September, 05 2008, 03:10pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Amy Atwood, Center for Biological Diversity, (541) 914-8372,
atwood@biologicaldiversity.org
Center for Biological Diversity Statement
On the Bureau of Land Management's Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Commercial Leasing Program
TUCSON
Today the Bush Administration took another step toward finalizing a
commercial leasing program for oil shale on some of the nation's most
pristine public lands and released a final programmatic environmental
impact statement for commercial oil shale production on more than 2
million acres of public lands in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah.
In another parting gift to Big Oil, the Bush Administration released a
four-volume environmental impact statement that omits information about
the potential technologies that would be employed and the environmental
consequences of this highly energy- and water- intensive fossil fuel to
global warming and to endangered species and Western communities that
depend on scarce Western water.
"The final EIS
reveals that concerns about the unsustainability of this fuel source
are shared not just by environmentalists who have been following this
issue for years, but by other federal agencies, local governments, and
thousands of citizens," said Amy Atwood, senior attorney with the
Center for Biological Diversity. "Oil shale development is another
dirty fossil fuel and extracting it would deal a disastrous blow to any
hope of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide pollutant levels to below
350 parts per million. Oil shale extraction is also an inappropriate
use of our public lands, which must serve as refugia for species struggling to survive in the face of global warming."
Federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, U.S. Park Service, and U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, all have raised concerns about the environmental impacts
of opening up 2 million acres of public lands to oil shale development.
They include questions about the harm it would inflict on global
climate, endangered and threatened species, wilderness areas, air and
water quality, water rights, and the lack of information about what
technologies would be used.
Oil shale is one of
the world's most greenhouse gas-intensive energy sources. Producing oil
from shale requires several times more energy than conventional oil
production. Depending on the technology, it also could consume vast
quantities of water in an arid region where water is becoming even more
scarce due to climate change.
The Center for
Biological Diversity is dedicated to ensuring that atmospheric carbon
dioxide pollutant levels are reduced to below 350 ppm, which leading
climate scientists warn is necessary to prevent devastating climate
change. Further development of greenhouse gas-intensive energy sources,
including oil shale, tar sands, and coal-fired power plants, is
fundamentally incompatible with achieving this goal. If greenhouse gas
emissions are not immediately reduced, the current atmospheric carbon
dioxide level of 385 ppm will rise to approximately 500 ppm by
mid-century, triggering mass wildlife extinctions, catastrophic global
weather and ecosystem changes, and tragic human suffering.
"It is time for the Bush Administration to wake up and realize that oil
shale development is nothing more than a pipe dream that has no part in
any rational energy plan for the future," Atwood said. "Congress should
take action and permanently halt the Bush administration's latest
attempt to promote this destructive and impractical fossil fuel
development."
Oil Shale Facts
* It's dirtier than the dirtiest coal
* It requires more land to produce than conventional oil
* It's more water-intensive than farming in the desert
* There's been no significant production of U.S. shale oil for at least 30 years
Shale Mining is Among the Filthiest Ways to Produce Energy
There are two kinds of shale-oil extraction methods, neither yet proven
to work. The first involves underground, open-pit, or strip mining, as
with coal. Unlike coal, though, oil-shale production requires
additional steps of pulverizing the shale and then roasting it in giant
kilns to drive off the oil. The process requires disposal of all of the
original rock, which is 30 percent greater in volume due to
pulverizing. About a ton of rock needs to be crushed, heated, and
dumped to produce just 15 gallons of oil.
The
second method involves drilling tightly spaced wells across thousands
of acres and injecting heat into the ground for about four years. Oil
driven from the rock is then pumped to the surface. To prevent the
newly freed oil and other toxic substances from percolating deeper
underground, the entire operation is surrounded by another set of holes
pumped with supercooled fluids in an attempt to create an underground
barrier of ice during the operation. Oil-shale lands would be a maze of
pipes and pumps, and these complex systems could not produce
significant amounts of oil before 2037, at the earliest.
Shale Oil Is Worse Than Crude Oil in Contributing to Climate Change
Producing shale from oil would be dirtier than the dirtiest coal,
because it takes so much energy just to squeeze a barrel of oil out of
stone. Compared to crude oil, every barrel of shale oil sends 50
percent more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a time when we must
be emitting far less carbon dioxide, not more. Fuel efficiency, public
transit, better urban planning and a new generation of vehicles are
better investments to reduce foreign imports over the next 30 years.
The Green River Basin Is an Outdoor American Treasure
Backed by the Bush administration, oil companies want access to
millions of acres of public lands for shale mining in Colorado, Utah,
and Wyoming. These are lands that are currently open to the public for
top-quality outdoor recreation. They include wonderful trout fishing,
America's healthiest elk herds, rare plants found nowhere else in the
world, and many endangered and threatened species. These are also areas
that support rural lifestyles passed down for generations. This is no
place to develop strip mines, oil refineries, power plants, and all of
the highways, pipelines, power lines and dumpsites to support them.
There Is Not Enough Colorado River Water for Meaningful Production
The Colorado River supplies drinking water to about 30 million people
and irrigates about 3.5 million acres of farmland. Many years, the
river is so taxed it does not have a drop left by the time it reaches
the sea. Reservoir levels are falling to record low levels. Climate
change predictions call for less rain and more evaporation. All 15
million acre-feet of the Colorado River's annual flow have been fought
over and carefully allocated.
All significant
shale oil sits in the Colorado River Basin. According to Department of
Energy figures, replacing current OPEC oil imports with shale oil would
cost us up to 1.4 million acre-feet of Colorado River basin water every
year. That is enough to drain Lake Mead dry in less than 10 years.
Meanwhile, the West is facing water shortages as a result of climate
change and population growth.
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
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