SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Activists demonstrate against the proposed Sea Port Oil Terminal in Texas outside the U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters on November 16, 2022 in Washington, D.C.
"It's hypocritical for the Biden administration to allow these things to get built and then say the U.S. wants to decrease its own emissions," said one climate campaigner.
The Biden administration's plan to potentially allow four new oil terminals along the Texas Gulf Coast would unleash a "carbon bomb" potentially equivalent to three years of all U.S. emissions and belie President Joe Biden's stated intent to "act boldly on climate," according to an analysis published on Tuesday.
The analysis—which was conducted for The Guardian by Global Energy Monitor, a San Francisco-based NGO that tracks fossil fuel projects around the world—found that if all four terminals are built and operate at full capacity for their expected 30-year lifespan, they will generate a staggering 24 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases.
According to The Guardian:
The federal government has already quietly approved the Sea Port Oil Terminal project, a proposed offshore oil platform located 35 miles off the Texas coast, south of Houston, and will decide whether to allow three other nearby oil terminal proposals. Combined, the four terminals would expand U.S. oil exports by nearly seven million barrels every day, handling the capacity of half of all current national oil exports.
"The amount of oil going through these projects, and the resulting emissions, are pretty astounding," said Global Energy Monitor analyst Baird Langenbrunner.
\u201cIncreasing oil production is completely at odds with the Biden administration's stated goals of climate progress. https://t.co/1YqchQpfSw\u201d— Food & Water Watch (@Food & Water Watch) 1677016894
Sea Port Oil Terminal (STOP), the largest of the projects, would produce an estimated seven billion metric tons of annual greenhouse emissions, followed by Bluewater Texas (6.7 billion metric tons), Blue Marlin (6.6 billion), and Texas GulfLink (3.8 billion). In 2019, U.S. emissions totaled 6.6 billion metric tons, according to the analysis.
SPOT was approved by the Biden administration last November over the strong objections of climate, environmental, and other campaigners. As currently planned, the project would consist of several pipelines—the longest of them 50 miles long—storage tanks, and a deepwater oil export platform.
Last month, green and community groups sued the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD) over its approval of SPOT.
\u201cRice\u2019s whales lost 22% of their population after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and now they\u2019re among the most endangered marine mammals on Earth, with fewer than 50 left. That\u2019s one reason why we\u2019re fighting the Sea Port Oil Terminal in court. \nhttps://t.co/SBaZOngGas\u201d— Center for Biological Diversity (@Center for Biological Diversity) 1674665079
"Licensing SPOT exclusively serves the fossil fuel industry's goal of extracting every last drop of oil from the Permian Basin, while failing the communities and ecosystems of the Gulf, our nation, and global climate," Devorah Ancel, a senior attorney at the Sierra Club—one of the groups filing the suit— said at the time.
"Considering the administration's stated commitment to 'tackle the climate crisis,' it is particularly troubling that MARAD's review of SPOT's environmental and community impacts entirely fails to account for the project's significant contributions to climate change," Ancel added, "including impacts from excessive greenhouse gas pollution that will push temperatures higher in the Houston area and disrupt global climate."
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The Biden administration's plan to potentially allow four new oil terminals along the Texas Gulf Coast would unleash a "carbon bomb" potentially equivalent to three years of all U.S. emissions and belie President Joe Biden's stated intent to "act boldly on climate," according to an analysis published on Tuesday.
The analysis—which was conducted for The Guardian by Global Energy Monitor, a San Francisco-based NGO that tracks fossil fuel projects around the world—found that if all four terminals are built and operate at full capacity for their expected 30-year lifespan, they will generate a staggering 24 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases.
According to The Guardian:
The federal government has already quietly approved the Sea Port Oil Terminal project, a proposed offshore oil platform located 35 miles off the Texas coast, south of Houston, and will decide whether to allow three other nearby oil terminal proposals. Combined, the four terminals would expand U.S. oil exports by nearly seven million barrels every day, handling the capacity of half of all current national oil exports.
"The amount of oil going through these projects, and the resulting emissions, are pretty astounding," said Global Energy Monitor analyst Baird Langenbrunner.
\u201cIncreasing oil production is completely at odds with the Biden administration's stated goals of climate progress. https://t.co/1YqchQpfSw\u201d— Food & Water Watch (@Food & Water Watch) 1677016894
Sea Port Oil Terminal (STOP), the largest of the projects, would produce an estimated seven billion metric tons of annual greenhouse emissions, followed by Bluewater Texas (6.7 billion metric tons), Blue Marlin (6.6 billion), and Texas GulfLink (3.8 billion). In 2019, U.S. emissions totaled 6.6 billion metric tons, according to the analysis.
SPOT was approved by the Biden administration last November over the strong objections of climate, environmental, and other campaigners. As currently planned, the project would consist of several pipelines—the longest of them 50 miles long—storage tanks, and a deepwater oil export platform.
Last month, green and community groups sued the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD) over its approval of SPOT.
\u201cRice\u2019s whales lost 22% of their population after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and now they\u2019re among the most endangered marine mammals on Earth, with fewer than 50 left. That\u2019s one reason why we\u2019re fighting the Sea Port Oil Terminal in court. \nhttps://t.co/SBaZOngGas\u201d— Center for Biological Diversity (@Center for Biological Diversity) 1674665079
"Licensing SPOT exclusively serves the fossil fuel industry's goal of extracting every last drop of oil from the Permian Basin, while failing the communities and ecosystems of the Gulf, our nation, and global climate," Devorah Ancel, a senior attorney at the Sierra Club—one of the groups filing the suit— said at the time.
"Considering the administration's stated commitment to 'tackle the climate crisis,' it is particularly troubling that MARAD's review of SPOT's environmental and community impacts entirely fails to account for the project's significant contributions to climate change," Ancel added, "including impacts from excessive greenhouse gas pollution that will push temperatures higher in the Houston area and disrupt global climate."
The Biden administration's plan to potentially allow four new oil terminals along the Texas Gulf Coast would unleash a "carbon bomb" potentially equivalent to three years of all U.S. emissions and belie President Joe Biden's stated intent to "act boldly on climate," according to an analysis published on Tuesday.
The analysis—which was conducted for The Guardian by Global Energy Monitor, a San Francisco-based NGO that tracks fossil fuel projects around the world—found that if all four terminals are built and operate at full capacity for their expected 30-year lifespan, they will generate a staggering 24 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases.
According to The Guardian:
The federal government has already quietly approved the Sea Port Oil Terminal project, a proposed offshore oil platform located 35 miles off the Texas coast, south of Houston, and will decide whether to allow three other nearby oil terminal proposals. Combined, the four terminals would expand U.S. oil exports by nearly seven million barrels every day, handling the capacity of half of all current national oil exports.
"The amount of oil going through these projects, and the resulting emissions, are pretty astounding," said Global Energy Monitor analyst Baird Langenbrunner.
\u201cIncreasing oil production is completely at odds with the Biden administration's stated goals of climate progress. https://t.co/1YqchQpfSw\u201d— Food & Water Watch (@Food & Water Watch) 1677016894
Sea Port Oil Terminal (STOP), the largest of the projects, would produce an estimated seven billion metric tons of annual greenhouse emissions, followed by Bluewater Texas (6.7 billion metric tons), Blue Marlin (6.6 billion), and Texas GulfLink (3.8 billion). In 2019, U.S. emissions totaled 6.6 billion metric tons, according to the analysis.
SPOT was approved by the Biden administration last November over the strong objections of climate, environmental, and other campaigners. As currently planned, the project would consist of several pipelines—the longest of them 50 miles long—storage tanks, and a deepwater oil export platform.
Last month, green and community groups sued the U.S. Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD) over its approval of SPOT.
\u201cRice\u2019s whales lost 22% of their population after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and now they\u2019re among the most endangered marine mammals on Earth, with fewer than 50 left. That\u2019s one reason why we\u2019re fighting the Sea Port Oil Terminal in court. \nhttps://t.co/SBaZOngGas\u201d— Center for Biological Diversity (@Center for Biological Diversity) 1674665079
"Licensing SPOT exclusively serves the fossil fuel industry's goal of extracting every last drop of oil from the Permian Basin, while failing the communities and ecosystems of the Gulf, our nation, and global climate," Devorah Ancel, a senior attorney at the Sierra Club—one of the groups filing the suit— said at the time.
"Considering the administration's stated commitment to 'tackle the climate crisis,' it is particularly troubling that MARAD's review of SPOT's environmental and community impacts entirely fails to account for the project's significant contributions to climate change," Ancel added, "including impacts from excessive greenhouse gas pollution that will push temperatures higher in the Houston area and disrupt global climate."