April, 06 2015, 01:15pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Ted Zukoski, Earthjustice, (303) 996-9622
Nathaniel Shoaff, Sierra Club, (415) 977-5610
Jeremy Nichols, WildEarth Guardians, (303) 437-7663
Taylor McKinnon, Center for Biological Diversity, (801) 300-2414
Amanda Jahshan, Natural Resources Defense Council, (406) 539-0665
Lauren McCain, Defenders of Wildlife, (720) 943-0453
Matt Sandler, Rocky Mountain Wild, (303) 546-0214 x1
Alli Melton, High Country Conservation Advocates, (970) 349-7104 x2
Forest Service Moves to Permit Bulldozing in Colorado Roadless Forest for Dirty Coal
Proposed Loophole Could Cause Half a Billion Tons of Carbon Pollution, Undermine Obama Administration Climate Goals
Denver, CO
National and local conservation groups today called on the U.S. Forest Service to rescind its brazen move, announced this morning, to revive a gaping loophole to the Colorado Roadless Rule that paves the way for Arch Coal -- the nation's second-largest coal company -- to build roads and scrape well pads over thousands of acres of otherwise-protected, publicly-owned national forest and crucial wildlife habitat in the state. The loophole paves the way for Arch Coal to expand coal-mining operations.
|
The loophole was thrown out by the U.S. District Court of Colorado last year because the Forest Service failed to consider the climate change impacts of providing Arch Coal and one other company with access to up to 350 million tons of federal coal, which could result in more than half a billion tons of carbon pollution from mining and burning the coal. The already existing mines that would be covered by the loophole -- all located in the North Fork Valley near Paonia -- daily emit millions of cubic feet of methane, a gas more than 30 times more powerful than CO2 as a heat trapping gas.
"The coal mine loophole is a lose-lose-lose proposition: it's bad for wildlife, bad for hikers and hunters who enjoy Colorado's wild forests, and it's bad for our climate," said Earthjustice attorney Ted Zukoski, who represented the groups in federal court."Last year's court decision plugged the loophole, and we'll work to keep it plugged."
"It's bad enough the Forest Service is considering sacrificing our public lands for dirty coal mining, now they're doing so at the demand of Arch Coal, a company some analysts say is on the verge of bankruptcy," said Climate and Energy Program Director Jeremy Nichols of WildEarth Guardians. "The Forest Service's proposal is not only directly at odds with the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gases, it's at odds with preserving Colorado's natural legacy of vibrant, wild forests."
"The Forest Service's proposal undermines the good work the Obama administration is doing to protect our climate through the Clean Power Plan, fuel efficiency standards and targets for reducing the nation's carbon emissions," said Sierra Club organizer Bryce Carter. "This proposal puts the Forest Service dangerously out of step with the rest of the Administration and makes a sacrifice of our public lands."
"This plan shows the dangerous disconnect between Obama's climate rhetoric and his plans to open more public land to the fossil fuel industry," saidTaylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity. "The world's quickly-dwindling carbon budget has no room for new coal deposits. This coal can't be burned if we're going to keep our planet livable. The president should withdraw this proposal now."
Amanda Jahshan, the Wildlife Energy Conservation Fellow with the Natural Resources Defense Council said: "The Forest Service should do what's good for the people of Colorado -- not what's good for a profit-making company whose product would further pollute our air, despoil our land and worsen carbon pollution that fuels climate change. The service needs to drop this proposal."
Among the national forest lands in the crosshairs of coal mine bulldozing under the proposal is the Sunset Roadless Area, a lush aspen and spruce-fir forest dotted with beaver ponds in western Colorado directly adjacent to the West Elk wilderness.
The loophole paves the way for Arch Coal to expand its underground West Elk mine. For its expansion, Arch plans to bulldoze an extensive road network and scrape dozens of well pads in the Sunset area in order to release methane within the coal below ground.
"The Sunset Roadless Area is home to black bears and elk, goshawk and beaver, and provides habitat for the imperiled lynx" saidLauren McCain, federal lands policy analyst at Defenders of Wildlife. "Protecting undisturbed wildlife habitat is critical for preserving Colorado natural heritage. The Forest Service's proposal -- which could put miles of road and nearly 50 drilling pads in the Sunset Roadless Area -- would damage a wildlife legacy that belongs to all Coloradoans and all Americans."
"Roadless areas including Sunset are important refuges for wildlife, and help connect larger blocks of habitat for animals to roam and thrive in the face of threats like climate change," said Matt Sandler, staff attorney for Denver-based Rocky Mountain Wild. "The Forest Service should be protecting these landscapes, not putting them on the chopping block."
Arch Coal's mine is located in the North Fork Valley of western Colorado, where coal mining has declined over the past several years, mirroring state and national trends. Competition with cheap natural gas and renewables used to generate electricity and the adoption of regulations to protect public health from toxins including mercury that are emitted during coal combustion have contributed to the recent downturn. Coal production in Colorado last year fell to a 20-year low.
Of the three mines in North Fork Valley, Oxbow's Elk Creek mine closed in 2013 due to a fire and a second, Bowie, laid off scores of workers after a major purchaser failed to renew a contract.
"The Forest Service's plan to revive the loophole is not compatible with creating diversified and resilient local economies that protect communities from the devastating boom-bust cycle of coal," said Alli Melton, public lands director for Crested Butte-based High Country Conservation Advocates.
Background
In 2012, the Forest Service adopted the Colorado Roadless Rule, which generally banned road construction on 4 million acres of the state's most wild, remote forest lands. The rule, however, contained a number of loopholes, including one permitting road construction on 19,000 acres of roadless forest north and east of Paonia, Colo., to benefit future coal mining proposals there.
In 2013, the Forest Service approved Arch Coal's proposal to build six miles of road and scrape 48 pads for methane drainage wells in the Sunset Roadless Area, a project made possible by the coal mining loophole.
Conservation groups sued to halt the project in part on the grounds that the Forest Service failed to disclose the extent of carbon pollution generated by mining and burning the 350 million tons of coal made possible by the Colorado Roadless Rule. In June 2014, a federal court sided with the groups, ruling that the Forest Service broke the law by sweeping climate pollution impacts under the rug, and subsequently threw out the coal mine loophole.
The court's ruling left the door open for the Forest Service to revive the loophole if the agency undertook a new analysis that adequately disclosed the climate pollution the loophole would cause. The Forest Service's announcement gives the public until May 22 to comment on the proposal.
Photos of the Sunset Roadless Area are available here.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Trump Regulators Ripped for 'Rushed' Approval of Bill Gates' Nuclear Reactor in Wyoming
"Make no mistake, this type of reactor has major safety flaws compared to conventional nuclear reactors that comprise the operating fleet," said one expert.
Dec 03, 2025
A leading nuclear safety expert sounded the alarm Tuesday over the Trump administration's expedited safety review of an experimental nuclear reactor in Wyoming designed by a company co-founded by tech billionaire Bill Gates and derided as a "Cowboy Chernobyl."
On Monday, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced that it has "completed its final safety evaluation" for Power Station Unit 1 of TerraPower's Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, adding that it found "no safety aspects that would preclude issuing the construction permit."
Co-founded by Microsoft's Gates, TerraPower received a 50-50 cost-share grant for up to $2 billion from the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. The 345-megawatt sodium-cooled small modular reactor (SMR) relies upon so-called passive safety features that experts argue could potentially make nuclear accidents worse.
However, federal regulators "are loosening safety and security requirements for SMRs in ways which could cancel out any safety benefits from passive features," according to Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear power safety director Edwin Lyman.
"The only way they could pull this off is by sweeping difficult safety issues under the rug."
The reactor’s construction permit application—which was submitted in March 2024—was originally scheduled for August 2026 completion but was expedited amid political pressure from the Trump administration and Congress in order to comply with an 18-month timeline established in President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14300.
“The NRC’s rush to complete the Kemmerer plant’s safety evaluation to meet the recklessly abbreviated schedule dictated by President Trump represents a complete abandonment of its obligation to protect public health, safety, and the environment from catastrophic nuclear power plant accidents or terrorist attacks," Lyman said in a statement Tuesday.
Lyman continued:
The only way the staff could finish its review on such a short timeline is by sweeping serious unresolved safety issues under the rug or deferring consideration of them until TerraPower applies for an operating license, at which point it may be too late to correct any problems. Make no mistake, this type of reactor has major safety flaws compared to conventional nuclear reactors that comprise the operating fleet. Its liquid sodium coolant can catch fire, and the reactor has inherent instabilities that could lead to a rapid and uncontrolled increase in power, causing damage to the reactor’s hot and highly radioactive nuclear fuel.
Of particular concern, NRC staff has assented to a design that lacks a physical containment structure to reduce the release of radioactive materials into the environment if a core melt occurs. TerraPower argues that the reactor has a so-called "functional" containment that eliminates the need for a real containment structure. But the NRC staff plainly states that it "did not come to a final determination of the adequacy and acceptability of functional containment performance due to the preliminary nature of the design and analysis."
"Even if the NRC determines later that the functional containment is inadequate, it would be utterly impractical to retrofit the design and build a physical containment after construction has begun," Lyman added. "The potential for rapid power excursions and the lack of a real containment make the Kemmerer plant a true ‘Cowboy Chernobyl.’”
The proposed reactor still faces additional hurdles before construction can begin, including a final environmental impact assessment. However, given the Trump administration's dramatic regulatory rollback, approval and construction are highly likely.
Former NRC officials have voiced alarm over the Trump administration's tightened control over the agency, which include compelling it to send proposed reactor safety rules to the White House for review and possible editing.
Allison Macfarlane, who was nominated to head the NRC during the Obama administration, said earlier this year that Trump's approach marks “the end of independence of the agency.”
“If you aren’t independent of political and industry influence, then you are at risk of an accident,” she warned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Report Shows How Recycling Is Largely a 'Toxic Lie' Pushed by Plastics Industry
"These corporations and their partners continue to sell the public a comforting lie to hide the hard truth: that we simply have to stop producing so much plastic," said one campaigner.
Dec 03, 2025
A report published Wednesday by Greenpeace exposes the plastics industry as "merchants of myth" still peddling the false promise of recycling as a solution to the global pollution crisis, even as the vast bulk of commonly produced plastics remain unrecyclable.
"After decades of meager investments accompanied by misleading claims and a very well-funded industry public relations campaign aimed at persuading people that recycling can make plastic use sustainable, plastic recycling remains a failed enterprise that is economically and technically unviable and environmentally unjustifiable," the report begins.
"The latest US government data indicates that just 5% of US plastic waste is recycled annually, down from a high of 9.5% in 2014," the publication continues. "Meanwhile, the amount of single-use plastics produced every year continues to grow, driving the generation of ever greater amounts of plastic waste and pollution."
Among the report's findings:
- Only a fifth of the 8.8 million tons of the most commonly produced types of plastics—found in items like bottles, jugs, food containers, and caps—are actually recyclable;
- Major brands like Coca-Cola, Unilever, and Nestlé have been quietly retracting sustainability commitments while continuing to rely on single-use plastic packaging; and
- The US plastic industry is undermining meaningful plastic regulation by making false claims about the recyclability of their products to avoid bans and reduce public backlash.
"Recycling is a toxic lie pushed by the plastics industry that is now being propped up by a pro-plastic narrative emanating from the White House," Greenpeace USA oceans campaign director John Hocevar said in a statement. "These corporations and their partners continue to sell the public a comforting lie to hide the hard truth: that we simply have to stop producing so much plastic."
"Instead of investing in real solutions, they’ve poured billions into public relations campaigns that keep us hooked on single-use plastic while our communities, oceans, and bodies pay the price," he added.
Greenpeace is among the many climate and environmental groups supporting a global plastics treaty, an accord that remains elusive after six rounds of talks due to opposition from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that produce the petroleum products from which almost all plastics are made.
Honed from decades of funding and promoting dubious research aimed at casting doubts about the climate crisis caused by its products, the petrochemical industry has sent a small army of lobbyists to influence global treaty negotiations.
In addition to environmental and climate harms, plastics—whose chemicals often leach into the food and water people eat and drink—are linked to a wide range of health risks, including infertility, developmental issues, metabolic disorders, and certain cancers.
Plastics also break down into tiny particles found almost everywhere on Earth—including in human bodies—called microplastics, which cause ailments such as inflammation, immune dysfunction, and possibly cardiovascular disease and gut biome imbalance.
A study published earlier this year in the British medical journal The Lancet estimated that plastics are responsible for more than $1.5 trillion in health-related economic losses worldwide annually—impacts that disproportionately affect low-income and at-risk populations.
As Jo Banner, executive director of the Descendants Project—a Louisiana advocacy group dedicated to fighting environmental racism in frontline communities—said in response to the new Greenpeace report, "It’s the same story everywhere: poor, Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities turned into sacrifice zones so oil companies and big brands can keep making money."
"They call it development—but it’s exploitation, plain and simple," Banner added. "There’s nothing acceptable about poisoning our air, water, and food to sell more throwaway plastic. Our communities are not sacrifice zones, and we are not disposable people.”
Writing for Time this week, Judith Enck, a former regional administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency and current president of the environmental justice group Beyond Plastics, said that "throwing your plastic bottles in the recycling bin may make you feel good about yourself, or ease your guilt about your climate impact. But recycling plastic will not address the plastic pollution crisis—and it is time we stop pretending as such."
"So what can we do?" Enck continued. "First, companies need to stop producing so much plastic and shift to reusable and refillable systems. If reducing packaging or using reusable packaging is not possible, companies should at least shift to paper, cardboard, glass, or metal."
"Companies are not going to do this on their own, which is why policymakers—the officials we elected to protect us—need to require them to do so," she added.
Although lawmakers in the 119th US Congress have introduced a handful of bills aimed at tackling plastic pollution, such proposals are all but sure to fail given Republican control of both the House of Representatives and Senate and the Trump administration's pro-petroleum policies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Platner 20 Points Ahead of Mills in Maine Senate Race as Critics Spotlight Her Anti-Worker Veto Record
The new poll, said the progressive candidate, “lays clear what our theory is, which is that we are not going to defeat Susan Collins running the same exact kind of playbook that we’ve run in the past."
Dec 03, 2025
It's been more than a month since a media firestorm over old Reddit posts and a tattoo thrust US Senate candidate Graham Platner into the national spotlight, just as Maine Gov. Janet Mills was entering the Democratic primary race in hopes of challenging Republican Sen. Susan Collins—a controversy that did not appear at the time to make a dent in political newcomer Platner's chances in the election.
On Wednesday, the latest polling showed that the progressive combat veteran and oyster farmer has maintained the lead that was reported in a number of surveys just after the national media descended on the New England state to report on his past online comments and a tattoo that some said resembled a Nazi symbol, which he subsequently had covered up.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), which endorsed Platner on Wednesday, commissioned the new poll, which showed him polling at 58% compared to Mills' 38%.
Nancy Zdunkewicz, a pollster with Z to A Polling, which conducted the survey on behalf of the PCCC, said the poll represented "really impressive early consolidation" for Platner, with the primary election still six months away.
“Platner isn’t just leading in the Democratic primary. He’s leading by a lot, 20 points—58% are supporting him,” Zdunkewicz told Zeteo. “Only 38% are supporting Mills. There are very few undecided voters or weak supporters for Mills to win over at this point in the race."
Platner has consistently spoken to packed rooms across Maine since launching his campaign in August, promoting a platform that is unapologetically focused on delivering affordability and a better quality of life for Mainers.
He supports expanding the popular Medicare program to all Americans; drew raucous applause at an early rally by declaring, “Our taxpayer dollars can build schools and hospitals in America, not bombs to destroy them in Gaza"; and has spoken in support of breaking up tech giants and a federal war crimes investigation into Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his deadly boat strikes in the Caribbean.
Mills entered the race after Democratic leaders including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) urged her to. She garnered national attention earlier this year for standing up to President Donald Trump when he threatened federal funding for Maine over the state's policy of allowing students to play on school athletic teams that correspond with their gender.
But the PCCC survey found that when respondents learned details about each candidate, negative critiques of Mills were more damaging to her than Platner's old Reddit posts and tattoo.
Zdunkewicz disclosed Platner's recent controversy to the voters she surveyed, as well as his statements about how his views have shifted in recent years, and found that 21% of voters were more likely to back him after learning about his background. Thirty-nine percent said they were less likely to support him.
The pollster also talked to respondents about the fact that establishment Democrats pushed Mills, who is 77, to enter the race, and about a number of bills she has vetoed as governor, including a tax on the wealthy, a bill to set up a tracking system for rape kits, two bills to reduce prescription drug costs, and several bills promoting workers' rights.
Only 14% of Mainers said they were more likely to vote for Mills after learning those details, while 50% said they were less likely to support her.
At The Lever, Luke Goldstein on Wednesday reported that Mills' vetoes have left many with the "perception that she’s mostly concerned with business interests," as former Democratic Maine state lawmaker Andy O'Brien said. Corporate interests gave more than $200,000 to Mills' two gubernatorial campaigns.
Earlier this year, Mills struck down a labor-backed bill to allow farm workers to discuss their pay with one another without fear of retaliation. Last year, she blocked a bill to set a minimum wage for farm laborers, opposing a provision that would have allowed workers to sue their employers.
She also vetoed a bill banning noncompete agreements and one that would have banned anti-union tactics by corporations.
"In previous years," Goldstein reported, "she blocked efforts to stop employers from punishing employees who took state-guaranteed paid time off, killed a permitting reform bill to streamline offshore wind developments because it included a provision mandating union jobs, and vetoed a modest labor bill that would have required the state government to merely study the issue of paper mill workers being forced to work overtime without adequate compensation."
Speaking to PCCC supporters on Wednesday, Platner suggested the new polling shows that many Mainers agree with the central argument of his campaign: "We need to build power again for working people, both in Maine and nationally.”
The survey, he said, “lays clear what our theory is, which is that we are not going to defeat Susan Collins running the same exact kind of playbook that we’ve run in the past—which is an establishment politician supported by the power structures, supported by Washington, DC, coming up to Maine and trying to run a kind of standard race... We are really trying to build a grassroots movement up here."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular



