June, 07 2011, 12:09pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Kelly Trout, 202-222-0722, ktrout@foe.org
Alex Moore, 202-222-0733, amoore@foe.org
EPA Blasts 'Insufficient' State Department Analysis of Pipeline Risks
Agency grades the impacts of Keystone XL environmentally objectionable
WASHINGTON
Today, the Environmental Protection Agency stated formal objections to the controversial Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline, proposed to run from Canada across the nation's breadbasket to refineries in Texas.
In response to the State Department's environmental analysis, the EPA rated the proposal "Environmental Objections," which is reserved for environmentally destructive projects. The objections from the EPA, including a rating that the analysis itself provides "insufficient information," put a permit for the pipeline in question.
The State Department is charged with assessing the environmental risks of the project in an Environmental Impact Statement before deciding whether to issue a permit. The department will have to decide whether to undertake the analysis of environmental impacts requested by the EPA and acknowledge the environmental destruction that could be caused by the pipeline -- due diligence that would push a final decision into next year -- or push ahead and risk having its decision reversed by the White House.
"With this rating, the EPA is standing up for the people who would be hurt by the Keystone XL pipeline, including Midwest farmers and low-income people around Texas refineries," said Alex Moore, dirty fuels campaigner at Friends of the Earth. "All eyes are on Secretary of State Clinton. Will she comply with the law and ensure that these impacts are studied or not?"
The State Department is under increasing pressure to undertake a thorough analysis of the Keystone XL pipeline, having had two draft analyses rejected by the EPA. Farmers and ranchers in the nation's heartland have also pressed the agency to study the safety of tar sands oil pipelines in light of 12 spills this year in TransCanada's other Keystone pipeline (including a 21,000 gallon spill last month). They have also called for the pipeline to be rerouted around the Ogallala Aquifer, the nation's largest aquifer.
The EPA focused on the environmental justice impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would increase pollution around low-income communities near Texas refineries. The State Department, despite issuing two draft analyses, has still not analyzed the differences in air pollution emitted by refineries processing tar sands oil. The EPA also objected to the State Department's apparent lack of concern about the climate implications of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would emit as much climate pollution as adding 6 million cars to U.S. roads.[1]
The controversial Keystone XL project, proposed by Canadian oil giant TransCanada, would carry 900,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day from Canada, through Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. It would cross the Yellowstone, Missouri, and Red Rivers, abundant farmland, and the Ogallala Aquifer.
The EPA's objections to the State Department's Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement are available at: https://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/keystone-xl-project-epa-comment-letter-20110125.pdf
[1] Based on 0.117 tons more CO2 per barrel of tar sands oil (Source: GREET).
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
Judge Slaps Down RFK Jr's Likely 'Unlawful' Mass Layoffs at HHS
"We're not going to let Trump and RFK Jr. dismantle our nation's health systems to promote conspiracy theories and tax breaks for billionaires," said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.
Jul 01, 2025
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked planned mass layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services while declaring that the firings were likely unlawful.
Judge Melissa DuBose of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that the Trump administration exceeded its legal authority when it moved to lay off thousands of HHS employees on the grounds that such large-scale firings would leave the agency unable to fulfill its legislatively mandated duties that can only be altered by an act of Congress.
"The executive branch is vested with the power and is imbued with the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws which govern the governance structure of our country," wrote DuBose. "The executive branch does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress."
DuBose further noted that courts have the power to "set aside" actions taken by federal agencies that are "unlawful," and she argued that the actions taken by HHS under the leadership of Trump-appointed Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. likely flouted the law.
The judge granted a preliminary injunction against the agency and blocked it from carrying out its planned reduction in staffing that it first announced this past March 27. HHS has until July 11 to file a status report affirming compliance with the court's order.
The lawsuit was originally filed by the attorneys general of 19 states plus the District of Columbia, who alleged that the layoffs violated the United States Constitution's separation of powers doctrine, as well as the Constitution's appropriations clause and the Administrative Procedure Act that prohibits agencies from taking "arbitrary and capricious" actions.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong took a victory lap in the wake of the ruling but cautioned that there was still a long fight ahead to save HHS.
President Donald Trump and Kennedy "are playing dangerous games with the health and safety of American families, and we just stopped them," he said. "Today's order means vital programs and services—including those supporting Head Start, disease monitoring at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] and Medicaid eligibility, and others—will remain accessible. This is still the beginning of a long fight ahead, but we're not going to let Trump and RFK Jr. dismantle our nation's health systems to promote conspiracy theories and tax breaks for billionaires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Know It's a Terrible Bill': Murkowski Helps GOP Gut Safety Net After 'Bribe' Shields Her State
Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the deciding vote to pass Republicans' massive social safety net cuts through the Senate. She said she didn't like the bill, but voted for it anyway after getting Alaska exempted from some of its worst harms.
Jul 01, 2025
By the thinnest possible margin, the U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to pass a budget that includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in U.S. history while giving trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
The deciding vote was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who admitted she didn't like the bill. However, she voted for it regardless after securing relief for her home state from some of its most draconian cuts.
But in an interview immediately afterward, she acknowledged that the rest of the country, where millions are on track to lose their healthcare coverage and food assistance, would not be so lucky.
"Do I like this bill? No," Murkowski told a reporter for MSNBC. "I try to take care of Alaska's interests. I know that in many parts of the country there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don't like that."
The 887-page bill includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program over the next decade—cuts the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will result in nearly 12 million people losing health coverage. The measure also takes an ax to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—imperiling food aid for millions.
In recent days, Murkowski—a self-described "Medicaid moderate"—expressed hesitation about signing onto a list of such devastating cuts, calling the vote "agonizing". To get her on board, her Republican colleagues were willing to give her state some shelter from the coming storm.
As David Dayen explained in The American Prospect, Murkowski was able to secure a waiver that exempts Alaska from the newly implemented cost-sharing requirement that will force states to spend more of their budgets on SNAP.
In The New Republic, Robert McCoy described it as a "bribe."
Initially, Republicans attempted to simply write in a carve-out for Alaska and Hawaii. But after this was shot down by the Senate parliamentarian, they tried again with a measure that exempted the 10 states with the highest error rates.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called it "the most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the Republican bill."
"They have now proposed delaying SNAP cuts FOR TWO YEARS ONLY FOR STATES with the highest error rates just to bury their help for Alaska," she said.
Murkowski also got a tax break for Alaskan fishing villages inserted into the bill. She attempted to have Alaska exempted from some Medicaid cuts as well, but the parliamentarian killed the measure.
"Did I get everything that I wanted? Absolutely not," she told reporters outside the Senate chamber.
However, as Dayen wrote, "Murkowski decided that she could live with a bill that takes food and medicine from vulnerable people to fund tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy, as long as it didn't take quite as much food away from Alaskans."
Murkowski showed herself to be well aware of the harms the bill will cause. After voting to pass the bill, she said, "My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we're not there yet."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called Murkowski's bargain "selfish," "cruel," and "expensive."
"Voting for the bill because [of] a carve-out for your state is open acknowledgement that people will get kicked off healthcare and will have to go to much more expensive emergency rooms," Jayapal wrote. "Clear you know it's a terrible bill for everyone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Let's Break It Down': Mamdani Gives His Perspective on Historic NYC Win
Zohran Mamdani solidified his win in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor with the release of ranked choice voting results.
Jul 01, 2025
Last week, democratic socialist and state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani stunned in an upset victory over disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary—sparking broader conversations about the future of the party and sending shockwaves through the American political system.
One week later, on Tuesday, Mamdani both solidified his win thanks to the release of the election's ranked choice voting results and unveiled a new video highlighting factors that in his view were key to his campaign's success. Mamdani credits his relentless focus on affordability and a commitment to reaching all New York City voters, including those who have previously voted for U.S. President Donald Trump, are inconsistent primary voters, or who speak languages besides English.
The goal, in Mamdani's words, was nothing short of rebuilding "a coalition that had frayed over years of disappointment and neglect, to win people back to a Democratic Party that puts working people first."
On Tuesday, New York City's Board of Elections announced the ranked-choice voting results from the June 24 primary, underscoring Mamdani's decisive victory. Mamdani secured 56% of the vote compared to Cuomo's 44%. All other candidates' votes were reallocated to Mamdani and Cuomo in the third round of voting. All told, some 545,000 New Yorkers ranked Mamdani on their ballots.
In the video, Mamdani touted some of his impressive margins, including his ability to win over districts that had gone for Trump in the last election, noting the inroads that Trump made in New York City in 2024. According to an analysis from Gothamist, Mamdani won 30% of primary election districts Trump carried in the general election last year.
Mamdani said his campaign achieved this by visiting areas that went for Trump, "not to lecture, but to listen."
He also said that his campaign knew it could turn out less consistent primary voters if "they saw themselves in our policies."
"We ran a campaign that tried to talk to every New Yorker, whether I could speak their languages or just tried to... and the coalition that came out on Tuesday, reflected the mosaic of these five boroughs," Mamdani said.
As part of the focus on connecting with voters, Mamdani put out campaign videos with him speaking in languages like Hindi and Spanish.
On Election Day, Mamdani led in areas with majority Asian, white, and Hispanic voters, while Cuomo led in areas with majority Black voters. "We narrowed Andrew Cuomo once sizable lead with Black voters, outright winning young Black New Yorkers in neighborhoods like Harlem and Flatbush," he said.
Mamdani also highlighted that he trounced Cuomo despite the super political action committee money supporting the former governor.
"We rewrote the rule book by, get this, talking to New Yorkers," he said. "Politics in this city won't ever be the same, and it's all thanks to you. The next chapter begins today New York."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular