June, 11 2010, 03:36pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Sarah Burt, Earthjustice, (510) 550-6755, sburt@earthjustice.org
Eric Bilsky, Oceana, (202) 833-3900 x 1912, ebilsky@oceana.org
Danielle Fugere, Friends of the Earth, (415) 577-5594
Vera Pardee, Center for Biological Diversity, (858) 717-1448, vpardee@biologicaldiversity.org
Dan Galpern, Western Environmental Law Center, (541) 359-3243, galpern@westernlaw.org
EPA Challenged Over Global Warming Pollution From Ships, Aircraft and Non-road Engines
A day after the U.S. Senate voted to uphold the Environmental
Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a coalition
of environmental groups has filed a lawsuit challenging the agency's
failure to address such pollution from oceangoing ships, aircraft and
non-road vehicles as well as engines used in industrial operations.
WASHINGTON
A day after the U.S. Senate voted to uphold the Environmental
Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a coalition
of environmental groups has filed a lawsuit challenging the agency's
failure to address such pollution from oceangoing ships, aircraft and
non-road vehicles as well as engines used in industrial operations. The
lawsuit was filed in federal district court in the District of Columbia by
Earthjustice and the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of
Oceana, Friends of the Earth, the Center for Biological Diversity, the
Center for Food Safety and the International Center for Technology
Assessment.
Together, aircraft, ship and non-road
vehicles and engines are responsible for 24 percent of U.S.
mobile-source greenhouse gas emissions and emit approximately 290,000
tons of soot every year. Pollution from these sources is projected to
grow rapidly over coming decades.
"The shipping
industry is a major contributor to global warming pollution. Annual
U.S. shipping emissions are equivalent to from 130 million to 195
million cars. These emissions are on track to triple over the next 20
years. It is time for the EPA to issue commonsense rules - like
requiring fuel-efficient cruising speeds - to control the pollution
from this important sector," said Eric Bilsky, Oceana assistant general
counsel.
The coalition petitioned EPA in late 2007
and early 2008 to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions from
marine vessels, aircraft and non-road vehicles and engines endanger
public health and welfare, and if so, to issue regulations to control
greenhouse gas emissions from these sources. Despite having had more
than two years to do so, EPA has not responded to the petitions.
"Yesterday
Congress rejected an attempt to strip EPA of its authority to protect
the public from global warming pollution," said Sarah Burt of
Earthjustice, who is representing the coalition. "EPA has a clear moral
obligation and legal duty under the Clean Air Act to act decisively to
protect public health and the environment on which all Americans
depend."
"The Clean Air Act works to reduce
dangerous pollution like greenhouse gas emissions, and it must be
implemented immediately," said Vera Pardee, a senior attorney at the
Center for Biological Diversity. "The Clean Air Act has protected the
air we breathe for 40 years, reaping economic benefits 42 times its
cost. Cost-effective solutions to achieve significant greenhouse gas
pollution reductions from ships, airplanes and non-road engines already
exist. The Obama administration needs to move forward far more quickly
to implement them to avoid devastating climate disruption. Delaying
commonsense pollution-reduction measures is the wrong policy and wrong
on the law."
"The evidence of climate change is
becoming clearer each and every day," said Danielle Fugere, regional
program director for Friends of the Earth. "We can no longer afford the
EPA's refusal to address important and growing sources of greenhouse
gas emissions."
"EPA needs to shift into high gear
and limit the impact that industrial non-road vehicles and engines
impose on our common airshed," said Dan Galpern, an attorney with the
Western Environmental Law Center. "Even the Bush EPA admitted that
climate pollution could be slashed from overpowered diesel engines used
in industrial operations, if it chose to do so. Now EPA, at long last,
is restricting climate pollution from cars and light trucks and certain
stationary sources. But the climate crisis will not be allayed without
the maximum achievable reduction in GHG emissions. This requires
reasonable restrictions on monster earth movers, heavy mining and
logging equipment, agricultural pumps and other industrial machinery
that presently spew climate pollution without end."
Background
Aviation and Global Warming
Aircraft emit 11 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from U.S.
transportation sources and 3 percent of the United States' total
greenhouse gas emissions. The United States is responsible for nearly half of worldwide CO2
emissions from aircraft. Such emissions are anticipated to increase
substantially in the coming decades due to the projected growth in air
transport; in fact, according to the Federal Aviation Administration,
greenhouse gas emissions from domestic aircraft are expected to
increase 60 percent by 2025. While some countries, such as the European
Union, have already begun to respond to these challenges, the United
States has failed to address this enormous source of emissions.
Ships and Global Warming
In 2008, marine vessels entering U.S. ports accounted for 4.5 percent
of domestic mobile-source greenhouse gas emissions. The global fleet of
marine vessels releases almost 3 percent of the world's CO2,
an amount comparable to the total greenhouse gas emissions of Canada.
Because of their huge numbers and inefficient operating practices,
marine vessels release a large volume of CO2,
nitrous oxide, and black carbon, or soot. If fuel use remains
unchanged, shipping pollution will potentially double from 2002 levels
by the year 2020 and triple by 2030. Despite their impact on the global
climate, greenhouse gas emissions from ships are not currently
regulated by the United States or internationally.
Non-road Vehicles and Engines and Global Warming
Non-road vehicles and engines are used in the agricultural,
construction, commercial, industrial, mining and logging sectors. In
2008, such industrial non-road vehicles and engines were responsible
for approximately 9 percent of U.S. mobile source carbon dioxide
emissions, as well as significant emissions of black carbon, or soot.
Nearly a third of these emissions are produced by the construction and
mining sectors, while a fifth are from agriculture. EPA projects that CO2 emissions from the non-road sector will increase approximately 46 percent between 2006 and 2030.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular