December, 21 2011, 03:05pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tim Johnson, Aviation Environment Federation (UK), +44 (0) 7710 381742, tim@aef.org.uk
Vera Pardee, Center for Biological Diversity (USA), +1-858-717-1448, vpardee@biologicaldiversity.org Â
Martin Wagner, Earthjustice (USA), +1-415-217-2000, mwagner@earthjustice.org
Jennifer Andreassen, Environmental Defense Fund (USA), +1-202-288-4867, jandreassen@edf.org
Bill Hemmings, Transport & Environment (BE), +32 (0) 487 582706, bill.hemmings@transportenvironment.orgÂ
George Smeeton, WWF-UK (UK), +44 (0)1483 412 388, Mob: +44 (0)7917 052 948, GSmeeton@wwf.org.uk
Environmental Groups Hail Historic Court Decision Upholding European Law to Curb Airplane Pollution, Address Climate Change
A transatlantic coalition of environmental groups today applauded the decision of Europe's highest court to uphold the European Union law to reduce carbon pollution from airplanes. The decision, from the Court of Justice of the European Union, affirms that the EU law is fully compliant with international law.
WASHINGTON
A transatlantic coalition of environmental groups today applauded the decision of Europe's highest court to uphold the European Union law to reduce carbon pollution from airplanes. The decision, from the Court of Justice of the European Union, affirms that the EU law is fully compliant with international law.
The EU Aviation Directive, the world's only mandatory program to address emissions from aviation, will take effect in January 2012. Today's decision is the suit's final ruling in the Court of Justice, and the case will now return to the UK High Court, where airlines had originally brought the suit challenging UK regulations implementing the law . The UK High Court will implement the recommendations of the Court of Justice ruling.
"Today's decision, from the highest court in the European Union, makes clear Europe's innovative law to reduce emissions from international flights is fully consistent with international law, does not infringe on the sovereignty of other nations, and is distinct from the charges and taxes subject to treaty limitations," said the coalition.
The court's decision makes clear that existing law bars precisely the discriminatory treatment of airlines that the United States and others are calling for, and that the US-EU Open Skies Agreement specifically provides for this type of action when pursued for environmental purposes. The decision also finds that the equivalent measures provision of the Aviation Directive "corresponds precisely" to the objectives of ICAO Resolution A37-19 regarding interaction of market-based measures.
The coalition's six participants include three U.S.-based groups (Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, and Environmental Defense Fund) and three European groups (Aviation Environment Federation, Transport & Environment, and WWF-UK). All six groups are intervenor-defendants in the litigation, and were represented by Kate Harrison of Harrison Grant and Jon Turner and Laura John of the Monckton Chambers.
BACKGROUND
Europe's Aviation Directive, which includes aviation emissions within the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) from Jan. 1, 2012, is a pioneering law that holds airlines accountable for their emissions associated with their commercial flights into or out of EU airports. Aviation is one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions, rising 3 percent to 4 percent per year. Until now, the sector has escaped regulations that would require emissions reductions.
Three U.S. airlines -- United/Continental and American -- and their trade association, Air Transport Association of America (now known as Airlines for America), challenged the legality of Europe's aviation emissions trading system. In October, an advocate general - a senior legal advisor appointed by the Court of Justice of the European Union - issued a formal recommendation to the court supporting the legality of the EU law. The 13-judge Grand Chamber has been deliberating the case since the Advocate General's opinion was released Oct. 6.
QUOTES
Tim Johnson, director of the Aviation Environment Federation said:
"The Court's finding reinforces the EU's stance on finding a cost effective way of addressing the aviation's significant and growing contribution to climate change. We hope that the focus will now shift away from obstructing its progress on the eve of its introduction and examine how such regional initiatives can form the building blocks of a global agreement."
Vera Pardee, senior attorney at Center for Biological Diversity said:
"We applaud this decision and the EU's resolve against international pressure tactics. Until now, the airlines have sabotaged every effort to curb their greenhouse gas emissions, including introducing bills in the U.S. Congress that threaten to derail international aviation via global trade wars simply to avoid the EU permitting system. The industry should end its obstruction of common-sense measures to reduce greenhouse gas pollution."
Martin Wagner, managing attorney at Earthjustice said:
"This is an important victory for the planet. U.S. aircraft emissions account for nearly half of worldwide carbon dioxide from aircraft; that amount is expected to triple by mid-century. But the U.S. airline industry has fought to avoid playing its part in preventing runaway climate change. With U.S. airlines shirking their duty, Europe has had to take the lead. The airline industry should now pressure the U.S. government to level the playing field by imposing equivalent restrictions on aircraft pollution in the United States."
Annie Petsonk, international counsel at Environmental Defense Fund said:
"It is high time airlines actually live up to their green claims, and comply with the EU law, which will cut pollution and spark low-carbon innovation. Americans invented the airplane, now it's time for us to create climate-friendly skies. The EU's leadership challenges U.S. airlines to take charge and deliver to the flying public clean and green air travel."
Bill Hemmings, programme manager of Transport & Environment said:
"With the EU-ETS cleared for take-off, the aviation industry has just 10 days left to draw up a new flight plan. The news for airlines? The European Court has written your New Years' resolution for you: 'We agree to join other responsible industries and start polluting less.' "
"In this season of goodwill to all men, we hope the airline industry will stop sending their lawyers to ruin everyone's Christmas and start taking climate change seriously."
###
Keith Allott, head of climate change at WWF-UK said:
"Today's verdict is a victory for European law and environmental leadership. The Scrooges who have claimed that it is illegal to include international airlines in the ETS have been proved wrong. We hope that aviation industry lobbyists will now divert their energies into securing an ambitious global agreement to tackle the sector's soaring emissions rather than trying to tear down the ETS, one of the few building blocks we have. The EU can now press ahead with implementing the scheme, and European governments must deliver on the aim that ETS revenues should be ring-fenced for action on climate change in developing countries. That would be a real win-win and the best Christmas present of all."
About Aviation Environment Federation
AEF is the UK's only environmental organization dedicated solely to addressing the aviation sector's environmental impacts. Established in 1975, AEF's members include the communities living around the UK's airports and environmental organisations. www.aef.org.uk
About the Center for Biological Diversity
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 320,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. www.biologicaldiversity.org
About Earthjustice
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment.
About Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org), a leading national nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law and innovative private-sector partnerships. See twitter.com/EnvDefenseFund; facebook.com/EnvDefenseFund; edf.org/ClimateTalks
About Transport & Environment
Established in 1990, Transport & Environment (T&E) has grown to become the principal environmental organisation campaigning on sustainable transport at the EU level in Brussels.
Our primary focus is on European transport and environmental policy but our work in Brussels is supported by around 50 member organisations working to promote an environmentally sound approach to transport across Europe.
About WWF-UK
WWF is one of the world's largest independent conservation organizations, with more than five million supporters and a global network active in more than one hundred countries. We're working to create solutions to the most serious environmental issues facing our planet, so that people and nature can thrive. Through our engagement with the public, businesses and government, we focus on safeguarding the natural world, tacking climate change and changing the way we live.
In 2011, WWF's 50th anniversary year, we are celebrating what we have achieved so far together, and are positive about tackling the challenges of the future. Find out more about our work, past and present at www.wwf.org.uk
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
Alabama House Passes Bill That Could Be 'Used to Arrest Librarians'
"I feel like this is a violation of the First Amendment, and it's easily going to be abused," one Democratic lawmaker said.
Apr 26, 2024
The Alabama House of Representatives voted 72-28 on Thursday in favor of a bill that would apply the state's criminal obscenity laws to public libraries, public school libraries, and the people who work there.
Critics, including the Alabama Library Association, have warned that the bill could see librarians jailed and argued that it violates the First Amendment.
"This is a pig," Rep. Chris England (D-70), said during the debate, as AL.com reported. "It is a bad bill, and when you attempt to take what is normally non-criminal conduct and make it criminal, you bend yourself into ways that potentially not only violate the Constitution but potentially subject somebody to an illegal arrest with no due process."
"Why are they coming into libraries or thinking that they can come in and run the place better than us as professionals?"
House Bill 385 would allow anyone to write a letter to a school district superintendent or head librarian claiming a book is obscene. The Montgomery Advertiser explained further:
The library would be required to remove the materials within seven days of receiving the required written notice. Failure to remove said materials would result in a Class C misdemeanor upon the first offense, a Class B misdemeanor upon the second offense, and a Class A misdemeanor after the third and beyond. They may challenge the claim during the seven-day period.
In Alabama, a Class C misdemeanor carries a maximum sentence of three months in jail and fee of $500. The maximum sentence for a Class B misdemeanor is six months of jail time and a $3,000 fee, while a Class A misdemeanor carries a maximum sentence of one year in jail and a $6,000 fee.
The bill also adds to the definition of the "sexual conduct" minors must be protected from to include "any sexual or gender-oriented material that knowingly exposes minors to persons who are dressed in sexually revealing, exaggerated, or provocative clothing or costumes, or are stripping, or engaged in lewd or lascivious dancing, presentations, or activities in K-12 public schools, public libraries, and other public places where minors are expected and are known to be present without parental consent."
During the debate, England warned, "This process will be manipulated and used to arrest librarians that you don't like, and not because they did anything criminal. It's because you disagree with them," as The Associated Press reported.
Rep. Mary Moore (D-59) warned that the description of sexual conduct was loose enough that it could apply to students dressed up for prom, according to AL.com.
"Some of them would be under the jail because of this," Moore said.
Rep. Neil Rafferty (D-54) also expressed concerns that the language could apply to people in Halloween costumes or wearing summer clothing.
"I feel like this is a violation of the First Amendment, and it's easily going to be abused," he said, according to AP.
Rep. Barbara Drummond (D-103) said the bill was "putting lipstick on a pig," and added that the government "can't legislate morality," and that it would prevent children from "having an open mind," AL.com reported.
The bill comes amid increased politicization of libraries and attempts to ban books, especially in Republican-led states.
In Alabama, the legislature is also considering making $6.6 million in public library funding dependent on whether a library relocates materials deemed inappropriate for children, AL.com reported further. Nationwide, PEN America found that the total number of book bans in schools and libraries during just the first half of the 2023-2024 school year was greater than all the titles banned in 2022-2023, and that number had already jumped by 33% from the school year before.
The bill applying obscenity laws to libraries now heads to the Senate, but Alabama Library Association president Craig Scott told AP the state should expect to lose "lawsuit after lawsuit" if it becomes law.
"Why are they coming into libraries or thinking that they can come in and run the place better than us as professionals?" Scott asked.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sabreen, Baby Girl Rescued From Mother's Womb After Israeli Airstrike, Dies
The baby was born last week via an emergency Caesarean section, but doctors were ultimately unable to save her.
Apr 26, 2024
A grieving family and a team of medical providers in Rafah, Gaza were desperate this week for a miracle, hoping that newborn Sabreen al-Rouh Jouda would survive after being delivered prematurely moments after her mother died of injuries sustained in an Israeli airstrike.
On Friday, it became clear that the family's hopes would not be realized as doctors announced Sabreen's death.
Dr. Muhammad Salama, head of the emergency neonatal department at Emirati Hospital, where Sabreen was born last week via a Caesarean section that was caught on film and widely reported as outlets searched for any bit of hopeful news out of Gaza, said the baby's lungs were not able to fully absorb oxygen because she was born at just 30 weeks' gestation.
"Every day we have a sad story; every day we have a horrible story," Salama toldNBC News, gesturing to other babies whom doctors and nurses are struggling to care for amid Israel's destruction of the territory's healthcare system. "This baby right here, his father has died. This baby's mother has died. Another two babies in the ICU, one of them came and we cannot know, sadly, if his mother or father is alive."
Sabreen is now one of 16 children killed in two airstrikes last weekend at a housing complex in Rafah, where Israeli officials have said they plan to move forward with a planned ground invasion.
Sabreen's parents and their three-year-old daughter, Malak, were also killed.
Her mother, Sabreen al-Sakani, was rushed to the hospital on Saturday night with extensive injuries that she succumbed to just before doctors performed the emergency Caesarean section.
Sabreen weighed just 3.1 pounds at birth and was in severe respiratory distress, but doctors were able to temporarily stabilize her condition.
Her grandmother was filmed speaking to her as she lay in an incubator earlier this week.
"I swear I will lock you inside my heart," she said. "You will live in blessing."
At least two-thirds of the 34,356 Palestinians who have been killed in Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) since last October have been women and children, according to the local health ministry. Israel and the U.S., which has contributed billions of dollars in weapons to the IDF, have repeatedly claimed the military is precisely targeting Hamas fighters.
As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, the IDF has relied on an AI targeting system to identify Hamas targets, but considers bombing suspected militants in their homes "a first option," and has officially considered the killing of up to 100 civilians for every Hamas target an acceptable level of precision.
Israel has also claimed it has designated so-called safe zones, but Palestinians have been killed after moving to areas where the IDF said it wouldn't carry out bombings.
"There are no safe places at all, they are liars, liars," Sabreen's uncle, Rami Jouda, told NBC News. "There is no safe place in Gaza. We are all living under the menace of death."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ACLU Sues to Uncover 'What the NSA Is Hiding' About Its Use of Artificial Intelligence
"AI tools have the potential to expand the NSA's surveillance dragnet more than ever before," the civil liberties group warned.
Apr 26, 2024
The ACLU on Thursday sued the National Security Agency in an effort to uncover how the federal body is integrating rapidly advancing artificial intelligence technology into its mass spying operations—information that the agency has kept under wraps despite the dire implications for civil liberties.
Filed in a federal court in New York, the lawsuit comes over a month after the ACLU submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking details on the kinds of AI tools the NSA is using and whether it is taking any steps to prevent large-scale privacy abuses of the kind the agency is notorious for.
The ACLU said in its new complaint that the NSA and other federal agencies have yet to release "any responsive records, notwithstanding the FOIA's requirement that agencies respond to requests within twenty working days."
"Timely disclosure of the requested records [is] vitally necessary to an informed debate about the NSA's rapid deployment of novel AI systems in its surveillance activities and the safeguards for privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties that should apply," the complaint states, asking the court for an injunction requiring the NSA to immediately process the ACLU's FOIA request.
In a blog post on Thursday, the ACLU's Shaiba Rather and Patrick Toomey noted that AI "has transformed many of the NSA's daily operations" in recent years, with the agency utilizing AI tools to "help gather information on foreign governments, augment human language processing, comb through networks for cybersecurity threats, and even monitor its own analysts as they do their jobs."
"Unfortunately, that's about all we know," the pair wrote. "As the NSA integrates AI into some of its most profound decisions, it's left us in the dark about how it uses AI and what safeguards, if any, are in place to protect everyday Americans and others around the globe whose privacy hangs in the balance."
"That's why we're suing to find out what the NSA is hiding," they added.
BREAKING: We just filed a FOIA lawsuit to find out how the NSA — one of America's biggest spy agencies — is using artificial intelligence.
These are dangerous, powerful tools and the public deserves to know how the government is using them.
— ACLU (@ACLU) April 25, 2024
The ACLU filed its lawsuit less than a week after Congress approved a massive expansion of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), warrantless spying authority that the NSA has heavily abused to sweep up the communications of American journalists, activists, and lawmakers.
With their newly broadened authority, the NSA and other intelligence agencies will have the power to enlist a wide range of businesses and individuals to participate in their warrantless spying operations—a potential catastrophe for privacy rights.
Rather and Toomey warned Thursday that the growing, secretive use of artificial intelligence tools has "the potential to expand the NSA's surveillance dragnet more than ever before, expose private facts about our lives through vast data-mining activities, and automate decisions that once relied on human expertise and judgment."
"The government's lack of transparency is especially concerning given the dangers that AI systems pose for people's civil rights and civil liberties," Rather and Toomey wrote. "As we've already seen in areas like law enforcement and employment, using algorithmic systems to gather and analyze intelligence can compound privacy intrusions and perpetuate discrimination."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular