5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
August, 16 2010, 06:00pm EDT
Contact:
Bill Snape, bsnape@biologicaldiversity.org
(202) 536-9351
Offshore Oil Drilling Reforms Are Positive Step, But Big Questions Remain
The Obama administration announced today that it will no longer exempt certain
deepwater offshore oil-drilling projects from environmental review. However,
non-deepwater drilling operations may continue to be approved without
environmental review. Also, deepwater wells and rigs already approved under the faulty
environmental review process will not necessarily have to seek full National
Environmental Policy Act or Endangered Species Act compliance.
In
response, Center for Biological Diversity Executive Director Kieran Suckling
issued the following statement:
WASHINGTON
The Obama administration announced today that it will no longer exempt certain
deepwater offshore oil-drilling projects from environmental review. However,
non-deepwater drilling operations may continue to be approved without
environmental review. Also, deepwater wells and rigs already approved under the faulty
environmental review process will not necessarily have to seek full National
Environmental Policy Act or Endangered Species Act compliance.
In
response, Center for Biological Diversity Executive Director Kieran Suckling
issued the following statement:
"Almost four
months after the greatest environmental catastrophe in American history, it is
good that the Obama administration is rhetorically committed to ending the use
of regulatory shortcuts such as categorical exclusions to bypass meaningful
environmental review of highly dangerous offshore oil drilling. We applaud
the move toward greater transparency at all stages of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act leasing process.
"However,
today's report and related actions by Interior fail to address a number of
realities, including the fact that non-deepwater offshore oil drilling is as
dangerous as deepwater drilling, so full environmental review must also be done
for these oil-drilling operations. The House's recently passed oil-response
bill recognized this reality by prohibiting the use of categorical exclusions
for offshore drilling plans at all depths.
"Deepwater
wells and rigs already approved under the now admittedly faulty environmental
review process will not necessarily have to seek full National Environmental
Policy Act or Endangered Species Act compliance. This potential loophole
includes failure to mandate a full environmental impact statement on the type of
drilling operations that precipitated the BP explosion.
"In
addition, despite the fact that many of the identified environmental
illegalities were spawned under the Bush administration, there is no information
in the report on how BP and other oil companies continued to pressure Secretary
Salazar and other current administration officials to continue the use of
categorical exclusions and other environmental shortcuts starting in January
2009.
"Most
notably, the policy that allowed the categorical exclusions used by BP at the
Macondo well has not yet been officially revoked, and Director Bromwich's
implementing memo on categorical exclusions is still very narrow.
"We call on
the administration to build on today's announcement and finally enforce all
current law as it relates to dangerous offshore oil drilling on America's
beautiful, important and irreplaceable coasts."
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
'A War Crime': UN Rights Chief Urges Immediate Repeal of Israel's New Death Penalty Law
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said the new law "raises serious concerns about due process violations, is deeply discriminatory, and must be promptly repealed.”
Mar 31, 2026
The top United Nations human rights official was among those who on Tuesday urged Israel to repeal legislation it passed the previous day legalizing the hanging of Palestinians convicted of terrorism-related killing of Israelis—a law critics contend will not apply to Israelis who commit similar crimes.
The law passed by the Israeli Knesset states that Palestinians must be hanged within 90 days if convicted of nationalistic killings in a military court. While the legislation does not allow pardons, it gives judges discretionary power when it comes to sentencing Israeli citizens convicted of similar crimes, and observers say it's highly unlikely that any jIsraeli would ever be hanged under the law.
Experts argue the 90-day provision and lack of appellate process are violations of international humanitarian law.
“It is deeply disappointing that this bill has been approved by the Knesset,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said Tuesday. “It is patently inconsistent with Israel’s international law obligations, including in relation to the right to life. It raises serious concerns about due process violations, is deeply discriminatory, and must be promptly repealed.”
“The death penalty is profoundly difficult to reconcile with human dignity, and it raises the unacceptable risk of executing innocent people,” he added. “Its application in a discriminatory manner would constitute an additional, particularly egregious violation of international law. Its application to residents of the occupied Palestinian territory would constitute a war crime.”
While proponents of the law—some of whom, like Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, celebrated its passage—say they believe it will deter Palestinians from killing Israelis, studies in the United States, the only Western democracy that actively executes people, have repeatedly shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime.
Palestinians and their defenders have also warned that the law could open the door to mass executions, including of anyone found to have killed Israelis during the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack, for which Israel retaliated with an ongoing assault and siege that has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing.
“Trials for crimes related to October 7 are supremely important, but they must not be anchored in discrimination," said Türk. "All victims are entitled to equal protection of the law, and all perpetrators must be held accountable without discrimination.”
Other human rights defenders also condemned the new Israeli law and called for its repeal.
"The Israeli parliament's adoption of a racist law authorizing the hanging of Palestinian prisoners is the very definition of apartheid," the Washington, DC-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in a statement Tuesday. "Even the South African apartheid government never adopted a death penalty law so explicitly racist."
Taking aim at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—CAIR continued, "The Netanyahu regime is completely out of control because our nation continues to bankroll its crimes, from the de facto annexation of the West Bank to the genocide in Gaza, to the ethnic cleansing of southern Lebanon, to the occupation of Syria, to the illegal war with Iran that it triggered, to the closure of Christian and Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem."
“Congress is not just failing to act, it is actively advancing more military support while treating that US taxpayer funding as automatic, even as these abuses escalate," the group added. "Every member of Congress—especially Democratic leaders of the House and Senate—must condemn these crimes, including the racist execution law, and announce their opposition to any further military funding for the Israeli apartheid regime."
A 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague—where Israel is also facing a genocide case brought by South Africa in response to the US-backed war on Gaza—affirmed that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is an illegal form of apartheid that must be ended.
More than 9,500 Palestinians are currently locked up in Israeli prisons, including 350 children and 73 women, according to advocacy groups. Palestinian and Israeli human rights defenders say detainees face torture, starvation, and medical neglect behind bars, causing many deaths.
Former prisoners as well as Israeli staff and medical personnel say they have witnessed torture at prisons including Sde Teiman, the most infamous of Israel's lockups, with victims ranging from children to the elderly.
Israeli physicians who worked at Sde Teiman described widespread serious injuries caused by 24-hour shackling of hands and feet that sometimes required amputations. Palestinians taken by Israeli forces recounted rapes and sexually assaults by male and female soldiers, electrocution, maulings by dogs, denial of food and water, sleep deprivation, and other torture.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Win for Public Media as Federal Judge Blocks Trump Assault on NPR, PBS Funding
NPR's CEO called the ruling "a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press."
Mar 31, 2026
Although the Corporation for Public Broadcasting dissolved at the beginning of the year, National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service still celebrated a win in court on Tuesday, when a federal judge in Washington, DC blocked President Donald Trump's executive order intended to strip the organizations of federal funding.
NPR's attorney, Theodore Boutrous, called US District Judge Randolph's permanent injunction "a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press."
"As the court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power—including the power of the purse—'to punish or suppress disfavored expression' by others," he said in a statement to The Associated Press. "The executive order crossed that line."
Katherine Maher, NPR's CEO, similarly described the ruling as "a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press."
PBS said in a statement that "we're thrilled with today's decision declaring the executive order unconstitutional."
"As we argued, and Judge Moss ruled, the executive order is textbook unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation, in violation of long-standing First Amendment principles," the network added. "At PBS, we will continue to do what we've always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation's most trusted media institution."
Trump last May ordered the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to "cease direct funding to NPR and PBS, consistent with my administration's policy to ensure that federal funding does not support biased and partisan news coverage." As private donations poured in to NPR and PBS, Congress then voted to claw back nearly $1.1 billion from CPB.
The congressionally created and funded nonprofit corporation, which distributed federal funding to locally managed public radio and television stations across the United States, then announced it would shut down—which it ultimately did following a January vote by its board of directors. Still, NPR and PBS fought back in court, leading to Tuesday's decision.
"The president may, of course, engage in his own expressive conduct, including criticizing the views, reporting, or programming of NPR, PBS, or any other news outlet with whom he disagrees," wrote Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
"The government may also fund its own speech and may fund government programs that promote specific perspectives on issues of public importance, and it may decide which views or perspectives to convey—and which not to convey—in any such government speech or program," Moss continued. "And it may impose limits on federal grants to ensure that they are deployed to further the legitimate purposes of the program, and may pick and choose among applicants based on legitimate criteria."
"But the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power—including the power of the purse—'to punish or suppress disfavored expression' by others," the judge stressed. "As the Supreme Court and DC Circuit have observed on more than a dozen occasions, the government 'may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected... freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit."
Moss found that "Executive Order 14290 crosses that line. It does not define or regulate the content of government speech or ensure compliance with a federal program. Nor does it set neutral and germane criteria that apply to all applicants for a federal grant program. Instead, it singles out two speakers and, on the basis of their speech, bars them from all federally funded programs."
"It does so, moreover, without regard to whether the federal funds are used to pay for the nationwide interconnection systems," he explained, "which serve as the technological backbones of public radio and television; to provide safety and security for journalists working in war zones; to support the emergency broadcast system; or to produce or distribute music, children's, or other educational programming, or documentaries."
The judge noted that the order applied to grants from not only the now-defunct CPB but all federal entities, including the Department of Education, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and National Endowment for the Arts.
Because of those other potential sources of money, CNN reported Tuesday, "the ruling could—emphasis on could—lead to some funding for PBS and NPR in the future."
Welcoming the decision in a statement, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said that "NPR and PBS are valuable resources for the American public. Children across socioeconomic backgrounds rely on their programming, and the political persecution of both stations by the Trump administration has been reprehensible."
"This ruling is a straightforward win for the rule of law," she continued. "The Constitution is very clear: Congress holds the power of the purse. This judicial ruling is appropriate, impactful and a victory for democracy."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, tied the development to the Trump administration's other attacks on the media, specifically those from Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
"As the court said, it's long been the law that the government can't circumvent the Constitution by conditioning benefits on censorship where it can't censor directly," Stern said. "That goes for publicly funded media, but it also goes for Brendan Carr's FCC conditioning broadcast licenses or merger approvals for private media companies on editorial concessions to please Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth conditioning access to the Pentagon on journalists forfeiting established rights, or Trump himself steering transactions like the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger to supporters of his who promise him 'sweeping changes' to bend the news to his liking."
"Virtually all of the administration's 'wins' in reshaping the media that Carr and Trump have bragged about at CPAC and in social media posts violate this well-established constitutional principle," he added, referring to the Conservative Political Action Conference that just concluded. "More news outlets should sue and win."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Let Me Clear Things Up': Bernie Sanders Explains Wealth Tax to Wall Street Overlord Jamie Dimon
“If my 5% wealth tax on billionaires was enacted, you’d owe $135 million more in taxes, and a family of four making $150,000 or less would receive a $12,000 payment. Oh, and you’d still be worth more than $2.5 billion."
Mar 31, 2026
As billionaires nationwide rally to stop tax increases on the wealthy, US Sen. Bernie Sanders stepped in to "clear things up" for one of Wall Street's top power brokers after he railed against the proposal.
Following in the footsteps of California, where a popular ballot initiative to impose a one-time 5% tax on the state's 200 billionaires has gained steam, Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced their own federal proposal earlier this month to tax those with net worths of more than $1 billion 5% of their annual household wealth.
The proposal is projected to raise $4.4 trillion over the next decade to provide direct payments to lower-income Americans, reverse Republicans' cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act spending, expand Medicare, and build millions of affordable housing units, among many other expenditures.
Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, who is worth about $2.8 billion according to Forbes, appeared on Fox News on Tuesday and was asked by anchor Brian Kilmeade about Sanders' frequent accusations that billionaires "don't pay their fair share" in taxes.
"I don't know what he means by fair share," Dimon said. "I've listened to that my whole life, and I don't know what he means."
The two did not address the facts that may have led Sanders to draw such a conclusion. For instance, the senator often notes that fewer than 1,000 billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of the US, around 175 million people.
Those billionaires also manage to pay a lower effective tax rate than the average American by wielding loopholes that allow them to exempt large chunks of their fortunes.
Sanders took to social media to respond to Dimon's incredulity about his idea of "fairness."
"Ok, Jamie: Let me clear things up for you," the senator wrote. "If my 5% wealth tax on billionaires was enacted, you’d owe $135 million more in taxes, and a family of four making $150,000 or less would receive a $12,000 payment."
"Oh, and you’d still be worth more than $2.5 billion," Sanders added. "Seems pretty fair to me."
Dimon's remarks came as billionaires are in a full-blown panic over the proposal for a one-time 5% tax in California, which is projected to raise about $100 billion, mostly to cover the Medicaid funding shortfall caused by the massive cuts in last year's GOP budget law.
A poll earlier this month showed that the measure, which will be put to voters in November, has about 2-1 approval, despite a more than $80 million effort by the state's elite—most notably Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page—to stop it in its tracks.
Dimon himself is not known to have contributed to the effort. But during his Tuesday appearance on Fox, he echoed one of the movement's oft-used talking points: that raising taxes on the rich leads to an "exodus" of wealth from financial hubs like New York and California.
As Forbes senior contributor Teresa Ghilarducci explained late last year, "Decades of economic research show that billionaire 'flight' is rare, exaggerated, and often confused with tax avoidance through accounting maneuvers rather than physical relocation."
Christopher Marquis and Nick Romeo similarly said last month in a piece for TIME that “despite multiple debunkings, the ‘millionaire exodus’ panic remains a popular narrative,” even though it is “frequently based on biased or sloppy arguments where anecdote replaces systematic evidence, correlation poses as causation, and every modest redistributive proposal is framed as an existential threat to prosperity.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular