

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.

Miyoko Sakashita, Center for Biological Diversity, miyoko@biologicaldiversity.org, (415) 658-5308
The Center for Biological Diversity
filed a legal petition
today urging the Bureau of Ocean Energy (formerly the Minerals
Management
Service) and National Marine Fisheries Service to increase conservation
measures
for essential fish habitat in the Gulf of Mexico. The agencies have
failed to
adequately analyze oil and gas activities that hurt habitat for fish and
therefore the health of crucial fisheries - a violation of the
Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
"Efforts to streamline oil-drilling
approvals have
resulted in important fish conservation requirements falling through the
cracks," said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center. "Now
fisheries
and Gulf fishing communities are paying a terrible price."
Congress passed a law in 1996 designed to
protect
both fish and fishermen, yet the Minerals Management Service approved
oil
drilling in the Gulf with only superficial attention to this law, with
disastrous consequences. Recognizing that habitat destruction is one of
the
greatest threats to fisheries, the law requires federal agencies to
consult with
the Fisheries Service before authorizing actions that hurt essential
fish
habitat - waters and substrate necessary for spawning, breeding, feeding
and
growth to maturity.
"Most federal agencies treat fish habitat
consultations as a paper exercise rather than using the process to
actually
protect fish habitat," said Sakashita. "The Gulf of Mexico is a tragic
example
of that failure."
Offshore drilling has proceeded with very
little
attention to its impacts on fish and fisheries despite the Fisheries
Service's
2009 recommendation that "[t]he impacts of all exploratory and
development
activities on the fisheries resources should be determined prior to MMS
approval
of any applications for permits to drill, including effects of seismic
survey
signals on fish behavior, eggs and larvae." The Minerals Management
Service
concluded that a subsurface blowout would have negligible effect on the
Gulf's
fish resources. The Center's petition seeks replacement of false and
misleading
statements like this with meaningful analysis of, and protections from,
the
adverse effects of oil and gas activities on essential fish habitat.
Fishing is one of the most important
industries in
the Gulf of Mexico. Recreational fishers in the Gulf take more than 20
million
fishing trips annually, and in 2008 commercial fishermen harvested 1.27
million
pounds of finfish and shellfish, earning $659 million in revenue. The
Gulf of
Mexico provides important spawning ground and year-round habitat for
many fish
species, including sharks, shrimp and coral. It is one of the only known
spawning grounds for Atlantic bluefin tuna, which the Center petitioned
for
listing under the Endangered Species Act last month. The Deepwater
Horizon
oil spill's effects on these fish and the Gulf's fisheries will last
for
many years or decades.
Get the latest on the Gulf oil spill on
the Center's
Gulf Disaster website,
updated daily.
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) 623-5252"This decision is part of the decision already made by the Spanish government not to participate in or contribute to a war which was initiated unilaterally and against international law," said one Spanish minister.
Doubling down on its status as an outlier among European countries that have largely supported or avoided speaking out forcefully against the US-Israeli war on Iran, Spain is closing its airspace to US military planes that are part of the invasion, with Defense Minister Margarita Robles on Monday calling the war "profoundly illegal and profoundly unjust."
"We don’t authorize either the use of military bases or the use of airspace for actions related to the war in Iran,” Robles told reporters. “I think everyone knows Spain’s position. It’s very clear."
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez angered President Donald Trump soon after the US and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched their war against Iran on February 28, with one of the first attacks striking a school and killing at least 160 children and teachers.
Sánchez responded to the assault by announcing the US would not be permitted to launch attacks on Iran from Spain's military bases, prompting Trump to threaten a full trade embargo against the country in retaliation.
On Monday, Spanish Economy Minister Carlos Cuerpo appeared unfazed by a reporter's suggestion that closing the country's airspace to the US could worsen relations with the White House.
"This decision is part of the decision already made by the Spanish government not to participate in or contribute to a war which was initiated unilaterally and against international law," Cuerpo said simply in a radio interview.
International legal experts have said the war is clear violation of the United Nations Charter, which "prohibits the use of force against another State unless that use of force is authorized by the UN Security Council or is a necessary and proportionate act of individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack.”
Sánchez told the Spanish Congress last Wednesday that the country has "denied the United States the use of the Rota [de la Frontera] and Morón bases for this illegal war."
"All flight plans involving operations in Iran have been rejected. All of them, including those for refueling aircraft,” said Sánchez.
In the US, Progressive Mass political director Jonathan Cohn said it was "refreshing to see a European country take a hard line against the United States' illegal and immoral wars."
US aircraft can continue to use the airspace and land at the bases in emergency situations, and are still able to provide logistics support to 80,000 US forces stationed across Europe.
But as The Guardian reported Monday, 15 US refueling planes were diverted from the Morón de la Frontera and Rota bases to military facilities in France and Germany at the beginning of the war.
The US was also forced to find an alternative location for B-52 and B-1 bombers due to Spain's policy, with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer agreeing to allow Trump to send them to Fairford Air Base in Gloucestershire, England in the first days of the war.
The Seville Air Traffic Control Center has provided navigation support to B-2 Spirit bombers that have traveled from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri to carry out strikes in Iran, but those planes do not enter Spanish airspace, instead crossing the Strait of Gibraltar.
Sánchez has rejected Trump's criticism of Spain's policy, noting that the country has also led the way in recent years in recognizing the state of Palestine and speaking out against Israel's assault, as other European governments eventually did.
“They say that Spain is alone," the prime minister said earlier this month. "They said the same when we recognized the state of Palestine, and then others followed. We are not alone. We are the first. Those defending the indefensible will be the ones left alone.”
"Attacking civilian infrastructure, and acutely desalination plants, is a war crime," said former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt. "Will American armed forces accept orders to do so?"
US President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to destroy every desalination plant in Iran along with the country's energy infrastructure, which human rights organizations and legal experts say would be a grave violation of international law and a war crime.
In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump warned that if Iran's government doesn't agree to a deal with his administration "shortly," the US military will "conclude our lovely 'stay' in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells, and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet 'touched.'"
Former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt wrote in response that "attacking civilian infrastructure, and acutely desalination plants, is a war crime."
"Will American armed forces accept orders to do so?" he asked.
Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, wrote that "the categorical and retributive framing of this threat to attack Iranian infrastructure makes clear that this is a threat to commit war crimes."
Trump's Monday post marked an escalation of his previous threat to target Iran's civilian infrastructure, specifically its power plants, if the Strait of Hormuz was not fully reopened. The US president initially gave Iran 48 hours to capitulate to his demand, but he later pushed his arbitrary deadline back to April 6, claiming progress in diplomatic talks with Iran.
Iranian officials have repeatedly denied that any direct talks with the US are taking place and rejected the administration's proposed 15-point ceasefire plan.
Erika Guevara-Rosas, senior director of research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns at Amnesty International, said last week that by threatening strikes on Iran's civilian infrastructure, the Trump administration is "effectively indicating its willingness to plunge an entire country into darkness, and to potentially deprive its people of their human rights to life, water, food, healthcare and adequate standard of living, and to subject them to severe pain and suffering."
"When power plants collapse, horrific consequences cascade instantly," said Guevara-Rosas. "Water pumping stations would stop functioning, clean water would become scarce, and preventable diseases would spread. Hospitals would lose electricity and fuel, forcing surgeries to be cancelled and life-support machines to shut down. Food production and distribution networks would collapse, deepening hunger and causing widespread food scarcity. Many businesses would also shut down with devastating economic consequences, including mass unemployment."
Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, told The New York Times that he sees "no difference between what Trump is threatening to do in Iran and what the International Criminal Court charged four Russian commanders for doing in Ukraine."
"Trump is openly threatening a war crime," said Roth.
In June 2024, ICC judges issued arrest warrants for top Russian commanders accused of "the war crime of directing attacks at civilian objects." The judges cited "a large number of strikes against numerous electric power plants and sub-stations were carried out by the Russian armed forces in multiple locations in Ukraine."
According to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the US has already targeted Iran's water infrastructure, specifically "a freshwater desalination plant on Qeshm Island."
"Water supply in 30 villages has been impacted," Abbas wrote in a March 7 social media post. "Attacking Iran's infrastructure is a dangerous move with grave consequences. The US set this precedent, not Iran."
Iran is among the most water-stressed countries on the planet, and large-scale US strikes on the country's desalination and power plants would make conditions significantly worse.
While "only a small fraction of Iran’s water supply comes from desalination plants," Grist's Frida Garza wrote last week, "strikes on its power plants would indeed hamper the country’s water supply."
"Without electricity," Garza wrote, "water treatment operations could not run."
"The case for windfall taxes has never been clearer," said 350.org's chief executive.
An analysis released Monday estimates that oil and gas price spikes driven by the US-Israeli war on Iran have so far cost consumers and businesses around the world over $100 billion—money that has flowed into the coffers of some of the wealthiest, most powerful fossil fuel companies on the planet.
The new analysis by 350.org finds that, just over a month into the war, consumers and businesses have lost between $104.2 billion and $111.6 billion to rising oil and gas prices—an estimate that the environmental group acknowledges is likely conservative, given it doesn't account for "wider knock-on effects, such as rising fertiliser and food costs, declines in economic output and employment, or broader inflation driven by fossil fuel price volatility. "
The more than $100 billion, 350.org said, "has been siphoned from ordinary people to oil and gas companies."
“On top of the incalculable suffering of families and communities torn apart by the war, ordinary people around the world are paying an extraordinary price through fossil fuel-driven energy spikes," said Anne Jellema, 350.org's chief executive. "Over $100 billion has gone straight into the pockets of fossil fuel companies, while families struggle to afford energy and basic necessities."
"The case for windfall taxes," Jellema added, "has never been clearer.”

The analysis was published as global oil prices rose again following a weekend missile attack on Israel by Yemen's Houthis and Trump's threat to "take the oil in Iran," signaling another potential escalation in a war that has already killed thousands, sparked an appalling humanitarian crisis, and destabilized the global economy.
One key beneficiary of the chaos is the fossil fuel industry, which is set to reap billions in windfall profits thanks to rising oil and gas prices. Reuters reported late last week that analysts covering Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil have significantly raised earnings estimates for the fossil fuel giants in response to war-fueled price surges.
"US shale producers and other companies without major operations in the Middle East should gain the most, benefiting from higher prices without costs associated with shut-in production, stranded tankers, or expensive repairs to war-hit facilities," Reuters noted. "Still, executives said the big profits will probably not boost their planned capital spending on new production."
Earlier this month, Democratic lawmakers in the US Congress introduced legislation that would impose a windfall profit tax on large American oil companies and return the money to consumers in the form of quarterly rebates. The bill stands no realistic chance of getting through the Republican-controlled Congress, which is awash in Big Oil campaign cash.
“American consumers are once again getting squeezed at the gas pump as President Trump’s war of choice in Iran sends gas prices soaring and money flowing to his Big Oil donors,” said US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the bill's lead sponsor in the Senate. “We should send any big windfall for Big Oil back to the hardworking people who paid for it at the gas pump."