July, 30 2015, 03:00pm EDT
Brown Administration Sued for Ignoring Risk Report on Fracking
Oil Agency OK'd Fracking Without Considering Scientists' Warnings on Water, Health, Safety
SACRAMENTO, Calif.
The Center for Biological Diversity sued California's scandal-plagued oil agency today for finalizing an inadequate environmental review of fracking eight days before the release of a state-mandated study showing that fracking and oil industry pollution threatens air, water and public health.
The report recommended halting fracking and oil drilling near homes, schools and hospitals. Millions of Californians live close enough to fracking or other oil and gas operations to be exposed to dangerous air pollution. Scientists also found that most fracking in California is done at shallow depths, increasing water-pollution risks.
"Oil regulators defied state lawmakers by failing to consider the damage that fracking does to the air we breathe and the water we drink," said Center attorney Kassie Siegel. "In New York, Gov. Cuomo banned fracking after reviewing the science. In California, Gov. Brown simply refused to consider the dangers outlined by scientists and is putting millions of Californians at risk."
The suit, filed in Superior Court in Sacramento County, challenges the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources' decision to finalize a flawed "environmental impact report" on fracking and well stimulation before the California Council on Science and Technology statewide scientific study of extreme oil production was released. That violated Senate Bill 4 -- a new fracking disclosure law -- and the California Environmental Quality Act.
S.B. 4 required the science council study to be completed by Jan. 1, 2015, so that it would be fully considered in the environmental impact report required by July 1, 2015. But after the science council study was delayed, oil officials instead finalized the environmental impact report and green-lighted fracking about a week before scientists released their study.
In the report the science council urged the state not to issue permits for "shallow fracking" -- about three-quarters of all fracking done in California -- unless officials could somehow conclusively say that groundwater could be protected. The report found that fracking in the state commonly employs dangerously toxic chemicals at shallow depths near drinking-water aquifers, creating a greater risk of water contamination than in other states.
"Nurses understand that many of the new techniques for extracting gas and oil can threaten people's health," said Barbara Sattler of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. "In many of the communities where these techniques are being applied the communities' health is already under siege by the worst air pollution in the state. The additional insult of extraction-related exposures is going to cause even more health problems in at risk children, adults, and the elderly. Continuing to expand these practices is counter to all public health values; it is unsafe and unfair. And it is unacceptable."
Oil companies now frack about half of all new wells drilled in California.
"We were promised that decisions on fracking in California would be guided by science, but that hasn't happened," Siegel said. "The Brown administration finalized the environmental impact report a week before the science review panel issued its report showing devastating risks to Californians from oil extraction. How many broken promises do we have to see before Gov. Brown bans fracking and starts protecting us from oil industry pollution?"
The Center is represented by Deborah Sivas of Stanford Law School and Center attorneys Clare Lakewood and Kassie Siegel.
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
Green Group Sounds Alarm Over Meta's Nuclear Power Plans
"In the blind sprint to win on AI, Meta and the other tech giants have lost their way," said a leader at Environment America.
Dec 05, 2024
Environmental advocates this week responded with concern to Meta looking for nuclear power developers to help the tech giant add 1-4 gigawatts of generation capacity in the United States starting in the early 2030s.
Meta—the parent company of Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and more—released a request for proposals to identify developers, citing its artificial intelligence (AI) innovation and sustainability objectives. It is "seeking developers with strong community engagement, development, ...permitting, and execution expertise that have development opportunities for new nuclear energy resources—either small modular reactors (SMR) or larger nuclear reactors."
The company isn't alone. As TechCrunchreported: "Microsoft is hoping to restart a reactor at Three Mile Island by 2028. Google is betting that SMR technology can help it deliver on its AI and sustainability goals, signing a deal with startup Kairos Power for 500 megawatts of electricity. Amazon has thrown its weight behind SMR startup X-Energy, investing in the company and inking two development agreements for around 300 megawatts of generating capacity."
In response to Meta's announcement, Johanna Neumann, Environment America Research & Policy Center's senior director of the Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, said: "The long history of overhyped nuclear promises reveals that nuclear energy is expensive and slow to build all while still being inherently dangerous. America already has 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that we don’t have a storage solution for."
"Do we really want to create more radioactive waste to power the often dubious and questionable uses of AI?" Neumann asked. "In the blind sprint to win on AI, Meta and the other tech giants have lost their way. Big Tech should recommit to solutions that not only work but pose less risk to our environment and health."
"Data centers should be as energy and water efficient as possible and powered solely with new renewable energy," she added. "Without those guardrails, the tech industry's insatiable thirst for energy risks derailing America's efforts to get off polluting forms of power, including nuclear."
In a May study, the Electric Power Research Institute found that "data centers could consume up to 9% of U.S. electricity generation by 2030—more than double the amount currently used." The group noted that "AI queries require approximately 10 times the electricity of traditional internet searches and the generation of original music, photos, and videos requires much more."
Meta is aiming to get the process started quickly: The intake form is due by January 3 and initial proposals are due February 7. It comes after a rare bee species thwarted Meta's plans to build a data center powered by an existing nuclear plant.
Following the nuclear announcement, Meta and renewable energy firm Invenergy on Thursday announced a deal for 760 megawatts of solar power capacity. Operations for that four-state project are expected to begin no later than 2027.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Meet the Banks and Investors Funding the LNG 'Carbon Bomb'
"Banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion," the authors of a new report said.
Dec 05, 2024
Liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.
A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.
"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."
"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."
The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.
Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.
"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.
Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.
The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:
- Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
- JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
- Mizuho (Japan)
- Gazprombank (Russia)
- SMBC Group (Japan)
- Bank of America (U.S.)
- Citigroup (U.S.)
- Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
- Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
- RBC (Canada)
While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.
All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.
"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."
The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.
The top 10 LNG investors are:
- BlackRock
- Vanguard
- State Street
- Fidelity Investments
- Capital Group
- GPFG
- JP Morgan Chase
- Brookfield Asset Management
- Blackstone
- MSBI
Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.
Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.
"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."
To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.
"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Pick to Lead IRS Signals 'Open Season for Tax Cheats'
The nomination of Billy Long, said one lawmaker, indicates "Trump's intention to make the agency less responsive to the American people, while giving a green light to wealthy tax cheats."
Dec 05, 2024
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to run the Internal Revenue Service, former Rep. Billy Long, didn't serve on the House committee tasked with writing tax policy during his six terms in office, and his lack of relevant experience is likely "exactly what Trump was looking for," according to one economic justice advocate.
Progressive lawmakers joined advocates on Wednesday in denouncing Trump's selection of Long, who since leaving office in 2023 has promoted a tax credit that's been riddled with fraud and who spent his time in the House pushing to abolish the very agency he's been chosen to run.
As a Republican congressman from Missouri, Long repeatedly sponsored legislation to dismantle the IRS, which under President Joe Biden has recovered at least $1 billion from wealthy people who previously evaded taxes.
He also co-sponsored legislation to repeal all estate taxes, which are overwhelmingly paid by the wealthiest households, but "said almost nothing on the floor regarding taxes, the IRS, and taxation during his 12 years in Congress," said John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News.
Long's limited experience with tax policy "ought to set off alarm bells," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who pointed to "vastly improved taxpayer service" under the leadership of IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, who Biden chose to replace Trump's nominee from his first term, Charles Rettig, after Rettig served his full term.
Werfel has "set up a tremendous direct-file system, and begun badly needed crackdowns on ultra-wealthy tax cheats who rip off law-abiding Americans," said Wyden. "If Trump fires Mr. Werfel, it won't be to improve on his work; it'll be to install somebody Trump can control as he meddles with the IRS."
The appointment is likely to commence an "open season for tax cheats," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative.
"If he's confirmed, taxpayers can expect longer wait times for customer service, a more complicated process to file taxes, and free rein for the rich and powerful to continue rigging the system at the expense of everyone else."
Since leaving office, Long has promoted the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC), a pandemic-era credit that was intended to incentivize employers to continue paying workers during the economic shutdown when the coronavirus pandemic hit the United States.
He has worked to help businesses claim the credit from the IRS, but fraudulent and improper claims have so permeated the program that the IRS stopped processing new claims temporarily. The U.S. House passed a bill to entirely halt ERTC claims, but it has been stalled in the Senate.
"These ERTC mills that have popped up over the last few years are essentially fraud on an industrial scale, conning small businesses and ripping off American taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars," said Wyden. "I'm going to have a lot of questions about Mr. Long's role in this business, first and foremost why the American people ought to trust somebody involved with a fraud-ridden industry to run an agency that's tasked with rooting out fraud."
Wyden also pointed out that Long has not been named in a "typical nomination like you'd see after every presidential election." Werfel's term was set to go until November 2027, and the IRS typically operates as a nonpartisan agency.
"Replacing Commissioner Werfel with over three years remaining in his term is a terrible mistake," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "He has done an excellent job rebuilding the IRS, boosting customer service, and enhancing enforcement aimed at wealthy tax evaders. Removing him will clearly signal Trump's intention to make the agency less responsive to the American people, while giving a green light to wealthy tax cheats to evade their fair share of the tax burden."
"Trump's nominee has clearly stated that he wants to abolish the IRS," added Beyer. "The change Trump proposes in IRS leadership would be a gift to tax cheats and a blow to anyone who believes it is important to rein in deficits."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) added that Trump's nomination of Long signals "the weaponization of the tax agency."
"If he's confirmed," she said, "taxpayers can expect longer wait times for customer service, a more complicated process to file taxes, and free rein for the rich and powerful to continue rigging the system at the expense of everyone else."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular