SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Sierra Club and other environmental groups have fought the 500-mile Sabal Trail pipeline, which would carry fracked gas across wetlands in three states. (Photo: @AltLeftPress/Twitter)
This Pipeline Victory Could Have Major Implications for Climate Fights Ahead
The federal commission charged with analyzing climate impacts of major fossil fuel project didn't do its job, says appeals court
Aug 22, 2017
Environmental groups on Tuesday were applauding a decision that could have an impact on future rulings on oil and gas industry projects.
An appeals court in Washington, D.C. sided with the Sierra Club when it rejected federal approval of the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, which would carry gas through Alabama, Georgia, and Florida--noting that an environmental analysis of the pipeline, which failed to address its climate impact, was incomplete.
In a two-to-one vote, the court found that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) report on the project did not provide complete information about the greenhouse gas emissions "that will result from burning the natural gas that the pipelines will transport," according to an opinion written by Judge Thomas Griffin. The court ordered FERC to complete a second analysis or explain why it had not provided a complete overview of the project's climate impact.
"Today's decision requires FERC to fulfill its duties to the public, rather than merely serve as a rubber stamp for corporate polluters' attempts to construct dangerous and unnecessary fracked gas pipelines," said Sierra Club staff attorney Elly Benson following the ruling.
The expansive project includes a 515-mile stretch called the Sabal Trail Pipeline, which has been the subject of much concern among environmental groups. According to a statement by the Sierra Club when the group mounted its lawsuit, the pipeline "would transport fracked gas across 699 waterbodies, lakes, rivers, and streams and harm 1,958 wetland systems in three states."
The court's opinion on the case noted that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which mandates environmental impact reviews of federal decisions, requires a "detailed statement discussing and disclosing the environmental impact" of projects, and that "greenhouse gas emissions are an indirect effect of authorizing this project, which FERC could reasonably foresee, and which the agency has legal authority to mitigate."
Environmental advocacy and progressive groups, including local contingents whose members would be impacted by the Sabal Trail, joined the Sierra Club in celebrating the court's decision:
While the pipeline's owners say they are still reviewing the court's decision, Florida Sierra Club representative Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson says the court's position matters to people who live in the affected area.
"This type of outcome shows them that they do have a voice, that they do matter and people do matter," she said. "Corporations think they can do whatever they want to people on the ground, but the reality is the citizens do matter and do count."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Environmental groups on Tuesday were applauding a decision that could have an impact on future rulings on oil and gas industry projects.
An appeals court in Washington, D.C. sided with the Sierra Club when it rejected federal approval of the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, which would carry gas through Alabama, Georgia, and Florida--noting that an environmental analysis of the pipeline, which failed to address its climate impact, was incomplete.
In a two-to-one vote, the court found that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) report on the project did not provide complete information about the greenhouse gas emissions "that will result from burning the natural gas that the pipelines will transport," according to an opinion written by Judge Thomas Griffin. The court ordered FERC to complete a second analysis or explain why it had not provided a complete overview of the project's climate impact.
"Today's decision requires FERC to fulfill its duties to the public, rather than merely serve as a rubber stamp for corporate polluters' attempts to construct dangerous and unnecessary fracked gas pipelines," said Sierra Club staff attorney Elly Benson following the ruling.
The expansive project includes a 515-mile stretch called the Sabal Trail Pipeline, which has been the subject of much concern among environmental groups. According to a statement by the Sierra Club when the group mounted its lawsuit, the pipeline "would transport fracked gas across 699 waterbodies, lakes, rivers, and streams and harm 1,958 wetland systems in three states."
The court's opinion on the case noted that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which mandates environmental impact reviews of federal decisions, requires a "detailed statement discussing and disclosing the environmental impact" of projects, and that "greenhouse gas emissions are an indirect effect of authorizing this project, which FERC could reasonably foresee, and which the agency has legal authority to mitigate."
Environmental advocacy and progressive groups, including local contingents whose members would be impacted by the Sabal Trail, joined the Sierra Club in celebrating the court's decision:
While the pipeline's owners say they are still reviewing the court's decision, Florida Sierra Club representative Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson says the court's position matters to people who live in the affected area.
"This type of outcome shows them that they do have a voice, that they do matter and people do matter," she said. "Corporations think they can do whatever they want to people on the ground, but the reality is the citizens do matter and do count."
Environmental groups on Tuesday were applauding a decision that could have an impact on future rulings on oil and gas industry projects.
An appeals court in Washington, D.C. sided with the Sierra Club when it rejected federal approval of the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, which would carry gas through Alabama, Georgia, and Florida--noting that an environmental analysis of the pipeline, which failed to address its climate impact, was incomplete.
In a two-to-one vote, the court found that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) report on the project did not provide complete information about the greenhouse gas emissions "that will result from burning the natural gas that the pipelines will transport," according to an opinion written by Judge Thomas Griffin. The court ordered FERC to complete a second analysis or explain why it had not provided a complete overview of the project's climate impact.
"Today's decision requires FERC to fulfill its duties to the public, rather than merely serve as a rubber stamp for corporate polluters' attempts to construct dangerous and unnecessary fracked gas pipelines," said Sierra Club staff attorney Elly Benson following the ruling.
The expansive project includes a 515-mile stretch called the Sabal Trail Pipeline, which has been the subject of much concern among environmental groups. According to a statement by the Sierra Club when the group mounted its lawsuit, the pipeline "would transport fracked gas across 699 waterbodies, lakes, rivers, and streams and harm 1,958 wetland systems in three states."
The court's opinion on the case noted that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which mandates environmental impact reviews of federal decisions, requires a "detailed statement discussing and disclosing the environmental impact" of projects, and that "greenhouse gas emissions are an indirect effect of authorizing this project, which FERC could reasonably foresee, and which the agency has legal authority to mitigate."
Environmental advocacy and progressive groups, including local contingents whose members would be impacted by the Sabal Trail, joined the Sierra Club in celebrating the court's decision:
While the pipeline's owners say they are still reviewing the court's decision, Florida Sierra Club representative Merrillee Malwitz-Jipson says the court's position matters to people who live in the affected area.
"This type of outcome shows them that they do have a voice, that they do matter and people do matter," she said. "Corporations think they can do whatever they want to people on the ground, but the reality is the citizens do matter and do count."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.