OUR CRUCIAL SPRING CAMPAIGN IS NOW UNDERWAY
Please donate now to keep the mission and independent journalism of Common Dreams strong.
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Susan Jane Brown, Western Environmental Law Center, (503) 914-1323, brown@westernlaw.org
Lesley Adams, Waterkeeper Alliance, (541) 897-0208, ladams@waterkeeper.org
Jared Margolis, Center for Biological Diversity, (971) 717-6404, jmargolis@biologicaldiversity.org
Mark Westlund, Sierra Club, (415) 977-5719, mark.westlund@sierraclub.org
On behalf of a diverse national coalition, including conservation, commercial fishing and private property owners, the Western Environmental Law Center and Sierra Club submitted comments today to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission opposing what would become the first gas-export terminal on the West Coast. In addition more than 25,000 citizens, including businesses, ranchers, youth, climate activists, property rights advocates, anglers, and a Native American tribe sent comments critical of the Commission's analysis of the project.
On behalf of a diverse national coalition, including conservation, commercial fishing and private property owners, the Western Environmental Law Center and Sierra Club submitted comments today to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission opposing what would become the first gas-export terminal on the West Coast. In addition more than 25,000 citizens, including businesses, ranchers, youth, climate activists, property rights advocates, anglers, and a Native American tribe sent comments critical of the Commission's analysis of the project.
The Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector Pipeline Project, a gas-export scheme proposed by Canadian-based Veresen Incorporated, would export about one billion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas (LNG) per day. The terminal would be built in Coos Bay, Ore., and the Pacific Connector pipeline would run the gas 232 miles through a 36-inch pipeline from an existing hub in the Klamath Basin at the Oregon/California border. The company has stated that target markets for the exported gas include China, Japan and Korea.
"As evidenced by the sheer length and complexity of our comments, it is clear that this project is legally, ecologically, and socially flawed," said Susan Jane Brown, attorney for WELC. "Oregon and America do not need this project, and there is no basis for a rational person to conclude that it benefits the public."
The project would have significant environmental impacts. These include logging streamside forests, dumping sediment into waterways that are critical habitat for imperiled salmon, fragmenting important wildlife habitat, and extensive dredging in the Coos Bay estuary. The coalition asserts that FERC's examination of these impacts is insufficient, and important aspects of the analysis have not yet been made available to the public.
"This project would be very bad news for Oregon's water and salmon," said Jared Margolis, staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. "Oregonians have made it clear they don't want our fragile coastal environment put at risk to ship climate-changing fossil fuels to Asia."
The proposal also creates a wealth of safety concerns, including the possibility of spills and explosions. The export terminal would be built on a sand spit that is vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis, while contaminated soil problems were noted last month by a whistleblower contracted by Veresen.
Committed opponents to the project include affected landowners who risk losing private property like those contesting the Keystone XL pipeline. Landowners who are threatened with eminent domain see no public benefit. Rather they note that a Canadian company would profit off the landowners' loss by exporting gas.
"In the 1970s we were always talking about energy independence. Now we have this gas and they want to export it by stealing my land. It just doesn't make sense," said Bill Gow, whose family ranch sits in the proposed path of the pipeline and is threatened by eminent domain. "This is not just a environmental fight being opposed by the left. Opposition to this project is across the spectrum and reaches to the far right."
The project would increase controversial fracking, yet FERC chose not to analyze the impacts of accelerated fracking to feed the export terminal. Once Oregon's lone coal power plant closes in 2020, the Jordan Cove gas export terminal would be the state's largest greenhouse gas emitter, but the federal analysis fails to consider the climate impacts of the project.
"FERC needs to consider the fundamental fact that exporting LNG will mean more drilling and fracking, and that means more climate pollution, more risk of contaminated groundwater, and more threats to the health of people who live near gas wells," said Sierra Club staff attorney Nathan Matthews. "FERC should be standing up for the public good, not the interests of dirty polluters."
"It's time we left fossil fuels in the past and turn toward a robust economy of clean energy that creates more jobs than big oil and gas for the same level of investment," said Lesley Adams, western regional coordinator for the Waterkeeper Alliance. "This dirty energy company wants to profit as much as possible and pollute our water before fossil fuels become passe. It's clear that that the movement for solutions to our fossil fuel crisis, including ending fracking and gas exports, is growing in diversity and strength every day."
WELC and Sierra Club submitted comments on behalf of Waterkeeper Alliance, the Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, Umpqua Watersheds, Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild, Crag Law Center, Pipeline Awareness Southern Oregon, Southern Oregon Rural Community Partnership, Bob Barker, Coast Range Forest Watch, Rogue Climate, Rogue Riverkeeper, Klamath Riverkeeper, Columbia Riverkeeper, Food & Water Watch, Rogue Flyfishers, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Institute for Fisheries Resources, 350EUGENE and Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center.
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) 623-5252To "avoid economic catastrophe," said Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle, "we must try whatever it takes."
House Democrats on Wednesday formally launched a longshot bid to raise the debt ceiling through a procedural maneuver known as a discharge petition, which would force a floor vote on a debt limit increase without the approval of Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
The move came after McCarthy and other congressional leaders sat down with President Joe Biden at the White House on Tuesday, a meeting that did not yield an agreement as Republicans continue to push for steep spending cuts and work requirements that Democratic lawmakers say are cruel nonstarters.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, filed the discharge petition on Wednesday morning, tellingThe Wall Street Journal that "we must raise the debt ceiling now and avoid economic catastrophe."
“We only have two weeks to go until we may hit the X-date," said Boyle, referring to the Treasury Department's warning that the federal government may no longer be able to pay its bills by June 1 if Congress doesn't increase the debt limit, raising the possibility of a default.
A discharge petition requires at least 218 signatures to force a floor vote, meaning a minimum of five House Republicans would need to join every Democrat in supporting the effort. In a letter to his caucus on Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) wrote that it is "imperative that members make every effort to sign the discharge petition today."
"In the next few weeks, at the reckless urging of former President Trump, we confront the possibility that right-wing extremists will intentionally plunge our country into a default crisis," Jeffries wrote. "Emerging from the White House meeting, I am hopeful that a real pathway exists to find an acceptable, bipartisan resolution that prevents a default."
Citing a former House parliamentarian, the Journal noted that "if Democrats gather all the signatures in one day, the earliest the bill could come to the House floor is June 8, assuming the House keeps its current schedule."
"The Senate would then have to pass it, too," the Journal added.
It's not yet clear what legislative language House Democrats intend to attach to the discharge petition.
\u201cNEW: Dems will gather signatures today on the \u201cdischarge petition,\u201d their backup plan to raise the debt ceiling. @RepBrendanBoyle will file the petition at 10am. \n\n@RepJeffries encourages Dems to sign it today. It needs 218 supporters, so at least 5 GOP would need to back it.\u201d— Kyle Stewart (@Kyle Stewart) 1684329222
Boyle acknowledged the discharge petition is "not a high probability move" but said that "we must try whatever it takes."
"I urge my Republican colleagues, especially those who like to call themselves moderate at election time, to join us and ensure America pays its bills," Boyle added.
House Republicans have pushed the U.S. to the brink of default by using the debt ceiling as leverage to pursue sweeping spending cuts to key safety net programs, a massive giveaway to Big Oil, and other right-wing policy goals.
Congressional Democrats and the White House have called for a clean debt ceiling increase, but in recent weeks the president has shown an openness to negotiating with the GOP on spending and work requirements, alarming progressives who say any concessions to hostage-taking House Republicans would be met with backlash.
"Democrats cannot give ground on work requirements in the debt ceiling talks," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, tweeted Tuesday. "All work requirements do is limit the availability of food aid for families and hurt poor, marginalized communities—the very people we were elected to defend."
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) said Tuesday that he could not "in good conscience support a debt ceiling proposal that pushes people into poverty."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) echoed that position, calling the GOP's proposed work requirements "despicable" and saying she "cannot support a deal that is only about hurting people."
In remarks on Wednesday, Biden said he is "not going to accept any work requirements" that impact "medical health needs of people," an apparent reference to Medicaid.
But the president, who is facing growing pressure to act unliterally to raise the debt limit, added that "it's possible there could be" work requirements for other programs in a possible deal with Republicans, who have advocated additional work mandates for recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits.
Analysts have warned that the work requirements put forth by the House GOP would strip food aid from millions of people, including many children.
Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) toldSemafor on Tuesday that "we're giving credibility to the Republican Party as hostage-takers by even having these meetings and saying publicly... that we're willing to negotiate on something like SNAP benefits."
"Why are we even giving credibility to a party that has not negotiated anything in good faith?" Bowman asked.
"It's the first time in history that it's more likely than not that we will exceed 1.5°C," said a co-author of a new U.N. report.
Naturally-occurring El Niño events have resulted in hotter global temperatures for thousands of years, but a United Nations agency warned Tuesday that the warming trend that scientists expect to form in the coming months will be intensified by heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions—likely resulting in an average global temperature that's more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for at least a year.
"A warming El Niño is expected to develop in the coming months and this will combine with human-induced climate change to push global temperatures into uncharted territory," said Prof. Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), as the agency released its Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update ahead of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event.
A global average temperature that exceeds 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels would mean that the planet temporarily grows hotter than the limit specified by the Paris climate agreement.
The WMO report says there is a 66% chance that the annual average global temperature will exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for at least one year between 2023 and 2027.
"It's the first time in history that it's more likely than not that we will exceed 1.5°C," Adam Scaife of the U.K.'s Met Office, who worked on the report, toldReuters.
As Common Dreamsreported Monday, climate scientists are currently observing trends in the Pacific Ocean that appear "very much like the 1997 and 2015 early stages of a Super El Niño," in which very high temperatures would be recorded near the equator.
El Niño events occur roughly every five years, and the one that appears to be forming now is likely to make at least one of the next five years the warmest on record. The El Niño event that occurred in 2016 contributed to 2016, 2019, and 2020 being the hottest years on record so far.
The WMO report said there is a 98% chance that the upcoming five-year period as a whole will be the warmest in recorded history. There is a 32% likelihood that the five-year mean temperature will exceed the 1.5°C threshold.
Although the breach of the 1.5°C limit is expected to be temporary, Taalas warned that this El Niño event could signal a new pattern.
"This report does not mean that we will permanently exceed the 1.5°C level specified in the Paris Agreement which refers to long-term warming over many years. However, WMO is sounding the alarm that we will breach the 1.5°C level on a temporary basis with increasing frequency,” said Taalas. "This will have far-reaching repercussions for health, food security, water management, and the environment. We need to be prepared."
Scientists and heat experts have begun calling on officials to prepare communities with cooling stations, access to air conditioning equipment, and other measures to cope with the hot weather El Niño is expected to bring.
Prior to 2015, the chance of the annual global average temperature crossing the 1.5°C threshold was "close to zero," according to the WMO. Between 2017 and 2021, scientists recorded a 10% chance.
\u201cChance of temporarily exceeding 1.5\u00b0C global warming: \n\n\ud83d\udfe2 2015 \u2248 0% \n\n\ud83d\udfe1 2017-2021 \u2248 10%\n\n\ud83d\udfe0 2023-2027 \u2248 66%\n\nToday's @WMO report shows we must accelerate action this decade to avoid the worst impacts of #ClimateChange.\u201d— UN Climate Change (@UN Climate Change) 1684333323
"Global mean temperatures are predicted to continue increasing, moving us away further and further away from the climate we are used to," said Dr. Leon Hermanson, a Met Office scientist who led the report.
The report noted that warming in the Arctic is "disproportionately high," which has threatened the collapse of a crucial ocean current system and disrupted weather patterns in the northern hemisphere.
Climate writer Andy Rowell called the WMO's report both "heartbreakingly terrifying and predictable" as the fossil fuel industry and policymakers refuse to heed the warnings of scientists and energy experts, who say the continued extraction of oil and gas have no place on a pathway to avoiding the 1.5°C warming limit.
\u201cHeart-breakingly terrifying and predictable at the same time, but Big Oil just keeps on ignoring the science and drilling your future away. #ClimateEmergency \n\nhttps://t.co/glv9Y3Pyyc\u201d— Andy Rowell (@Andy Rowell) 1684320614
North Carolinians who voted for state Rep. Tricia Cotham, who defended abortion rights before switching to the GOP, were "deeply betrayed," said one observer.
The North Carolina Legislature voted Tuesday to override Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper's veto and pass a bill banning abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, with Democrat-turned-Republican state Rep. Tricia Cotham giving the GOP the support it needed to ram the measure through in the face of significant public opposition.
Formerly an outspoken defender of reproductive rights—she's still listed as a co-sponsor of Democratic legislation to codify Roe—Cotham switched parties last month in a move that gave Republicans a veto-proof majority in the House, adding to its existing veto-proof majority in the Senate.
Cotham voted for the 12-week abortion ban's initial passage earlier this month and backed the veto override on Tuesday as protesters in the House gallery chanted, "Shame!"
In a statement, the now-Republican lawmaker said she believes the bill "strikes a reasonable balance on the abortion issue and represents a middle ground."
"Some call me a hypocrite since I voted for this bill. They presume to know my story," said Cotham, who has previously spoken about her own abortion. "As I said at the time, I had an ectopic pregnancy that sadly ended in miscarriage, not an elective abortion. In fact, Senate Bill 20 affirms the lifesaving care I received in that dire situation."
Progressive Durham County Commissioner Nida Allam argued that Cotham's statement essentially tells the people of North Carolina that "the bill would've protected me therefore it's enough, screw everyone else."
\u201cLast line from @triciacotham is basically saying \u201cthe bill would\u2019ve protected me therefore it\u2019s enough, screw everyone else.\u201d\u201d— Nida Allam (@Nida Allam) 1684286601
Rejecting Cotham's depiction of the abortion ban as moderate, Dr. Katherine Farris—Planned Parenthood South Atlantic's chief medical officer—warned the new law is "full of medically unnecessary and dangerous restrictions on abortion care that go against medical best practices."
"Not only do the actions of our lawmakers make me angry, but they also scare me," said Farris. "Treating my patients should not be seen as an act of civil disobedience. A person's health, not politicians, should guide important medical decisions at all stages of pregnancy."
As The Washington Postnoted, opponents of the measure have raised particular alarm over a "provision that would require patients to have an in-person consultation with a doctor at least 72 hours before an abortion, in addition to the visit required for the abortion itself."
"The extra in-person visit would make it harder for out-of-state patients to travel to North Carolina, which currently allows abortion until 20 weeks of pregnancy and has become a destination for patients seeking abortions across the South in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling [overturning Roe v. Wade]," the Post reported. "In the first two months after the landmark decision, North Carolina experienced a greater spike in abortions than any other state."
The new law would also, as Vox's Dylan Scott wrote Wednesday, establish "intrusive reporting requirements, such as mandating that doctors report a patient's fertility history to the state government after an abortion, including information such as their number of live pregnancies, previous pregnancies, and previous abortions."
"The law does include some provisions that Republicans say will provide additional support for children and families, including a new paid parental leave policy and increased child care subsidies," Scott observed. "But both programs have significant holes. Paid parental leave applies only to state employees, not the private sector. Increasing the state's child care subsidies for families already receiving them would not alleviate the main problem with accessing child care in North Carolina, as there are already 30,000 children in the state on a waitlist for financial assistance. The law does not do anything to get people off of that waitlist."
The 12-week abortion ban is set to take effect on July 1.
Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said late Tuesday that "today's vote will have devastating consequences across North Carolina, and for the thousands of patients in the region who've relied on the state as a key access point for abortion."
"This ban, like all abortion bans, will harm people who have the right to make their own decisions based on what is best for themselves, their lives, their families, and their futures," said Johnson. "No one should be forced to travel out of state to access abortion care. No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy that they do not want, or that is dangerous to their health. And yet, today that is what the North Carolina legislature is forcing them to do."
"Today's vote will have devastating consequences across North Carolina, and for the thousands of patients in the region who've relied on the state as a key access point for abortion."
Citing two former Cotham staffers, Jezebel's Susan Rinkunas reported this past weekend that the lawmaker's decision to switch parties "wasn't really about any genuinely held beliefs, political issues, or even money."
As one ex-staffer put it: "I wish I could say that she took a giant bag of cash at an IHOP and that's why she did this—but it's so much dumber than that. It's just a deeply petty, personal thing."
The staffer told Rinkunas that Cotham felt her Democratic colleagues didn't like her.
"Cotham had also been annoyed that Planned Parenthood didn't endorse her," Rinkunas reported, even though Cotham "blew off the actual endorsement interview for the group multiple times" during her 2022 campaign.
In a Planned Parenthood candidate questionnaire for the 2022 race, Cotham described herself as "an unwavering advocate for abortion rights."
Following Tuesday's vote, Jezebel's Laura Bassett wrote that "North Carolinians are being politically trampled here, as they do not support banning abortion this early in a pregnancy: According to new polling by Carolina Forward/Change Research, 54% of voters in the state oppose the 12-week ban, while only 40% support it."
"It's a shame that people who voted for Cotham, thinking (reasonably) based on her previous speeches that she'd defend abortion rights, were deeply betrayed in the end," Bassett added.