SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 30 2015, 03:00pm EDT
Contact:
Patrick Sullivan, (415) 517-9364, psullivan@biologicaldiversity.org
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
'Baffling Capitulation to Wall St': Harris Breaks With Biden on Capital Gains Tax
"Harris seems to be making a policy choice based on the disproven, failed ideology of trickle-down economics, and giving petulant billionaires a gift in the process," said one progressive advocacy group.
Sep 05, 2024
Democratic nominee Kamala Harris broke with President Joe Biden on Wednesday by proposing a smaller capital gains tax increase for wealthy Americans, a decision that one progressive advocacy group decried as a "baffling capitulation to Wall Street billionaires" who have vocally complained about the vice president's embrace of higher taxes on the ultra-rich.
Harris said at a campaign event in New Hampshire on Wednesday that "if you earn a million dollars a year or more, the tax rate on your long-term capital gains will be 28% under my plan," broadly confirming earlier reporting by The Wall Street Journal.
"We know when the government encourages investment, it leads to broad-based economic growth and it creates jobs, which makes our economy stronger," said Harris, who previously signaled support for Biden's tax agenda.
A 28% top tax rate on long-term capital gains—profits from the sale of an asset held for more than a year—would be significantly lower than the 39.6% rate that Biden proposed in his most recent budget.
The Patriotic Millionaires, a group of rich Americans that advocates for a more progressive tax system, said it was "appalled" by Harris' decision to pare back Biden's proposed capital gains tax increase.
"Vice President Harris is making a catastrophic mistake by capitulating to the petulant whining of the billionaire class," said Morris Pearl, the group's chair. "Harris seems to be making a policy choice based on the disproven, failed ideology of trickle-down economics, and giving petulant billionaires a gift in the process."
"Both on the economics and on the politics, this is a serious unforced error."
Details of Harris' capital gains tax plan began to emerge days after ultra-rich investors and other major donors to the vice president's 2024 campaign took to the pages of The New York Times to express concerns about Harris' support for Biden's tax agenda, which also calls for taxing the unrealized capital gains of households worth over $100 million.
The Financial Timesdescribed Harris' break with Biden on long-term capital gains as "an olive branch to Wall Street"; The New York Times similarly characterized the move as a message to the business community that she is "friendlier than Biden."
But Pearl of the Patriotic Millionaires warned that the policy shift "demonstrates a concerning lack of commitment to reversing destabilizing economic inequality."
"Both on the economics and on the politics, this is a serious unforced error," said Pearl, the former managing director at the investment behemoth BlackRock. "You don't need my years of experience on Wall Street to grasp the obvious. Big investors invest to make serious money, not to save a few percentage points on their tax bill. No one has ever made a lucrative investment decision based on a preferential tax rate. The incentive to invest is making money, not lowering tax rates."
"This ill-advised, destructive policy is a giveaway to the ultra-rich," he added. "We hope Vice President Harris will reconsider her position."
Even with a smaller proposed capital gains tax increase, Harris' tax agenda stands in stark contrast to that of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who has called for massive additional tax cuts for the rich and large corporations while attacking Harris' support for progressive—and widely popular—tax proposals.
While Trump has not yet outlined a capital gains proposal during the 2024 campaign, the former president said in the final year of his first term that he would propose cutting the top capital gains rate to 15% in a second term.
Steve Wamhoff of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy noted at the time that 99% of the benefits of such a cut "would go to the richest 1% of taxpayers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Poster Child for...Corporate Greed': Sanders Slams Health Industry CEO's Subpoena Refusal
"It is time for Dr. de la Torre to get off of his $40 million yacht and explain to the American people how much he has gained financially while bankrupting the hospitals he manages."
Sep 04, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday blasted Dr. Ralph de la Torre—the CEO of a bankrupt health services company "who has made hundreds of millions of dollars ripping off patients and healthcare providers"—for refusing to comply with a bipartisan subpoena compelling him to testify about his company's insolvency.
"Perhaps more than anyone else in America, Dr. de la Torre is the poster child for the type of outrageous corporate greed that is permeating through our for-profit healthcare system," said Sanders (I-Vt.), who chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP).
"Working with private equity vultures, he became obscenely wealthy by loading up hospitals across the country with billions in debt and selling the land underneath these hospitals to real estate executives who charge unsustainably high rent," the senator added. "As a result, Steward Health Care, and the more than 30 hospitals it owns in eight states, were forced to declare bankruptcy with some $9 billion in debt."
Steward is trying to sell all 31 of its hospitals in order to pay down its debt.
As Common Dreamsreported on July 25, the HELP committee, which includes 10 Republicans, voted 20-1 to investigate Steward Health Care's bankruptcy, and 16-4 to subpoena de la Torre.
"I am now working with members of the HELP committee to determine the best path forward," Sanders said on Wednesday. "But let me be clear: We will not accept this postponement. Congress will hold Dr. de la Torre accountable for his greed and for the damage he has caused to hospitals and patients throughout America. This committee intends to move forward aggressively to compel Dr. de la Torre to testify to the gross mismanagement of Steward Health Care."
"It is time for Dr. de la Torre to get off of his $40 million yacht and explain to the American people how much he has gained financially while bankrupting the hospitals he manages," Sanders added, referring to the 190-foot megayacht the CEO purchased as Steward hospitals failed to pay their bills.
Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)—a HELP committee member—and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also slammed de la Torre on Wednesday, calling his failure to appear before the panel "outrageous."
"De la Torre used hospitals as his personal piggy bank and lived in luxury while gutting Steward hospitals," the senators said. "De la Torre is as cowardly as he is cruel. He owes the public and Congress answers for his appalling greed—and de la Torre must be held in contempt if he fails to appear before the committee."
De la Torre's attorney, Alexander Merton, lashed out against the Senate subpoena Wednesday in a letter
accusing HELP committee members of being "determined to turn the hearing into a pseudo-criminal proceeding in which they use the time, not to gather facts, but to convict Dr. de la Torre in the eyes of public opinion."
The same day the HELP Committee voted to probe Steward and subpoena de la Torre, Markey and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, introduced the Health Over Wealth Act, which would increase the powers of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to block private equity deals in the healthcare industry.
Last month, Markey and Warren expressed concerns over the proposed $245 million sale of Steward Health Care's nationwide physician network to a private equity firm.
"Two Massachusetts hospitals are closing and communities are suffering because of private equity's looting of Steward," said Warren. "Selling Massachusetts doctors to another private equity firm could be a disaster. We can't make the same mistake again. Regulators must scrutinize this deal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It's a Disgrace': Biden Weighs Making Temporary Asylum Limits Harder to Lift
"We already know how devastating the Biden asylum shutdown is and it should be ended immediately rather than expanded," said one campaigner.
Sep 04, 2024
Two months after U.S. President Joe Biden signed an executive order barring migrants who cross the southern border without authorization from receiving asylum, senior administration officials are reportedly considering making the policy—which was meant to be temporary—much harder to lift.
Biden's June directive invoked Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act—previously used by the administration of former Republican President Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, to deny migrants asylum—"when the southern border is overwhelmed."
The policy shuts down asylum requests when the average number of daily migrant encounters between ports of entry hits 2,500. Border entry points may allow migrants to seek asylum when the seven-day average dips below 1,500.
"The move to make the asylum restrictions semi-permanent would effectively rewrite U.S. asylum law."
The changes under consideration would reopen entry only after the seven-day average for migrant encounters remains under 1,500 for 28 days.
"The asylum ban itself is arbitrary and duplicative. It has no relation at all to a person's asylum claims, meaning even a person with an extraordinarily strong claim would be denied for crossing at a time when many others, potentially thousands of miles away, are doing the same," Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, an advocacy group, said Wednesday.
"There is no doubt that we need to rethink the current asylum system, which would include giving it an infusion of resources so that people don't have to wait five years for a decision," he continued. "But cutting it off to whole swathes of people for reasons unrelated to their claims isn't a fix."
"The move to make the asylum restrictions semi-permanent would effectively rewrite U.S. asylum law, which since it was created in 1980 has mandated that all people on U.S. soil be permitted to request humanitarian protections, regardless of how they got here," Reichlin-Melnick added.
U.S. officials say Biden's order has resulted in a dramatic decrease in asylum claims.
According toThe New York Times:
Since Mr. Biden's executive order went into effect, the number of arrests at the southern border has dropped precipitously. In June, more than 83,000 arrests were made, then in July the number went down further to just over 56,000 arrests. Arrests in August ticked up to 58,000, according to a homeland security official, but those figures still pale in comparison to the record figures in December when around 250,000 migrants crossed.
Migrant rights advocates condemned the new rules. Less than two weeks after Biden issued the order, a coalition of rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union sued the administration, arguing the policy was illegal and endangered migrant lives.
"We already know how devastating the Biden asylum shutdown is and it should be ended immediately rather than expanded," Amy Fischer, Amnesty International USA's director of refugee and migrants rights, said Wednesday on social media. "High numbers of people being denied their human rights is not a sign of success, it's a disgrace."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular