November, 14 2014, 01:00pm EDT
Senate, President Obama Should Stand Strong on Keystone XL
This afternoon, the House of Representatives took yet another vote to force approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, in spite of mounting evidence that the controversial project is not in the national interest. As the United States takes steps toward meaningful action on climate, it is clear that Keystone XL would be a step in the wrong direction, threatening the climate as well as our land and water, while bringing no benefits to the American people.
WASHINGTON
This afternoon, the House of Representatives took yet another vote to force approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, in spite of mounting evidence that the controversial project is not in the national interest. As the United States takes steps toward meaningful action on climate, it is clear that Keystone XL would be a step in the wrong direction, threatening the climate as well as our land and water, while bringing no benefits to the American people.
The bill passed in the House without a large enough majority to override a Presidential veto, and environmental and landowner groups responded by urging President Obama to stand strong in his commitment to allowing the legally required review process to carry on and not to allow the oil industry's friends in Congress to force approval of this dangerous project.
"This Congress has taken vote after vote to appease corporate polluters by attacking clean air, clean water, and action to tackle the climate crisis. This latest push for the dirty Keystone XL pipeline is no different. The bottom line is the decision whether or not to approve the pipeline rests solely with President Obama, who has repeatedly said he will reject it if it contributes significantly to climate pollution. There is no question that it will, so we remain confident that he will reject this pipeline and these attacks on long-standing executive powers," said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.
"Let's get one thing straight: this vote is nothing more than an empty act of political theater, because Keystone XL is President Obama's decision. We're confident that when everything's said and done, the President will recognize that a new pipeline spewing emissions and polluting our land is the last thing Americans need -- and we'll keep pushing for rejection. But in the meantime, politicians in Congress should find better things to do than hold more pointless votes that fail to address any of the real issues facing our country," said May Boeve, Executive Director of 350.org.
"The House-passed bill is wrong for our country. It would short-circuit the deliberative approval process that President Obama has said should run its due course. And it turns Congress into a permitting agency; even worse, one waiving all environmental safeguards and legal challenges from the public. Thus, President Obama has ample reason to veto this measure, saying no to the Keystone XL pipeline--not only for now, but for all time. And today's vote demonstrated there's strong support for that veto. That's because many know the pipeline would be a disaster for our climate and a danger to the land and water that sustains countless Americans," said Danielle Droitsch, Canada Project Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
"Any vote for Keystone XL is a vote for climate denial, and the environmental and climate justice movements will have very long memories on these votes," said Stephen Kretzmann, Executive Director of Oil Change International.
"It is no surprise that a Congress elected by millions of Koch dollars is once again trying to gift the oil industry this dirty pipeline," said Luisa Abbott Galvao, Climate & Energy Associate with Friends of the Earth.
"In the wake of an historic agreement to cut carbon pollution, our leaders should be moving forward, not backwards on climate. Keystone may be game over for the climate, but this vote by the House isn't. The Senate, the President, and local communities this pipeline will harm can still reject this dirty, dangerous project," said Anna Aurilio of Environment America
"The current sideshow in Congress does nothing to alter the fundamental facts on Keystone: this decision is the President's alone to make, and the pipeline miserably fails the climate test. We support the White House's commitment to reject this politically-motivated stunt, and will continue to call on President Obama to reject the pipeline once and for all," said Amanda Starbuck, Climate Program Director at Rainforest Action Network.
"The House of Representatives just voted to take away property rights with their vote for Keystone XL. TransCanada uses eminent domain for private gain while they threaten landowners up and down the route. Farmers and ranchers along with native allies will continue to stand up for land and water and a political vote for Big Oil will not change this basic fact," said Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska.
"South Dakota's Public Utilities Commission has just started the hearing process at which Dakota Rural Action and our native allies will contest the need for the Keystone XL pipeline, and Nebraska has a lawsuit in their supreme court in which landowners are contesting the proposed KXL route. President Obama has shown his concern for the environment and has stated that he will not approve TransCanada's permit application if the KXL would significantly add to global warming. There are plenty of studies that will back up the claim that, in fact, building the KXL will exacerbate man made climate change. President Obama has all the facts that he needs to deny TransCanada's permit application at any time that he chooses to do so," said Paul Seamans, a Dakota Rural Action member whose land is crossed by the proposed Keystone XL.
The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.8 million members and supporters to defend everyone's right to a healthy world.
(415) 977-5500LATEST NEWS
​State of Emergency Declared After Cargo Ship Destroys Baltimore Bridge
Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin said he was "deeply concerned for the safety and well-being of everyone affected by the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore."
Mar 26, 2024
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
A state of emergency was declared in Maryland early Tuesday morning after a large cargo ship slammed into a major bridge in Baltimore, leading to its total collapse and sending a still unverified number of vehicles and people into the Patapsco River.
As the Baltimore Sunreports:
In a Tuesday morning news conference, just a few hours after the incident, Baltimore Fire Department Chief James Wallace said authorities are "still very much in an active search and rescue posture" noting they are searching for "upwards of seven individuals" and that sonar has detected the presence of vehicles in the water. There is no indication that the event was intentional, Wallace said.
"This is a tragedy that you could never imagine … It looked like something out of an action movie," Mayor Brandon Scott said.
The terrifying footage of the bridge's collapse—which CNN correspondent Omar Jimenez commented was "almost unbelievable" to watch—is circulating widely on news channels and social media:
This video is almost unbelievable. The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore literally collapsed this morning after it was struck by this large ship. pic.twitter.com/rYuy4U2r7H
— Omar Jimenez (@OmarJimenez) March 26, 2024
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Tuesday that he had spoken with Mayor Scott and well as Maryland Governor Wes Moore and was helping to coordinate federal assistance.
"Rescue efforts remain underway and drivers in the Baltimore area should follow local responder guidance on detours and response," said Buttigieg.
Moore said in a statement he had declared a state of emergency and that work was underway to "quickly deploy federal resources" to the area.
"We are thankful for the brave men and women who are carrying out efforts to rescue those involved and pray for everyone's safety," said Moore. "We will remain in close contact with federal, state, and local entities that are carrying out rescue efforts as we continue to assess and respond to this tragedy."
Kevin Cartwright of the Baltimore Fire Department told CNN that the number of missing people may be higher than reported in other outlets. "Unfortunately," said Cartwright, "we understand that there were up to 20 individuals who may be in the Patapsco River right now as well as multiple vehicles."
Early reporting indicated that no crew members aboard the container ship, which sails under a Singapore flag, were injured or missing. A local harbor pilot was also said to be on board at the time of the crash.
"Deeply concerned for the safety and well-being of everyone affected by the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) following the accident. "I'm profoundly thankful to first responders on the scene and will track rescue efforts by local, state, and federal authorities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grave 'Threat to Journalists' Remains as UK Court Delays Assange Extradition Ruling
"The Biden administration should take the opportunity to drop this dangerous case once and for all," said the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
Mar 26, 2024
This is a developing story... Please check back for possible updates...
The United Kingdom's High Court ruled Tuesday that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cannot immediately be extradited to the United States and gave the Biden administration three weeks to provide "assurances" that the publisher's First Amendment rights will be protected and that he won't face the death penalty.
If the U.S. does not provide the requested assurances, Assange will be allowed to pursue a limited appeal of his extradition. Should the U.S. submit assurances by the April 16 deadline, a hearing will be held on May 20 to determine whether they are "satisfactory."
Assange, whose health has deteriorated badly during his five years in a high-security London jail, faces 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and a possible 175-year prison sentence in the U.S. for publishing classified information—a common journalistic practice. WikiLeaks disclosures exposed grave U.S. and U.K. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Press freedom and human rights groups say the extradition of Assange to the U.S. would set a dangerous precedent and pose a dire threat to journalism everywhere.
Trevor Timm, executive director of Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement Tuesday that "we are glad Julian Assange is not getting extradited today."
"But this legal battle is far from over, and the threat to journalists and the news media from the Espionage Act charges against Assange remains," said Timm. "Assange's conviction in American courts would create a dangerous precedent that the U.S. government can and will use against reporters of all stripes who expose its wrongdoing or embarrass it. The Biden administration should take the opportunity to drop this dangerous case once and for all."
"It's long past time for the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the Espionage Act charges and resolve this case."
The U.S., which has been aggressively pursuing Assange's extradition for years, previously provided the U.K. government with assurances that Assange would not be held at a supermax prison that's notorious for its inhumane treatment of inmates.
Human rights groups have said such assurances from the U.S. government are "inherently unreliable" and should not be taken seriously by British authorities.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, said in response to Tuesday's ruling that "prosecuting Assange for the publication of classified information would have profound implications for press freedom, because publishing classified information is what journalists and news organizations often need to do in order to expose wrongdoing by government."
"It's long past time for the U.S. Justice Department to abandon the Espionage Act charges and resolve this case," said Jaffer.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Rips 'Absurd' US Claim That Israel Is Not Violating International Law
"The State Department's position makes a mockery of U.S. law and assurances provided to Congress," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Mar 26, 2024
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday said the U.S. State Department's determination that Israel is not violating international law with its assault on the Gaza Strip is "absurd on its face," pointing to the mass death, destruction, and starvation that Israeli forces have inflicted on the territory's population over the past six months.
"Thirty-two thousand Palestinians in Gaza have been killed and almost 75,000 injured, two-thirds of whom are women and children," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement. "Some 60% of the housing units have been damaged or destroyed, and almost all medical facilities have been made inoperable. Today, hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children are facing starvation because [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu won't let in sufficient humanitarian aid, while thousands of trucks are waiting to get into Gaza."
"The State Department's position," said Sanders, "makes a mockery of U.S. law and assurances provided to Congress."
The senator's statement came after State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told reporters during a press briefing earlier Monday that the Biden administration has not found Israel "to be in violation of international humanitarian law, either when it comes to the conduct of the war or when it comes to the provision of humanitarian assistance."
Miller was responding to a question about assurances the administration has received from the Israeli government that its use of American weaponry has complied with international law and that it has permitted U.S. humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, where the entire population is facing acute hunger.
Under a new Biden administration policy known as NSM-20, recipients of American military aid are required to provide the U.S. government with "credible and reliable" written assurances that they are using such assistance "in a manner consistent with all applicable international and domestic law and policy."
Late last week, a group of U.S. senators—including Sanders—warned the Biden administration that deeming Israeli assurances credible would "be inconsistent with the letter and spirit of NSM-20" and "establish an unacceptable precedent" for the application of the policy "in other situations around the world."
"Until Biden is ready to impose real policy consequences on Netanyahu's government, the famine will continue."
It is a violation of U.S. law to continue sending military assistance to a country that is obstructing the delivery of American humanitarian aid. Last month, far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich blocked a U.S.-funded flour shipment from entering the Gaza Strip, and Israeli forces have repeatedly fired on convoys attempting to deliver aid to desperate Gazans.
Prominent human rights groups have been calling on the U.S. to impose an arms embargo on Israel for months, pointing to documented examples of the Israeli military using American weaponry to commit atrocities in Gaza.
But the Biden administration has refused to even apply concrete restrictions on American military aid. Over the weekend, U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law a measure that approves $3.8 billion in unconditional military assistance for the Israeli government and imposes a one-year ban on funding for the primary humanitarian aid organization in Gaza.
Jeremy Konyndyk, the president of Refugees International and a former USAID official, said Monday that Israel's assurances to the U.S. are "not remotely credible" and argued the Biden administration is undermining efforts to combat the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza by accepting the Israeli government's claims.
The U.S., he said, is "talking a big game about fighting the famine that its bombs and diplomatic cover have helped create." Resorting to "gimmicky" efforts such as airdrops and temporary ports while a U.S. ally obstructs humanitarian aid "is not how you fight a famine," Konyndyk argued.
"Fundamentally Biden must choose: between continuing to enable Netanyahu, or ending the famine. There's no way to split the difference," said Konyndyk. "Until Biden is ready to impose real policy consequences on Netanyahu's government, the famine will continue."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular