May, 31 2016, 01:45pm EDT
A Coalition of Nonprofit, Local Business Groups Plan Legal Action Against U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to Protect Threatened Reefs
Groups will challenge failure to prevent damage to corals in upcoming Fort Lauderdale dredging project following disastrous project in Miami
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.
A coalition of environmental and SCUBA organizations joined together today to demand that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provide mandatory, common-sense protections for nearby reefs during an upcoming, proposed dredging project to expand Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale. This is particularly urgent after widespread reef destruction during the dredging of the Port of Miami (PortMiami) last year.
The dredging is part of an effort by the Corps to expand ports along the East Coast to accommodate larger ships. During the dredging of PortMiami, the Army Corps illegally injured and killed Endangered Species Act-listed staghorn corals and buried alive more than 200 football fields of reef habitat. The damage stemmed from the Corps' failure to collect and use accurate, up-to-date information or adequately account for potential impacts to nearby reefs.
Despite this, the Corps still refuses to correct mistakes and learn lessons stemming from PortMiami, and has asked Congress for authorization for the Port Everglades dredging based on inaccurate assumptions and surveys.
The Florida reef tract is the only coastal barrier reef in the continental United States. It is a national treasure that hosts diversity, protects our coast, and supports local economies. However, it has already declined by more than 80 percent since the 1970s, and the last few years of bleaching, dredging, and disease have put this reef tract into crisis.
There are many threats facing our precious Florida reefs, bringing them to the brink of collapse. "Many of these threats are global and difficult to control at a local level," said Rachel Silverstein, executive director and waterkeeper of Miami Waterkeeper, "but this dredging plan is an action that we can easily control to ensure that coral reefs are protected. Despite our attempts to improve this plan over the last year, the Corps has not changed a single word of their upcoming dredging plan based on what happened in Miami."
The Port Everglades dredging in Fort Lauderdale will deepen the outer entrance channel in Port Everglades by 10 feet, widen the channel by about 300 feet, and extend the channel by about 2,000 feet. The Corps is seeking permission to blast rock for up to 900 days and dump about 5.47 million cubic yards of dredged material offshore, including the fine-grained sediment that can smother and harm coral. In Miami, this same sediment buried corals alive, depriving them of access to light and food, causing death, and hindering reproduction.
In Miami, the Corps relied on an out-of-date survey that underestimated the number of Endangered Species Act-listed corals in the project area by at least 10 times. The Corps incorrectly predicted that the fine-grained sediment stirred up by dredging would only have minor impacts to corals out less than 500 feet away from the port.
But, when the dredging project began, sediment covered reefs out to more than 3,000 feet away, smothering coral and causing partial coral death on up to 93 percent of corals in areas near dredging. In a report released last month by the National Marine Fisheries Service, federal scientists concluded that dredging was responsible for the extensive harm to reefs. The report contradicted the Corps' claims that natural disease had caused mortality to coral in the area.
"The Corps is still relying on the same old, flawed survey that vastly underestimated the numbers of coral in Miami and the same incorrect assumptions about how far the sediment will travel," said Jaclyn Lopez, Florida director for the Center for Biological Diversity. "That's illogical, and we are asking that they stop and rethink their assumptions."
But, the Corps has repeatedly refused to heed pleas from conservationists and recreational and ecotourism groups, and even from other government agencies, recommending that they update their plans for the Port Everglades dredging to learn lessons from the disaster in PortMiami. Miami Waterkeeper, Center for Biological Diversity, the Florida Wildlife Federation, and Sea Experience, working with Earthjustice, are now left with no option but to take action to save what's left of these reefs.
In the letter sent to the Corps today, the groups demand that the agency comply with the Endangered Species Act and seek a second opinion from federal wildlife experts. If the Corps does not comply with the law, the coalition plans to sue the agency.
"The Corps owes it to Florida's economy and future generations to learn from its mistakes," said Brettny Hardy, an attorney at Earthjustice. "If the federal agencies won't take action to protect these reefs, we will."
The coalition also sent a letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is charged with enforcing the Endangered Species Act and protecting coral in Florida. The groups ask that the Fisheries Service demand that the Corps implement better protections for coral.
What's at Stake: The Value of South Florida's Reef System
The Florida reef tract is the only living, near-shore barrier coral reef system in the continental United States. Coral reef systems provide crucial shelter, food and breeding sites for countless marine plants and animals, including species that are commercially and recreationally valuable. They also protect coastal residents because they buffer storm damage.
The reefs are economically vital to South Florida. A 2001 study found that coral reef-related expenditures generated more than $2 billion in sales in Broward County alone, resulting in $1 billion in income and 36,000 jobs to Broward County.
Unfortunately, Florida's reefs are in dire trouble. Due to pervasive threats like climate change, the National Marine Fisheries Service has listed seven Caribbean species of coral as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. At least six of those species are present near Port Everglades.
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
Climate Crisis to Cost Global Economy $38 Trillion a Year by 2050
"This clearly shows that protecting our climate is much cheaper than not doing so, and that is without even considering noneconomic impacts such as loss of life or biodiversity," a new study's lead author said.
Apr 18, 2024
The climate crisis will shrink the average global income 19% in the next 26 years compared to what it would have been without global heating caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, a study published in Nature Wednesday has found.
The researchers, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), said that economic shrinkage was largely locked in by mid-century by existing climate change, but that actions taken to reduce emissions now could determine whether income losses hold steady at around 20% or triple through the second half of the century.
"These near-term damages are a result of our past emissions," study lead author and PIK scientist Leonie Wenz said in a statement. "We will need more adaptation efforts if we want to avoid at least some of them. And we have to cut down our emissions drastically and immediately—if not, economic losses will become even bigger in the second half of the century, amounting to up to 60% on global average by 2100."
"I am used to my work not having a nice societal outcome, but I was surprised by how big the damages were."
Put in dollar terms, the climate crisis will take a yearly $38 trillion chunk out of the global economy in damages by 2050, the study authors found.
"That seems like… a lot," writer and climate advocate Bill McKibben wrote in response to the findings. "The entire world economy at the moment is about $100 trillion a year; the federal budget is about $6 trillion a year."
This means that the costs of inaction have already exceeded the costs of limiting global heating to 2°C by six times, the study authors said. However, limiting warming to 2°C can still significantly reduce economic losses through 2100.
"This clearly shows that protecting our climate is much cheaper than not doing so, and that is without even considering noneconomic impacts such as loss of life or biodiversity," Wenz said.
The damages predicted by the study were more than twice those of similar analyses because the researchers looked beyond national temperature data to also incorporate the impacts of extreme weather and rainfall on more than 1,600 subnational regions over a 40-year period, The Guardian explained.
"Strong income reductions are projected for the majority of regions, including North America and Europe, with South Asia and Africa being most strongly affected," PIK scientist and first author Maximilian Kotz said in a statement. "These are caused by the impact of climate change on various aspects that are relevant for economic growth such as agricultural yields, labor productivity, or infrastructure."
However, Wenz told the paper that the paper's projected reduction was likely a "lower bound" because the study still doesn't include climate impacts such as heatwaves, tropical storms, sea-level rise, and harms to human health.
Unlike previous studies, the research predicted economic losses for most wealthier countries in the Global North, with the U.S. and German economies shrinking by 11% by mid-century, France's by 13%, and the U.K.'s by 7%. However, the countries set to suffer the most are countries closer to the equator that have lower incomes already and have historically done much less to contribute to the climate crisis. Iraq, for example, could see incomes drop by 30%, Botswana 25%, and Brazil 21%.
"Our study highlights the considerable inequity of climate impacts: We find damages almost everywhere, but countries in the tropics will suffer the most because they are already warmer," study co-author Anders Levermann, who leads Research Department Complexity Science at PIK, said in a statement. "Further temperature increases will therefore be most harmful there. The countries least responsible for climate change, are predicted to suffer income loss that is 60% greater than the higher-income countries and 40% greater than higher-emission countries. They are also the ones with the least resources to adapt to its impacts."
Wenz told The Guardian that the results were "devastating."
"I am used to my work not having a nice societal outcome, but I was surprised by how big the damages were. The inequality dimension was really shocking," Wenz said.
Levermann said the paper presented society with a clear choice:
It is on us to decide: Structural change towards a renewable energy system is needed for our security and will save us money. Staying on the path we are currently on, will lead to catastrophic consequences. The temperature of the planet can only be stabilized if we stop burning oil, gas, and coal.
McKibben, meanwhile, argued that the findings should persuade major companies to embrace climate action for self-interested reasons. He noted that most corporate emissions come from how company money is invested by banks, particularly in the continued exploitation of fossil fuel resources.
"If Amazon and Apple and Microsoft wanted to avoid a world where, by century's end, people had 60% less money to spend on buying whatever phones and software and weird junk (doubtless weirder by then) they plan on selling, then they should be putting pressure on their banks to stop making the problem worse. They should also be unleashing their lobbying teams to demand climate action from Congress," McKibben wrote.
"These people are supposed to care about money, and for once it would help us if they actually did," he continued. "Stop putting out ads about how green your products are—start making this system you dominate actually work."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congressional Progressives Unveil 'Bold' Agenda for Second Biden Term
The Congressional Progressive Caucus says its legislative blueprint for 2025 and beyond aims to "deliver equality, justice, and economic security for working people."
Apr 18, 2024
The Congressional Progressive Caucus on Thursday published a "comprehensive domestic policy legislative agenda" for U.S. President Joe Biden's possible second White House term that seeks to "deliver equality, justice, and economic security for working people."
The CPC's Progressive Proposition Agenda is a seven-point plan aimed at lowering the cost of living, boosting wages and worker power, advancing justice, combating climate change and protecting the environment, strengthening democracy, breaking the corporate stranglehold on the economy, and bolstering public education.
"Progressives are proud to have been part of the most significant Democratic legislative accomplishments of this century. We have made real progress for everyday Americans—but there's much more work to be done," Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in a statement.
"That's why the Progressive Caucus has identified these popular, populist, and possible solutions," she added. "Democrats in Congress can meet the urgent needs people are facing; rewrite the rules to ensure majorities of this country are no longer barred from the American promise of equality, justice, and economic opportunity; and motivate people with a vision of progressive governance under Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and a Democratic White House."
Progressive lawmakers have already introduced bills for many items on the agenda, including a Green New Deal for Public Schools, expanding the Supreme Court, comprehensive voting rights protection, and legalizing marijuana.
Critics noted the conspicuous absence of Medicare for All—once a top progressive agenda item—and foreign policy issues including ending Israel's genocide, apartheid, occupation, settler colonization, and ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
Jayapal toldNBC News that the CPC is focusing its blueprint exclusively on domestic goals—especially ones it feels can be achieved.
"The way we came to this agenda is to say that we were going to put into this agenda things that were populist and possible... and affected a huge number of people," she said. "We haven't taken a position on particularly Israel and Gaza in the progressive caucus, and so that's not on here."
The CPC agenda is backed by a wide range of labor, climate, environmental, civil rights, consumer, faith-based, and other organizations.
"The Congressional Progressive Caucus is leading the way for Congress to address the major issues affecting working families, from reducing healthcare and housing costs to strengthening workers' rights to join unions, earn living wages and benefits, and have safe workplaces," Service Employees International Union president Mary Kay Henry said in a statement.
"SEIU is proud to partner with the CPC to move these priorities forward and build a more equitable economy in which corporations are held accountable for their actions," she added.
Mary Small, chief strategy officer at Indivisible, said: "House progressives were the engine at the heart of our legislative accomplishments in 2021 and 2022. They've continued that momentum to be true governing partners to the Biden administration as those laws and programs are implemented."
"That's why Indivisible is so supportive of the CPC's Proposition Agenda, a bold vision for progressive governance in 2025 and beyond. From reproductive rights to saving our democracy to economic security for all, the CPC is driving forward exactly the sort of legislative goals we want to see in our next governing moment."
That moment is far from guaranteed, with not only the White House hanging in the balance as Biden will all but certainly face former Republican President Donald Trump in November's election but also the Senate Democratic Caucus clinging to a single-seat advantage over the GOP. Republicans currently hold the House of Representatives by a five-seat margin.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'McCarthyism Is Alive and Well': Google Fires 28 for Protesting Israel Contract
"These mass, illegal firings will not stop us," said organizers. "Make no mistake, we will continue organizing until the company drops Project Nimbus and stops powering this genocide."
Apr 18, 2024
The peace coalition No Tech for Apartheid accused Google of a "flagrant act of retaliation" late Wednesday night as the Silicon Valley giant announced it had fired 28 workers over protests against its cloud services contract with the Israeli government.
The firings came after Google organizers held two 10-hour sit-ins at the company's offices in Sunnyvale, California and New York City, demanding the termination of Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion contract under which Google and Amazon provide cloud infrastructure and data services for Israel—without any oversight regarding whether the Israel Defense Forces uses the services in its occupation of Palestinian territories and bombardment of Gaza.
Workers have denounced Project Nimbus since it was announced in 2021, but Israel's killing of at least 33,970 Palestinians in Gaza since October and its intentional starvation of civilians led employees to escalate their protests.
No Tech for Apartheid said in a statement that Google officials called the police to both offices to arrest nine protesters—dubbed the Nimbus Nine—on Tuesday morning, before utilizing "a dragnet of in-office surveillance" to fire nearly two dozen other employees on Wednesday.
"They punished all of the workers they could associate with this action in wholesale firings," said the coalition, which includes Jewish Voice for Peace and MPower Change, a Muslim-led anti-war group.
Google accused the workers of "bullying," "harassment," defacing property, and physically impeding other employees—allegations No Tech for Apartheid rejected as it noted organizers "have yet to hear from a single executive about" their concerns over Google's collaboration with Israel.
"This excuse to avoid confronting us and our concerns directly, and attempt to justify its illegal, retaliatory firings, is a lie," said the workers. "Even the workers who were participating in a peaceful sit-in and refusing to leave did not damage property or threaten other workers. Instead they received an overwhelmingly positive response and shows of support."
The organizers staged the sit-ins on the heels of reporting in Time magazine about new negotiations between Google and the Israeli government regarding further potential tech contracts.
Kate J. Sim, a child safety policy adviser at Google who said she was among those fired this week, said the terminations show "how terrified [executives] are of worker power."
Google employees have a history of harnessing worker power to change policies at the company. In 2018, Google terminated a deal with the U.S. Defense Department to develop drone and artificial intelligence (AI) technology through a contract called Project Maven. The decision followed the resignations of several employees and the condemnation of thousands of workers.
Calling Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian "genocide profiteers," No Tech for Apartheid said Wednesday that they will not stop demonstrating against Project Nimbus until they get a similar result.
"The truth is clear: Google is terrified of us," said the group. "They are terrified of workers coming together and calling for accountability and transparency from our bosses... The corporation is trying to downplay and discredit our power.
"These mass, illegal firings will not stop us," No Tech for Apartheid added. "On the contrary, they only serve as further fuel for the growth of this movement. Make no mistake, we will continue organizing until the company drops Project Nimbus and stops powering this genocide."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular