Fifteen conservation groups from Wyoming and across the nation have filed administrative protests challenging the Biden administration's plans to resume oil and gas leasing on public lands as early as June.

They're calling for the president to end new leasing in order to protect communities, water and wildlife. Dan Ritzman - lands, water, and wildlife campaign director for the Sierra Club - said the move is critical for the administration to meet its own climate goals.

"One of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gases across the country is fossil-fuel leasing on our public lands," said Ritzman. "So to address climate change, we need to keep those fossil fuels in the ground, keep them from being burned."

Lease sales set for June include 144,000 acres across eight western states, with a majority of acres in Wyoming. Oil companies repeatedly have claimed that opening up more public lands for drilling can ease pressure on international supplies and lower gas prices.

The protests call for a halt to oil and gas leasing, and a nationwide plan to align federal fossil-fuel management with the goal of avoiding the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

Ritzman said new leases on public lands won't lower prices at the pump, in part because it takes years for oil companies to develop leases. He added that companies already have plenty of options for drilling.

"The oil and gas industry is currently sitting on millions of acres that they have yet to develop," said Ritzman. "They are making those claims not to help the general public with gas prices but to get their hands on more of these public lands."

The new leases come on the heels of record industry profits. Shell Oil brought in more than $9 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2022, according to a Guardian report - nearly triple its profits during the same period last year.

Ritzman said lands owned by all Americans have been monopolized by the oil and gas industry for far too long. He said it's time for public lands to be part of the climate solution, not the problem.

The Environmental Protection Agency now has fewer tools to fight climate change, after the U.S. Supreme Court stripped the agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants.

The Court's 6-3 ruling along party lines involves the 2015 Clean Power Plan. The majority ruled it is unlawful for federal agencies to make "major" decisions without clear authorization from Congress.

Jayson O'Neill, director of the Western Values Project, predicted existing laws in both "blue" and "red" states that go further than federal laws to protect air quality could be eliminated.

"Our government's ability to protect us from corporate pollution, including climate emissions, is nearly wiped out," O'Neill stressed. "Our future's in question."

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., called the court's decision a "major step backwards" at a time when hydrocarbons are fueling more destructive wildfires, reducing snowpack and contributing to the state's worst drought in 1,200 years.

Thursday marked the end of the high court's current term, which also saw explosive rulings on abortion and guns.

In handing down its ruling in the EPA case, the court invoked the "major questions" doctrine, a decision which could affect the federal government's authority to regulate in other areas, including the internet and worker safety.

Andres Restrepo, senior attorney for the Sierra Club, believes the ruling is dangerous.

"It really is something that has the risk of metastasizing in a way that could really hinder the government's ability to keep us safe," Restrepo cautioned.

O'Neill expects to see a flood of lawsuits by corporations challenging federal rules protecting human health and the environment.

"Put another feather in the hat that corporations have essentially more rights than individuals," O'Neill contended. "And that they would be able to challenge laws that protect individual health and win those cases, for their profits."

The court's ruling does recognize the EPA's authority and responsibility to limit climate pollution from cars and trucks, oil and gas development and industrial sites.

California has seen a lot of proposals to reduce carbon emissions; now a plan to scrub existing pollution is moving forward in the Legislature.

Assembly Bill 2649, which just passed the State Senate Environmental Quality Committee on Wednesday, sets a big goal: to remove 60 million metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year by 2030, all by harnessing nature.

Ellie Cohen, CEO of the Climate Center, a statewide advocacy group, said the plan to sequester more carbon in the ground will slow climate change and help the environment.

"It helps us to hold more water when it does rain," Cohen outlined. "It helps to replenish groundwater. It supports biodiversity, it supports food security, it helps ensure cleaner air, to get many, many co-benefits that help us to be more resilient."

Plants naturally remove carbon from the atmosphere using photosynthesis. Under the plan, the state would supercharge the effect by helping farmers spread compost on their fields and range lands, by restoring vegetation alongside streams, and by encouraging what's known as "blue carbon" by restoring coastal wetlands.

Asm. Cristina Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, a co-author of the bill, is especially enthusiastic about efforts to plant more trees in urban areas.

"So the trees would allow us to capture carbon, would help reduce the heat," Garcia explained. "But would also be a sound barrier, would also help capture pollution from all the trucks and cars."

At Wednesday's hearing, the Farm Bureau expressed opposition, saying the bill could present a burden to farmers and growers. The bill has already passed the state Assembly and now goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee in August.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Members of Nevada's African American community say they're channeling the spirit of Juneteenth to fight for environmental justice.

Church-affiliated groups in Las Vegas hold monthly trainings on ways to fight climate change, promoting programs to make solar panels and electric appliances more affordable. The Rev. Leonard Jackson, director of the Faith Organizing Alliance in Nevada, said it's important that low-income Nevadans benefit from big projects, such as the electric vehicle-charging network.

"We want to make sure," he said, "that it is the underserved individuals that live in these communities, that they're the ones that receive the jobs, as far as installing this equipment, as far as maintaining this equipment."

He pointed out that communities of color often suffer the most from the effects of extreme heat and drought linked to climate change, as urban neighborhoods become heat islands, choked by air pollution from cars and trucks. So, Jackson welcomes efforts to subsidize electric vehicles and put more electric buses on the streets.

Utility companies offer programs to weatherize homes, help people use less water and switch from gas to electric appliances. But Dr. Mary House, chief executive of the Las Vegas faith-based nonprofit CHR Inc., said they need to spread the word at community events.

"People don't even understand these programs and the benefits of them. because they're not going into our community," she said. "Who's going to walk them through the steps? We don't see any of that being done."

Heather McTeer Toney, vice president for community engagement at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the African American community embodies resilience.

"We can link systemic problems of race and poverty to not only environmental concerns," she said, "but also how communities have both thrived and overcome in a number of those areas."

Almeta E. Cooper, national manager for health equity with the group Moms Clean Air Force, encourages Nevadans to get involved.

"We have many projects that, once an individual connects with us, we can empower you to go further," she said, "to connect with your elected officials, to tell them what you need in your community."