October, 29 2010, 02:16pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kelly Trout, 202-222-0722, ktrout@foe.org
Alex Moore, 202-222-0733, amoore@foe.org
Senators Rebuke Clinton Over Controversial Pipeline
WASHINGTON
Eleven influential senators sent a letter
to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today rebuking her for stating
support for a controversial pipeline before her own agency has completed
a legally mandated environmental impact analysis.
The letter criticizes remarks
Secretary Clinton made October 15 at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club
indicating that she is "inclined" to approve the controversial pipeline.
"Approval of this pipeline will significantly increase our
dependence on this oil for decades," the senators wrote. "We believe the
Department of State (DOS) should not pre-judge the outcome of what
should be a thorough, transparent analysis of the need for this oil and
its impacts on our climate and clean energy goals."
The eleven senators, led by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), included
several members of the Foreign Relations Committee and other committees
with jurisdiction over the State Department. Senator Leahy, as chairman
of the State Appropriations Subcommittee, controls the State
Department's purse strings.
"We applaud Senator Leahy's leadership in championing clean energy
over more dirty, dangerous oil," said Alex Moore, dirty fuels campaigner
for Friends of the Earth. "The senators raise necessary questions about
the thoroughness and transparency of the State Department's review
process."
Moore added, "Secretary Clinton's comments were inappropriate and
she should heed these senators' concerns. Secretary Clinton must not
fast-track this process: The public has the right to know just how
dangerous and unnecessary this pipeline and tar sands oil are."
"The Keystone XL pipeline is an environmental disaster in the
making. It would double our country's dependence on the dirtiest oil
available and exacerbate climate change. The threat of spills in
America's heartland and the additional air and water pollution it would
unquestionably cause make this pipeline dangerous for people all along
its path," Moore said.
The letter is the latest in an outpouring of criticism Secretary
Clinton has confronted after her remarks regarding the pipeline. Last
week, Senators Mike Johanns (R) and Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, one of
the states in the pipeline's path, were joined by Senator Jeff Merkley
(D-Ore.) in urging Secretary Clinton to let her agency complete its
legally mandated review of the dangers the pipeline poses before rushing
to conclusions about the outcome. The Ogallala Aquifer, a drinking
water source for Nebraskans, would be crossed and endangered by the
pipeline.
The Keystone XL pipeline would be constructed by Canadian oil and
gas giant TransCanada. If approved by the Obama administration, it would
bring high-carbon, dirty tar sands oil from Canada through the plains
states of the U.S. to Gulf Coast refineries near Houston at a rate of
900,000 barrels per day.
The pipeline has been opposed by environmental, agricultural, and
tribal organizations, and more than 50 members of Congress have also
voiced strong concerns. More than 48,000 activists joined Friends of the
Earth in urging the Obama administration to reject the pipeline during
the State Department's public comment period.
The text of the letter, signed by Senators Leahy, Merkley,
Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Dodd (D-Conn.), Shaheen (D-N.H.), Menendez
(D-N.J.), Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Burris (D-Ill.),
Sanders (I-Vt.), and Cardin (D-Md.), is available below. Click here to view the pdf with signatures.
More information about the Keystone XL pipeline is available here: https://www.foe.org/keystone-xl-pipeline
###
October 29, 2010
The Honorable Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State
Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Madam Secretary,
Thank you for your personal commitment to making progress on climate
change. It is in light of this commitment that we write to you about our
concerns with the proposed TransCanada Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
As you recently stated, tar sands oil is "dirty oil". Approval of this
pipeline will significantly increase our dependence on this oil for
decades. We believe the Department of State (DOS) should not pre-judge
the outcome of what should be a thorough, transparent analysis of the
need for this oil and its impacts on our climate and clean energy goals.
As you know, serious concerns have been raised in the comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that your agency recently
issued for the pipeline proposal. These concerns describe, among other
things, the significant environmental degradation caused by the
extraction of oil from Canadian tar sands, the emissions of greenhouse
gases from this extraction, and the risks associated with transporting
this oil into and across the United States. These concerns caused the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue the DEIS its lowest
possible ranking, and led the Department of Energy (DOE) and the
Department of Interior (DOI) to request significant additional analysis.
We write to request your answers to the following questions:
1. The DEIS fails to estimate the additional greenhouse gases that the
pipeline will produce by increasing the production of tar sands oil,
which has a significantly higher life-cycle of greenhouse gas emissions
compared to conventional oil. EPA states that, "[I]t is reasonable to
conclude that extraction will likely increase if the pipeline is
constructed."
- Does the Department of State (DOS) agree with EPA, that extraction will likely increase if the pipeline is constructed?
- Assuming that production is increased to fill the pipeline, how many tons of greenhouse gas emissions would this produce?
- Does DOS plan to ask EPA to provide an estimate for lifecycle emissions for tar sands?
2. While substantial expansion of tar sands oil production is planned,
this presumably depends on producers being able to transport and sell
the oil. The DEIS states that "Producers in Canada have indicated that
if the U.S. market is not available to them, much of the crude would be
shipped outside of North America, particularly to Japan, China, and
India . . ."
- What is the current status of the pipeline proposals to the West Coast?
- What is the capacity of these pipeline proposals relative to the
capacity of pipelines to the U.S., with and without Keystone XL?
- Given that existing U.S. pipeline capacity for tar sands oil will
soon be around 2 million barrels a day and Keystone XL would add close
to another 1 million in potential pipeline capacity, will Canada have to
increase its production to fill these pipelines?
- Could Keystone XL open up a market for refined tar sands products through the Gulf Coast?
3. The DEIS does not address the trans-boundary impacts that would result from the production of oil to fill the pipeline.
- Does DOS plan to incorporate the CEQ guidance on trans-boundary impacts and climate change in a revised DEIS?
- What is the impact of the production to fill the pipeline and the pipeline itself on migratory birds?
4. The pipeline would commit the U.S. to a high carbon source of oil for many decades.
- Is it possible that the wider use of fuel efficient technologies,
advanced biofuels, and electric vehicles could offset the need for the
pipeline?
- What types of disincentives would expansion of tar sands imports into the U.S. pose to achieving reductions in oil use?
5. Local communities and first responders may not have access to the
emergency response plans submitted by TransCanada. Please provide us
with draft copies of the Emergency Response Plan, Facility Response
Plans, and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans for
Keystone XL.
- Will DOS require TransCanada to give landowners, first responders,
and local government officials the opportunity to review and comment on
these plans?
- Will they be published in a revised DEIS?
6. Both the Athabasca watershed, downstream from the tar sands oil
extraction, and the Ogallala Aquifer, through which the pipeline would
extend, are at risk of contamination by tar sands oil production and
transportation.
- Has the DOS considered the potential for adverse impacts to the Ogallala Aquifer along the pipeline route?
- What design changes will be made to Keystone XL, in light of the fact
that the Keystone pipeline has already had two leaks - at the Roswell
and Carpenter pump stations.
7. TransCanada has withdrawn its application for a special permit from
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and DOT is
therefore no longer conducting a separate Environmental Assessment of
pipeline safety issues.
- Will DOS provide additional analysis in a revised DEIS that details
pipeline thickness, quality, construction, operating procedures, and
potential environmental risks?
8. EPA raised concerns about the impact on communities already
experiencing high levels of air and water pollution surrounding the
refineries that would refine tar sands oil from the Keystone XL
pipeline.
- Will DOS evaluate the environmental issues associated with potential
impacts to communities near the refineries and other facilities
associated with the pipeline?
- Will DOS analyze the combined impact of the refineries that would
refine tar sands oil and industrial facilities already contributing to
exposure in communities?
9. Please provide us with a time-line for revising the DEIS. Please
also provide us with any additional agency comments that were submitted
to DOS.
- Will DOS publish a revised DEIS with the opportunity for full public comment?
- Will DOS conduct and include the additional analysis requested by the
EPA, DOE, and DOI and include that analysis in the revised DEIS?
10. Once DOS has completed a final EIS, it states that it will conduct a
National Interest Determination under Executive Order 13337.
- Will DOS make public its criteria and procedures for making its National Interest Determination?
- Will there be an opportunity for public comment on the criteria and procedures in advance of the determination?
Thank you for your assistance in answering these questions. We
believe it is in the national interest to do a careful assessment before
reaching a decision about this project.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
Columbia Students File Civil Rights Complaint After Arrests, National Guard Threat
"The violent repression we're facing as peaceful anti-war protesters is appalling."
Apr 25, 2024
A day after Columbia University officials warned it may call on the National Guard to remove nonviolent student protesters who have been occupying campus lawns since last week in solidarity with Gaza, advocacy group Palestine Legal on Thursday filed a federal civil rights complaint demanding an investigation into the school's "discriminatory treatment of Palestinian students and their allies."
The school discriminated against pro-Palestinian protesters last week when President Minouche Shafik summoned New York Police Department officers in riot gear to arrest more than 100 students, said Palestine Legal.
The complaint details how the escalation against students, who have set up an encampment on campus to demand Columbia divest from companies that work with the Israeli government and to support calls for a cease-fire in Gaza, is part of a monthslong pattern of the university's targeting of pro-Palestinian students.
According to Palestine Legal, students of all backgrounds who have demanded an end to Israel's U.S.-backed massacre of Palestinians in Gaza "have been the target of extreme anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and Islamophobic harassment, including receiving multiple death threats, being harassed for wearing keffiyehs or hijab, doxxed, stereotyped, being treated differently by high-ranking administrators including... Shafik, an attack with a chemical agent that led to at least 10 students requiring hospitalization and dozens of others, including a Palestinian student, seeking medical attention, and more."
Columbia student Maryam Alwan, who Palestine Legal is representing in the complaint to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, said the university has "utterly failed to protect [her] from racism and abuse."
"Beyond that, the university has also played a role in this repression by having me arrested and suspended for peacefully protesting Israel's genocide in Gaza," said Alwan. "The violent repression we're facing as peaceful anti-war protesters is appalling. Palestinian students at Columbia deserve justice and accountability, not only for Israel's decadeslong oppression and violence against our people, but for the racism and discrimination we've experienced here on Columbia's campus."
Palestine Legal is representing four students in the case, as well as Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine, which was suspended from the campus late last year after holding anti-war protests.
The group called Columbia's threat to call in the National Guard "gravely concerning."
"Columbia's vicious crackdown on student protests calling for Palestinian freedom amidst an ongoing genocide should alarm us all. Students have always been at the forefront of the most pressing social issues of the day," said Palestine Legal staff attorney Sabiya Ahamed.
College campuses have been the sites of frequent pro-Palestinian protests since October, and the NYPD's crackdown on Columbia students last week galvanized students at universities across the country.
The Biden administration has said little about the student demonstrations, but President Joe Biden referred to them broadly as "antisemitic protests" this week.
"We urge federal civil rights officials to do what Columbia has disgracefully failed to," said Ahamed. "Ensure the rights of Palestinian and allied students are protected at a moment when their voices are most essential."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top G20 Ministers Back 2% Wealth Tax for Global Billionaires
"It is time that the international community gets serious about tackling inequality and financing global public goods."
Apr 25, 2024
Ministers from four major economies on Thursday called for a 2% wealth tax targeting the world's billionaires—who currently only pay up to 0.5% of their wealth in personal income tax—to "invest in public goods such as health, education, the environment, and infrastructure."
Fernando Haddad, Brazil's finance minister; Svenja Schulze, Germany's minister for economic cooperation and development; Enoch Godongwana, South Africa's finance minister; Carlos Cuerpo, Spain's minister of economy, trade, and business; and MarÃa Jesús Montero, Spain's first vice president and finance minister, made their case in an opinion piece for The Guardian.
"The argument behind such tax is straightforward: We need to enhance the ability of our tax systems to fulfill the principle of fairness, such that contributions are in line with the capacity to pay," they explained. "Persisting loopholes in the system imply that high-net-worth individuals can minimize their income taxes."
"What the international community managed to do with the global minimum tax on multinational companies, it can do with billionaires."
Brazil, Germany, and South Africa are all Group of 20 members while Spain is a permanent guest. The ministers noted that "Brazil has made the fight against hunger, poverty, and inequality a priority of its G20 presidency, a priority that German development policy also pursues and that Spain has ambitiously addressed domestically and globally."
"By directing two-thirds of total expenditure on social services and wage support, as well as by calibrating tax policy administration, South Africa continues to target a progressive tax and fiscal agenda that confronts the country's legacy of income and wealth inequality," they wrote.
The ministers continued:
It is time that the international community gets serious about tackling inequality and financing global public goods. One of the key instruments that governments have for promoting more equality is tax policy. Not only does it have the potential to increase the fiscal space governments have to invest in social protection, education, and climate protection. Designed in a progressive way, it also ensures that everyone in society contributes to the common good in line with their ability to pay. A fair share contribution enhances social welfare.
With exactly these goals in mind, Brazil brought a proposal for a global minimum tax on billionaires to the negotiation table of the world's major economies for the first time. It is a necessary third pillar that complements the negotiations on the taxation of the digital economy and on a minimum corporate tax of 15% for multinationals. The renowned economist Gabriel Zucman sketched out how this might work. Currently, there are about 3,000 billionaires worldwide. The tax could be designed as a minimum levy equivalent to 2% of the wealth of the superrich. It would not apply to billionaires who already contribute a fair share in income taxes. However, those who manage to avoid paying income tax would be obliged to contribute more towards the common good.
The five ministers cited estimates suggesting that "such a tax would potentially unlock an additional $250 billion in annual tax revenues globally—this is roughly the amount of economic damages caused by extreme weather events last year."
"Of course, the argument that billionaires can easily shift their fortunes to low-tax jurisdictions and thus avoid the levy is a strong one. And this is why such a tax reform belongs on the agenda of the G20," they added. "International cooperation and global agreements are key to making such tax effective. What the international community managed to do with the global minimum tax on multinational companies, it can do with billionaires."
Guardian economics editor Larry Elliott reported Thursday that "Zucman is now fleshing out the technical details of a plan that will again be discussed by the G20 in June. France has indicated support for a wealth tax and Brazil has been encouraged that the U.S., while not backing a global wealth tax, did not oppose it."
The French economist told Elliott that "billionaires have the lowest effective tax rate of any social group. Having people with the highest ability to pay tax paying the least—I don't think anybody supports that."
Except the billionaires, of course. "I don't want to be naive. I know the superrich will fight," Zucman added. "They have a hatred of taxes on wealth. They will lobby governments. They will use the media they own."
A few months ago, no one wanted to talk int. taxes, let alone on the super rich. Now we have a process (#G20), finance ministers (\ud83c\udde7\ud83c\uddf7 \ud83c\uddeb\ud83c\uddf7 \ud83c\uddff\ud83c\udde6 \ud83c\uddea\ud83c\uddf8 & others) supporting it, \ud83c\udde9\ud83c\uddea in part & everyone agreeing that proceeds should help fund climate and dev: https://t.co/ZldF557pAL— (@)
The ministers' opinion piece follows the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank's Spring Meetings last week, during which anti-poverty campaigners pressured the largest economies to address inequality with policies like taxing the superrich and to pour resources into the global debt and climate crises.
"The IMF and World Bank say that tackling inequality is a priority but in the same breath back policies that drive up the divide between the rich and the rest," Kate Donald, head of Oxfam International's Washington D.C. office, said last week. "Ordinary people struggle more and more every day to make up for cuts to the public funding of healthcare, education, and transportation. This high-stakes hypocrisy has to end."
Oxfam America policy lead Rebecca Riddell declared Thursday that "extreme inequality stands in the way of solving our most urgent global challenges. We need to tax the ultrawealthy."
"Read this brilliant new op-ed on the case for a global tax on billionaires, by ministers from Brazil, Germany, South Africa, and Spain," Riddell added, posting the piece on social media.
Keep ReadingShow Less
200 Rights Groups Call On Biden to End 'Cruel' Expansion of Immigrant Detention
"This suffering does not advance any rational policy goal," said the advocacy groups. "It merely exists to further the political goal of deterrence, which is cruel, inhumane, and misguided."
Apr 25, 2024
Citing ample evidence of human rights abuses in U.S. immigration detention centers, 200 advocacy groups on Thursday demanded that the Biden administration reverse course on a planned expansion of detention facilities and said President Joe Biden's "further entrenching" of the government's reliance on detaining migrants marks "an utter betrayal" of his campaign promises.
The president's signing of a spending bill last month provided $3.4 billion for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), clearing the way for the agency to make space to jail 41,500 immigrants per day in facilities across the country.
After Biden campaigned on ending the use of for-profit detention centers, said the groups, he took office at a time when fewer than 15,000 people were being held in immigration detention facilities—which gave him "a remarkable opportunity to wind down a wasteful and abusive system."
But after the president's 2023 and 2024 budget requests signaled an intention of reducing detention funding—with ICE itself recommending that numerous facilities be closed due to "critical staffing shortages that have led to safety risks and unsanitary living conditions"—Biden last year requested supplemental detention funding as commentators and Republicans in Congress hammered the administration for allowing so-called "chaos" at the U.S.-Mexico border.
"Your FY2025 budget request sought funding for 34,000 beds instead of the 25,000 sought in the two previous cycles," wrote the groups, including Amnesty International USA, the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), and the Texas Civil Rights Project. "The result is unsurprising: the FY2024 spending bill you signed provides ICE $3.4 billion to jail an average of 41,500 immigrants per day, historically high funding surpassing all four years of the Trump administration."
The groups, which provide legal aid and other assistance to people who have been detained as migrants, said many of their clients "carry lifelong scars from the mistreatment and dehumanization they endured because of the United States' reliance on detention, mostly through private prisons and county jails."
The administration is seeking to expand a system, said the groups, in which the jails and prisons used have been found to "operate under insufficient standards."
The organizations cited a 2018 ACLU reportthat found inadequate medical care contributed to the deaths of more than half of the detained immigrants who died in custody between December 2015-April 2017; a 2021 case in which an LGBTQ+ man reported "physical and homophobic verbal abuse" at a facility in Louisiana; and the finding by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) that the use of solitary confinement in detention centers "regularly meets the United Nations' definition of torture."
Biden signed the spending bill two weeks after Charles Daniel, a 61-year-old migrant from Trinidad and Tobago, died at a detention center operated by the private contractor GEO Group after being held in solitary confinement for four years. ICE has placed people in solitary confinement over 14,000 times in the last five years, according to PHR, for an average of 27 days each; U.N. experts say exceeding 15 days in solitary confinement constitutes torture.
"This suffering does not advance any rational policy goal," said the groups on Thursday. "Detention does not provide an efficient or ethical means of border processing, and it certainly does not indicate to migrants that they are welcome in the United States. It merely exists to further the political goal of deterrence, which is cruel, inhumane, and misguided—as even the most punitive forms of detention have been proven not to deter people from seeking safety or a better life."
Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks government data, found that as of April 7, more than 61% of ICE detainees have no criminal record, while "many more have only minor offenses, including traffic violations."
"Increasing the incarceration of immigrants is a grave mistake," said the groups, "and we urgently implore you to reverse course."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular