As 350.org, Fuel Poverty Action and coalition partners today demonstrate against rising energy prices outside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, a new report from the UN Development Programme (UNDP) lays bare the true scale of the fossil fuel subsidy crisis: governments worldwide are on course to spend $1.1 trillion propping up the fossil fuel industry in 2026, a figure that could rise to $1.43 trillion if oil prices reach $110 a barrel. The UNDP report, Military Escalation in the Middle East: Cushioning the Global Shock, finds that governments have responded to conflict-driven oil price spikes by expanding fossil fuel subsidies, price caps and tax rebates. While these measures offer short-term relief, they are consuming public budgets that should be building schools, hospitals and clean energy infrastructure. Many developing countries entered the latest crisis already burdened by rising debt, and fossil fuel handouts to keep prices artificially low are depleting public budgets and increasing their risk of debt distress.Anne Jellema, Executive Director of 350.org, said:"The $1.1 trillion that governments are pouring into fossil fuel subsidies this year is not a safety net, it is a ransom payment. Every dollar spent shielding the fossil fuel industry from the consequences of its own price volatility is a dollar not spent on the clean energy systems that can bring costs down for good.We need a phase out to end public subsidies for fossil fuel companies, and a permanent windfall tax on fossil fuel profits. Not a one-off levy, but a permanent, legislated mechanism that redirects the extraordinary profits of an industry driving this crisis into the just transition every country needs. That means affordable clean energy, retrofitted homes, and funding to protect people from the extreme weather unleashed by fossil pollution..”The UNDP report calls for easier access to international climate financing and accelerated investment in renewable energy, and explicitly frames energy security and the energy transition as inseparable.
Archaeologists who were excavating an historic Connecticut town green have uncovered the well-preserved remains of an 18th-century bake house — an unusual remnant of the Revolutionary War.
The University of Tennessee has agreed to pay former assistant professor Tamar Shirinian $1.9 million to settle a lawsuit after she was fired over a social media post celebrating the death of Turning Point CEO and conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The post Tennessee Taxpayers to Pay $1.9 Million Settlement to Fired Professor Who Celebrated Charlie Kirk’s Assassination appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down federal limits on how much political parties may spend in coordination with candidates, handing party committees a major win and reshaping campaign-finance rules ahead of the midterms.Why it matters: Freed from the caps, party committees can now spend without limit alongside their candidates — making them a far more powerful magnet for the big-dollar money that's flooded into super PACs over the past 15 years.Driving the news: In a 6–3 decision with a majority opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court held that the coordinated party expenditure limits violate the First Amendment.The decision overturns a 25-year-old precedent that had upheld the same limits.The intrigue: The decision comes at a time when insurgent anti-establishment candidates have garnered success in both parties.Supporters of striking down Congress' limits on coordination have said the guardrails weaken parties while super PACs and other outside groups have become dominant players, especially after the court's landmark 2010 Citizens United decision.Critics say removing the caps could let major donors evade the few remaining anti-corruption safeguards, which is a stepping stone to allowing PACs to directly coordinate with candidates.The decision could make party committees more attractive vehicles for donor money in competitive races.What they're saying: "More speech is generally better than less speech," Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the ruling brings about an old era of corruption: The "Court ushers back in the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that the contribution limits were meant to check."President Trump praised the ruling on Truth Social, calling it "A BIG WIN FOR REPUBLICANS and, more importantly, The First Amendment!" His administration had declined to defend the law in court.Catch up quick: The case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, was brought by two Republican committees, Vice President Vance and former Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot.They argued the law prevented party committees from coordinating effectively with their own candidates on core political speech.The ruling is the latest in a line of Supreme Court campaign-finance decisions narrowing the government's power to restrict political spending.
Writer E. Jean Carroll asked a federal court on Tuesday to release over $5 million to her per day after the Supreme Court refused President Trump’s request to overturn a jury verdict that found he abused her in the mid-1990s and defamed her. Carroll’s attorneys filed papers in Manhattan federal court, which said the president…
The Senate GOP campaign arm won a major Supreme Court boost in the party's bid to hold congressional majorities on Tuesday.Why it matters: Republicans' reliance on mega-donors and their cash-flush committees positions them to benefit more than Democrats from the ruling, which allows committees to spend unlimited sums in coordination with candidates as they face electoral headwinds in November. GOP officials reacted with glee to the Tuesday ruling, deriding Democrats who have criticized the decision for giving more power to the wealthiest donors."The tool is available to both sides. It should be a bipartisan issue," the NRSC's political director, Brendan Jaspers, told stakeholders on a Tuesday call, adding that Democrats are just "upset the playing field is being leveled in this way."Zooming in: The ruling means that committee dollars will stretch significantly further because they can now take advantage of cheaper ad prices available to candidates — 3 times to 13 times cheaper, according to an NRSC memo.Campaigns will also be able to tap committees' lower postage rates and benefit from streaming ad packages the committees have negotiated across states.The decision also lets committees work directly with campaigns on spending that had been capped for decades.Following the ruling, the Senate GOP campaign committee announced it would sunset its independent expenditures unit, moving to almost all coordinated ad buys with candidates — leveraging the new rules.NRSC deputy executive director Stephen DeMaura touted "total and complete victory" on the call. Officials said they have spent months preparing for this decision.By the numbers: The Republican National Committee has $125 million in cash-on-hand to the Democratic National Committee's $15 million (plus $18 million in debt) as of the end of May, according to their most recent FEC filings.The Senate GOP arm has $49 million to Democrats' $39 million.The House GOP arm has $82 million to Democrats' $73 million. Yes, but: Democrats still have much stronger grassroots and direct-to-campaign fundraising.Democratic candidates consistently out-raise Republicans at the, and the party has long leveraged ActBlue's small-dollar fundraising power."We are still vastly outspent by Democrats," DeMaura warned stakeholders, saying their stronger committee-level spending "is going to be wiped out by their small-dollar advantage."Catch up quick: The case, NRSC v. Federal Election Commission, was brought by two Republican committees, Vice President Vance and former Ohio Rep. Steve Chabot.The ruling is the latest campaign finance decision from SCOTUS to narrow the government's power to restrict political spending.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that federal limits on political party-candidate spending coordination are unconstitutional. The ruling was 6-3, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in the dissent. The case, known as NRSC v. FEC, stems from a 2022 challenge to a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act […]
President Donald Trump celebrated two Supreme Court rulings on Tuesday that upheld state laws barring biological males from competing in women’s sports and struck down restrictions on coordinated campaign spending between political parties and candidates, calling the decisions major victories. The court issued a 6-3 decision upholding Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act and West […]
A Monday memo from Graham Platner’s campaign shows the Democratic nominee for Senate in Maine is battling an onslaught of outside GOP spending. The memo, obtained by Politico, says Republicans spent $4.3 million on the race between Platner and incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) from last Tuesday through Monday. Collins’s campaign spent $500,000, while PACs…