Western Environmental Law Center
LightNews LightNews
banner
westernlaw.org
Western Environmental Law Center
@westernlaw.org
2.6K followers 560 following 820 posts
We use the power of the law to foster thriving, resilient Western lands, waters, wildlife, and communities in the face of a changing climate.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
riogranderift.bsky.social
Q: What’s the difference between “holistic policy evaluation” and “everything bagel liberalism” Yglesias rejects?

Asking for a friend.
“So fair enough — it seems like we all agree that you need a holistic policy evaluation that considers economic interests and the electoral map. But the actual emissions tradeoff in this case is dramatically sharper than anything I’m talking about.”
December 21, 2025 at 1:26 AM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
riogranderift.bsky.social
Remember: Yglesias exists in Substack and twitter. He’s never once had to test his ideas before an actual policymaking body (legislative or regulatory) or a federal/state court. His ideas thrive in the chaos of online existence. He is, ultimately, a pundit with a large following. Nothing more.
December 21, 2025 at 2:46 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
riogranderift.bsky.social
🔥💀🔥
seancasten.bsky.social Sean Casten @seancasten.bsky.social · 5d
This Yglesias piece in the NYT is horrifically bad. Almost every "fact" it cites is provably false. At best it is cocktail party banter from a pundit who knows nothing of energy. At worst, it was cut/paste from oil industry talking points. So, a rebuttal: www.nytimes.com/2025/12/18/o...
Opinion | Obama Supported It. The Left in Canada and Norway Does. Why Don’t Democrats?
www.nytimes.com
December 20, 2025 at 3:46 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
riogranderift.bsky.social
Yglesias wants to take us backwards to the stale coal vs. natural gas fights of the 2000s that anchor the climate debate in fossil fuels. The debate must move forwards, beyond fossil fuels that corrupt our politics, drive inflation, harm public health, & foul our climate, air & water, public lands.
Screenshot of Yglesias post reading: "Claim here from a green NGO guy is that I am a “corporate shill” for believing that gas is cleaner than coal. Does that make him a corporate shill for coal for arguing that I’m wrong? This is a childish way to argue. We simply disagree. Who is right?" that quote posts Aaron Regunberg post reading: "Matt Yglesias is a corporate shill. This is well attested. But he really took his hackery to the next level in this essay for the Times. "Essay" is actually a very generous word to describe this blatant regurgitation of oil and gas industry talking points, which relies for its citations on sources like Energy In Depth, the Big Oil front group that the Times' own reporting has described as being directed by ExxonMobil. Essentially every line in this piece is wrong. And not like "I disagree with that opinion" wrong—like empirically, demonstrably false, as you'd expect from the talking points of an industry that has spent decades lying about these issues. Yglesias claims that natural gas "is much cleaner than coal"—it isn't, according to the Times, which reported that gas "can be just as harmful to the climate" unless the industry can "all but eliminate the leaks that plague its use.""
December 20, 2025 at 3:26 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
riogranderift.bsky.social
It's 2025. The year began w/ raging fires in L.A. Trump takes power, halts climate action, & embraces authoritarianism. RU, a petrostate, continues its assault on UKR.

You write an OpEd that "Liberals should support America’s O&G industry."

Whether they pay u or not, you're a fossil fuel shill.
mattyglesias.bsky.social Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesias.bsky.social · 4d
Of course I don't "receive money from the fossil fuel industry" — I run a subscription newsletter.
December 22, 2025 at 2:42 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
seancasten.bsky.social
This Yglesias piece in the NYT is horrifically bad. Almost every "fact" it cites is provably false. At best it is cocktail party banter from a pundit who knows nothing of energy. At worst, it was cut/paste from oil industry talking points. So, a rebuttal: www.nytimes.com/2025/12/18/o...
Opinion | Obama Supported It. The Left in Canada and Norway Does. Why Don’t Democrats?
www.nytimes.com
December 20, 2025 at 2:57 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
meic-official.bsky.social
Join MEIC and Kyle Unruh of Renewable NW for a webinar on Jan. 22 to learn about NorthWestern Energy's draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) before community meetings begin on Jan. 27.⁠

➡️ meic.org/events/meic-...
December 19, 2025 at 7:29 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
justinmikulka.bsky.social
Matt Yglesias gets a guest essay in The NY Times to push oil industry propaganda. And he is no different from the likes of Stephen Miller in his approach to the facts. But let's start with his big idea!

"Liberals should support America’s oil and gas industry."
Opinion | Obama Supported It. The Left in Canada and Norway Do. Why Don’t Democrats?
www.nytimes.com
December 18, 2025 at 1:11 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
doctorvive.bsky.social
To state the obvious: Yglesias argues that Democrats should abandon the Paris Agreement.
December 18, 2025 at 2:41 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
riogranderift.bsky.social
Time & time again, Yglesias throws out bullshit arguments that leverage his platform & influence. Time & again, we refute them. Time & again, he ignores the refutation, feeding off his own bullshit.

Meanwhile, the world is smothered by the fossil fuels he shills for.
justinmikulka.bsky.social Justin Mikulka @justinmikulka.bsky.social · 7d
Matt Yglesias gets a guest essay in The NY Times to push oil industry propaganda. And he is no different from the likes of Stephen Miller in his approach to the facts. But let's start with his big idea!

"Liberals should support America’s oil and gas industry."
Opinion | Obama Supported It. The Left in Canada and Norway Do. Why Don’t Democrats?
www.nytimes.com
December 18, 2025 at 11:07 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
davidho.bsky.social
All of us sometimes think stupid things, but we don't say them out loud (let alone publish them in the NY Times).
nytopinion.nytimes.com New York Times Opinion @nytopinion.nytimes.com · 7d
“The mind-set shift needed here is to acknowledge that while climate change is real and harmful, the utility of fossil fuels is not something the oil and gas industry tricked the public into,” Matthew Yglesias writes.
Opinion | Obama Supported It. The Left in Canada and Norway Do. Why Don’t Democrats?
Liberals should reconcile with America’s oil and gas industry.
nyti.ms
December 19, 2025 at 5:14 AM
westernlaw.org
STATEMENT: House passes, Senate must reject bill to remove endangered species protections for #wolves in Lower 48

"The Senate must reject legislative wolf delisting as anti-science and purely political.” -Kelly Nokes, WELC staff attorney
House passes, Senate must reject bill to remove endangered species protections for wolves in Lower 48 - Western Environmental Law Center
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 845, a bill that disregards science and removes Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48. Wolves remain ...
westernlaw.org
December 18, 2025 at 10:33 PM
westernlaw.org
BREAKING/STATEMENT: The U.S. House of Representatives just passed a bill to gut the National Environmental Policy Act. The Senate must reject this bill.

#GreenSky #PermitReform #SaveNEPA
House approves, Senate must reject fossil fuel giveaway SPEED Act - Western Environmental Law Center
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the SPEED Act (H.R.4776), a sweeping rollback of the nation’s bedrock environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act. The bill would accomplis...
westernlaw.org
December 18, 2025 at 8:25 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
bennet.senate.gov
After Senator Lee tried to sell off our public lands earlier this year, I fought it and helped stop his disastrous attempt.

Now he's targeting our national parks.
[1/2]
Groups express alarm about Mike Lee lands amendment
The Senate may vote on an amendment to spending legislation that critics say could lead to public lands sales.
www.eenews.net
December 18, 2025 at 5:29 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
worcaction.bsky.social
"I’ve seen firsthand how NEPA has spared many ranchers, farmers, and others in Montana from decisions that could have resulted in their ruin." writes Northern Plains mbr & former #NEPA compliance officer Beth Kaeding on the importance of opposing the SPEED Act.
www.wvnews.com/news/around_...
A bill that would leave Montanans at the mercy of industry | Beth Kaeding
In January 1969, approximately three million gallons of crude oil washed onto the shores of Santa Barbara County in California after an oil well off the coast experienced a blowout.
www.wvnews.com
December 18, 2025 at 5:50 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
doctorvive.bsky.social
Matt Yglesias has a "Democrats should support more fossil fuel production" OpEd in the Times today, which criticizes me for saying that energy policy should try to uphold the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Genevieve Guenther | New York City I am the author and activist that Mr. Yglesias criticizes in his piece. Mr. Yglesias is correct that, in my approach to climate and energy policy, "one starts with an end goal - two degrees of warming; global net zero by 2050 — and asks whether some specific new project is consistent with that goal or not." The goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement was to halt warming "well below 2°C." The indelible fact is that we must meet this goal to ensure a safe, prosperous, and indeed livable future for our children. For just one example why the goal is so important: climate scientists now warn that the risk of triggering at least one tipping point, the shutdown of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, in the next decades, which would make it impossible to grow food in Europe and SE Asia, is already over 50%. Mr. Yglesias's preferred energy policy ignores this reality, abandoning the Paris Agreement as Trump has done. Furthermore, according to a 2025 Pew research poll, only 48% of Americans support expanding offshore oil drilling, only 45% support expanding fracking, but 68% support expanding wind and 77% support expanding solar. So it's not clear why Mr. Yglesias thinks the embrace of fossil fuels is a winning campaign message in the first place.
December 18, 2025 at 2:37 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
sethdmichaels.bsky.social
a good thoughtful piece, with an important takeaway: "It is correct to question the environmental trade-offs of a technology that is being presented as inevitable. And it’s essential to demand more environmental transparency from companies that are reshaping the economy to achieve their goals."
mollytaft.com molly taft @mollytaft.com · 13d
new from me: are data centers going to wipe out water supplies? how much water does ChatGPT really use? and what's going on with that big correction in Empire of AI?

i went long on the conversation around AI and water, and how it's actually about what we want resources to be used for:
You’re Thinking About AI and Water All Wrong
Fears about AI data centers’ water use have exploded. Experts say the reality is far more complicated than people think.
www.wired.com
December 18, 2025 at 3:45 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
ketanjoshi.co
So much trash in this Matt Yglesias NYT rant but this specific bit where has has a go at @doctorvive.bsky.social is absurd even for him.

Eliminating fossil fuels is basic fundamental science shit, not environmentalist shit

archive.ph/02ze4

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/s...
A realistic look at the Senate map makes it clear that Democrats’ hopes hinge on states that have important fossil fuel industries. A Democratic Party that is open to responsible stewardship of those states’ natural resources can win majorities and invest in solutions for tomorrow — just as Democratic governors in energy-producing states like New Mexico and Colorado have used oil and gas revenue to finance a goal of universal child care and historic upgrades to conservation and recreation on public lands. The current view from the environmental movement, as expressed by the climate activist and author Genevieve Guenther, is that Democrats should ignore these practicalities because “reducing emissions by some marginal amount while locking in fossil fuel development prevents us from drawing emissions down to (net) zero.” In this approach to making policy, one starts with an end goal — two degrees of warming; global net zero by 2050 — and asks whether some specific new project is consistent with that goal or not. Since this would require a very rapid phaseout of fossil fuel use in rich countries, no new fossil fuel infrastructure is permissible even when the infrastructure would — like new pipelines to the northeastern United States or new liquefied natural gas export terminals — likely make emissions lower by promoting more rapid electrification. This mentality explains why green groups continually find themselves opposing bipartisan congressional negotiations to enact permitting reform legislation that would make it easier to build both renewable and fossil fuel infrastructure. A world that was heading to global net zero in 25 years would not enact such a reform, so it’s unacceptable. Reaching net zero CO2 or GHG emissions primarily requires deep and rapid reductions in gross emissions of CO2, as well as substantial reductions of non-CO2 GHG emissions (high confidence). For example, in modelled pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot, global methane emissions are reduced by 34 [21–57]% by 2030 relative to 2019. However, some hard-to-abate residual GHG emissions (e.g., some emissions from agriculture, aviation, shipping, and industrial processes) remain and would need to be counterbalanced by deployment of CDR methods to achieve net zero CO2 or GHG emissions (high confidence). As a result, net zero CO2 is reached earlier than net zero GHGs (high confidence). {3.3.2, 3.3.3, Table 3.1, Figure 3.5} (Figure SPM.5) B.6.3 Global modelled mitigation pathways reaching net zero CO2 and GHG emissions include transitioning from fossil fuels without carbon capture and storage (CCS) to very low- or zero-carbon energy sources, such as renewables or fossil fuels with CCS, demand-side measures and improving efficiency, reducing non-CO2 GHG emissions, and CDR47. In most global modelled pathways, land-use change and forestry (via reforestation and reduced deforestation) and the energy supply sector reach net zero CO2 emissions earlier than the buildings, industry and transport sectors. (high confidence) {3.3.3, 4.1, 4.5, Figure 4.1} (Figure SPM.5, Box SPM.1) B.6.4 Mitigation options often have synergies with other aspects of sustainable development, but some options can also have trade-offs. There are potential synergies between sustainable development and, for instance, energy efficiency and renewable energy. Similarly, depending on the context48, biological CDR methods like reforestation, improved forest management, soil carbon sequestration, peatland restoration and coastal blue carbon management can enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions, employment and local livelihoods. However, afforestation or production of biomass cro… Energy Systems C.3.2 Net zero CO2 energy systems entail: a substantial reduction in overall fossil fuel use, minimal use of unabated fossil fuels51, and use of carbon capture and storage in the remaining fossil fuel systems; electricity systems that emit no net CO2; widespread electrification; alternative energy carriers in applications less amenable to electrification; energy conservation and efficiency; and greater integration across the energy system (high confidence). Large contributions to emissions reductions with costs less than USD 20 tCO2-eq-1 come from solar and wind energy, energy efficiency improvements, and methane emissions reductions (coal mining, oil and gas, waste) (medium confidence). There are feasible adaptation options that support infrastructure resilience, reliable power systems and efficient water use for existing and new energy generation systems (very high confidence). Energy generation diversification (e.g., via wind, solar, small scale hydropower) and demand-side management (e.g., storage and energy efficiency improvements) can increase energy reliability and reduce vulnerabilities to climate change (high confidence). Climate responsive energy markets, updated design standards on energy assets according to current and projected climate change, smart-grid technologies, robust transmission systems and improved capacity to respond to supply deficits have high feasibility in the medium to long term, with mitigation co-benefits (very high confidence). {4.5.1} (Figure SPM.7) We have options in all sectors to at least halve emissions by 2030 Limiting global warming will require major transitions in the energy sector. This will involve a substantial reduction in fossil fuel use, widespread electrification, improved energy efficiency, and use of alternative fuels (such as hydrogen). “Having the right policies, infrastructure and technology in place to enable changes to our lifestyles and behaviour can result in a 40-70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This offers significant untapped potential,” said IPCC Working Group III Co-Chair Priyadarshi Shukla. “The evidence also shows that these lifestyle changes can improve our health and wellbeing.” Cities and other urban areas also offer significant opportunities for emissions reductions. These can be achieved through lower energy consumption (such as by creating compact, walkable cities), electrification of transport in combination with low-emission energy sources, and enhanced carbon uptake and storage using nature. There are options for established, rapidly growing and new cities. “We see examples of zero energy or zero-carbon buildings in almost all climates,” said IPCC Working Group III Co-Chair Jim Skea. “Action in this decade is critical to capture the mitigation potential of buildings.” Reducing emissions in industry will involve using materials more efficiently, reusing and recycling products and minimising waste. For basic materials, including steel, building materials and chemicals, low- to zero-greenhouse gas production processes are at their pilot to near-commercial stage. This sector accounts for about a quarter of global emissions. Achieving net zero will be challenging and will require new production processes, low and zero emissions electricity, hydrogen, and, where necessary, carbon capture and storage. Agriculture, forestry, and other land use can provide large-scale emissions reductions and also remove and store carbon dioxide at scale. However, land ca…
December 18, 2025 at 1:41 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
riogranderift.bsky.social
There is utterly no daylight between the oil & gas industry's posture and Matt Yglesias' thinking with the exception that the former is driven by greed and the latter by ignorance.
Opinion | Obama Supported It. The Left in Canada and Norway Do. Why Don’t Democrats?
www.nytimes.com
December 18, 2025 at 2:31 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
doctorvive.bsky.social
This is hilarious! Matt Yglesias comes after me in the New York Times for saying the correct climate science — literally what the @ipcc.bsky.social says about fossil fuels — out loud. 😂
ketanjoshi.co Ketan Joshi @ketanjoshi.co · 7d
So much trash in this Matt Yglesias NYT rant but this specific bit where has has a go at @doctorvive.bsky.social is absurd even for him.

Eliminating fossil fuels is basic fundamental science shit, not environmentalist shit

archive.ph/02ze4

www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/s...
A realistic look at the Senate map makes it clear that Democrats’ hopes hinge on states that have important fossil fuel industries. A Democratic Party that is open to responsible stewardship of those states’ natural resources can win majorities and invest in solutions for tomorrow — just as Democratic governors in energy-producing states like New Mexico and Colorado have used oil and gas revenue to finance a goal of universal child care and historic upgrades to conservation and recreation on public lands. The current view from the environmental movement, as expressed by the climate activist and author Genevieve Guenther, is that Democrats should ignore these practicalities because “reducing emissions by some marginal amount while locking in fossil fuel development prevents us from drawing emissions down to (net) zero.” In this approach to making policy, one starts with an end goal — two degrees of warming; global net zero by 2050 — and asks whether some specific new project is consistent with that goal or not. Since this would require a very rapid phaseout of fossil fuel use in rich countries, no new fossil fuel infrastructure is permissible even when the infrastructure would — like new pipelines to the northeastern United States or new liquefied natural gas export terminals — likely make emissions lower by promoting more rapid electrification. This mentality explains why green groups continually find themselves opposing bipartisan congressional negotiations to enact permitting reform legislation that would make it easier to build both renewable and fossil fuel infrastructure. A world that was heading to global net zero in 25 years would not enact such a reform, so it’s unacceptable. Reaching net zero CO2 or GHG emissions primarily requires deep and rapid reductions in gross emissions of CO2, as well as substantial reductions of non-CO2 GHG emissions (high confidence). For example, in modelled pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C (>50%) with no or limited overshoot, global methane emissions are reduced by 34 [21–57]% by 2030 relative to 2019. However, some hard-to-abate residual GHG emissions (e.g., some emissions from agriculture, aviation, shipping, and industrial processes) remain and would need to be counterbalanced by deployment of CDR methods to achieve net zero CO2 or GHG emissions (high confidence). As a result, net zero CO2 is reached earlier than net zero GHGs (high confidence). {3.3.2, 3.3.3, Table 3.1, Figure 3.5} (Figure SPM.5) B.6.3 Global modelled mitigation pathways reaching net zero CO2 and GHG emissions include transitioning from fossil fuels without carbon capture and storage (CCS) to very low- or zero-carbon energy sources, such as renewables or fossil fuels with CCS, demand-side measures and improving efficiency, reducing non-CO2 GHG emissions, and CDR47. In most global modelled pathways, land-use change and forestry (via reforestation and reduced deforestation) and the energy supply sector reach net zero CO2 emissions earlier than the buildings, industry and transport sectors. (high confidence) {3.3.3, 4.1, 4.5, Figure 4.1} (Figure SPM.5, Box SPM.1) B.6.4 Mitigation options often have synergies with other aspects of sustainable development, but some options can also have trade-offs. There are potential synergies between sustainable development and, for instance, energy efficiency and renewable energy. Similarly, depending on the context48, biological CDR methods like reforestation, improved forest management, soil carbon sequestration, peatland restoration and coastal blue carbon management can enhance biodiversity and ecosystem functions, employment and local livelihoods. However, afforestation or production of biomass cro… Energy Systems C.3.2 Net zero CO2 energy systems entail: a substantial reduction in overall fossil fuel use, minimal use of unabated fossil fuels51, and use of carbon capture and storage in the remaining fossil fuel systems; electricity systems that emit no net CO2; widespread electrification; alternative energy carriers in applications less amenable to electrification; energy conservation and efficiency; and greater integration across the energy system (high confidence). Large contributions to emissions reductions with costs less than USD 20 tCO2-eq-1 come from solar and wind energy, energy efficiency improvements, and methane emissions reductions (coal mining, oil and gas, waste) (medium confidence). There are feasible adaptation options that support infrastructure resilience, reliable power systems and efficient water use for existing and new energy generation systems (very high confidence). Energy generation diversification (e.g., via wind, solar, small scale hydropower) and demand-side management (e.g., storage and energy efficiency improvements) can increase energy reliability and reduce vulnerabilities to climate change (high confidence). Climate responsive energy markets, updated design standards on energy assets according to current and projected climate change, smart-grid technologies, robust transmission systems and improved capacity to respond to supply deficits have high feasibility in the medium to long term, with mitigation co-benefits (very high confidence). {4.5.1} (Figure SPM.7) We have options in all sectors to at least halve emissions by 2030 Limiting global warming will require major transitions in the energy sector. This will involve a substantial reduction in fossil fuel use, widespread electrification, improved energy efficiency, and use of alternative fuels (such as hydrogen). “Having the right policies, infrastructure and technology in place to enable changes to our lifestyles and behaviour can result in a 40-70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This offers significant untapped potential,” said IPCC Working Group III Co-Chair Priyadarshi Shukla. “The evidence also shows that these lifestyle changes can improve our health and wellbeing.” Cities and other urban areas also offer significant opportunities for emissions reductions. These can be achieved through lower energy consumption (such as by creating compact, walkable cities), electrification of transport in combination with low-emission energy sources, and enhanced carbon uptake and storage using nature. There are options for established, rapidly growing and new cities. “We see examples of zero energy or zero-carbon buildings in almost all climates,” said IPCC Working Group III Co-Chair Jim Skea. “Action in this decade is critical to capture the mitigation potential of buildings.” Reducing emissions in industry will involve using materials more efficiently, reusing and recycling products and minimising waste. For basic materials, including steel, building materials and chemicals, low- to zero-greenhouse gas production processes are at their pilot to near-commercial stage. This sector accounts for about a quarter of global emissions. Achieving net zero will be challenging and will require new production processes, low and zero emissions electricity, hydrogen, and, where necessary, carbon capture and storage. Agriculture, forestry, and other land use can provide large-scale emissions reductions and also remove and store carbon dioxide at scale. However, land ca…
December 18, 2025 at 1:54 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
nickcunningham.bsky.social
the evidence keeps piling up
justingerdes.bsky.social Justin Gerdes @justingerdes.bsky.social · 8d
"The analysis, based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, found that Americans paid $12 billion more for natural gas between January and September 2025 than they did over the same period last year." insideclimatenews.org/news/1712202... via @kiley.bsky.social 🔌💡
Gas Exports Are Driving Up Americans’ Energy Bills, Report Says - Inside Climate News
Higher exports of liquefied natural gas in 2025 played a significant role in rising utility bills, an analysis of federal data found.
insideclimatenews.org
December 17, 2025 at 11:34 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
paulijllo.bsky.social
The House will hold a vote on the SPEED Act this week. Read my review of the bill and why it is not a good-faith approach to permitting reform.
#EnergyPolicy #PermittingReform #NEPA
open.substack.com/pub/paulinaj...
The SPEED Act Gets Faster: What Changed in the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
Paulina Jaramillo, Ph.D.
open.substack.com
December 17, 2025 at 7:42 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
volts.wtf
The big problem with NEPA reform -- which I'd like to see NEPA reformers grapple with a bit more -- is that if you open the thing up, most of the legislators doing the "reforming" are hostile to it & just want to get rid of env. review entirely. It's not a good-faith process.
December 16, 2025 at 6:57 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
uusj.bsky.social
We need your help to oppose The SPEED Act, H.R. 4776, which could undercut, undermine, if not gut, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)’s core principles and commitments. (The vote is imminent)

Read our Statement: bit.ly/SPEED-Act

Write Your Lawmakers:
uusj.salsalabs.org/speed-act_hr...
The SPEED Act, H.R. 4776, would, by most accounts, undercut, undermine, if not gut, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)’s core principles and commitments. The proposed legislation would enact drastic and damaging changes to NEPA and would prioritize the interests of private corporations above the public interest. Read @uusj.dc ’s Statement: https://bit.ly/SPEED-Act Write Your Lawmakers: https://uusj.salsalabs.org/speed-act_hr4776_2025/index.html
December 17, 2025 at 4:35 PM
Reposted by Western Environmental Law Center
riogranderift.bsky.social
The SPEED Act and like ilk would do little but entrench fossil fuels, harm communities & the environment, and backfire on the imperative to transition *from* fossil fuels *to* renewables (vs. build everything anywhere all at once "Abundance").

May it die a fiery death.
dustinmulvaney.bsky.social Dustin Mulvaney @dustinmulvaney.bsky.social · 8d
Clean energy industry pulls support for SPEED Act after House GOP leaders accede to demands from hard-liners who want more power to kill offshore wind projects. #permittingreform 🔌💡
subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2025...
POLITICO Pro: Clean energy industry group pulls support for permitting bill after GOP changes
subscriber.politicopro.com
December 17, 2025 at 6:00 PM