and muscles and crabs and clams needing that material as basic building blocks, we're looking at enormous hits to the ocean's productivity.
DH: And people's livelihoods. The shellfish industry has become the indicator species for ocean acidification.
GL: And some of the biggest champions to address the broader issue of climate change and how it relates to ocean acidification have been shellfish farmers, particularly shellfish farmers on the West Coast and in the Pacific Northwest.
DH: Now Trump's pushing deep-sea mining, and yet they've terminated NOAA's Ocean Exploration and Research division, which is all about exploring the deep ocean and understanding the places where they want to go and exploit it.
GL: There's all kinds of things like that that don't make sense. There was an executive order (from Trump) a while back about promoting U.S. aquaculture, and yet there's a cut to the (NOAA) aquaculture program in the reconciliation bill. So, what is that? Do we want to support aquaculture or do we want to undermine it? There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency there.
VNG: It just seems so challenging to follow the logic with this budget.
DH: It's almost vindictive, without logic, taking a chainsaw to places that may need scalpels or may in fact need to be expanded. Most people hearing about the bill are only hearing about it in terms of, "It'll add $3 or $4 trillion to the budget deficit" or "It will take Medicaid away from 12 million people and give tax benefits to the rich." But there's much more there. Like it will also impact our public seas in these many different ways that we're talking about. The Ocean used to be a bipartisan issue.
GL: Yeah, and there've been great examples of bipartisan work in the U.S. on oceans and fisheries and other issues. But when you look at the voting on this bill, it's pretty astounding. I mean, it's hard to ignore the fact that all the Democrats voted against it, and pretty much all the Republicans with a handful of exceptions, voted for it (passing it into law).
VNG: Well, I think we really need to engage with people who care about these issues. When people start linking up national, federal decisions with their own livelihoods, I think that's when people will start realizing, "Hmm, maybe there's an opportunity in the next election cycle to change what's happening."
GL: And of course, the great irony here is that NOAA had an Office of Education, which also is fully terminated. So whatever education and outreach and conversation is going to happen (around the ocean), it doesn't look like it's going to be led by NOAA, at least in the short term.
DH: No, and look at what we're seeing in other frontline agencies. I mean, the Environmental Protection Agency under Trump, they're pushing to shift the market away from a clean energy transition and back to fossil fuels. They are promoting keeping coal-fired power plants open, which is a major source of mercury in tuna. Mercury out of the smoke stacks that precipitates onto the ocean and into the food web. It's crazy. We're literally at a point where market forces favor a transition to cleaner, cheaper energy, including offshore wind, and they're trying to use their political power to shift that balance back to offshore oil and the burning of coal while denying climate science.
If climate change and pollution and biodiversity loss are the big things that we as a society need to be worried about, both here in the U.S. and around the world, the question is, does this bill make any of those better or worse?
I mean democracies don't guarantee environmental improvement, but that never happens under dictatorships. You need to have democracy in order to have good environmental policy. And so, there's this larger issue: Are we moving away from democracy and is that why we're seeing these irrational power- and vengeance-driven attacks on our public seas?
GL: That's the $64,000 question, David. I don't have a great answer for that one. I'm really just a lowly marine scientist by training, but I do think those are important questions for us to ask and it certainly seems like the evidence, at least now, is pointing in that direction. You know, you were talking about renewable energy versus fossil fuels. Maybe we should acknowledge one very small win in the legislative process here. There was part of the bill that was going to put additional taxes on offshore wind and other renewable technologies that was stripped out of the final version of the bill. And what remains is the tax incentives that are the remainder of the Inflation reduction Act from the Biden administration that will not expire until 2027.
It's a minor win, but one I think that was hard fought for and all of these minor improvements that made the big bad bill less bad is because of advocates and public leaders in Congress and folks like yourselves who are bringing these issues to everybody's attention.
VNG: I want to go back to our national marine sanctuaries program, something that's vital for protecting critical habitats and species and yet they're cutting this program by 60%. And that also includes our national monuments (in the ocean). And you are living adjacent to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, so how do you feel these impacts are going to affect recovery?
GL: It's super disheartening. It's the underwater equivalent of our national park system, right? America's greatest idea, but underwater. You know, I grew up in Massachusetts and I remember seeing little sea urchins and teeny little plants and a couple of small fish, and I just thought this was the coolest thing. Then I came to California and flopped into a kelp forest out here, and it just blew my mind away. And I was spellbound, right? And, I realized pretty quickly that that kelp forest was just an example of what was in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, which was a testament to just the incredible biodiversity and the amazing habitats that we have here.
So, it's really tough to think about what might be the future of that with a sanctuary office that's going to lose its superintendent and employees and people that I went to graduate school with who have made this their life, protecting the coastal ocean here. I've heard, you know, that they're only going to maintain the buoys in the sanctuaries through this bill and cease all on-water operations, which I'm still not sure what that means. I assume that means any kind of research, and they've also made a statement that they're no longer going to consider any new sanctuaries.
Now the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (the law) has a whole process by which new sanctuaries can be nominated and debated. And they're going to shut the door on any future sanctuaries? I think that's a real disservice to the legislation and to the public's ability to identify places that they want to see protected.
DH: So, George, in terms of looking at what the administration is doing with this new bill, what are the two or three ocean impacts that you think the marine conservation community should be focusing on and educating the public around?
GL: If we kind of step way back for a second, why is this a problem for the ocean? It's important to recognize what are the three big threats right now to ocean health.
In very simplistic terms, what's happening is that we're putting too much stuff into the ocean and we're taking too much stuff out of the ocean. So, we're putting in too much carbon, we're putting in too much plastic, we're putting in too many other pollutants, and we're basically taking out too many fish because there is still a global overfishing crisis.
And so, the United Nations has framed this up as sort of a triple planetary crisis where we have climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss as three separate but connected problems. And they need to be individually addressed, but they also need to be addressed in an integrative way because the ocean is one big connected system.
If climate change and pollution and biodiversity loss are the big things that we as a society need to be worried about, both here in the U.S. and around the world, the question is, does this bill make any of those better or worse? And I think it's not hard to make the argument that for all three of those problems, this bill makes them worse.
DH: And I'd just add that if you love the ocean, you have to love democracy too. And you have to fight like hell to turn the tide here.
GL: Absolutely. This is not a time to give up. I just saw a headline this morning that some of the Republicans have already started to push back a bit on some of the NOAA impacts largely because of advocacy from members of the public. So, you know, while the bill passed and was signed on July 4, we are still, I think, in the early days of what this is actually going to mean on the water. And we need to keep focused on that.
VNG: Looking for more opportunities for the public to get our voices out there and to make sure that we go out and vote and keep the ocean as a priority.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Deluded Don’s Climate Con
Donald Trump is using his bully pulpit to foist fossil fuels on the U.S. and on the world, but his efforts may backfire.
Jul 31, 2025
When I was a cub reporter at the New Yorker in the early 1980s, New York City was actually a somewhat seedy and dangerous (if fascinating) place (sort of fitting the image currently assigned it by MAGA ideologues who have ignored its almost complete makeover into a remarkably safe enclave). In those days, anyone wandering the Times Square neighborhood where I worked could count on seeing a three-card monte game on every block, with fast-talking card sharps hustling the tourists. It wasn’t very sophisticated, but it must have worked because they were out there every day.
The grift playing out this week in the federal government around climate is no more complicated, but it too relies on speed and distraction. On the first day of his term, U.S. President Donald Trump set up the con by asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate its 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions were dangerous. Yesterday, EPA czar and former failed gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin dutifully made his long-awaited announcement: Nothing to fear from carbon dioxide, methane, and the other warming gases.
“Today is the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said when he first announced the idea. “We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S., and more.”
Trump didn’t really need to do this in order to stop working on the climate crisis—he’s done that already. The point here is to try and make that decision permanent, so that some future administration can’t work on climate either, without going through the long and bureaucratic process of once again finding that the most dangerous thing on the Earth is in fact dangerous.
The problem with this simple one-two punch from Trump and Zeldin is that someone will challenge it in court as soon as it becomes official. “If EPA finalizes this illegal and cynical approach, we will see them in court,” said Christy Goldufss of the Natural Resources Defense Council. And they’ll have an argument, since—well, floods, fires, smoke, storms. I mean, if carbon dioxide was dangerous in 2009, that’s a hell of a lot more obvious 16 years later. The Supreme Court upheld the idea that CO2 was dangerous in 2007—here’s how Justice John Paul Stevens began that opinion:
A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species—the most important species—of a “greenhouse gas.”
But that was a different, and non-corrupted, Supreme Court. John Roberts wrote the dissent, and he’s doubtless eager to do with climate change what he’s already done with abortion. But that would be easier if they had some “well-respected experts” to say that there’s not any trouble—stage three of this grift. It’s true that there aren’t any well-respected experts that believe that, but the White House has hired several aged contrarians who have maintained for decades that global warming is not a problem, even as the temperature (and the damage) soared. And yesterday they released a new report that reads more or less like a Wall Street Journal op-ed. In it they cherry pick data, turn to old and long-debunked studies, and in general set up a group of strawmen so absurd that one almost has to grin in admiration. Actual climate scientists were lining up to say their papers had been misquoted, but all you needed was a modicum of knowledge to see how stupid the whole enterprise was. Just as an example, our contrarians hit the old talking point that CO2 is plant food—indeed, “below 180 ppm [parts per million], the growth rates of many C3 species are reduced 40-60% relative to 350 ppm (Gerhart and Ward 2010) and growth has stopped altogether under experimental conditions of 60-140 ppm CO2.” Great point except that there is no one calling for, and no way, to get CO2 levels anywhere near that low. I led a large-scale effort to remind people that anything above 350 ppm is too high, and that was so successful that we’re now at 420 ppm and climbing. Too little carbon dioxide is a problem for the planet in the way that too little arrogance is a problem for the president
And yet, when it finally reaches the court, they will doubtless cite this entirely cynical and bad-faith document to buttress the case that the EPA should be allowed to stop paying attention to carbon dioxide. As I said, it’s a pretty easy to follow swindle, but they count on the fact that most people won’t. Butter won’t melt in their mouths—as Energy Secretary (and former fracking executive) Chris Wright said in his foreword to the new report:
I chose the [authors] for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate. I exerted no control over their conclusions. What you’ll read are their words, drawn from the best available data and scientific assessments. I’ve reviewed the report carefully, and I believe it faithfully represents the state of climate science today.
Every word of that is nonsense, but it doesn’t matter—because it’s an official document on the right letterhead it will do the trick. This is precisely what science looks like when it’s perverted away from the search for truth. It’s disgusting.
Still, there’s another grift also underway this week, and this one that may work the other way and do the world some good. The president announced his new trade deal with the European Union, which calls for 15% tariffs—but it’s sweetened by the European promise to buy $750 billion worth of American natural gas in the next three years. Trump has essentially been using the tariff process as a shakedown, a way to repay his Big Oil cronies for their hundreds of millions in support: it’s pretty much exactly like a mob protection racket, where you buy from the guy you’re told to or you get a rock through the window. The White House quickly put out a list of thank yous, including one from the American Petroleum Institute: “We welcome POTUS’ announcement of a U.S.-E.U. trade framework that will help solidify America’s role as Europe’s leading source of affordable, reliable and secure energy.”
And yet, as Reuters first noted and then many others also calculated, the numbers are clearly nonsense. First, the E.U. actually doesn’t buy any energy itself, and it can’t tell its member states what to purchase; in fact, even those member states usually rely on private companies to buy stuff. Second, it’s physically impossible to imagine the U.S. selling Europe $250 billion worth of natural gas a year. As Tim McDonnell wrote at Semafor:
Total U.S. energy exports to the world were worth $318 billion last year, of which about $74.4 billion went to the E.U., according to Rystad Energy. So to meet the target, the E.U. would need to more than triple its purchases of U.S. fossil fuels—and the U.S. would need to stop selling them to almost anyone else.
“These numbers make no sense,” said Anne-Sophie Corbeau, a researcher specializing in European gas markets at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
The biggest reason it won’t happen, though, is that Europe is quickly switching to renewable energy. As Bill Farren-Price, head of gas research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, explained to the Financial Times:
“European gas demand is soft, and energy prices are falling. In any case, it is private companies not states that contract for energy imports,” he said. “Like it or not, in Europe the windmills are winning.”
Trump will doubtless coerce some countries into buying more liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the short run, and that will do damage. Global Venture announced Tuesday that they’d found the financing for the massive Calcasieu Pass 2 (CP2) export terminal, which has been opposed by both climate scientists and environmental justice activists. As Louisiana’s Roishetta Ozane said Tuesday:
The CP2 LNG facility is an assault on everything I hold dear. It’s a direct threat to the health and safety of my community and an assault on the livelihoods of our fishermen and shrimpers.
I’ve seen my kids struggle with asthma, eczema, headaches, and other illnesses that result from the pollution petrochemical and LNG plants dump into my community. I won’t stop opposing this project in every way I can, because my children—and everyone’s children—deserve to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in a healthy environment. I refuse to let Venture Global turn my community into a sacrifice zone for the sake of its profits.
But my guess is that such facilities won’t be pumping for as many decades as their investors imagine. Europe pivoted hard to renewables because Russian President Vladimir Putin proved an unstable supplier of natural gas; Trump’s America is hardly more reliable, since the president has made it clear he’ll tear up any agreement on a whim. Any rational nation will be making the obvious calculation: “I may not have gas of my own, but I’ve got wind and sun and they’re cheap. I’d rather rely on the wind than the windbag.”
Trump’s a conman, but he’s also a mark.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular