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.
Liz Judge, Earthjustice, (202) 797-5237
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's legal authority to veto a mining permit that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had issued. The decision reverses the lower court's contrary ruling, and is a major blow to the coal industry's attempt to prevent EPA from protecting communities from the harm caused by mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia. The case will now go back to the D.C. District Court for briefing on other claims.
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's legal authority to veto a mining permit that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had issued. The decision reverses the lower court's contrary ruling, and is a major blow to the coal industry's attempt to prevent EPA from protecting communities from the harm caused by mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia. The case will now go back to the D.C. District Court for briefing on other claims.
Read the Court's opinion, issued by Judges Henderson, Griffith, and Kavanaugh.
Earthjustice, along with Appalachian Mountain Advocates, is representing West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Coal River Mountain Watch, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council as amici curiae (or "friends of the court") in support of EPA's veto in this case. Read the amicus brief. For over a decade, Public Justice has also worked with these groups to challenge the Corps' permit in litigation brought in the Southern District of West Virginia.
Statements:
Statement from Emma Cheuse, Earthjustice attorney: "Today's decision upholds essential protection for all Americans granted by the Clean Water Act. Communities in Appalachia can finally breathe a sigh of relief knowing that EPA always has the final say to stop devastating permits for mountaintop removal mining. Now, we just need EPA to take action to protect more communities and mountain streams before they are gone for good."
"Thank goodness the court ruled that EPA has the ability to veto Army Corps permits," said Joe Lovett of Appalachian Mountain Advocates. "The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has literally overseen the destruction of Central Appalachia, and EPA oversight is needed to stop it."
"After 15 years of litigation, this decision is effectively the death knell to the largest and most destructive mountaintop removal coal mine ever proposed," said Jim Hecker, attorney for Public Justice.
"It's great news that the court affirms EPA's authority to withdraw approval of a disposal site at whatever time EPA determines that unacceptable adverse effects will be caused by that site," said Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition's Dianne Bady. "This is a logical understanding of EPA's role to protect the environment and to protect people from environmental harm."
"Today marks a major milestone in the fight to end the destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining," said Mary Anne Hitt, director of Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign. "The Spruce Mine was the largest mountaintop removal permit ever proposed in West Virginia history, and its valley fills would have buried more than six miles of streams. Today's ruling affirms EPA's authority to ensure the safety of our waterways and the health of our communities, including by vetoing improper permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers."
"Coal River Mountain Watch is pleased that the Court has upheld the EPA's authority to protect our communities," said Vernon Haltom, executive director of Coal River Mountain Watch. "We need strong enforcement, especially in light of today's release of further confirmation of mountaintop removal's links to poor health. We urge Congress to pay attention and act on the recommendations being presented at a briefing today. In particular, we need to pass the Appalachian Community Health Emergency (ACHE) Act, HR 526, to protect our families' health from the these dangerous operations."
"Thanks to EPA for standing strong in the midst of seemingly overwhelming pressure to give up or cave to the wishes of industry," said Cindy Rank of the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy. "And gratitude to all the lawyers and citizens who have given so tirelessly of their time and energies these past many years to protect Pigeonroost Hollow and the fundamental goals of the Clean Water Act."
"The court said clearly what the law says clearly--EPA can act to prevent a dumping project whenever it determines unacceptable effects on a variety of important resources will occur," said Jon Devine, a senior attorney in the Water Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Quotes From the Court's Opinion:
Read the full opinion.
More Information:
The Corps' permit would have allowed the Mingo Logan coal company to bury and destroy over six miles of pristine mountain streams under mining waste dumps (called "valley fills") created from the destruction of over 2,000 acres of land, releasing harmful pollutants into downstream waters that sustain local communities and wildlife.
Appalachian citizen groups have been fighting to save the streams that would be destroyed by the Spruce Mine for more than a decade--as one of the largest, most harmful mountaintop removal mines ever proposed.
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. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"A healthy conscience can't simply ignore the mutilated bodies of tens of thousands of dead Palestinian children," said one human rights activist.
Warning: This story includes horrific images of death and destruction in Gaza, specifically photos of Palestinian children killed or wounded by Israeli attacks.
Israel's assault on Gaza has been described as the world's first live-streamed genocide, a testament to the abundance of haunting video and photographic evidence of the horrors inflicted on the Palestinian enclave over the past 11 months.
The images—of children with their limbs blown off by Israeli explosives, of despairing mothers holding their dead babies, of body after body unearthed from mass graves—are readily available, and at times seemingly unavoidable, for regular readers of major newspapers, users of social media platforms, and viewers of even corporate television outlets such as CNN.
It's safe to assume, then, that members of the United States Congress—a body that has helped arm and fund Israel's relentless war on Gaza—have seen many of the same photos and videos as much of the American public, a majority of which supports halting U.S. weapons sales to the Israeli government until the assault ends.
So why do so many U.S. lawmakers and political leaders—including President Joe Biden and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, and Republican nominee Donald Trump—continue to back the war, despite readily available visual proof of the immense suffering it has caused?
"It's televised on your phone, your computer screen, your social media," scholar and human rights activist Omar Suleiman wrote for Middle East Eye on Monday. "A healthy conscience can't simply ignore the mutilated bodies of tens of thousands of dead Palestinian children."
"The Gaza genocide is an American one," Suleiman added, "and it is high time Americans came to terms with their government’s complicity in the type of war crimes they so often associate with historical hegemonic rivals."
Lara Al-Moubayed, a 1-year-old Palestinian baby killed in an Israeli bombardment, was brought to Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza on September 8, 2024. (Photo: Dawoud Abo Alkas/Anadolu via Getty Images)
This story features photographs taken in Gaza over roughly the past week, focusing specifically on the harms children and their loved ones are facing due to a military campaign that has no end in sight as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu obstructs cease-fire talks.
According to the United Nations, most of those killed by Israel's 11-month assault on the Gaza Strip have been women and children—though no one has been spared.
In addition to the Israeli assault's catastrophic physical toll, the war has inflicted what one Gaza mother called "complete psychological destruction" on the enclave's children, an impact that will reverberate for generations.
Faced with evidence of large-scale Israeli atrocities, Republican lawmakers have opted to take explicitly genocidal postures while attempting to excuse Israeli war crimes by pointing to the appalling Hamas-led attack of October 7, which killed over 1,100 people.
Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) told voters during a March event that the U.S. "shouldn't be spending a dime on humanitarian aid" for Gaza and that "it should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima."
Asked by CodePink's Medea Benjamin in January whether he has "seen the pictures of all the babies being killed" in Gaza, Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) responded, "These are not innocent Palestinian civilians."
[Warning: The following contains graphic images]
Others, such as Biden and Harris, have paid lip service to the suffering of ordinary Gazans while refusing to support an arms embargo against Israel, a policy shift that advocates say is needed to pressure Israel's intransigent prime minister to accept a cease-fire and hostage-release deal.
"What we are seeing every day in Gaza is devastating," Harris said in March, prior to becoming the Democratic Party's 2024 presidential nominee.
During her address last month accepting the Democratic nomination, Harris used the passive voice to decry "what has happened in Gaza," saying "the scale of suffering is heartbreaking" as if it were caused by a natural disaster and not deliberate policy decisions by Israel and its chief ally and weapons supplier, the United States.
A view of the devastation at a mosque following Israeli attacks in Gaza City, Gaza on September 8, 2024. (Photo: Abed Rahim Khatib/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Not every U.S. lawmaker has ignored, brushed aside, or attempted to justify Israel's atrocities in Gaza.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the lone Palestinian American in Congress, implored her colleagues during an April speech to support a permanent cease-fire, pointing to "images of children in Gaza celebrating Eid on top of rubble of their homes, the schools, and masjids that no longer stand."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) took to the Senate floor in June with photos of Palestinian children starving to death under Israel's siege, which has sparked famine conditions throughout the enclave.
"What kind of permanent damage will occur to virtually every one of these children?" Sanders asked.
"We deserve a future that protects our families and our planet, not one that fuels further destruction," one frontline advocate said.
A coalition of more than 250 climate, environmental, and frontline community organizations on Monday urged U.S. President Joe Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to reject all requests for approval to export liquefied natural gas to non-fair trade agreement countries.
The demand came in the form of a letter following a recent ruling by Trump-appointed District Judge James D. Cain Jr. to lift a pause that Biden's Department of Energy had placed on new LNG export approvals while it updates the criteria it uses to determine whether these exports are in the public interest. It also comes a week after the DOE signed off on the export of LNG from an offshore New Fortress Energy plant near Altamira, Mexico.
"After the hottest summer on record, on track to be the hottest year, it's clear that expanding climate-heating gas exports is not in the public interest," Lauren Parker, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said in a statement. "There's no reason on Earth to approve more LNG exports that lock in decades of damage to the climate, human communities, and imperiled species like Rice's whales. The Department of Energy must reject every single one."
"With climate-induced disasters becoming a regular part of our lives, it's hard to understand how anyone can prioritize fossil gas exports over our health and safety."
The Center for Biological Diversity is one of the many signatories of Monday's letter, backed by dozens of large national groups as well as scores of smaller, more local organizations. Other groups include Earthworks, Food and Water Watch, Oil Change International, the Sunrise Movement, Public Citizen, several branches of 350.org and Extinction Rebellion, Port Arthur Community Action Network, and the Vessel Project of Louisiana.
In the letter, the groups applauded the administration for instituting the pause on approvals in the first place and for acknowledging that the data it used to determine whether exports were in the public interest was "outdated and insufficient."
Since the court ruling leaves the department without a deadline for updating its data, the groups urged the DOE "to continue seeking the best available information on the impact of LNG exports on the public, the environment, and economy."
"When the department completes its analyses, the weight of evidence will make it clear that new LNG exports are not in the public interest and that all pending applications to export LNG must be rejected," the groups wrote.
With the world "on the verge" of exceeding the 1.5°C limit enshrined in the 2015 Paris agreement, the coalition warned against new infrastructure and export policies that will only exacerbate the global emissions crisis at a critical moment in history.
"The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that global greenhouse gas emissions must peak in the next year, and then steeply decline, for our planet to have the best chance of avoiding this fate," the letter reads. "The only way world leaders can avoid this moral and political failure is to work together to end fossil fuel production."
This goal has been hampered by the record rise in U.S. gas production facilitated by the fracking boom. Whereas global gas production had been predicted to be on the wane, it is now expanding instead. At the same time, new research has shown that, due to methane leaks, gas is not a "bridge fuel" to cleaner energy but in fact just as detrimental to the climate as coal.
Another major concern raised by LNG opponents is the local pollution generated by export facilities. Many of these new facilities are located in, under construction in, or slated for the Gulf South, which is already overburdened by toxic emissions from oil, gas, and petrochemical production.
"As a mom living in a community surrounded by industry, I feel the weight of every decision made about our environment," Vessel Project founder and director Roishetta Ozane said in a statement. "With climate-induced disasters becoming a regular part of our lives, it's hard to understand how anyone can prioritize fossil gas exports over our health and safety. The Department of Energy has the power to reject these LNG export permits, and it's crucial they do so. We deserve a future that protects our families and our planet, not one that fuels further destruction."
The letter suggests the broad environmental movement, both at the local level and nationally, is united behind the demand to halt the LNG buildout as the groups applauded Biden's efforts to curb exports thus far but also asked him to go further.
"We initially urged you to pause approvals of LNG exports," they wrote to Biden and Granholm, "we fiercely celebrated and defended your decision to do so in January, and now we write to let you know we continue to stand behind you as we insist that you take the next step of stopping new LNG exports."
"The Convention on Cluster Munitions provides a vital framework for ending the immediate and long-term harm and suffering caused by these abhorrent weapons," said one of the treaty's architects.
The overwhelming majority of cluster bomb casualties last year were civilians, with children making up nearly half of those killed or maimed by remnants of the internationally banned munitions, a report published Monday revealed.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) published its annual Cluster Munition Monitor report, which "details the policy and practice of all countries with respect to the international treaty that prohibits cluster munitions and requires destruction of stockpiles, clearance of areas contaminated by cluster munition remnants, and victim assistance."
That treaty, the landmark Convention on Cluster Munitions, has been ratified by 112 nations. However, numerous countries that are not parties to the agreement—including Myanmar, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, and the United States—continued to use or sell cluster bombs.
"Cluster munitions can be fired from the ground by artillery, rockets, missiles, or mortars, or dropped by aircraft," HRW explained. "They typically open in the air, dispersing multiple submunitions or bomblets over a wide area. Many submunitions fail to explode on initial impact, leaving unexploded duds that can indiscriminately injure and kill like landmines for years, until they are found and destroyed."
The results have been devastating. According to the report, 93% of cluster munition casualties reported by the monitor last year were civilians, while children made up 47% of those killed or wounded by cluster bomb remnants. Children are particularly vulnerable to unexploded cluster bomblets, which are often mistaken for toys.
According to the report, the following countries suffered more than 1,000 cluster bomb casualties in 2023: Laos (7,810), Syria (4,445), Iraq (3,201), Vietnam (2,135), and Ukraine (1,213).
HRW noted that "Russia has used stocks of old cluster munitions and newly developed models in Ukraine since 2022" and that "between July 2023 and April 2024, U.S. President Joe Biden approved five transfers to Ukraine of U.S. cluster munitions delivered by 155mm artillery projectiles and by ballistic missiles."
Meanwhile, unexploded cluster munitions dropped by the United States during the Vietnam War are still killing and maiming people, mostly children. In Laos, where the U.S. dropped more bombs than all sides in World War II combined, as many as 270 million cluster munitions were sprinkled over the country. Unexploded bomblets have killed an estimated 20,000 Laotians since the end of the war. It is believed that less than 1% of unexploded cluster munitions have been cleared in Laos.
The report highlighted some promising developments:
In December 2023, the convention reached a major milestone when Peru completed the destruction of its stockpiled cluster munitions, as it was the last state party with declared stocks to complete this obligation. Bulgaria, Slovakia, and South Africa announced the completion of the destruction of their respective cluster munition stocks in September 2023. These developments mean that member countries have collectively now destroyed 100% of their declared cluster munition stocks, destroying 1.49 million cluster munitions and 179 million submunitions.
However, there were also setbacks, such as legislation in Lithuania approving the Baltic nation's withdrawal from the cluster bomb treaty.
"Lithuania's ill-considered move to leave the Convention on Cluster Munitions stains its otherwise excellent reputation on humanitarian disarmament and ignores the risks of civilian harm," said HRW deputy crisis, conflict, and arms director Mary Wareham, who edited the new report. "It's not too late for Lithuania to heed calls to stop its planned withdrawal."
Speaking more broadly of the new report, Wareham—a joint recipient of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines—said that "the Convention on Cluster Munitions provides a vital framework for ending the immediate and long-term harm and suffering caused by these abhorrent weapons."
"All countries should join and adhere to the convention if they are serious about protecting civilians from these weapons in the face of rising conflict," Wareham added.