November, 12 2015, 03:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Betsy Lopez-Wagner, Earthjustice, 415.217.2040
Myrna Conty, Amigos del Río Guaynabo, 787.360.6358
Wilfredo Velez Hernandez, Ciudadanos En Defensa Del Ambiente, 939.281.5105
Javier Biaggi, Comité Basura Cero-Arecibo, 787.371.1709
Teresa Sánchez, Madres De Negro De Arecibo, 787.685.7887
Adriana González, Sierra Club Puerto Rico, 787.688.6214
Puerto Rico Community Overburdened by Pollution Pushes Back on Incinerator Project
Proposed Arecibo Waste Incinerator would further harm community encircled by pollution, if given federal funding
ARECIBO
Five local community groups are saying no to a project that would introduce a major source of pollution and bankrupt municipalities in Puerto Rico, if given federal funding and approval to move forward. The United States Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service is weighing the proposal to fund a waste incinerator in Arecibo, Puerto Rico for the New York-based company Energy Answers.
Local opposition to the project is rooted in the fact that Puerto Rico does not need and cannot afford a "waste-to-energy" incinerator that would pollute already-overburdened communities and lock them into decades of generating dirty energy and sending high volumes of waste to incineration. Today marks the close of the public comment period on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's draft environmental impact statement for the waste incinerator in Puerto Rico.
Earthjustice, a national nonprofit environmental law firm, and the Vermont Law School Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic are representing Amigos Del Rio Guaynabo, Inc., Ciudadanos En Defensa Del Ambiente, Comite Basura Cero Arecibo, Madres De Negro de Arecibo, and Sierra Club de Puerto Rico and the communities they represent in fighting the Arecibo waste incinerator project. Earthjustice and the Vermont Law School Clinic submitted comments on behalf of the groups today. Public actions by the groups have generated more than 4,000 comments asking the federal agency to pull the plug on the proposed incinerator.
Community members and municipalities across Puerto Rico are against the proposed incinerator, a facility which would lock in the most expensive and polluting means to control waste and the most expensive and polluting means to generate electricity--all while exposing communities already suffering from unsafe lead levels and other toxic emissions to even more pollution.
"Throwing federal dollars into this project shows a flagrant disregard for the will of the local affected communities," said Hannah Chang, Earthjustice attorney. "If this incinerator were built, it would be one of the first such facilities built in the U.S. in two decades, and it would be sited in an area characterized by extreme poverty and with a predominantly minority population already overburdened by pollution."
Arecibo is the site of many polluting industrial activities, including a secondary lead smelter whose emissions have caused Arecibo to exceed legal limits on lead pollution in the air. Lead is a persistent, highly-damaging neurotoxin. There is broad scientific consensus that there is no safe level of lead exposure.
"To prioritize incineration and landfilling over recycling is defeating common sense and can only be justified by sheer ignorance or blunt corruption," said Javier Biaggi of the Comite Basura Cero-Arecibo. "In 1976, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act showed us the way -- reduce, reuse, recycle and compost. Yet we landfill more than $500 million dollars a year worth of post-consumer raw materials, and now RUS is proposing to fund an incinerator that will burn these materials, producing minimal energy but generating massive amounts of pollution."
The Puerto Rico waste incinerator project is being challenged in at least four separate legal venues, and 77 of Puerto Rico's 78 municipalities have publicly refused to send their waste to this proposed facility. The project cannot move forward without federal funding.
"This waste incinerator will adversely affect our environment and our health," said Teresa Sanchez of Madres De Negro de Arecibo, who has been fighting the incinerator project for five years. "We don't want this project in Puerto Rico or anywhere on our planet. Our recommendation for garbage management is recycling. We have to leave a livable planet for the next generations."
"How can we trust the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Department of Agriculture and Puerto Rico's local agencies to protect our health and environment if they are going to allow a source of lead emissions to be built in one of the few areas in this country already classified as an non-attainment area for high levels of lead?" said Myrna Conty, President of Amigos del Rio Guaynabo. "Financial support by this federal agency to a company with questionable repayment capacity would be a gross mishandling of taxpayer dollars."
"Far from being a solution to meet our energy needs and to combat global warming, incineration is a danger to the health of our communities and the climate," said Adriana Gonzalez Delgado, Sierra Club Puerto Rico organizer. "That is why we ask Rural Utilities Service not to waste taxpayer money supporting this project."
"Not only is it terrible policy to use taxpayer dollars to add to Arecibo's existing lead problem, it is an affront to the community, who will be forced into paying Energy Answers for dirtier air," said Kenneth J. Rumelt, Assistant Professor at Vermont Law School.
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.
800-584-6460LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular